The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1991

  • PMQT – 25 April 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Agriculture Spending

    Q1. Mr. Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the discussions of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on the level of agriculture spending in 1991.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : The Agriculture Council is currently considering proposals to keep spending on the common agricultural policy in 1991 within the agricultural guidelines. I hope that the issue will be resolved before the meeting of the European Council.

    Mr. Taylor : Does the Prime Minister accept that, despite the brave battle that is being fought alone by Britain and Holland to maintain the legal limits that his predecessor fought hard to achieve, Brussels will inevitably find some device or accountancy fiddle to break through, as has happened before? As the agricultural policy is causing damage to taxpayers, consumers, the third world and, now, to farmers, and as we are suffering from an uncontrollable protection racket which is riddled with graft, will my right hon. Friend consider suggesting to Brussels that it would strengthen the Economic Community and everyone else if agriculture were repatriated to individual member states?

    The Prime Minister : I confirm to my hon. Friend that we shall continue to insist that the guidelines are respected. I am not sure that it would be in the interests of the United Kingdom to see the break-up and repatriation of the common agricultural policy. The danger I foresee is that separate national agricultural policies would lead to increased protectionism and considerable distortions of trade. I believe that our interest is best served in this area by common policies and by seeking to improve them. In essence, we need to win the match in Brussels, and that we shall seek to do.

    Mr. Cryer : It is outrageous that the British Government are allowing to continue a common agricultural policy that is costing every family in this country £16 a week as part of the policy of the Conservatives, who have handed over in 10 years more than £40 billion to the Common Market. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is time that the food mountains were made available to the starving nations of Africa and to help the Kurds? Instead of that, the CAP ensures that food is bought on the open market. Stocks continue to soar and the Prime Minister is doing nothing about it.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been in the forefront of the battle in the Community to impose guidelines and to prevent unnecessary agricultural production. The answer to his second point about food mountains being used to assist people in need is that I agree that whenever that can be done, it should be done.

    Mr. Colin Shepherd : In his consideration of United Kingdom agriculture within the context of the European Community, will my right hon. Friend continue to bear it in mind the remarkable contribution that has been made by agriculture to the rural economy? Will he also bear it in mind that farm incomes are now about half what they were two years ago and that the Samaritans have expressed grave concern about the increase in suicidal thought in the farming industry? Will he bear those points in mind at all stages because we must protect the foundation of our rural economy?

    The Prime Minister : I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to bear those matters in mind. He will know that some of the direct assistance that we have been able to give within the common agricultural policy has been aimed at areas like hill farming, where there are particular difficulties.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mrs. Irene Adams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.

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

    Hon. Members : No.

    Mr. Speaker : We had better have the answer.

    The Prime Minister : I made the mistake because of the tedious aspect of the regular questions that I am asked.

    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 will be having further meetings later today.

    Mrs. Adams : Has the Prime Minister seen the letter in today’s Evening Standard from the private secretary of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) which says that the Government’s new local tax is

    “not fair–grossly inequitable and hurtful”?

    The lady goes on to ask why she should pay more for a small, one-bedroomed flat on her own in one part of London than the entire family of the Secretary of State for the Environment will pay in his luscious home in the west end? What answer will the Prime Minister give to that lady?

    The Prime Minister : The answer that I will give to the lady is that she lives in one of the most expensive houses in London. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends need to make up their minds. They allege with one breath that the council tax will benefit the rich, who, they say, are Conservative voters, and with the next breath that it will hurt Conservative voters.

    Mr. Fry : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to examine the illustrative bills for the new council tax for those authorities where householders will pay substantially more than under the existing community charge for two people? Will he note, for example, that for the dearest house in Westminster, the tax will be less than for the cheapest house in Wellingborough? Whereas Westminster has benefited from large Government grants, Wellingborough has been penalised by loss of grants because it has traded profitably and passed the profits on to its charge payers. If I am to propose that the new tax is fair to my constituents will my right hon. Friend initiate an investigation without delay into Wellingborough’s position?

    The Prime Minister : If councils spend at the same standard spending assessment, they will pay the same in each band. That is the essential equity of the scheme that we have proposed. Over 70 per cent. of people will be gainers under the scheme that we have proposed. Where there are losers, there will be transitional protection and, for people on low incomes, the generous rebate scheme. That is by far the best deal that the ratepayer, the community charge payer, or in future the council taxpayer, has ever received.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister agree with the considered view of the Governor of the Bank of England, who recently testified that Britain’s deep and worsening recession is, in his words, “home grown”?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, for he has asked me that question on previous occasions, I do not accept the proposition that the recession is home grown. There are a variety of causes of the downturn in world trade here and elsewhere and we cannot be immune from all those.

