The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1994

  • PMQT – 10 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

    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 have further meetings later today.

    Mr. Flynn : In a letter to me from the Imperial Tobacco Company, the corrupt practice is exposed that, in the general election, it awarded 1,000 advertising sites to the Tory party because the Tory party promised not to ban tobacco advertising. The Government have now delivered on that promise to their paymasters. The cost will be borne by the nation in several thousand avoidable and unnecessary deaths. Will the Prime Minister promise today that never again will the Tory party accept bribes, favours or money from the tobacco industry?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly overlooks the excellent record that this Government have had in reducing smoking–down from 45 to 28 per cent. He knows very well of the changes in taxation that have been necessary to achieve that. He illustrates that no company that was remotely sensible would support the policies of the Labour party.

    Mr. Waterson : Will my right hon. Friend consider making public funds available so that every business in the land can be sent a copy of the European socialist manifesto so that they may judge for themselves whether it is a constructive business plan or a fast route to failure?

    The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure that would be a proper use of public funds. I very much doubt whether anybody would really wish to read it. It is certainly clear that what is contained in that socialist manifesto, which was signed up to by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)–without, as I recall, reading it–would be desperately damaging for British industry. It is equally true that the decision in the past of Members of the European Parliament who support the Labour party to vote for ending single nation vetoes would in effect mean that we would not be able to sustain our rebate, at a cost of many billions of pounds to the British taxpayer.

    Mr. John Smith : Given the widespread concern throughout the country at the arbitrary and unfair decisions that are being produced by the system operated by the Child Support Agency, why are the Government so opposed to allowing an independent review of its decisions?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there will be a full debate on that issue later today. As I have said on previous occasions, we have made it clear that we shall keep the nature of the system under review and if it seems necessary to make changes we will do so. We are embarking on implementing a principle that is supported uniformly across the House. We need a little more experience of how it works. We will keep it under review. If it is necessary to make changes, we shall make them then, not now.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the Prime Minister aware that the phrase “keeping under review” has been the bromide response of bureaucrats down the decades? Why do the Government–despite all the evidence–stop the Child Support Agency from taking into account divorce or separation agreements involving the transfer of assets, which may be highly relevant to establishing justice between the parties?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously did not listen to what I said a moment ago. I made it perfectly clear that we would continue to evaluate the workings of the Child Support Act 1991 and the agency. We intend to secure a well-accepted, consistent mechanism to deliver a better child maintenance system than we have had in the past. That is why I said that we would keep the matter under review.

    This system is unlike anything that has been tried before. It is generally accepted to be right in principle–not least by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is nodding. It is right to consider it and, having considered it, decide then whether further changes are necessary.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister cannot be so complacent about the anger that is now felt throughout the country–and his Back Benchers certainly should not be so complacent about it. Does not 80 per cent. of the money recovered by the agency go straight to the Treasury? Did the Government intend that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman reveals instinctively that he thinks in terms of “big government”, rather than thinking of the taxpayer. The money is actually returned to the taxpayer who contributed it in the first place.

    Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain’s only interest in Bosnia is assisting in the provision of humanitarian aid? Can he assure the House that we will not prejudice that effort by attacking any of the combatants?

    The Prime Minister : The measures agreed yesterday at the North Atlantic Council are intended primarily to reinforce the peace process. There will be renewed diplomatic effort to encourage all sides to reach an agreement and stick to it.

    No course in Bosnia is free of risks; that has been the case from the beginning. I do not myself believe, however, that doing nothing would be the right option for the House or NATO to adopt in the circumstances that have now arisen. In the discussions at the North Atlantic Council, we urged our allies to look forward. We do not favour purely punitive action; force should not be used unless it is genuinely necessary, and increases the chance of a peaceful settlement.

    Another relevant point is the fact that NATO has warned all sides to cease their bombardment. It has taken specific and carefully constructed decisions to reinforce the efforts of the commanders on the ground, but the objective is to help the civilian population without changing the character of the United Nations’ role.

     

    Q2. Mr. Cousins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Cousins : Does the Prime Minister agree that, although private matters can be cruelly exposed within hours, issues of public accountability can sometimes lie dormant for years? Can he assure the House that British aid and export packages have never been used to cover the cost of large-scale commissions and backhanders?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of no circumstances in which that has happened. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I hope that he will show it either to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or to me.

    Mr. Cash : Has my right hon. Friend seen the manifesto adopted by the European Peoples party on 3 February? Is he aware that it contains a commitment to a single currency, a central bank, the social chapter, a common immigration policy and a constitution for the whole of Europe? Does he agree that Conservative Members could not possibly accept those proposals, and repudiate them explicitly?

    The Prime Minister : Neither do we have to accept them; nor will we. The Conservative party at the European elections is in agreement and will contest those elections on a distinctively British Conservative manifesto on the future of Europe.

     

    Q3. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Illsley : On the subject of the appropriate use of the taxpayers’ money, does not the Prime Minister agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Department of Employment can waste £59 million on unused computer equipment, when thousands of my constituents are facing cuts in unemployment benefit as a result of his mismanagement, or are bureaucratic waste, sleaze and corruption no longer his responsibility?

    The Prime Minister : The Government always study Public Accounts Committee reports carefully. The lessons in that have already been learnt and put into practice.

     

    Q4. Mr. Alan Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend agree that national health service trusts, general practitioner fundholding and the patients charter are yielding valuable improvements in efficiency and quality of service? Does he further agree that not only the patients, but those who work in the national health service do not want those reforms undone and everything turned upside down, as the Labour party proposes?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The test that we should apply to the health service and efficiency is perfectly straightforward. Is the health service treating more patients? Is it providing better care and is it treating people more quickly? The answer to each of those questions is yes. The national health service treated 2.5 million more patients last year than in 1979. By contrast, the ludicrous document launched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman this morning, contains nothing that would lead to a single extra patient being treated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would like to abolish trusts and fundholding. That is a recipe for inefficiency, upheaval and chaos.

    Mr. Jamieson : Is the Prime Minister aware that his education Minister in the other place announced last week that there would be no extra assistance to grant-maintained schools for their liability to pay value added tax on fuel? Is he aware that grant-maintained schools are now paying £2.50 in every £100 in taxation rather than on books?

