The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1994

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 March 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Appointments

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of (a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

    The Prime Minister : Sixty-nine appointments were made to bodies under Cabinet Office auspices. One was Asian (1.4 per cent). None was black. Information on the ethnic origin of individuals is provided on a confidential basis. Names cannot therefore be given.

     

    D-day Celebrations

    Mr. Mandelson : To ask the Prime Minister what public relations advisers have been retained formally or informally by the Government to assist in the promotion of the D-day celebrations.

    The Prime Minister : Lowe Bell Communications has been appointed by the Department of National Heritage to help organise its programme of civilian events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-day landings.

     

    European Union (Voting)

    Mr. Jim Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 22 March, to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), Official Report, column 134, which two European Union member states are being particularly difficult in opposing the United Kingdom’s position on qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers after enlargement of the Union.

    The Prime Minister : Belgium and the Netherlands have been particularly insistent that the United Kingdom must give way on the issue of qualified majority voting.

     

    Nursery Education

    Dame Peggy Fenner : To ask the Prime Minister what his aims are for nursery education in the United Kingdom and the role he sees for the various organisations and agencies concerned.

    The Prime Minister : More than 90 per cent. of three and four-year- olds already receive nursery education or other pre-school provision in the public or private sector.

    The Government’s policy is to promote diversity, choice, quality and cost-effectiveness. Our long-term ambition is availability for all those who want it, and we are exploring possible ways of extending opportunities for the under-fives as resources allow. I regret that in my oral answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in the House on Tuesday 22 March, Official Report, column 132, I inadvertently referred to universal nursery education provided in Westminster, when I had instead intended to refer to Wandsworth and its policy of offering nursery class places to all pupils during the year before they reach compulsory school age. This contrasts with the Isle of Wight which provides a negligible number of maintained nursery school and class places.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 March 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Education Standards, Barnet

    Q10. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the London borough of Barnet to discuss education standards.

    The Prime Minister : I have no immediate plans to do so, but I am aware of the improved GCSE results in all the secondary schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

     

    Seals

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 February, Official Report, column 414, how the embassy in Moscow raises the issue of seal pup slaughter in Russia; and what action will be taken to raise the matter of the killing of seals on the shores of the Caspian sea.

    The Prime Minister : The embassy in Moscow continues to raise the subject of public concern over seal hunting with the Russians during meetings with appropriate officials. The issue was most recently discussed with the chairman of the sub-committee on science in the Russian Parliament. The embassy is also seeking an early opportunity to raise the subject of hunting in the Caspian sea with officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

    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 oral answer of 8 March, Official Report, column 148, what discussions Her Majesty’s Government have had with water pump and water filter manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies about supplies of medicines and equipment to authorities in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

    The Prime Minister : None. Our substantial aid to Iraq is organised through the United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations, not through manufacturers directly.

     

    Mr. Justice Wood

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from (a) individual judges and (b) the judge’s representative body about the Lord Chancellor’s relationship with Mr. Justice Wood, prior to the latter’s retirement as president of the employment appeals tribunal; and what action he will take.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Security and Intelligence Agencies

    Sir Peter Hordern : To ask the Prime Minister what provision is being sought in the 1994-95 supply estimates for the security and intelligence agencies.

    The Prime Minister : The 1994-95 supply estimate for class XIX, vote 2 “Cabinet Office : security and intelligence services”, published today, fulfils the commitment I gave on 24 November 1993, Official Report, column 52, to bring together the aggregate expenditure of the security and intelligence services into a single vote.

    Total provision sought for 1994-95 is £881.486 million, around 8 per cent. below forecast outturn for 1993-94. Provision for these services is planned to decline by around a further 5 per cent. in cash terms by 1996-97.

  • PMQT – 24 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dame Jill Knight : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

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

    Dame Jill Knight : Does my right hon. Friend agree that qualified majority voting in the European Union should be considered strictly on its merits? Is not it right to argue robustly for a more democratic system and to fight our corner, instead of throwing away Britain’s hand as the Opposition parties certainly would?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are strongly committed to enlargement of the Community and also to the long- term success of the European Union, but, to be successful, the countries of the Community must be responsive to the individuals and peoples in that Community.

    As I told the House on Tuesday, I believe that we are right to argue vigorously for principles that are important both for Britain and for Europe’s future, and that is what we are doing. We need a balanced decision that safeguards the rights of minorities. When we entered the Community, representatives of 30 per cent. of its population could be voted down : now the figure is 40 per cent. An automatic and unqualified extension to 27 would perpetuate that trend, and I believe that it should be checked now. In 1996, we need a proper, wholesale reform of the system.

    Mr. John Smith : On that subject– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I call the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) to order.

    Mr. John Smith : On that subject, can the Prime Minister explain why there is such confusion–as revealed in the press this morning–over the Government’s policy on Europe? Is not it because the Prime Minister one day seeks to appease the anti-European faction in his party and on the succeeding day seeks to reassure the pro-European faction? Why is he, as usual, trying to face both ways?

    The Prime Minister : If anyone had the faintest idea where the right hon. and learned Gentleman stands on this issue, he might be entitled to ask that–perhaps he will tell us.