    Mr. Kinnock : Did not the Prime Minister notice the comments of the Governor of the Bank of England on the subject of the recession’s origins? He said that, while Britain

    “is in recession, Japan and Germany undeniably are not and our other EC partners”–

    [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to quote the Governor of the Bank of England, who is not yet a member of the Labour party. He said that, although the economies in the remainder of the European Community have slowed down, they are not in recession.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that that view is borne out by the International Monetary Fund and that Britain’s condition is the direct result of the Prime Minister’s policies? Why will he not accept his responsibility or, better still, take action to reverse the recession that he has caused?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman had examined the matter more carefully, he would have seen that the United Kingdom is coming out of its economic difficulties, while other countries are still facing deepening difficulties. He might also have observed that we have been in a position, since joining the exchange rate mechanism, to make five cuts in interest rates–four in the past 10 weeks. At the same time, we have seen an appreciation, not a depreciation, in sterling.

    Mr. Kinnock : I wish that the Prime Minister’s optimism was well placed. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer testified to the Treasury Committee a few weeks ago, rather diffidently :

    “I think that there are cautious grounds for believing we, somewhere about the middle of this year, may begin to come out of recession”.

    The Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the International Monetary Fund and anyone else with eyes to see, and who is concerned about the condition of our economy, knows that the right hon. Gentleman has plunged Britain into deep recession. What will he do to combat the rises in unemployment and the depression of our economy?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman, who has policies for a minimum wage that will create another million unemployed, has nothing to say about that. With interest rates and inflation having fallen and being set to fall significantly further, and with a balance of trade gap narrowing, it is difficult even for the right hon. Gentleman to deny the improvements now coming about.

    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson : In the course of his busy day, might my right hon. Friend find a moment to visit the organ transplant exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall? If he does so, he will be told that there are 5,000 people awaiting transplants in this country and that current organ donation must double to meet that demand. In those circumstances, will it be possible to include an item on organ transplantation and the increase in the programme at the weekend meeting at Chequers that my right hon. Friend is having with health service managers?

    The Prime Minister : I hope that, at my weekend meeting in Chequers, I shall be able to discuss with health professionals a wide range of matters and I shall endeavour to include that subject among them.

     

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

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

    Mr. Mullin : Is the Prime Minister aware that last year, in a secret ballot supervised by the Electoral Reform Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the employees of the North of England building society voted by 257 to 81 to join the Banking Insurance and Finance Union? The response of the management was to embark upon a programme of intimidation designed to get employees to resign from that union. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is Government policy that employers as well as employees should be bound by the outcome of properly conducted secret ballots? Or am I being naive?

    The Prime Minister : I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being naive. The strict answer to the first part of his question is that I was not aware of that incident. However, if it is as he describes, I can confirm that both sides should be bound by the agreement.

     

    Q4. Mr. Arbuthnot : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.

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

    Mr. Arbuthnot : What would happen to the figures produced for the local council tax if we were to abolish capping and competitive tendering, and raise a higher proportion of local funding from local taxes–the policies of the Labour party? Would the figures, like those in the Labour party’s unfair rates proposals, go through the roof?

    The Prime Minister : There is absolutely no doubt about what would happen to council tax bills under Labour’s proposals–that is precisely why the figures that it has produced are wholly bogus.

     

    Refugees (Kuwait)

    Q5. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards receiving ecological refugees from Kuwait and surrounding countries into the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : All applications for entry to the United Kingdom are individually considered against the requirements of the immigration rules and in the light of compassionate considerations outside the rules.

    Mr. Dalyell : Are not thousands of Kuwaitis now taking residence in countries as far away from the photochemical smog and respiratory diseases as they can, and is not the root of the problem that, frankly, Kuwait is so paralysed that Kuwaitis cannot tackle the oil inferno? In those circumstances, would the Prime Minister consider the advice from the Saudi sources that I have named that, with the Americans and the Saudis, we should step in and tackle the oil fires, as we did with operation Desert Storm?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point that he wished to raise. I can assure him that the United Kingdom Government are treating the matter of the oil well fires in Kuwait very seriously. The United Kingdom industry, together with officials from both the Department of Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry, are examining how best to contribute to the resolution of the problems faced in Kuwait. A number of possibilities have been identified and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will tomorrow lead a delegation of key British industrialists to Kuwait to pursue the specific proposals that have already been put to the Kuwaiti Government.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 April 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Privatisation

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by the Cabinet Office in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990-91 and budget for 1991-92.

    The Prime Minister : No expenditure has been incurred by the Cabinet Office on fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation since 1979-80 and none is planned for 1991-92.

     

    Senior Civil Servants (Degrees)

    Mr. Page : To ask the Prime Minister if he will numerate those Under Secretaries who have engineering, science or mathematics degrees; and what percentage that is of the total.

