The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1993

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Copenhagen – 22 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Copenhagen on Tuesday 22nd June 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Good morning, Prime Minister! Could I ask you about the disagreement with Herr. Kohl about the partial lifting of the arms embargo? There is a possibility now of a disarray on this issue, isn’t there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had a discussion about how to deal with the problem of Bosnia for some time we have thought right the way through the right way is to continue negotiations. I want to stop the killing, not add to the killing. I don’t believe that lifting the arms embargo and flooding more arms into the area would do anything other than stop any chance of a negotiated settlement, add to the fighting, add to the killing, add to the length of the war and open the prospect of it widening. That is not a policy I favour.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, are the allegations that the Tory Party received £7 million from the Saudi Government before the last election true?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have been Prime Minister for two-and-a-half years. In my period, that certainly is not true, neither before [indistinct]. I read a lot of absurd allegations; they will be debated in the House of Commons today.

    QUESTION:

    Are you still supporting Mr. Mates?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set out my position about that some time ago; it hasn’t changed.

    QUESTION:

    Today you are still supporting him?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It hasn’t changed.

    QUESTION:

    So Mr. Mates stays?

    PRIME MINISTER:
    I’ve just answered the question. I set out the position some time ago; it hasn’t changed; it won’t change if you ask the same question three times.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, on Europe, are you hopeful that the British position on getting growth back into the economy will be fully reflected in the communique today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the requirement for growth is needed right way across the European Community. Everybody agrees with that. I don’t think there is any dispute about it. The question is which are the right ways to get growth back. What was perfectly clear both by the presentation by the Commission yesterday and in the comments of many member states is that our particular costs – labour costs, on-costs, a whole range of costs – are rendering us uncompetitive compared to the United States and to Japan and that is a very great disadvantage for us in the future.

    If we become uncompetitive, we’ll lose markets; if we lose markets, we’ll lose jobs and one of the problems you can see in Europe over recent years is that over a twenty-year period since the beginning of the 1970s, year-on-year one has begun to see a rising level of unemployment right the way across western Europe. That isn’t something we can ignore. We have to examine it, look at the details of it, decide what is the true cause of it and then either address that cause or accept that that underlying rise in unemployment will go on. I am not prepared to accept that so I think we have to address the cause.

    QUESTION:

    Any more news on Mr. Heseltine?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I spoke to his family this morning. He had a good night, a comfortable night, and he will be seeing doctors this morning so I think that is quite encouraging and I am very pleased.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 June 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Mr. Asil Nadir

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answers to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on 8 June, Official Report, column 138, when and where the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), met Mr. Asil Nadir during the 10 days prior to Mr. Nadir travelling to northern Cyprus.

    The Prime Minister : That is a matter for my hon. Friend.

     

    Registration Campaigns

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister what the budgets are or were for the operation of the most recent registration campaigns for (a) the sale of British Telecom shares, (b) overseas voters and (c) electoral registration by United Kingdom residents.

    The Prime Minister : Details of the costs of the BT3 share offer will be reported to Parliament in due course, following completion of the sale. These will include, and separately identify, the costs of marketing and the share information office. The sum of £672,000 was spent in the 1992-93 financial year in Great Britain on advertising to encourage people to register to vote. Advertising in support of electoral registration is not carried out in Northern Ireland. A publicity campaign to make British citizens living abroad aware of their new voting rights was carried out in 1990 only, at a cost of £705,000.

     

    Teaching Company Scheme

    Dr. Moonie : To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of the teaching company scheme budget is being transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 June 1993] : None.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Copenhagen (II) – 20 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Copenhagen on Monday 21st June 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, could we ask you about the prospects now, particularly with regard to the social chapter and a possible argument with Jacques Delors, are you prepared to take on the federalists in this discussion?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My position about the social chapter is perfectly clear, it has been made clear for months and it certainly is not going to change this morning. The reality is not just for the United Kingdom but for the whole of Europe, Europe must compete or it will contract, if we price ourselves out of world markets we will lose exports, but worse than that, we will lose jobs. 17 million people unemployed, rising in most countries throughout the European Community, it is folly to keep piling costs on employers, making ourselves uncompetitive, losing exports and losing jobs. That is not an ideological point, it is a very practical point for 17 million people who are unemployed.

    QUESTION:

    But aren’t a lot of the people here going to say that you are trying to kill off the spirit of Maastricht, that the whole idea of the Maastricht Treaty was to grow closer together in social policy as well as everything else.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Growing closer together with more people unemployed is not a very attractive policy, and there is nothing novel about the British position on that. Right from the outset I have claimed that the social charter was a job destruction programme. Now I am taking a very pragmatic view and unless we are able to contain our costs in the Community we will lose our markets, if we lose our markets, we lose jobs, now you cannot ignore that reality, I shall address that reality this morning.

    QUESTION:

