The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1993

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Family Perspective and Life Cycle

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister how the Government co-ordinate the way Departments put the family perspective and the life cycle into social and economic policy.

    The Prime Minister : The family is central to social and economic policy. The implications for the family are fully considered by each Department in developing and operating its policies. Where policies cross the boundaries of departmental responsibility, these matters are discussed either directly between Departments or through specific inter-departmental groups and committees.

     

    Privatised Companies

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will amend “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” so as to advise Ministers responsible for future privatisations that they should not subsequently accept paid positions on the boards of the privatised companies.

    The Prime Minister : No. Such guidance is neither necessary nor appropriate. Former Ministers should make their own judgments about potential conflicts of interest, as other Members of Parliament do.

     

    Lord Lieutenants and High Sheriffs

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what are the qualifications for nomination as lord lieutenant or high sheriff.

    The Prime Minister : The only formal qualification required of lord lieutenants and high sheriffs is that the latter must own land in the county in which they are to hold office, but by custom both lord lieutenants and high sheriffs are expected to be based in their counties.

     

    Pit Closures

    Mr. Tipping : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure that a co-ordinated response is made to areas where collieries are under threat of closure.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Walker has been appointed to co-ordinate the regeneration effort in areas under threat of colliery closures. In all areas arrangements are in place to pull together the efforts of all relevant bodies : these include Government Departments, English Estates, training and enterprise councils, British Coal Enterprise, regional development organisations and local authorities.

     

    Full Employment

    Mr. Soley : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 2 March, Official Report, column 138, if he will define the full employment that he seeks to achieve.

    The Prime Minister : The Government pursue policies designed to achieve high levels of employment, consistent with low inflation. Measures to make the labour market competitive, flexible and efficient are an essential part of this.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Civil List

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for those payments to members of the royal family made through the civil list to be subject to audit and scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

    The Prime Minister : The payments of the annuities to members of the royal family from the Consolidated Fund are already subject to National Audit Office audit. Her Majesty the Queen has agreed to refund those costs, except for the annuities for the Queen Mother and the Duke of Edinburgh.

     

    Market Testing

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what is the highest rank in the civil service or Government to which market testing will be applied.

    Prime Minister : Market testing could apply in principle to any suitable activity and would, therefore, affect staff at any grade in market tested areas.

     

    Nuclear Tests

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received on nuclear testing during his recent visit to Washington.

    The Prime Minister : During my visit I received one letter about nuclear testing from a United States congressman.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 February, Official Report, column 671, if he will list the titles of the papers his office has made available to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister : No. It would not be appropriate to do so.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Honours System – 4 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made in the House of Commons on 4th March 1993 on the subject of the honours system.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the honours system and to announce some changes, which have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen. The award of honours for service and achievement has been a valued part of British life for centuries. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Would the Prime Minister allow me? Would those Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly? We want to continue with our business here.

    The Prime Minister : Let me begin again for those hon. Members who may not have heard what I was saying in the hubbub.

    With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the honours system and to announce some changes which have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen.

    The award of honours for service and achievement has been a valued part of British life for centuries. It is the means by which we, as a nation, can show our respect and gratitude to those who have contributed most to our national life. Acts of courage, lives of sacrifice, inventiveness, generosity and commitment to others are formally recognised and acknowledged. It is rooted in our history, and given special value by the close personal attention which the sovereign has given to it. To retain its valued role in our national life, the honours system must, from time to time, be reviewed and renewed.

    The present system has remained largely unchanged for 70 years, despite huge changes in national life. I have therefore been discussing with Her Majesty some changes that will, I believe, enjoy widespread support.

    I wish to start by clarifying the circumstances in which honours awards should be made.

    First, honours should be awarded on merit, for exceptional achievement or exceptional service, over and above that which normally might be expected. Secondly, there should be different levels of award to reflect different levels of achievement. Thirdly, awards should not be automatic and follow simply as a result of doing a particular job. Fourthly, awards should place more emphasis on voluntary service.

    I therefore propose to end the recommendation of honours where they are given solely by seniority or on appointment. In future, with one exception I shall turn to in a moment, there should be no assumption that honours will automatically be attached to particular posts in either the public or the private sector.

    Public servants and office holders will, of course, still be eligible to receive honours, and many will qualify on merit, but the assumption that a particular post automatically carries an honour will end. Instead, awards will be open–on merit–to a wider range of individuals.

    I intend that these principles should be applied throughout the civil service and the rest of the public sector, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence concur in respect of the foreign service and the armed forces.

    I also intend the same principles to apply in the private sector. Many people give generously of their time, energy and expertise to help their fellow citizens, and a more flexible system can take greater account of such contributions. While heads of particular organisations can no longer expect an honour just because their predecessor received one, they will, of course, continue to be eligible if their achievement and their service to the community merit it. I propose to continue making recommendations for political service, and I shall apply the same principles there, too. I mentioned earlier one exception. The independence of the judiciary is fundamental to our legal system. Awards of honours should not be thought to depend upon approval of legal judgments. For that reason, I believe that High Court judges should continue to receive the traditional honour of a knighthood on appointment. This practice has preserved the independence of the Bench from the exercise of patronage for two centuries, and I believe it should continue.

