The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1993

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 January 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Disabled People

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people in access to employment, training, education, leisure, transport, public buildings and shops; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : We have no plans to introduce generalised anti- discrimination legislation because we foresee problems in both approach and implementation. However, as I have made clear in the past, we are continuing to work to eliminate unjustified discrimination against people on the ground of their disability. We believe that this is best achieved by education and persuasion backed up by targeted legislation to address specific problems.

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made by Departments in implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; what plans he has to implement the outstanding sections; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Most of the major provisions of the Act have now been implemented, bringing substantial benefits to disabled people and their carers. The requirements of the non-implemented sections of the Act are now, to a very large extent, reflected in the Department of Health’s new and wide-ranging reforms of community care, which demonstrate our commitment to high quality care responsive to the needs and wishes of service users and carers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will review the need to implement these sections in the light of several years’ experience of the community care arrangements.

     

    Scottish Constitution

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 January, Official Report, column 790, if he will list those individuals and organisations that he has consulted when taking stock of the governance of Scotland since April 1992.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 11 January 1993 at column 552.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions Her Majesty’s Government held with the Governments of (a) Egypt and (b) Syria on the efficacy of military intervention in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Since the invasion of Kuwait we have had frequent discussions with the Egyptians and Syrians on the situation in Iraq. We have discussed the allies’ latest military action in Iraq with Egyptian and Syrian officials.

     

    Ministerial Residences

    Mr. Blunkett : To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost in 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 of each of the official country residences owned by the Government broken down into (a) housekeeping, (b) catering/hospitality, (c) maintenance and (d) other costs; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 January 1993] : Chequers, Dorneywood and Chevening are not owned by the Government. Chequers is administered as an independent trust, which receives an annual grant from public funds towards the maintenance of Chequers. In the three years concerned the grant has been :

    |£

    ————————

    1990-91 |238,000

    1991-92 |244,000

    1992-93 |260,000

    The Government also contribute to the costs of household staff at Chequers, but this information is not separately identifiable. The maintenance and staff expenses of Chevening house are met by the Chevening trust. The total cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for housekeeping, catering/hospitality and other costs in the three years concerned has been :

    |£

    ——————–

    1990-91 |4,374

    1991-92 |7,984

    1992-93 |9,451

    In addition, other Government Departments use Chevening from time to time for meetings or seminars, for which they pay separately. Dorneywood is administered by a trust fund. Its upkeep does not involve any cost to the Treasury.

  • PMQT – 21 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

    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. McAllion : Is the Prime Minister aware that the murderous attacks on Iraq, which he supported, have killed at least 45 Iraqis–who were themselves innocent of any violation of international law–have made international lepers of Britain and the United States and have, in the eyes of the democratic opposition in Iraq, served only to strengthen the position of the tyrant Saddam? Does he understand that the crimes that he has committed against innocent Iraqi people may have been undertaken in his name, but were not in my name or in the name, I believe, of the vast majority of the British people?

    The Prime Minister : I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. From the expressions on the faces of most of his right hon. and hon. Friends, neither do they.

    Mr. Faber : Given that yesterday was the inauguration of President Clinton, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United States remain our strongest ally, as indeed we do theirs? Will he take this opportunity to reaffirm that the special relationship is greatly valued by Britain, as President Clinton has already done?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can certainly confirm that to my hon. Friend. There has been a very close relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States for many years. It is a practical relationship, quite apart from the political and military relationship. For example, the United Kingdom is the world’s largest overseas investor in the United States and our exports to the United States last year were some £12 billion. I know that President Clinton will have the good wishes of the entire House and I know that he knows that he can look to this country and this Government as firm friends of the United States.

    Mr. John Smith : In view of the horrendous rise in unemployment announced today–almost 61,000 in one month–when will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his economic policies have failed the nation and are now blighting the lives of millions of British families?

