Category: 1995

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Gulf War Syndrome

    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the question from the hon. Member for Monklands, West on 31 January, Official Report, column 849 , if he will publish the statement of the Medical Research Council on alleged Gulf war syndrome; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, on 8 February, Official Report, column 331.

     

    Ian Greer

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister whether all departmental ministers in answering questions on items received from Ian Greer in the last month included all packages and all correspondence from Messrs Ian Greer Associates.

    The Prime Minister: It is for individual Ministers to answer questions as they consider appropriate.

     

    European Single Act

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the letters received by the then Prime Minister from Heads of Government of member states of the European Community concerning the interpretations of those points of the draft European Single Act treaty concerning controls to be exercised by the United Kingdom at the frontiers between it and other member states of European Community.

    The Prime Minister: The acceptance by Heads of Government of the right of member states to take measures necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries and to combat terrorism and other serious crime was signified by their agreement to the general declaration on articles 13 to 19 of the Single European Act, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) in the last 15 months, over the opt-out negotiated to the Single European Act over frontiers in 1985; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 February 1995]: Meetings and correspondence between myself and my Ministers are confidential.

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 February Official Report, column 793, by what article of which Community treaty he expects to maintain a degree of frontier control and inspection in respect of persons and goods arriving from other member states of the European Union similar to that practised in 1992.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 February 1995]: The Government take the view that there is nothing in the treaty to prevent the continuation of its practices in relation to persons and goods at frontiers. They base this view on their interpretation of article 7A, read in conjunction with the general declaration on articles 13 to 19 of the Single European Act.

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for a copy of legal opinion obtained by the Government in 1991 concerning the legality of the opt-out from the Single European Act negotiated in 1985 permitting the United Kingdom to maintain frontier controls to be placed in the Library.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 February 1995]: The advice of the Law Officers is not normally disclosed.

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister what specimen treaty, providing measures to exclude certain categories of people from entering the European Union, has been approved in principle on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 February 1995]: At its meetings on 30 November and 1 December, the Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted a standard format for the conclusion of bilateral readmission agreements between member states and third countries. The documents are available in the Library of the House.

  • PMQT – 16 February 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 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.

    Mrs. Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend join me and every other Member of the House in condemning the appalling scenes of violence and vandalism in Dublin last night? Does he agree that those people are a disgrace to the United Kingdom and an affront to football fans? Will he assure the House that he will do everything possible to prevent such behaviour from occurring again either at home or abroad?

    The Prime Minister: I agree that the behaviour of a thuggish minority at the match last evening was a disgrace and a great embarrassment. I do not believe that the people involved are sports fans, nor do I believe that they represent the true face of this country or British sport. The Football Association and the Irish Football Association have launched a full inquiry into exactly what happened and will discover what lessons can be learnt for the future. I have said that we will do everything we can to help to identify the people concerned and ensure that they face due punishment.

    Mr. Blair: May I, first, associate myself entirely with the Prime Minister’s comments about the scenes of violence? Those people are not proper football fans, but criminals and thugs and should be treated as such.

    In today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that a single currency was a threat to the nation state. Is that the Prime Minister’s view: yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be wise not to misunderstand what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is saying. If he is so concerned about matters– [Interruption.] I note that the shadow Chancellor is chortling, but I must say to the Leader of the Opposition that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has said:

    “I am not a fan of a single currency”

    and his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said:

    “I personally am in favour of a single currency”.

    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would care to adjudicate between the two of them.

    Mr. Blair: I am delighted that the Prime Minister keeps asking me questions; it will put him in good practice. Let me make him an offer: instead of the twice weekly Prime Minister’s questions, one day a week we will move over to the Government Benches and then the right hon. Gentleman can ask me questions.

    Let me just bring the right hon. Gentleman back to my question: it is his Chancellor of the Exchequer who has said in clear terms that a single currency is not a threat to the nation state. Does he agree or not?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman– [Hon. Members:– “Answer.”] I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman in my own way. He would be better advised to address himself to his own party and his own position. The right hon. Gentleman said in his own election address that he was opposed to British membership of the European Union. Then, later, he actually said:

    “I wasn’t actually opposed to membership”–

    and he went on to say–

    “I said . . . within the closed doors of the Labour Party, that I disagreed with that policy on Europe.”

    What is the right hon. Gentleman now saying within the closed doors of the Labour party and why will he not say it in public?

    Mr. Blair: I think we can see why the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet for a vow of silence on this issue. One simple question remains for him to answer: if he cannot trust his Cabinet or his Chancellor on these critical economic and foreign policy issues, why on earth should the people of Britain trust him or the Government to govern the country?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say in public what he said in private, why should anybody trust the Opposition? The Government have made it clear that we will decide in the light of the prevailing circumstances whether it is appropriate to join a single currency. The Cabinet is utterly united on that point and it reinforced that unity this morning, as the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interests of rail passengers, which were enhanced so much by the Government’s recent proposals, will be put at risk by the actions of the rail unions? Does he agree that those very unions are threatening to support clause IV against Opposition reformists, and does he have any confidence that the Leader of the Opposition will renounce those unions?