    I should now like to turn to specific awards where I have some changes to announce. The largest proportion by far of current awards are MBEs and BEMs, mainly for service to local communities. The distinction between service meriting the award of an MBE and that meriting a British Empire Medal has become increasingly tenuous. It can no longer be sustained. I therefore intend in future to increase the number of recommendations for MBEs and to discontinue recommending awards of BEMs. I should make it clear that this change will not affect existing holders of the BEM, who will of course retain their medals. These are, rightly, highly treasured personal possessions.

    The change will also apply to the lists recommended by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Governments of those Commonwealth countries that recommend British Empire Medals in their own lists have been informed of these proposals.

    To end a similar distinction in the Imperial Service Order, I shall no longer make recommendations for awards of the ISO. Those considered to merit the award will instead receive OBEs. The associated Imperial Service Medal is a long-service medal awarded on retirement and will continue.

    At present, those receiving the BEM do not attend a royal investiture. For the future, the Queen has graciously agreed to increase the number of investitures both at Buckingham palace and elsewhere in the country. This will enable the increased numbers receiving MBEs to attend a royal investiture, though the Queen will not be able to conduct all investitures herself. I realise, however, that some may value a local presentation which gives greater opportunity for friends and family to mark the occasion. Her Majesty has, therefore, agreed that those awarded MBEs, OBEs or CBEs may receive their honour from their lord lieutenant if they prefer. The choice will rest entirely with the recipient.

    I turn now to military gallantry awards. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is separately conducting a review, and will be announcing his conclusions shortly. But there is one change I can announce today. At present, except for the Victoria Cross, awards for gallantry are linked to the rank of the recipient. Officers are eligible to receive crosses or equivalent decorations, but non-commissioned ranks are eligible only for medals. The time has come to end this distinction. In future, the level of award will be determined by the part played by the individuals concerned, and the courage they displayed, without regard to their rank.

    At present, the numbers and distribution of honours are reviewed every five years. However, I have requested that the next examination of these numbers be brought forward to the summer of this year. I have asked the review, first, to take greater account of the desirability of recognising work in the voluntary sector and service to the community; secondly, to look at the proportion of awards to state servants to ensure that it appropriately reflects changes in the role and the size of the home civil service, the diplomatic service and the armed forces.

    Finally, I believe that the means of nomination for honours should be more widely known and more open. It is, at present, too haphazard. Nomination forms, setting out the type of information needed, have therefore been prepared. I will make sure that the forms are readily available both to members of the public and particularly to voluntary bodies and charities. I hope that this change will help increase the recognition of merit of all kinds.

    The honours system has been with us for centuries and has a continuing and valued role to play in British life. I strongly support it, but it is right that it should periodically be examined. The changes that I have announced today mean that exceptional service or achievement will be more widely recognised; that greater importance will be given to voluntary service; that automatic honours will end; that the distinction between ranks in military operational gallantry awards will cease; that the bulk of honours in the half-yearly lists will be of a single, undifferentiated award, the MBE; that all recipients of honours will be invited to a royal investiture.

    I shall report to the House in due course on the review of the numbers and distribution of honours, and I shall consider at that time whether further changes are needed.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Agricultural Surpluses

    Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the availability of facilities within the EC to store agricultural surpluses.

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

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

    The Prime Minister : This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

     

    Marriage Counselling

    Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister what steps are taken to co-ordinate the work of the United Kingdom Departments of the Scottish and Welsh Offices concerned with Relate; and if he will make a statement on the grants for Relate for future years.

    The Prime Minister [pursuant to his reply, 8 February 1993, c. 421] : The last two sentences should have read

    “The Scottish Office provides a grant to Marriage Counselling Scotland. In 1993-94 this will amount to £87,288, an increase of one and a half per cent. compared with 1992-93.”

  • PMQT – 4 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Helen Jackson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

    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.

    Mrs. Jackson : Does the Prime Minister recall telling Parliament in 1989 :

    “I take my own share of responsibility It is not something I seek to heap upon my predecessor”?

    Is he today going to blame Baroness Thatcher for the disastrous damage done to manufacturing industry while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    The Prime Minister : As it happens, my right hon. and noble Friend did more to help British industry than the Labour party has ever done. If the hon. Lady would like an illustration of that, in the 1980s the number of manufacturing companies rose from 144,000 to 165, 000. I will provide the hon. Lady with a long list of other improvements, should she wish to have it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Rowe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

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

    Mr. Rowe : In every year of this Conservative Government the Home Office has paid for and researched very carefully experiments using voluntary organisations and others to rehabilitate young offenders. That research has consistently demonstrated a very much better rate of recovery than any other method used. [Interruption.] Every time these experiments have shown–

    Madam Speaker : Order. I have not yet heard a question from the hon. Gentleman. I have heard statements, but no question. I now need a question.

    Mr. Rowe : Is my right hon. Friend aware that every time these experiments are shown to be a success the Home Office funding is withdrawn? Will he make certain that, when such experiments are shown to be successful, Government expenditure is maintained to enable them to continue?