    The Prime Minister : Today’s figures on unemployment are clearly deeply disappointing. They reflect the job losses in the pipeline that were announced last autumn and have now come through. I do not doubt the concern about unemployment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman voices, for I share that concern ; so does everyone on this side of the House. We wish to see unemployment falling and people getting back into secure and lasting jobs. That is my objective, just as much as it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s. But there must be a dual strategy for long-lasting solutions to unemployment. First, there must be solid foundations for economic recovery–low inflation predominantly among them–and secondly, wide-ranging help for the unemployed. That is in place.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister expresses concern for the unemployed, but is he not the same right hon. Gentleman who told us that if it is not hurting it is not working? Is he not the Prime Minister whose first reaction to the announcement of the pit closures was that they had to be closed “cleanly and quickly”, and whose Chancellor believes that unemployment is a “price well worth paying”? How can we believe that his expressions of concern are genuine when we take all those factors into account?

    The Prime Minister : One of the principal causes of unemployment in countries around the world as well as here is the difficulty faced with inflation. It is this Government who have had the courage to stick with policies to get inflation down, and the reality is, despite all his rhetoric neither the right hon. and learned Gentleman nor his hon. Friends have set out a coherent policy for dealing with unemployment. When they produced their phoney budget, they knew that it was a budget that would increase taxes and put up jobs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman still has not responded to the question that he could not answer on Tuesday. How much money would his new tax on windfall profits raise? If he cannot tell us, how can he make the claims for it that he does? Can he guarantee that it will last only a year? No, he cannot. The fact of the matter is that he has no policies other than to complain about the Government, and no idea how to deal with the economy or unemployment.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the nation is tired of feeble and lame excuses? It is also tired of the right hon. Gentleman blaming everyone in the world but himself. When, at long last, will he give the attack on unemployment the priority that the nation demands?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman has to accept economic reality. He should recognise that economic reality requires that you get inflation down and competitiveness up and those are the policies that we are pursuing. He should recognise also the effect of his policies : crushing profits does not create jobs ; tax structures that drive away inward investment do not create jobs ; piling burdens on business does not create jobs ; the social chapter will not create jobs. Those are the policies of the Labour party ; they are policies which would deliberately drive up unemployment and not create the conditions for lasting employment.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth : Further to what my right hon. Friend said, does he agree that one of the best ways of helping British industry would be to cut the red tape bureaucracy and regulation with which it has been overburdened for far too long? Does he agree that a new deregulation drive would help industry to create new jobs?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the consistent need persistently to bring down the level of regulation and red tape. The more we can rid business of red tape and regulation, the more British business can get on with creating wealth and generating new jobs. As my hon. Friend will have heard last week in the House, I propose to hold a seminar at the beginning of February– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. The Prime Minister must be heard. We cannot– [Interruption.] We cannot make progress– [Interruption.] I like good humour, but there are times when we have to keep quiet and listen. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : –at which every Department in Whitehall would come along with regulations that Opposition Members would support and which we propose to remove from business to increase competitiveness.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gapes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Gapes : In the light of today’s report by the Employment Select Committee, will the Prime Minister apologise to the House, to the British people and to the miners for saying on 16 October that it was better to sack 30,000 mine workers “quickly and cleanly” than to institute a full review of the pit closure programme?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrases his question tells us a great deal about him. What we are seeking to do is to create a viable coal industry with a fitter future. The hon. Gentleman might recall how many mining jobs were lost under Labour Governments, for there were more lost than there ever have been under Conservative Governments– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Having asked his question, the hon. Gentleman should not bawl and shout from a sedentary position.

     

    Q3. Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Pawsey : Is my right hon. Friend aware that 642 schools have already applied and balloted for grant-maintained status? Does he agree that that is a formidable expression of public and parental opinion? What advice does he give to Opposition Members who persist in their ill- conceived hostility to grant-maintained schools?

    The Prime Minister : In fact, as at the end of last afternoon there were 648–another six have decided to become grant maintained. That is because parents are increasingly seeing the benefit of independence from local authority control. They are voting for grant-maintained schools in increasing numbers and the reason for that is entirely clear. Since opting out they have discovered that they can employ more staff, take on more pupils, enhance special needs provision and provide more books, because they have the freedom to put the money in the classroom where it belongs, and are not subjected to unnecessary control from county hall.