    What about the timetable to a single currency, is that at all possible under the Maastricht rules?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You know I have had a great deal of reservation about the timetable for a single currency, that is not new, I expressed my reservations about that at the time of the Maastricht debate. At that time there was a feeling across Europe that the European economies would converge and make the timetable more realistic. I think most dispassionate observers would say that the economies have diverged and not converged and I think one draws one’s own conclusion from that.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Copenhagen (I) – 20 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Copenhagen on Sunday 20th June 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how do you react to suggestions that Mr Mates’s position is now untenable?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am here to talk about the European Council, there is a great deal to be done. There are across Europe around 17 million Europeans unemployed, I think we have to address the question why that is and what we have to do. And there are a range of other serious things we have to discuss: subsidiarity clearly is in the middle of it; enlargement, I want to see some dramatic approaches towards the enlargement problem in the Community, it is clearly the way we must go. So we have quite a substantive agenda in front of us.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think you are going to be pushed on this question of economic and monetary union, do you think that you will have another battle with the federalists?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure, to be honest I doubt that very much, I do not think so. It may be that some people will raise the matter but our position about that is quite clear, I have made it quite clear and I will reiterate it here. But I think the problem that rests in the front of most people’s mind is the problem of unemployment in the Community and the prospects for growth. If one looks across the whole of the European Community, the United Kingdom is coming out of recession and is beginning to grow, but most of the European economies are going in the other, direction and that is a source of great worry. We are overall in the Community becoming less competitive compared to Japan and the United States and that is something we have to reverse.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia, would you accept the criticism that has been made that Bosnia should not go into separate states as a result of Serb aggression?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are going to have quite a substantive discussion on Bosnia I think over the next couple of days, Foreign Ministers will be meeting tonight, they will be briefed by David Owen, I think the position will be a little clearer at the end of that briefing. Quite a lot has happened both on the ground and in terms of diplomacy over the last few weeks. What everyone wants to do is to find a settlement that is satisfactory, that will stop the killing, that will stop the fighting and a settlement that will last. That will not readily or easily be obtained, but I think we will have to look pragmatically at what is possible, I look forward to meeting Douglas Hurd after his meeting tonight and the discussion we will have tomorrow.

    QUESTION:

    Rasmussen has said that later interest rates will be on the agenda, do you see any room for concerted action on interest rates after this meeting?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think perhaps I am the one member of the Community here that perhaps is least likely to respond to that. The problems of interest rates across the European Community I think are self-evident, that Europe as a whole would benefit from lower interest rates I think is beyond doubt, but that is a matter that must be discussed amongst those who find themselves locked together.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that the Conservative Party should return the funds that it has received from Mr Asil Nadir?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Norman Fowler has made the position absolutely clear, any money that was dishonestly obtained and dishonestly donated to the Conservative Party is not wanted by the Conservative Party. If it proves to have been dishonestly obtained and dishonestly remitted to us then of course we will return it. The Conservative Party exists on funds raised within the constituency and honestly and freely donated to the Party, that is the way for a democratic party to survive, it is the way we survive, it is the way we have behaved in the past. These are matters that happened some time ago, if it turns out that money was illegally donated then it will be returned.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 June 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    UN Commission on Sustainable Development

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 7 June, Official Report, column 13, if he will list the organisations or individuals to whom the United Kingdom report to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development has been or will be distributed.

    The Prime Minister : Copies of the progress report have been sent to the commission’s secretariat and copies are available for delegates attending the commission’s meeting this week and next in New York. Copies were also made available to delegates who attended an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development meeting in Paris last week.

     

    Colombia

    Mr. Caborn : To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to meet the President of Colombia.

    The Prime Minister : I look forward to meeting President Gaviria again during his planned visit to this country from 26 to 30 July

     

    Voluntary Bodies (Grants)

    Mr. Moss : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the total amount paid in grants by central Government Departments to voluntary bodies during the financial year 1991-92; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Central Government funding to voluntary organisations in 1991-92 amounted to £3,387 million. Of this, £2,897 million consisted of payments to voluntary housing associations and £490 million went directly to a variety of voluntary organisations to support provision of services and a wide range of activities and projects.

    The amount spent under individual departmental programmes was as follows :

    Voluntary bodies |£

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food |178,486

    Defence |11,038,930

    Education and Science |5,503,286

    Sports Council |14,255,000

    Employment |32,693,716

    Environment (including Energy Efficiency Office)

    Direct grants |24,854,376

    Urban programme |54,400,000

    Housing corporation |2,459,327,000

    Countryside Commission |1,115,000

    English Nature |1,057,000

    Rural Development Commission |5,554,000

    UK 2000 initiative |508,000

    Derelict Land Grant |857,000

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office |1,717,114

    Overseas Development Administration |123,657,933

    Health

    Direct grants |43,010,863

    Health Education Authority |1,263,546

    Home Office

    Direct grants |40,124,942

    Equal Opportunities Commission |20,000

    Commission for Racial Equality |773,740

    Northern Ireland Office

    Direct grants |14,586,795

    Housing associations and societies |40,538,706

    Sports Council for Northern Ireland |657,954

    Scottish Office

    Direct grants |20,722,515

    Urban programme |41,932,000

    Housing Associations |234,000,000

    Scottish Natural Heritage |1,660,000

    Highland and Islands Enterprise |1,200,000

    Sports Council for Scotland |1,510,621

    Social Security |16,303,257

    Trade and Industry |12,472,500

    Transport |532,017

    Welsh Office

    Direct grants |10,431,725

    Urban programme |2,957,865

    Joint Finance/Care in the community |224,455

    Development Board for Rural Wales |423,000

    Housing for Wales (Tai Cymru)-grants to housing associations |163,690,067

    Sports Council for Wales and Play Wales Management Committee |1,435,988

    Grand Total |3,387,209,397

    I am placing in the Library of the House a list of voluntary bodies funded by the Government in 1991-92 other than those funded under housing programmes and the urban programme or via non-departmental public bodies.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

    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.

     

    Teaching Company

    Dr. Moonie : To ask the Prime Minister to which Cabinet Minister the Teaching Company management committee reports.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 June 1993] : The Teaching Company management committee is a sub-committee of the Science and Engineering Research Council–SERC–and, therefore, formally reports to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. However, the terms of reference of this committee require it, inter alia, to report to the engineering board of SERC and to the Department of Trade and Industry, as well as to other funding bodies, and to advise SERC’s engineering board, the DTI and others on the development of the scheme.

  • PMQT – 17 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

    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. Evennett : I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he join me in welcoming today’s unemployment figures which show the fourth consecutive fall? Does he agree that that is good news for the unemployed, the economy and Britain?

