The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1991

  • PMQT – 9 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Janner : Does the Prime Minister know of the grave shortage of resources that is affecting children’s wards and units in hospitals throughout Britain? Is he aware that the unique baby life-saving unit in Groby Road hospital in my constituency is likely to have to close because there is no money locally and the Department of Health has refused central NHS funding? If that unit closes, as is almost certain unless the Government change their mind, what will the Prime Minister say to the parents of babies who will certainly die, totally unnecessarily?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, I cannot carry in my head the details of each and every aspect of the national health service, but he knows that the average annual increase in the national health service budget has been more than 3 per cent. during the period of this Government–substantially higher than it was under any previous Government.

    Sir Michael Shaw : If public spending is to be paid for in the future by increases in our economy, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend do policies of increased taxation, increases in quangos and Ministries and a minimum wage level make a sensible policy to increase such a demand?

    The Prime Minister : I suspect that I know what my hon. Friend is driving at. The reality is that the Labour party would never deliver any growth whatsoever to fund increased public expenditure. It never has and never would and any suggestion that it would is sheer wish fantasy.

    Mr. Kinnock : Has the Prime Minister seen the letter from the health authority district general manager to his clinical directors stating that

    “the reality of GPs holding their own budgets”

    is that

    “equity has gone out the window”?

    In view of that, will the Prime Minister withdraw the claim that he made in the House on Tuesday that operations are done on the basis of clinical need, as that claim is obviously fiction?

    The Prime Minister : It is not fiction. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. I have been advised within the last hour or so that the doctor to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred has also said that the big advantage of the trusts is that you are opting out of bureaucracy, not out of the national health service. At Bart’s, the hospital at which he works, they are treating more patients at less cost. Over 1,000 jobs may have gone in the last five years, but more patients are being treated.

    Mr. Kinnock : Since the Prime Minister also wants to quote Dr. Grant, I remind him that he is the man who said that they are opting out of equity. Can I put it to the Prime Minister again? Is not it clear that the Prime Minister’s health market policies have now made queue-jumping the order of the day and that the clinical needs of patients are coming second to commercial considerations? I put it to him again. In view of that reality, on the testimony of Dr. Grant, will he now withdraw the false claim that he made two days ago that operations are done on the basis of clinical need? It is fiction.

    The Prime Minister : No, I will not, and I will call in evidence to support my position Mr. Rowden, the chief executive of West Lambeth health authority, who writes to the press as a nurse, a general manager in the national health service and a member of the Labour party. I quote :

    “For Labour to suggest that the old-style district health authorities provided a sound basis for the management of the NHS is spurious to say the least. Decisions prior to the reforms were arrived at by a process of those who screamed the loudest, and we have all witnessed various displays of shroud-waving This was not a rational way of making difficult decisions, and perhaps the key benefit from the NHS reforms will be the evolution of a system that will lead to rational and informed debate about how and why we use precious resources in our NHS.”

    Mr. Kinnock : Like his predecessor, the more the Prime Minister goes on in his answers, the less convincing he becomes. May I put it to him again? Does not he agree with the testimony of one of his supporters, a district general manager, who says that because of his system equity has gone out of the window? Will not he affirm now that, as a consequence, operations are not being done on the basis of clinical need but on the basis of commercial considerations?

    The Prime Minister : I neglected inadvertently to complete the quote from Mr. Rowden, the Labour party supporter. He deals with the point that the right hon. Gentleman now raises :

    “When all the politicking stops, it has to be said that many of the Government’s changes to the NHS give us the first opportunity in decades to begin explicitly to make choices about where we spend our money in the UK health care system.”

    Mr. Harris : Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, unlike the Labour party, he will keep public expenditure in line with what the country can afford? Furthermore, as the First Lord of the Treasury, will he make available to Her Majesty’s Opposition the full facilities of the Treasury to check out their taxation and spending plans, as clearly their sums do not add up?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Our economic policies in the last 12 years have achieved a remarkable treble–tax cuts, spending increases on public services and a reduction in the national debt. The extra £20 billion that Labour promises is spending that it could never deliver out of growth which it has never previously provided when in government. The only things that would grow under the Labour party would be taxes, inflation and national health service waiting lists, just as they always have done.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that while the scale of international relief in Bangladesh is still pitiful in relation to need, there is nevertheless real pride about Britain’s lead in providing it? I again ask the Prime Minister why it is that he, his Government and, it appears, the written press continue to ignore the incalculably greater scale of the disaster now unfolding in Africa? I want the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that he knows and understands that 27 million lives are imminently at risk and that in some areas food will run out at the end of this week. If he knows about these matters, will he tell the House what he intends to do to help?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first part of his question. The assistance that we have given to Bangladesh has made us the largest single national donor. We are prepared to do more and are urging others to do more. Particularly in the months ahead we will need to seek a better international way of co-ordinating assistance when great tragedies such as this are faced. I shall do what I can to bring that sort of system about. On the subject of Africa, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are providing substantial aid and providing it fast. After the United States, we are the second largest bilateral food aid contributor to the Horn. We have done a great deal and, where necessary, we will be able to do more. However, we cannot do everything that is necessary on our own. We have a better record than almost anyone in the world and we can justly be proud of that record.

