The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1994

  • PMQT – 23 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd June 1994. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Quentin Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I have been asked to reply.

    This morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This afternoon, he is travelling to Corfu for the European Council. I understand that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is also in Corfu attending some kind of fringe meeting.

    Mr. Davies : On the eve of the Corfu summit, does my right hon. Friend agree that Great Britain is leading the way in Europe in deregulation, privatisation, competitivity and growth, and, above all, the vital task of bringing down unemployment but that the Labour party would reverse all those things in very short order?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Those issues are very much at the top of the Corfu agenda as a result of the British Government’s efforts to advance those causes in Europe over a long period of time. I am glad to say that the forthcoming German presidency will be pursuing the British objectives of competitiveness and deregulation in its policies towards Europe.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown : Given that more than a million of our fellow citizens are on national health service waiting lists, can it really be the Secretary of State for Health’s vision for the future to get rid of 50,000 hospital beds?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the effect of the Government’s reforms on the health service has been greatly to increase the number of people treated and that NHS hospitals now treat 121 patients for every 100 treated before. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health drew attention to the possible continuation of those trends in future years, building on advances in treatment to treat yet more people.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown : The Leader of the House has not really answered the question. Would it not be better to get rid of the waiting lists rather than getting rid of the hospital beds? Are not the cuts being driven by the Government’s failure properly to manage public finances?

    Mr. Newton : The changes are being driven by the Government’s determination to get more patients treated more effectively with shorter waiting times, and the policies are succeeding ; if there is a failure, it is the failure of the Opposition to recognise the success of those policies.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown : That will not do. We have had massive tax increases under the Conservatives since the last general election and the British people now face massive cuts in services. Why is it that in Tory Britain we have to pay a lot more to get a lot less?

    Mr. Newton : The Government have consistently put additional resources in real terms into Britain’s national health service. The result of those increased resources is an improving service treating more and more patients more effectively with shorter waiting times.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown : Can my right hon. Friend recall whether at any time in the past 15 years any Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has condemned any public sector strike?

    Madam Speaker : Order. I gave a little homily only a few days ago, but I think I shall have to ask the Whips to hold weekend seminars to instruct Members on what Question Time is all about : it is to seek information on Government policies and to press for action.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown : Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether any public sector strike which would damage this country, and which has been condemned by the Government, has also been condemned by the Opposition? If not, should not the British public remember that at the next general election?

    Mr. Newton : On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I can perhaps offer that the Whips will run a seminar on Corfu for the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in the hope of getting from her the answer that we have conspicuously failed to get in the House.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pickthall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Pickthall : Does the Leader of the House share the general pleasure that justice has been done in the case of Professor Tim Brighouse, who is to receive substantial damages from the Secretary of State for Education? Will he assure the House that not one penny of the damages or the costs will come from the taxpayer? Before his right hon. Friend leaves office shortly, will he urge him to apologise to all the other people involved in education whom he has gratuitously insulted over the past couple of years?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend has straightforwardly apologised and agreed reparation for the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In my judgment, at least, the matter should be left there. It does not in any way affect my right hon. Friend’s ability to advance the Government’s very successful education policy.

     

    Q3. Mr. Thurnham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Thurnham : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the Government’s most successful policies is the right to buy, which has enabled more than 1.5 million former tenants to enjoy the benefits of owner-occupation? Is he further aware that over the past five years a further 250,000 homes have been privately let? Would it not be an excellent long-term investment if the Prime Minister exercised the right to buy No. 10 Downing Street?

    Mr. Newton : I certainly share my hon. Friend’s view that the right to buy has been a hugely successful policy over more than a decade now, together with the Government’s successful policies to increase the amount of rented accommodation, and to tackle the problem of rough sleepers in London. As for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I do not know about the right to buy, but I am sure that he will exercise his right to extend the lease.

     

    Q4. Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Mackinlay : Will the Lord President draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the problem–indeed, the scandal–of court cheats who have been instructed by judges to compensate the victims of their crimes, but who refuse to pay? Is he aware that about two thirds of victims who have had awards of compensation made in their favour against the criminal are not receiving a penny? Is it not time that the Government ceased to be mealy mouthed about the problem and took action to ensure that the victims get compensation and the courts pursue the criminal?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the general steps that the Government are taking to improve the detection of crime and the enforcement of the law. However, he made a slightly separate and very serious point, to which I shall respond appropriately. The right course is for me to invite the Home Secretary to examine the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and to consider what response might be made.

     

    Q5. Mr. Clappison : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Clappison : On the subject of the pursuit of the criminal, is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a reduction of 16 per cent. in residential burglaries in the Metropolitan police area? Should not the good work of the police be supported by the courts handing down stiff prison sentences to house burglars? Is that not the message that we should be sending out, rather than arguing about whether prison works as the Opposition home affairs team do?

    Mr. Newton : I whole-heartedly endorse the thoughts of my hon. Friend in terms of what needs to be done to continue and strengthen the fight against crime, not least burglaries. Happily, there are beginning to be some encouraging signs that the increase in crime is not irreversible. Alongside other things, there have been some welcome cases of a drop in the number of insurance claims–another sign of police success in the fight against crime.

     

    Q6. Dr. Lynne Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Dr. Jones : Talking about fringe meetings, will the Lord President now answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and give the House a categorical assurance that not one penny of taxpayers’ money will go to bail out the Secretary of State for Education, although Labour Members believe in the redistribution of wealth and would have no objection to the Cabinet having a whip round for their no doubt soon to be ex-colleague?

    Mr. Newton : I have already commented on that and made it clear that it was a private matter.