    The Prime Minister [pursuant to his reply, 19 February 1991, c. 89] : Information now available records 110 Under Secretaries – 22 percent. of the total – with degrees in one or more of these subjects. Twenty-seven have engineering degrees, 70 have science degrees and 16 have mathematics degrees.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Lunch for President Walesa – 24 April 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at lunch for President Walesa on Wednesday 24th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, I welcome you and your wife most warmly to Britain on your State Visit – the first by any Polish head of State.

    We are delighted to see you here, together with so many friends of Poland. It is also a great joy to welcome here the President and Prime Minister of the former Polish Government-in-exile. That is a true sign that freedom has come to your country.

    I am only sad that, because of poor health, Count Raczynski [Former President of the Government-in-exile] could not be here as well.
    Mr President, you are a man who has captured the imagination and the admiration of the world.

    In your home town of Gdansk there are two monuments which draw all visitors. One is in the church of Saint Brygida. It is to Father Popielusko who was a martyr in the cause of freedom.

    The other is to the shipyard workers who lost their lives in the strike of 1970. Ten years later, you climbed the wall of the shipyard to sustain the courage of your comrades.

    That was an act of physical bravery. Much more, it set in train a revolution of people, ideas and values that swept away the old order.

    So we pay warm tribute to you, and to your wife, Danuta.

    Wives are the unsung heroines of many careers. Especially in politics. But Danuta had to show a very special courage.

    You and she put more on the line than a career. You put your lives on the line for your people and your country.

    Mr President, we have a lot in common.

    Our Scottish and English forebears traded and lived side by side with yours in your home town of Gdansk. Some people have even been so bold as to suggest that in times past your family came from the ancient Kingdom of Strathclyde. I should like to think so. If so, perhaps we can claim some small responsibility if not for your success as a political leader then at least for the technical skills which are the common heritage of the shipbuilders of Gdansk and of Strathclyde.

    More seriously, it was the invasion of your country that brought Britain into the last war. The Polish Government came to London to carry on the fight for liberty. Many of your compatriots fought alongside us. In the Battle of Britain – directed by Winston Churchill from this house – Polish pilots fought and died to give us our victory.

    I have not visited Warsaw, but all of us know its history and its bravery. Your Ambassador was a young man at the heart of the Warsaw uprising. Today, the old city, re-built, is a monument to the heroism of the Polish people.

    It is against that past that we delight in Poland’s return to democracy under your leadership. We want to help you in. practical ways. We have been through an economic revolution in our own country. Your transformation may be more difficult, but the problems are alike. Privatisation, re-training, small businesses. In all these we can assist you with skills and experience. And we are doing so through the Know How Fund.

    We will help, too, in the organisation of local government, police training and English language teaching. Two of our initiatives (in management and consultancy) are based in Gdansk.

    With our partners in the European Community we have given assistance worth more than £125 million. We have championed your cause in the Paris Club. We were delighted at the recent decision to halve your debt.

    For nearly half a century Poland was cut off, politically and culturally, from the mainstream of European development. Now all that is changing. You will soon reach an Association Agreement with the European Community. I have no doubt that, if you want it, you will become full members of the Community in the not very distant future.

    Mr President, when you were last in London I recall that you described yourself as an amateur. You had done your bit. Now it was time to hand over to the professionals.

    But then I think you found that you could not just ‘hand over to the professionals’. Poland needed your leadership. Now you have become a professional yourself. But although you may be poacher turned game-keeper, I know that you have not lost any of the qualities which led you to climb that wall at the Lenin Shipyard a decade ago.

    I know I speak not just for your friends here but for the vast numbers of people in this country who have fond feelings for Poland and warmth and admiration for you. It is that warmth and admiration, on behalf of my fellow countrymen, that I would like to express now in inviting our guests to drink a toast.

    The toast is to the health and prosperity of the President of the Republic of Poland and of Mrs Walesa.

    The toast is to the people of Poland. Nazdrovia.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 April 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Holidays

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward proposals to abolish the May day holiday in England and declare St. George’s day a public holiday instead.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so, though I recognise that this is a holiday that many people disapprove of.

     

    Engagements

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

    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.

     

    The Gulf

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy in relation to long-term coalition presence in the Gulf.

    The Prime Minister : We have made it clear that it is for the states of the region to take the lead in establishing lasting security arrangements for the Gulf, We stand ready to play our part in underpinning such arrangements, if requested, but we have no intention of maintaining a permanent ground force presence in the Gulf.

    Mr. Ralph Howell : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to bring war charges against Iraqi leaders ; and if he will make a statement on British policy on this issue.

