Category: 1993

  • PMQT – 20 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Does the Prime Minister recall his big idea of the citizen’s charter, aimed at giving individuals swift redress? Can he explain why veterans of the atomic tests which took place on Christmas island and elsewhere over 30 years ago, who suffered the horrendous effects of radiation, have still not received compensation? People in the United States who suffered in a similar way have been compensated. The Prime Minister assured the House as long ago as 4 December 1990, in reply to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), that the matter was to receive his urgent attention.

    The Prime Minister : Yes. About 10 days ago I wrote again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and other hon. Members who expressed an interest in the matter. We are still waiting for medical reports on which we can make our judgments. I have sought to have the medical reports expedited, but there is further examination to be done. As soon as these medical reports are received we can reach a decision.

     

    Q2. Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Following his statement yesterday, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to earlier interpretations of the Maastricht treaty and its protocols, he is now advised that the opt out from monetary union extends to the exchange rate mechanism and that Britain has no obligation, under the terms of the treaty, to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism unless and until we decide to seek to enter a single European currency?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. In essence my hon. Friend is quite right. I have had no fresh advice, but that has always been the position. Nothing in the Maastricht treaty obliges us to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism. What the treaty does is make it explicitly clear that we retain responsibility for monetary policy in stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union as long as we do not participate in a single monetary policy. As my hon. Friend knows, because of the opt out that I negotiated at Maastricht, we would not enter into a single currency until and unless the House had specifically approved it.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister give the House a guarantee that the Government will not make millions of pensioners and children pay for prescriptions?

    The Prime Minister : I had optimistically thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might welcome a third successive fall in unemployment, but I should perhaps have known him better. May I explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman–so that there is no doubt either to him or millions of people throughout the country–exactly the review that is taking place on public expenditure? My answer to every scare story that the right hon. and learned Gentleman produces will be the same–I hear that he was peddling them earlier today. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been instructed to examine all our public expenditure to ensure that it is well targeted and that it delivers value for money, and to see where savings in taxpayers’ money can be found. However, he knows that in doing so he must protect the position of the most vulnerable members of society, and that is what he is doing. At the moment, my right hon. Friend is being presented with options. He has not yet considered the options or selected those worth further consideration.

    No decisions have been made, and no decision is imminent. Decisions will not be made until the public expenditure round in the autumn. Many options will need to be discarded, but we need to examine public expenditure, and we shall both maintain our manifesto commitments and protect the most vulnerable people in society. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now give up his tedious weekly shroud waving.

    Mr. John Smith : I should have known better than to expect a straight answer from the Prime Minister. No one in the country will know whether his answer means yes or no. The Prime Minister talks about his manifesto commitments; may I remind him that millions of ordinary families are already deeply worried about having to pay another £8.50 per week next year and even more the year after, despite his tax pledges. Now families face the threat of an additional tax on being ill. Why are the Government so intent on making ordinary families in this country pay the price of their economic incompetence?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should not peddle those scare stories and frighten people. I have made it absolutely clear that we shall protect vulnerable members of society. “We should be prepared to re-examine everything ; I have not ruled anything out”– [Interruption.] Those are not my words but those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was speaking about his review of social policy.

    Mr. John Smith : Just over a year ago the Prime Minister promised lower taxes and no cuts in public expenditure. We know that he has broken one promise already, and clearly he is planning to break another. Is it any wonder that no one any longer believes anything that he says?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman should stop trying to frighten vulnerable people for his own party advantage. I say to him in all friendliness that it will do him no good in the end. We shall honour our manifesto commitments. Since the general election the right hon. and learned Gentleman has publicly junked all his manifesto commitments. The contrast is obvious, and the public will know which party keeps its promises, for its members sit here, and which party seeks week after week to frighten people with scare stories, for its members sit over there.

     

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

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

    Mr. Kynoch : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures show a further fall this month, for the third month in a row? Does he agree that that is a further welcome sign that the recovery is starting to work through to where we all want to see it, in the job-centres and in a meaningful and stable reduction in unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, that is welcome to everyone. There are those who mention unemployment when it is going down as well as when it is going up. Unemployment is still too high, but today’s figures offer further hope for unemployed people. Not only has unemployment now fallen for the third month in a row, but the number of people employed in manufacturing industry has risen for the third consecutive month, and the number of new vacancies notified to job-centres is more than it was a year ago. If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) wishes to continue with his smears, perhaps he will put up or shut up.

    Mr. Foulkes : Following the Tory party conference in Scotland, is the Prime Minister aware of the extent of opposition to water privatisation in Scotland, even among Conservatives? Will he now end the uncertainty and give a clear and unequivocal pledge that there will be no privatisation of water in Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has made the point that he wished to make, and he knows as well as I do that the options are set out in the consultation paper “Investing for the Future”. We are considering those options. When we have finished our considerations, we shall announce the result.

     

    Q4. Mr. Clifton-Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown : Will my right hon. Friend confirm his view, stated during the last election, that first-past-the-post is the best electoral system ; one which has served us well for centuries? Is it not typical of Opposition Members to want to introduce a proportional representation system–a desire reinforced by their decision to abstain on the historically important European vote this evening?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm that I remain in favour of the first-past-the-post system. I am against proportional representation, and I do not need a referendum to tell me what my view on the matter should be.

     

    Q5. Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Sir David Steel : Has the Prime Minister been able to examine the workings of the community care schemes since they came into operation on 1 April? Is the confusion and anxiety as great in Huntington as it is elsewhere? Will he promise a full review of the schemes at the end of the first three months of working?

    The Prime Minister : The scheme is, with the consent of hon. Members in all parts of the House and people throughout the community care system, a great advance. People have wanted care in the community for a long time, and they now have it. It is a very substantial change. We shall, of course, keep the matter under review to make sure that it is working satisfactorily. There are bound to be some difficulties at the beginning of a change on this scale. It is a welcome change, one for which we have looked for many years, and we intend it to be a success.