    The Prime Minister : Yes ; above all, it is good news for those workers and their families who find themselves back in work. I am delighted at the fall of 26,000–the fourth fall in a row. I concede that unemployment remains far too high. It has fallen by nearly 80, 000 since the beginning of the year. Equally encouraging, vacancies are at their highest level for two years. A few months ago, many people expected unemployment to rise throughout the year. Instead, it has fallen in Scotland, Wales and every English region.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister explain–his Minister was asked this question–why only last week the Department of Social Security claimed that the number of people on low incomes who would be worse off as a result of the national insurance increases in the Budget was only 500,000, but yesterday was forced to admit that that was wrong and the real figure was 2.25 million? What sort of advertisement is that for the competence of his Government or their understanding of the effects that his policies have on so many people?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is operating under a misapprehension. Suggestions of a mistake are wrong. My hon. Friend was asked about the number of people below the basic rate tax threshold who will pay more national insurance in 1994-95. The answer he gave on 7 June related to people whose earnings fall below the 20 per cent. tax band. The answer he gave on 16 June related to people whose earnings fall below the 25 per cent. tax band. [Hon. Members :– “Ah.”] Therefore, naturally the figures are different.

    Mr. Smith : The Prime Minister– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. We must hear not only answers, but questions.

    Mr. Smith : The Prime Minister seeks to defend his Department on the basis that it cannot read the questions. The question was the same in both cases, but it received different answers. Leaving that matter aside– [Laughter.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. We are using up valuable time.

    Mr. Smith : It relates to precisely the same issue. Does the Prime Minister recollect saying on that very issue during that election campaign :

    “taxpayers with the lowest incomes will benefit most”?

    Why, then, has he imposed a higher national insurance burden on over 2 million low-paid people? Does he admit that, once again, he has broken his word, or was it just another of those throwaway lines delivered on a wet night somewhere in Dudley?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s suggestion that it might be wise to put that aside is an answer which many people will recall for some time. If he looks at what has happened, he will see that we have raised the threshold for the 20 per cent. band by £500 in the Budget and by a further £500 from next year. Most taxpayers in the lower rate band will gain more from the 20 per cent. lower rate than they will lose from the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister still not understand, as millions of low-paid people do, that putting 1 per cent. on national insurance for people who do not pay income tax is putting up the tax on their income? Why did he say on page 7 of the Conservative party election manifesto :

    “We have reduced the burden of national insurance on low earners”? Was the whole manifesto written on a wet night somewhere in Dudley?

    The Prime Minister : I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it did not sound any better the second time, so perhaps he should put that aside as well. He should look at what has happened, with the introduction of a 20 per cent. tax band and the raising of a 20 per cent. tax band, and I reiterate–as he clearly did not hear it the first time–that most taxpayers in the lower rate band gain more from the 20 per cent. rate than they lose from the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions. In short–so that the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly understands–they are better off under our plans than they ever would have been under his plans, which would have involved the largest increase in direct taxation ever seen this century.

    Mr. Sims : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the current issue of the journal of the Royal Society of Medicine? Is he aware that it includes a survey carried out by a distinguished doctor of general practice in 12 countries in Europe, north America and the far east in which he reaches the conclusion that British is best? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as we proceed with the implementation of the NHS reforms, that will continue to be the case?

    The Prime Minister : The immediate answer to my hon. Friend is no, I have not seen that survey, but, as he has drawn it to my attention, I shall take the opportunity of looking at it. There has been a dramatic improvement both in the resources available to the health services and in the quality of health treatment provided in recent years by the people who work in the service. It is our intention that that should continue– [Interruption.] –and I am sorry if the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) thinks that it is nonsense that the people in the health service are providing a better service. I believe that they are.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is it not the case that in the 17 or so years since the decision was taken to build THORP–the thermal oxide reprocessing plant –at Sellafield, the economics of THORP have collapsed, the risk of nuclear proliferation has increased, international opposition has hardened and the threshold of safe nuclear emissions has been substantially reduced? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, before a decision is taken to put THORP into operation, the widest possible consultation and debate will be conducted on that dubious project?

    The Prime Minister : THORP is a substantial engineering and export success for this country. It supports some 3,000 jobs and has £9 billion-worth of contracts, which is a powerful vote of confidence in the plant from people around the world who will be its customers. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are considering the inspectors’ reports on the proposed new discharge authorisations for the site. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that it would be inappropriate for me to prejudge their considerations.

    Mr. Stephen : Is my right hon. Friend aware that visiting the House today is a very special group of 21 men who served this country in the Army, Navy and Royal Flying Corps during the great battles of the first world war? Does my right hon. Friend agree that all of us who live in freedom today owe everything we have to those gallant men and their comrades who died in that most terrible of all wars?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. I have sent a message to those very welcome guests to the House today. I am sure they will be welcomed by everyone in the House.

     

    Q2. Mr. Llwyd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Llwyd : Given the widespread alarm among millions of constituents about the proposed imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel, which will result in an increased incidence of hypothermia and even more poverty among middle-income groups, will the Prime Minister urge his colleagues to reconsider this pernicious and indiscriminate form of indirect taxation? In so doing, he might just assist his albeit fragile, political future.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern. We have set out a policy that we believe is correct and we have stated that we will take action to assist vulnerable groups. That assistance will be in place before the extra charges are introduced. The hon. Gentleman utterly fails to mention that the cost of fuel has been falling as a result of our policies, not rising astronomically as it did before we came to office.