    It is absurd to suggest that arguing for better decision making in Europe, which is what I seek, is anything other than the right way to approach the negotiations. It is right to stand up for the principles that we think are correct. It is not thought anti-European when the Italians argue their case on milk quotas or when the French hold up the enlargement of the number of seats in the European Parliament for their interests. We are arguing for points of principle that we consider of importance, and we will continue to do so.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister realise that it cannot be responsible to put at risk the enlargement of the European Community by a damaging dispute, which is at most about four votes out of 90? Why does the Prime Minister not realise that he is putting at risk the accession of four countries that are friends of Britain and are net contributors to the budget?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the British Government were foremost in creating the opportunities for those countries to enter the Community and we are strong supporters of their entry. That does not mean that we must concede each and every aspect of the allied negotiations to ensure enlargement. I said on Tuesday, and I repeat now, that there is time to resolve qualified majority voting without any delay to enlargement. In Brussels, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary described several possible avenues to a solution. So long as the political will is there, on the part of others as well as of the United Kingdom, the matter can be settled within a matter of days.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the truth of this whole affair that the right hon. Gentleman is more concerned to protect himself and his position from attacks within his own party than to fight for Britain’s real and lasting interests in the European Union?

    The Prime Minister : That is unworthy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If that had been remotely true, I should not have stuck, as I did, to the importance of carrying the Maastricht treaty through the House despite the twists and turns of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has demonstrated yet again that the moment something from Europe, whatever it may be, is put to him, he concedes. He has conceded the ending of our national veto, a minimum wage costing £20 billion, a 35-hour week costing £20 billion and every big spending plan to come out of Brussels. Europe cannot afford that, and Britain could not afford the sort of policies that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would accept.

    Sir Malcolm Thornton : In view of my right hon. Friend’s recent and very welcome statement in favour of sport in schools, may I commend to him a report called “A Charter for Sport in Schools”, which was launched this morning and which links sport firmly into the state of the health of the nation? May I also draw to my right hon. Friend’s attention the fact that, for the first time, this links together national sporting bodies, teacher associations and the medical profession? Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to give the report all possible support?

    Mr. Skinner : You can hit that one for six.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his advice.

    I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of sport in schools, not least because not only is it a natural part of growing up for most youngsters but it instils a love of sport in people which they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

     

    Q2. Ms Corston : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

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

    Ms Corston : On both 10 November 1992 and 4 February 1993, the Prime Minister told the House that claiming public interest immunity was a ministerial obligation which could not be waived. In view of today’s statement by the Attorney-General that Ministers have a discretion whether to claim such immunity, will the Prime Minister now retract his statements?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Lady may have been misled by some lunch-time news reports, supplemented by comments by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Let me read to the House what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in his opening statement to the inquiry this morning. I quote : “Where documents or information fall into a class that has been recognised by the courts as attracting public interest immunity, the relevant Minister is under a duty to make a claim.”

    Mr. Mans : Given that unemployment is falling faster in this country than in any other European Union nation, is not the main lesson that other member nations can learn from us that deregulation of the market and the reduction of social costs encourage investment and create extra jobs?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that that can be seen, not just in the position between the United Kingdom and other European nations but in the position between Europe as a whole and Japan, the United States or the Pacific basin. There is absolutely no doubt that a deregulated economy is likely to create more jobs and that an economy that does not pile too many social costs on employers is likely to have a higher proportion of its work force in proper work.

     

    Q3. Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

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

    Mr. Jones : Does the Prime Minister know that in my constituency the production of the corporate jet aircraft is in danger of being transferred, lock, stock and barrel, to an American production line? More than 900 highly skilled and valuable jobs to Wales in my constituency are at risk. What intervention will he make and what guarantee can he give? May I show him a model of the aircraft to remind him that it is the best of its kind in the world? If he believes in British manufacturing, what will he do to help the workers in my constituency?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the specific question that he raises this afternoon. I appreciate his efforts to keep those jobs in his constituency. I share that concern and so do the Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has pledged the full support of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will shortly be visiting the parent company in the United States. In recent years, Wales has made tremendous achievements in attracting jobs. In the past decade, it has secured more than 11,000 inward investment projects guaranteeing 110,000 jobs. It is an excellent haven for inward investment and jobs and we will do all that we can to help retain those.

    Mrs. Angela Knight : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ultimate guarantee of Britain’s national interest and sovereignty is the national veto, which the Liberal and Labour parties would abandon in their desire to allow Brussels to rule us?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I agree that the national veto, which is, of course, a separate matter from qualified majority voting, which we have been discussing, is an important matter. It has been conceded by the leader of the Liberal Democratic party and the Leader of the Opposition. He shakes his head, but he still has not read the socialist manifesto that he signed up to without reading and to which he is bound.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Ray Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

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

    Mrs. Michie : On reflection, is the Prime Minister still not prepared to listen to the 1 million people who voted no to the Government’s proposals for Scotland’s water? Does he accept that the folk of Strathclyde sent a clear, dignified, civilised and democratic message not worthy of an abusive response and that his own Tory councillors in Scotland now advise that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland should take back the proposals and think again? If the Prime Minister wants his party to survive in Scotland, he should think again.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady will, I think, understand that neither the referendum nor the opinion poll was particularly relevant because neither suggested any alternative structure for the industry. The status quo is obviously not an option, because Strathclyde will not exist as a local authority. There is, therefore, a need for an alternative and it is clearly nonsense to think that each of the new single-tier local authorities could be a separate individual water authority. For that reason, I said that the referendum was an expensive stunt and I still believe it to have been so.

     

    European Court —

    Q5. Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the extent to which European Court decisions are extending the powers of the European Union.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend raises a serious point. It is important that the Court does not extend its powers beyond those established in the treaty. We expect it to use its jurisdiction responsibly and impartially to uphold the rule of law in the Community. We need it to ensure that all member states play by the rules.