     

    Q6. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing suffocation of London by heavy traffic, which is now damaging job prospects in the capital? Will he accept the congratulations of my constituents in Ealing and of the whole of London on his determination to go ahead with the crossrail project? Will the Government do everything possible to expedite the passage of the enabling measure through the House? May we have an assurance that the construction of the project, which will bring jobs to all parts of London, including Ealing, will start yesterday, if possible?

    The Prime Minister : That might be rather difficult. Crossrail is important for London and for jobs throughout the country, and I know that it will be particularly welcome to hon. Members with London constituencies. It will be a joint venture with the private sector and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill will take place in the House next month. Crossrail will obviously make a dramatic difference to London’s transport system, as will the Jubilee line extension, to which the Government are also committed– [Interruption.] –as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is heckling, may wish to know.

    Mrs. Bridget Prentice : The Prime Minister may recall that I wrote to him on 30 March about assisted area status for London. I have since received a holding reply. He will know that if London were to receive assisted area status, the support of the Government would be needed and that 13 London boroughs, including Lewisham, would be affected. When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give me a positive reply?

    The Prime Minister : I very much hope that we will be able to reach a decision on changes to the assisted areas map before too long. We are well advanced with our examination of it and are looking at the various criteria that need to be considered. I would certainly hope that we would have a decision, and announce it, well before the House rises for the summer.

     

    Q7. Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Winterton : I warmly welcome the reduction in unemployment for the third consecutive month, for which Government policies are in part responsible. Will my right hon. Friend give me, the House and the people of this country an assurance that he will not undermine the recovery in our economy by re-entering the exchange rate mechanism? In addition, will he give the pensioners and children of this country an assurance that he will not permit prescriptions to be paid for by the retired or by the young?

    The Prime Minister : I warmly welcome part of my hon. Friend’s question : I share his pleasure at the fall in unemployment. We now have the right conditions which I hope will lead to a consistent fall in unemployment. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who are saying that the figures are a fiddle may be interested to know that the Department’s director of statistics, a civil servant, today issued a statement which said :

    “I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claimant count figures.”

    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) may sit there giggling and making accusations, but he ought not to attack public officials who are not in a position to answer back. My hon. Friend will have heard me say earlier this week that we had no imminent intention of returning to the exchange rate mechanism because the circumstances for doing so were by no means appropriate at present. As for his second question, he clearly heard the detailed statement that I made to the House some moments ago.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Maastricht Treaty (III) – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Maastricht Treaty, made during an interview held on 19th May 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Maastricht Treaty would progress quickly following the Danish referendum result].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am certainly pleased the Danes have cleared that uncertainty up, it has been a very debilitating, very difficult period both in Denmark, right across the Community, and certainly in the United Kingdom as well. We have the third reading of the bill in the Commons on Thursday, I hope and expect it will be passed then. The bill will then move to the House of Lords and thereafter we will be able to have Royal Assent and ratify the bill.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he could get the bill through Parliament given the divisions in the Conservative Party and whether he would agree to the social chapter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a very decisive issue, Europe, it has been a very divisive issue in this country ever since we first joined it, and that remains the case. To take the particular points you raised, the social chapter firstly. I was speaking last night to a large number of employers at the CBI, they are absolutely clear that without the social chapter we are in a much better position. People think the social chapter offers all sorts of social benefits. I think it really more aptly ought to be called an employment destructive chapter, and that is emphatically not what we want in the United Kingdom, I want to put people back to work, not raise impediments to them getting work, and I believe that is what the social chapter would do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Edward Heath supporting the social chapter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ted is a very enthusiastic supporter of European development, I do not believe the social chapter is in our interests, I do believe it is very much in the British interest, in the British national interest, our own cold, hard self-interest to be right at the centre of the European Community. And I do not just say that for idealistic reasons. The European Community is where our exports go to, it is where most of our jobs over the last 10 years effectively were created from, because of our growth in trade where was a huge growth of small businesses and firms. We need that growth in trade, we need those jobs. I know of no-one, no-one, who has a practical alternative to Britain being at the centre of Europe using her influence. There are only three alternatives really: leave the European Community, hardly anyone is proposing that; stay in it without influence and be dragged along by the French and Germans, that is not attractive; or get in the middle of the Community, form alliances with our partners, different alliances on different issues, and try and wield real British influence in the European Community, and that is where I stand.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be increasing pressure on Britain to rejoin the ERM and join the social chapter and whether he would fight or give in].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think it is quite as straightforward as that either way. For every member of the Community, throughout the lifetime of the Community, there have been pressures. When you have 12 nations, soon to be 16, working together always there are going to be pressures and difficulties. In order to win your way in the Community you need alliances, you need to be taken seriously, you certainly do not want to be sidelined with the rest of the Community ganging up on you, as has happened so often to this country in the past.