    Mrs. Roe : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is typically British for commentators and Opposition Members to talk British industry down, yet totally ignore the best manufacturing output figures for five years?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend understates her case a little. They do not just talk Britain down–given the chance, they do it down and do it in. Opposition policies would impose an extra tax on jobs and would be no good for British industry. Raising employers’ costs and introducing the social charter would be no good for employment prospects or employers. The minimum wage would further damage job prospects. Yet again, the use of flying pickets would be legalised. [Hon. Members :– “Boring.”] That is the Labour party’s policy. Labour Members may regard my comments as boring, but people in work regard their policy as a job destruction programme.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Mr. Pink on winning his case for unfair dismissal against the Stockport health authority? Does he agree that whistleblowers play a very important part in a democracy? Will he urge the Stockport health authority to reinstate Mr. Pink and ensure that resources are available to improve the staffing of the geriatric wards at the hospital in question?

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of the details of the case, but if justice has been done I am delighted.

     

    Q4. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Fabricant : Following his Cabinet meeting this morning, will my right hon. Friend unequivocally assure the House that–despite the rumours and smears from the Labour party, which preys on the fears of the most vulnerable in our society–the national health service and welfare state always were, are, and for ever will be safe in Conservative hands?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated a moment or so ago, the health service has improved dramatically during recent years, partly as a result of the increased resources made available to it and partly as a result of the activities of the many dedicated people who work in it. I have no doubt that will continue to be the case in the future. [Interruption.] It is thriving.

     

    Q5. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : Has the Prime Minister given the President of the Board of Trade a list of the companies that have donated to the Conservative party since 1979? Will the Prime Minister confirm that if the President finds that they have not declared those donations in their accounts, they will all be repaid?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman must understand that British business supports the Conservative party because it believes that our policies are right for British business, the British future and British jobs. Perhaps it is because business understands and applies that test that precious little money from companies goes to the Labour party.

    Sir Jim Spicer : Would my right hon. Friend remember today that, over the past year, the wild and sometimes woolly Members of this House have said that the Government should intervene more directly in Yugoslavia? Will he accept the thanks of most sensible Members for all that he and the Government have done, on behalf not only of the United Kingdom but of the world, in not allowing such intervention to take place?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In my judgment, there is no doubt that it was right to assist with the humanitarian operation, and I believe that the activity of our troops has been widely admired, not just in this country but around the world. They have certainly done a magnificent job.

    There are only two ways of settling the dispute. One is to put in hundreds of thousands of troops for an indefinite period–no one wise wants to do that, and no other country would be prepared to do it. The only alternative is to seek a diplomatic solution allied to the humanitarian aid that we and others have been providing. We still seek that diplomatic solution.

    I understand that Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg had a useful meeting yesterday with the Presidents of Serbia and Croatia. They will continue their negotiations next week. Lord Owen will brief me on Saturday before I go to the European Council. His determined efforts over recent months have done as much as those of any other individual to keep alive the prospect of a political settlement.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 June 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    THORP

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has had on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations.

     

    LINK Scheme

    Dr. Moonie : To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of the LINK scheme budget is being transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

    The Prime Minister : LINK is an interdepartmental mechanism for promoting collaborative, precompetitive research involving industry and the science base. As such there is no distinct LINK scheme budget. The Department of Trade and Industry, like other participating Departments, uses money from its overall research and development budget to support LINK programmes and projects where these provide a way of meeting its departmental objectives. The Department’s financial commitment to LINK will continue to be substantial and is unaffected by the transfer of responsibility for the LINK steering group and its secretariat to the Office of Science and Technology.

     

    Teaching Company Scheme

    Dr. Moonie : To ask the Prime Minister if lead responsibility for the teaching company scheme is being transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

    The Prime Minister : At present, no single Department of state or research council has lead responsibility for the teaching company scheme and no decision has been taken to change this arrangement.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Albert Reynolds – 16 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, held in London on Wednesday 16th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good Afternoon. I will invite the Taoiseach to say a word or two in a moment just by way of introduction, and then we will take a few questions from you.

    I think, as you know, we agreed sometime ago to have twice annual summits. On this occasion we have met here in London, we agreed today that we would meet towards the back end of the year in Dublin and I very much look forward to that.

    We have had the opportunity today of discussing firstly bilateral matters, those discussions will continue over dinner, we have not yet discussed detailed matters relating to Northern Ireland and security, those discussions will occur over dinner in a few moments. We have had the opportunity of an in-depth discussion on the European Community summit and a range of matters beyond that.

    I think there are no substantive differences between the Taoiseach and I on the agenda for the European summit, we expect we are going to deal with employment prospects across Europe, we look forward to discussions about subsidiarity, about a number of foreign policy matters, Bosnia of course and possibly even Somalia and Sudan which may well be the subject of discussion at the European summit, we certainly expect to deal with enlargement and the agenda that I think is fairly well laid out before us and has been for some time.

    I am not expecting any substantive surprises at the summit over the next few days and neither is the Taoiseach. The discussions that we will have on the future of employment prospects in the Community will not be discussions that we anticipate will lead to immediate decisions in the Community, I think there are to pick six people’s minds on the importance of Europe becoming competitive not just within Europe but competitive as Europe with the United States, with the Pacific Basin and with Japan and we spent some time discussing those particular matters. Rather than go into the details of the whole range of matters we discussed, leave it to you ask questions if you wish to later, after the Taoiseach has made a few remarks.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. I think you have adequately covered the extent of the discussions which have taken place already and of course we look forward to the resumption of talks over dinner tonight, especially in relation to Northern Ireland. In relation to the up-coming summit, I agree with the Prime Minister that we do not expect any areas to develop that will cause either of us any great problems, I think we see the major issues to be discussed and hopefully point to the future direction of policy and how to tackle the very serious unemployment situation throughout Europe. It is now a problem for every member state. As you know, we have very serious unemployment problems in Ireland but then indeed so has every other member state, so I think it is time that we came to grips and point in the future policy directions as to how to tackle that particular problem.