    The Prime Minister : The Home Office always monitors the performance of the projects that it funds to ensure the value for money and efficiency of those projects. Where the projects are efficient, there is a possibility of extending funding for longer than the three-year period.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister explain what he meant when he said that he was a minority in his predecessor’s Administration? Is it not deeply revealing about the Prime Minister that, having run out of excuses for the abject failure of his Government’s economic policies, he is now trying to pin the blame on his predecessor, in whose Government he was responsible for economic policy both as Chief Secretary and as Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is very predictable. He is also misled yet again by newspaper reports, having not read the transcript of the interview. He really should give up reading newspapers ; I recommend it to him. If he had read the source material, he would have read that the question put to me was that the idea got about in the 1980s that making things was not so important. It was not my view, not my right hon. and noble Friend’s view, and not the view of the then Government.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister surely cannot complain about being misrepresented in interviews that he himself gives. Is he aware that in that interview he complained about what he called an inheritance of 15 per cent. interest rates and 11 per cent. inflation? Who does he think was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the preceding years? If we are to make sense of the Prime Minister, does he not understand that he means that he inherited them from himself?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being very slow. I shall explain the whole matter to him again. I suggest that he reads the transcript of the interview. As I explained to him a moment ago, I disagreed with the view put to me by the interviewer, as would my right hon. and noble Friend have disagreed with it. So far as interest rates are concerned, I was referring to the legacy of the recession that we are curing and which has now hit every other nation in Europe.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why a Chancellor of the Exchequer has nothing to do with a recession that occurs in his period of office? Since he has been Prime Minister for more than two years, and since the right hon. and noble Lady is no longer here, why are we still losing 25,000 jobs every month in manufacturing industry and £136 billion in investment under his Administration? It has nothing to do with anyone else.

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. and learned Gentleman utterly fails to realise–which is why he remains on the Opposition Benches –is that what needs to be done to put this country in the right position for growth is what we have done. The last time there was 1.7 per cent. inflation was more than 25 years ago. Interest rates are now lower than anywhere else in the European Community.

    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were more aware of the position of manufacturing, he would know that exports are up on manufacturing. Capital spending on manufacturing is up. Compared with 10 years ago, there is exceptional growth in engineering, chemicals and other manufacturing. When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman stop talking this country down and start talking it up?

    Sir Dudley Smith : Is my right hon. Friend aware that his sensible policies on the Bosnia-Herzegovina civil war are amply confirmed by current events?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The important matter in the Bosnian war is to give every support one can to the peace talks in New York. They are crucial. They are the only realistic way of achieving real peace, and I very much welcome the Muslim agreement to a document on the cessation of hostilities. There still remains great difficulty in getting agreement on the map, but it is essential that all parties remain at those negotiations and negotiate seriously until we have a satisfactory agreement and the end of this bitter and nasty conflict.

     

    Q3. Mr. Leighton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

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

    Mr. Leighton : No one has spoken more graphically and poignantly about the evils of unemployment than the Prime Minister. Does he recall talking about what he called his “dole hell”, searching for work every day when he was unemployed for 12 months as a 19-year-old in Brixton? Is he aware that in 1962 there was one unemployed person for each vacancy but now there are hundreds? Does he agree that a full employment society is a good society, but that the mass unemployment society over which he is presiding is an evil society? Now that he is Prime Minister, what steps will he take to put the aim of full employment at the top of his agenda?

    The Prime Minister : The first essentials for making sure that we have a society that has full employment are low inflation, low interest rates and the right supply side policy for growth. The right way to make sure that we have skills is to put in place the training programmes that we have put in place, each one of which has been opposed by the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Heald : Does my right hon. Friend agree with Lord Prior’s comments yesterday that the conditions are now in place for British manufacturing exporters to perform better? Will he join me in congratulating the firms in north Hertfordshire that are doing just that, in particular Lucas CEL of Hitchin which is launching its new export product today?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am certainly happy to give my support to those particular projects. We have remarkable opportunities in front of us at the present time, as we find that we are hugely competitive in terms of the cuts in costs that we have seen in the past few years. We need to ensure that on this occasion, even though we have captured export markets, we do not surrender those for the returning home market. We need to keep the domestic market and continue to press ahead with further export markets.

     

    Q4. Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

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

    Mr. Matthew Taylor : Does the Prime Minister agree that the people and businesses of the south-west and especially Cornwall–the poorest county in the whole of the country–cannot be expected to pay the highest water and electricity prices? What hope can he offer those people of a fair deal, given that he has already told them that he will give them no special help?

    The Prime Minister : I think that if the hon. Gentleman looks he will find that the water prices to which he refers are similar in other counties to those in the west country. There is a substantial need to improve the water quality and supply in the west country and also, not least because of the importance of the tourist industry, to improve the bathing waters and other tourist facilities. That is a significant reason for the present level of water charges.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton : Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 300 Members of this House and of the other place recently attended an exhibition of obscene material that had been seized under the Obscene Publications Act 1959? Is he aware that Members were deeply shocked by what they saw and believe that the Obscene Publications Act needs urgent review? Will he accept the invitation that I have written to him to view the material privately so that he may reach his own informed conclusion about what action needs to be taken to clean up this free market in filth?

    The Prime Minister : I have had a report of the particular material to which my hon. Friend refers. I am aware of the nature of it and how offensive it will be to most Members of this House and most people in this country. I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage to consider what options exist for taking action against it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Purchase : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

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

    Mr. Purchase : Does the Prime Minister realise that the people of the west midlands, once the workshop of the world but where now more than a quarter of a million people have been made unemployed in the past 13 years, will take no comfort from the fact that he appears to have gone along with the loss of their jobs? Does he think that they will understand him a little less and condemn him a little more?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the historic importance of the west midlands to manufacturing. He has neglected to mention the assistance in the autumn statement on capital allowances, car tax–very important to the west midlands–and maintained capital expenditure. He has utterly overlooked the lead that this country has taken in seeking a solution to the general agreement on tariffs and trade round, which is vital to the west midlands. He has also overlooked the primary importance of the motor car industry, which was in disarray some years ago under his party’s Government but is now a net exporter and increasingly profitable.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery : Has my right hon. Friend noticed that new car registrations are up 16 per cent. compared with a year ago? Is that not good news? Does he not think it strange that every time the economic news is good, the faces opposite get longer? Is it not time the Opposition stopped talking this country down?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that, and it is a point which I have made in recent days. The increase in car registration is welcome news. It is a continuing trend over recent months. The only people who benefit from talking Britain down are our competitors. I hope that that is understood by every right hon. and hon. Member.