    Sir Teddy Taylor : I appreciate that answer very much. Is not it worrying that the Commission is regularly using the Court as a means of stretching and extending EC powers, as we have seen recently on social legislation? Will my right hon. Friend find out from the Commission why on earth it announced last night that it will take action against us under the broadcasting directive, with particular reference to our national licensing system for overseas satellite stations? Should not we have less action and more unity of purpose to try to solve problems, instead of these foolish legal actions?

    The Prime Minister : I gather that there is a complex interaction in what is happening. The Commission has announced that it is taking us to the European Court of Justice over the implementation of the broadcasting directive. The point at issue is that the Commission wants licensing to be organised in one way, while we think that it is best done in another. We have defended our position robustly since the opening of infraction proceedings and will continue to do so. I do not believe that the Commission is seeking to spread its activities through the actions of the Court in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, and it would certainly need to operate within the treaty rights that it has been given.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 March 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Consultants

    Mr. Milburn : To ask the Prime Minister how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

    The Prime Minister : There has been no expenditure by my office on contracts with consultants in the last five years.

     

    Security

    Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy on the security of Government information and other assets.

    The Prime Minister : In recent years, the nature of the threats to Government security has changed. While some of the traditional threats to national security may have somewhat reduced, others have not. The security of Government is also increasingly threatened by, for example, theft, copying and electronic surveillance, as well as by terrorism.

    To ensure that their approach to security reflects current threats, the Government have recently completed a review of their arrangements for the management of protective security in Departments and agencies. This has recommended a new protective marking system for documents which will help identify more precisely those which need protecting, enabling them to be protected more effectively according to their value. The new system will also be more closely related to the code of practice on Government information announced in the Government’s White Paper on openness.

    In addition, the review has concluded that existing security measures should be examined closely to ensure they are necessary in relation to today’s threats; that commercially available security equipment should be more widely used; and that personnel vetting enquiries should be streamlined particularly in routine cases. Overall, the aim is to give Departments and agencies, and management units within them, greater responsibility for assessing the nature of the risks they face and for making decisions, within a framework of common standards of protection, about the security measures they need to put in place. Substantial cost savings will result.

    The first stage of the implementation of the proposals of this review will be the introduction of a new protective marking system with effect from 4 April 1994 alongside the code of practice on access to Government information. The new definitions, which will allow fewer Government documents to be classified, particularly at the higher levels, are set out. The other elements of the new approach to protective security will be put in place in due course. The four categories of protective marking : Definitions The markings to be allocated to any asset, including information, will be determined primarily by reference to the practical consequences that are likely to result from the compromise of that asset or information. The levels in the new protective marking system are defined as follows :

    TOP SECRET : the compromise of this information or material would be likely : to threaten directly the internal stability of the United Kingdom or friendly countries; to lead directly to widespread loss of life; to cause exceptionally grave damage to the effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces or to the continuing effectiveness of extremely valuable security or intelligence operations; to cause exceptionally grave damage to relations with friendly governments; to cause severe long-term damage to the United Kingdom economy.

    SECRET : the compromise of this information or material would be likely : to raise international tension; to damage seriously relations with friendly governments; to threaten life directly, or seriously prejudice public order, or individual security or liberty; to cause serious damage to the operational effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces or the continuing effectiveness of highly valuable security or intelligence operations; to cause substantial material damage to national finances or economic and commercial interests.

    CONFIDENTIAL : the compromise of this information or material would be likely : materially to damage diplomatic relations (ie cause formal protest or other sanction); to prejudice individual security or liberty; to cause damage to the operational effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces or the effectiveness of valuable security or intelligence operations; to work substantially against national finances or economic and commercial interests; substantially to undermine the financial viability of major organisations; to impede the investigation or facilitate the commission of serious crime; to impede seriously the development or operation of major government policies; to shut down or otherwise substantially disrupt significant national operations.

    RESTRICTED : the compromise of this information or material would be likely : to affect diplomatic relations adversely; to cause substantial distress to individuals; to make it more difficult to maintain the operational effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces; to cause financial loss or loss of earning potential to or facilitate improper gain or advantage for individuals or companies; to prejudice the investigation or facilitate the commission of crime; to breach proper undertakings to maintain the confidence of information provided by third parties; to impede the effective development or operation of government policies; to breach statutory restrictions on disclosure of information; to disadvantage government in commercial or policy negotiations with others; to undermine the proper management of the public sector and its operations.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of Tuesday 8 March, Official Report, column 148, if he has now considered, following his meeting of 3 March with the hon. Member for Linlithgow, the provision of water filtering and water pumping equipment to Iraq; and what action he has taken to respond to the list of pharmaceuticals required in the valleys of the Euphrates and the Tigris for infants with diseases related to malnutrition in the summer.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 March 1994] : I have now written to the hon. Member following our recent meeting.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 March 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Punjab

    Mr. Spellar : To ask the Prime Minister whether he raised the question of human rights in the Punjab with the Indian Prime Minister during his recent visit.

    The Prime Minister : I discussed human rights in India with Mr. Narasimha Rao. The main focus of our discussion on human rights was, however, Kashmir.

     

    Chief of Defence Staff

    Mr. Mullin : To ask the Prime Minister on what date he was first informed that the position of Sir Peter Harding as Chief of the Defence Staff might be compromised.

    The Prime Minister : I was first informed of the circumstances which led up to the resignation of Sir Peter Harding on Saturday 12 March.

     

    Bosnia

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if, during his visit to Bosnia he sought to establish whether British-manufactured or designed shells, and British-licensed guns, have been used offensively against Bosnian civilians and British service men in Bosnia.

    The Prime Minister : We have no evidence of British-made or British-designed weapons or ammunition being used offensively in Bosnia.