     

    Q7. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Sir Michael Neubert : Should we not pause to pay tribute to the astonishing turn of events that has brought the former Soviet Socialist Republic of Russia into a partnership for peace with NATO? Is there not a lesson to be drawn to the effect that our national security must be defended at all times by resolute and resourceful defence and that the best guarantee of that is a Conservative Government?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The agreement signed in Brussels yesterday is an important step forward and symbolises, if further symbolisation were needed, the changes that have been going on in the former Soviet Union and sets a new framework for peaceful co- operation between Russia and NATO. Russia is the 21st nation to sign the partnership for peace agreement. I agree with my hon. Friend that it illustrates the rewards that have come from the resolute stance that the Government have adopted.

    Mr. Loyden : Will the Leader of the House remind the Prime Minister that the letter regarding MV Derbyshire that I sent to him about three weeks ago has not yet been answered? Does he agree that there is widespread concern in the House about the continuing absence of a Government response to questions and early-day motions on that matter? Will he convey to the Prime Minister the urgent need for a decision to be made so that the work now started can continue and, one hopes, result in a final exposition of the reasons why the MV Derbyshire sank?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman is probably aware of the position. As I said in business questions last week, I well understand the concern of those involved. The chief inspector of marine accidents is to request findings and results of the search from the International Transport Federation. On examination of that material, the chief inspector will advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport whether there is justification for reopening the investigation. That measured way is the right way in which to proceed.

     

    Q8. Mr. Brazier : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Brazier : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at a time when our regular armed forces are facing yet another round of reductions, many of us are deeply concerned that we may also be looking at a further substantial cut in the Territorial Army? Is it not true that the last two major conflicts in which we have been involved–the Falklands and the Gulf–both came from nowhere and both happened at short notice and without any warning? Surely the most cost-effective way of maintaining a reserve for the unexpected at a low level of cost is by maintaining strong, well-equipped and well-trained volunteer reserve forces.

    Mr. Newton : The Government whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the need for increased use of the reserves and share the importance that he attaches to them. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has instituted a pilot scheme, under which he is addressing the possibility of bringing the reserve forces legislation up to date. On the wider issue, I can only repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend and others have said on a number of occasions : that the purpose of the exercise on which the Government are engaged is generally to ensure the maximum emphasis on our front-line forces, and the capabilities about which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is concerned, and to ensure that we do not spend unnecessary amounts on support services at the expense of those front-line forces.

    Mr. Tony Banks : Referring back to those soon to be ex-colleagues, does the Lord President believe that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) will still be leader of the Conservative party at Christmas and that he himself will still be in the Cabinet?

    Mr. Newton : I have already referred to my expectation that my right hon. Friend will renew his lease, as I put it, on No.10 Downing street. On the other matters, I am always confident of my right hon. Friend’s judgment.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    State Property

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by date and item for the last 48 months when an item from the state property inventories maintained at No. 10 Downing Street was discovered to have been missing; whether each item found to be missing was discovered by the Cabinet Office internal auditors or by one of his officials responsible for making periodic checks of the inventory; and if he will list those items that have now been traced, and where they were discovered.

    The Prime Minister : As far as I am aware, no item from the state property inventories has been discovered missing within the stated period.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Developing Nations

    Q8. Mr. Luff : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the assistance that his Government provide to developing nations.

    The Prime Minister : With the sixth largest aid programme, we make a substantial contribution to the international effort to promote sustainable economic and social development in developing countries.

     

    MI6 (Cleaners)

    Ms Harman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about cleaners working at MI6.

    The Prime Minister : The contract which has been let for office cleaning services at the new security intelligence service headquarters at Vauxhall cross provides for a more flexible service at a substantial saving to public funds.

    I regret that staff have had to be made redundant, but the procedures followed were fair and complied fully with the requirements of both domestic and European employment legislation. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations do not apply in this case.

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what criteria are used to assess how many special advisers are attached to each Government Department; what are the criteria of evaluation which are applied when determining appropriate grades and salaries; how these posts are advertised; what interviewing and staff selection procedures are applied in choosing the most suitable candidate for each post; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Special adviser appointments are made personally by Ministers, subject to my approval. There is normally a limit of one political adviser for each Cabinet Minister. There is no formal limit on the numbers of expert special advisers, which are subject to need. Salaries are negotiated individually in relation to the special adviser’s previous earnings, and are confidential. Selection procedures are a matter for the appointing Minister.

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister what was his estimated annual cost in 1992-93 for work by his Office in preparation for Prime Minister’s Question Time.

    The Prime Minister : It is not feasible to separate fully the costs involved.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister how many written questions were answered by his Office in each of the last three years; and what was the average cost per question.

    The Prime Minister : Since I became Prime Minister I have answered more than 2,500 written questions. It is not feasible to separate fully the costs involved.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 19 May, Official Report, column 956, what is his estimate of the timing of the ending of the criminal investigation over Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister : The timing of the end of the criminal investigation would be a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, but the investigation will naturally remain open while the arrest warrants for those accused of the bombing remain in force.

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made of the validity of the alleged claim made in a trial in Beirut concerning the assassination of a Jordanian diplomat by Youssef Chaabane that he blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister : We remain in contact with the Lebanese authorities on this matter. Our present understanding is that Chaabane mentioned the destruction of Pan Am 103 only in claiming that, in the face of interrogation to which he had been subjected on other charges, he would have been willing to confess to anything, even the Lockerbie bombing.