     

    Q6. Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

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

    Mr. Kirkwood : The Prime Minister is right to give priority to the manufacturing sector of business in Britain, particularly small businesses, but what does he have in mind? Is he prepared to reduce the burden of rates which apply particularly to small businesses? Is he prepared, for instance, to allow small businesses to add statutory interest to bills that are overdue for undue periods of time? There is a long list of tangible things that the Prime Minister could do to give real physical expression to the words that he uttered recently in his interview in the national press. What tangible, concrete things has he in mind?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman had been listening a few moments ago, I listed a number of them to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). As to other matters, he must wait and see.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Walpole Committee Conference – 3 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Walpole Committee Conference, held on Wednesday 3rd March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Lord Chairman, thank you very much indeed. I must say I can’t think of anywhere more splendid to start the day and I congratulate you on choosing this magnificent venue for today’s occasion.

    It does seem to me in a number of ways to be a very appropriate venue when one considers what you’re doing. The Royal Society, perhaps I think for something over 200 years has represented the very best of British creativity, represented the very best of British quality and that as I understand it is precisely the objective that you have set yourselves and your Committee and of course it was the Royal Society in 1851 that organised the Great Exhibition. But what was essentially the purpose of the Great Exhibition. It was to show the world the excellence of the products that we had in Britain and in what then we knew as the British Empire. So in every sense it’s an appropriate place for you to meet and I think if I may say it’s an appropriate time for this particular Committee to be formed. I hope you won’t consider it too inappropriate that you’ve invited me to be your first and brief, you may be pleased know, first and brief speaker at this Conference.

    Your Committee’s named after Britain’s first Prime Minister. It is perhaps a first I think for the private sector to get together in quite this fashion in order to seek quite the promotional attributes that you have set yourself. Walpole of course is an interesting person to be the title of your Committee. You may not perhaps know that, but in the Cabinet Room, immediately behind my chair, sits a large portrait of Sir Robert Walpole, the first occupant of Downing Street. I must confess occasionally seeing him sitting there surveying what we do and no doubt noting all that we say, one does occasionally wonder what he might think about the changes in politics in the couple of hundred years and heaven alone knows what he would have made of Prime Minister’s Questions. He may perhaps be grateful that in his day they didn’t exist.

    But it is a pleasure to be here and I say that not simply as a matter of routine, I say that because of the central purpose of the Walpole Committee. It is a purpose to which I profoundly subscribe, that British products are among the best in the world and can compete with the best in the world. Not only can compete, the fact of the matter is we have no choice but to make sure they compete and compete successfully in what is going to be the most competitive decade for business that any of us have ever seen.

    So that attitude that we can compete and we must compete, it is undoubtedly an attitude that each and every British firm and each and every British worker will need to take to heart if they are to play their own particular part in securing Britain’s economic recovery. Producing quality is not an optional extra in the 1990s. It is absolutely central to our success and the sooner that is sunk deep into the sub-conscious of everybody involved with British industry and British politics the better it will be for all of us. So there are a raft of reasons why I particularly welcome the foundation of this particular Committee. It is a very welcome recognition, a timely recognition, that we can’t rely on the excellence of British products to speak for themselves. We need to speak for them, we need to stress how good they are, we should miss no opportunity to do so. We now face an intensity of competition from abroad, far greater than anything we’ve experienced before. There was a time when we could look round at the Commonwealth, the Empire, other countries and we’d see very soft markets for British exports. Don’t believe for a second that those markets exist in the same fashion these days. Countries to which we would readily sell, now manufacture themselves and challenge our markets. Right the way across the Pacific rim there are now extremely competitive manufacturers that didn’t exist just a few years ago. The acute competitive dilemmas forced by the growth of Japan’s trade in the last 20 years and the almost certain growth of China’s influence in manufacturing in the world in the next 20 years are just an indication of the fact that we cannot take export markets for granted and for many British firms success at home simply will not be possible if they ignore the competition from abroad.

    There is a problem that we have seen time and time again as we have gone through an economic downturn. We have an economic downturn, British firms see a depressed domestic market, they sell abroad and they sell abroad quite successfully. We move back into the upturn and on too many occasions too many firms have then gone back to the domestic easy British market and ignored the possibilities abroad. Now one of our central objectives as we move out of this recession is to make sure that on this occasion we do not lose the impetus to export simply because the British domestic market revives. We need both, we need to supply the domestic market, not least as import substitution but also for companies individual profitability, but we also need to continue our penetration of export markets. With interest rates at their present level, with inflation at their present level, with a hugely competitive exchange rate we have a remarkable opportunity to penetrate deep into world markets in a way we have not seen for very many years. Our job collectively, yours, mine, is to make sure that we actually take the advantage that is there and penetrate in those markets and keep those markets and we frankly will not do so nor will we deserve to do so unless we produce the quality products that increasingly people demand around the world. We have them, we should trumpet the fact that we have them and we should go on exporting.