    The Prime Minister : Iraqi leaders bear personal responsibility under international law for their actions. This principle was reiterated in United Nations Security Council Resolution 674. In the case of both the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Genocide Convention of 1948, Iraqi leaders can, in law, be brought to trial before a national court or international tribunal. We and our EC partners have asked the United Nations Secretary-General to investigate how this might be achieved.

  • PMQT – 23 April 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

    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. Blunkett : Does the Prime Minister agree that under the proposed council tax the price of protecting the rich will be that the rest of us will have to pay more? Given that the Labour party proposes to protect the interests of retired people, does the Prime Minister believe that someone who lives alone but who has an income of £50,000 or £100,000 a year and owns two properties should or should not be entitled to an automatic 25 per cent. rebate on both properties, when a couple who are struggling just to make ends meet will get no relief at all? Is that what the Prime Minister means when he talks about developing a classless society?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement, setting out the details of our new proposals immediately after Question Time. Whether people live in a large, small or medium-sized property, they will have to pay less under Conservative local government than they do under Labour.

    Mr. Hague : Will my right hon. Friend reflect today on the great respect that there is in my constituency for the way in which he kept his nerve during the local government review and was not pushed into making a premature announcement? Would not it have been wiser for his political opponents to give him the credit for that, particularly as their policies are the result of three years of hand-wringing and head-scratching before they decided to go back to where they started from?

    The Prime Minister : To be fair to the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition did precisely what I did in terms of consulting and waiting before introducing proposals for his own tax. As he wrote in April 1990 :

    “We are currently consulting widely with people in local government about our proposals. Our proposals have been planned and tested. Our aim is to get the system right rather than to announce it prematurely.”

    That is what we did and we were both correct to do so.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister think that Mr. Peter Morgan of the Institute of Directors was right to say today that this awful recession

    “is a failure of Government economic management”?

    Is not it clear that, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister must bear a special personal burden of guilt?

    The Prime Minister : If the difficulties that the economy faces are solely the result of domestic economic mismanagement, it is an oddity that there are recessions in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland and in many other countries.

    Mr. Kinnock : Last week’s figures from the Government showed unemployment soaring and output and productivity collapsing. Today’s figures show that imports and exports are wildly out of balance again, with imports rising twice as fast as exports. When all that is the case, is it any wonder that the Institute of Directors, like everyone else, understands very well that this is a recession hand-made in Downing street by the right hon. Gentleman?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman cares to examine the trade figures more carefully, he will find that export volumes are up on last year and import volumes are down.

    Mr. Kinnock : In so far as there is any improvement year on year in the import figures, would it have been any wonder, when the right hon. Gentleman has flattened the economy, that imports should have been falling? Instead of that, imports are rising twice as fast as exports. Why is not the Prime Minister man enough to accept his share of the blame?

    The Prime Minister : What we are flattening is inflation and interest rates ; both are falling.

    Mr. Forman : Is not it clear to my right hon. Friend and to the House that interest rates and inflation will fall in the remainder of the year and that it will be possible for economic recovery to come as a consequence? Is not it equally clear that any Government who had a policy of increasing the rates of tax on incomes, without telling the British people exactly what those rates and what that coverage would be, would be both working against the interests of recovery and not levelling with the British public?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. As he knows, inflation has fallen by nearly 3 per cent. since October and will show a further dramatic fall again next month. That has paved the way for five interest rate cuts. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this morning, the economic recovery will gather pace in the second half of the year.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is the Prime Minister concerned that after 12 years of Conservative Government, one third of our seven-year-olds are still being sold short on the learning of their mother tongue, English? How can he explain that?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has made clear on a number of occasions the importance that we attach to the basics in the curriculum–the most important of all being English. If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about such matters, perhaps he will offer us his clear and unequivocal support for testing so that we can determine precisely what is happening and improve it.

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes : Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the cost of the new council tax comes to be analysed per household, all policies should be taken into account? If a policy included the scrapping of any capping on local authority spending or the re-creation of the Greater London council, one thing is clear : it would cost every London household an absolute fortune.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will know that the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition for local government would lead to a massive and costly disruption. The Labour party proposes two upheavals : first, a return to the rates, which would mean massive bills for many people in different parts of the country ; and, secondly, ever-rising bills because Labour refuses to cap spendthrift councils.

     

    Q2. Mr. Lewis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

    Mr. Lewis : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Employment that there needs to be yet another job creation scheme to massage the figures before the next general election, or will he side with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who wants nothing to do with it?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman would know, if he studied these matters, that we now have in place in this country the largest training programmes that we have ever had.

    Mr. Ken Hargreaves : The Prime Minister will be aware from his visit to my constituency last week how much my constituents appreciate the community charge reduction scheme. Many couples benefit to the tune of £500, while families of three benefit to the tune of £800. Does he understand the anger of my constituents at the Labour party’s action last Wednesday in trying to scrap the community charge reduction scheme?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly understand that. I think that anybody would be extremely angry indeed not only at the Labour party’s plans for that, but on examining the details of what it proposes to replace the community charge with.