     

    Job Seeker’s Allowance

    Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister, if further details are available about the job seeker’s allowance announced in the Budget statement of 30 November by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    The Prime Minister : Full details of the Government’s proposals for job seeker’s allowance will be set out in a White Paper to be presented jointly by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Social Security in the autumn. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, the new allowance will be introduced in April 1996. Job seeker’s allowance will be delivered from jobcentres of the Employment Service of the Employment Department.

    Employment Service staff will be responsible for advice and help on getting back to work and for the application of labour market tests such as availability for work. Financial aspects of the benefit, including calculation and payment, will be the responsibility of staff of the Benefits Agency of the Department of Social Security, located so far as possible in the same offices.

    These arrangements will provide a comprehensive approach to getting unemployed people back to work including a full range of advice on employment and training and on the range of benefits available to those in work. This will be a significant step towards one-stop delivery of services to people seeking work.

  • PMQT – 21 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Robathan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mr. Robathan : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the real concern throughout the country caused by the continuing reduction in our defence capabilities, as illustrated yesterday by the leak about the defence costs study? Can he reassure his hon. Friends that he will never allow the growth of expenditure on social security to undermine our national security?

    The Prime Minister : I can reassure my hon. Friend that the “Front Line First” programme will do nothing to reduce the fighting effectiveness of our armed forces or our ability to undertake defence commitments. I assure him that our commitment to effective front-line forces remains undiminished. The purpose of the “Front Line First” study is to ensure that money spent on defence administration and support is kept to a minimum. That is a sensible aim, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will join me in achieving it.

    Mrs. Beckett : Will the Prime Minister confirm that a member of his staff attended a crucial meeting of the Railtrack board last weekend?

    The Prime Minister : A member of my policy unit attended a meeting in Whitehall, at the invitation of the Department of Transport, in order to inform me. The negotiations are between Railtrack and the unions. As the right hon. Lady raises the question, perhaps she will now take the opportunity, at the third time of asking, to condemn the strike.

    Mrs. Beckett rose

    Hon. Members : Answer.

    Mrs. Beckett rose — [Interruption.]

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

    Mrs. Beckett : I think that we can take that answer as a yes, so we now know that the Department of Transport interfered in the negotiations, although it said that it had not, and that the Prime Minister’s office meddled in the negotiations, although it said that it would not. Does not it stand out a mile that the dispute would not be happening if the negotiations had not been sabotaged by the Government?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady is being ludicrous. The policy unit attends meetings throughout Whitehall, with a watching brief. It takes no part in negotiations that, as the chairman of Railtrack has made clear, are between him and the unions. However much the right hon. Lady tries, she cannot hide the fact that she will not condemn a strike that puts hundreds of thousands of commuters at risk, when hundreds of thousands of other public service workers have settled for pay increases, far below 3 per cent., which can be afforded. As ever, she is the strikers’ friend.

    Mrs. Beckett : What is completely clear is that no one wants this strike– [Interruption.] –except, perhaps, Conservative Members– least of all rail staff and commuters. Is not it crystal clear that it is happening only because the Government interfered? Yet again, the Prime Minister has caused what he now condemns. Yet again, the Government are saying one thing and doing another. Is not that why nobody can believe a word they say?

    The Prime Minister : This has happened because there is an 11 per cent. wage demand which, by implication, the right hon. Lady would accept. Even now, her condemnation is limply to say that nobody wants this strike; she will not condemn it. She would, presumably, end it by meeting the demand. She backs that extra spending. I remind her that last week, she criticised tax increases. A week later, she calls for more public spending. How would she pay for the settlement–by raising taxes, by increasing public expenditure? The hypocrisy in this case rests with the Opposition. The right hon. Lady still will not condemn the strike. To quote her, that is twice she has refused to answer on condemning the strike. Will she now condemn it, yes or no?

     

    Q2. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mrs. Gillan : Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 40 per cent. of those recently arrested as part of Operation Bumblebee were on bail? Does not that underline how wise our Government are in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down.

    Mrs. Gillan : It will not have escaped the House that the Opposition find law and order so funny. How wise the Government were to crack down on bail bandits in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. As three out of five burglaries are committed by people who are under 21, perhaps the Opposition would care to explain why they oppose policies against juvenile offenders so consistently. Is not that proof that the Labour party is Fagin’s friend?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend has shown with the figures she has used, there is no doubt that far too many people have been abusing the right to bail. Once the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill becomes law, a person who is charged with a serious offence committed on bail will lose the right to bail. That is entirely right. If that person is then convicted, the court can reflect the fact that the offence was committed while the person was on bail. Operation Bumblebee has been a huge success. It has shown that by targeting crime, one can bring it down. What is equally encouraging is that the last quarter’s crime figures show crime down by 9 per cent.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does not the atrocity in Loughinisland over the weekend prove that when it comes to evil, there is nothing to chose between the murderers on one side of the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland and the murderers on the other? I remind the Prime Minister, once again, that the gunmen thrive when a political vacuum exists. Will he confirm that he understands the importance, when he meets the Irish Prime Minister in Corfu on Friday, of regaining, again, the initiative for peace through political progress in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that the murder of six people in Loughinisland on Saturday evening was a vicious and depraved act of brutality. Whether it is so-called Loyalists murdering Catholics or the IRA murdering Loyalists, it is equally indefensible by any possible measure. The right hon. Gentleman is right to stress the need for political movement and political settlement. I am in constant contact both with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I will certainly discuss the matter further with the Taoiseach when we meet over the weekend.