    Mr. Butcher : Is my right hon. Friend aware that 12 years ago to this day he and I first entered the House? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his personal dedication and commitment to an improvement in public services throughout that period. If the history of the 1980s shows anything it is that it is possible to reduce taxation while simultaneously and dramatically improving public services.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right about that. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend back to the House after his illness. We are all very pleased to see him here and looking so fit and I look forward to seeing him sit here with me for at least another 12 years and possibly a good deal longer. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such improvements depend on the levels of growth that we have achieved over the last decade, which levels Conservative Governments traditionally achieve and Labour Governments fail to achieve.

     

    Q2. Mr. Andrew Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Welsh : As the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Energy both oppose test drilling by Nirex in their constituencies, does the Prime Minister understand why the people of Scotland do not wish to see up to 6,000 planned test boreholes being drilled in Caithness? If Nirex proposes to spend such time, effort and money in drilling up to 6,000 boreholes, how can the Prime Minister expect anyone to believe that Nirex has not targeted the north of Scotland as a nuclear dump? Scotland has been badly let down by this decision.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman will know, there will need to be quite specific planning consents before there can be any dumping of waste there. That matter lies in the future, but before any dumping at all could take place after the test borings, quite specific planning consents would need to be granted. We will look carefully at those when they come forward.

     

    Q3. Mr. Beaumont-Dark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Will my right hon. Friend accept that when we came to office 12 years ago the top rate of taxation was 82 per cent., that it is now 40 per cent. and that the miracle has happened because everyone has been encouraged to work harder which has meant that £17 billion more has been spent on the health service this year than when we came to office? Does he agree that a nightmare will strike people such as a police sergeant, a deputy head teacher or a doctor when they hear that if they earn £20,300 a year they are among the rich and are to be taxed and taxed and taxed again.

    The Prime Minister : That would certainly do nothing but damage to enterprise ; and it is certainly true that, over the past few years, lower rates of tax have produced a higher yield.

    My hon. Friend is right about people earning £20,000 a year. In no sense can they be described as rich. Last year in London and the south-east £20,000 was less than the average white collar wage and it will certainly be much less this year. It is less than many Metropolitan police constables and sergeants, senior house officers, registrars or junior doctors earn. It is less than many teachers earn. Those are the people whom the Opposition regard as rich and whom they would tax not only unreasonably but as they did in the 1970s : right out of this country.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ron Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Brown : As the poll tax has been a big mistake, why should people be hounded and imprisoned in England? Why should they suffer because the Government got it wrong? People outside think that something has to give–that there should be an amnesty. The Government should understand the position of the 16 individuals in England– [Laughter.] It is not funny.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This does not help the hon. Gentleman. Briefly, please.

    Mr. Brown : Those 16 people are in prison because they did not pay the poll tax. We know that the Prime Minister claims to want a classless society– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now conclude his question?

    Mr. Brown : This is important, because people cannot be imprisoned in Scotland but they can be in England. Let us free these political prisoners. That would be an important decision.

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Gentleman feels deeply about these matters, but I must point out that he did not even carry his own side of the House with him in his remarks.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 May 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ministers’ Visits

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister what are the guidelines for Ministers using Government expenses to undertake official visits which promote prospective candidates for the constituency visited.

    The Prime Minister : As under previous Administrations, Ministers do not normally use official resources, such as transport, in connection with party business, but there may be circumstances which makes this necessary, for example, security or when official and party engagements are consecutive.

  • PMQT – 7 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Immediately after Questions I shall depart the House to attend a guard of honour for the Prime Minister of Spain. I shall have further meetings later today.

    Mr. McAllion : In the past week we have heard some Scottish Tories describe Scottish devolution as an immovable force which their party ignores at its risk. Other Scottish Tories have described it as a fantasy and a dead duck and yet others have described it as a London-based plot hatched by the chairman of the Conservative party to win cheap votes in Scotland. With which of those views does the Prime Minister agree–or is this yet another important issue on which he does not know his own mind?

    The Prime Minister : Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain fully so.

    Mr. Quentin Davies : Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the past 12 years this country has gained tremendous advantages through substantial reductions in income tax levels? Does he further agree that to increase income tax rates again, even for those on moderate levels of earnings, such as classroom teachers in London, would be a retrograde step and a major blow to the aspirations of millions of people and to economic output?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly would agree with my hon. Friend about that. It applies also to national insurance contributions, because what matters is the net disposable income that people have left in their pockets to spend. People will have noticed the Opposition’s plans in that regard.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity publicly to oppose a two-tier system in hospitals, such as Watford general hospital, where the patients of non budget-holding general practitioners must wait longer and take second place, regardless of their clinical need?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. There will be no reductions in existing operations in Watford. Instead, as a result of our reforms, some people will get operations faster than otherwise they would have done. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister has just confirmed the existence of a two-tier service. Does he realise that a two-tier system such as he supports is, as the British Medical Association says, “unethical”? Does he recognise that even in its existence it is a violation of the basic principle of the national health service that treatment must be determined according to clinical need, not contracts or commercial decisions? Is not it obvious from what he says and allows that although we believe in a national health service on the basis of need, the Prime Minister believes in one according to deals?

    The Prime Minister : None of that remotely follows. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my first answer. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. I shall repeat that in case he did not fully hear it first time : operations are done on the basis of clinical need. What we are seeking and attaining are a more efficient system and more efficient use of the large resources in the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman’s plans would take money away from the NHS as a result of many of his spiteful proposals. He has made it clear that he will provide no extra funding. We need no lectures on health care from him.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister not only misrepresents me, he misrepresents what is going on– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister misrepresents what is going on now. Will he take this opportunity to say that there are no cases that he will allow in which the patients of non budget-holding GPs will be allowed to take second place to the patients of budget-holding GPs who have made contractual arrangements with hospitals to gain preference for their patients?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should read what I have said twice already : that operations are done on the basis of clinical need.