    We understand that a formerly British-owned 1942 40mm Bofors gun has been surrendered under the ceasefire arrangements in central Bosnia.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

    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.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

    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.

     

    Second World War Commemorations

    Sir Jim Spicer : To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to invite German representation at the events commemorating the end of the second world war.

    The Prime Minister : The commemoration in Britain on 7 May 1995 of the end of the second world war will be the occasion to celebrate the 50 years of peace and reconciliation we have enjoyed since 1945. During that time we have developed extremely close relations with our allies and partners in Germany. We very much hope Germany will play a full part and be represented at a high level in the 1995 commemorations, for which planning is now in hand.

    The focus of the 1995 commemorations will be :

    a service in St. Paul’s;

    a parade in central London; and

    a lunch or dinner for the Heads of State or Government who attend.

    In addition we hope to arrange a variety of events throughout the country designed to build on the theme of reconciliation.

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list for the last 12 months how many parliamentary questions he has referred to the Cabinet Office for answer; and what percentage of parliamentary questions to him this represents.

    The Prime Minister : In the past 12 months approximately 3 per cent. of my written parliamentary questions were referred to the Cabinet Office for answer.

     

    Council of Europe

    Sir Russell Johnston : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has replied to the letter from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Catherine Lalumiere, concerning participation in the Council of Europe’s campaign against racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and intolerance; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : As far as I am aware I have not received such a letter, but I understand that Mrs. Lalumiere has written to the Lord Chancellor who will be replying shortly.

  • PMQT – 22 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

    Mr. Connarty : Has anyone brought to the attention of the Prime Minister the 71.5 per cent. return in the Electoral Reform Society ballot on water services carried out for Strathclyde? Does he agree with the 1,194,667 people who voted against the Government’s proposals for quangoing the water services in Scotland? Does he agree that this is a crushing humiliation, or could it be possible that the Prime Minister will see it as an opportunity to show that we have a listening Government and do the democratic thing and abandon his proposal immediately?

    The Prime Minister : Since Strathclyde wilfully misrepresented the Government’s proposals, I see nothing surprising in the result. The Opposition have continued to link the proposals with privatisation, even though it is perfectly clear that we are setting up public water authorities. They persist in scaremongering about disconnections, although we have no proposals to legalise disconnecting domestic water supplies for non-payment of bills.

    The question that the hon. Gentleman should have asked is how Strathclyde will explain to its council taxpayers the waste of £750,000.

    Mr. Brandreth : Will my right hon. Friend consider adding to his list of engagements [Interruption.]

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

    Mr. Brandreth : Will my right hon. Friend consider adding to his list of engagements a visit to the uniquely beautiful city of Chester, where he will find inward investment at record levels, and unemployment 6 per cent. lower than a year ago and 26 per cent. lower than six years ago? Does he agree that, in terms of inward investment to the European Community, the United Kingdom in general, and the city of Chester in particular, are now leading the way?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly pleased to hear of the particular inward investment to Chester. There has been a dramatic amount of inward investment into every part of the United Kingdom over the last few years–Wales and Scotland have certainly received a great degree of inward investment. That is very largely connected with the fact that we have a very flexible economy and a very effective business tax system, we do not have too many social on-costs, and investment here is welcome.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister think it right that those who can afford to pay fuel bills in advance can avoid paying the new VAT charges on gas and electricity ?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it has long been the case that customers for a wide range of services can pay for them in advance. [Interruption.] There is nothing unusual about that. It has happened before every Budget that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can remember since he entered the House.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister does not even begin to understand the problem here. Does he not understand that it is deeply unfair that those who are better off can avoid a tax obligation which millions of others have to shoulder because they do not have the money to exploit the loophole that the Government have permitted?

    The Prime Minister : It is not a loophole, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says ; it is a position that has applied for very many years. As far as people who are less well off are concerned, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have provided help for them worth £2.5 billion over three years–more to pensioners, more to disabled people and more to single parents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention that all those people will get the money before the bills arrive. That is a prepayment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgot to mention.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that in those replies he has revealed the Tory attitude to tax in a nutshell– loopholes for the better off, and everyone else has to pay in full?

    The Prime Minister : What has been revealed is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is up to his old tricks yet again, telling other people how to spend their own money. It boils down to the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a meddler in everything–in private sector pay, in company decisions and in how people pay their own bills. What he does not mention is the fact that electricity companies, for example, have announced next year’s prices and all of them have frozen the price or cut it. When did that ever happen under Labour Administrations?

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday the Department of the Environment issued a section 13 notice, under the Local Government Act 1988, against the Lancashire county council for utterly failing efficiently to run its ground maintenance services under direct labour? Is that not one more reason why the citizens of Lancashire wish the Lancashire county council to be abolished?

    The Prime Minister : It is certainly a deeply inefficient council, but that is something it shares with Sheffield and many other Labour-run authorities.

    Mr. Ashdown : Are not the policies of the Government and of the Labour party towards the provision of nursery education for all now revealed to be exactly the same–that it will not happen until resources allow? Bearing in mind that it was the Prime Minister’s predecessor, when she was Education Secretary nearly a quarter of a century ago, who first formulated that policy, will the Prime Minister tell us when he thinks that that promise might be delivered–this year, next year, sometime or never?

    The Prime Minister : That was extremely well rehearsed, but, as the hon. Lady mentioned a second ago, if the right hon. Gentleman went to the Isle of Wight he would find no nursery education there, whereas if he went to Tory Westminster he would find universal nursery education.