    What we are seeing at the moment is a fairly dramatic move towards the sort of European Community that we in Britain have always wanted and feel comfortable with, a wider Community, because of the agreements at Edinburgh the EFTAN nations will soon be joining. They will firstly be net contributors to the budget, which will save us money, and secondly they will be free traders. We have different governments across Europe, more inclined to the British point of view. We are at the moment in a better position than we have been, I believe, at any stage in our membership to start influencing the Community to go in the direction that we the British would like to see it moving.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Maastricht Treaty (II) – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Maastricht Treaty, made during an interview held on 19th May 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the divisions in the Conservative Party over Europe].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a very serious difference of view in the Conservative Party over Europe. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but I understand why that should be. This is a gut issue for the Tory Party; it runs very deep amongst people; they take a view very sharply one side or very sharply the other. They are operating from conviction. I can’t stop people operating from conviction in politics nor indeed would I wish to do so, but I think we have to proceed with the Bill. When we have concluded it, there is life after Maastricht, we will return to the other issues.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he could do about backbenchers who knew they wouldn’t be promoted so may as well rebel].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We’ve had rebellions before and I dare say from time to time we’ll have rebellions again, but one thing I’ve learned even in the two-and-a-half years I’ve been Prime Minister is that the people who are rebelling against a particular policy one week may well be your strongest supporter on another issue a week or so later. I think people are clearly distressed. I would much rather we hadn’t had this great disagreement in the Conservative Party but we have a disagreement of people with convictions that differ but we will get through that. We will conclude the Bill and then we will turn on to other issues where those disagreements won’t arise.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Britain would rejoin the ERM].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that is imminent, no, for reasons we have set out in the past. I think we would need the economies to be much closer together than they are at the moment. Some of the major economies in Europe are at present going in different directions. That is not a Clementine to rejoin the Exchange Rate Mechanism so I don’t think that is imminent. It will be some while before we consider it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked that if the ERM was a pre-cursor to a single currency, whether it would be necessary for Britain to join again].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, well you say that of course when you are referring to the movement towards Economic and Monetary Union, but I think the changes that we have seen in European economies over the last two years rather bear out the reservations that I expressed at Maastricht, before Maastricht and subsequent to Maastricht. In order for Economic and Monetary Union, a single currency, to work you would need convergence of the European economies; they would need to come together. I know of no-one who thinks they have come together in recent years, quite the reverse in fact; they have moved further apart. Although the time-scale may lay on the table for Economic and Monetary Union, I very much doubt that it is realistic.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Maastricht Treaty (I) – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Maastricht Treaty, made during an interview held on 19th May 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Danish referendum result now meant that the Maastricht Treaty could be finalised].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I’m delighted the Danes have got an affirmative answer in their referendum but we still have to complete our parliamentary process. I don’t take that for granted. We have a third reading in the Commons, I think that will be quite satisfactory. We then have to put the bill through the House of Lords, I hope it’s back on track but no-one ever takes Parliament for granted.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the European Union would slow down its pace now].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I’ve been saying for a long time, indeed I said when we had the original Maastricht negotiations, that I thought the idea of the speed that they wanted to move towards economic and monetary union was just unrealistic. I didn’t like the principle, I thought it was unrealistic then, I believe events have proved that, it is now unrealistic.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Chancellor Kohl wanting to move towards European integration whilst he wanted a slower rate of change].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, that is my view, it’s not a new view, it’s a view I’ve expressed right from the moment of the Maastricht negotiations. Even if one assumed that a single currency was right for Europe, and I have never made that assumption, but even if that assumption were true it is not the case that the European economies have converged in the last few years making that possible. If anything they have diverged and the prospects of moving rapidly towards European monetary union seem to me to have drifted away very substantially.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if some countries would achieve a single currency by the end of the decade without the UK].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is unlikely, I think it’s unlikely. You can’t categorically rule it out but I do believe it’s unlikely because it could the nature of the Community and I don’t think that would be in their interests or anyone elses.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Britain would rejoin the ERM].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s not an immediate prospect.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was now permanent division in the Conservative Party over Europe].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t believe that is the case. There are a minority in our party, a significant number of colleagues, who feel passionately about European policy. That’s always been the case. Maastricht has heightened that passion quite noticeably over the last two years, I respect their convictions even though I don’t agree with them, but the majority of my party equally have strong convictions that are different to theirs. I believe, on the whole range of different matters, the need to bring down public expenditure, the need to ensure that manufacturing recovers, that industry recovers, the need to devolve choice from government and local governments down to the individual. On all these issues and a range of others the Conservative Party are united and they will remain united on those issues.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Biodiversity

    Ms Short : To ask the Prime Minister which Government Departments have been and continue to be involved in discussions over the negotiation, ratification and implementation of the convention on biological diversity.

    The Prime Minister : The Government Departments mainly involved include the Department of the Environment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office–including the Overseas Development Administration–Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Northern Ireland Office, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Law Officers’ Department, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Decisions on these matters are taken collectively.

     

    Economic Recovery

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister from what month or quarter he estimates the economic recovery began; and if he will set out the evidence from output and trade statistics underlying his estimate.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 May 1993] : It is always difficult to pinpoint economic turning points accurately until some time after they have occurred. But total output has been rising since last summer, and there have been encouraging signs–in figures for gross domestic product, manufacturing output, retail sales and exports–that recovery is under way across a broad front.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the CBI Annual Dinner – 18 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Conference in London, held on Tuesday 18th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen. Before I turn in a few moments to other matters, I would just like to say a word or two about the referendum today in Denmark. Although counting is still going on, it is now clear that there is a very large majority in favouring the Maastricht Treaty. Seven out of the eight political parties were in favour, business opinion was in favour and the result of that is evident in the votes cast today.

    Before today’s result, a large question mark hung over the treaty. The Danes, initially less cautious than us, agreed to the treaty without the opt-outs that we negotiated. As you will recall, their electorate rejected that position and they needed to come back to their Community partners. We were always clear in this country that Maastricht needed the consent of all Twelve members, eleven would not do. At Edinburgh we helped Denmark secure new agreements, agreements similar to those we had obtained in the original negotiation. Today, in the referendum, this new position has been overwhelmingly approved.

    Across Europe nine nations have now ratified. Denmark and Germany can be expected to do so shortly. Only in Britain where our process has been a little protracted is substantive approval for ratification still being sought.

    Mr President, business has warned government often enough of the danger that we in Britain could sideline ourselves from Europe. And away from the sound and fury of Westminster, away from the interminable, incomprehensible procedural wrangles over the Maastricht Treaty, away from all that the issue is stark and simple, the issue is British jobs, British sales, Britain’s future.

    So we will be moving on with our parliamentary process as soon as possible. I hope we will obtain approval in the Commons at third reading on Thursday of this week. We need now to put the Parliamentary wrangles behind us and get on with doing business for Britain in Europe, developing our sort of Europe, an open Europe, a wider Europe, a Europe that liberates the talents of its businesses and its peoples, emphatically, Mr President, not a federal Europe.