    Mr. Alexander : Does my right hon. Friend recollect his past criticism of the unsatisfactory nature of the laws on Sunday trading? In the light of recent events, does he agree that it might now be appropriate to bring our laws in England and Wales into line with those of Scotland, where the commitment to the Sabbath and keeping Sunday special goes hand in hand with sensible Sunday trading laws?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, a number of cases are being considered by the courts. Some may go to appeal. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is consulting interested parties to see whether a consensus can be found on Sunday trading law that would be acceptable both to them and to the House, which has repeatedly expressed a view on the matter. I believe that that is the right way ahead on a matter of conscience such as this. Experience in Scotland suggests that a suitable consensus is possible. I hope that we can find one south of the border.

     

    Q2. Ms. Ruddock : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Ms. Ruddock : Does the Prime Minister know that last year in Lewisham there were only 320 employment training places when there were 10,000 unemployed people? Can he tell me, therefore, why today, when unemployment has increased by a third, to over 14,000, the number of employment training places is to be cut by a third? What faith does he expect the British people to put in his commitment to a fairer society?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady will know, the United Kingdom is the only country in Europe to guarantee a training place to everyone under the age of 18 who is not already in full-time education or employment. Spending on training is £2.7 billion this year. That is two and a half times more than was spent by the previous Labour Government.

     

    Q3. Mr. Speller : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Speller : Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will fight for the interests of the small family farm in Britain at the common agricultural policy discussions that are to come and also by providing assistance for such items as expertise in marketing and help for farmers’ incomes, which have fallen to an unacceptable level?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We will defend the interests of all farmers, including small family farmers, in the forthcoming Community discussions. The House knows that, as currently framed, the Commission’s plans for CAP reform would discriminate against United Kingdom farmers, largely because our average farm size is greater than that in other member states. We have given considerable help to small farmers recently, in particular by increasing milk quotas and by means of the hill livestock compensatory allowance. We shall continue to help.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Hain : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to repudiate the views of the Conservative candidate in the Monmouth by- election who yesterday advocated the opting out of not just the Royal Gwent hospital but the Nevill Hall hospital as well?

    The Prime Minister : Opting out–that is to say, putting control in the hands of local people within the national health service–is the right way to produce better management and local choice. I note that the hon. Gentleman does not favour local choice, just as his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made clear in terms of education yesterday.

     

    Q5. Mr. Wilshire : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Wilshire : Given the Government’s desire to extend choice in education further, and given the public’s desire to see the highest possible standards of education everywhere, will my right hon. Friend find time today to look for ways to extend further choice in education?

    The Prime Minister : We are very pleased to see extended choice in education. The new grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and open enrolment have provided considerable extra choice. I hope that parents will take advantage of it. It is clear that the Opposition do not like choice. Grant-maintained schools, CTCs, the assisted places scheme, charitable status for private schools and the existing A-levels would all go and, with the Opposition’s tax plans, most of the teachers would go as well.

     

    Q6. Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Having clearly misled Parliament last week–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. No hon. Member misleads Parliament. The hon. Member knows that and he must rephrase his question.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Having misrepresented to Parliament last week the attitude of the British Medical Association and Britain’s doctors as to GP contracts, why did the Prime Minister seek to cover up his mistakes by doctoring Hansard? Is that not true and does not the Prime Minister owe someone an apology?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and Mr. Speaker will make a statement about that matter at 3.30 pm. In advance of that statement, let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. Like every hon. Member, he knows that it is normal practice, when a Minister uses a quote, for the precise words and their source to be provided by Hansard. In this case, the name of the correct source was put into the record, but I am entirely happy for the original words to be reinstated. The magazine from which I quoted was GP Magazine but similar sentiments to those that I quoted, endorsing the reforms, have been expressed in the British Medical Journal, published by the BMA– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us hear the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I quote from a recent editorial in the British Medical Journal, which said :

    “The reforms may not address all the problems of the NHS, but they do improve our capacity to specify the quality of services and to price improvements.”

    The point that I was making is entirely justified. If any apology is required, it is from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).

     

    Q7. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity, over the weekend, to reflect on the damage that would be done to our representative democracy by a system of proportional representation? This system would deprive people of their solely responsible local representative to satisfy the Liberals, the statisticians and the pundits who enjoy smoke-filled rooms.

    The Prime Minister : I am not in favour of either smoke-filled rooms or proportional representation. I share my hon. Friend’s view that it leaves minority parties determining Government policy and striking bargains for their support. That is not democracy, it is horse trading, and I will have no part in it.

     

    Q9. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Paice : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the fact that we, by reducing the top rate of tax to 40 per cent. from 83 per cent., have increased the proportion of total yield of income tax paid by the highest 10 per cent. of taxpayers from 20 to 30 per cent? Is not this because many of the most wealthy people are now staying in this country and bringing their money back, so that we get 40 per cent. of something, whereas the Opposition would get 59 per cent. of nothing?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The evidence as to the amount of tax collected with lower rates is clear for all to see. It is equally clear that, under the Labour party’s proposals, 14 out of 15 taxpayers would not be better off, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said a year ago. The figure is now one in eight. When the shadow Chancellor gets at the figures they change daily, and when we have finished costing Labour’s programme they will change again.