    The Prime Minister : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more and more schools are seeking to become grant maintained and doing so week after week?

     

    Q5. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mrs. Gillan : In his very busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to look at the recent Confederation of British Industry survey, which shows that business confidence in Britain is at an all-time high? Orders are up and, in the words of the CBI survey, the recovery is deepening and widening. Does he agree that such good economic indicators and such good signs bode well for private investment in projects such as crossrail?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend refers to one of a number of surveys that have highlighted the improving economic circumstances. The survey to which my hon. Friend refers shows business and export optimism up in each and every region of the country. Orders are up, output is expected to rise and investment in plant and machinery is expected to rise. That is against a background of low inflation with unit costs falling in most regions. The prospects for British business are extremely good. By getting inflation under control, cutting public spending and bringing interest rates down, we have provided exactly the right economic circumstances for long-sustained growth with low inflation and the creation of employment.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Q6. Mr. Macdonald : To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the number of people killed in Sarajevo since the passage of the United Nations Security Council resolution of June 1992 authorising the use of force by UNPROFOR to protect the safe areas.

    The Prime Minister : We do not have reliable estimates for casualties in Sarajevo. The death toll has been high. The killing of 68 shoppers in the market last Saturday was a step change in a deteriorating situation. There can be no guarantee of peace in Sarajevo or in any other part of Bosnia. There is no feasible and certain means of resolving the problem from outside, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s decision yesterday will put the parties under heavier pressure to stop the bombardment and make peace.

    Mr. Macdonald : Does the Prime Minister accept that there can be no logical or moral justification for distinguishing between Sarajevo and the other UN-designated safe areas in Bosnia, and that about 2, 500 civilians have died in all those safe areas since June last year, when the UN authorised the use of force to protect those people? Will he, therefore, undertake to work to extend the ultimatum that has been issued in respect of Sarajevo to those other safe areas?

    The Prime Minister : We have to determine what is practicable. We are already working, as far as Srebrenica and Tuzla are concerned, to try and ensure that the situation improves. We are now doing that having seen the special difficulties in Sarajevo. To follow to its logical conclusion the concern that the hon. Gentleman set out would involve our becoming involved, very probably with troops on the ground, throughout the whole of the area of conflict. However strongly the hon. Gentleman may feel about the matter, or others, that is not a practicable proposition.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview with Russian Journalists – 10 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview with Russian journalists, held outside 10 Downing Street in London on 10th February 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I shall certainly go there with very warm feelings for the Russian people. I have enjoyed my past visits to Russia and I have enjoyed meeting Russian leaders here on a number of occasions. I have a fairly extensive agenda and I look forward to discussing with President Yeltsin both matters internal to Russia, bilateral matters and of course there are a wide range of international matters we will wish to discuss with him both economic and political. I expect them to be very wide ranging discussions indeed.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the change of Cabinet in Russia is a matter for the Russian people. My concern and that is the concern of all my colleagues in this country is to continue the success of the reform programme and the success of the movement towards economic prosperity in Russia. That is in Russia’s interests and it is very much what we wish to see as well.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, you will be the first western leader to meet the Russian leadership after the NATO decision in Yugoslavia which may seriously affect the Russian relationship with the western world. What do you think will be the main purpose of your visit in this concern?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I very much look forward to discussing this in Moscow next week. The objectives that the Russian Government have are the same objectives that we have in the west. We would like to see the fighting stopped, we would like to see a political settlement. Emphatically what NATO is doing is not taking sides in the conflict. That is not what we are doing. What we are concerned about is to stop the fighting around Sarajevo and the needless and senseless deaths that occur there. That is the purpose of what we are seeking to do but the objective is one I believe Russia shares and that is to find a negotiated settlement to the conflict. There is no other satisfactory outcome.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Russia is a very large and a very powerful nation. We are concerned to have very good relations with Russia. If there are any areas we can help then we are very happy to help. But of course Russia has a great deal to offer the rest of the world.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you might ask that question and get a better answer this time next week, but I will expect to be very warmly wrapped up for the Russian winter. We are quite hardy we East Anglians.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Rooker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

    The Prime Minister : The general practice of this and previous Administrations is described on page 292 of the current edition of “Erskine May”.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Bodies

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip’s Office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

    The Prime Minister : It is not the practice of Her Majesty’s Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) of 25 January, Official Report, column 152, if he will now make it his policy to give substantive answers to parliamentary questions on his testimony given at the Scott inquiry on 17 January.

    The Prime Minister : No. While Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry continues, it would be inappropriate to comment substantively on any of the evidence which has so far been taken.

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what powers Lord Justice Scott has to compel the attendance as witnesses before his inquiry of people who are neither civil servants nor ministers.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Justice Scott does not have powers to compel people to appear before his inquiry.

     

    Lockerbie Air Crash

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards the possible trial of Libyan suspects relating to Pan Am 103 taking place in The Hague, under a Scottish judge, with Scottish court rules.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s policy is to obtain justice for the 270 victims of the Lockerbie disaster. Part of this is to ensure the appearance for trial in a United Kingdom or United States court of those accused of the Lockerbie bombing. The two accused would receive a fair trial in Scotland. There is therefore no need to establish a special court to try them in The Hague. The Libyan Government should comply in full with Security Council resolutions 731, 748 and 883 without further delay.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

     

    Biwater Group

    Mr. Burden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the public engagements of Ministers held in connection with the Biwater group of companies since 1983.

    The Prime Minister : The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Charterline Pilot Scheme

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 January, Official Report, column 406, what proportion of the representations he has received on the Charterline pilot scheme have been (a) favourable and (b) critical.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 February 1994] : Recent surveys of Charterline users show that 87 per cent. are happy with the Charterline service and 93 per cent. would use the Charterline service again. I have received one representation critical of Charterline.

     

    Pergau Dam

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors led him to make a decision at Prime Ministerial level to over-rule an accounting officer in the case of the Pergau Dam.

    Mr. Goodlad [holding answer 3 February 1994] : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said to the House on this matter and to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State’s answer of 25 January 1994 at column 145-46 to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). have made it clear that if he feels a change in his powers or terms of reference is needed, the Government will be ready to consider that.