     

    Q3. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm today that, despite the desperate need to improve his electoral chances at the next election, he will not be extending his safe-haven policy to representatives of other small, distant minorities, such as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)?

    The Prime Minister : I am at the moment fully occupied with dealing with safe havens in Iraq.

    Mr. Oppenheim : Bearing in mind the widespread calls for Britain to adopt an industrial strategy, has my right hon. Friend ever met anyone who would like to go back to the days when we last had an industrial strategy, when British Airways was rated by passengers below Aeroflot, when British Steel was the world’s largest loss-maker and when British Leyland was the butt of international jokes?

    The Prime Minister : Certainly, as my hon. Friend intimates, I have never met anyone sensible who wished to return to such a process. But, of course, Opposition Members have policies remarkably like that, with the return of quangos, enterprise banks and all the nastiness of the 1970s.

     

    Q4. Mr. O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

    Mr. O’Brien : Now that the Prime Minister and the Government have recognised the unfairness of the payment of 20 per cent. of the poll tax by the poorest people in the country, why does not he act now and abolish the 20 per cent. payment? Why is he planning to continue the misery and suffering of thousands of poorer families for a further two years?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman would be better employed asking his own leader why he should wish to abandon the community charge reduction scheme.

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is surprising to hear the Leader of the Opposition praying in his support the chairman of British Petroleum, who spoke against the Government today, bearing in mind the fact that much of the inflation has been caused by petrol companies putting up prices more than they should and paying themselves more than they should? What lead is that and what example is that for the Leader of the Opposition to give to the rest of the country?

    The Prime Minister : The statement by the chairman of British Petroleum was certainly odd in that respect, although he did make the very wise statement that pay settlements are often too high, that the labour market remains riddled with imperfections and that while it remains so riddled it is prevented from working properly.

     

    Q5. Mr. Martlew : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

    Mr. Martlew : The Prime Minister, when being interviewed last week by Brian Walden on television, said that some of the principles of the poll tax need to be enshrined. Does the Prime Minister still stick with that statement, or is he going to change his mind again?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has just invented a new definition of impatience. He need wait but a matter of minutes and he will know.

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no Government under his leadership will ever introduce a national minimum wage? Will he confirm that such a policy would destroy jobs and massively increase unemployment, as well as wipe out the system of apprenticeships?

    The Prime Minister : I can most certainly confirm all those matters. The estimate of the Department of Employment officials is that a minimum wage would cost between 750,000 and 1 million jobs.

     

    Q6. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

    Mr. Winnick : As the original poll tax was the beloved flagship of the Prime Minister’s predecessor, is it surprising that some of the more ardent supporters of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) believe that the Government are betraying the true faith of Thatcherism again today? Is not it understandable that the right hon. Lady is pretty cross about the record of the Government since she left office?

    The Prime Minister : I have never seen the hon. Gentleman as someone who could adequately reflect the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

    Mr. Sayeed : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that parts of the country such as Bristol would benefit from being unitary authorities and that the Government have no intention of following the Labour party lead and imposing regional authorities, which would mean just another tier of local government?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will also cover such matters in his statement shortly.

     

    Q7. Ms. Armstrong : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

    Ms. Armstrong : Does the Prime Minister recognise that he has a real problem in his Cabinet–a truant ? What action is he prepared to take about the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who, during his period in the Department, has spent less than one working day in state schools ?

    The Prime Minister : When the hon. Lady sees the full range of proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend has prepared for education she, like everyone else, will be bound to applaud them.

     

    Q8. Mrs. Currie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

    Mrs. Currie : Does the Prime Minister agree that the most significant aspect of local government finance is how much is raised and what the money is spent on? Does my right hon. Friend have a view on the proposal of the leader of Derbyshire county council and of some Members of the House that there should be no controls on council spending ? Does he agree that that would lead to huge increases in bills under such councils ?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There have to be controls over levels of local authority expenditure, for two reasons–first, to protect community charge payers and ratepayers and, secondly, in the interests of the wider economy.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 April 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Harry Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by Government Department those subject areas that were previously open to answer via parliamentary questions, but which since June 1979 have been excluded as a consequence of legislation and changes in administrative arrangements.