    We want a competitive Community, that is why we objected to the Social Chapter, it is why we opted out of it, Maastricht without the Social Chapter, influence without handicap. Mr President, business knows that that is what this country needs, I hope, Mr President, that business will speak out and say that that is what this country needs. And the sooner we put this debilitating period behind us, the better it will be for British business and for British prosperity.

    Mr President, success, business success, your success, that is the theme that I want to concentrate on this evening, that theme and the new partnership that is emerging between government and industry. It is private enterprise that creates wealth, government’s job is to help you get the orders, not to give you the orders. We must create the climate for business to flourish, low inflation, low interest rates, low tax rates.

    In the late 1980s the economy was allowed to overheat and the government then had to cool things down. And that is the best response when there has been a mistake, to correct it and then to make sure that it never happens again. Three years ago inflation was in double figures and rising, that would have halved the value of money in just seven years. Mr President, it had to be tackled. If inflation runs on unchecked, ruin is certain. If inflation is confronted and beaten, prosperity can then be re-built.

    So that hard grind of recession had to be endured. I know that it was painful, I know that recession has left its scars. Too many businesses had to close down altogether and many others shed many jobs. We have all learned the hard lessons of those years and we must never let inflation drive Britain off its course again.

    As we speak this evening, retail price inflation is now under 2 percent, interest rates are down to 6 percent, the process of recovery has begun. We now know that recovery began slowly, cautiously, in a timid fashion perhaps in the course of last year. And now the ripples are widening through industry and along the High Street. House building and car sales are up. Your own surveys show a new level of confidence and after today’s independent poll, dare I say it, confidence is galloping.

    Now that is cause for cheer but it is not cause for complacency. Tonight we need to look to the future. So be in no doubt, I am in no doubt whatsoever, it is going to be a highly competitive decade. The economy has been picking up here in the United Kingdom but in much of continental Europe it is slowing down, trading is tough, the horizon is crowded with new challenges, new competitors, new markets, new technology.

    If we are going to look competition in the eye, we need to look at ourselves in the mirror. Our objectives must be clear. We need to broaden our recovery, widen our manufacturing base, build on our strength and remedy our weaknesses.

    So I want to pick up a theme expounded at your last CBI Conference, the theme of competitiveness. First, manufacturing matters. I want to congratulate you, Mr President, on setting up the National Manufacturing Council, a very welcome initiative, a strong single voice for Britain’ s manufacturers, very welcome, I wish it had happened years ago.

    And let me say something else about manufacturing that I personally feel passionately. I do not believe we have any reason to be defeatist about manufacturing in Britain. In the 1980s productivity in British manufacturing rose faster than in the United States, faster than in any other major European economy, more than twice as fast as in West Germany. We have increased productivity over 7 percent in the last year and we have cut our costs as well and that is the key to success, keeping quality high and costs low. And those hard won productivity gains were especially valuable, they protected Britain’s manufacturing from the worst of the recession.

    But it is true, yes, our manufacturing output fell, but much less than in the previous recession, and indeed, to put it in context, much less than it has fallen in West Germany in just the past year. But let me give you an even longer perspective than that. Look back to 1981, the bottom of the previous European recession. Since then France has increased its manufacturing output by a creditable 7 percent. West Germany has done rather better – an increase of 13 percent. But Britain, Britain so often derided for its manufacturing performance, Britain has increased manufacturing output by over 24 percent.

    Mr President, they are outstanding figures. Of course we need to do better still, much better, but my point is simply this. In the 1980s we turned the tide, in the 1990s we can catch the flood and that must be the aim for all our manufacturing industries. I believe that we can do it. There is a new mood in British industry, a new culture, a new ambition stimulated by the transformation you went through in the 1980s, industry is not just leaner these days, it is keener, it is fitter, it is more prepared to go out and fight for its markets and keep its markets, it is less inclined just to look to a home base, it knows it has to fight around the world for the markets it needs.

    And you can illustrate that perhaps in a number of ways. Last autumn you illustrated it very vividly. Last autumn you turned the spotlight on yourselves, on your own performance, you applied a critical self-analysis to the competitiveness of British industry, asking the difficult questions, facing up to the quality of the competition. Those are the actions of the confident, not the cautious. You have assessed where British industry is ahead and where it is behind. It is for each company to determine what it must do to stay ahead or to catch up.

    We have world class companies in this country, world class companies making state of the art equipment, winning in the toughest of market places around the world – pharmaceuticals, aerospace, chemicals, biotechnology, power generation, the water industry, international construction – a very long list, Mr President, but not long enough. You create the world class companies but in a thousand ways the decisions that we take in government can help you or can hinder you, so we too, the government, we are part of Britain’s competitiveness.

    Let me say this about that. All our policies, not just our economic policy, need to be focused on the future strength of the British economy. I believe that industry and government are coming to a new understanding, a new partnership. Your leadership has represented your views very clearly and equally clearly we have responded.

    In March, against a difficult background for public finances, we still managed to cut industry’s tax bill by around 1 billion pounds, and that of course is on top of the help we gave industry in the autumn statement. But I believe that the government’s side of this partnership goes much wider than simply budget changes. We, government, we must bend our energies right across the whole field of government o the pursuit of enterprise and growth and prosperity, backing Britain’s exporters, making the single market work for us in the United Kingdom, fighting for free trade, rolling back excessive red tape, rolling up our sleeves together with industry to give this country the infrastructure it needs, getting better value for taxpayers’ money, raising standards across all our schools, putting training on the fast track and harnessing our scientific genius to industry’s needs. That is an agenda right across government so that harnessed together government and business can build a new prosperity for our nation.