  • PMQT – 8 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dowd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

    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. Dowd : And very entertaining they were, I am sure. Will the Prime Minister admit that the Government’s proposals in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill for the measure of a pint of beer represent a total surrender to the interests of a big brewers, who are such generous backers of the Conservative party? Taken together with the craven submission to the interests of tobacco companies over advertising, does not that demonstrate conclusively that whenever the interests of the Tory party’s paymasters are involved, the customer is always the loser?

    The Prime Minister : On both counts, the answer is no. In the Deregulation and Contracting Our Bill we are concerned about removing burdens on business. The principal reason for seeking to remove burdens on business is to encourage their competitiveness, their profitability and their success and to encourage the creation of jobs. It is no good the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues parroting remarks about wanting jobs if they then oppose the measures that will help to create them.

    Mr. Cormack : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progressive destruction of a great European capital city and the extinction of a sovereign state that we recognise are unacceptable?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the problems of Sarajevo and he will know that I will be discussing those with my right hon. Friends this afternoon and that the North Atlantic Council will have a further meeting tomorrow.

    Mr. John Smith : On that point, does the Prime Minister appreciate that, if no action is taken to protect the people of Sarajevo from the pitiless shelling to which they have been subjected, the Serbs are bound to conclude that no action will be taken against them whatever they do?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the United Nations Protection Force contingent is in Bosnia to help the civilian population. The United Nations cannot end the civil war by force. That is a point which is generally understood and I am pleased to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that. That has never been a feasible option. Ultimately, peace will come only at the negotiating table, but the United Nations may need to use force for specific purposes– for example, to carry out its mandate and to protect its own people in Bosnia. It may need tactical air support from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We have always been prepared to see air power used for those purposes, provided that the commanders judge it appropriate.

    On the question of Sarajevo, I do not believe that we can wait for action to follow an overall settlement. I do not believe that it is right to tolerate the continued mortar and artillery attacks against the civilian population. UNPROFOR, with support from NATO, must apply immediate and strong pressure to halt those attacks.

    Mr. John Smith : I appreciate that we cannot end a civil war by military intervention, but should not we set ourselves some minimum objectives? For example, should not a political objective be set to remove all the weapons within striking distance of Sarajevo, with the threat that if that is not done, air attacks will be pursued? Why do the Government not say that that is one of our, and our allies’, political objectives?

    The Prime Minister : As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) a few moments ago, the North Atlantic Council will meet tomorrow to consider, on the advice of military commanders, what pressure can most effectively be applied and how. If we use air power, we must be clear about the objectives of that action. The aim must be to reinforce pressure to end the bombardment of Sarajevo. To that end, the United Nations command must be able to set clear and specific conditions, knowing that tactical air support is available to back it up if necessary.

    Any use of force must be forward looking. It must seek to improve the situation in Sarajevo and contribute to the pressure on the parties to end the war. Those are not easy options and no one in the House believes them to be so. Any decision must take careful account of the importance of the humanitarian operation and the safety of the civilians and soldiers running the operation. Those are the objectives that NATO must consider tomorrow in determining how to proceed.

    Mr. John Smith : On the precise point about the threat to Sarajevo, will the Government support a proposition that an ultimatum should be issued to the Serbs to withdraw the weapons of attack from striking distance of Sarajevo?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday made a clear recommendation that

    “The aim should be to bring about the immediate lifting of the siege of Sarajevo, using all means necessary, including the use of air power”

    but it then went on and looked to the North Atlantic Council to carry forward that process. That decision was precisely in line with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Sir Donald Thompson : Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how he was received by textile workers at Firth’s in my constituency 10 days ago, what their assembled customers told him and whether he was able to reassure them about the future?

    The Prime Minister : It was a most enjoyable visit to Firth’s. It is perfectly clear that the company is very successful. Its order book and exports are expanding, and it has invested in the most modern manufacturing equipment for textiles. There was no doubt about the success of that firm in the minds of either its management and work force or its customers who were present on that occasion.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister’s new, more muscular mood on Bosnia is welcome, but may I remind him that it is now four weeks since he told us of his determination to open Tuzla airport as soon as possible, and probably five weeks since the launching of the Serb spring offensive aimed at obliterating what remains of Bosnia? Can he tell us of any progress in opening Tuzla airport to which he has set his hand?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that matter is under consideration within the United Nations and NATO. It is not a unilateral matter for the British Government. The United Nations, with NATO’s support, is taking a firm line over the roulement of troops at Srebrenica, the opening of Tuzla airport, confronting obstacles to road convoys, warning off the Croatian army and demanding an end to the bombardment of Sarajevo. All those important and difficult matters are being considered by the commanders on the ground on a day-to-day basis. They are receiving the full support that they need at a political level.

    I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would stop pretending, as he does so often, that there is some easy, magical and painless solution to a problem that is intensely difficult for the commanders on the ground and everybody concerned with the operation. The right hon. Gentleman has been consistent in one respect only : he has been consistently wrong on every course that he has advocated since this dreadful conflict began.

    Mr. Paice : When my right hon. Friend was a banker, before he came to the House, how would he have reacted if a business man had presented him with a business plan that concentrated on building up overheads, increasing jobs at the expense of output and maximising wages whether or not the business could afford them? How would he react to a business plan with the social chapter, a minimum wage and returning to all the problems that beset business in the 1970s?

    The Prime Minister : I suspect that I would have reacted to it in exactly the same way as business men will today. They are perfectly clear about the business environment that they want. They want minimum interference from the European Community, the Government or local government. They want low inflation, the lowest possible interest rates and the right business environment. They do not want a 1960s-style business plan.

     

    Q2. Dr. Lynne Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Dr. Jones : Has the Prime Minister seen the report in The Times today that John Cahill, the chairman of British Aerospace who has just sold Rover to BMW, is to get a pay-out of nearly £10 million after only two years with the company? How can that be justified?

    The Prime Minister : That is not a matter for me.

    Hon. Members : Resign.

    Madam Speaker : Order.

