The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1979

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Council House Sales – 25 July 1979

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Commons question regarding council house sales, made on 25th July 1979.

    Mr. Major asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have issued statements declining to sell their housing stock to sitting tenants; whether he will name these authorities; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Stanley I refer my hon. Friend to my reply earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best). The specific information requested by the hon. Member is not available.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Stamp Duty – 17 July 1979

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Commons question regarding stamp duty, made on 17th July 1979.

    Mr. Major asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums were yielded by stamp duty on the conveyancing of private property in each of the last three financial years; and what is the estimated yield for the current year.

    Mr. Peter Rees The yield of stamp duty from conveyances of all land and buildings in the years 1976–77 to 1979–80 is given below.

                                    £ million

    1976–77                102

    1977–78                134

    1978–79                187

    1979–80                (est) 265

    It is not possible to produce estimates of the yield from conveyances of private property as a separate category.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Capital Punishment in Northern Ireland – 17 July 1979

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Commons question regarding capital punishment in Northern Ireland, made on 17th July 1979.

    Mr. Major asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has sought the views of Service chiefs in the Province on the practicability of restoring capital punishment; and what views they expressed.

    Mr. Humphrey Atkins My consultations with the Chief Constable of the RUC and the GOC, Northern Ireland must remain confidential.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Capital Punishment – 17 July 1979

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Commons question regarding capital punishment, made on 17th July 1979.

    Mr. Major asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has held consultations with the Association of Chief Constables to determine their views upon the restoration of capital punishment; and whether he will issue a statement.

    Mr. Whitelaw I have taken no steps to ascertain formally the views on this subject of the Association of Chief Police Officers: but I understand that chief officers of police hold differing views on the question of the re-introduction of capital punishment.

  • Mr Major’s Contribution to Civil Service Science Grades Debate – 9 July 1979

    The text of Mr Major’s contribution to the Civil Service Science and Technology Grades (Pay) debate in the House of Commons on 9th July 1979.

    Mr. Tom Benyon (Abingdon) I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on an important subject, albeit for a brief time. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on his appointment as Minister of State, Civil Service Department. I recognise that he has inherited the problem that we shall discuss tonight. He will, I am sure, wish to avail himself of the opportunity of clearly stating the Government’s future attitude towards the scientists and engineers, whose work is of such importance.

    I cannot deal with the pay issue in detail. The details of the highly complex pay offers and structures are doubtless as well known to my hon. Friend as they are to me. It is more important to talk in terms of attitude and principle for the future. My hon. Friend will know that ill-feeling has been gestating for more than 15 years and that it has now blossomed into bitterness and acrimony. I have received more than 500 letters from dissatisfied constituents, and many colleagues in the House and present in the Chamber tonight have suffered a like fate. I mention but some: my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton), Hitchin (Mr. Stewart), Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major), Oxford (Mr. Patten), Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), Galloway (Mr. Lang), Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart), and Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). The constituents who have written to me are moderate men, members of a moderate union; men slow to anger, who view industrial action with extreme distaste and who have been forced to strike.

    Scientists and engineers believe, and there is substantial evidence for it, that the Civil Service Department has been waging a long vendetta against them. They further believe that neither the Government nor our fellow countrymen realise how important they are and that the administrators eat the cream, leaving the milk for them.

    My hon. Friend will know that I am privileged to have many scientists and engineers living and working in my constituency. Their roles are vital for the future for our country.

    I begin with Harwell, a multi-purpose research and development establishment which has moved into contract research and now receives 60 per cent. of its revenue from sources other than the atomic energy Vote. These funds approximate to £30 million, a remarkable achievement from a team effort inspired by Dr. Walter Marshall. This is surely one of our country’s few great success stories since the war.

    Next, I turn to the Rutherford Laboratory, which is the largest establishment of the Science and Research Council. Its function is to provide front-line fundamental research for universities. It is of key importance to the country’s future, in terms of both education and research.

    I come now to Culham, this country’s main establishment for the investigation of nuclear fusion, which may hold the ultimate answer to our energy problems. It is host to the Joint European Torus, JET, which is a crucial step forward in fusion research.