    The Prime Minister: I really do not know what he will do. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seems very keen to answer questions. I wish that some day he would try it, because if he did, it would be the first time yet in his career. I think that the aim of rail privatisation will undoubtedly be maintained, and it is to improve the quality of rail service. I hope that the need to improve the rail service does not escape the right hon. Gentleman for Kingston upon Hull, East, who has been summoned to his sponsoring union, the National Union of Rail Maritime and Transport Workers, to explain why the Opposition want to scrap clause IV.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Childish.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that that is rubbish. He says that they do not want to scrap clause IV. It is no wonder that he is sitting on the Back Benches.

     

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

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

    Mr. Watson: Given the unambiguous statements yesterday by the President of the European Commission on European Union internal passport controls and the creation of a single European currency, does the Prime Minister still hold to the view that he expressed in Brussels last July that Jacques Santer is the right man in the right place at the right time?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman reads what the President of the European Commission said yesterday, he will find a whole range of specifically British issues, where we have made it perfectly clear that we wish change and where he has indicated the need for change. To that extent the President of the Commission will prove far more amenable to the British position than any of the alternatives.

    Mr. Anthony Coombs: In the light of the recent fall in unemployment, is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent CBI survey that showed that exports from small manufacturing companies in this country are at their best level for 10 years? As they appear not to be having any problems with exchange control or exchange rate risks, is there not a further argument for saying that what Jacques Santer, the President of the European Commission, says about the need for a European single currency by 1997 is undesirable, unrealistic and unnecessary?

    The Prime Minister: I think that, in respect of the first point of my hon. Friend’s question, he is quite right to stress the growth in exports. He might have also stressed the extent to which manufacturing exports, in particular, are doing so well, and the fact that manufacturing employment has risen by 37,000 in the quarter to December. That is the fastest quarterly growth in employment in manufacturing at any stage since records began and shows clearly the extent to which manufacturing industry is undergoing a renaissance. As far as the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question is concerned, I have indicated clearly that I do not think that there is any prospect of a single currency in 1996 or 1997. At a later stage we will look at what is in the national interest in light of the circumstances.

     

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

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: This year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war, in which many of today’s British pensioners were involved. Why do our pensioners lag behind the rest of Europe when it comes to pensions and benefits? Why have the Government never considered providing a veterans’ benefit, which has been introduced elsewhere in Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman would do well to look at the reality of what has happened.

    He would see that, since 1979, benefits to poorer pensioners have risen by 18 per cent. over and above the increase in prices. He would see that benefits to unemployed couples and others in difficulty have risen dramatically above the rate of inflation.

    The hon. Gentleman would also see that, among those people to whom he sometimes refers as the “poorest”, there has been a dramatic rise in the possession of consumer durables. That suggests that people have more net disposable income and it suggests also that their living standards are improving, which is demonstrated by every dispassionate survey that we have seen.

     

    Q4. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: When my right hon. Friend is next in touch with Mr. Santer, will he commend him for his words yesterday that, in matters of immigration and asylum, which affect many citizens in their daily lives, the Commission will seek to meet their expectations and to allay their concerns? Will my right hon. Friend tell him that the expectations and concerns of my constituents will best be met by upholding the British border controls that were agreed in Luxembourg 10 years ago?

    The Prime Minister: As I indicated to the House on Tuesday, I am entirely determined to maintain our fair but firm immigration policies, and that means that we shall retain our border controls. European Heads of Government endorsed our right to do so in a formal declaration and we intend to see that it is honoured.

    I hope that we may have the support of the Opposition in this matter. The shadow Home Secretary has indicated that we will have the support of the Opposition on this issue, although he does not appear to have the support of the leader of Labour Members of the European Parliament.

     

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

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

    Mr. Heppell: Even with the small but welcome fall in unemployment, there are still 20,000 long-term unemployed in the Greater Nottingham area. The proposed budget for Greater Nottingham training and enterprise council is such that only 800 or 900 of those 20,000 long-term unemployed can be assisted. Does the Prime Minister think that that is an adequate response to the problems of long-term unemployment?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that long- term unemployment–whether that is defined as six months, one year or longer–is falling and has been falling for a long time. I look forward to seeing it fall a good deal further.

    Unemployment, whether long-term or short-term, has dropped by more than 400,000 in the past 12 months. Britain is well on the way to having the lowest level of unemployment in western Europe. Our unemployment rate is substantially below that of other similar countries.

    In France–the country with the most comparative population size to Britain–unemployment is just below 13 per cent. and static; here, it is 8.5 per cent and falling and there is every indication that there will be further job creation. I hope that that will involve those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, although he may have mentioned–but neglected to do so–that unemployment in his constituency has already fallen by 11 per cent.

    Mr. Shersby: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the excellent report of the National Audit Office on grant-maintained schools? If he has, he will have seen that those schools are performing very well indeed. They are providing an excellent standard of education and many thousands of new governors have been drawn into the process of working with teachers and parents to provide good education for our children.

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt about the popularity of grant-maintained schools. There is no doubt about the fact that parents who have chosen grant-maintained status are pleased with the choice that they have made, and I think that that choice is exercised among many people, of all political persuasions.