     

    Q3. Sir Peter Fry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Sir Peter Fry : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best business plan for Britain is an economy with inflation at 1.9 per cent., the lowest rate of corporation tax in the European Community and the lowest interest rate for many years? Does he also agree that the business plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition would put British business straight into the hands of the receivers?

    The Prime Minister : We all know of, and see regularly, the hostility of Opposition Members to business but the economic conditions that we have now put in place–low inflation, low interest rates and low corporation tax–are precisely what business wants. The Governor of the Bank of England said the other day that economic prospects today are better than at any time in his professional career. We have the basics of the economy right and British business needs the opportunity to build on those basics to create the prosperity, the growth and the jobs that everyone in the country wants.

     

    Q4. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Ms Eagle : If the Prime Minister does not believe that a £10 million pay-off to somebody who has just sold our last remaining car industry to foreign competitors is not a matter for him, will he please explain to the House precisely what is a matter for him?

    The Prime Minister : I am intrigued at what the two hon. Ladies say. What intervention and control would the Opposition propose?

     

    Q5. Mr. Gill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Gill : The House will be aware of today’s announcement that British Telecom intends to extend its cheaper afternoon rate to peak periods. In welcoming those price reductions, will my right hon. Friend agree that they would have been impossible under a Labour Government because of the Labour party’s pathological opposition to privatisation and competition?

    Mr. Major : My hon. Friend is entirely right. Those changes have come about because we decided, against the opposition of Labour Members, to privatise the industry. I gather that many calls will now be 25 per cent. cheaper. That is very good news for everyone who uses the telephone. By privatising British Telecom, increasing competition and introducing a proper sense of regulation, we have helped to make the services more efficient, more reliable and better value for everyone who uses them. That is what happens when one leaves the private sector to run things, when one does not seek to over-regulate and over-control in every respect.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Investment Fund

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February, Official Report, column 734, concerning the accountability of the managers of the European investment fund, for what period funds at their disposal have been part of the annual budget of the European Community; what are the names of those who have the duty of appointing the managers of the fund and who appoints them and what are the names, experience, current employment and other relevant interests of the managers already appointed and the number of vacancies.

    The Prime Minister : The proposed European investment fund cannot be established until the necessary treaty amendment has been ratified by all the European Community’s member states. Only then can managers for the fund be appointed. Meanwhile, the situation will remain as follows :

    (a) No funds are at the disposal of the managers of the fund. The funding referred to in my answer of 1 February is the provision taken by the European Community for its planned subscription to the share capital of the fund. This subscription will be paid over four years. The Community’s 1994 Budget contains provision for the first tranche and was adopted on 16 December 1993.

    (b) The draft statute of the fund places the ultimate responsibility for appointing the managers of the fund with the fund’s general meeting. This meeting would comprise representatives of the fund’s shareholders : the European investment bank, the European Community and financial institutions from member states. The EIB and the EC would hold the majority of the share capital, and their representatives at the meeting would be accountable to the EIB’s board of governors, and the ECOFIN Council, respectively. (c) The draft statute envisages that day-to-day management would be in the hands of a financial committee. This would have three members, one of whom would be a representative of the EIB, one a representative of the EC, and one a representative of the financial institutions. No nomination to this committee can be made until the fund is established.

     

    Child Nutrition

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received from the National Children’s Home in regard to child nutrition; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a letter from the N.C.H. Action for Children. A reply will be sent in due course.

     

    Paper Shredders

    Mr. Rooney : To ask the Prime Minister how many paper shredding machines there are (a) in 10 Downing Street and (b) in the Cabinet Office.

    The Prime Minister : There are five paper shredding machines in 10 Downing Street, and five in the Cabinet Office.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Comments – 5 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep comments, made on Saturday 5th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Michael’s made a mistake; he has apologised; the matter is finished. What I propose to do is get us right back to the red meat of politics. That is that thing that counts at the moment. The Labour Party have a conference this weekend. Are we going to get any fresh policies out of them? Any ideas out of them? Any propositions out of them? The answer is absolutely no. If one looks at what is happening, the British economy is now back on the road to recovery. What the Labour Party are offering is a return to what is the imposition of a 35 hour week, moving to the Social Chapter and all sorts of propositions that will just keep people out of work. That’s what politics is about, employment and jobs.

    [Inaudible question].

    I have told you, we’re concentrating on the real issues of politics. That’s what matters, how to get Britain moving again, to make sure Britain gets back to work again, and we get back into secure, sustainable growth. That’s what’s happening. Those are the message that need taking out to the people in this country and that’s what we are going to do.

    [Inaudible question].

    There’s no distraction that’s going to push this government off the policies that are going to get us back into growth. We’re now in growth, we’re leading Europe out of recession, we’re going to persist with those policies and we’re going straight into the main items of politics. That’s what we are going to discuss with the people over the next few months. Jobs, growth, prosperity, how to keep inflation low. That’s what they are concerned about.

    [Inaudible question].

    It’s over, the matter’s over. We are concentrating on the matters that are really important to the British people. No side shows. We’ve had enough side shows in the last couple of years. What we now are going to concentrate on are the things that are of importance to the future of this country.

    [Mr Major was asked the Palace break-in].

    I have had a report of the incident. There is more work being done and we will see if there are any lessons to be learned from it. No member of the Royal Family was present at the time. I gather it is under further investigation. Security arrangements are not something I propose to discuss publicly. They are kept under very careful review all the time.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister which advisers to his Office are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondment.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Poole is on secondment to the policy unit from James Capel and Co. Ltd. The terms of the secondment are covered by the normal confidentiality rules which apply to employer-employee relationships. The other advisers in my Office are not engaged on secondment terms.

     

    Political Honours

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1979 the political honours scrutiny committee has referred back names submitted to it.

    The Prime Minister : The political honours scrutiny committee is a committee of the Privy Council. Its proceedings are never divulged.

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for future honours lists to include not only particulars of public service of recipients but information on their donations to party funds over the previous 10 years.

    The Prime Minister : No.

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister what is the definition of the term “for political services” as used in honours lists.

    The Prime Minister : The term is used to indicate that the person honoured has rendered public service through the exercise of a political office or through a political party.