     

    Q4. Mr. David Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Marshall : Does not the Prime Minister realise the catastrophic consequences for unemployment if either Devonport or Rosyth dockyards closes? As well as the folly to the nation of concentrating defence work on one site, does he accept that 18,000 jobs are at risk in Rosyth, and that there is a solution that will keep both dockyards open? Does he agree that that solution is to give Devonport the surface ship work that it does best and to give Rosyth the submarine work that it does best? Will he support that solution? If not, why not?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party, many of whom would abolish nuclear weapons, and nearly all of whom would dramatically reduce defence expenditure. I think that the hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind before he criticises this Government for their defence policies.

     

    Q5. Mr. Mans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Mans : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his Chancellor of the Exchequer has no intention in his Budget of introducing a windfall tax on the privatised utilities, as that would deal a body blow to the 10 million people in this country who have invested in those utilities and would discourage the wider share ownership that we all want in the future ?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly offer that assurance to my hon. Friend. As he rightly says, there are 10 million shareholders, many with very limited shareholdings, with a stake in the utility industries in this country. We understand that it is investment which ultimately creates jobs and that taxation on investment destroys jobs.

     

    Q7. Dr. Berry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Dr. Berry : May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to early-day motion 330, which calls for the early introduction of a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Is the Prime Minister aware that this early-day motion has substantial cross-party support–in fact, the greatest volume of support of any early-day motion submitted this Session? Does he accept that disabled people want action–very speedy action–and can he confirm that he will respond positively to the early-day motion?

    The Prime Minister : For a year I was, of course, the Minister of State responsible for disability, and I am well aware of the Government’s excellent record in increasing the benefits for disabled people and providing a much wider range of facilities for them. That is a record unmatched by any other party in the House.

     

    Q8. Mr. French : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. French : Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country’s privatisation programme has been widely applauded and copied in many parts of the world? Can he confirm that, notwithstanding the current criticisms of the British Rail proposals, he will forge ahead with the privatisation programme and will bring forward other candidates, including the Post Office, at an early date?

    The Prime Minister : We propose to proceed not only with the programme of privatisation but with programmes of more contracting out and more market testing. In the current year Government work worth about £1.5 billion will be market tested and, where appropriate, put out to the private sector if that sector can deal with it more efficiently.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 January 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Security Service

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral answer of 14 January by the Secretary of State for National Heritage to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Official Report, columns 1075-76, to what categories of questions regarding the security service Ministers are now willing to provide substantive replies.

    The Prime Minister : As I said in my statement to the House on 6 May last year, at column 65, successive Governments have not commented on matters relating to security and intelligence. The reason for that is clear : it is difficult to comment without revealing, by what is said or not said, information that can have a bearing on the effectiveness of these services and the safety of their staff.

    Nevertheless, from time to time there will be matters of public concern on which it is desirable and possible to make a considered statement. There are precedents under successive Administrations when such statements have been made without prejudice to the general convention. An example is the assurance which I gave hon. Members on 29 June 1992, Official Report, column 37, about postal and telephone interception.

     

    UN Aims Register

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with setting up a United Nations arms register.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 January 1993] : The register was established by a UN general assembly resolution in December 1991. In December 1992 the general assembly approved by consensus a report by technical experts on the register’s implementation. Participating countries are required to provide their first returns of information by 30 April 1993 covering arms imports and exports in the calendar year 1992. The Secretary-General will produce an annual report containing the information registered which will be available for consultation by member states.

     

    Royal Family (Telephone Tapping)

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning Her Majesty’s Government’s policy regarding the tapping of telephones of members of the royal family or their personal friends.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 January 1993] : The interception of communications during their transmission by means of a public telephone system is subject to the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The Government have accepted Sir David Calcutt’s recommendation to consider whether the legislation adequately protects private telephone calls. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage assured the House in his statement on 14 January, there is no substance to rumours about the involvement of the security and intelligence agencies in interception of the communications of the royal family.

     

    Intergovernmental Binding Decisions

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 December 1992, Official Report, column 37, what are the criteria distinguishing an intergovernmental binding decision and treaty if both are justiciable in the International Court of Justice.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 January 1993] : I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 15 January, at column 822.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on BCCI – 20 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on BCCI (The Bank of Credit and Commerce International), made in London on 20th January 1993.