    I think the decisions of Europe will be looking towards Copenhagen for that type of discussion, the type of discussion of issues that affect ordinary citizens’ lives and of course now that we have the Maastricht Treaty almost completed I think what they will be looking forward to is for the Community to settle down and to implement what we have agreed in the Maastricht Treaty.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Just let me add one thing. We have not discussed the substance of security and related matters in Northern Ireland but we did have a very preliminary discussion and I should perhaps make it clear that we would both like the talks process to continue and to deepen, we think that is the right way ahead in the future, we do continue to believe that its objectives are achievable. The next phase of course will involve further bilateral contacts to try and identify as much common ground as possible between the participants to the talks and I hope I need not say that the British and the Irish governments will work closely on the substance, in particular of Strand 3. I say that simply to set out the fact that those general parameters have been discussed prior to more detailed discussions over dinner.

    QUESTION:

    You talk about the objectives of the talks being achievable, what are the objectives of the talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We want to make sure that we can actually reaffirm in Northern Ireland the sort of democratic structure that most people would wish to enjoy, those are the early objectives of the talks. There is a great deal of talent in Northern Ireland that is not actually exercising itself in terms of local government in any way at all, now we need to examine that, that is the first ground clearing exercise, we have to build from the ground upwards, that is the purpose of the three-stranded approach and of course Strand 3 is a bilateral approach between the governments.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    I just want to add that both governments are committed to finding the ways and means of resumption of talks, we are fully committed to the three strand process, we believe that it is the way forward in relation to it and we want to resume the talks on the basis that we had them on 1 March 1991 where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and of course in particular the third strand between the two governments, we will be looking at ways and means between ourselves as to how we can make our contribution towards a resumption of those talks, to which we are both fully committed.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The most obvious point of course is the shared wish to see an end to the violence. Now that is a shared wish not just between the Taoiseach and with me, that is a shared wish I think amongst the overwhelming majority of people in both parts of the island of Ireland. So if one wanted to have an objective, that of course is the most immediate objective in everyone’s mind.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    It is the first objective indeed that I set myself out when I took over the job of Taoiseach, that there were two objectives I had and one was to find a formula for peace in Northern Ireland which will create the environment for talks to take place on the future and how people can learn to live together and work together for the betterment of all.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Smith has said that Mr Paisley should not be allowed to hold a veto on the resumption of the talks, if all the other parties agreed to go ahead, he said, they should go ahead without Mr Paisley, do you agree with this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am in the business of getting all the parties together for talks, I do not think it is of help in bringing the parties together to get those talks started for me to indulge in public exchanges about what one participant of the talks should do. The substantive matter is that I want the talks to continue, I want everybody to take part in the talks and I am not going to engage in public badinage that might make that more difficult.

    QUESTION:

    Was the [Indistinct] Commission discussed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have not discussed it yet, it may turn up later.

    QUESTION:

    What is the current assessment of when it may be possible to resume the talks on Northern Ireland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I could not give you a date at the moment, I would like the talks, and I think the Taoiseach would share this view, though he will speak for himself in a minute, I would like the talks to resume as speedily as possible. I think perhaps more important than the fact that I would like the talks to resume as speedily as possible, I think all the people who live in Northern Ireland, whichever community they come from, would like to see the politicians talking again so that they can begin to seek to resolve these problems. I hope that will prove to be possible, we will certainly do all we can to ensure it is.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    I believe the political leaders on all sides are looking to the politicians to make whatever contribution is necessary to re-start the talks process and I look forward to hearing from Sir Patrick tonight on the results of his meetings with political leaders so far and to then make an assessment, an evaluation of how both governments can contribute to the resumption of the talks process.

    QUESTION:

    There seems to be a certain impatience in Northern Ireland among people who think that devolution should be re-established first and should be built from the bottom up and that tying it to strands 2 and 3 is delaying a return to democracy of which the Prime Minister spoke.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you had lived through the last 20 years in Northern Ireland – forgive me, you may have done, I do not know – but anyone who has lived through the last 20 years in Northern Ireland has a right to be impatient. But I think what we have to build is a structure that is going to last. We are approaching that in the way we think is most likely to achieve that end, that is why we believe we need to go through the stranded approach to talks so that we can carry consent. Above all, what we need in Northern Ireland is an end to the violence and consent for the developments that have been made, and it is upon that basis that we have approached the talks in this particular way. But as to people feeling impatient, I fully understand and sympathise with that.

    QUESTION:

    But is there a blueprint being prepared by Sir Patrick?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends what you mean by a blueprint. Of course the Secretary of State is examining how we take the matter forward and how we encourage the talks to go forward, but I do not know quite whether one would call that a blueprint.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] for the British and Irish government to lean on the local politicians to get them to accept not only to come to the talks but to accept a settlement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One man’s leaning is another man’s persuasion. We are seeking to persuade all the participants to return to the talks, that is the way to reach a lasting settlement in our view.