    The Prime Minister : Legislation and changes in administrative arrangements do not generally change the accountability of Ministers to Parliament except where the Government’s successful programme of privatisation has removed a particular function from the public sector. In respect of “next steps” agencies, ministerial accountability is unchanged and parliamentary questions relating to executive agencies remain in order, although Ministers may arrange for chief executives to write to Members on matters which have been delegated to an agency in its framework document. I would encourage members to approach chief executives direct in the first instance on such matters, their aim is to provide a response which is as full and as helpful as possible on a timescale similar to that for a ministerial response to a parliamentary question.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 April 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Computers

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to ensure that no Government Department makes use of any pirated copies of Inslaw case-tracking Promis software.
    The Prime Minister : All Government Departments operate their information technology systems within the law. To reinforce this, Departments have issued internal notices warning of the consequences of using unlicensed software.

    Iraq

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government towards ensuring that the leaders of the regime in Iraq are tried for crimes against humanity; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister : Saddam Hussein bears personal responsibility under international law for his crimes and is responsible for those of his subordinates acting under his orders. In the case of both war crimes and genocide Saddam Hussein can, in law, be brought to trial before a national court or international tribunal. We and our EC partners have asked the United Nations Secretary-General to investigate how this might be achieved.

    Interception Commissioner

    Sir John Wheeler : To ask the Prime Minister when the Commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will present his annual report; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister : A copy of Lord Justice Lloyd’s fifth annual report for 1990 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential appendix to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the 1985 Act. I am grateful to the Commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and note that he remains satisfied that the Secretaries of State continue to exercise scrupulous care in the issue of warrants. Careful consideration is being given to both parts of the Commissioner’s report.

  • PMQT – 18 April 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Leighton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.

    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. Leighton : Has the Prime Minister noticed the growing chorus of concern and complaint, from organisations like the London Chamber of Commerce and the London tourist board, about the shabby state of London, the increasing congestion and the deteriorating quality of life? Why is it that London, alone among the great cities of the country and among the capital cities of the western world, has no democratic authority to give strategic guidance or leadership to the city? For example, should we bid for the Olympics? There is no forum in which to discuss the matter. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time for new thinking? Surely the Prime Minister, who has had a number of addresses in London, should put his mind to this question.

    The Prime Minister : If parts of London are scruffy, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is because they have Labour local authorities.

    Sir Peter Hordern : Is not this a very sad day for the Leader of the Opposition–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is putting a question to the Prime Minister.

    Sir Peter Hordern : Is not it the case that the rate of inflation is falling fast, that mortgages are being reduced as of today, that sterling stands firm in the exchange rate mechanism and that the largest rescue operation in modern times–the one to assist the Kurds–is now going strong? Are not these things due entirely to the initiative and leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? Does not the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) face another five years of hard and fruitless labour?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the Prime Minister answer only the hon. Member’s first question?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I think that he underestimates the record of the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman has lost practically a record number of elections and will in due course lose another.

    Mr. Kinnock : On the question of records, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that today’s record rise in unemployment is a personal tragedy for those people who have lost their jobs and a personal failure for him? Does he agree that anyone who has been the cause of so many other people losing their jobs should lose his?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly share with the right hon. Gentleman very considerable concern about the people who have lost their jobs ; we all share that concern. However, although the right hon. Gentleman is against unemployment in principle, he supports in practice policies that would create it–not least, as a Welsh Member, failing to be here earlier this week to vote for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which would provide 25,000 jobs.

    Mr. Kinnock : The reason why I was not in the House on that occasion was that Her Majesty did me the enormous honour of inviting me and my wife to spend the night with the royal family at Windsor Castle. I thought that the Prime Minister’s many advisers might have drawn his attention to the Court Circular.

    I heard what the Prime Minister said in his efforts to rebut the charges relating to unemployment. Since he became Prime Minister, 330,000 more people have lost their jobs, all as a direct result of his economic policies. Is not it obvious that he is truly the Prime Minister of unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will now confirm to the House that he will support the Government Bill on Cardiff Bay which will provide 25,000 jobs. While he is about it, perhaps he will explain why he wants to introduce a minimum wage, which would cost 1 million jobs in this country.

    Sir Peter Blaker : Is not it significant that the first group that my right hon. Friend was able to persuade of the merits of his bold initiative for safe havens in Iraq was the Heads of Government of the European Community? Did not that strengthen his hand a great deal in persuading President Bush, who was initially reluctant to agree to that initiative? Does not that show the potential and importance of European political co-operation?

    The Prime Minister : We have worked very closely throughout this matter with the European Community, the United Nations and the President of the United States. I believe that that coalition of forces has now provided the right answer to deal with the immense tragedy that we are currently seeing in Iraq.

     

    Q2. Mr. Norman Hogg : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Hogg : Is the Prime Minister proud of today’s unemployment figures? Do they represent what he calls the bottoming out of the economy or the bottom falling out of the economy? Which is it? Does he have any bold and heroic initiatives to help the growing army of unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : The policies that the hon. Gentleman and his party support would create a level of unemployment never previously seen in this country. The way to ensure secure employment is to bring inflation down and keep it down, and that battle we are winning.