    Mr. Simon Hughes : The Prime Minister will be aware that, in relation to his policy on local government finance, only after huge public protest and widespread cuts in services did he decide that he had better review the policy inherited from his predecessor and then to ditch it. Does he agree that his policy on the opting out of hospitals was equally widely opposed and that it is now clear that it, too, will result in widespread cuts in services? For the sake of consistency of principle, will the Prime Minister carry out a wholesale review and then ditch the policy?

    The Prime Minister : No. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s views, and I do not believe that his analysis is remotely correct. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must wait and see how it turns out. He will find that he is wrong. For many years we have had to ensure that the national health service uses its resources to the most efficient extent. At last the present Government have had the courage to introduce a system that will ensure that the money is used to best effect for patients. I believe that, for the national health service, that is the right way to proceed and the one which will produce the maximum amount of good patient care. That is what we propose to do.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Spanish Prime Minister – 7 May 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Felipe Gonzales, held in London on Tuesday 7th May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you for being here this evening. We have had so far around an hour and a half’s discussion, very friendly, very constructive, there are many matters that we have in common that we wish particularly to deal with. We have spent the time thus far discussing mainstream European matters, the inter-governmental conference on economic and monetary union and political union have dominated the discussions we have had thus far.

    Later on this evening we will be continuing discussions when we will have a wide variety of other matters outside mainstream European matters. No doubt at that stage we will be discussing the problems of Gibraltar and also of course the Soviet Union, Iraq and many other matters as well. But this far we have concentrated on the principal matters of concern within the European Community.
    I will say no more for the moment but invite the Prime Minister to say whatever he would wish to say.

    MR GONZALES:

    [Not interpreted].

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Could I just add to that? We did discuss cohesion in its widest aspects, that is both cohesion in the sense of the structural funds and cohesion also in the series of both inputs and outtakes from the general Community budget, so we looked at it in a very wide sense indeed.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can you tell us anything more about Mr Gorbachev’s possible attendance at the G7 summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That has not been a subject of discussion with the Prime Minister this afternoon, that is a matter that we will have to discuss with our G7 partners, but I am in no position to make any statement about that yet.

    QUESTION:

    Has Mr Gonzales given you any further support for your hard Ecu plan?

    PRIME MINISTER:
    We have discussed economic and monetary union at some length and there are very considerable similarities between the British position and the Spanish position on how to move ahead from where we are now. The British have proposed the Hard Ecu as you know and the Spanish have put forward their own proposal which is similar and which would involve hardening the basket Ecu. So we have neither of us given specific support to the other’s proposal but we are very close together on the principles of how we must go ahead on economic and monetary union.

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted].

    MR GONZALES:

    [Not interpreted].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I agree.

    QUESTION:

    What reassurances can you give Gibraltarians that nothing will be done against their wishes on sovereignty or on the airport?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I could only echo what the Prime Minister said a moment or so ago, I think it would not be prudent for either of us to make comments on Gibraltar, either comments we have traditionally made or comments that may follow our discussions until we have had those discussions. That was the position the Prime Minister took a moment ago. I believe it was the correct one and I must answer in the same way.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 May 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Civil Defence

    Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister what procedures he has established for co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and agencies of the United States Government regarding the levels of attack preparedness and the length of warning times applicable to future civil defence provision in the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : Procedures governing co-ordination on warning times and related matters involve many Government Departments and there are a number of arrangements to which the United Kingdom and the United States of America are party–the most important being those established with our NATO partners. All 16 NATO nations are currently discussing revisions to our mutual defence arrangements in the light of the substantial changes that have occurred in Europe.

    As for the United Kingdom specifically, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making an announcement about changes in our arrangements, including the planning assumptions that will underlie civil defence planning, in the summer.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Local Election Results – 3 May 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the previous night’s local election results, made on Friday 3rd May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [Mr Major was asked about local election results]

    It is disappointing but bearable I think. The Liberals clearly did extremely well, they did better than we expected and I congratulate them on that. The silver lining is there is no evidence either in the ballot box or in the opinion polls that we saw last night that show that the Labour Party can win an election, indeed the evidence is quite strongly to the contrary. Here we are bumping along at the bottom of a recession, not yet coming out of it, and after all the difficulties that there have been in recent months and a recession, there is no lead for the Labour Party at all and at this stage in the Parliament if they were to win a General Election they should have had I would have thought quite a commanding lead. So that is a very substantial silver lining.

  • PMQT – 2 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Sayeed : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

    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.

    Mr. Sayeed : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local elections today should be about which party most efficiently delivers quality services at the lowest cost?

    The Prime Minister : They certainly should be and I hope that in the eyes of the electors they are. If they turn out to be so, I believe that the cost of each Labour councillor, which is very substantial, will be noticed by the electorate, who will vote accordingly.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister agree with the British Medical Association’s judgment that there is a crisis for patients and for doctors in the national health service and that, in its words,

    “The Prime Minister is unaware of what is happening throughout the country.”?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I had a seminar with many leading figures in the health industry at Chequers on Saturday morning. It is an odd question from the right hon. Gentleman, who admitted over the weekend that there would be no more money for health under a Labour Government. The point which I believe that the BMA should consider is that it is improbable, with £30 billion going into the health service, that each and every one of those pounds is being used to best effect. The purpose of our reforms is to ensure that that money is used to best effect on patient care so that the patient may get the best possible value for the contribution that he makes to the health service.