    Mr. Bill Walker : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under every Labour Government since the war, before every Budget there was massive spending in the shops to avoid the tax increases that always followed Labour Chancellors’ statements, especially during the period of purchase tax when that tax went up to 33 per cent?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. There has always been prepurchase of goods before Budgets, especially Labour Budgets, for precisely that reason, but the Opposition have been out of government so long that they have lost touch not only with government but with reality.

     

    Q2. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

    Mr. Winnick : Is the Prime Minister at all surprised at the way in which the President of the Board of Trade is now constantly being talked up as his successor as leader? Should not the Prime Minister watch his back very carefully when the President of the Board of Trade says that he has no leadership ambition left? If the Prime Minister believes that, he will believe anything.

    The Prime Minister : What the hon. Gentleman points out is the enormous wealth of talent behind me supporting me.

    Mr.Wilkinson : In view of the latest terrorist outrages at Heathrow airport and, more recently, the shooting down of an Army Lynx helicopter at Crossmaglen, is not my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) right to say that the Downing street declaration has run its course? Is it not time to give primacy to the defeat of IRA terrorism, because political progress depends on progress on the security front?

    The Prime Minister : Two things run in parallel : first, the Downing street declaration; and, secondly, the continuing efforts to defeat terrorism and engage in the talks process. Security co-operation has improved and continues to improve. The welcome recent successes on both sides of the border are evidence of the intensive efforts by the security forces in both jurisdictions to combat terrorism. Both Governments are committed to close co-operation, which is currently at an all-time high. I assure my hon. Friend that we propose to build on that security co-operation in both the short and the long term. There should be room nowhere in the United Kingdom for terrorism, and we are determined to maintain our battle against it.

     

    Q3. Mr. Eric Clarke : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

    Mr. Clarke : Is the Prime Minister aware that the Easter egg that he is giving to the British people is a tax rise equivalent to two weeks’ wages for every wage earner in the country?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have conceded before, it has been necessary to increase taxes. I invite him also to condemn the large and unjustifiable council tax increases imposed by Labour councils.

     

    Q4. Mr. Thurnham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

    Mr. Thurnham : Does my hon. Friend agree that many people with disabilities make excellent employees? Will he ensure that the public sector plays its full part in employing the disabled and thus leads all other employers by example?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The civil service is steadily increasing the number of registered disabled people whom it employs. I am delighted that, as a proportion of its work force, it now employs slightly more than the percentage of registered disabled people in the work force as a whole. A number of Departments and agencies do significantly better than that. I share my hon. Friend’s desire to see progress made, but it is encouraging that the public sector is now doing better than the private sector.

    Mr. Radice : Which is more important to the Prime Minister–a blocking minority of 23 on qualified majority votes to the Council of Ministers, or an enlargement of the European Union?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman states a choice which, had he ever negotiated in Europe, he would not have stated in that fashion. He is blind to both the short and long-term consequences of change to the qualified majority vote system. We are determined to negotiate in Brussels, and to fight Britain’s corner just as hard as every other nation would fight for itself. We will not be moved by phoney threats to delay enlargement. There is ample time to complete the enlargement process; if there is delay, it will be because certain other member states–two in particular–have taken an inflexible and doctrinaire line. We shall not do what the Labour party do, which is to say yes to everything that comes out of Europe, with no critical examination whatever. The Opposition would sign away our votes, our competitiveness and our money. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is the man who likes to say yes in Europe–Monsieur Oui, the poodle of Brussels.

     

    Inward Investment (Northern Region)

    Q5. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of the social chapter on inward investment in the northern region ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The northern region has an excellent record for attracting inward investment and creating jobs. Since 1985 the Northern Development Corporation has secured 36,000 jobs for the region. By piling on costs to business, the social chapter would destroy jobs in the northern region, as it would across the country.

    Mr. Bates : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the decision by Black and Decker to close its production plant in Limburg in Germany and move to Spennymoor in county Durham because of the excessive level of non-wage labour costs in Germany? Does that not clearly demonstrate that the best way to keep manufacturing jobs in the north-east is to keep Britain out of the social chapter?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree. What is clear when one looks across Europe is that the social on-costs of every country other than the United Kingdom are rendering those countries progressively uncompetitive with Japan, the United States and the Pacific basin. What the social chapter would mean is the loss of jobs in the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the news for the people of Spennymoor. The Durham plant has a very high and very well-deserved reputation for quality. Black and Decker knows that high costs destroy jobs and that, for that reason, Britain is the best place in the European Community in which to do business and in which to invest.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Home Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

    Mr. Home Robertson : As the Prime Minister once dismissed Strathclyde as a monstrosity, I welcome his conversion and the fact that the Government have now decided to keep the Strathclyde passenger transport authority so as to safeguard comprehensive concessionary travel for pensioners in Strathclyde. Why are not pensioners in other parts of Scotland being allowed the same safeguards? I appeal to the Prime Minister to consider that point and to ensure that pensioners in all parts of Scotland, including the east, are given equal rights.

    The Prime Minister : It is extremely unlikely that the hon. Gentleman would appeal to me in any circumstances. The view of Strathclyde that I hold is unaltered, as I indicated earlier with regard to the referendum, which was an expensive stunt. As to the second point, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 March 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Open Government

    Dr. Lynne Jones : To ask the Prime Minister what will be the implications for the operation of the Cabinet Office of the code of practice on open government.

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

     

    Ministers (Legal Action)

    Mr. Wilson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each occasion in the past five years when Ministers of the Crown have requested financial assistance in legal actions, on the grounds that these impinged upon their ministerial duties; and how each of these applications was determined.