     

    Public Appointments Unit

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what information is available to right hon. and hon. Members from the public appointments unit; how this information can be obtained; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The public appointments unit maintains a register of people who are willing to be considered for public appointments. A nomination form and a leaflet explaining the role of the unit, and giving details of the different personal qualities, skills and experience that may be required, is available from the director of the unit, which is in the Cabinet Office. The director welcomes nominations of suitable candidates from all hon. Members.

    The unit also provides advice to Government Departments on public appointments policy and procedures. Details of central guidance and examples of good practice are given in the “Guide on Public Appointments Procedures”, produced in September 1992, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister how many names of candidates for public appointments are held on the Chief Whip’s list as described in the Cabinet Office guide on public appointments procedures.

    Mr. Waldegrave : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend has a number of sources of information upon which he can draw in providing advice, when requested.

     

    Mr. Peter Levene

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what requests his office has received for Mr. Peter Levene to give evidence to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Disabled People

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to promote the rights of disabled people within the international community.

    The Prime Minister : Following the United Nations decade of disabled persons–1983 to 1992–a number of resolutions to promote the integration and equality of opportunity for disabled people have been adopted, which the Government have supported. These include standard rules on the equalisation of opportunities for persons with disabilities, and resolutions on the full integration of persons with disabilities and the international day of disabled persons. The United Kingdom is also involved in a number of European Community programmes designed to integrate disabled people more fully into society, including HELIOS, Horizon and TIDE.

     

    No. 10 Downing Street

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 1 February, Official Report, column 610, if he will list each category of miscellaneous indirect costs of non-official events held at 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 1 February 1994, Official Report, column 610.

     

    Lords-lieutenant

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister what are the powers and duties of the lords-lieutenant in England.

    The Prime Minister : Lords-lieutenant have no statutory powers. Their principal function is to act as the sovereign’s personal representative in the county concerned. Their duties include support of the armed forces, the magistracy and voluntary organisations, as well as certain civic and social functions.

     

    Public Appointments

    Sir Thomas Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the total number of public appointments made by Ministers of the Crown or by the Crown or nominations by Ministers.

    The Prime Minister : The information, as requested, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Belize

    Dr. Spink : To ask the Prime Minister what recent contact he has had with the Prime Minister of Belize regarding the security situation; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I met the Belize Prime Minister during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Limassol in October 1993. Mr. Esquivel and I have since exchanged letters.

     

    Executive Agencies

    Mr. Bayley : To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of civil servants were operating in agencies run along “next steps” lines as at July 1993.

    The Prime Minister : Around 60 per cent. of civil servants were working in agencies and other organisations operating on “next steps” lines as at July 1993.

     

    Cash Limits

    Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to change the 1993-94 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 class XIX, vote 1– Cabinet Office : other services–will be increased by £166,000 from £21,634,000 to £21,800,000 and the running costs limit increased by £166,000 from £24,414,000 to £24,580,000. The increase will be offset by the following inter-departmental transfers and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure :

    (a) a reduction on Her Majesty’s Treasury : administration–class XVII, vote 1–in respect of the transfer of provision for central services– £116,000;

    (b) the transfer of provision for Property Holdings maintenance charges– £56,000;

    (c) a transfer to Department of Social Security administration and miscellaneous services–class XIII, vote 4–for central services–£6, 000.

     

    Angela Heylin

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the appointment of Angela Heylin to the citizens charter advisory group.

    The Prime Minister : Members of the panel of advisers on the citizens charter are appointed in a personal capacity and bring independent, professional expertise from the private sector. Angela Heylin was appointed on that basis.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will discuss Lockerbie when he next meets President Clinton.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 3 February 1994] : The agenda for my meeting with President Clinton on 28 February has not yet been fixed.

     

    Accounting Officers

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister what were the two most recent occasions on which the Prime Minister decided that a written ministerial direction should be issued to an accounting officer overruling the accounting officer’s advice.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 3 February 1994] : None, so far as I am aware.

  • PMQT – 3 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

    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.

    Sir John Hannam : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the visit by Gerry Adams to America has done nothing to advance peace in Northern Ireland? Will he assure the House that the lies and evasions of Sinn Fein will not be allowed to hold up progress towards a settlement in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend, and that will be the overwhelming view of right hon. and hon. Members. The way to advance peace in Northern Ireland is for the IRA to end violence now. That is in its hands, and it is in Mr. Adams’s hands and I believe that he could and should do it. However, progress in Northern Ireland cannot and will not wait for Sinn Fein. The Government propose to carry forward actively the political talks with the constitutional parties and with the Irish Government. In further meetings, my right hon. and learned Friend will be floating ideas to give further focus and direction to all three strands of the talks process. This is a democratic process. If Sinn Fein and the provisionals want to be part of it, they must renounce violence for good. The way is open to them, but it is for them to take it.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it correct that the Government intend to raise prescription charges from £4.25 to £4.75–an increase of 11.6 per cent., which is more than six times the rate of inflation?

    The Prime Minister : When we are in a position to make an announcement to the House about that, we will make an announcement in the normal fashion.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that his likely increase, and indeed any increase, in prescription charges comes on top of massive tax increases already being imposed by the Government on the ordinary people of this country? Given all that, for once could not the Prime Minister spare the sick?

    The Prime Minister : I think that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall, only those who can afford to pay prescription charges are asked to pay them. From memory, around 80 per cent. of prescribed items are now free of charge. In 1979, it was, I believe, around 55 to 60 per cent.–a significant change. There is no firm evidence in any information that we have that prescription charges deter patients from obtaining necessary medication. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that. He makes no acknowledgement of the fact that most people do not pay prescription charges. He should get his facts right before he pursues these matters in this fashion.

    Mr. John Smith : It is quite clear from that that prescription charges are going to go up. Given that the Public Accounts Committee has identified millions of pounds that have been wasted by the Government’s health service quangos, would it not make much more sense to tackle that rather than to seek to tax the sick?

    The Prime Minister : The revenue from prescription charges this year is sufficient to fund around 70,000 hip replacements or 45,000 coronary artery bypass grafts. What I should like to hear from the Opposition, for all their complaints about prescription charges, is whether they would abolish prescription charges. If they would, who would pick up the bill of over £260 million? Would it be the national health service, with fewer people treated? Would it be the taxpayer? Or would they borrow more? That is another example of the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he would control expenditure, yet every opportunity he gets, he asks for more expenditure to make cheap political points.