    [The Prime Minister was asked about the collapse of BCCI]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It was a very tragic collapse. We have to consider why it happened. It didn’t happen because of poor regulation by the Bank of England or indeed by any of the other regulators around the world; it happened because of a gigantic and monstrous criminal fraud; this is what actually happened.

    We have a deposit protection scheme and most of the depositors will get about 75% of their deposits back as a result of the deposit protection scheme.

    The independent inquiry into BCCI was held by Sir Thomas Bingham and although he had some criticisms of the Bank of England, he expressly did not think the Bank of England could have prevented the fraud but whatever the rights and wrongs of that may be, the important point to the businessmen concerned and the depositors concerned is whether they are going to get their money back and 75% of their money it seems for most of them will come back.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 20 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in London, held on Wednesday 20th January 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what is your message to President Clinton as he takes office today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I send him my very best wishes on his inauguration today and for his term of office. His success as President of the United States is important not just for the United States but for everyone in Europe and beyond. I think there is absolutely no doubt about that. So I wish him the warmest best wishes, he is taking on a remarkable task, I am sure he is well equipped to do it and I look forward to working with him.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to be able to establish a close working relationship?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I see no reason why not, we have had a number of telephone conversations so far, we have touched on a wide range of issues, some of them detailed, some of them generalist. We expect to have a meeting pretty soon and I have no doubt we will be able to work together very satisfactorily.

    QUESTION:

    You discussed Iraq with President Clinton on the phone last night, are you and he prepared to step up the level of hostilities against Saddam Hussein if he fails to live up to his new promises?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It has always been the position of the United States and the United Kingdom that the Iraqis must keep to the Security Council resolutions. President-elect Clinton has made it clear that will be his position in future too.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think you might be tempted to take up on Mr Clinton’s domestic policies to get the economy going here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have set out our domestic policies for getting the economy going and the Chancellor no doubt will address all these matters in his budget in due course, beyond that I am not being drawn.

    QUESTION:

    Will you be taking seriously Saddam Hussein’s offer of a ceasefire?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will have to wait and see what actually he means by it, we have seen offers from him before, we have also seen the outcome of it before, let us see whether there is any practical action, in particular let us see whether he is going to obey the Security Council resolutions with let, without hindrance and without frustrations, that would be a great move forward if he would do that.

    QUESTION:

    The French government has criticised the bombing raid on the Baghdad nuclear plant as a step too far, do you share that concern?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not share that concern at all, this was a raid made by the United States rather than the allies because they had the equipment in site to do it, but there was discussion between the allies, including the French, the legal position is quite clear, this was within international law and I think the United States were wholly justified. I have no reservations about it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 January 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

    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.

     

    Office Staff

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the staff of his Office and their grades.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 January 1993] : The information is as follows :

    Principal private secretary (Grade 3)

    Private secretary–overseas affairs (Grade 3)

    Chief press secretary (Grade 3)

    8 Special advisers

    Deputy chief press secretary (Grade 5)

    Secretary for appointments (Grade 5)

    Private secretary–economic affairs (Grade 5)

    2 Private secretaries–Parliamentary affairs and home affairs (Grade 7)

    4 Senior information officers

    2 Senior executive officers

    5 Higher executive officers

    2 Assistants

    10 Executive officers

    22 Senior personal secretaries

    4 Personal secretaries

    11 Administrative officers

    4 Typists

    1 House manager

    1 Door keeper

    13 Support grade band 2

    10 Support grade band 1

    1 Support manager 3

    1 Senior cook

    In addition there are 10 custody guards, nine telephonists and four drivers who are not employed by my Office.

     

    Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations since the Bill was published on 5 November.

    The Bill will increase the rights of trade union members, enhance the rights of individual employees, provide new protection for the community against the effects of unlawful industrial action, and improve the operation of the labour market.

     

    Electrical Engineering

    Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on Government support for electrical engineering; (2) what steps the Government have taken to reward excellence in the field of electrical engineering.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has set up sectoral divisions, including electrical engineering, leading to a closer dialogue to promote the recognition and importance of electrical engineering within the United Kingdom economy. The Government acknowledge the importance of electrical engineering and fully support the industry through a range of assistance that includes overseas trade, research and development, regional support and promoting awareness.