    QUESTION:

    Are you taking Mr [indistinct] advice in asking the Taoiseach to do something about removing Articles 2 and 3 of the Republic’s constitution?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going into my private discussions with the Taoiseach, I am keen to make sure that we look at all the elements of getting a proper settlement and that is the Taoiseach’s view too, but I am not discussing that in public.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    I think there should be an appreciation, there are many hundreds of thousands of people out there who live normal lives, who want to continue to live normal lives, there is quite extensive bridge-building between the two communities, we want to encourage economic cooperation between the north and south and this is a way to demonstrate to people how they can live better together, how they can work together to improve the lot of both communities in the North of Ireland and I think that has its own contribution to make. In relation to the overall talks process, we are quite clear that we do not want to condemn the future generation in the North of Ireland to another 23 – 25 years of violence which they have suffered up to now, we think there is marvellous resilience in the community up there to continue to live ordinary lives and we want to use the opportunity, and any opportunity we can get, to try and first of all find a formula for peace up there and then hopefully to get people to talk together.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see a difference in principle of the union between England and Scotland and England and Northern Ireland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is the principle of consent. We have always made it clear in terms of Northern Ireland that no changes in the position of Northern Ireland could be obtained without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. And as I have said in speeches in Scotland up to and during the general election, you need to retain the consent of people in Scotland for the union, so that is I think a similar position.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think your meeting today would raise hopes in Northern Ireland of an improvement in the security situation because surely that is uppermost in the minds of most people?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Taoiseach and I have known one another over many years, both as Ministers before he became Taoiseach and I became Prime Minister, we are used to doing business together, we have done business together in more than one capacity over a number of years. These meetings are regular meetings, they are not emergency meetings, they are not crisis meetings, it is one of a whole series of regular meetings that have gone on for a while, I instituted them a couple of years or so ago, they are going to go on continuing. I think the community of interest that exists both in the European Community, beyond the European Community and in terms of Irish matters make it absolutely right that we should have these twice yearly summits.

    I do not want people under any of these summits to suddenly develop unrealistic expectations, if we have learned anything about the history of Ireland as a whole it is that patience is a virtue and patience is a necessity. So nobody should reach unrealistic expectations. Of course we will discuss security matters, we always discuss security matters and we rarely talk about security matters beyond our private discussions, I am sure that we will discuss them later tonight.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you both how you expect the European Community to respond to the renewed impatience from President Clinton and his avowed support for arming the [indistinct] and indeed air strikes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is nothing fresh to say, you know the British government’s position about that, it is as it was. I am sure the European Community summit will spend some time discussing Bosnia in all its aspects.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    I think we are all horrified by what we see on our screens every day of the week in relation to Bosnia and I think everybody knows that the view of the Irish government, the view of the British government, in relation to it and undoubtedly it will be discussed at the summit and hopefully we will be able to contribute to some way forward in the whole sad tragic situation of Bosnia.

    QUESTION:

    Was the question of a visit by The Queen raised or discussed?

    MR REYNOLDS:

    No.

    QUESTION:

    Have you had a chance to read Sir Edward Heath’s comments on the security situation where he said that you needed to lift the issue of terrorism higher on the political agenda, appoint a senior Cabinet Minister as a terrorism supremo and introduce a centralised counter-terrorist agency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I share with Ted Heath the importance of the issue, I do not share with him the way in which we should deal with the issue. It is very high on the agenda, it could scarcely be higher on the agenda and it will remain there.

    QUESTION:

    You talk about the need to get the parties around the table again, Sir Patrick Mayhew is talking to them to try and do that, how do you yourself think that they can be persuaded to get back into negotiations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You might have asked me that question before they began negotiations and you would be right to, you would say how are you ever going to get these people to sit round the table together, they never have done in the past? But we have crossed that Rubicon, they have sat round the table, they have made progress, they have made far more progress sitting around the table in discussion, parties that had never previously done that, than anybody realistically expected. The advent of the local elections in Northern Ireland and other matters have broken that continuous discussion for a while. I think it is a matter of persuasion and patience and I think we will get them back round the table. You ask me precisely how, if I knew precisely how, I would have done it last week, but that can be done I have no doubt.

    QUESTION:

    Is it conceivable that new devolutionary arrangements for Northern Ireland will provide a role for Dublin or Brussels?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For Brussels, no I do not think so. We have got to continue, we have a process, I do not think it is at all helpful to start inventing fresh processes when we have a process in being, it undercuts the work that is being done and there is work being done, we have got a process, the Taoiseach and I would like to see that process reactivated. Both of us are entirely clear that that is the right way for us to proceed. So no I do not think an intermediary from any external source is likely to be helpful.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, the people in Northern Ireland, go and talk to the people in Northern Ireland, not just the politicians, go and actually talk to the people in Northern Ireland, it does not matter whether you talk to the Protestants or whether you talk to the Catholics, go and ask them whether they want another 20 years like the last 20 years and they will tell you ‘No’. Go and ask them whether they would like the politicians to be talking and they will tell you ‘Yes’. Ask them whether they want to actually see the end of violence from whatever source it comes and they will say ‘Yes’. We all have to try and deal with that cry from the heart and I think that is a good reason for optimism.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    That is exactly the message that I get from my own contacts on both sides in both communities in the North of Ireland, they want to see all the political leaders, both north and south and the British government and the Irish government all involved in the talks process. They recognise that the road to violence is a cruel one, it is the road to nowhere and that there are so many families up there, they have been hooked by this, they do not want to inflict that on their children. Remember now at this stage that we have young people in the North of Ireland, 21 years of age, they were born into violence, they have not known anything else.

    We certainly have a responsibility and both of us recognise that to try in every way we can not to inflict that type of lifestyle on the next generation and for the next 25 years we do not want to see that type of violence extend into the families of people in Northern Ireland and we are going to use every initiative that we can think of to try and change that situation and get people talking which is what people in Northern Ireland want them to do.

  • PMQT – 15 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Chisholm : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

    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. Chisholm : What progress did the Prime Minister make at his meeting this morning in rewriting his election manifesto and rewriting the rules on invalidity benefit? In particular, will he say who else he intends to exclude from invalidity benefit, apart from the retired builder with heart disease mentioned in the leaked document? Will he also say why on earth those still receiving it should have to pay, through benefit cuts, for the Government’s unsurpassed economic incompetence?

    The Prime Minister : We were not rewriting our manifesto this morning. We were reviewing invalidity benefit and it would be irresponsible of us not to do so.