    Mr. President, let me say just a little more about each of those goals and I will turn first, if I may, to that crucial question of trade. We are traders in this country. We live by trade. Exports make up a third of our national income. We know above all that we need to win in the world’s market-place. Our trade deficit is substantial. Imports have risen and the recovery has only just begun. Time after time in the past, expansion at home has brought a further surge in imports whilst business has turned its back on the export challenge. Mr. President, in all our interests, that of the country, that of the shareholders, that of the businessmen, that of the future, we simply must not let that happen again and it is partly because of our concern about that that the Chancellor increased export cover by 1,300 million pounds in the Autumn Statement and the Budget. It is why we have cut the cost of export cover. It is why in this country we have got to have the best export services in the world. You, business, generously lent Michael Heseltine some of your best people to sharpen up the Department of Trade & Industry’ s export work here at home. I am grateful for that and every overseas embassy must put you at the top of their priorities and I promise you this – every embassy around the world now knows they have to put British business at the top of their priorities.

    But Mr. President, where are our export markets? They are of course all around the world but our main export market is Europe or rather perhaps it is now our home market. We have heard all about Britain selling televisions to Germany and lace to Brussels but traditional French suits to Paris, pizzas to Italy? Why not? As the old song says: “Anything you can do we can do better!” and across this country those are the sort of exports that enterprising British manufacturers are now sending abroad.

    And, of course, those opportunities are vital for us. We recognised that right from the moment we joined the European Community. That is why, whatever the difficulties, whatever sometimes the extreme difficulties, we have fought for a competitive Europe, one in which every country in the community is forced to obey the rules right across the Community and that is also why we fought to keep those rules to a minimum. It was why I was so determined to keep Britain free of the Social Chapter. The Single Market is the opportunity of a business lifetime. I don’t intend to let Brussels spoil it for Britain because our prosperity depends upon taking those opportunities.

    Of course, Mr. President, some of our European competitors complain. They don’t want Britain to become a magnet for investment, a seed-bed for growth, a haven for jobs but the answer is simple – Europe as a whole needs to keep its costs down and sharpen its competitive edge.

    Mr. President, I spoke of free trade. The need for free trade doesn’t just apply in Europe’s Single Market – it applies throughout the world – and yet for seven long years governments have been promising to complete a crucial round of negotiations to liberalise world trade. Each year, pledges have been published, each year the deadline has been allowed to slip. Mr. President, that simply cannot go on! We are past the eleventh hour and the strains are showing. Europe and the United States have twice in the past year come close to a damaging exchange of hostile protectionism that could easily escalate into a full-blown trade war. Twice, good sense and good negotiation have prevailed but only just prevailed.

    I welcome without a shred of reservation President Clinton’s commitment to completing the Uruguay Round. I believe in Leon Brittan we have the best possible negotiator. I hope Japanese Government will engage fully in the effort to secure a breakthrough on tariffs at the Tokyo summit this summer.

    Let me speak quite bluntly and frankly about this position: the test of good intentions can no longer be delayed. We need progress, not words; agreement, not dissent; decisions, not delay; we need a conclusion to the Uruguay Round and we need it this year.

    Mr. President, we need it for a raft of reasons. We need it not least of course because our manufacturers’ markets are at stake. There are huge potential gains in the GATT Round for our service industries as well but that of course is the bright side; that is the side of getting an agreement.

    There is a dark side too, the dark side of no agreement, and on the dark side the threat to our industries from so-called “managed trade”, the threat to competition from back-room deals between governments, the protectionist threat to our freedom and prosperity. All can and must be resisted until we get that agreement.

    Mr. President, I spoke of the partnership between Government and business. Sometimes, the best service Government can do for industry is not to do something but to undo something. Take regulation or rather, perhaps better, take it away! Now there is an idea for a Government service – a takeaway service, deregulation by another name.

    How many times do you hear people say: “It shouldn’t be allowed! The Government ought to put a stop to it!“ and how many times when the public presses Government to respond is the final result another form to fill, another reel of red tape, another restriction on trade and enterprise? Mr. President, business and Government must join together to fight the bias against regulation.

    So we have changed policy sharply, clearly and distinctly. In future, every time Whitehall prepares a nice little parliamentary Bill, it is going to have to tell us what the bill will be for you, what it is going to cost business to comply with the new rules proposed. The rule for Government in future is a simple one: “No Bill without the true bill!” and that I believe will help us cut down on regulation.

    But that is weed control for the future. We need to go a good deal further than that. We need to uproot the weeds that are already there choking enterprise. Michael Heseltine’s task forces of industrialists under the leadership of John Sainsbury are digging away already. We plan to legislate in the next session of Parliament to cut red tape. That means that you, business, must act fast to tell us where regulation is putting you at a competitive disadvantage, where it is excessive, where good intentions have turned into bad results but if you need it changed, tell us now and if I may be blunt again, there is no point in coming to tell me after we have presented the parliamentary Bill. I need to know soon so that we can draft changes in the Bill and make the changes that business believes are necessary.

    Mr. President, there are other ways in which we are seeking to change the old habits of Government. You often press us. Every time I see you, you rush up with Howard and grip me warmly by the throat. You often press us for further investment in infrastructure. But then you also press us to restrain public spending and borrowing. I agree. You are right, on both counts.

    Government needs to subject its services to the same severe tests you face. It is essential to keep public expenditure under control. This summer we are vigorously assessing our spending priorities. Like you, we cannot afford waste. Like you, we are market-testing our activities. Like you – in this year’s unified Budget – we are separating our capital programmes from our current spending. Like you, we must constantly be looking to see where money can be saved – where more can be done for less. And where less should be done by Government – more by the individual and the private sector.

    So let me make this request of you. As we will support you in your drive for efficiency, so we will look for your support in ours. But we can do more than back each other up. We can work together. That’s why I do not believe that the provision of infrastructure has to be restricted to the public sector. Now is your chance – in partnership – to get the infrastructure that you, the private sector, feel is important.