    Mr. Hicks : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the inherent reticence and tolerance of the people of Devon and Cornwall is becoming increasingly exasperated by the inability or refusal of the Government to do anything to alleviate the growing water charges in the area? Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was 12 months ago that he personally said that he would look at this situation? When can we expect some positive news on that front?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will be aware that it is for the Director General of the Office of Water Services to determine– [Interruption.] Opposition Members would do well to wait. It is for the Director General of Ofwat to determine the new price limits and he is in the process of doing so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has published advice on quality matters. That will assist the director general in setting new price limits. We are looking, as I have said, to see what can be done with requirements made under European Community directives to reduce the impact in the west country. We have already found and announced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) should have known, ways in which to hold down the cost of some of the directives. Other ways are still being examined.

     

    Q3. Mr. Nigel Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : Why does the Prime Minister permit water disconnections in England and Wales, but not in Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : Is the hon. Gentleman asking for water disconnections in Scotland?

     

    Q4. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mr. Townsend : Does my right hon. Friend agree that since “Options for Change” was prepared, the world has become more turbulent and less certain? Bearing in mind the fact that the French, who have roughly similar international defence commitments, have recently agreed to up their defence budget, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to look at the planned defence cut of £1 billion in 1996?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, in cash, the French spend broadly the same as we do, although, of course, they have a conscript army in France as compared with the professional Army that we have in the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, through the “Front Line First” defence costs study, we aim to maximise the proportion of defence resources allocated to the front line. I believe that that is the right way in which to determine our defence expenditure, unlike the Opposition, who scream “cuts”, but would halve defence expenditure and would, no doubt, if they had the opportunity, also scrap our nuclear capacity.

     

    Q5. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mr. Michie : Is the Prime Minister aware that, next week, on 30 June, a delegation of health workers and friends, supported by Sheffield Members of Parliament, will be protesting about the closure of the Royal Hallamshire hospital accident and emergency unit in Sheffield? As this is a matter of life and death, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will not wash his hands of that issue, but tell the quangos, which his Government have set up, to stop paying high salaries to bureaucrats and to pay for services for the people?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows of the increased resources that have gone into services for the people. I do not have to hand the details of the particular case that he has in mind, but I have no doubt that, now he has raised it, my right hon. Friend will examine it.

    Mr. David Howell : Reverting to the horrific killings in Northern Ireland and bearing in mind that there has been some talk lately of a return to internment, does my right hon. Friend recognise, before considering that drastic solution, that there is an opportunity for a concerted and greatly enhanced security drive and for a strengthening of legal and intelligence resources applied against terrorism? If that is done on both sides of the border–in Dublin, and in Belfast and London–we have a chance of beating the terrorism, without which there will be no political solution.

    The Prime Minister : As my right hon. Friend knows, the power of internment remains on the statute book, but would be used only in very special circumstances. Co-operation on security and intelligence matters has improved dramatically over the past few years. It is a matter of constant discussion between the British Government and the Irish Government so that we can ensure that whatever further improvements can be made will be made and precisely for the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend.

     

    Q6. Mr. Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Is the Prime Minister aware that Scottish Tories are revolting? [Hon. Members :– “Hear, hear.”] Led by the Scottish Office Minister responsible for industry, they are scared that percentage levels of VAT on domestic fuel will soon be higher than Tory poll ratings in Scotland. Will the Prime Minister now listen to the voices speaking in his direction? Will the message to the Prime Minister from the revolting Tories meet with any success?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure that I see it as the hon. Gentleman does. As he is clearly concerned about the position in Scotland, I remind him that the figures that emerged yesterday in Scotland from Locate in Scotland, the inward investment bureau, show that Scotland attracted more inward investment in the last financial year than at any time since 1981. Ninety-five projects are planned, worth almost £600 million creating 7,700 jobs and safeguarding 3,000 others. That has happened under a Conservative Government in this country improving the quality of opportunity for people in Scotland, whatever gloss the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) may care to put on it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Department of Transport

    Ms Walley : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to abolish the Department of Transport or merge it with another Government Department.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Disability

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers have been given a specific responsibility for disabled people within their respective departmental portfolios.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People has a cross-Government remit for all issues affecting disabled people. The Cabinet Office produces a list of ministerial responsibilities which identifies the responsibilities of all Ministers, including those with specific, designated responsibility for matters affecting disabled people within their departments. The list was updated in May and copies placed in both Libraries. Copies can also be obtained from the Vote Office on request.

     

    Civil Rights (Disabled Persons)

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects ministerial consultation on legislation providing civil rights to the disabled will be complete; and if he will introduce a Government Bill before the summer recess.

    The Prime Minister : In reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on 10 May 1994, Official Report, column 153, I stated that consultation would take place within six months. Preparations are now well advanced on proposals to help disabled people. Consultation will start as soon as possible and is expected to last for three months. No legislation will be introduced in advance of consultation.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 13 May to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will make an assessment of the background work and credentials of Mr. Max van der Stoel for making a report on Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : Mr. van der Stoel is the United Nations special rapporteur on Iraq. It is for the chairman of the Commission on Human Rights to appoint special rapporteurs, who must be impartial. Mr. van der Stoel’s international reputation and his wide experience of human rights issues make him an excellent choice as rapporteur on human rights in Iraq.

  • PMQT – 16 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Clappison : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Clappison : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months this country lost the lowest ever number of days to strikes? Is it not sad that that record is being spoilt by a trade union which, in pursuit of an 11 per cent. pay claim, yesterday inflicted hardship and inconvenience on thousands of travellers and commuters, including many of my constituents in Hertfordshire? Is it not conspicuous that that is not being condemned in any quarter by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : Overall, our industrial relations record is extremely good, and the number of days lost in strikes is lower than it has been for more than 100 years. We now lose fewer days to strikes than Germany, France or the United States per head of population. As for yesterday’s strike, the disruption that was caused to millions of people was inexcusable. Most of the public sector has settled on increases around the rate of inflation. The dispute is over a bid for an 11 per cent. increase before negotiations have even begun about productivity. It is unacceptable, it cannot be right and it should be condemned by every Member of the House.