    Excellence in the industry is acknowledged through the Queen’s awards including those for technology and exports, where electrical engineering is well represented. Additionally there are, of course, a number of people of eminence in the field of electrical engineering whose achievements have been recognised in the usual ways.

  • PMQT – 19 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

    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.

    Sir John Hannam : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the social chapter, which he skilfully negotiated out of the Maastricht treaty, would destroy investment, business confidence and jobs in this country? Is it not therefore the greatest hypocrisy to support such a damaging measure while at the same time claiming to care for the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. When I negotiated Britain’s exemption from the social chapter I seem to recall that I was accused of making Britain a paradise for foreign investment. I hope very much that that proves to be true. The reality is that the Opposition disagree about that. The truth is that they are hostile to industry and do not understand business. Until they drop their commitment to the social chapter they cannot also claim to be seeking lasting jobs.

    Mr. John Smith : On that very subject, is the Prime Minister aware that of all the Prime Ministers we have had since the war, he has the worst record for growth, the worst record for investment and the worst record for jobs? Is he not ashamed of such a miserable record?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a fine one to talk about records. His record as shadow Chancellor lost Labour a record fourth election precisely because he proposed record tax increases.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not note that he failed completely to deny that he had the worst growth record, the worst investment and the worst employment record? Since there is anger throughout the country [Interruption] –I hope that Conservative Members will not treat unemployment flippantly. Since there is growing anger throughout the whole country at rising unemployment why does the Prime Minister not agree to put a windfall profits tax on the excess profits of monopoly privatised companies and use the money to create jobs?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman also forgot to mention another record of mine ; the record for bringing down inflation so that we can recreate lasting jobs. The fact is that what we just heard is the old Labour party speaking ; the party of the 1960s and 1970s. They hate profits. They would rather have nationalised industries making losses than privatised industries making profits. They cannot stand firms being successful and they do not understand that firms need profits to provide investment, to provide growth, and to provide jobs. That is why their record in government has always been one of complete and record failure.

    Mr. Smith : Can the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the country why it was all right for a Conservative Government to introduce an excess profits tax on banks in the first recession but now to oppose an excess profits tax on the privatised utilities? Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that every pound of these excess profits and of managers’ fat salaries has come from the British people? Is not it time that they got some of it back to create jobs for them and their families?

    The Prime Minister : I am quite happy to educate the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that, since he clearly does not understand. In the early 1980s interest rates were raised sharply to control inflation. At that time, the banks did not pay interest on current accounts. As a result of that, they genuinely made windfall profits. That was why the Government taxed them. The utility tax that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. I cannot hear the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : Labour Members do not like understanding reality ; they do not like it at all. The fact of the matter is that the utilities are already regulated. If they make excessive profits, the regulator can change their pricing formula, and he has already changed BT’s from RPI minus three to RPI minus 6.25–real price cuts for consumers, which we never saw under a nationalised industry. That is why the appropriate policy is tough regulation, not 1960s artificial control.

    Mr. Sims : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shares the widespread concern about the collapse of criminal proceedings against a couple whose daughter died a violent death because they invoked their right to say nothing. Is he aware that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has details of 10 similar cases? Whatever the arguments may be for or against the right of silence in cases generally, is not there a strong argument in favour of reviewing its application in cases where children have been cruelly treated or even killed?

    The Prime Minister : I cannot, of course, discuss the particular case raised by my hon. Friend, but I understand the concerns that he expresses. Decisions on whether to prosecute are entirely for the Crown prosecution service. My hon. Friend may know that the right to silence is one of the matters being considered by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. I would not wish to anticipate its report.

     

    Q2. Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay : Will the Prime Minister give the reason for the rising and record levels of unemployment in Essex–a county which includes my constituency of Thurrock and, of course, the betrayed people of Basildon?

    The Prime Minister : I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that is very clear about unemployment : it will fall as a result of this Government’s policies. That is what he had better understand.

    Mr. Couchman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ironic indeed that in the very week when the Leader of the Opposition produces a phoney budget for jobs the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is seeking to destroy 140,000 Sunday jobs, which are vital to many families in this country?