    Consider our history! Many of the great infrastructure projects were designed, built and funded by entrepreneurs. It was the private sector that built our canals, that laid the foundations of our railway system. More recently, it was the private sector that built the new Dartford bridge on time, on budget and very well too. It is the private sector that is behind the Birmingham northern relief road, the first privately-funded major road this century.

    We want to see the private sector fully involved in London’s Cross-rail project. We are determined to make sure the project is carried out as cost-effectively as possible and let me confirm tonight for those who may have had doubts that London Transport’s parliamentary Bill is going ahead in Parliament next month.

    Some people say that private finance won’t make a noticeable difference to our capital programmes. The City say differently. The City say that there already is something in excess of a billion pounds worth of private money available to support Crossrail and as President Reagan once memorably said: “A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you’ re talking real money!”. The Chief Secretary says something similar from time to time! Almost every time I see him, as I recall!

    Mr. President, it isn’t just physical capital that is important. Human capital is vital too. Tomorrow’s school-leavers will not be up to the jobs you are creating if they cannot read, write, calculate or spell. Government in Britain spends a higher share of our national wealth on education than either Germany or Japan and yet a third of those going into further education still need remedial help with English to get through their courses. Forty percent need help with numbers. Poor basic skills in literacy and numeracy cost you, business almost £5 billion a year. That, frankly, is a handicap Britain cannot afford. Schools cannot be a no-go zone for accountability and they cannot be a no-go zone for testing either in the future we are building.

    We British are a common sense people. We know that tests in schools are a necessary preparation for the tests that we all face in life. Britain is tested day by day in every market around the world and I want to see British workers top of the league tables of the world and that means the right education from the very first day each and every one of our children goes to school. And beyond school as well, because I know and you know that we can only do that by training our workforce throughout their lives. Education never again will stop at the school gate on the day the pupil leaves.

    Again, we need to set the right framework for the future turning the tattered patchwork quilt of vocational qualifications into a proper banner of progress, getting the best training for the best jobs and that is what tests and training credits are intended to do but I recognise that Government’s training effort can only be a fraction of industry’s own effort. Good businesses invest in their people, train them, develop them and as a result of that, they keep them as valuable employees for a very long time.

    I would like to pay my own tribute to the CBI who played a key role in the “Investors in People” initiative and I know that many of you here this evening are among the 3,000 organisations working to meet its demanding standards, organisations that include the public sector right up to its core in Whitehall and I expect more and more to take on that particular challenge. With Brian Wolfson spearheading the drive, we are now on track to meet our target for this initiative and tonight I am delighted that Bass Taverns represented by Charles Derby this evening have become the 250th investor in people. I hope we will soon increase that number many times over.

    Mr. President, right across industry we need to turn best practice into common practice. The best help smaller arms to grow, nurture their suppliers, even pay their bills on time! They adopt partnership-sourcing. You can always tell how many small firms are in the audience! They work together to offer the best possible deal for their customers and the best possible future for British industry as a whole.

    Innovation isn’t just about technology or about science but it depends on them and our scientists today are every bit as worthy in their own particular fields as were their great predecessors like Faraday or Fleming. They can’t be trammelled to think the state decree like some intellectual short-order cook but within our science base there is a cornucopia of ideas, of invention, of ingenuity just waiting to strengthen Britain’s competitiveness. Our job as Government is to help bring the best ideas out of the laboratory and into industry and William Waldegrave who is here this evening will shortly publish a White Paper on science and technology and his aim in that White Paper is quite clear, to help maintain and improve scientific and engineering skills and then to engage them in the creation of this nation’s wealth.

    We want all those changes that I have set out this evening and others besides that time has not permitted me to mention for one overwhelming, over-riding reason: I want to see this country hungry for excellence and thirsty for achievement. Those aren’t slogans to be discarded as recovery fades the economy out of the daily news headlines; they are imperative for all our futures. We must have the confidence to compare and to compete and beat our competitors around the world and we won’t do that – we shouldn’t do it – by asking where our competitors are today or where we were yesterday. Let them ask that about us! We should ask where we want to be by the turn of the century and some of our aims are clear. We should lift our eyes beyond the immediate horizon of next week, next month, next year to look at what is going to happen during the rest of this hugely competitive decade.

    The search for high and rising productivity must be continuous. Firm control of costs is needed; a well-educated workforce ready for high-quality training is essential; an economic environment of low inflation and hence low interest rates; a wealth-creating economy, free from the burdens of over-regulation and high taxation.

    Mr. President, not one of our competitors is standing still, not one of our competitors will stand back for us. It is up to us, the people here in this room and your colleagues in business from one end of the country to the other, it is up to us, all of us in partnership, to help Britain get that step ahead and keep that step ahead and if we do it, if we can achieve it, if we can develop this new culture that you can sense happening in British industry and commerce day after day, then the prospects for our country, our future, this generation and the next are very bright indeed. We must set as our ambition to enter the new millennium at the forefront of achievement, a nation respected for what it contributes, admired for its standards and emulated for its practices. That must be the aim to which all of us must dedicate ourselves.

    Mr. President, today we are laying secure foundations for sustained recovery. Tomorrow, we must build on them as we face this hugely competitive future.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Chevening House

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list and describe the items belonging to Chevening house which were auctioned on 10 May with their reserve price and the amounts which were received for each item at the auction.

    The Prime Minister : The disposal of items of property from Chevening house is a matter for the trustees and not the Government. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal is the ex-officio chairman of the Chevening trustees and I will arrange for him to write to the hon. Member.

     

    Security Services

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to make the security services the subject of an annual debate in Parliament on the basis of an annual report; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : There will be an opportunity for Parliament to debate such matters when legislation on the secret intelligence service and the Government communications headquarters is brought forward.