     

    Q6. Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Fatchett: Given the widespread concern about corruption and bribery in sport and the rumours that games have been thrown for money, will the Prime Minister confirm that his regular poor performances at the Dispatch Box against my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) are simply a reflection of his ability and that he has not been bribed by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: The expression on the face of the Leader of the Opposition is as expressive as it needs to be and it expresses his view–as mine–of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Private Office Staff

    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister how many of his private office staff are fluent in European languages and which ones.

    The Prime Minister: A number of my staff are fluent in a number of European languages.

     

    Phoenix Project

    Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to the letter dated 19 May 1994 from the leader of Somerset county council concerning the Phoenix project.

    The Prime Minister: My office has no trace of the letter.

     

    Sustainable Development

    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the conclusions or recommendations of paragraphs 11, 19, 20, 23, 29, 31, 35, 40 and 50 of the first report of the British Government on sustainable development, together with the Government’s response in each case.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has welcomed the first report from the Government panel on sustainable development. The Government will consider the recommendations and respond in due course.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from Dr. David Fieldhouse, former police surgeon at Bradford, on the discrepancies between the Foreign Secretary’s explanation of events concerning himself in relation to Lockerbie in December 1988 and Dr. Fieldhouse’s own account of duties as a police surgeon as agreed by the Dumfries and Galloway police.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Knighthoods

    Mr. Sedgmore: To ask the Prime Minister how many hon. Members have received knighthoods since the 1979 general election.

    The Prime Minister: One hundred and twenty two hon. Members have received knighthoods since the 1979 general election.

     

    Oxfordshire Education Authority

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister, following his recent statement, how Oxfordshire education authority will be able to maintain its current pupil to teacher ratio in the financial year 1995 96.

    The Prime Minister: Under local management of schools, it is for governing bodies to determine school staffing levels within the resources available to them, including reserves.

     

    Climate Change Convention

    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Prime Minister, if he will be attending the meeting of the conference of the parties of the climate change convention, in Berlin in March.

    The Prime Minister: No. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment hopes to attend.

     

    Engagements

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

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

    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.

     

    Special and Political Advisers

    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister how many ministerial special and political advisers were paid salaries in excess of the highest salary payable to a civil servant in each of the last five years; and what were the total annual salary payments to those advisers in each of those years.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Single European Act

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for a copy of a report he commissioned from the head of the Cabinet Office European Secretariat, concerning the policy implications arising from the opt-out negotiated by Her Majesty’s Government in 1985 to the Single European Act to be placed in the Library.

    The Prime Minister: No. It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to disclose policy advice.

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister, what representations he has received expressing concern at the requirement under the Single European Act on non-British citizens settled in the United Kingdom, to obtain visas before making short visits to other member states of the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, none. The Single European Act contained no provisions relating to visa requirements.

     

    Intergovernmental Conference

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister, what action he proposes, in relation to the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, concerning the maintenance by the United Kingdom of its frontier immigration controls; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: We shall take whatever steps are necessary to maintain our frontier controls. It is too soon to decide whether we shall need to take action on this during next year’s intergovernmental conference.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Consultants

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions during the last five years when his Office or its agencies has taken legal action against a consultancy firm; and what were the reasons in each case.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Public Appointments

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 January, Official Report, columns 398-99, how many appointments to public positions have been made by his Department in the last year.

    The Prime Minister: I have made 18 appointments since January 1994 to bodies listed in “Public Bodies 1994”.

     

    Intensive Care Beds

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister what action he plans to take to ensure a higher priority within public spending to the provision of intensive care beds.

    The Prime Minister: It is for each purchasing authority to determine the appropriate level and type of provision of intensive therapy, and to priorities these accordingly based on an assessment of the total needs of its population. For their part, the Government have undertaken to increase the real level of resources devoted to the health service.

     

    Education Priorities

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 9 February to the right hon. Member for Bridgewater (Mr. King), Official Report, column 452, if he will list those local education authorities which may need to look carefully at education priorities.

    The Prime Minister: All local education authorities need to consider their priorities to ensure that they provide an effective and efficient service.

     

    Hong Kong

    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to travel to Hong Kong in 1995.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to visit Hong Kong in 1995.

     

    Marchioness

    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will (a) meet those who survived the sinking of the motor vessels Marchioness and their relatives, and (b) respond positively to the requests for legal aid to be granted to them for their representation at the forthcoming inquest.

    The Prime Minister: My right Hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor would be willing to meet a delegation of survivors of the tragedy and their relatives. Legal aid is not available for representation at inquests. Subject to financial eligibility, advice and assistance may be available before the hearing under the green form scheme.

  • PMQT – 14 February 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 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.

    Mrs. Michie: Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that a single currency was a constitutional issue. Last Thursday, the Chancellor said that it was not. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us who is right?

    The Prime Minister: I have told the hon. Lady, I think, directly, and many people in the House precisely what the position is as far as a single currency is concerned, and I have also told people exactly how we propose to approach it. There will be no single currency involving the United Kingdom in 1996 or 1997. When and if it arises at a later stage, whether 1999 or thereafter, we will examine both the economic implications and the other implications, and we will then make a judgement on the national interest.

    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are determined to protect the country from terrorism, drug smugglers and a tidal wave of economic refugees into this country?