    Mr. Kinnock : With that response the Prime Minister not only proves his desperation in misrepresenting me, but proves the BMA’s case that he really does not know what is going on in the country. The secretary of the BMA, Dr. Ian Field, reports that, because of the Prime Minister’s so-called NHS reforms, hospital clerks are having to take life-and-death decisions about which patients should be admitted and which should be turned away. If the Prime Minister does not think that that is evidence of crisis, just what does he think would constitute a crisis?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the gentleman to whom the Leader of the Opposition has referred should have examined more carefully what is happening in many other parts of the country, quite apart from the general increase in NHS funding. For example, he might look at many of the trusts. In the case of North Western, no cuts are planned, and new staff posts are being created. The same applies to Mersey, West Midlands, Trent, East Anglia, Yorkshire and many other areas. It would be a great help to the national health service if people were to look at its achievements and its improvements, rather than carp, criticise and pick out difficulties that have always existed and, in an organisation of such size, may always exist.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister can be sure that the consultants and other doctors in the BMA are well aware of the qualities of the national health service. Indeed, they work in it continually and they support it continually. When they say that there is a crisis for patients and doctors in the NHS as a result of the Prime Minister’s reforms, does not he think that he owes it to them, first, to meet them very soon and, secondly, to stop opting out and adding to the crisis?

    The Prime Minister : As I have said to the BMA in my letter, I will be prepared later this year to meet it to discuss the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to quote the BMA, let him recall that the association opposed many past improvements in the health service. It opposed the very establishment of the service, in which case it was wrong ; it opposed the drugs list, in which case it was wrong ; and, only last year, it opposed the GP contracts, yet, in GP Magazine * (* See Mr. Speaker’s statement on 7 May at column 625.), it now says :

    “Suddenly, targets don’t seem so bad after all Most GPs will find themselves significantly better off than they were last year.”

    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should examine that more carefully.

    Mr. Cash : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the draft treaty that the Luxembourg presidency has made available to only a very limited number of people–and certainly not to Members of this House–in the European Community? Does my right hon. Friend know that that draft treaty contains provisions that would result in a severe diminution in the powers of this House? Will he give us an assurance that, although we want to co-operate in Europe–we are pro-European–the proposals in this paper, which combine a reduction in the powers of the Westminster Parliament with an increase in the powers of the European Community, are unacceptable in their present form?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, I have on a number of occasions made clear our position in both intergovernmental conferences. The document to which he refers is, as he has said, a draft treaty prepared by the Luxemburgers. It has not been agreed by us–indeed, it has not yet even been discussed by us–and we have put forward our own particular proposals for both intergovernmental conferences.

     

    Q2. Mr. Watson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Watson : The Government’s proposed replacement for the poll tax promises 100 per cent. rebates for those on low incomes. Why will not the Prime Minister give an assurance today that the same principle will be applied to the nearly 6 million people who will remain liable to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax for at least another three years?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, when the 20 per cent. arrangement was introduced, income support was also introduced to compensate, to ensure that people had the resources to meet those charges. That remains the position.

    Mr. Jopling : Will the Prime Minister find time today to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that all advertisements are decent, legal and truthful–especially advertisements put in the press by trade unions on behalf of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : That would certainly be an improvement, if it happened. I join my right hon. Friend in condemning the advertisements to which he refers, with their phoney pictures and fake statistics. How similar that is to so much of what we hear at present from Opposition Members.

     

    Q3. Mr. Douglas : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Douglas : Does the Prime Minister accept that we are extremely interested in his addiction to seminars if he comes to Scotland we shall arrange one, at which he can explain to the people of Scotland why he is proposing to introduce a tax that is theoretically less onerous and less regressive than the poll tax, while at the same time allowing a rebate of 100 per cent. How can he explain the persistence of the 20 per cent. rule for the poll tax, and how does he view the difficulties of Scottish local authorities, because he knows that the poll tax is uncollectable?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep. I answered that question two minutes ago.

    Mr. Burns : During his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the latest diktat from COHSE, which orders its members to campaign for the Labour party during the local elections? In the light of that diktat, does he agree that nothing that the union says about the health service should be believed, because it is not objective and is politically biased?

    The Prime Minister : Given its past activities, I should be surprised if COHSE did not operate in that fashion, and that applies to NUPE as well. But, as the Leader of the Opposition gets so many of his policies from them, that is no surprise to any of us.

     

    Q4. Mr. Dunnachie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Dunnachie : Does the Prime Minister agree with the chairman of the Conservative party, who has declared that all voters are jerks, or does he agree with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has said that they are all morons? Or does he agree with the majority of the British people, who say that senior Cabinet Ministers are a disgrace to the country?

    The Prime Minister : As none of those comments was made in the way in which the hon. Gentleman suggests, there is nothing to withdraw.

    Mr. John Townend : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still a Government priority for British business men and farmers, after the completion of the single market in 1992, to be able to compete on a level playing field with their Community competitors? If so, will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and advise him not to impose on the pig industry financial burdens that our competitors on the Continent need not bear–especially the competition from Denmark and Holland?