    Scientists and engineers are the cutting edge in those establishments. The calibre of talent is immensely great. Their contribution to our country’s future, in terms of technical research and provision of energy, is hard to exaggerate. The scientists and engineers must expand our civil nuclear programme over the next 20 years to fill a substantial gap that will be left by the decline in supplies of oil and natural gas. Nuclear power is the only new source that can possibly produce energy on the scale that we need.

    That is why the scientists and engineers are so important. However, as I have indicated, morale is at an all-time low. They believe that the Civil Service Department holds them in contempt. This must not be allowed to continue.

    Mr. John Major (Huntingdonshire) May I intervene briefly? My hon. Friend is right to touch on morale in the the matter of the negotiations. If my constituents with whom I have had discussions are an even sample of opinion across the country, the fact is that, for good reason or ill, both scientists and the professional and technological staff no longer believe that the Civil Service Department is treating them fairly. I do not know whether that attitude is justified, but it certainly exists, and it is a very potent force in the negotiations.

    There are two particular points –

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill) The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech. He asked whether he could intervene.

    Mr. Benyon My predecesor, Airey Neave, a valued friend of scientists, initiated an Adjournment debate in February 1974 on the same issue. A reader of Hansard at that time would have a sense of déjà vu as he listened to the debate tonight. That situation has hardly changed.

    Most importantly, scientists and engineers are under-valued by our society. In other countries the reverse is the case. I believe that our country’s economic and industrial decline since the war is in part related to the way in which we undervalue our scientists and engineers in comparison with their opposite numbers in comparative administrative grades.

    Further, I believe that pay research comes up with barely adequate results for scientists and engineers, as the pay of their analogues in the private sector is low. As my noble Friend Lord Home said when asked by a well-wisher ” How is your wife? “, ” Compared with what? ” There are always difficulties in finding equitable comparisons. First, the structure of scientific groups in the private sector is different from that in Government bodies. The best scientists in industry are promoted to managers, so Government scientists feel that they are compared with the junior scientists in industry.

    Also, a Catch 22 situation exists, in that the Government are the largest employer of scientists in the country, and employers look towards the pay of Government scientists to obtain guidelines. This clashes with the Civil Service Department’s policy of acting as a follower rather than a leader in wage increase rounds.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Council of Ministers – 20 June 1979

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Commons question regarding the Council of Ministers, made on 20th June 1979.

    Mr. Major asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the results of the meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Nine on political co-operation held on 18 June.

    Sir Ian Gilmour The Foreign Ministers met on political co-operation on 18 June. They discussed the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, current problems in the Middle East, and South East Asia My right hon. and noble Friend briefed his colleagues on the present state of the five Western Powers’ initiative on Namibia, and on recent developments affecting Rhodesia.

    In their examination of the prospects for the conference on security and co-operation in Europe review meeting to be held in Madrid in 1980, Ministers reaffirmed their wish to play a constructive role in conjunction with their allies and other friendly countries. They agreed that the conference on security and co-operation in Europe was a key element in the process of detente. Ministers also agreed to seek a better application of the Helsinki Final Act.

    Ministers of the Nine made the following statement on the Middle East: The Nine have examined the situation in the Middle East. 1. They recall, in accordance with their previous declarations, in particular those of 29 June 1977 and of 26 March 1979, that a just and lasting peace can be established only on the basis of a comprehensive settlement which should be based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and on:

    – the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force;

    – the need for Israel to end the territorial occupation which it has maintained since the 1967 conflict;

    – respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of every State in the region and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised borders;

    – recognition of the fact that, to establish a just and lasting peace, account will have to be taken of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, including their right to a homeland.

    2. The Nine deplore any action or declaration which might stand in the way of the quest for peace. They consider, in particular, that certain attitudes and declarations of the Israeli government are such as to create obstacles in the search for a comprehensive settlement of this kind. Notably:

    – Israel’s ultimate claim to sovereignty over the occupied territories, which is incompatible with resolution 242, which laid down the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force;

    – the policy of the establishment of settlements pursued by the Israeli Government in the occupied territories, which is illegal in international law.

    3. As regards the Lebanon, the Nine support its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. They deplore all acts endangering the security of the population and hindering the restoration of the authority of the Government of the Lebanon throughout the whole of its territory and particularly in the south of the country. Gravely concerned at the difficulties which UNIFIL, to which some of the Nine contribute, is encountering in carrying out its mandate they appeal to all parties to respect the decisions of the Security Council. The above are the comments which the Nine wish to make at this moment. They reserve the right to return to all of these questions at a later date.