    The Prime Minister: I should say to my hon. Friend that in recent years we have seen a very welcome improvement in race relations in this country and I do not wish to see that put at risk in any way. Raising fears about immigration tends to put that at risk. For that reason, I am entirely determined to maintain our fair but firm immigration policies, and that means that we shall retain our border controls.

    Mr. Blair: Following the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment last Thursday to reducing inequality, may we now put it to the test? As the national electricity grid is an absolute monopoly subject to no competition, will the right hon. Gentleman act against the excesses of the few regional electricity chiefs who stand to make £50 million out of share options on the back of it?

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I find much of his opposition to share options rather synthetic since a good deal of his leadership campaign was financed out of the proceeds of share options.

    Mr. Blair: So the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do nothing on that. Let me now put this to him: as there still remain about 1 million long-term unemployed and the Government are proposing a £50 million cut in help to the unemployed, will he therefore act in respect of that?

    The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not respond to the earlier point. As for his general concerns about poverty, perhaps I can help him by filling in some of the facts that he overlooks. As he will know, and as there are ample statistics to show, the vast majority of people are better off. Average income has risen by more than one third since 1979, the average income of all economic groups and family types has risen, vulnerable groups have been protected and average incomes are up by more than 10 per cent. for poorer pensioners, and up for the unemployed as well as for those in full-time work. Those are the results of the Government’s actions, and they exceed by far the results achieved by any previous Government.

    Mr. Blair: So the Prime Minister is prepared to do nothing about that either. Whatever he says about reducing inequality, he will do nothing about greed at the top and nothing about protecting the unemployed at the bottom. Are the British people not right to conclude, therefore, that his commitment to reducing inequality will be seen in time as just one more easily made, easily broken Tory promise?

    The Prime Minister: I look forward to the day when the right hon. Gentleman listens to the answer before continuing with his question. As “Social Trends” is a publication often cited by Opposition Members, perhaps they will take notice of the information available in the latest edition, which states that the income of recently retired pensioners has increased by just over a half in real terms since 1981, and the real income after tax of a lone parent on the lowest decile of female earnings and with two children rose by 50 per cent. between 1981 and 1993. Why do we never hear about the reality of what has happened rather than the accusations without base which come from the right hon. Gentleman?

    Mr. Marlow: If European institutions produce measures to dismantle our external immigration controls, and those measures are subsequently supported by the European Court, how will my right hon. Friend maintain our external controls?

    The Prime Minister: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) a moment or so ago, we believe in our right to maintain controls. My predecessor set out our determination and received a solemn declaration to that effect some time ago. Let me make it clear that we shall argue strongly for the maintenance of that position and shall take whatever steps are necessary to that end. I will tell my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about that declaration: it was solemnly entered into by all the Heads of Government of the other European countries. They pledged their word, and I intend that they will keep it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Mr. Cousins: Is the Prime Minister aware that, following the Government’s deal with Trafalgar House to kill off Northern Electric this morning, the resulting free-for-all in electricity companies has caused electricity shares to rise by 10 per cent. in a Valentine’s day orgy on the stock exchange, while there has been a Valentine’s day massacre of job security in the north? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Confederation of British Industry that growing unfairness in society affects not only jobs but competition and business?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will have observed over the last couple of years, competition in business has been creating jobs, not losing them, which is why unemployment has dropped by more than half a million.

    Mr. Foulkes: Rubbish.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has apparently not noticed the drop of half a million in unemployment, so I will tell him that it has dropped right across Scotland, which he cares about, as well as in England, in Wales and in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman has not understood even that, I can understand why he is on the Opposition Benches–because he understands nothing.

     

    Q3. Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Lady Olga Maitland: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report that tourism in Northern Ireland has doubled since the ceasefire was announced? Does he agree that that reflects in an important way the outcome of the peace process?

    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the remarkable increases in tourism. There have also been remarkable changes in the life styles of the people in Northern Ireland and in the success of large and small businesses in Northern Ireland. I believe that those are results of the ceasefire, which I hope we shall be able to turn into a permanent peace.

     

    Q4. Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Mr. Cunningham: Does the Prime Minister recall that last Thursday in the House he gave an undertaking to commit the Government to fighting injustice and inequality? Will he now, as a first step, take the opportunity to reintroduce wages councils and, as a second step, abolish the jobseeker’s allowance?

    The Prime Minister: I will not give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking, because I do not believe that wages councils acted in the interests of people who were low paid. I believe that they kept a lot of people out of work who might otherwise have been in work. I accept that the Government have a responsibility to help the poor, and we have sought to do that. That is why extra help of more than £1 billion since 1988, over and above inflation, has been provided to help low-income families. That is the point that I invite the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends to concentrate upon.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Mr. Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the decision of the parents of pupils at 88 schools in Kent who voted overwhelmingly for the schools to become grant maintained? Will he congratulate those Kentish parents on their choice? Does he welcome the fact that they had the choice in the first place–a choice exercised by the Leader of the Opposition and a number of Labour Back Benchers–or does he consider that choice to be wicked?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that every parent should have the right to choose what is best for his or her children, and I have no criticism of any parent who does so. I simply ask that all parents should have the same choice.