    Mrs. Beckett : Can the Prime Minister confirm that when yesterday his Chancellor ruled out tax cuts he was admitting what the Prime Minister refused to admit on Tuesday–that a second round of tax increases will go ahead next year and will cost a typical British family £800 a year more in tax?

    The Prime Minister : I suppose that there must be some occasion on which the right hon. Lady will address the current issue of the strike and not wriggle away from it. If she is so concerned about tax, perhaps she will now withdraw all the public expenditure promises that she and her colleagues have made, and which inevitably would lead to higher taxation in future. If she will not withdraw those public expenditure promises, will she please indicate how they will be paid for and by what amount tax will rise?

    Mrs. Beckett : That is twice in one week that the Prime Minister has refused to answer the question. Let us try again. Taxes will go up next year, won’t they? Just say yes.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady knows the contents of the Budget and knows also that she is wriggling and hiding behind promises that she cannot substantiate. Our tax position is clear and open and people know what it is. We have set out a position that is right for this country and which has brought this country back to better economic circumstances than it has known for many years. That is an honest and straightforward position, unlike the position of the right hon. Lady who makes promises of increased expenditure with no indication whatever as to whether she will borrow to meet them and put up interest rates, or tax to meet them, or break those promises.

    Mrs. Beckett : But does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor that those tax increases, and the threat of interest rate increases, are a direct result of the Government’s economic failure and their track record of boom and bust? Whom does he think the Chancellor was condemning–Lord Lawson as Mr. Boom, or the Prime Minister himself as Mr. Bust?

    The Prime Minister : That was very well rehearsed, but it will not win the right hon. Lady very many votes. As for interest rates, I wonder if the right hon. Lady can remember a time when interest rates under a Labour Government were as low as they have been under this Government for the past 15 months. I wonder if she can remember a time when inflation was as low as it is under this Government now. I wonder if she can remember a time when our growth rate was twice as high as that of our European competitors. The answer is that she cannot–and, under any Labour Government, that would never be so.

    Mr. Butler : Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Labour party has voted against every single tax reduction that has been introduced, over many years, by Conservative Governments, and has voted against every tax increase? Does he consider that to be consistency or stupidity?

    Madam Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the Executive that is responsible to the House, and the Executive that must answer questions, not the Opposition. That is the basis on which our democracy is built.

    Mr. Butler : I apologise, Madam Speaker. It was because I was so surprised to be called.

    Would my right hon. Friend consider such conduct on the part of his party to be consistent or stupid, had it taken place?

    The Prime Minister : The Opposition’s position is certainly consistently stupid, and stupidly consistent.

     

    Q2. Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the people are often much more sensible than politicians? If so, has he reflected that last week–not only in Essex, but in a continuous, uninterrupted line from Dover to Oban–his policies were rejected and Labour’s were endorsed? Does he not recognise that he is increasingly seen as the captain of the Titanic–carrying on regardless, blaming the iceberg and determined to rearrange the deckchairs while he puts people’s lives at risk with his own reckless policies?

    The Prime Minister : Well, that was quite an effort. There are certainly occasions on which the public are much more sensible than politicians. They were much more sensible than Opposition politicians in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, and they will be more sensible than Opposition politicians again at a later date in 1996 or 1997.

    Mr. Butcher : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the administration of law in this country now protects the civil liberties of yobs, bullies, violent criminals and drug barons so effectively that the civil liberties of the law-abiding majority are endangered ? The Conservative party never wanted that, the people never wanted it and the Cabinet never wanted it. If the legal structure is being undermined, should we not find out who the termites are before introducing further criminal justice legislation?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is necessary to look at the interests of the majority of the people in the country. I share my hon. Friend’s view : our present criminal justice legislation was formulated with that very much in mind, as were some of the ideas that I have outlined to the House on other occasions.

     

    Q3. Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Flynn : Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in support of his campaign for a more civilised Question Time, which I hope is still continuing, and in the hope of a rational reply, 24 hours ago I sent him the following supplementary question : because of his own personal responsibility and his Government’s responsibility for introducing and promoting personal pensions, will he now give, in clear and simple language, a guarantee that the millions of people who opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and occupational schemes and who have been subjected to bad advice will have all their losses made up and their full pension rights restored?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may not be quite aware of the present situation. The regulator has made it clear that he will use his powers to ensure that anyone who was mis-sold a pension will have a remedy. There is no need for investors in personal pensions to be too concerned ; the hon. Gentleman should have understood that. Within the next few weeks, the Securities and Investments Board is due to publish a full report setting out the terms of redress which should be applied to investors who have been disadvantaged by that advice. They would be wise to wait for that report and not listen to the hon. Gentleman’s scaremongering.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that before the national health service reforms there was no such thing as equality of health treatment in this country and it depended entirely on where one lived? If one lived in Lancaster, one received good treatment, but if one lived in parts of the rest of the country, one did not. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following the reforms, best practice is spreading throughout the land?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that that is the case. The health reforms are spreading best practice in every part of the United Kingdom and removing many of the anomalies that existed previously. That, and the increased resources available to the national health service, are intended to ensure that we have the best possible national health service for our nation that we can possibly afford.

     

    Q4. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Ms Eagle : Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government are currently spending £121,800 a year of taxpayers’ money on the salary of the chairman of Railtrack, who works only a three-day week? Is that value for money?

    The Prime Minister : If he turns Railtrack into the efficient organisation that customers who use trains wish to see, yes.

