The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1981

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on the Banking Act 1979 – 22 December 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on the Banking Act 1979, published on 22nd December 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will set out the present provisions leading to an issue of a licence under the Banking Act 1979; and if he is satisfied that the procedures are sufficient to safeguard the private investor.

    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne The Bank of England has to be satisfied that certain criteria are met by an institution before it grants the institution a licence to carry on a deposit-taking business under the Banking Act 1979. The criteria are set out in part II of schedule 2 to the Banking Act 1979.

    I am satisfied that the procedures under the Banking Act provide sufficient safeguards for depositors.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Self-Certification – 22 December 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Self-Certification, published on 22nd December 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether it is his intention to make changes in the rules relating to the issue of medical certificates for short periods of illness.

    Mr. Fowler For a number of years doctors have complained about the 3 million medical certificates which they issue each year for illnesses lasting a week or less. Many are given for ailments such as the common cold, flu, or backache for which both patient and doctor know nothing can be done except rest. Doctors’ surgeries can thus be cluttered up with people for whom no medical treatment is necessary, thereby reducing the time given to patients really needing care.

    Following discussions with the British Medical Association and both sides of industry, I have decided that from next June general practitioners will no longer be required to issue statements for social security purposes on a patient’s incapacity for work where the illness lasts for a week or less. This will help to reduce the pressure on doctors’ surgeries and enable them to provide a better service for people requiring medical advice or treatment.

    My Department will make available special forms to enable people to claim benefit during short illnesses. There will also be alternative arrangements to check on people who make frequent claims for short spells.

    It is my intention that self-certification for illnesses lasting seven days or less should continue after the introduction of statutory sick pay. but that is subject to the change operating satisfactorily in the national insurance scheme and to appropriate control procedures under the sick pay scheme being agreed.

    The necessary amending regulations will be laid before the House as soon as possible and the social security advisory committee will be consulted.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Company Liquidations – 18 December 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Company Liquidations, published on 18th December 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects the Insolvency Law Review Committee to report upon whether company liquidations should be subject to regulation.

    Mr. Eyre The final report of the insolvency law review committee under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Cork is expected early next year and will be published. The question of the extent to which regulation is necessary in voluntary liquidations has been given much attention by the committee. In the light of such recommendations as the committee may make and the ensuing public debate, the Government will be better able to determine what steps are necessary and desirable.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Licensed Dealers – 18 December 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Licensed Dealers, published on 18th December 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to publish his proposals for amending the Licensed Dealers (Conduct of Business) Rules.

    Mr. Eyre My Department will be writing to the representative bodies of the securities industry in the next few days outlining its proposals. We aim to publish draft regulations by the end of February.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Defence Policy – 20 November 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Defence Policy, published on 20th November 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the assertions contained in the publication of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament entitled “Nuclear War and You”, a copy of which is now in his possession, he will publish for the use of the general public a factual pamphlet on Government defence policy, their desire for multilateral disarmament, and the role envisaged for ground launched cruise missiles with particular reference to the way in which their dispersal at Molesworth and Greenham Common will affect the local population.

    Mr. Blaker The CND brochure to which my hon. Friend has referred contains a number of serious factual errors and misrepresentations. With regard to the Government’s defence policy, there is a range of official publications explaining this policy, including the role of nuclear weapons, which is available to the general public. Government policy is set out in detail in the annual Statement on the Defence Estimates – Cmnd. 8212-1. In addition, the Ministry of Defence has produced a. number of leaflets on various aspects of nuclear policy for distribution to the public, copies of which have been placed in the Library. These include several which deal with the role of ground launched cruise missiles, one of which covers the effect on the local communities at Greenham Common and Molesworth. Government policy on arms control issues is explained in the Arms Control and Disarmament Newsletter, published quarterly by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on the Youth Opportunities Programme – 18 November 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on the Youth Opportunities Programme, published on 18th November 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the average delay between applications by employers to take part in the youth opportunities programme and approval of their schemes; and if he has plans to speed up this process.

    Mr. Alison The average delay between sponsors’ applications and the approval of schemes is now about four weeks. The commission has temporarily transferred staff from its employment service to help with backlogs of applications, and I am satisfied that this measure will be effective in reducing delays.

    A Rayner scrutiny of the commission’s special programmes procedures at regional and area offices has recently been completed and the recommendations in the report – some of which cover the speeding up of scheme approvals – are now being considered.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on PAYE – 16 November 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on PAYE, published on 16th November 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will institute an independent investigation into the proposed timetable for the computerisation of the PAYE system.

    Mr. Ridley Independent expert advice was obtained on the plans for the computerisation of PAYE. The most recent independent advice on the timetable is that it is adequate but tight. I do not see that a further review now would serve any useful purpose.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Nuclear Disarmament – 15 November 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on Nuclear Disarmament. The text was issued by Conservative Central Office, news release 906/81, and the speech was made at a Young Conservative Forum in Cambridge on 15th November 1981.

    Conservative News Release 906/81. Extract from a speech by John Major, MP, (Huntingdon), speaking at a YC [Young Conservative] Forum at 91, Hartington Grove, Cambridge.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    The misleading propaganda of the CND:

    The highest aim of Government policy must be peace and security. That is not easily achieved. It will never be achieved by CND marches and demonstrations, nor will it be secured by pious platitudes. I make no apology for the priority the present Government has given to our defence posture, nor for the decision to install Cruise Missiles in East Anglia. Nevertheless, this high profile is controversial. It has provided a great boost for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and I want to deal with this organisation and its propaganda at some length.

    I have no doubt that there are many people in the CND movement who are completely sincere and deeply worried about the growth of nuclear weapons. I respect their sincerity and I share their concern about the dangers of nuclear weaponry.