    The Prime Minister : No central record is kept of such requests.

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him in February.

    The Prime Minister : A considerable number.

     

    Car Industries

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 February, Official Report, column 581, concerning the sale of indigenous car industries, what assessment he has made of the effect of the takeover of Rover on output and employment in the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is aware of the assurances given by BMW to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 31 January. Nothing has happened since then to change our view that the acquisition offers good prospects for Rover and for output and employment in our vehicle industry.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 February, Official Report, column 581, concerning the sale of indigenous car industries, if he will publish the source of his information concerning the intentions of French Government, together with the timetable for the sale.

    The Prime Minister : The French Government have stated publicly on several occasions that they intend to privatise Renault, and the company was one of 21 firms, banks and insurance companies listed in an annex to their privatisation Bill in July 1993. Mr. Longuet, French Minister of Industry and International Trade, has recently indicated to the press that, despite the breakdown of the planned merger of Renault and Volvo, it is still intended to privatise Renault, although this is understood to be unlikely to take place before the presidential elections in May 1995.

     

    Trinidad Terms

    Sir Thomas Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the progress to date on the implementation of the Trinidad terms; if he will raise this matter at the next G7 summit; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : A total of 20 of the poorest and most indebted countries have benefited from Trinidad debt reschedulings by the Paris club. These are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Republic, Guyana, Honduras, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia. Over $5.5 billion of debt has been restructured under the terms and over $2 billion of debt and debt servicing has been reduced.

    We shall continue to work for full Trinidad terms, including increasing the level of debt reduction for the poorest and most indebted countries from 50 to 80 per cent. on a case-by-case basis, and for earlier action on reducing the whole stock of official debt. The summit of G7 Heads of Government later this year will provide such an opportunity.

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in the last five years he has knowingly provided incomplete information to answers to parliamentary questions other than on grounds of disproportionate cost; and on what subjects.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 15 March 1994, Official Report, column 645.

     

    India

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he raised the matter of the proliferation consequences of India’s nuclear capability with his Indian counterpart during his recent visit.

    The Prime Minister : No. The Indian Government are well aware of our concerns about nuclear proliferation in south Asia, which were raised with the Indian Foreign Secretary during Mr. Narasimha Rao’s visit.

     

    Parliamentary Bills

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he would support a measure that would introduce a block on parliamentary Bills in the British Parliament if 27 per cent. of hon. Members opposed them.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Official Gifts

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister what rule applies to Ministers; and who is responsible for registering gifts received by (a) himself and (b) other Ministers.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 March 1994] : Gifts received by Ministers who are Members of the House of Commons have to be registered in the Register of Members’ Interests if they exceed £125 in value and if they relate in any way to membership of the House. Registration is the responsibility of the individual Member. “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” provides separately that all gifts accepted by Ministers in their official capacity should be reported to the permanent secretary of the Department. In addition, it provides that any gift exceeding £125 in value must be surrendered or purchased at its cash value abated by £125. Since such gifts accepted by Ministers in their official capacity must be either purchased or surrendered, there is no interest to register.

     

    Orsett Hospital

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if, on his next visit to Basildon, he will meet officers of the Basildon and Thurrock community health council to discuss the possible closure of Orsett hospital.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 March 1994] : When I next visit Basildon, I look forward to meeting a wide range of people.

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit Orsett hospital, Thurrock in addition to his proposed visit to the maternity unit at Basildon hospital.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 March 1994] : I have no current plans to visit Thurrock.

     

    Serious Crime Criteria

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out in a form which does not jeopardise national security the criteria used by the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service to assess what constitutes a serious crime.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 March 1994] : No. The term “serious crime” is widely understood and, in the context of the Intelligence Services Bill, does not require further definition.

     

    Economic Well-being Criteria

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out in a form which does not jeopardise national security the financial criteria used by the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service to assess matters which relate to the economic well-being of the country.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 March 1994] : The term “economic well being of the United Kingdom” is a well-known provision, used in the Intelligence Services Bill, the Security Service Act 1989 and the European Convention on Human Rights without definition.

    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave two examples of where the Secret Intelligence Service might act in this area in his speech introducing the Intelligence Services Bill on 22 February 1994 Official Report, column 157.

     

    Shoot-to-kill Policy

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards a shoot-to-kill policy arising from terrorism; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 March 1994] : We have no such policy. What is normally implied by a “shoot-to-kill” policy would not be consistent with section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 or section 3 of the Criminal Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1967.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 March 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Cabinet Records

    Mr. Kenneth Baker : To ask the Prime Minister whether the 30-year rule applies to the handwritten records of each Cabinet meeting; and, after the lapse of this time, whether they will be open to public scrutiny.

    The Prime Minister : The Cabinet Secretary’s handwritten records of Cabinet meetings are regarded as subject to the Public Records Acts which make provision for the release of public records after 30 years. Section 3(4) of the 1958 Act permits the retention of such records for longer than 30 years, subject to the Lord Chancellor’s approval.

    The question of the release of the notebooks was considered in the summer of 1993, in accordance with a recommendation in the Wilson committee’s report on “Modern Public Records”, Cmnd. 8204. The Lord Chancellor has approved the continued retention of the notebooks. It is proposed that a further review will take place in 10 years’ time.

     

    Engagements

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

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

    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.

  • PMQT – 17 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Bridget Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

    Mrs. Prentice : In the light of today’s newspaper reports, does the Attorney-General still have the full confidence of the Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : The Attorney-General has my full and complete confidence. He has made it perfectly clear today, in the light of the reports in this morning’s newspapers, that he has no knowledge of any approach by MI6 to him or to his office asking that the Matrix Churchill prosecution should be stopped. He has received no notification from the Scott inquiry that any such evidence has been given to it, and the inquiry has made it clear that it cannot recall that any such evidence has been given.