     

    Q6. Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Mr. Watson: What does the Prime Minister suggest that I could do to help my constituent, Jane Pepper, who gave up a secure job in the civil service last year to attend an access course for university? She secured three offers of places, but is now having to give them up because she loses £5,000 as a result of the Government’s penny pinching in cutting the mature students’ allowance. Leaving aside the waffle that the Prime Minister usually gives us, what advice can he give to Jane Pepper and the thousands of other people who missed out on higher education the first time around and are now having the door slammed in their faces again?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the number of people going on to further and higher education has increased dramatically. When the hon. Gentleman’s party left office, one in eight of our children went to university. The figure is now one in three, and it is increasing.

     

    Q7. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rather disappointing performance of the English cricketers in Australia illustrates the need for more competitive sport in our schools?

    The Prime Minister: I should certainly like to see more competitive sport in our schools, and we intend to ensure that there is more. Beyond that, we must ensure that there is a much better sports environment through the clubs, so that there is a proper throughput from school to club level and to more senior levels in sport. I intend to do what I can to bring that about.

     

    Q8. Ms Jowell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Ms Jowell: Is the Prime Minister aware that last week a senior manager at Guy’s hospital in London had to telephone 24 hospitals to arrange cover for patients needing acute and intensive care beds? Does he accept that patients’ lives are at risk because of the shortage of beds in London? Will he instruct the Secretary of State for Health that no further bed closures should be allowed?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady had wished me to comment on that, no doubt she would have given me earlier notice of the question. Often enough, there have been cases in which a direct answer could have been given if information had been provided, and often enough I have examined matters subsequently and found them to be a touch different from what had been suggested on the Floor of the House. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard what the hon. Lady had to say.

    Mr. Michael Brown: Is not the situation with regard to the single currency quite straightforward–that if my right hon. Friend remains Prime Minister we will not have a single currency, but if the Leader of the Opposition becomes Prime Minister we will?

    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated to my hon. Friend on previous occasions, I will make a judgment on what I believe the national interest demands. If it demands no, I will say no.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what action Her Majesty’s Government have taken in relation to Lockerbie and Libyan sanctions since the Adjournment debate on 1 February.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has written to two hon. Members on matters which arose during the Adjournment debate on 1 February. Discussions about Lockerbie and UTA 772 with our closest partners have continued. The Government’s policy towards Libya is kept under constant consideration, but it is only the Libyan Government who can bring about the lifting of sanctions by complying in full with the relevant Security Council resolutions.

     

    Engagements

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Advertising

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure on all forms of advertising by his Office for each year since 1979, in 1994 prices.

    The Prime Minister: None.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what response he is giving to the report on famine in Iraq sent to him by Mr. Riad-el-Taher about his recent visit to Baghdad.

    The Prime Minister: The recent communication has been noted by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that an ad hoc tribunal should be set up by the United Nations Security Council to try those accused of the Lockerbie bombing; and what representations he has had in this regard.

    The Prime Minister: No. It is clear from resolution 883 that the United Nations Security Council envisages trial only before the appropriate United Kingdom or United States court.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Queen’s Anniversary Prizes Dinner – 9 February 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech at the Queen’s Anniversary Prizes Dinner on 9th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Four years ago – as a matter of principle and for the sake of our national interest – I said I would put education – standards of education – at the top of my agenda.

    I did so because our future prosperity – and our own very civility – depends on a population that is well-educated and highly skilled.

    But there were other reasons, too. Good education is the key that unlocks the door to a better future for every child. It is the route by which people – throughout history – have risen from the bottom of the heap to the top.

    And literally millions of people have had their lives enriched by the sheer joy of learning; by the love of literature, the arts and the sciences.

    Yet, in the past, too many children – bright eyed curious, normal children – university might have been another planet, an impossibly remote place whose arcane activities never seemed to touch their lives. University, many felt, was not “for the likes of us”. So much talent and potential went to waste.

    I knew children like that; in some senses I was one myself. So when I became Prime Minister I wanted to see that change.

    The target I set for the ’90s was to make a move forward in further and higher education greater than anything we had seen for a generation.

    Everyone should have a chance to succeed on merit. Not because of who they are, but of what they are, and what they have proved themselves to be. That is what I mean by a classless society – and high-class education is at the very core of it.

    Tonight we are here to honour today’s prizewinners. And can I add my own – and warmest – congratulations to all those the winners have rightly received?

    The awards are given by the Queen’s Anniversary Trust. So it is reasonable today to look back 40 plus years to the time of the Coronation.

    Then – though it’s hard to believe – there were only 16 universities in England – and just over 100,000 students. Less than one in 20 of all young people went into higher education.

    Ten years later the Robbins report set out wider objectives for higher education beyond the purely academic. Those principles are still valid today.

    In particular, Robbins proposed significant expansion of higher education. So, in the 1960s, the 10 colleges of advanced technology became universities. New universities were created. And 30 polytechnics were set up to offer education with a vocational emphasis.

    Finally, the pioneering institution of the Open University was established to provide opportunities for those who wanted to study from home.