     

    Q2. Mr. Burns : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

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

    Mr. Burns : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will close any genuine tax loopholes, but will not close what the CBI has shown are not genuine loopholes, as, by so doing, they would fail to raise revenue and would merely damage the economy in general and the economic recovery in particular? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that blows away the smokescreen of the tax-and -spend policies of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : On the last point, my hon. Friend is generous to assume that the Opposition have tax and spending policies. In successive Budgets, we have closed tax loopholes and tackled abuse. My right hon. and learned Friend will continue to do so wherever he finds abuse. The Labour party, with its hare-brained schemes, is not genuinely concerned about closing loopholes. It would close not loopholes but businesses. That would be the result of its policies. As the CBI says today, Labour supports higher taxes on business. That is why Labour will always be the enemy of enterprise, of employment and of British business.

    Mr. Foulkes : Has the Prime Minister had a report of yesterday’s debate on the Child Support Agency, during which hon. Members on both sides of the House related tales of heartbreak and hardship caused by the operation of the agency and asked the Prime Minister and the Government to undertake another review of its working? Will the right hon. Gentleman now announce such a review so that people may look forward to an end to the hardship and the heartbreak?

    The Prime Minister : I read with some care yesterday’s debate on the Child Support Agency, and I am glad to say that the principles behind it received a warm welcome from every part of the House. The reforms will have a significant effect once the maintenance bills of those who qualify are reduced. When the legislation was being introduced, we stated that it would be kept under review. We are still true to that pledge–it still applies.

     

    Q3. Mr. John Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £26 million investment by Nestle Rowntree, at its York factory, in the new production line for Kit Kat, which is one of Europe’s leading confectionery brands? Does not that illustrate very clearly the advantage, in terms of new investment, of multinational companies having a significant presence in Britain?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it most certainly does. I had hoped to visit that factory in Yorkshire last week, but, unfortunately, was unable to do so. I was looking forward to seeing the new investment and to congratulating the management and the work force on their success. What that inward investment shows is that Britain is increasingly competitive and increasingly attractive to overseas investors. That is good news for exports, good news for orders and good news for jobs. Conservative Members welcome inward investment–we do not carp at it whenever it is received.

    Mr. Mallon : The Prime Minister no doubt has noticed that during his visit to the United States Mr. Adams provided some clarification by indicating that he does not accept the principle of self-determination based on consent. Indeed, Mr. Adams said that it would be nonsense to argue for such a thing. Does the Prime Minister agree that that runs counter to article 1A of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, counter to paragraph 4 of the joint declaration and counter to the view of every political party in Ireland, excluding the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein, and that it is not the view of the vast majority of the people of Ireland who support the joint declaration? Can he assure the House that the two Governments will jointly pursue the objectives of the joint declaration and there will be no unilateral deviation from it in the interests of short-term expediency?

    The Prime Minister : We will certainly continue to pursue the objectives of the joint declaration–there should be no doubt about that. In America, Mr. Adams avoided the central issue on every occasion he could. Sinn Fein has been challenged to give up violence–it has not done so. I do not believe that I can put it any better than today’s edition of the Irish Independent. I quote : “It is a disgrace that he”– that is, Adams–

    “should go on mouthing platitudes while the Provisional IRA continues its violence.”

    Mr. Skinner : The Prime Minister is jealous–Adams was a hit and he was ignored.

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that people in Britain or in Ireland have been deceived by Adams’s performance, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

    The Irish Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Spring, yesterday posed the critical question : Has Adams got the leadership and the courage to take his people with him in carrying out his own stated commitment to peace and to going the extra mile? That is the question to which everyone awaits an answer.

     

    Ash-cum-Ridley (Visit)

    Q4. Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Ash-cum-Ridley.

    The Prime Minister : I have no immediate plans to do so but I will keep it in mind for the future.

    Mr. Dunn : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the range and variety of schools available to parents in my constituency and across Kent exist solely and wholly because of the Government’s policies and that choice and variety in education would be eliminated if the nightmare policies of the Labour party were endured?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. His county of Kent has self-governing schools, selective schools, maintained schools, comprehensive schools and schools that specialise in technology. That is the sort of choice that we believe it is right to offer to parents and will continue to seek to offer to parents. Most of that would be swept away by a Labour Government. They would abolish self- governing schools, abolish city technology colleges, abolish performance tables and abolish the right of parents to know precisely what is happening in the schools that their children go to. As ever, the Labour party would put dogma before common sense.

    Mr. Barnes : Could I persuade the Prime Minister to go to Ash-cum-Ridley, wherever that might be, instead of to Renishaw, Holmewood, Clay Cross and areas in my constituency that have high unemployment and have been devastated by the Government’s policies, because we think that the Government are a waste of time? There are other places that the Prime Minister should go–he could take a break and go to Ash-cum-Ridley.

    The Prime Minister : If my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) cannot persuade me to go to Ash-cum-Ridley, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will have much luck. As for employment, I share with the hon. Gentleman the wish to increase employment and reduce unemployment in this country. He will have noticed that it has been falling steadily for the past year in this country, unlike any other country in western Europe, and I expect it to continue to fall throughout this year.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

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

    Mr. Oppenheim : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was not the sale of Rover to BMW that lost Britain the chance of having a genuine global player on world car markets? Rather, that chance was lost during the era of misguided Government direction, industrial practices and unfettered union power when British Leyland became the butt of international music- hall jokes. Can my right hon. Friend imagine at that time anyone wanting British Leyland as a gift, let alone paying £800 million for the company?

    The Prime Minister : Rover certainly has been transformed, and I congratulate the work force and the management on their efforts to bring that about, as well as the investment that has been put into the company by British Aerospace. Rover now produces a world-quality product, and it is winning market shares in extremely competitive markets.

    As my hon. Friend said, the contrast with the 1970s could be scarcely sharper. Mass meetings at that time were addressed by Red Robbo, and taxpayers’ money was being poured into a bottomless pit. Rover is now a world beater and it will become better.