    Mr. Viggers : I am grateful for the chance of hearing my right hon. Friend’s comments. Does he agree that our troops in the former Yugoslavia have done an exceptionally difficult job with great skill and courage and that they have consistently carried out the policy of distributing humanitarian aid for as long as it has been possible for them to do so? Does he further agree that the person to emerge from the recent crisis with the least credibility is the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who demanded further troop deployments and then immediately demanded that they be pulled out– [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : I must first congratulate my hon. Friend on his narrow escape and his capacity to swim. We are delighted to see him here today. He is right to say that British forces are doing an outstanding job in a dangerous situation. They are inevitably running risks as the difficulties on the ground become more serious. I wish to ensure that those risks are kept to a minimum and I assure the House that the necessary contingency plans exist should there be a further deterioration in the situation. As my hon. Friend intimated, I believe that the policy that we have followed in Bosnia has been right and any other policy would have been reckless of the lives of British soldiers.

    Mr. John Smith : What changes in the law is the Prime Minister considering with regard to the disclosure of secret donations to political parties, given the continuing scandal over the £1.5 million donated to the Conservative party by Mr. Asil Nadir?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman may occasionally care to comment on some of the people who may in the past have donated money to his party– [Interruption.] I have no present proposals for changes in the law.

    Mr. John Smith : Why does the Prime Minister refuse to introduce legislation requiring the public disclosure of all substantial donations made to all political parties, so that the political parties that receive them have to declare them? In addition to putting political contributions on an open and honest basis, would not that also prevent the breaches of company law which occurred in the case of Mr. Nadir, whose companies apparently made seven illegal donations amounting to £440,000 to the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the requirement to declare company donations to political parties under the Companies Act falls on the directors of the donor company, not on the recipient. He is wrong in his later comments–the payment itself would not be unlawful. Only the failure to declare it in the company accounts would be unlawful and that is a matter for the company, not the recipient.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that, if the Conservative party had had to disclose the payment, the breach would have been revealed when the company acted illegally? Does he not realise that he cannot sweep the matter under the carpet and that there are people in the United Kingdom who believe that it is wrong that political parties should be financed in a furtive way or by excessively large donations from those who are not prepared to be publicly identified? Those are the words of concerned members of the Conservative party. Why cannot he act in this matter to get a level playing field that will encourage honesty and equality?

    The Prime Minister : Donations to the Conservative party are freely offered and they are accepted on that basis, unlike the way in which so much is donated to the Labour party.

    Mr. Garnier : Will my right hon. Friend welcome the visit of the President of Azerbaijan later this month and confirm that it underlines the strong diplomatic links between our two countries and confirms the existence of strong commercial links to the mutual benefit of our two countries?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I certainly share the view expressed by my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that there are huge markets opening up in that part of the world which I believe will be satisfactory for the United Kingdom, provided that we are prepared to take an interest in them at an early stage. Undoubtedly, we are prepared to take that interest and I very much welcome the visit here.

     

    Q2. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

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

    Mr. Canavan : What exactly is the Prime Minister going to do now that Lady Thatcher has effectively given him the kiss of death, Asil Nadir is overtaking him in the opinion polls and Sir Bernard Ingham tells us that the Tory party is behaving like a headless chicken? If the party is too chicken to take the necessary steps– [Interruption.] –would not it be more honourable for heads to roll voluntarily and let the people decide on a fresh menu?

    The Prime Minister : More rehearsal needed, I think.

    Mr. Dover : Has the Prime Minister noticed that, during the recession, the private sector has frozen wages and earnings, reduced earnings on many occasions and had massive job reductions? Are not there lessons to be learnt by the public sector, especially if the burden on the private sector is not to continue increasing?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the private sector has taken dramatic action in order to keep its costs down. The implications of that are now being seen in the extent to which many companies are now recovering. As far as the public sector is concerned, as my hon. Friend knows, we have held strict control over public sector wages over the past year.

    Mr. Hoon : Last week, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) suggested that the Prime Minister ordered interest rate cuts for purely political reasons against the advice and better judgment of his then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is that true?

    The Prime Minister : It is not what my right hon. Friend said and it is not so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jenkin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

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

    Mr. Jenkin : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a further 1.8 million people so far have registered an interest in applying for the third British Telecom share flotation? Is not that the clearest evidence possible that, far from running out of steam, the British people cannot get enough popular capitalism?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend is right about that. Today, almost one in four adults owns shares compared with about one in 20 a decade or so ago. People want to build up a stake in Britain. They want to own a part of it. That is very much part of our philosophy and we will continue to encourage it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Davidson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

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

    Mr. Davidson : Will the Prime Minister accept my delayed but sincere congratulations on his decision to sack his Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he come to Govan soon, while he is still Prime Minister, and tell the people there that he will sack any Minister who proposes a drastic reduction in the already inadequate level of invalidity benefit?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated earlier to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), we are considering invalidity benefit and I believe that it is entirely right that we should do so. Expenditure on invalidity benefit has risen from about £1.5 billion 10 years ago to more than £6 billion this year. No responsible Government could ignore an increase of that order. We have a duty to consider whether all that taxpayers’ money is being wisely spent. The number of people receiving invalidity benefit has more than doubled during the past 10 years from 700,000 to more than 1.5 million. Frankly, it beggars belief that so many more people have suddenly become invalids, especially at a time when the health of the population has improved. I make no apologies for looking at this area of expenditure.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth : When my right hon. Friend goes to the European Council meeting in Copenhagen, will he take the opportunity to impress on our partners that all of us in Europe operate in an intensely competitive international market and that the costs of bureaucratic regulation, particularly the social chapter, represent a severe disadvantage to Europe’s competitiveness in world markets?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I undertake to raise that matter at the European Council at the weekend. The president of the European Employers Federation recently appealed to Community employment and social affairs Ministers to