    By 1979, one person in 8 was entering higher education. Excellent – but still not alpha plus. For today’s world throws up constant new challenges. Patterns of work that had seemed settled since the Industrial Revolution have gone for ever.

    That was why, in 1991, I launched White Papers on education beyond 16 that set out a vision for the rest of this century.

    We promised to enable more young people to go on to Higher Education. To scrap the out-dated distinction between universities and polytechnics. And to provide the funding that made renewed expansion possible.

    As a result today more young people are going on to university than ever before. It took 25 years to double participation levels up to the 1980s. It took only five to double them again between 1989 and 1994. We now have the highest graduation rate in the EC.

    Nearly one in three young people now enjoy higher education. There are now over 1 million students following full-time courses and a further 500,000 studying part-time.

    We have abolished the binary line to enable our universities to offer wider choice and diversity. Today there are degree courses in universities in subjects such as art and design, and business studies, as well as in more traditional academic subjects.

    We need those new skills. At the start of The Queen’s reign twice as many people worked on farms as in financial services. Now seven times as many work in financial services as on farms.

    Look at some of our other great competitive strengths – pharmaceuticals, health care, telecoms, IT software, biotechnology, food processing, engineering, design, fashion, the media. The list is almost infinitely extendable.

    Britain is less than a quarter of one per cent of the world’s land mass; one per cent of the world’s population. But in the growth industries of the 21st century we are in the world’s top three.

    This is due not just to our native genius – but to one of the best education systems in the world.

    Look at what Britain’s higher education system has produced in the last 40 years:

    – Watson and Crick unfolding the beautiful symmetry of life in the DNA double helix;

    – Cesar Milstein and others at the MRC Cambridge who have created a whole new industry, biotechnology, on the back of their work;

    – Hawking and the physicists who plumb the secrets of our universe from the smallest particle to the infinity of space.

    Our universities continue to lead the world in research. No less than 30 Nobel Prize winners from the UK between 1957 and 1992 in physics, chemistry or physiology – nearly one in seven of the total.

    And let no-one say that pure research is not commercial. Faraday’s pure research led to our harnessing electricity. A discovery whose value is greater than the total capitalisation of London’s Stock Exchange.

    We must exploit the resource of intellect to improve the prosperity and the quality of life for all. I want to see our universities as world-leaders in forging links between the academic world and industry and commerce.

    Look at the growth of science parks in places like Cambridge, the close ties with industry of a Warwick or Salford, and the development of university companies to exploit new ideas. Approaching one-third of university income comes from private sources. All these things are good for the country and a boon to all those bright young people who will make our future.

    Young people are not the only gainers in today’s universities. Yes, lifelong learning does matter. The number of mature entrants has risen by 140% since 1979. They now account for over a half of all enrolments.

    People who thought the doors of academe were for ever locked against them are finding them open.

    But I am not complacent. I do not pretend all has – or will be – easy. Expansion inevitably brings problems in its wake. And change is ever the mother and father of insecurity.

    So we now need to pause and think how higher education should develop in the future. That is why we have launched a national consultation – and I hope that all of you here in higher education will have your say.

    We have to look at the competitive challenge that lies ahead. At the needs of society in the twenty-first century. We must ask ourselves. How best can higher education preserve and enhance all that is good from our past, while meeting the needs of the future? Can we, in today’s world, any longer equip people with all the skills and knowledge they will need in life in one initial dose of higher education?

    Above all, how best can we accommodate change without compromising standards?

    So an important debate lies ahead. But have no doubt. I see higher education as one of Britain’s great success stories. And, whatever unfolds, I am determined to keep it that way.

    It is now just under two years since we launched our reformed Further Education sector. Since then over 500 colleges have been given the freedom to run their own affairs.

    Visit an FE college today and you’ll experience the bustle and hum of learning.

    All human life is there – from eager young school leavers to retired people taking exams for the first time in 50 years. From full-timers with their eyes on university or top flight jobs, to part-timers brushing up their skills to get on at work or to start a business themselves. From apprentice hair dressers to apprentice historians.

    The last two years have seen dramatic changes. More students are staying on. They are getting better results. And they’ve been given more choice.

    Back in 1979 only 40% of young people were staying on in education after the age of 16. Now over 70% stay on in full-time education after 16 – most of the rest are in part-time training either in colleges or based at work.

    As a result, one awful British stereotype has virtually bitten the dust – the 16 year old with no qualifications, no ambitions and no intention of learning anything ever again.

    But still we need to do more.

    First, we want more people to benefit. Our target is to expand by 28% over five years. We are providing the funding for that.

    Second, colleges must work even more closely with employers to meet the needs of their own local labour market. Our new employer-led modern apprenticeships will help here too. By the year 2000 our target is for some 70,000 of these each year.

    Third, we have to do more to raise standards of vocational qualifications – so they truly earn the parity of esteem in which I profoundly believe.

    One of the curses of education in the ’50s and ’60s was that vocational education was often disparaged, and rarely admired.

    In seeking to address that, serious errors were made. We still live with some of the consequences. There is no place in education for tackling low standards by levelling down the high.

    I know it is not a fashionable view. But, for my own part, I believe that a high quality GCE A Level must remain at the core of further education in England. It has underpinned a 3 year university degree that is a benchmark for academic excellence. We remain committed to it.