    The second reason perhaps for welcoming the launch of this Committee is because you’ve pulled together in it a very remarkable and powerful group representing the best of Britain. The list of your members, the members of the Walpole Committee, makes very impressive reading indeed. There are names representing a broad cross-section of British industry. Representing the quality of British goods and services. I think therefore that what you have is a very remarkable example of a private industry initiative. I’ve no wish in saying that to excuse Government from its responsibility to industry but like you I believe, I recognise that nothing the Government can do, however benevolent, however well-intentioned, can match the potential of the whole of private industry working together. It is therefore vital you do work together and I hope this Committee will be a catalyst to extend the work that you have commenced.

    But there is I think perhaps, a third and even more important reason why I welcome the launch of the Walpole Committee. It’s because, it is I believe, potentially a very important counter to that very curious British disease of talking down our own prospects and talking down our own country. I’ve said it before and I will go on saying it. I am constantly amazed at how many pessimists attempt to paint a picture of a nation in decline when it is an utterly false and unrealistic picture. Messages of gloom by themselves don’t matter. But when those messages of gloom knock Britain and then damage our prospects as a trading nation, then they do matter and that is a matter of great importance to me and a matter of great importance to British industry and the fact of the matter is, that what the pessimists say is not true and ought not to go unchallenged. We shouldn’t accept it, we should not allow the British instinct for self-deprecation to undermine our confidence, undermine our prospects, when it’s utterly clear that our success depends at least in part, in building up our own confidence and our own self-confidence. It is utterly the wrong thing to do in the interests of British industry and commerce.

    Though I believe your Committee will play an important role in seeking to promote the best of Britain. I hope you will be aggressive in doing that. Be gentlemanly by all means, but not too gentlemanly. Don’t miss the opportunity to remind people when we’re the best, when our products are the best. No other country, no other salesmen, no other groups in other nations will neglect the opportunity to push their country’s interests time after time after time and neither should we. Perhaps we played at being gentlemen in industry and commerce perhaps a little too long. We need to join the players and we need to make sure that we take every opportunity to promote our own interests fairly, not unfairly, not through unfair subsidies, but fairly in terms of international trade. I certainly will do that. I certainly propose to follow the pilot of taking businessmen abroad with me when I visit appropriate countries in the hope that it will help to open doors to contracts and opportunities for British business and I hope you will be equally aggressive in selling the best of Britain abroad as well.

    We have a lot to sell. Don’t let anyone pretend otherwise for a second. We can promote the fact for example that manufacturing productivity last year grew by almost 6 per cent amongst the fastest in Europe. We can promote the fact that exports are now at a record level and have been rising for some months. We can promote the fact that our inflation rate is at its lowest level since 1967, our interest rates at their lowest level since 1977 and equally important our interest rate level is now the lowest in the European Community where we see so many of our markets and so much of our competition.

    Those are opportunities to be taken. I know that this morning I don’t need to preach to you about the success of Britain. You’re here to contribute to that success. Amongst your membership are a large number of success stories. It’s invidious always to single out some. But I think if I may be forgiven for doing so, it does tend to illustrate how wrong the pessimists are. Let me take two or three examples, though I could have stretched that list far further and those I don’t mention I hope will forgive me over time, if not perhaps immediately.

    – The Financial Times has increased its circulation in the last five years by 67 per cent and since printing began in Japan two years ago sales there have grown by 135 per cent;

    – William Grant continues to expand in their export markets and they’ve now made Glenfiddich famous worldwide, at home, my home to, as a symbol of quality and if I dare say so, of enjoyment from time to time as well;

    – Dawson International, owners of Pringle and Ballantynes, are competing and succeeding in Germany and in Japan.

    And we really should recognise that increasingly we are penetrating those German and Japanese markets. It isn’t a one way trading arrangement that we have with those countries. We are selling for example, large numbers of cars now to Japan. When it wasn’t all that many years ago when all we saw when we looked at the car industry was a wreckage of subsidy and industrial disruption. Now we have a growing car industry increasingly exporting, soon to be a net exporter as an industry as a whole and now exporting into Japan.

    Now I could stretch those examples across very wide areas of British industry and endeavour and we need to fix those success stories in our national psyche if we are to maximise our opportunities of success in the future. Because what those examples illustrate is that British goods are capable of beating the best in the world. Not just being as good as them, but of beating them. They illustrate the importance to British firms of style, quality and innovation and that undoubtedly is the way ahead for British business.

    But there are other things that we certainly need to do as well. For far too long we have been the innovators and other people have then developed and produced the product of that particular innovation. We do need to accelerate the growing marriage between British brains and British production. There are a whole range of innovations that in the 1990s can turn us from being a great trading nation into a greater trading nation.