    Ministers of the Nine made the following statement on the problem of refugees from Indo-China: The Ministers expressed their concern at the serious problems posed by the massive and continuously growing exodus of refugees from the Indo-China peninsula. They decided to approach the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees immediately to ask that an international conference should urgently be convened, under the aegis of the United Nations, with a mandate to study practical solutions to these problems with the parties concerned. They emphasised the importance of strengthening and sharing more equitably among the international community the efforts on behalf of the refugees which are at present being carried out by a limited number of countries. They expressed their intention of approaching in this conference with the desire, within the limits of what was possible for them, to contribute to the solution of this humanitarian problem, which concerns the whole international community. They agreed also to make a demarche on this subject, in all its aspects, to the government of Vietnam. They agreed at the same time to express their concern to other states in the region, in particular to the members of ASEAN with whom they opened a political dialogue in November last year.

  • Mr Major’s Maiden Speech – 13 June 1979

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s maiden speech to the House of Commons, made on 13th June 1979.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so rapidly after my return to the Chamber. I apologise to the House for my absence from the Chamber for part of the debate. I hope that hon. Members will accept my assurance that it was unavoidable for brief periods.

    It is now 23 years since I first sat in the Gallery and listened to the 1956 Budget debate. I confess that at that time I had hoped to take part in debates in the House but I did not imagine how long I should have to wait. At that time I did not imagine that I would have the privilege of representing such an ancient and famous constituency as Huntingdonshire, nor did I imagine that I should follow such a distinguished predecessor as Sir David Renton.

    Huntingdonshire is a remarkable constituency in many ways. It is an ancient constituency. It has returned Members to the House since the first Parliament of Simon de Montfort. It is proud of that tradition. It is proud because amongst its former Members was, for a brief period, Oliver Cromwell. He caused your predecessors, Mr. Deputy Speaker, more trouble than I anticipate causing, at least in my early days.

    Huntingdonshire also has a happy tradition that I shall encourage it to retain – of re-electing its Members time and time again. I enter no note of complacency but there seems to have been some doubt about motives on some occasions. I came across a letter from a discerning constituent in the eighteenth century who wrote to a friend of his Member of Parliament. He said: Of course we keep re-electing our Member. How else can we get rid of the fellow for six months at a time? That sentiment could not possibly apply to Sir David Renton.

    Many hon. Members will have known Sir David for many years. They will recognise that he was always elected on merit. He served his country, his constituents and his party – in that order – for one-third of a century and successfully fought 10 general elections. By any yardstick that is a remarkable record.

    In Huntingdonshire today Sir David is held, as he has been for many years, in great respect and is regarded with great affection. He will miss the House. I formed the impression that he loved the place. From what I have heard from right hon. and hon. Members from all parties, the House is also likely to miss his presence. I shall be satisfied if I am able to retain the affection of my constituents and colleagues as David retained it for 33 years.

    In his Budget Statement my right hon. and learned Friend said that he and his three predecessors framed their first Budgets in difficult circumstances. That is not surprising. It was largely because of mismanagement of the economy on many occasions and difficulties that arose that there was a change of Government at a general election and a new Chancellor had the opportunity to present a Budget.

    If we accept that thesis as being accurate, we can see immediately the consequences and importance of the first Budget of a Parliament – a Budget which claims to set, and I believe does set, the pattern for Budgets which will follow throughout the period of this Government – framed in the remarkably adverse, difficult and conflicting contradictory conditions facing my right hon. and learned Friend.

    I believe that public opinion requires four things of the Government in terms of economic management. It requires them to cut taxes, to curb inflation, to create new jobs and, as far as possible, to maintain satisfactory public services. But the simple truth is that although public opinion may require all those four things, with the best will in the world the Chancellor and his colleagues cannot possibly achieve them all at the same time. In order to create jobs and to maintain public services, it is necessary first to cut taxes and to curb inflation.

    My right hon. and learned Friend made a very bold start in that respect. Indeed, some Opposition Members would claim that his steps were rather too bold for comfort. The Leader of the Opposition said that it was a reckless Budget, but I suspect that if his party had permitted that kind of Budget to be introduced a year or two years ago, the right hon. Gentleman might have remained Prime Minister or at least have lost the election by a slightly less decisive margin.