    Our strategy is to level up, not down. That is our aim through the General National Vocational Qualification. GNVQs were launched a mere 2 years ago. But already this year over 150,000 students are beginning a GNVQ course in England – equivalent to a quarter of all 16 years olds. From a standing start to 150,000 in 2 years.

    That is astonishing.

    So there’s no doubt about their popularity with students. Nor about the enthusiasm and commitment of the teaching staff who deliver them. Good. But we can do better still.

    The Chief Inspector of Schools and the Further Education Inspector have done us a signal service in showing what more we must do to make GNVQs the equal to the best in Europe.

    Parity of esteem is vital. That means more hard edged, practical material. It means raising teachers’ expectations of their students. It means clarity for teachers on what they should cover and to what standard. But it also means less prescription about how they should do it.

    More external inspection to ensure rigorous standards. But a simple assessment system that does not leave teachers knee deep in paper at 3 o’clock in the morning.

    We are working on that. We’ve put in 25 million pounds extra to help course support, best practice and training. Ron Dearing’s work to extend GNVQ courses for 14-16 year olds in schools will feed through into existing courses. The prize, if we get it absolutely right, is huge.

    People ask why I care so much about standards in education. Well, picture, if you will, the small child setting out with shining morning face for the first day at school – her life before her – fearful yes, but full of all the limitless potential that is breathed at birth into every child. Then ask yourself how could you not care?

    That has been my child – and, no doubt, yours. And that child is being born today and tomorrow and the next day – in Brixton and in Borrowdale alike. A child whose chance in life will be decided by what they learn in school and in college and in university. For the sake of every one of those children, the best chances must be open to all.

    Parents lay the foundation of every young life. But it is you in our colleges and universities who finally top out the edifice of learning. Yours is a high and honourable vocation – among the first in this or any land – and it is my privilege to salute you, and above all, the prizewinners tonight.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Consultants

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

    The Prime Minister: There has been no expenditure by my Office on external consultants, including management consultants, since 1987.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

    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 this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

     

    Permanent Secretaries

    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the pay of permanent secretaries.

    The Prime Minister: The Government announced in Cm. 2748 presented to Parliament on 26 January that they intended to introduce new arrangements for the pay of Permanent Secretaries from 1 April, and that they would make a further announcement in conjunction with its response to the report of the senior salaries review body. The Government have now considered the recommendations of the review body.

    As foreshadowed in the Command Paper, a remuneration committee will be established to advise Ministers on where individual permanent secretaries should be placed within the pay range. The full terms of reference are given.

    The final decisions on the pay of individual permanent secretaries will be for the Government, who expect normally to accept the recommendations of the committee.

    There will be five members of the committee–three members of the review body, the head of the civil service and the head of the Treasury. The chairman of the review body will normally chair the committee.

    The three external members will, sitting alone, make recommendations to the Government on the salaries of the Heads of the civil service, the Treasury and the diplomatic service.

    Sir Michael Perry, who will succeed Lord Nickson as chairman of the review body in April, has agreed to chair the committee. Mr. Gordon Hourston and Ms Yve Newbold, both members of the review body, have agreed to serve on it. I am grateful to all of them for undertaking this important additional task.

    The review body proposed a pay range of £90,000-£150,000. The Government accept this recommendation. The salaries of individual posts will be published in £5,000 bands once each year in the following annual report of the review body. Parallel arrangements will be made for the most senior ambassadors.

    Terms of Reference of the Remuneration Committee

    Membership

    1. There shall be a committee on the pay of Permanent Secretaries of whom the members will be:

    3 members of the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB); the Heads of the Home Civil Service and Treasury.

    1. The chairman of the committee will be one of the members, normally the Chairman, of the SSRB.

    Remit: Permanent Secretaries other than the Heads of the Home Civil Service, the Diplomatic Service and the Treasury

    1. The purpose of the committee is for the three SSRB members to make proposals to Ministers on the pay of individual Permanent Secretaries save insofar as their pay is determined by the terms of an individual appointment.
    2. The pay of Permanent Secretaries will be accommodated within the pay range to be determined from time to time by the Government. The committee may not propose other forms of remuneration or benefit than pay falling within this range.
    3. In making proposals the committee shall take the following factors into account in relation to individuals:

    the relative level of responsibility of the post occupied; the performance of the Department in executing the policy of Ministers and the personal contribution the individual has made in terms of policy advice and efficient management, including where appropriate meeting the measured objectives of the Department; the experience of the individual in the present post or in others occupied at Permanent Secretary/Head of Department Level;

    in the case of those newly promoted, the level of pay in their previous post;

    any views which the Minister, to whom the Permanent Secretary is principally responsible, may wish to offer to the committee; the individual’s own assessment of his/her achievements and the main requirements of the job.

    1. The committee should also take into account these wider factors:

    the pay levels of other staff in the Senior Civil Service, and in particular those immediately below Permanent Secretary;

    the increases recently given to, or likely to be given, in the period ahead, to civil servants generally, and the pay progression available to them;

    the extent of the change for any individual as well as the absolute level of pay, and the presentation of both;

    any movement in the pay range as a whole;

    the nature and terms of the Civil Service pension scheme; any statements made by the Government on public sector pay; the maintenance of the confidence of the individual, that recommendations have been properly and fairly determined;

    the need to ensure recommendations are consistent with the Government’s equal opportunities policy.