    The Prime Minister : On this and other issues the reality is that Labour policy is inconsistent. It changes not only from election to election but from week to week. Not long ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) proposed the biggest tax increases in peace time. Nine months later, he said categorically that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should not increase taxes in the Budget, but 10 days later he calls for a windfall tax.

     

    Q3. Mr. Rooker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Rooker : Can I ask the Prime Minister if, until unemployment starts to fall, he will make it part of his political strategy to assist the unemployed by easing the rules on social security benefits so that those unemployed people who have household responsibilities and who are in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s can genuinely take advantage of opportunities to improve their education and training rather than, as at present, be penalised if they study too much or lose their homes if they have household responsibilities? For a very small investment in people, we could have a huge return for the country.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman makes a point which is well worth considering, and in the past we have looked at some matters related to it. This is the sort of matter which we are prepared to examine. The hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience in social security that there is significant help, for example, with mortgages, and he will also know the additional help that is being given to people towards training and studying.

     

    Q4. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning trendy, mixed ability teaching– [Interruption.] Opposition Members are products of it–which has so damaged the education of millions of children since the 1960s? [Interruption.] I hope they care. Are not moves to return the teaching of children to traditional methods just plain common sense? Is it not now also time to end trendy teacher-training methods?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is a distinguished former head teacher so I particularly welcome his remarks. I agree that the way forward is to return to the basics of education, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education said yesterday that we had plans to strengthen primary education. I am sure that we are right to look carefully also at getting the teaching methods right. Common-sense, practical teaching which puts good teachers in front of good children is undoubtedly the right way to improve our education system.

    Mr. Ray Powell : Is it not fair that when an hon. Member is named or mentioned in a Prime Minister’s question the Member involved should have the right to reply? I respect and thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Give the hon. Gentleman a chance to put his question.

    Mr. Powell : Obviously, the Prime Minister, as with a lot of the policies that he has presented to the House, is misguided and is misrepresenting facts. The question that he was asked regarding a Bill that I will present on Friday

    Madam Speaker : Order. I must now call the hon. Gentleman to order. I am looking for a very direct question to the Prime Minister, right away.

    Mr. Powell : The Bill is an all-party Bill supported by five of the Prime Minister’s colleagues. It is not a Labour party Bill and therefore the Prime Minister should correct the answer that he gave just now.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, be a firm advocate of his own Bill in a few days’ time. I can tell him that in due course my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will bring proposals to the House and will give it a series of alternatives upon which to make up its mind on this thorny issue.

     

    Q5. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Field : Does my right hon. Friend welcome the publication of the highway code today ? Will he ensure that copies are made available to Opposition Members, some of whom seem to be stuck on a roundabout, uncertain as to which exit to take, while others seem intent on overtaking their leaders on the inside, while we on the Government side look forward to a major road ahead?

    The Prime Minister : I should like, if I may, to try to respond to that testing question. I very much welcome the publication of the new highway code. I am bound to say that it does seem to me extremely important that the Leader of the Opposition perhaps should study it. He might learn, after his proposals this morning, that he should not signal right when he is turning left.

    Sir David Steel : Will the Prime Minister clarify the support that the Government give to enforcement action against Saddam Hussein? Is it correct that that support will be given only as long as the action is in accordance with international law in agreement with our coalition partners and involves the minimum necessary use of force?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that that has been the position thus far, and it is our position, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Defence Secretary set out the other day.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 January 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engineers

    Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to restrict the use of the term “engineer” in official Government documents to only chartered or incorporated engineers.

    The Prime Minister : In referring to engineers, Government documents should make it clear whether particular qualifications are envisaged but, in the absence of any general restriction on the use of the term “engineer”, it would not be appropriate to restrict its use to specified categories of engineer which form only part of the wider engineering profession. The Fairclough initiative is, however, examining this issue and the Government will consider its recommendations when received.

    Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received from the Institution of Electrical Engineers.

    The Prime Minister : I have recently received a letter from the institution concerning vocational qualifications and my office will respond in due course.

     

    Travel Expenses

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply on 9 December 1992, Official Report, column 668, if he is now in a position to publish the total cost to the Exchequer for his travels within the European Communities since 1 July 1992.