    The Budget is in many ways bound to be controversial, as all Budgets are. I hope that it will not seem niggardly to make the point that the success of this Budget over a period will certainly depend upon the Government’s determination and success in restraining public expenditure. In the natural course of events, they are bound to face pressures within and outside the House to break with their cash limits and to increase the public sector borrowing requirement that they have set themselves.

    Indeed, if the tapes are correct – I am sure that they are on this occasion – Mr. McGahey of the National Union of Mineworkers has already said that he feels that the Budget will enable the unions to create conditions which will bring about a general election in 18 months or so. Whether or not he said that, I can only say that I should have more respect for that view if Mr. McGahey were to put his politics on the line and seek to get himself elected to this House to present that view here rather than at a safe distance from it.

    If we back away from the cash limits and the economic management that we have set ourselves, we shall face a distinct change in economic policy. Therefore, I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary this afternoon reiterate that the Government’s commitment to spending cuts and to restraining the level of public expenditure generally was substantial and that the Government intend to keep to it.

    Whenever we talk about spending cuts there is bound to be a certain amount of uproar. It is never popular to cut services. But it seems that much of the uproar which is currently being engendered is to a large extent synthetic. However, seeing the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) in his place, I would exempt from that criticism those Opposition Members who sit below the Gangway. It seems that they are in opposition whomsoever is in Government. I doubt that their anger is at all synthetic. No doubt the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) would agree that they are continually in opposition.

    I think that the public spending cuts are acceptable. I agree that difficulties will certainly be faced, most notably in local government. I propose to deal with that matter later. The public expenditure cuts are tolerable, provided that they are seen to be fair. I think that they will be seen to be justified if they are successful in curbing inflation at a time when taxes have been reduced as well.

    Perhaps I may give an illustration of the equity that is necessary if we are to carry this policy through. In this respect I shall talk about the proposed reduction in the rate support grant. I am prepared to support a cut in the total level of rate support grant, but I think that it will be seen as unfair in some quarters if those local authorities which pruned expenditure in recent years are now to suffer disproportionately to fund those which overspent.

    Problems have arisen in Cambridgeshire in recent years because of the distribution of the total sum of rate support grant. Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire have the most rapidly increasing population of any part of the United Kingdom. That is substantially because Cambridgeshire, on the outskirts of Peterborough, and, in my constituency, St. Ives, St. Neots and many villages have encouraged and accepted overspill from the large cities to mitigate the problems there. But regrettably, having done that, they have found no amendment in the way that the rate support grant has been distributed and they now receive approximately 40 per cent. of the needs element which goes to the inner city areas.

    Having spent a great deal of my youth in Brixton, I accept that there are great problems in the inner city areas and that they need to be dealt with, but I trust that the Government will look at the maldistribution of the rate support grant, if not in time for the next distribution, at least in time for the distribution which will follow that.

    The most important aspects of the Chancellor’s Budget Statement, if one pitches one’s mind forward to the medium term, are those elements which we trust, and I believe, will lead to a growth in jobs. In Huntingdonshire and elsewhere, there is a desperate need not just for the maintenance of existing jobs but for the physical creation of new jobs to reduce unemployment and to take up the increasing numbers who are leaving school and will be seeking jobs for the first time.

    In my constituency, for the reasons that I mentioned, the population has doubled since 1966, but the number of jobs has not doubled or anything like it. In many villages, where some right hon. and hon. Members may think there are no problems, there are no local jobs for the youngsters who have grown up there and left school. There is no local employment for them. Because of the maldistribution of the rate support grant, there is an inadequate level of rural transport. Even if they were able to get to any of the main centres of population in order to travel to London to find employment, the cost would be so high that they would be unable to afford it at the level of salaries they could command.

    I appreciate that we can keep a problem at bay temporarily by throwing subsidies at it, but if we are to curb that problem in the medium term in my constituency and in many others, it requires the establishment of new companies and a great increase in the total number of jobs available. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday introduced certain tax and other measures which, over two to three years, will create a climate in which jobs can be increased and begin to be formed. I wholly welcome those measures.

    If I may put a marker down for subsequent Budgets, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will as soon as possible consider some mitigation of the levels of capital transfer tax with the aim of ensuring that the many small firms and farms which provide so much employment in rural areas, and, in terms of small firms, in many city areas, are permitted to expand and not to be broken down because of the imposition of capital transfer tax between generations.