    However, I cannot respect the movement itself, because its deceptions are legion. To call some of them inaccuracies would be charitable. Much of what the CND proclaim is utterly untruthful and even a cursory examination of Government defence policy can show this to be so.

    It is impossible to detail all these deceptions, but let me put flesh upon some of them that I believe attract many people into the CND who might not otherwise join it. The first of these is to claim that Cruise Missiles – to be sited at Molesworth in my constituency – are a first strike weapon and therefore intended for use in a pre-emptive attack on the Soviet Union. This is a charge made by the CND that has received wide currency.

    It is basic CND propaganda. But it is totally untrue. Apart from the fact that the characteristics of the Cruise Missiles render it utterly unsuitable for a pre-emptive strike.

    Firstly, the missile is exceptionally slow and would take between three and four hours to reach the Soviet Union from the United Kingdom. It would clearly be detected by the Soviet Union in ample time for them to dispatch retaliatory weapons before the Cruise Missiles struck.

    Secondly, the number of Cruise Missiles to be deployed in Europe is much smaller than the total number of Soviet missile silos, so again it could not possibly be used for a pre-emptive strike. Thirdly, such a strike could not possibly hit the many hundreds of nuclear missiles the Russians deploy in submarines with which they would subsequently be able to respond. For this reason then, the Cruise Missile is unsuitable for a pre-emptive strike.

    The CND are perfectly aware of these facts and yet they are undeterred. They repeat this charge again and again and many people who hear it so often are inclined to believe it. But this is by no means the only CND deception.

    The CND alleges that Western planning – NATO planning – is now based on fighting and winning a nuclear war. They must know that is untrue.

    The CND want Britain to “give a lead” by one-sided, unilateral nuclear disarmament. They claim that Britain would set an example that other nations would follow. But which countries would follow? Would anyone follow us? Would the Soviet Union disarm? Would China? Would France? The truth is nobody would follow our lead, if we disarmed unilaterally.

    All we would do by unilateral disarmament would be to weaken the NATO Alliance and encourage the Soviet Union to believe that the resolution to withstand them no longer existed in the West.

    There is an even more dangerous aspect to this particular propaganda from the CND. Shortly – early next year – the United States and the Soviet Union will enter into general disarmament talks. The great danger of current CND propaganda is that the Soviet Union will be encouraged to believe that if they wait long enough and the anti-nuclear movements agitate enough, the Western nations will unilaterally disarm without requiring the Soviet Union to do so.

    In this fashion, the CND are acting both against the national interest and against the interests of millions of their members who genuinely want peace.

    CND propaganda is also blatantly anti-American, this is evident in the frequent charge that the Cruise Missile is being sited in the United Kingdom and in Europe simply because the Americans imposed its siting upon us to make sure that nuclear war is limited to Europe. This is utterly untrue. It was, in fact, Europeans who first suggested the introduction of the Cruise Missiles in Europe, even though it is paid for by the United States. The European nations did so in order to deter the Russians from believing that, because of the growing weight of Soviet nuclear weapons and the obsolescence of the West’s existing theatre nuclear forces, they could seize Western Europe and present the Americans with a fait accompli. Nonetheless, this factual reality does not deter the CND. I wish that the unilateral disarmers would acknowledge just once, in public, that it is Soviet SS20 missiles that are aimed at Western Europe and not Cruise Missiles. I wish they would also acknowledge – since it is surely true – that it is the alliance between Western European countries and the United States in NATO that preserves both our security and our freedom.

    The CND also alleges that the Russian’s arms build-up is only a response to Western arms. And yet how different is the fact. The Russians now spend about one seventh of their annual wealth for military purposes. That is more than twice that of any other Western country. To put it in more lurid terms; the Russians spend twice as much on defence as they spend on health and education combined, whereas we in the United Kingdom spend twice as much on health and education as we spend on defence.

    If the CND campaigners are right and the Russians would follow a lead given in the West, then surely they too should have reduced military expenditure over recent years. Why did they not follow that line? We now know that they have not and any suggestion, therefore, that they would follow our lead, were we unilaterally to disarm and remove nuclear weapons, must surely be exposed for the nonsense it is.

    The CND peddle the alluring fantasy that we can safely dismantle nuclear weapons and rely on conventional weapons alone. That is a remarkable proposition. The Warsaw Pact countries outnumber the West in conventional armaments by between two and three to one. Moreover, if they retained nuclear weapons whilst we did not, they would only have to threaten to use them for all our conventional weapons to become entirely useless. Unilateral nuclear disarmament would mean quite simply that the United Kingdom no longer had the power or the resolution or the intention of defending itself against aggression or contributing to the defence in the West. That is a reality that people must accept.

    However, we cannot be complacent. CND propaganda is effective. It does play upon a universal desire for peace. It does contain significant public figures and churchmen who offer it respectability and who also mask the Communists on its national committee and extremists who have infiltrated its ranks for political purposes.

    The British Government want peace. It wants security; it wants genuine and verifiable multilateral disarmament. These are desirable objectives but we will only achieve them if we have the courage and resolution to sustain our part in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and in the Western Alliance.

    We must not let the CND damage that resolution.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Select Committees – 12 November 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Select Committees, published on 12th November 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will move for the appointment of a Select Committee to examine all aspects of the taxation of married couples.

    Mr. Pym My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer published a Green Paper on this subject last year and is considering the comments on it from individual members of the public and representative bodies. The subject matter is already within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on the Council of Fisheries Ministers – 28 July 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on the Council of Fisheries Ministers, published on 28th July 1981.

    Sir Patrick Wall Asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of Fisheries Ministers.

    Mr. Major Asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Council of Fisheries Ministers’ meeting in Brussels on 27 July; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Buchanan-Smith I refer my hon. Friends to the statement which I made in the House earlier today.