    The Prime Minister : It is certainly our intention to see a level market, not only in agriculture but in all matters of European trade. All my right hon. Friends are aware of that and act accordingly.

     

    Q5. Mr. Sillars : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Sillars : May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to a statement made recently by the housing convenor of the city of Glasgow? According to that statement, given the present level of capital consents it will take 300 years to cure the damp problems experienced by the people of that city. That was said seriously, not facetiously.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that the present level of damp in Glasgow poses a serious risk to the health of children in particular. Will he deliver to the citizens of Glasgow the same respite as his Government gave to the rich people who bought shares in privatised English companies? Will he wipe off the capital debt of the city of Glasgow and give the people there an opportunity to enjoy decent housing in a much shorter time than 300 years?

    The Prime Minister : I think that we would all like everyone in the country to have increasing access to decent housing. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the past 10 years–across the country as a whole–there have been 2 million more homes, which is equivalent in practice to a city twice the size of Birmingham. He will understand the extent of the improvements that have been made. As for the position in Glasgow, the way in which individual authorities use their housing receipts, their capital receipts and their revenue sums is a matter for them and they must determine what priorities they must meet.

     

    Q6. Mr. Speller : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Speller : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the horrific accident on the north Devon link road at 3 o’clock this morning when a van bound from South Molton was in collision with a minibus carrying several Icelandic tourists, three of whom are dead and six of whom are desperately injured? Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as the tourist season begins, we need adequate police resources to ensure that there is safety on the roads, which is best ensured by a police presence?

    The Prime Minister : I was sorry to hear of that dreadful accident and I am sure that the House will join me in expressing sympathy to the families of those involved. As my hon. Friend will know, the Road Traffic Bill currently before Parliament will strengthen road traffic law and penalties. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will spend well over £6 million in 1991-92 on direct road safety campaigns in an effort to minimise the terrible accidents that we so frequently see, to an example of which my hon. Friend has referred.

     

    Q7. Mr. McAvoy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. McAvoy : The Prime Minister keeps making pious declarations about his personal commitment to the national health service, but is he aware that in my constituency Greater Glasgow health board has privatised care of the elderly? In other NHS hospitals there are to be en-suite toilets and bathrooms, but in that privatised hospital in my constituency there are to be communal toilets and bathrooms. When my frail and elderly constituents are being herded like cattle to use those communal facilities, will this personally committed Prime Minister feel any personal sense of shame?

    The Prime Minister : Anticipating what the hon. Gentleman might touch upon, I looked at Greater Glasgow health board’s record. It has, as the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention, awarded 58 contracts under competitive tendering arrangements and the resultant savings of £32.7 million will go directly into patient care. It has also entered into a contract with a number of people to provide more beds for care of the elderly. Greater Glasgow health board has a good record which the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention.

    Mr. Gerald Bowden : When my right hon. Friend comes to consider the route for the Channel tunnel rail link, will he look seriously at the alternatives to British Rail’s proposal? Will he take the opportunity to meet the professional partners of Bechtel and Ove Arup to discuss with them the benefits of their route at first hand?

    The Prime Minister : We will certainly look carefully at all alternatives. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will do that with great care.

     

    Q8. Mr. Andrew Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Given that the Secretary of State for Scotland opposed test drilling for nuclear dumps in his constituency and the Secretary of State for Energy, who is in charge of Nirex, opposed similar test drilling in his constituency, how can the Prime Minister justify permission being given for such test drilling in Dounreay, against massive democratic opposition locally and throughout Scotland? Is that a case of double standards?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decision at this stage is only to test the boreholes for repositories for nuclear waste. If a borehole turned out to be satisfactory, there would need to be a further detailed planning application before any waste could be deposited.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 May 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    VAT

    Mr. O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will put in hand an assessment of the comparative loss of revenue in the sale of home safety equipment free of value added tax and the costs of the treatment of victims of accidents in the home; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister : An official estimate of the value added tax accruing on the sale of home safety equipment is not available. The costs of treatment for all accidents in the home are about £300 million per year. The United Kingdom is not permitted under the EC sixth VAT directive to introduce any new zero rates.

    Olympic Games

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what specific steps he and the Government will be taking in support of the Manchester Olympic Committee’s bid to stage the Olympic Games; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister : The Government wish Manchester every success in its attempt to bring the 2000 Olympics to Britain. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is ready to discuss with those concerned how best the Government can help to promote the bid.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Opening of Smith New Court – 1 May 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made at the opening of Smith New Court in London on Wednesday 1st May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The last time I came to the City was in fact the day I became Prime Minister. I am not entirely sure how you are going to beat that and I hope on this occasion at least you won’t try. I am very grateful to you Sir Michael for the invitation to join you today. It is always a splendid thing to be able to declare open magnificent new offices like these. And also to congratulate a successful British enterprise. Because of its importance both domestically and internationally it is especially welcome to be able to do so in the City.

    I am particularly pleased to be opening these new offices for a special reason. I believe they do symbolise the continuing growth and global interests of the City of London. In the last twelve years or so, in my judgement, no one can deny that the City has thrived. It has been a success story. It has secured London its prime international position. That is the position that everyone in this room and beyond it in the City must keep.

    The achievements of London and the City are formidable and some-times I think we overlook them and push them to one side. They deserve a far greater importance than many people will sometimes give them.

    – London has built up the largest foreign exchange market in the world.

    – It is second only to Tokyo as an international banking centre.