    Mr. Caborn : Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he can give assurances to individuals, companies or organisations about the disbursement of the millennium fund and the lottery fund for the construction of sporting facilities?

    The Prime Minister : No, we have given no commitments on that yet. We are looking at the establishment of a committee to determine how the millennium fund will be disbursed, and it will be a considerable period before we are in a position to say what money will be disbursed and where. Consideration of the matter is still in its infancy and it will be some time before we are able to make an announcement.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee Lunch – 2 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee Lunch, held at the Savoy Hotel in London on Wednesday 2nd February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Mr Chairman, thank you for your excellent hospitality, and for the invitation to join you today.

    I am delighted to be here not least to see so many distinguished people here, not least captains of industry, leaders in science and so many members of both sides of both Houses of Parliament.

    It has become something of an institution this Committee. You pay tribute to Gerry Vaughan who retires as Chairman of it very shortly and I believe that was a justified tribute that will be echoed by anyone who’s had any connection with his Committee over very many years and particularly during the last three years in which he’s been a most distinguished Chairman.

    Last year Mr President and eminent mathematician, Sir Michael Atiyah, President of the Royal Society was your guest on this occasion. Today we have several Presidents and former Presidents of the learned societies here today, including of course Sir William Barlow, the current President of the Royal Academy of Engineering. It is indeed by any yardstick a most distinguished gathering.

    Living, as I do, day after day in No 10, I have many constant reminders of the importance of science and technology in British history. Every day I pass portraits of Humphry Davy, Joseph Priestley, Robert Boyle and Michael Faraday. And there is a particularly fine sculpture of Isaac Newton dominating on of the dining rooms.

    And I think it’s right that they should be there. Right, because of their achievements.

    Right, because of the justified pride we can take in British science and British engineering.

    And right above all perhaps, because of the central importance of science to our national life.

    I want to enlarge upon that thought if I may for just a few moments. As the world, as day succeeds day, becomes more competitive, we become more aware that economic prosperity depends on science, on engineering and on technology. We have in this country no natural right to success. Any success we get is success we must earn. Today, countries which 20 even 10 years ago were eager customers of our products, are now our international rivals.

    I remain convinced that, despite difficult times, despite the recession we have faced and so many of our overseas markets still face, we must sustain our strong base of excellence in science, in engineering and in technology. The best of science has a crucial role to play in improving our lifestyle as individuals as well as our prosperity as a country. We need good science to help build our future prosperity.

    But not only for prosperity. It’s not only jobs and the pocket book that’s affected by science. Science impacts on almost every single aspect of our lives. When someone receives drugs that improve their quality of life, that is science in action. Research scientists who discover the drugs; doctors and technicians who laboured over the clinical trials and engineers who manufacture the product.

    Science then is central and it is vital. The truism, perhaps even a trivial thing to say, but yet worth saying I think for this reason. In the past science and engineering have far too often been undervalued. In the future, we need to guard against that. And by ‘we’ I don’t just mean Government – we are one partner in the enterprise of science – I also mean commerce and industry, whose own future depends upon innovation.

    Let me explain just a little what I mean when I talk about undervaluing science and engineering. Despite its importance to a trading nation, we’ve far too often been schizophrenic about science. The great scientists, investors, engineers – of course we’ve been perfectly prepared to praise them, often knight them, sometimes give them seats in the House of Lords. Occasionally, they even make a very great deal of money, which is an invariably, a great embarrassment to them. But despite these honours, despite all this, despite the deference that from time to time is paid to them, a traditional bias against science has persisted in this country for too long. Too much of our education system has treated as subordinate to arts and for far too many years principally a subject primarily for boys.

    Now that is now changing, social and cultural movements have played their part. For example in making science and engineering more acceptable for girls and as it happens their science results last year were rather better than those for boys. Governments have a role of course. Government can take a lead and it can set a framework. And it’s for that reason that we’ve made science and technology a part of the curriculum right through to the age of 16 – and established new vocational qualifications at all levels, to help improve our skills base.

    A beginning has been made but I freely confess there is much still to be done. Now I know there are many eminent scientists here perhaps, locked in the intricacies of their latest examination of some abstruse subject or other. Whatever they’ve been locked in, and however abstruse it is, it is just possible that they will have heard recently a certain clamour about my wish to get back to basics in economic and social policies. It has been, what I think my colleagues in both Houses of Parliament would know, in that rigorous trade of politics, as a vigorous and stimulating debate.

    Be that as it may, the fundamental message of that cannot be ignored and slowly, but certainly, attention is focusing where I intended it to focus, namely: on the common sense – basic – building blocks for civilised living.

    Using our scientific abilities to best advantage is one such building. And some of that message is aimed very directly at Government itself. We were clearly right to question our role and look afresh at it. And if we are to do the things that matter, and not only do the things that matter, but do them properly, then we must concentrate our finite resources.

    Since the very beginnings of science, long term research has usually required a patron, and often one that didn’t interfere too much – a role now which Government much share, along with our universities and our great science charities, particularly perhaps in medicine.

    Now as Lord Flowers was generous enough to mention a moment or so ago, some time ago I invited him and a number of his colleagues to 10 Downing Street. It was an instructive discussion. I remember Lord Flowers advocating many things that have subsequently become Government policy. I remember a constructive discussion about whether all of that was entirely right, but a broad conclusion that it was. And I was glad later to be able to give William Waldegrave a Cabinet responsibility for science. The first time, astonishingly, astonishingly, the first time in 30 years that a Cabinet Minister had such a specific remit.

    And it was similar thinking, similar thinking that lead me to establish the new Office of Science and Technology, to serve as the focus for broad policy advice on science, engineering and technology right across the spread of Government activity. It is headed by my Chief Scientific Adviser, Bill Stewart who is here today, I am delighted to say and who has ready access to me whenever he needs it and tends to use that ready access, much sometimes to the frustration of my Diary Secretary.

    It was, for example, very useful when I was in Japan recently, to have Bill Stewart there with me. With me last Autumn to study the policies followed by the Japanese government and by Japanese industry. I think it was useful for Bill. It was useful for me. And I think it was useful for the country because of the lessons we learned on that occasion.