    The House has already accepted the principle of inflation-indexed personal allowances. I hope that it will also accept the principle that, in terms of capital transfer tax, it might be appropriate to tax land on its earning capacity rather than on the inflated capital value that has arisen in recent years partly because of institutional purchases and partly because of the cost of land in the European Economic Community.

    There are some social elements in my right hon. and learned Friend’s speech which I welcome and wish to touch on briefly. The cash amount of the increase in retirement pensions will be generally welcomed in this House. I should like to mention the plight of many people who are retired.

    Since it affects many of my constituents who are retired, I am delighted to see the abolition of dividend control and the reduction of the investment income surcharge, particularly the extent of the reduction that has been made. The surcharge has always been utterly indefensible, by any practical logic, in a society that wishes to encourage investment and needs investment to provide jobs. It is grossly unfair that those who were sufficiently prudent during their lifetime to save should find themselves punitively taxed for saving and investing, as every Chancellor of every party has asked them to do so many times in recent years. I believe my right hon. and learned Friend’s measures in this respect to be simple justice. They will be widely welcomed in my constituency and many others.

    Time after time in recent general elections, retirement pensioners in my constituency have said to me “Why on earth should we save? Why on earth should we invest? When we have saved and invested, our savings have been subjected to dividend control and we have then been punitively taxed on what was left.” I am delighted to see that that situation is to be changed.

    There is one other brief matter on which I should like to touch again making a point that I trust will be picked up some time later during this Parliament and that is that retirement pensioners simply cannot and do not understand, however it is explained to them, why it is that tax changes can be back-dated to the beginning of the tax year but that retirement pension increases cannot.

    I understand the sophisticated arguments that are frequently advanced for this, but the truth of the matter is that pensioners simply do not understand it, and they widely resent it. I hope that at some stage during the period of this Parliament it will be possible, if not to pay pension increases earlier, at least to ensure that when they are paid in November they are back-dated to the beginning of the tax year.

    I am grateful to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for its traditional indulgence to a newcomer. I appreciate it, but I shall not expect it and I imagine that I shall not receive it on future occasions. Certainly with a background of politics in Brixton and Camden I am rather more used to a rowdy reception, and may perhaps feel happier with it in any event.

    In conclusion, I believe that in his Budget Statement yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend laid the foundations of a strategy for a wider and more profitable industrial and commercial base, provided that our policies are carried through for the period of this Parliament in the fashion that we expect. I hope that the Chancellor will continue his work and that he will find it possible – though it would certainly not be possible in this Parliament – to present as many Budgets as his predecessor did. As the years roll on I hope that he will be successful with those Budgets, and if he is I look forward to being in my place to support him.

  • Mr Major’s Letter to Press – 25 January 1979

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s letter to the press on 25th January 1979.

    MR JOHN MAJOR:

    Sir, – Your correspondent Mr Joe Sneden, who is pursuing British Rail with such admirable tenacity, may be assured that I share both his views and his discomforts on the daily (strikes permitting!) commuter rail trek from Huntingdon to Kings Cross and back.

    However, he and other commuters may be slightly mollified to learn that I have been assured by the area manager’s office that cash refunds are freely available to season ticket holders in respect of days where no trains run or that extra days may be added (at the commuters choice) to the next season ticket purchased.

    I have not yet been able to determine the method of calculation of the cash refund, or obtain confirmation that the extra two days will be working days (rather than a week-end) bit I am pursuing this matter.

    As to Mr Sneden’s justified complaints about the arctic temperatures of some carriages, I am pleased to note that the guard on my train this morning (who looked extremely cold, poor chap) did travel from carriage to carriage apologising, and with luck, this is a prelude to action.

    However, I am pessimistic about the elastic arrival times of trains at Kings Cross and can only echo the sad and frustrated words of WS Gilbert:

    “Sir, Saturday morning although recurring at regular and well – foreseen intervals, always seems to take this railway by surprise”.

    So, it seems does snow, fog, ice, points failure, staff shortages, inter-union disputes, unofficial strikes and much else. We must continue to press British rail for better.

    John Major, Conservative PPC for Huntingdonshire

    The Views, Huntingdon