     

    Q5. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Duncan : Will the Prime Minister convey to the local government commission my constituents’ overwhelming gratitude for recommending the return of the ancient and valiant little county of Rutland? Will he hop across from Huntingdonshire and hang a horseshoe in Oakham castle to celebrate that sensible and popular decision?

    The Prime Minister : I know from my own experience how strong my hon. Friend’s campaign for the return of Rutland has been and I congratulate him on the outcome. He mentioned other counties. I am familiar with one near to Rutland, which I hope will also return. I believe that questionnaires are to be sent to every household, which means that local people will be able to express their views on the matter and on what they wish the outcome to be. That is the right way to proceed.

     

    Q6. Mr. Keith Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Hill : If the Cabinet is so bad that it needs a drastic reshuffle, as he promised on Monday, should not the Prime Minister take his fair share of the blame and reshuffle himself as well?

    The Prime Minister : In the interests of helping the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him, first, that whereas on Tuesday he told the House that unemployment was up in his constituency, today I can tell the House after yesterday’s figures that it is down–and I hope that he is grateful. The words that he metaphorically put in inverted commas–“drastic reshuffle”–have not crossed my lips.

    Mr. Lamont : May I urge the Prime Minister at the forthcoming summit in Corfu to reject firmly the candidature of the Belgian Prime Minister for the presidency of the Commission? Even if Britain did not have an excellent candidate with a brilliant negotiating track record, is it not true that Mr. Dehaene is a federalist of the old-fashioned type and that no Belgian candidate would resist the ever-increasing demands of the Brussels bureaucracy?

    The Prime Minister : At the moment there are only two declared candidates for the post–Sir Leon Brittan, whom we back strongly, and Dr. Ruud Lubbers. Both are highly respected in the European Community and are well known to all the member states. I have made no secret of my belief that Leon Brittan is the right candidate to be President of the Commission and he will have our strong support at Corfu. At this stage, I am not prepared to declare a position on any other candidate or possible candidate.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Referendums

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of the referendums on (a) membership of the European Community and (b) Scottish devolution.

    The Prime Minister : The cost to public funds of the 1975 referendum on membership of the European Community was £6,100,000. The 1979 referendum on devolution for Scotland cost £820,500.

     

    Finance

    Mr. Whitney : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are being made to finance No. 10 Downing street, the Whips Offices, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the ceremonial branch.

    The Prime Minister : Responsibility for No. 10, the Whips Offices, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the ceremonial branch has been transferred, within the Cabinet Office, from the Office of Public Service and Science vote to the other services vote, with effect from 1 April 1994.

    Parliamentary approval of this transfer of expenditure will be sought in a summer supplementary estimate for the Cabinet Office other services vote, class XIX, vote 1. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £7,365,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

     

    Cash Limits

    Sir Cranley Onslow : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to change the 1994-95 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office other services vote.

    The Prime Minister : Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for Cabinet Office other services, class XIX, vote 1, will be increased by £16,366,000 from £27,015,000 to £43,381,000. At the same time the running costs limit will be increased by £15,467,000 from £26,295,000 to £41,762, 000.

    The increase reflects the transfer of certain administrative functions and provision from the Cabinet Office Office of Public Service and Science vote, class XVIII, vote 1, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Convention on Human Rights

    Mr. Maclennan : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to ratify the 11th protocol to the European convention on human rights.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom signed protocol 11 to the European convention on human rights on 11 May 1994, the date on which it was opened for signature. We intend to ratify the protocol in due course.

     

    Student Awards

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if the Departments of Social Security and of Employment and the Department for Education will jointly address funding of students aged over 19 years on full-time courses following the reduction in availability of discretionary awards.

    The Prime Minister : Full-time higher education students at undergraduate level are generally eligible for a mandatory award, regardless of their age. The report of the independent survey of discretionary awards provision, published by the Gulbenkian Foundation on 8 April, estimates an increase of 20 per cent. in the total number of discretionary awards made between the 1990-91 and 1993-94 academic years.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is currently considering his response to the Gulbenkian report. My right hon. Friends and their Departments regularly consult on matters of mutual concern, including student support.

     

    Government Information

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to publish his office’s guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing his office’s guidance.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

     

    Pan Am 103

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Government of Germany about the attitudes of the legal authorities in Scotland and Germany towards those accused of perpetrating the crime against Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister : None. The case is in the hands of the prosecuting authorities.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

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

     

    European Union

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister whether continuing membership of the European Union is dependent on member Governments being opposed to all forms of authoritarian rule in their own country; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : It is a fundamental principle of the European Union, reflected in both the preamble and article F of the treaty on European Union, that its member states have systems of government founded on the principles of democracy.

     

    Correspondence

    Mrs. Roche : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 May, Official Report, column 470, if his office will seek to obtain a copy of the receipt and letter for the Ritz hotel in Paris referred to in the correspondence between the Prime Minister and Mr. Peter Preston, editor of The Guardian.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave on 18 May 1994, Official Report, column 470.

     

    Post Office

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 May, Official Report, column 102, what considerations he is taking into account in determining whether a leak inquiry would be justified.

    The Prime Minister : It is not the usual practice to give details about such matters.

     

    Climate Change Conference

    Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to attend the first conference of the parties to the Framework convention on climate change to be held in Berlin from 27 March to 7 April 1995; and what will be his targets for the conference.

    The Prime Minister : No decisions have yet been taken on attendance at the conference of parties in 1995. The convention requires that meeting to resolve a number of issues relating to the operation of the convention and the implementation of parties’ commitments. The United Kingdom will be looking for a successful resolution of those issues.