    One of the first tasks that William Waldegrave and Bill Stewart had was to prepare the White Paper that we published last year. It wasn’t snatched out of the air. It wasn’t written in the rarefied atmosphere of Whitehall with Permanent Secretaries sitting down and exercising their immediate thoughts. To get that White Paper together. To seek to get it right involved very careful consultation with the scientific community and right across business and industry as well. It was, and again, astonishingly was, the first important White Paper published on science for 20 years. Now what of it. And what of its importance. That White Paper set out the key themes that must shape the future of science in this country. The emphasis, and I make no apology for this, for I believe it passionately:

    – The emphasis first on excellence, on national prosperity and on quality of life;

    – the increasingly close interaction between industry, commerce, science, engineering and technology.

    They’re not in separate boxes. Unless they interact we will throw away most of the advantages that we can gain from them. And of course also the way in which the private and the public sectors both have a role, they both have a role and they must work together to complement each other in partnership if we are to get the best result, both for this generation and for the future.

    That is what we thought were the key themes to shape the White Paper. And with that in our minds as the backcloth against which we operate, the White Paper spelt out a number of key proposals and innovations:

    – Research Council with new remits and greater emphasis on wealth creation and quality of life; I emphasise again it is not just about the pocket book, it is about the way in which we live, each and every one of us, that we must harness the aptitude and abilities of science;

    – a new Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to underpin our manufacturing;

    – a new Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council to support a powerful emerging industry, and to continue to support the agriculture and food industries that are so important in this country;

    – and third, a new Council on Science and Technology. We discussed this long and hard, Bill and William and I, and we decided this should be composed of leading industrialists, academics and others and we decided that because we thought they would give independent advice on the competitive needs of British industry. Members such as Ralph Robbins of Rolls Royce; Richard Sykes of Glaxo, Aaron Klug, Nobel Prize winner – and others, who will be unafraid to give firm advice when it’s needed. And William and Bill and I will listen to that advice and listen to it very carefully.

    But if we want science to innovate, and we do, then so must we as Government innovate as well and that is why the Government has committed itself to publishing each year a Forward Look. A Forward Look detailing how taxpayers funds are spent on science and technology right across the public sector. With an emphasis on the future and by the future I don’t mean next week, next month and next year. I mean a much longer term future than that, with an emphasis on the future and not just a look back over our shoulders at the past.

    And despite the absolute necessity of restraining public expenditure, we expect spending on the science base itself to rise in real terms next year. And it will remain a high priority in future.

    The first of these Forward Looks, this innovative idea that I believe may bring so much certainty to the direction in which we are headed. The first of these Forward Looks will be published in April, and it will provide the opportunity for the Government to spell out its priorities for the future.

    Successive Forward Looks will be informed by the Technology Foresight Exercise that Bill Stewart’s leading at the moment. And that’s going to look at every aspect of science, of engineering and technology. It will, must, involve businessmen, scientists and academics. It will examine future trends and where Britain’s special knowledge and expertise may best be used to best advantage.

    In today’s complex and inter-related world, no country, however big, however powerful, can compete in every area. But we are determined not to fall into the trap of the ’60s and ’70s of picking winners, based on the belief that the Government knows best and big bureaucracies can achieve everything. Frankly, we don’t; and frankly they can’t.

    What we should do as Government, is to listen to industry, listen to scientists and listen to academics. And then when we’ve listened, thought, absorbed and made up our minds, make sure that our decisions go with the grain of what science and industry are planning. In short, we need the best scientific advice that we can get. If we seek solutions to problems without good science, we create mirages, not miracles. And for the future of this country I would much prefer to have miracles than mirages in our interest and in the interest of future generations.

    Mr President, I don’t often look back and express qualitative comments on what we’ve done as a Government, but if you’ll forgive me for a moment, I think I will do that. I believe in the past 18 months we have done more to redefine science policy than in the last 20 years. Now the new initiatives must be given time to work. I don’t myself believe in the Maoist theory of continuous revolution. You can’t switch science on and switch science off. We have set a long-term course and now we must hold to that long-term course and make sure that it’s successful.

    And this approach spreads out across all Government departments. Let me illustrate that. The Department of Trade and Industry now focuses on specific industrial sectors, promoting a more innovative culture and improving access to sources of science and technology.

    The Ministry of Defence is working with defence and civil contractors to help develop dual-use technologies that will be of benefit to both.

    In 1991, the Department of Health appointed the first Director of Research and Development to create an R&D programme for the National Health Service, the first of its kind anywhere in the world.

    And the Department of the Environment knows that sound science is the basis of our environmental policies.

    And the Ministry of Agriculture is working on environmentally friendly agriculture.

    Department for Education is fostering the growing importance of science in the National Curriculum and in vocational qualifications.

    They are samples of what is happening across the range of Government. And I set out those developments to illustrate the importance of science to Government. The common theme is to provide the scientific infrastructure to help this country compete ever more successfully. An infrastructure that encourages excellence, rewards talent and helps industry become more competitive.

    Mr President, I do not believe that we need to be modest about British science. We have a strong science base in this country. We have some of the best laboratories in the world. We have research based universities of international excellence. In areas like pharmaceuticals, plant biotechnology, food, agricultural research, it is not unfair to say that we lead the world. We have a British director newly in place at CERN in Geneva – the main international particle physics laboratory in the world. And we continue to work with the best in the world, wherever the best is to be found.

    And so often, the best science is to be found here, in Britain. But too often, too often, we have lost out in applying that science. Our ideas have led to other people’s products. Our brains have led to other peoples’ profits.

    I am determined that the Government and industry should work together as a partnership. I emphatically do not see them as two separate components in separate alleys going in separate directions. Of course industry must make the commercial decisions on where to invest and what to develop. The Government must listen to industry and must frame its policies to help industry. It is on the back of a successful industry that we will become a more successful, a more prosperous country with higher living standards in every aspect of our lives. And so I believe we must focus on excellence, we must help provide the skills base that industry needs. That, Mr President, is the thinking that lies behind the White Paper. That is the thinking that will determine our policy for the future, and that Mr Chairman, encapsulated in just two sentences, that, Mr Chairman is the message I wish to leave you with today.