     

    Salman Rushdie

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list (a) the place, time and date when he met Salman Rushdie and (b) the length of the meeting; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I met Mr. Rushdie at the House of Commons on 11 May for about 40 minutes. Mr. Rushdie briefed me about the problems he faced and his approach to them. I underlined the Government’s full support for Mr. Rushdie’s fundamental rights as a British citizen and expressed concern that the Iranian authorities had failed to repudiate the incitement to his murder in the “fatwa” and the bounty which an Iranian organisation had offered. Mr. Rushdie expressed appreciation of the Government’s support for him. The United Kingdom has a deep respect for Islam. I believe that Iran’s behaviour towards Mr. Rushdie has done a disservice to that great religion.

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 18 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : Has my right hon. Friend, in his busy schedule, had time to see a report of the National Consumer Council about international trade, which states that the dice are loaded against the consumer by the European Commission trade barriers and regulations which are costing billions of pounds extra every year, including £230 on a car, or £750 if it is imported into the Community, more than £1.2 billion extra on electronic goods and £17 per week on my grocery bill every time I push my trolley around Tesco? [Interruption.] Yes, and Norma. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House and, more important, consumers outside the House that he will stamp on that tremendous waste and tell the European Community to put its house in order? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister.

    Mrs. Gorman : I have not finished yet.

    Madam Speaker : As far as I am concerned, the hon. Lady has finished.

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend that reducing trade barriers does lead to lower prices and economic growth. That is why, above all, we want to get the negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade completed–to bring down tariffs and barriers in order to increase trade to the benefit of both the industrialised and the non- industrialised world. As to the European Community, to which my hon. Friend made passing mention, the single market should remove trade barriers within the Community. I very much hope that it will live up to its expectations. It was a British initiative, negotiated by a British Prime Minister and concluded by a British Prime Minister.

    Mr. John Smith : May I, on behalf of the Opposition, express our whole-hearted sympathy to the parents and families of the victims of Beverly Allitt? Does the Prime Minister appreciate the full extent of the anger and apprehension among parents throughout the nation at the fact that it was possible in one of our hospitals for a nurse with a known psychiatric disorder to destroy the lives of children in her care? In view of the appalling negligence which has obviously occurred, why have the Government refused to have a full public inquiry, with the powers to require the evidence of witnesses to be given on oath and to compel the disclosure of all documents?

    The Prime Minister : First, may I say that I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s sympathy for the parents. I know that that view is echoed across the House. The main thing about this inquiry–and this, too, will be generally shared–is to have one that will be most likely to get at the truth and to ensure that, in the future, there is no likelihood of a repetition. We take the view that the inquiry to be conducted by Sir Cecil Clothier is likely to be the most effective. Sir Cecil has taken the view– this is an important matter for the House to consider–and said this afternoon : “In my view, people will be more willing to speak frankly to my inquiry than to a public inquiry.”

    I share that view and I believe that, on that basis, it is right to proceed with the inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Cecil.

    Mr. Smith : No one doubts the competence or integrity of Sir Cecil Clothier, but how can he know whether people will be willing to give evidence? Surely, in the public interest, we should have an inquiry with the fullest powers. Does the Prime Minister not take into account the fact that the parents of the children concerned and the majority of the nursing staff want a full public inquiry so that nothing can be concealed? What is wrong with such a reasonable request?

    The Prime Minister : Sir Cecil has agreed to see the parents of the children, and that is welcome– [Interruption.] If Sir Cecil wishes to have further powers, he will come back and seek them from the Government, and we will provide them. I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Sir Cecil, as a former Parliamentary Commissioner for Health, not only commands the confidence of the House but has a great deal of experience in this area. I am happy to accept his judgment on what is the most appropriate way to carry out the inquiry that he is set to chair.

    I must also tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman–because I know that he will regard this as important, too–that there has already been a lengthy public trial which has brought many of the key facts to light. There has been an independent inquiry into the quality of management. In addition, Sir Cecil is now heading an independent inquiry into events at the hospital. If he needs further powers, he will come and ask us for them.

    Mr. Smith : Should not the nature of the powers be a matter for the Government’s responsibility, not a matter for Sir Cecil Clothier? Was not the trial concerned with quite different issues than what is concerned here– [Interruption.] –and is it not inappropriate

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Smith : Is it not inappropriate– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. Smith : Is it not inappropriate for the inquiry to be set up and to be asked to report to the very regional health authority whose own actions may be a subject of the inquiry? Is it not totally unsatisfactory, as a solicitor for the parents has pointed out, that the Secretary of State for Health has apparently given more weight to the wishes of the health authority than to those of the parents of the children? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that, on reflection, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be ashamed of some of the things he just said. We want a rigorous and swift inquiry. We want an inquiry that will deal with the most important aspect of all, which is one that gets at the truth, not one that just raises party political points. My right hon. Friend has established such an inquiry– [Interruption.] –and she has appointed to head it someone with unique experience of the nature of the events. That man who is heading the inquiry has himself said that he believes that the people attending it will be more willing to speak freely to his inquiry than to a public inquiry. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not accept that advice.

     

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

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

    Mr. Hendry : In between the cheap jibes of Opposition Members, has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the report into the future of local government in Derbyshire published yesterday? Is he aware of the massive local opposition to the proposal that the whole county should be divided into two vast unitary authorities? Does he share the view of Conservative Members that local government should be as close as possible to the people it represents and that there is not, and never could be, any shared sense of community between my constituents and those in Chesterfield or, dare I say it, Bolsover?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend that, as far as possible, the structure of local government should reflect local tradition and a local sense of community. That is, of course, one of the main points of the present inquiry. With regard to the Derbyshire inquiry, as my hon. Friend says, the Local Government Commission preference is for two unitary authorities. However, I understand that it has also put forward alternative solutions. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to make his views clear to the commission.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government’s policy of encouraging the reduction in the payment of benefits across post office counters will, it is calculated, result in the closure of up to 5,000 local rural post offices? Will the Prime Minister tell the House that he is now prepared to reconsider that foolish policy?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Gentleman thinks of a number and then doubles it for domestic consumption. I am surprised that he raises that matter today. I direct him to the answer that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs gave in the House a day or so ago. He said, for the avoidance of doubt,

    “we are committed to the maintenance of a viable network of post offices”,

    including rural post offices. Pensioners will continue to be able to receive their pensions from the post office. We have encouraged them to make payments into their banks on a voluntary basis. But it is

    “not Government policy to remove the right of pensioners to receive their pensions from the post office.”–[ Official Report, 13 May 1993, Vol. 224, c. 1035.]