     

    Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)

    Mr. Milburn : To ask the Prime Minister how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by (a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14 ; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

    The Prime Minister : Information about job offers is not held centrally. For the areas covered by the Cabinet Office and Office of Public Service and Science votes, the number of applications to join companies is as follows :

    Job applications under the business appointment rules

    |1984|1985|1986|1987|1988|1989|1990|1991|1992|1993

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    By Grade

    Grade 3 and above |1 |1 |1 |3 |6 |3 |4 |7 |- |1

    Below Grade 3 |- |- |1 |- |- |- |1 |- |2 |4

    By Function

    People in contract/procurement sections (under section 15 of rules) |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |3

    People in other sections (under section 14 of rules) |1 |1 |2 |3 |6 |3 |5 |7 |2 |2

     

    Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlay the Government’s decision not to seek to amend the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill at Committee stage; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Although the Government share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people, we favour specific legislation. Despite concerns about the Bill’s clarity, affordability and practicality, we examined it in detail, in a considered way, at Committee stage to see whether any parts of it were appropriate and acceptable. Having decided that the Bill could not be accepted, the Government subsequently announced their intention to consult within six months on proposals for action in five key areas : employment, access to goods and services, financial services, access to buildings and the establishment of a new advisory body on disability.

     

    Beggars

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on the subject of beggars in the last three months.

    The Prime Minister : I have received numerous representations.

     

    Third-party Claims

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 15 March, what success Her Majesty’s Government have had in persuading eastern European countries, which are not yet members of the third-party liability regime, to join the convention system, and implement its provisions in their national law; and what agreements have been reached with recipient states on the indemnification of western countries for third-party claims in the event of an accident at a plant that they have assisted.

    The Prime Minister : Several eastern European countries, among them Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and Romania, already belong to the Vienna convention. The Czech Republic acceded to it in March. Estonia acceded in May.

    A number of other countries in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have still to accede. This is a matter of concern to all those interested in helping them to improve nuclear safety. Every opportunity, both bilaterally and multilaterally, is being taken to persuade them of the importance of acceding to the Vienna convention and implementing its provisions in their national legislation. The Government of the United States have concluded interim indemnity agreements with Russia and Ukraine. These cover material provided under the United States bilateral nuclear safety assistance programmes to those two countries. As an interim measure, the European Commission is continuing to negotiate an appropriate indemnity from the Governments of Russia and Ukraine for European companies involved in the European Union nuclear safety assistance programme.

  • PMQT – 14 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

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

    Mr. McAllion : The family of Andrew de Vries, the British citizen gunned down in Texas earlier this year, has been campaigning for a federal investigation into the misconduct of the homicide inquiry by the local authorities in Houston. So far, it has uncovered many inconsistencies and blatant lies in the flawed official version of events. Will the Prime Minister now overrule the Foreign Office which, until now, has steadfastly refused any Government support for the family’s campaign? Does he accept that if he, too, chooses to ignore the massive injustice inflicted on that British citizen travelling under the protection of a British passport, many people will conclude that those who travel under that passport in future will do so at their own risk, as they will receive no protection whatever from the British Government when they face the direst emergencies in a foreign land?

    The Prime Minister : That was a very tragic death in unusual circumstances and I should like to add my sympathy to Mr. de Vries’s parents and friends. It was an appalling incident and I know that the hon. Gentleman has given a great deal of help and comfort to the family. The trial was conducted according to Texan law and procedures and the grand jury decided not to proceed with an indictment. I believe that the best way forward at present is for Mr. de Vries’s parents to put their points to their US legal representatives and be guided by the advice that they receive from them. I will certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman and, of course, Mr. and Mrs. de Vries, are kept fully informed of any information that may come to the Government. We shall offer any advice that we can, but I do not think that it is for us to campaign. Advising is a different matter.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning tomorrow’s strike by railway signalmen, which will bring misery and inconvenience to millions of people trying to get to work or go on their holidays? Does he agree that those running for the Labour party leadership should condemn that selfish action with equal vigour?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend that the strike is unnecessary and very much regret that it is taking place. I hope that, even at this late stage, it will be possible for the two sides to negotiate on the package that is there to be discussed. If the strike is to go ahead, I assure my hon. Friend that action has been taken by the relevant Department to ensure that a substantial amount of parking space will be available in London to enable as many people as possible to continue with their normal work.

    Mrs. Beckett : Can the Prime Minister confirm that it is still his intention to increase VAT on gas and electricity from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent?

    The Prime Minister : It is very interesting that the right hon. Lady does not want to discuss the question of a strike. [Interruption.] I think that the whole country will have noticed that that is the case and will probably understand precisely why. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any changes in taxation plans, he will announce them in the usual way at the usual time.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is not it the case that next year, with VAT up– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is not it the case that next year, with VAT up and tax allowances–including mortgage interest relief–cut, people will be paying more VAT, more national insurance and more income tax and, as a result, a typical British family who are paying £500 more tax this year will be paying £800 more tax next year?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Lady is so concerned about tax, perhaps she would like to make clear, as she indicated that she would a day or so ago, what her own tax proposals are. Does she want to raise higher taxes– [Interruption.]

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

    The Prime Minister : Does the right hon. Lady want to raise taxes for those people earning more than £60,000, like the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), or for those people earning more than £50,000, like the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), or for those people earning more than £40,000, like the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)? Those are matters that the right hon. Lady ought to make clear to the House, if she is interested in taxation. She cannot hide from the results of her policies and her promises.