    And I return, if I may in conclusion, to a theme I touched on just a few moments ago. These changes, these opportunities, this effort, this promotion, is not an optional extra. We cannot sit out this decade letting other people become more competitive, more forceful, more thrusting and pretend that we don’t have to do the same thing, we do. There will be more change in this decade in industry and commerce and perhaps every other part of our life than we have seen in any peacetime decade in this century. The winners will be the people who perceive that first and who act upon that perception. That I believe is what this Committee is doing. It has my wholehearted support and I shall watch with the most enormous interest how you get on in future. If I can help I will, if you wish to help do what you’re promising to do and it will be of the most enormous benefit.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Polish Prime Minister – 3 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Polish Prime Minister, Mrs Hanna Suchocka, held in London on Wednesday 3rd March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good afternoon! I have been delighted today to welcome the Prime Minister to Downing Street. It was not the first time we have met but we were able to carry our discussions a good deal further both bilaterally and in terms of Poland’s relationship with the European Community.
    We had the opportunity this morning to look at a whole range of issues. I was delighted at the outcome of the Edinburgh Summit which agreed for the first time that in due course Poland will become a full member of the European Community. We discussed this morning some of the ways towards achieving that. The Prime Minister briefed me on the economic programme and I was able to congratulate her on her success in getting an extremely difficult budget through Parliament. I was also able to confirm this morning that we will be happy to continue our assistance to Poland through the Know-How Fund and through other areas of bilateral assistance. I was also able to confirm that we were content to transfer the money that was available to the Polish Stabilisation Fund to go directly to help the Polish banking system become established and that was an agreement we made this morning. I am happy to confirm it and I hope it will be satisfactory and assist the Polish banks firstly to establish themselves securely and secondly to prepare for private ownership in the future. This was a continuing illustration of an ever-growing and closer relationship with Poland. I look forward to our trade relationship continuing to grow. It has grown quite substantially. The Prime Minister will be addressing the CBI tomorrow and I have no doubt she will have investment and the growth of trade very high on her agenda for that occasion. She is a very welcome guest and I am delighted to invite her to say a few words to you.

    MRS. SUCHOCKA:

    Thank you, ladies and gentlemen! I would like to confirm the words that have been spoken by Prime Minister Major. The most important topic that we have discussed during the meeting this morning is the change to eventually Poland’s full membership of the EC as well as bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and the Polish Republic. We have also spoken about the utilisation of the Stabilisation Fund for the restructuring of the Polish banking system. In this regard, we have received the confirmation of Prime Minister Major’s Government that these funds can be used for the purpose.

    Another topic that has been raised pertained to the access of Polish products to western markets. One of the conditions for that was the passing of the Polish budget. The budget has now been passed and we would very much count on the United Kingdom in moving Poland from a high-risk group in terms of credits for exports to a risk group that is more favourable. This would definitely be very conducive to the development of foreign investment in Poland. These talks pertaining to trade relations are very important for my country. I would also like to recall, using this opportunity, that Poland is the UK’s largest trade partner in central and eastern Europe.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, was there talk about the calendar and specific conditions that Poland should meet on its way to becoming an EC member and will you be still promoting Poland during the Copenhagen meeting in June?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to the second question is undoubtedly yes. We have made no secret for some time that we look forward to the day when Poland can become a full member of the European Community. That is why we promoted that particular course at Edinburgh, that is why we are keen to enhance the existing relationship between Poland and the Community, why we believe that there need to be a number of steps between now and full membership.

    Full membership is a few years away because there is a great deal of development necessary for the Polish economy in the interests of Poland because Poland will be subjected to the full rigour and force of competition in the Community once she becomes a member.

    The answer is clear: Yes, we want Poland to become a member; yes, we wish to assist Poland to become a member; and we hope we can take progressive steps towards that during the rest of this decade.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter that really needs to be discussed with the whole of the European Community and I think that is being discussed in the Community. It is not a matter that is settled yet. The problem does not especially lie in the United Kingdom, as you know.

    QUESTION:

    [In Polish, but regarding credit guarantees].

    MRS. SUCHOCKA:

    Yes, we have discussed that. A final answer can come after completion of negotiations with the London Club and only upon the conclusion of those negotiations can we have a full response to the question of medium- and long-term credits.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Major, you assert that Poland is not really ready to be exposed to the rigours of the free market. On the other hand, I understand Polish diplomacy complains about not being given free access of their own goods to western markets. Isn’t this a bit contradictory?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it really is contradictory when you look across the whole of the economic sector but I have some sympathy with the demand that the whole of Europe should open its markets more and the Prime Minister knows that is my view.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, could you expand on your view that pessimists are running down Britain, say who they are and respond to the Opposition who say it is about time you got in touch with what was going on in the real world where unemployment is [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set all this out this morning in a speech. There is nothing to add to that. It is perfectly clear in the speech.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

    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.

     

    Catering

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on catering at 10 Downing Street and Chequers in 1991-92 and 1992-93 to date.

    The Prime Minister : The information is not available in the form requested. The cost of official hospitality met by my office was £40,976 in 1991-92 and is £25,835 in 1992-93 to date.

     

    Higher and Further Education

    Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Prime Minister what has been the effect on the estimates for (a) the Department for Education and (b) the Welsh Office as a result of functional changes in higher and further education.