    The Prime Minister : The total cost of my travels within the European Communities between 1 July and 31 December 1992 is estimated to be £328,000.

     

    Polling Stations (Access)

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to co -ordinate policies between Scotland and England and Wales on the operation of schemes to purchase temporary ramps to improve access to polling stations; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : None. In England and Wales and in Scotland, a grant of 50 per cent. of the cost is available towards the purchase of temporary ramps to provide access to polling stations for disabled voters.

     

    Standards of Conduct

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to require (a) political parties in advertisements, (b) lawyers in court and (c) journalists in newspapers to (i) tell the truth, (ii) provide equal length or space to a right to reply, (iii) submit controversial claims to a statutory tribunal and (iv) submit themselves to fines for transgressing or for appearing at the time of judgment to have transgressed good taste or a code of conduct.

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

     

    Forestry

    Mr. Hanson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward proposals to introduce an integrated United Kingdom policy on forestry, covering (a) consumption of forests, (b) problems caused by deforestation, (c) the links between forestry and third world debt and (d) import controls on hardwoods.

    The Prime Minister : The Government are committed to working for the effective implementation of the statement of principles on the world’s forests agreed at the United Nations conference on environment and development in Rio last June. As part of this process we are preparing a United Kingdom national plan for forests. Policies on the issues listed in the question need to be integrated and co-ordinated with our broader environmental aid and trade policies. Co-ordination is achieved by regular contact between the Government Departments responsible for these matters.

     

    Office and Travel Costs

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister what is the total cost to public funds of overseas travel by himself and those accompanying him on official business since he has held his present position to the most recent available date.

    The Prime Minister : The total cost of my overseas official visits undertaken between 22 November 1990 and 31 December 1992 is estimated to be £1,816,000.

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister what are the total costs of running his office, including travel, in each year since 1989-90.

    The Prime Minister : The costs are as follows :

    |£

    ——————————

    1989-90 |7,669,276

    1990-91 |8,225,816

    1991-92 |8,663,758

    Note: Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, the costs of office and the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust are included. The Prime Minister’s salary is excluded.

     

    Jamaica

    Mr. Kaufman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make representations within the European Community for the suspension of all economic aid to, and favourable trade arrangements with, Jamaica until that country improves its human rights record.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 15 January 1993] : We discuss aid policy towards specific developing countries regularly with other member states and with the European Commission. Full account of human rights considerations is taken in these discussions. We have no plans to argue for the suspension of economic aid to, and favourable trade arrangements with, Jamaica.

     

    Company Directors

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress made to date in his policy of encouraging company directors to voluntarily keep their wages and other remunerations at levels that do not promote wage inflation.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 15 January 1993] : As I have previously made clear, pay in the private sector is a matter for the private sector to determine. However, I am encouraged by evidence that average boardroom pay increases are now falling to more realistic levels.

     

    Press Office

    Mr. Milburn : To ask the Prime Minister how many staff were employed by his press office in each year since 1979.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 15 January 1993] : Ten people including support staff are currently employed in 10 Downing Street on press and public relations activities. Detailed figures were not recorded separately prior to 1987-88, but until 1 April 1992 the complement was eight. This was then increased to 10 by the addition of one press officer and one typist, to enable the press office to respond effectively to the growing number of press inquiries.

     

    Value Added Tax

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe on the level of value added tax on bloodstock in the United Kingdom and the rates levied in France and Ireland, Official Report, 28 October 1992, column 288, what subsequent representations he has received on the issue; what replies were made ; what action has now been taken; and if he will make a statement on the Government’s current policy on this issue.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 10 December 1992] : The Commissioners of Customs and Excise have just received the Jockey Club’s report to the Paymaster General on this subject. It is being considered as quickly and constructively as possible.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 17 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held in London on Sunday 17th January 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Is this a punishment that fits the crime of Saddam Hussein?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The action that was taken this evening was taken after a great deal of consideration, after a great deal of consultation and after giving Iraq every opportunity to comply with the Security Council resolutions. They were aware that they were breaking them. They were blatantly breaking them and they were aware that they were at risk of a response. And after very careful consultation between the allies there was a response.