    – It was the birthplace of the Eurodollar. The Eurobond market could have settled anywhere, but although the world’s bankers and brokers looked everywhere around the world, in the end they chose London. London is now the base also for three quarters of the trading in Eurodollar bonds.

    – London has long been a world centre for insurance and for fund management, a role it is of course happy to share with the Scottish financial centres. It remains, well perhaps not quite happy, but it will jolly well have to be happy because the Scottish financial centres are extremely good too!

    – It remains by far the largest centre in the world for international equity trading.

    – More foreign companies choose to be listed in London than anywhere else in the world.

    – In 1990 the turnover on the London Stock Exchange was the third highest in the world behind only Tokyo and New York. Of that turnover almost half was in overseas stocks. A far higher share than any other mainstream stock exchange.

    That is a very remarkable record and one that London can be proud of. London’s markets are growing day by day, all the time. In only a few years we have become a leading centre for futures and options and that will be reinforced When LIFFE merges with the London Traded Options Market.

    I think we may occasionally ask ourselves why is it? Why is it that London has been so successful? I believe that answer is clear cut and simple. It is the skill and innovation available in the City that has made London so pre-eminent. I think there is a second reason too, that I hope you will forgive me if I mention.

    That is that Government policy on many occasions has been vital to that progress. From the abolition of exchange controls in 1979 right the way through to the other changes in the 1980’s and the corporation tax reductions in the latest budget, Government policies have clearly contributed to the success that we have seen in the City. By de-regulating and by privatising and by reducing the burden of taxation, Government has created the freedom which has allowed the financial sector to flourish. At the end of the day it is the enterprise of the City, your enterprise, that has actually grasped that freedom and turned it into the success that London has been over the last decade.

    There are I believe two recent developments which will have a particularly vital role in strengthening London’s position and long term prospects.

    Firstly, our decision to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism last November was in my judgement a matter of enormous importance to our future prosperity and our efforts to stay competitive in Europe and beyond Europe. Second, and in consequence of that, we are achieving real success in the battle against inflation. Already the headline retail price index figure is down by nearly 3 per cent since last October. The April figure to be released later this month will show a further dramatic fall from the present level and inflation will then go on falling throughout this year and into next year.

    There is an important message there for the future. The initial impact of a financial deregulation, which caused the surge in lending and distorted the statistics we need for economic management, has now worked its way through. We have put in place measures to improve those statistics. But most important of all we are now members of the Exchange Rate Mechanism with all the anti-inflationary discipline that that entails. With those barriers against inflation, we are now better equipped than ever before to prevent a recurrence of inflationary trends and I regard that as being of immense importance.

    Looking to the future, London is well placed to benefit from new challenges. Not least the challenge immediately in front of us, indeed in many ways here and now, of the European single market. There is no way whatsoever that we can rest on past achievements, unless of course we wish to stagnate. In a world of highly competitive, highly mobile markets, even the achievements that outlined a moment or so ago in no way guarantee our future. Competition has become more intense in the last few years and yet despite this I am confident London will be able to compete, to build on its role as Europe’s financial centre of the future.

    We are looking forward in Europe both to the single market in finance and to the global market that is developing around us so very rapidly.

    – We already have in SEAQ the cornerstone of a pan-European market in shares. It is a market created not by and for Government but by and for the users and suppliers of capital.

    – London’s stock market has created European share indices. London will soon be trading futures on those indices, opening up a pan-European market in derivatives. All remarkable moves forward in London.

    – London too is already the centre of the cross border market in bonds. We were, after all, trading Eurobonds decades before the 1992 programme was ever thought of. We will be able to dedicate this expertise to the increasing integration of domestic bond markets.

    – We can look forward to growing business links with Eastern Europe as those countries join the commonwealth of market economies. The opportunities that exist at present and will be there throughout the 90’s and beyond are very substantial indeed.

    London in my view is more than just a financial centre for the European community. The Eurobond market should remind us that financial services are now truly international. The Eurobond market is a global capital market. Banking and insurance of course have long been global. Securities and other sectors are now clearly going in the same way. We cannot, and we should not, try to draw arbitrary lines around one country or even a group of countries, even those as important and influential as the European Community.

    There are now well over 500 foreign banks in and around the Square Mile. They are most welcome. Of course I am gratified to read of the success of British companies, but it is the cosmopolitan nature of the city that I believe is its true glory. The City and Government collectively issue an invitation to the world: come to London and compete here in London against the best there is in the world. Many have accepted our invitation. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, a very welcome addition which arrived only last month, is the latest to do so. I hope that many more will follow.

    The Government has been working hard to develop links with New York, Chicago, Tokyo, links to change regulatory systems and facilitate cross border business. Now Michael, I of course am only too well aware that there is still too little understanding of what the financial services sector really does. The enormous contribution that the City makes to the economy. That contribution is, and I use this term literally, immense.

    It is easy enough to quote the bald figures showing the net contribution of financial and other services to the balance of payments – between £6 billion and £9 billion in recent years. All the main sectors make a positive contribution.

    One perhaps in another way could quote the contribution of the financial sector to our national income: together with other related services it provides one job in every eight and an even larger share of GDP. Beyond that there is a deeper sense in which the role of financial services needs to be understood: as a support system to the rest of the economy. To manufacturers, retailers and to ordinary people in their daily lives.