    “stop taking measures which unnecessarily destroy jobs”. I agree with that. I have made it clear in the past. I believe that the social chapter falls into that category and I shall reiterate that view at the European Council meeting this weekend. It is not just a problem for the United Kingdom. All of Europe is facing increasing competition from Japan, the Pacific basin and the United States. Unless all Europe keeps its costs down, we shall not create jobs, but export them.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hanson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

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

    Mr. Hanson : When the Prime Minister visited Wales last week did he have a chance to see the report showing that in the last year of the Labour Government family incomes in Wales were 87 per cent. of those in southern England, whereas in the first year of his premiership those incomes fell to 64 per cent. of those in southern England? Is that a record to be proud of? How, tell me, will the abolition of the wages councils help to improve that situation?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman in his litany unexpectedly neglected to mention that in recent years unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 49 per cent. That is because of this Government’s policies. It will probably fall even further as a result of the abolition of wages councils, which themselves cost jobs.

    Mr. Heald : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposed European Community ban on large engined motor cycles, which would have damaged the British Triumph, has been successfully resisted by the Government? Will he accept the congratulations of motor cyclists throughout the country, including the North Herts Motor Cycle Action Group, on that achievement? Does he agree that that achievement will enable the British Triumph motor cycle to be successful throughout the world, knocking spots off the opposition, something which my right hon. Friend has done since he became Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the Government received a derogation from a Community directive relating to motor cycle engine size. That has had some beneficial effects for the United Kingdom and it means that our industry can continue to sell motor cycles with a large engine in the United Kingdom until at least the start of the next century. That is excellent news for Triumph and British motor cyclists. I am delighted at that outcome.

     

    Q6. Mr. Pope : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

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

    Mr. Pope : Does the Prime Minister recall the recommendation last year from the Select Committee on Health that maternity services should be community based and close to a woman’s home? How does the Prime Minister square that with the decision to close the maternity unit at the Accrington Victoria hospital in my constituency? He claims to be a listening Prime Minister ; when will he listen to the women in my constituency who want their maternity unit kept open?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take up his particular constituency point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, I am sure that she would be prepared to listen to him.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 June 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ozone-depleting Substances

    Mr. Dafis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce guidelines to all Government Departments to secure that all future purchases made do not involve ozone-depleting substances and that the policy be reflected within specifications given to contractors and suppliers.

    The Prime Minister : I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is arranging a meeting of green Ministers to discuss a number of environmental issues, including the treatment of ozone-depleting substances in departmental green housekeeping strategies.

    Turkish Cyprus

    Mr. Sheerman : To ask the Prime Minister what discussion he has had with other European Heads of State on the imposition of appropriate sanctions against the illegal regime in Turkish Cyprus.

    The Prime Minister : None. The question of imports to the United Kingdom from northern Cyprus is the subject of a case pending before the European Court of Justice.

     

    Mr. Asil Nadir

    Mr. Sheerman : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Turkish President regarding the presence of Mr. Asil Nadir in Turkish Cyprus.

    The Prime Minister : Her Majesty’s ambassador in Ankara has made our desire for the return of Nadir clear to the Turkish Government. The Turkish authorities are co-operating with us in the investigation.

     

    Office Costs

    Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister what was the expenditure on the Prime Minister’s Office broken down into salaries and other costs for each year since 1980-81 in (a) cash and (b) 1992-93 prices.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 10 June 1993] : Salary information for the years prior to 1985-86 is not available separately. The available information is as follows :

    Cash (£,000s) 1992-93 prices (£,000s)

    |Salaries |Other costs|Total<1><2>|Salaries |Other costs|Total<1><2>

    ————————————————————————————————

    1980-81 |- |- |1,745 |- |- |3,528

    1981-82 |- |- |2,415 |- |- |4,452

    1982-83 |- |- |2,700 |- |- |4,647

    1983-84 |- |- |3,026 |- |- |4,978

    1984-85 |- |- |3,787 |- |- |5,929

    1985-86 |1,403 |3,003 |4,406 |2,083 |3,738 |5,821

    1986-87 |1,670 |3,293 |4,963 |2,402 |4,736 |7,138

    1987-88 |1,763 |3,655 |5,418 |2,404 |4,982 |7,386

    1988-89 |1,904 |4,650 |6,554 |2,420 |5,909 |8,329

    1989-90 |2,159 |5,510 |7,669 |2,574 |6,570 |9,144

    1990-91 |2,386 |5,840 |8,226 |2,634 |6,447 |9,081

    1991-92 |2,628 |6,036 |8,664 |2,720 |6,247 |8,967

    1992-93 |2,903 |6,962 |9,865 |2,903 |6,962 |9,865

    1993-94<3> |3,297 |7,406 |10,703 |3,209 |7,208 |10,417

    Notes:

    <1> The figures represent the cost of 10 Downing street and Chequers borne on the votes of the Cabinet Office (OPSS) and its predecessors. Over the period, the following changes have occurred to the basis of the costs:

    in 1981-82 the Ministry of Defence introduced charges for the use of its aircraft;

    in 1983-84 the then Property Services Agency introduced charges for buildings and services;

    in 1984-85 charges were introduced for the Government Car Service and the Service personnel at Chequers; and

    in 1986-87 the cost of office services was included for the first time and in April 1992 26 office service posts were formally added to the complement of No. 10 Downing Street. These staff were already working in No. 10 but were previously on the complement of the Cabinet Office establishments officer.

    <2> Costs are shown in the year in which the expenditure was made. Because of billing delays, this is not always in the financial year in which the goods or services were provided.

    <3> 1993-94 budget.