    QUESTION:

    Did you counsel caution on President Bush?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, there was complete agreement between the allies about the nature and timing of the response this evening. It has been discussed for two or three days. I have had a number of discussions over the weekend with President Bush and the outcome of those discussions and with President Mitterrand and others was the action taken this evening.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] action if necessary?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to anticipate what may happen now. We have said repeatedly that there are Security Council resolutions that we require Iraq to comply with. They know that. It could not possibly be clearer to them. They have been told time and time and time again. They have now had illustrations that if they will not comply with the Security Council resolutions then there will be a response. I hope they will comply.

    QUESTION:

    Do you regret the civilian casualties?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We do not yet know any details about that. The military advice I have is that it is very unlikely, that those casualties, if you mean the Rashid Hotel, that the casualties were caused by the action of the United States. We do not know that. There was a great deal of random and haphazard fire from within Baghdad and it may well be that that was self inflicted but at this moment we do not know.

    QUESTION:

    What about British military involvement, do you expect any of that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to anticipate what may happen in the future. On this occasion it was considered operationally the right way to deal with the problem was to use the Tomahawk cruise missiles and that was what happened.

    QUESTION:

    What about those who say that this was reckless and will escalate problems in the Gulf?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I disagree with them. The problems, originally the invasion of Kuwait came from Iraq. The disobedience of the Security Council resolutions is by Iraq. It is not just the occasional disobedience, it’s wilfully disobeying the requirements of the international community time and time again. He has been courting trouble, he has had trouble. He knew what was likely to happen. It has happened.

    QUESTION:

    Will you be making a statement Prime Minister to the House of Commons tomorrow?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Defence Secretary will make a statement tomorrow afternoon.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 January 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Calcutt Inquiry

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister when he was first advised of the contents of the letter from Lord McGregor to Sir David Calcutt.

    The Prime Minister : The first I knew of Lord McGregor’s letter was when it appeared in the national press.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister when he responded to a letter dated 9 December 1992 from President Dobrica Cosic of Yugoslavia concerning the conflict in the former Yugoslavia; if he will indicate what his response has been; and if he will seek agreement to the publication of the correspondence.

    The Prime Minister : I replied to President Cosic ‘s letter on 11 January. I believe it important to maintain the confidentiality of such correspondence.

     

    Denmark

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 December, Official Report, column 37, what is the basis for clear distinction between the intergovernmental binding decision in respect of Denmark taken in Edinburgh, and a treaty judiciable at the International Court at The Hague.

    The Prime Minister : In the EC context treaty’ is normally used for an instrument amending the Community treaties and thus requiring ratification. The decision in respect of Denmark does not amend either the Maastricht treaty or the earlier Community treaties and does not require ratification. It is, like a treaty, binding in international law.

     

    Jamaica

    Mr. Kaufman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to withdraw all British economic aid to Jamaica if hangings are recommenced there in February.

    The Prime Minister : No. But in line with normal practice, our bilateral aid policy for Jamaica will continue to take full account of all human rights considerations.

     

    Seals (Russia)

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what written evidence or information Her Majesty’s Government have received from the Russian authorities concerning the seal cull in Russia; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Russian authorities informed us of the 1992 culling quotas of 7,300 and 2,300 for adult hooded and harp seals respectively. We have not received any figures for 1993. The Russian authorities are well aware of public concern in the United Kingdom about seal culling.

     

    Human Rights

    Mr. Soley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to incorporate article 10 of the European convention on human rights into British law.

    The Prime Minister : No. Our policy remains not to incorporate the European convention on human rights into domestic law, since we believe that it is for Parliament, rather than the judiciary, to determine how the principles of human rights in the convention are best secured.

     

    Honours (Withdrawal)

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister under what circumstances he would recommend to the Queen that awards be withdrawn posthumously; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 14 January 1993] : None that I can foresee, but the forfeiture of awards is considered on a case-by-case basis.

     

    Prince and Princess of Wales

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he held with (a) the Prince and (b) the Princess of Wales prior to his statement of 9 December 1992.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on Tuesday 12 January at column 697.