     

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

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

    Mr. Bellingham : Will the Prime Minister find time today to plan a visit to Birmingham and Manchester city councils, where he will find debt at the same level as the national debts of Paraguay and El Salvador? Is it not a disgrace that those Labour-controlled councils, encouraged by Opposition Members, have betrayed not only their electorates but future generations? Is not it time that they were flung out of office?

    The Prime Minister : Those councils certainly have a very poor record, as my hon. Friend says, and although the people of Birmingham and Manchester have a great deal of which they can be proud, in Birmingham, certainly, the people cannot be proud of the record of their Labour council. Of every £10 that Birmingham receives in council tax it now has to spend £7 on servicing its debt, but when one considers many other Labour authorities one realises that it is by no means alone in that appalling record.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does not the Prime Minister realise that he need look no further than Westminster, which has a debt higher than that of Mongolia? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the average council tax to be charged in Labour local authority areas this year will be £40 lower than the average council tax to be charged in Tory areas?

    The Prime Minister : On the right hon. Lady’s first point about debt, she might bear in mind the fact that Islington owes more than Togo, Camden more than Chad, Bradford more than Botswana and Leeds more than Lesotho. As for council tax, the right hon. Lady knows very well that she is not comparing band for band or like with like. When she compares band for band she will see that Conservative councils are many tens of pounds– in some cases more than £100–cheaper.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does not the Prime Minister realise that the measure that we have consistently used not only gives the best overall picture but is the measure with which the Government started out? It is the measure that was used by both the Department of the Environment and Conservative central office in their documents. Is not the truth that the Government changed the measure only when they realised that it showed that people pay less in Labour local council areas? Is not that the reason why?

    The Prime Minister : I must say that the right hon. Lady is being extremely silly and is talking rubbish. What the figures show across the country is that Conservative-controlled local authorities set far lower council taxes than do Labour. So far this year the figures…

    Mrs. Beckett indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister : It is no good the right hon. Lady shaking her head : it is quite true. The figures show that where Labour controls both tiers of English local government the average council tax is £560 for a band C property, over £130 more than the Conservative average of £429. However the right hon. Lady wriggles, she will find that pattern across the country.

    Mrs. Beckett : It is the Prime Minister who is wriggling. He started off with average measures of council tax, he went on to quote band D and now he is quoting band C. Is not this just further evidence that we are fast reaching the stage where the Government are incapable of telling the truth about taxation? In local government or national government, with the Conservatives one pays more and one gets less.

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Lady wants to see some high taxes in local government she should look in the mirror, for it is her party which is providing them. Of the 10 highest council taxes announced, seven are from Labour local authorities and none has been set by a Conservative authority. Of the 10 lowest council taxes announced, none comes from a Labour authority. Five of the 10 districts announcing the lowest bills are under Conservative control. Whatever the hon. Lady has to say, she cannot hide the fact that one gets a better deal under Conservative councils, that the services are better and that the council tax is lower. Though she wriggles from here to next Tuesday, she cannot hide that fact.

    Mr. Knapman : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust stance to date on qualified majority voting. Does he agree that it will be in the best interests of both the country and the party if that robust stance is maintained?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in the middle of negotiations that are important for the future of the European Community and for us, and I have no intention of being moved by synthetic efforts at pressure from any source. We shall defend the country’s best interests in those negotiations and I am entirely confident that that can be done in an acceptable way without any question of delaying enlargement.

    Mr. Ashdown : Why does the Prime Minister not realise that investing the £900 million necessary to provide fully funded, high-quality nursery education, available to every three and four-year-old in the country, is the best investment that the country can make? Instead of raising taxes to prepare for tax bribes at the next election, why will he not invest to prepare our children for the next century?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would raise taxes and he has made that clear. I hope that everyone understands that. We have made it perfectly clear that, as and when resources are available, we shall move towards further nursery education, towards universal nursery education. The reports that may have excited the right hon. Gentleman’s interest earlier this week in one national newspaper were wrong.

    Mr. Marland : As my right hon. Friend is aware, the report of the forestry review group is now in the hands of Ministers. As my right hon. Friend recognises, the Forestry Commission is included in the review. Not only by my constituents in the forest of Dean but throughout the nation, the Forestry Commission is held in high esteem. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, before any decisions are made in the light of the report, interested parties will have the opportunity to comment?

    The Prime Minister : Of course we are examining the report carefully and will seek a good deal of consultation. We have the report, we are examining it and it will be some while before we reach a decision.

     

    Q3. Mr. Austin-Walker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

    Mr. Austin-Walker : Has the Prime Minister seen the report today which shows that the response times of the London ambulance service have worsened since the Secretary of State intervened to sort out the chaos? In view of the inability of the London ambulance service to come anywhere near patients charter standards, does it make sense to close up to 10 of London’s accident and emergency units–or is it nothing to do with him?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows that, in terms of London health, we are seeking first to make sure that we have the resources for the improvement of primary health care, which needs substantial improvement in London. In order to do that, it is necessary to rationalise a proper hospital system. We have taken action..

    Mr. Foulkes : Answer.

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will stop shouting and wait for the answer, I shall give it to him. As for the ambulance service, the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) will know of the measures that have been taken to ensure that a proper service is readily available.

    Mr. Thomason : Has my right hon. Friend seen today’s car production figures? Will he join in welcoming them? Does he agree that the Labour party, many of the members of which have car plants in their constituencies, has consistently talked down our motor industry, and Britain generally?