    The Prime Minister : The supply estimates for 1993-94, due to be published on 9 March, for the Department for Education’s higher and further education vote, class X, vote 2, will show provision totalling £2,806,458,000 for grant-in-aid to the Higher Education Funding Council (England) which, from 1 April 1993, will be responsible for the distribution of grants to all publicly funded higher education institutions in England. This will replace provision formerly shown separately in the estimates for expenditure on universities in Great Britain distributed by the Universities Funding Council; for the former polytechnics and colleges of higher education in England distributed by Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council; for the Open university; for the Royal College of Art; and for Cranfield institute of technology. The 1993-94 estimates, class X, votes 2 and 3, will show provision totalling £2,705,411,000 for grant- in-aid to the Further Education Funding Council in England which from 1 April will be responsible for distributing grant to further education establishments and sixth form colleges in England currently under local authority control. Similarly, the relevant supply estimate for the Welsh Office, class XV, vote 5, will show grant-in-aid provision for further and higher education institutions in Wales to be distributed by the Further Education Council in Wales–£143,846,000–and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales–£178,975,000–including in the latter case provision for universities in Wales which in 1992-93 are supported by the Universities Funding Council. The supply estimates for 1993-94 are subject to parliamentary approval in due course.

  • PMQT – 2 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

    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. Oppenheim : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more power that we can extend to individuals by devolving authority and decision making in our schools and the national health service, the better? Is not the best way to give individuals more responsibility and more control over their lives by reducing the power of the state? Is it the case that, on this crucial test, those who belatedly speak the language of conservatism but still think like socialists, such as the Leader of the Opposition, fail dismally?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description. We believe in giving individuals more choice and more power. I fear that that is not the policy of the Labour party. Labour Members want less choice and more government, rather than more choice and less power for government.

    Mr. John Smith : In that case, can the Prime Minister tell us why he is opposed to a freedom of information Act?

    The Prime Minister : Because we are extending freedom of information in practical ways–unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who would not give information to parents about schools or to users of the health service about hospitals. That is the sort of information which people in the country want, not the sort of information that the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerns himself about.

    Mr. John Smith : If the Prime Minister is genuinely committed to giving information and to open government, can I give him a simple test? How many billions of pounds were lost in the currency dealings in the fiasco of Black Wednesday?

    The Prime Minister : As a former shadow Chancellor, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know that no one knows what the figures will be until those things are unwound, he should not be sitting where he is.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not it abundantly clear that the Prime Minister either does not know how many billions of pounds were lost or is unwilling to tell us? Does not he understand that there is a crucial difference between the national interest and covering up the incompetence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    The Prime Minister : We are dealing with the national interest day after day, with no assistance whatever from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Rev. Ian Paisley : Could the Prime Minister give to the greater number of people in Northern Ireland an assurance that the envoy from President Clinton to which he has agreed will not hold talks with the IRA, Sinn Fein or any other terrorist organisation?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman had better wait and see what announcement is made about the fact finder who I believe may come from the United States to Northern Ireland. Many distinguished people from the United States have been there in the past. Many of them have gone back with great enthusiasm for the changes that they have found in Northern Ireland and the great desire among the people of Northern Ireland for a lasting peace.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Pike : After 14 years of Tory government, the unemployed and low paid in my constituency are sick of hearing the Prime Minister saying why we cannot have the social chapter in Britain. Can he tell the people of Britain why France, Germany and all the other countries in Europe can have the social chapter but Britain cannot? Are we a second-class Britain as a result of 14 years of Tory rule?

    The Prime Minister : It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not know his own constituency better, for he would know that unemployment there has fallen 16 per cent. since 1987. He may also have noticed the trend in unemployment in France and Germany.

    Mr. Alan Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the citizen’s charter, which very properly enhances the rights of the citizen, should be complemented by a renewed emphasis on the obligations of the citizen, so that we foster and strengthen mutual responsibility in our society? Will he therefore look systematically to identify and eliminate obstacles that at present discourage voluntary work and charitable activity, including aspects of eligibility for both unemployment benefit and invalidity benefit as well as aspects of the council tax and VAT regimes?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we have done a great deal to improve the quantity and quality of voluntary work in this country. I am happy to examine any practical suggestions to improve it even further.

     

    Q3. Mr. Nigel Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Nigel Jones : May I offer the Prime Minister the chance to welcome Chelsea’s long-awaited victory last night after a change of manager? Does he now understand why millions of unemployed people in Britain would welcome a change of manager of the economy?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may have spent some time rehearsing that. It was not time well spent. Perhaps he needs a training course.

    Mr. Nigel Evans : Has my right hon. Friend had time to see the recent “Small Business Bulletin” from Barclays bank, which shows that there was a 19 per cent. increase in the number of small businesses in Britain in the last quarter of 1992 as compared with the last quarter of 1991? This is good news– [Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear it, but it is good news. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it shows the resilience of the small business sector in Britain? When he next has a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he encourage him to introduce on 16 March a small business- friendly Budget which will help our small businesses?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of the small business sector both to the economy generally and in terms of job creation. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

     

    Q4. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Skinner : Does not the Prime Minister realise that after 14 years he stands condemned about the seedy state of Britain today? Pensioners have a job to live ; they do not have two ha’pennies to rub together. The banks rip off customers. The bosses steal the pension funds. Ministers have their debts paid by the taxpayer. Is not that the reason why the British people understand him less and condemn him more?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman must have been taking lessons from the Liberal spokesman.

     

    Q5. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Duncan : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective weapons in the armoury against crime is the right to refer to the Court of Appeal any sentence that may be considered too lenient? Does he also agree that those who voted against that in the House, including the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), have very little right to posture about crime and even less right to parade their self-righteousness up and down the country?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes his own point in his own way. The public rightly expect the sentence to fit the crime. The power for the Attorney-General to refer over-lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal is an important weapon in the fight against crime and one which I believe will have the warm support of people right across the country. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will change his mind. At the moment, his voting record on crime is a worse record than that of an old lag.