    Mr. William Powell : Does my right hon. Friend agree that this year’s public expenditure review is likely to be one of the toughest on record and that any restraint there must be in public expenditure must be shared to the fullest extent by local authorities as well as by Whitehall? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities would be wise to plan on the basis of no real growth in expenditure for the next financial year and that the Government are prepared to back up their policies by the fullest use of their capping powers?

    The Prime Minister : We certainly have to consider the range of public expenditure, both centrally and for local government, in the public expenditure discussions that will begin very shortly. Those discussions will be concluded soon and we will make our views known to local authorities and others. On the general principle, my hon. Friend is clearly right to believe that we need to restrain public expenditure in the interests of the economy as a whole.

     

    Q3. Mr. William O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

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

    Mr. O’Brien : Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious and grave concern of all housing associations about the cut in Government resources for affordable housing? Is he also aware that if that policy continues, rents will rise sky high and people will not be able to afford housing? Is he prepared to listen to housing associations in relation to their concerns about affordable housing and will he also listen to local authorities which have the resources, finances and ability to provide affordable housing?

    The Prime Minister : We have not in the past only listened to the Housing Corporation and to housing associations ; we have acted on the basis of what they have had to say to us. In 1992-93, we spent more than £2.3 billion on the Housing Corporation, £350 million or so through estate action and more than £1.6 billion through local authorities. We have also provided specific help for the homeless, with nearly £100 million over the past three financial years and £86 million made available over the next three financial years. As a result of the measures that we have taken throughout the past decade, there are more home owners than ever before ; council tenants have more control over their own estates–I know that that is not popular with Opposition Members–the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless people has been cut by 38 per cent. ; the rise in mortgage repossessions has been reversed ; and the number of people sleeping rough in central London has more than halved. Why did the hon. Gentleman mention none of that?

    Mr. Hayes : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Italian people got it absolutely right when they rejected proportional representation through the ballot box? Does he believe that those people who are rather cynically toying with the idea are doing that simply because it is the only way in which they will get their sticky little fingers on the levers of power?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that, and I know that I have a lot of support on the Opposition Benches for that particular view. Last year, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said :

    “Any move on electoral reform by Labour would be interpreted as defeatist.”

     

    Q4. Mr. Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Will the Prime Minister now tell the House which of the technical reasons that make it impossible to privatise Northern Ireland water within the lifetime of this Parliament do not apply to Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : We are still considering the consultation in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I think that it is better to reply after we have considered all the consultation.

    Mr. Matthew Banks : Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain has been entirely right to reject calls for further substantial military action in the Bosnian region? Such action would lead to guerrilla warfare, substantial loss of life and–given recent comments–bomb outrages on the streets of London without any furtherance of the peacemaking process or helping to find a permanent solution to the problem.

    The Prime Minister : There are many complex difficulties to be solved in the particular problems faced in Bosnia. I believe that the stance that we have taken, which has been shared by many of our allies, has been entirely the right stance in Bosnia. We continue to work with our allies towards a series of objectives. I hope that we will soon be able to bring permanent peace to that area.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 May 1993

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Data Protection

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister to what investigations his Office has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his office to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

    The Prime Minister : My office has not been subject to any such investigations by the Data Protection Registrar.

     

    Defence Work

    Mr. Devlin : To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives he is co-ordinating to encourage the allocation of defence work and related employment to the north of England and Scotland.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement on Friday 14 May at column 603.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 May 1993

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Nuclear Tests

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister when he now expects the report by the National Radiological Protection Board into the effects of radiation on veterans of British nuclear tests to be published; how this relates to the original envisaged publication date; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The National Radiological Protection Board anticipates that a report will be sent for peer review to a recognised scientific journal in the late summer or early autumn of 1993, with a view to publication as soon as possible thereafter later in the year.

    Delays have been caused by changes in scope made by the National Radiological Protection Board to update their final report. These changes include the incorporation of all deaths of participants up to 1 January 1991 rather than 1 January 1989 as originally envisaged and of a detailed case study into the effects of emigration and a more complete check of mortality and cause of death.

    The Government are not aware of any evidence which would change the conclusions of the National Radiological Protection Board report published in 1988 that the overall incidence of cancer among nuclear test participants is no greater than that among the population as a whole.

     

    Child Migrant Trust

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister when he received the letter of 4 May from Nottinghamshire county council regarding the Child Migrant Trust; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The letter was received on 6 May and was acknowledged.

     

    Ms Beata Brookes

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister what reference he has made to the public appointments unit in relation to the appointment of Ms Beata Brookes as chairman of the Welsh Consumer Council in 1991; what account he has taken of whether the chairman of the Wales area of the Conservative and Unionist party carries out executive duties; and how his policy on such appointments has changed since his answer of 28 November 1991, Official Report, column 608.

    The Prime Minister : The public appointments unit is consulted in seeking nominations for all appointments to public boards, including the chairmanship of the Welsh Consumer Council, as are a number of other bodies. As chairwoman of the Wales area of the Conservative and Unionist party, Miss Brookes is not an officer carrying out executive duties in the party. Her role does not, therefore, conflict with the long-standing and now publicly available guidelines for members of public boards on political activities. This is in line with the answer I gave on 28 November at column 608.