    The Prime Minister : It is certainly the case that the motor car industry was in a very desperate state a few years ago. That has changed dramatically. The production figures this morning show that car production is up 6 per cent. on a year ago. The British car industry is now a success story to an extent that was inconceivable in the strike-ridden days so beloved in the memory of Opposition Members.

     

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

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

    Mr. Darling : Is the Prime Minister concerned about the sale by Scottish Homes–a Government quango–of 1,200 houses, some for as little as £1 each, to a housing association chaired by a former Scottish Office Minister, an hon. Member who is now a Northern Ireland Minister? Does he agree that it is no surprise that many people believe that the Government are drowning in a sea of sleaze and secrecy entirely of their own making?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman has any firm charges to make, perhaps he should make them other than by innuendo and under privilege of the House. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was an unpaid, voluntary, non-executive chairman of the Waverley housing trust. He had no financial interest whatever in the trust. His involvement was solely to pursue an interest in providing new forms of social housing management involving participation by tenant representatives. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on his question and he should then offer a public apology to my hon. Friend.

    Mr. Coe : In the wake of the recent tragic murder investigations in Gloucester, is my right hon. Friend aware of the welcome news this week that four missing people have been reunited with their families ? Will he welcome with me and salute the superb work of the Missing Persons Bureau and the national helpline?

    The Prime Minister : I had heard that welcome news. Out of the dreadful saga of recent weeks, it is at least one positive outcome that everyone can welcome. I certainly think that it shows how important is the work of organisations such as the Missing Persons Bureau. I willingly pay tribute to it and to the National Missing Persons Helpline, as requested by my hon. Friend.

     

    Q5. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : As a Home Office Minister said on Friday that the Government would not support the Racial Hatred and Violence Bill that has been prepared by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), and setting that against the background of the eight racial murders that have been committed in the past few years, how can the Prime Minister justify to the relatives of those who have been murdered in that way the fact that the Government can find time in their legislative programme to outlaw hunt saboteurs, but cannot find the time to tackle the escalating tide of racial violence to which my party drew attention this morning?

    The Prime Minister : Every sensible person will share a concern about crimes motivated by racial hatred. That is certainly the position of the Government. As for the Bill, we believe that the scope of the existing law is adequate, although we shall continue to consider how that law is working in practice. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is already a specific offence punishable by imprisonment for up to two years to stir up racial hatred. In addition, the full range of criminal law is available to deal with other crimes motivated by racial hatred. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, for example, deals with low-level harassment. A range of measures is available. Of course we will keep them under review because there should be no place in this country for racial hatred of any sort from any group directed at any other group.

    Mr. Duncan Smith : I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on standing firm in his negotiations on the blocking minority. Does not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that if the Foreign Secretary chooses to stand firm next week, he will have the wholesale support of Conservative Members and of the country?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend will certainly take the position in the negotiations next week–at the moment, those negotiations are at an extremely serious stage–that he believes to be in the interests of this country, both in the short and in the long term. There are important interests, both short term and long term, to be safeguarded, and it is on that basis that my right hon. Friend will negotiate.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 March 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministerial Receptions

    Mr. Boyes : To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of prime ministerial receptions in 1993-94.

    The Prime Minister : The cost to my office of ministerial receptions in 1993-94 is included in the overall administrative expenditure which is published every year in the Cabinet Office departmental report.

     

    Iraq (Sanctions)

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister following the meeting on 23 February between the head of the middle eastern department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Riad El Taher and the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will consider the case for urging the United Nations to lift sanctions before the summer heat arrives in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates; and what estimate he has made of the incidence of disease in the river valleys.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 10 March 1994] : I am looking into the specific point which the hon. Member put to me in the House on 8 March.

    The Security Council decided on 18 January that there are no grounds for lifting sanctions but medical supplies have never been subject to sanctions. There is no authoritative estimate of the incidence of disease in the river valleys.

     

    Renault

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 February, Official Report, column 581, whether he will urge the French Government to sell Renault to a German car manufacturer.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Mr. Paul Bennett

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister which Minister signed in July 1992 the public interest immunity certificate in relation to the prosecution of Paul Bennett.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the then Home Secretary signed the certificate.

     

    Royal Tour (Caribbean)

    Mr. Lewis : To ask the Prime Minister what is the purpose of the royal tour of the Caribbean and the cost, including the use of the royal yacht Britannia; and under which expenditure heads the cost will be borne.

    The Prime Minister : The purpose of Her Majesty the Queen’s visit to Commonwealth countries and dependent territories in the Caribbean basin and to Bermuda was to reaffirm the close relationship which exists between the United Kingdom and those countries and territories. In each destination a number of specific objectives were achieved. These included demonstrating the importance we attach to our continuing responsibility for the dependent territories ; and the Queen’s continuing commitment to her realms. The visit to Guyana marked our recognition of the restoration of democratic government there.

    Costs to the United Kingdom will be borne by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Metropolitan police and by Buckingham palace. Exact figures are not available : some bills have not yet been presented and the cost of diplomatic service staff who worked on the visit could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information on the cost of individual voyages by the royal yacht is not maintained.

     

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

    Dr. Lynne Jones : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 21 January, Official Report, column 850, which treaty provisions will apply when deciding whether the European Parliament will be consulted on the ratification of GATT.

    The Prime Minister : The European Parliament will be consulted in accordance with the provisions of article 228 of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Maastricht treaty. The Foreign Affairs Council agreed on 21 February that the assent procedure, as set out in that article, will apply.