    Remit : Pay of Civil Service members of the Remuneration Committee and Head of the Diplomatic Service

    1. The SSRB members of the committee will, sitting alone, make proposals to Ministers on the pay of the Heads of the Home Civil Service, of the Diplomatic Service and of the Treasury. For this purpose they will take account of all the factors noted in paragraphs 4 6 above as relevant to the pay of Permanent Secretaries.

     

    Review Bodies

    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the review body reports.

    The Prime Minister: The 1995 reports of the review bodies on the pay of schoolteachers, senior civil servants, the senior military, the judiciary, the armed forces, doctors and dentists, nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and the professions allied to medicine have now been published. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. The Government are grateful to the members of the review bodies for the time and care which they have put into the preparation of the reports.

    The Government’s policy is that increases in pay must be fully met from existing budgets. Pay increases for public sector staff therefore have to be paid for by greater efficiency or by other economies. This position was reaffirmed in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement on public sector pay on 14 September 1994, and in the Government’s evidence to the review bodies. It is fundamental to the Government’s response to their recommendations.

    The review bodies have made the following recommendations: The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has recommended a range of increases in daily rates of between 2.5 and 2.9 per cent., averaging 2.6 per cent. for the various ranks in its remit group.

    The Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine has recommended a 1.0 per cent. increase in national salary rates to be supplemented by local negotiations on pay and, where appropriate, leads and allowances and/or conditions. The Review Body has said it expects that, in the majority of cases, the outcome of local negotiations would provide improvements for the staff concerned totalling between 1.5 and 3 per cent., including 1 per cent. increase in national rates.

    The Doctors and Dentists Review Body has recommended pay increases of 2.5 per cent. generally for members of its remit group, and 3 per cent. in the intended average net remuneration of general medical practitioners. It has recommended that Trusts able to conclude local agreements with the profession should proceed accordingly. It also recommends an alternative system of transititional local pay for hospital consultants accepting a divergence from the nationally determined scale subject to a maximum increase of 5 per cent. in consultants’ average salary in each Trust.

    The School Teachers’ Review Body has recommended a 2.7 per cent. increase in teachers’ pay.

    The Senior Salaries Review Body has recommended:

    (i) an increase of 2.5 per cent. in the budget for performance related pay for civil servants in Grades 2 and 3 and increases in the relevant pay ranges.

    (ii) a new pay range for Permanent Secretaries to replace the existing system of spot rates with pay decisions to be made on the basis of advice from a new remuneration committee.

    (iii) a range of increases between 2.5 and 3.8 per cent., averaging 3.2 per cent., in the pay of senior armed forces officers. (iv) a 2.5 per cent. increase in the pay of the judiciary. The Government have taken their decisions on these recommendations on the basis of our approach to public sector pay. We accept the recommendations and propose to implement them from the due date of 1 April. The costs will be met from the public expenditure totals published at Budget time. There will be no new money to finance these pay increases, and for the third year running there will be no call on the reserve.

    The Government in particular welcome and support the recommendations of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine for the development of local pay determination for members of its remit groups. Negotiations with the staff sides at national level need to be concluded quickly to facilitate additional local payments. The Doctors’ and Dentists’ Review Body has reaffirmed its support for moves towards local pay determination and negotiations are being held with the professions on changes to the distinction awards scheme for consultants which should lead to much greater local involvement. The review body had advocated brisk progress and both sides expect these negotiations to be concluded in the next few months.

    I am making a separate announcement on the arrangements for determining the pay of individual permanent secretaries.

    Summary of Main Pay Recommendations

    |Main pay

    |increases |Paybill cost <1>

    |per cent. |£ million |Per cent.

    ————————————————————————————————

    DDRB (Doctors and Dentists) |<2>2.5-3.0 |144 |2.9

    NPRB (Nurses and Allied Professions)

    Nurses and Midwives |1.5-<3>3.0 |117-234 |1.5-3.0

    PAMs |1.5-<3>3.0 |15-31 |1.5-3.0

    All NAPRB groups |1.5-<3>3.0 |132-265 |1.5-3.0

    SSRB (Senior Civil Service, Military and Judiciary)

    CS Grades 2-3 |<4>- |1.2 |2.5

    Senior Military |2.5-3.8 |0.4 |3.2

    Judiciary |2.5 |3.9 |2.8

    All SSRB groups |5.5 |2.7

    AFPRB (Armed Forces |2.5-2.9 |140 |2.6

    STRB (School Teachers) |2.7 |294 |2.7

    Notes:

    (1) Pay bill costings include employers’ national insurance and superannuation payments.

    (2) Plus up to 2.5 per cent. on average salaries for consultants under transitional local pay arrangements

    (3) Comprising 1 per cent. on national pay scales and the NPRB estimate of additional amounts likely to result from local pay negotiations.

    (4) No across-the board increases 2.5 per cent. to be paid through the performance pay budget.

    (5) Increase on daily rates.