    Imagine for a moment and I invite you to stretch your imagination. Imagine for a moment a world without banks. I saw in some sectors a shudder of apprehension at the thought. But imagine a world without banks. All your money stuffed in a mattress. A world without fund management or pensions. It would have to be, you can see, a very large mattress indeed. A world without insurance as well. So it had better be a very well guarded mattress indeed.

    Imagine then a world without securities. No one would be able to raise funds for investment, except by traipsing round the world begging from each and every wealth-owner. Without commodity markets we would still be at the mercy of the harvest and acts of God. Without shipbroking we would never know whether our goods would ever reach us. A modern economy needs a healthy financial services sector. Of course the City and industry don’t always see eye to eye. It would be odd if they did. But neither side should ever question their inter-dependence.

    There are perhaps as many reasons for London’s success as there are firms that have settled here. There are London’s long standing virtues: an enterprising tradition, an international outlook, a concentration of expertise in all the main areas of financial activity. There is a willingness to innovate and take up new challenges. In addition to that there is the very tangible gains of having the international language of business, English, and a tradition of probity based essentially on English Law.

    All those are important. The City offers a host of contemporary advantages as well. Freedom from exchange and capital controls. Sympathetic tax treatment of new financial products. A firm but flexible system of supervision. And a Government committed to de-regulation and liberalisation. As an example of this perhaps I may mention Britain’s lead in developing an advanced telecommunications system on which so much of modern business depends. Now I could continue upon that theme, though you will be familiar with many of the matters I would raise.

    London can boast the world’s largest urban regeneration project. Four new international air terminals in the last four years. New railway connections to the heart of the City are now being planned. All of those collectively, and indeed individually, help to give London the edge over other financial centres. The City combines a tradition of service and enterprise with the very best of modern technology and professionalism. These impressive new offices, formally being opened today, demonstrate Smith New Court’s determination to equip itself with nothing but the best.

    In recent years the City has undergone a revolution. A time of change in which talented people have seized opportunities, worked to compete and taken the lead in financial innovation. In financial services Britain continues to lead the world. Not through the imposition of Government plans, nor by sheltering behind protective national barriers or clinging to outdated practices; but by tapping our own enterprise in the City and by challenging the rest of the world to meet it.

    That is a very remarkable achievement. Those people who think the glories of the City lie in the past should look at what has actually been achieved in the period of even just the last decade to see how inaccurate that would be. This pattern of innovation, of change and raising and changing one’s mind to move ever ahead with the new technologies and new ideas that come before one: that must be the way ahead in the 1990’s. It was, it is and will be in my judgement the only way ahead for us in the 1990’s.

    That is the spirit of the Britain that we need to create if we are to compete successfully in an ever more competitive world. Michael I am delighted to have had your invitation to join you here today. For this simple reason. This building symbolises that attitude. I am delighted to be here today, to be part of this occasion and to formally declare it open.

    MICHAEL HARKS – CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF SMITH NEW COURT

    Smith New Court is part of what has become to be called The Securities Industry. It is an important industry for Britain and one of the few industries where we have a legitimate claim to be a world leader. This, I suggest Prime Minister, is acknowledged by your presence and your speech here today. On behalf of us all, thank you.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 30 April 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prisoners (Visits)

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate policy on the allocation of prisoners so that persons convicted in either England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland may serve their sentences at a convenient establishment for regular visits from their families.
    The Prime Minister : The allocation of prisoners in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the respective prison authorities. Nearness to home is one of the factors which is taken into account, along with other matters, in deciding a prisoner’s allocation. There is provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1961 for the transfer of prisoners between United Kingdom jurisdictions.

    Engagements

    Mr. Soames : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 30 April.
    The Prime Minister : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Advertising

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Prime Minister’s office on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990-91 and budgets for 1991-92.
    The Prime Minister : My office has incurred no expenditure on advertising or promotional material, and there are no plans for any such expenditure in 1991-92.
    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Cabinet Office on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990-91 and budgets for 1991-92.
    The Prime Minister : The Cabinet Office has not incurred and does not expect to incur any expenditure on promotional advertising on television, radio or in newspapers in the years 1979-92.

    Information on other promotional material is not available for the years 1979 to 1987. Expenditure on such material from 1987-88 was :

    |£
    ———————-
    1987-88 |19,306
    1988-89 |9,500
    1989-90 |14,833
    The estimate for
    1990-91 is £1,000.

    The Cabinet Office does not expect to incur any expenditure on other promotional material in 1991-92.

    Matrix Churchill

    Mr. Terry Davis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the Government Department to which a Crown servant calling himself Balson and visiting the offices of Matrix Churchill in Coventry at 11.15 am on 24 April 1989, 3.51 pm on 11 September 1989, 3.10 pm on 27 October 1989, 9.35 am on 1 December 1989, 9.35 am on 26 March 1990, 9.35 am on 20 April 1990 and 1.17 pm on 26 April 1990 was attached between 1 April 1989 and 30 April 1990; what was his grade; and what were his official responsibilities.
    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and industry.

    Arms Trade

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister which proposals he has to allow international advance warning of arms’ build-up by a particular country.
    The Prime Minister [holding reply 29 April 1991] : On 8 April I proposed the establishment of a United Nations register of arms sales to enable the international community to monitor and control any excessive build-up of arms by a particular country. The proposal was endorsed by our European partners. We are now pursuing it in discussions with the other permanent members of the Security Council and the United Nations secretariat.