    Mr. Bill Walker : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Scotland realise that there are more people in work today in Scotland than at any time and that they are earning much more money, their take-home pay in real terms being 30 per cent. above what it was in 1979? There is no point in hon. Members shaking their heads ; these are facts.

    Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the British people respect the leadership that he has provided during the Gulf war and in proposing policies which have resulted in troops being assembled to provide safe havens for the Kurds?

    The Prime Minister : The people of Scotland also know that across the United Kingdom there are substantially more jobs now than there were in 1979, that the rate of unemployment in this country is below the European average and that in the past year we have had more jobs than we have had for many years– [Interruption.] –and far more than we ever had under the last Labour Government.

     

    Q3. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April 1991.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the problems of the upland hill farmers in my constituency and elsewhere who, on top of crippling interest rates and pitifully low livestock prices, are now having to face paying for the disposal of the carcasses of their dead animals? What does he intend to do for family farms to keep employment in the countryside in my area and elsewhere?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, some time ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced substantial increases in hill livestock compensatory allowances. They were well received by the agricultural community and should specifically help farmers similar to those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

    Mr. Michael Brown : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was this Government who gave the opportunity to trade unionists to vote in secret ballots, this Government who gave the opportunity to council house tenants to buy their homes, this Government who gave people the opportunity to opt out of local education authority control and this Government who gave people the chance of better opportunities generally?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. The only opportunities that people will get from the Opposition is the opportunity yet again to do what their trade union leaders tell them to do, what their council leaders tell them to do and what any future Labour Government might tell them to do.

     

    Q4. Mr. Grocott : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April 1991.

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

    Mr. Grocott : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity finally to dispel allegations of dithering by announcing decisively what the country wants to hear, which is that there will be a June general election? If, as I suspect, he is still not clear in his own mind on that subject, will he be issuing a consultation document?

    The Prime Minister : I can tell the hon. Gentleman crisply that when we hold the election we shall win it.

     

    Nuclear Test Veterans

    Q5. Mr. Higgins : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his answer to the right hon. Member for Worthing on 4 December 1990, Official Report, column 170, when he intends to complete his consideration of the case for compensation for British nuclear tests veterans and their widows ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : An independent study is currently being conducted. The Government’s position is that they are ready to pay compensation if there is firm evidence that participation in the United Kingdom’s nuclear test programme caused the cancer.

    Mr. Higgins : The Prime Minister will recall that in answer to a previous question he gave a sympathetic and urgent reply in response to the plight of haemophiliacs. This case is clearly more complex, although in many respects it is even more deserving. Hon. Members who, at their surgeries and interview evenings, see constituents suffering from appalling cancers who were given no protection from the atomic tests in the south Pacific, believe that action is long overdue and that compensation should be paid urgently. Will my right hon. Friend proceed with his inquiry with the greatest possible speed?

    The Prime Minister : I assure my right hon. Friend that we shall proceed in that fashion and try to ensure minimum delay. The practical problem is the limited number of appropriate medical experts. Nevertheless, I shall do what I can to ensure that the report is produced as speedily as possible.

    Mr. Orme : If the Cabinet agreed this morning on the poll tax provision–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I am afraid that this is a definitive question.

    Mr. Orme : But, Mr. Speaker–

    Mr. Speaker : I do not think that it would be right to have a second bite at it. The question before the House is about nuclear tests. Perhaps we had better move on.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Maclennan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Maclennan : Can the Prime Minister explain, in the light of the discussion that he had this morning, how any local tax which combined the poll tax and the rates could possibly be related to ability to pay?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that we propose to publish early next week, with exemplifications, the way in which we think that we should proceed in terms of local government taxation. He will find no difficulty in seeing the answer to his question then.

    Mr. Gerald Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend agree that with the Soviet Union still in turmoil it would be folly for the United Kingdom unilaterally to dispose of its independent nuclear deterrent so long as other potential aggressors possess theirs? Does he agree that those who in the past have been passionate supporters of unilateral nuclear disarmament should not be trusted by the British people with the defence of our country?

    The Prime Minister : I agree entirely. The maintenance of an independent nuclear deterrent is absolutely vital to the future security of our country. I am surprised that some others are less consistent in their principles on this point.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at King’s College Hospital – 18 April 1991

    Below are extracts from Mr Major’s speech at King’s College Hospital in London on 18th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Introduction

    Thank Sir Ronald Grierson for hosting reception. King’s College Hospital one of the centres of excellence. Very aptly named, for it has built up a positively regal reputation for high standards of care, medical teaching and research.

    But King’s recognise they cannot stand still. Trustees have seen the need to develop the standards of excellence, to take King’s into the 21st century.