    Mrs. Beckett : I can certainly tell the Prime Minister that we will vote against any such increase in VAT, but is not it still more evidence of the Government’s sheer dishonesty that they are speaking about tax cuts at a time when the only things in the pipeline are tax increases for every British family? Does not the Conservative party realise that it is that sheer deception and dishonesty which have led directly to the biggest defeat suffered by the Conservative party in any national election?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady knows very well that day after day she and her hon. Friends make promises, with no indication of how those promises will be paid for. The shadow Chancellor then denies that there are promises. The right hon. Lady never indicates what the impact of her own promises and her own policies are. As the Government, we have to make decisions and carry them through ; she makes promises and runs away from them.

    Mr. Brazier : Will my right hon. Friend give his personal attention to the threatened prosecution of a number of Falklands war veterans? Is not it wrong that a civilian court should hear a case, not to do with something that happened in a prisoner-of-war camp or a safe area, but arising from allegations about what happened in the heat of battle? We expect a great deal of our young soldiers and may have to ask it again of them one day. May I ask my right hon. Friend to give instructions to the Director of Public Prosecutions that that case should be speedily discontinued, in the public interest?

    Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

    The Prime Minister : I understand the strong feelings set out by my hon. Friend and the strong feelings of many people, but I do not think that it is an advisable principle for the Government to seek to instruct the DPP in that fashion. I do not think that that principle would be regarded as proper, whatever the circumstances.

    Mr. Ashdown rose

    Mr. Skinner : Yesterday’s man. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I know that Members are pleased to see each other, but this is going over the top. I want to hear Mr. Ashdown.

    Mr. Ashdown : I am glad that the Prime Minister agrees that these 15 minutes of Prime Minister’s Question Time need to be reformed to make them more intelligible to us and make them more like what the British people say they would like to see, but will he now tell us what specific proposals he has for the House to consider?

    The Prime Minister : As I have indicated to the House before, I believe that there is a widespread feeling that these 15 minutes could be more productively used, but I am conscious that on this occasion the Prime Minister of the day– [Hon. Members :– “Answer the question.”] I will come directly to the point as to my personal view. Let me make another point first. I believe that it is right for the Prime Minister of the day to be here to respond to whatever questions may be put to him by Members. If the right hon. Gentleman asks for my personal view on the subject, I believe that it would be more appropriate if contemporary questions were tabled the night before, so that the Prime Minister of the day can deal with relevant matters.

    I am prepared to answer whatever questions, in whatever fashion, may be put to me. However, I believe that there is a view among people in the country that we should be discussing more relevant matters than is sometimes the case during some of the exchanges that take place during Prime Minister’s questions.

    Mr. Nicholls : Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the survey by Manpower, which shows that job prospects are now at their best for the past four years? Is not the reason for that in large measure that we have not allowed the European Community to dictate our labour market policies? Is not it quite shameful that Labour Members of both this Parliament and the European Parliament are committed to destroying the very policies that have brought about that success?

    The Prime Minister : Thankfully, unemployment has been falling for the past 15 months–by some 300,000–and I believe that that trend will continue, unlike in other countries in Europe. The significant difference between us and them is that we do not have the additional costs on employment that prevent so many people on the continent from finding jobs. Some 20 million people across Europe are unemployed ; only in this country has there been a significant drop in the unemployment level.

    Madam Speaker : I call Mr. Robert Ainsworth. He is not here. Therefore, I call Mr. James Hill.

    Mr. James Hill : This is an unusual event, but I am fortunate to be called. Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the extensive canvassing over the past two weeks, the issues raised were not education or the national health service, but the ways in which we could protect the public through our police and defence forces? Should not the Treasury team make that a priority and put more money into the police and defence forces as and when it becomes available?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friends at the Treasury will have heard my hon. Friend’s plea. There is no doubt about the concern about crime that is felt throughout the country. We are seeking to deal with that concern through legislation and other means and we shall continue to do so. The matter cannot readily be solved at the stroke of a legislative pen. However, it does require legislation and that is being provided, together with other areas of assistance to improve the fight against crime.

     

    Q4. Mr. Keith Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

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

    Mr. Hill : If the Prime Minister can recall life before Labour’s triumph last Sunday, does he remember telling television viewers last Wednesday that we were through the recession and that he was glad that the rich had become richer? Can he explain why, in my south London constituency, unemployment is higher than it was 12 months ago? What comfort can he offer my unemployed constituents who have become poorer?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be in any doubt about the fact that the recession is over and we are back in mature growth. They would also have noticed the falls in inflation, in interest rates and in unemployment throughout the country. I very much hope that that fall in unemployment will soon extend to Streatham, an area which I know extremely well. The hon. Gentleman, who also knows it well, will be aware that the policies of inner London councils in recent years have forced many employers out of inner London. That is one significant reason why, for many years, unemployment in areas such as Streatham has been higher than it otherwise would be. If the hon. Gentleman is proud of Lambeth council, I would be very surprised.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ian Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

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

    Mr. Bruce : Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite large job losses in the Ministry of Defence, unemployment in my constituency fell 10 per cent. in the last quarter? Is not that a tribute to my constituents’ positive action on job creation and to their refusal to take strike action? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the enemy of full employment is the strike, and that pious words on “Panorama” about full employment come ill from people who refused to cross picket lines just a few days previously?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. Actions speak louder than words and, thus far, we have seen that Opposition Members will not cross a picket line although they are prepared to talk about unemployment. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman, as ever, say that the Opposition are on the side of the strikers, whatever the circumstances may be. I hope that the whole country noted that. The reality is that strikes are outmoded and unnecessary and they penalise innocent bystanders. I regret that the Opposition were prepared to do that last week and are prepared to do so in respect of tomorrow’s strike as well.