    Mr. Redmond : Does the Prime Minister intend to keep his election promises?

    The Prime Minister : All Governments intend to keep their election promises.

     

    Q7. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Paice : Is not it clear that many of the young people who are committing crimes are not unemployed, because they should still be at school? In that regard, may we have a vigorous campaign against truancy, to improve education and to reduce crime?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it is necessary to do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it perfectly clear that we need to cut down on truancy and if we are successful in doing that, we are likely to cut down on juvenile crime. That is why in future, against the opposition Labour Members, we propose to include information on truancy rates when we publish how schools are performing. It is vital information for parents and vital information against crime and it would be helpful if the Opposition would support us in that policy.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : Does the Prime Minister agree that the revelation that the Director General of the BBC has been avoiding tax on a massive scale leaves a very nasty taste in the month? Does he further agree that John Birt should pay back to the Inland Revenue all the tax avoided in his period as deputy director general?

    The Prime Minister : Although I am familiar with the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is a matter for the Director General of the BBC and the Inland Revenue.

     

    Q8. Mr. Shepherd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Colin Shepherd : Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity over the weekend to reflect on the revealing remarks of Professor Halsey on the way in which the schools were hijacked in the 1960s and 1970s by the trendy lefties? Is not it clear that now that those pupils who had been hijacked are parents, they are unable to give their families the moral base to know what is right and wrong today? Will he not be deflected from his path?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I believe that Professor Halsey now speaks for the views of parents, whereas he certainly did not in the 1960s. The view of the overwhelming number of parents is that the fashionable theories of the 1960s did immense damage to the quality of education in this country.

     

    Q9. Mr. Soley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Soley : Can the Prime Minister tell me whether it is his policy to achieve full employment?

    The Prime Minister : Every Prime Minister wishes to achieve full employment.

    Dr. Liam Fox : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if discipline is not instilled at home it cannot be reinforced in schools and then enforced in society? Do not the people of this country have a right to expect the courts to be tough on parents who refuse to apply discipline to their children?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. It is necessary to take firm action with that relatively small number of young people who are persistent offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have something to say about that shortly.

    Miss Lestor : Will the Prime Minister take time today to visit one of the nursery schools in my constituency, or in some other constituency, to remind himself that it is 21 years since a previous Tory Government gave a commitment to nursery education for all four-year-olds? Does he agree that that promise, far from being fulfilled, is now rapidly being forgotten? If he is really concerned about family life in this country, he will ensure that deprivation and other family difficulties are identified by having children under expert eyes at a very early age? Does he agree that, by his meanness in nursery education, he is depriving hundreds of young children of educational opportunities and of care and attention?

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Lady takes a great interest in this matter. That being the case, she will know that there are more rising fives–four-year-olds–going to school in this country than in any other European country. We have a different pattern of provision, by which our youngsters are brought into school earlier. Notwithstanding that fact, there has been a significant increase in nursery provision.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Mr. Li Ka Shing

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the formal or contractual arrangements which exist between (a) Mr. Li Ka Shing and (b) Norinco and United Kingdom Government agencies or bodies, including those in Hong Kong.

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

     

    Prerogative Powers

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which Ministers have exercised prerogative powers in the last 18 months; and how this was reported to Parliament in each case.

    The Prime Minister : In the main, specific functions are conferred on Ministers by Act of Parliament. Statute now covers much of the ground which in earlier times was covered by prerogative powers. However, the common law still recognises some prerogative powers as residing in the Crown and some of these are, by convention, exercisable by Ministers. Examples of areas where the prerogative still plays a part are foreign affairs, defence and the regulation of the civil service. Particular examples of the exercise of prerogative power are the issue of a passport or the grant of a pardon or reprieve under the prerogative of mercy. It is for individual Ministers to decide on a particular occasion whether and how to report to Parliament on the exercise of prerogative powers. The relationship between statutory powers and prerogative powers can be very complex and it would be impracticable, and would lead to disproportionate cost, to list all the occasions when action was taken under the prerogative.

     

    Minority Languages

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister which department is responsible for the work and advice leading up to the adoption of the European charter for regional or minority languages by the Committee of Minorities.

    The Prime Minister : The Welsh Office took the lead in the discussions on the text of the charter, but consulted all other Departments with an interest.

     

    Secure Units

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers and Departments are responsible for (a) policy in regard to the provision of secure places for young people in England and Wales and (b) providing such places and the relevant finances.

    The Prime Minister : Policy on the provision of secure accommodation in England and Wales, and the allocation of capital grants for such projects, are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Wales respectively.

    Local authorities are responsible for providing secure accommodation and for meeting the running costs.

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister when the secure places for young people announced in 1991 will be available.

    The Prime Minister : The provision of secure accommodation is the responsibility of local authorities. The Government remain committed to their target of abolishing the practice of remanding juveniles to prison by 1995-96 and will provide the necessary capital resources to achieve this.

     

    St. David’s Day

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make St. David’s Day a bank holiday in Wales.

    The Prime Minister : We have no plans to make St. David’s Day a bank holiday in Wales.

     

    Attorney-General

    Mr. George Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral statement by the Attorney-General of 22 February, Official Report, column 736, whether the Attorney-General attended the meeting of the Cabinet on Thursday 11 February.

    The Prime Minister : The Attorney-General did not attend the meeting of the Cabinet on Thursday 11 February.