    Partnership

    The project is a wonderful example of partnership:

    – between hospital, local communities, the primary care services;
    – between the four main bodies of King’s – the administration, the teaching and research bodies, the trustees;
    – between purchasers and providers of health care;
    – and last but not at all least, between public money and private finance, between the Government and NHS and many, many private donors.

    Glad that this partnership is paying off. Phase 1 already well underway.

    Government’s Contribution

    The Government has committed £16.4 million to phase 1 of the development. A substantial commitment of public funding. Shows our conviction of the outstanding worth of this project.

    But however many millions Government spends, there is always a role for private giving and thank God for that.

    In time available, impossible to name the host of people helping to speed King’s towards the year 2000. But I know that Lord Wolfson, Garfield Weston, and Paul Girolami have made contributions which are outstanding even by the supreme standards of generosity which every donor to the appeal has displayed.

    Role of the Voluntary Sector

    Always been a strong, warm tradition of charitable open-handedness in Britain.

    Obviously good in itself. A vital part of an open and healthy society. Would be sad if had a society where Government crowded out voluntary effort. Right that Government funds should not be the only source of funds.

    This means it is not just the Government’s priorities which always hold sway. Other priorities too can be accommodated.

    Framework for Charitable Giving

    The Government has done a lot to encourage charitable giving over the last decade

    – gift aid: the Budget abolished the upper limit of £5 million for gift aid;
    – tax reliefs to charities and on charitable giving: now worth at least £800 million a year;
    – payroll giving on the up.

    Increasingly generous framework within which charities can operate. Hope they will take advantage of it to the full.

    NHS Reforms

    Freeing up the institutions of the country to make their own choices. Vital part in improving public service. There are no second class citizens – there should be no second class services.

    King’s have expressed interest in second wave trust status. Planning on this continues. The managerial freedom of trusts would allow providers to respond more quickly to the needs of their customers. A successful application would, I am sure, greatly enhance the appeal.

    Conclusion

    Science, and medical science no exception, developed at exponential rate. The 2000 project would enable King’s both to respond to that increase, and to stimulate it, for the benefit of all its patients. It adds up to an exciting provision of health care for the 21st century.
    Best wishes for its success.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 April 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Overseas Aid

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister when the United Kingdom first agreed to give official overseas aid equivalent to 0.7 per cent. of annual income; and if he will list the amount in real terms and the percentage for each year since then.

    The Prime Minister : The United Nations target for official development assistance to developing countries of 0.7 per cent. of GNP was accepted in principle by the British Government in 1974, although no date was set for meeting it. The United Kingdom has provided net official development assistance since then as follows:

    Year |Net official |Official

    |development |development

    |assistance |assistance as

    |£ million |percentage of GNP

    |(1989 prices)

    ————————————————————————

    1974 |1,348 |0.36

    1975 |1,395 |0.38

    1976 |1,469 |0.39

    1977 |1,679 |0.44

    1978 |1,803 |0.45

    1979 |2,100 |0.51

    1980 |1,378 |0.34

    1981 |1,678 |0.42

    1982 |1,483 |0.37

    1983 |1,457 |0.35

    1984 |1,402 |0.33

    1985 |1,479 |0.33

    1986 |1,430 |0.31

    1987 |1,331 |0.28

    1988 |1,591 |0.32

    1989 |1,578 |0.31

     

    Engagements

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

    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.

     

    East Timor

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his answer of 18 March, Official Report, columns 3-4, on what considerations the Government based their decision not to recognise East Timor’s right to self-determination.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom supported United Nations Security Council resolution 389 of 22 April 1976 which confirmed the right of the people of East Timor to self-determination. Since 1982 the United Kingdom, in company with most other member states of the European Community, has supported the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to promote discussions between Indonesia and Portugal with a view to reaching a solution acceptable to all parties.

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his answer of 18 March, Official Report, columns 3-4, what guarantees he has received or what monitoring has been undertaken to ensure that Tornados sold to Indonesia have not and will not be used against the civil population of East Timor.

    The Prime Minister : There has been no sale of Tornado to Indonesia.

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister what the Government are doing to promote United Nations resolution 35/27 of 1980 on East Timor’s right to independence.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom abstained on United Nations resolution 35/27 of 1980. We took the view that by so doing, in company with most European Community partners and others, we could help to promote reconciliation and the search for a diplomatic solution by Indonesia and Portugal. Since 1982, the United Kingdom has supported the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to find a solution to the problem which is acceptable to all parties.

     

    Indonesia

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his answer of 18 March, Official Report, columns 3-4, on what consideration the Government based their decision to recognise the right of Indonesia to self-determination.

    The Prime Minister : My earlier reply referred to the right of self- defence under international law. All states have the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence.