The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1992

  • Mr Major’s NCVQ Speech – 23 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on education at the Cafe Royal on 23rd January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prefatory Remarks

    Mr Chairman, this is the second opportunity I have had to speak on educational matters here at the Cafe Royal. It’s a splendid location, and rather apt for your proceedings today. It has lots of levels. When I spoke last time I was at level 6 but now I find myself down at level 4. I hope this downwards progression doesn’t give the wrong signal to all those people working hard to move upwards through the NVQ levels.

    Introduction

    Mr Chairman, many of you will know by now that I believe it is vital that we continue to raise standards in education and training. The reason for this is clear. It is because I believe that every young man and woman has talents, in-built talents, which we all want to see them develop to the full.

    But there is another reason too: it is because I know – as all those of you in business know – that in this competitive world our country is involved in an unending struggle for markets. And in that struggle it is the businesses and services which offer quality that win.

    Business success will increasingly rest on people at every level who are equipped with good training and good qualifications. Qualifications that carry esteem, are coherently structured and capable of being updated throughout working life.

    For individuals, education and training are the gateways to opportunity and progress.

    For employers, a well-educated, well-trained workforce is their lifeblood.

    We live in a time of rapid and expanding technological change. No one should underestimate the scale of the challenges that we face. But nor should we underestimate our capacity to meet those challenges. We in Britain can develop the skills of our young people and of our workforce at least as effectively as any of our rivals. And we must.

    Opportunity for All

    Eight months ago, together with Michael Howard and Kenneth Clarke, I launched the Government’s White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century. We had two overriding aims. To give much greater priority to the needs of the 16 to 19 year age group.

    And at the same time to break down those artificial barriers which for too long had divided an academic education from a vocational one, and which treated those who followed the vocational route almost as second-class citizens.

    The themes which run through that White Paper are at the very heart of this Government’s philosophy and of the society in which we believe. A society without barriers. In which opportunities are available for all. In which high standards are expected and become the norm. In which people – whatever their background and wherever they work – can make the very most of their abilities.

    When I left school at 16, I was lucky. There were people to encourage me to work for qualifications. Not all young people are so lucky. I want to see us develop the framework that will give them the incentive and encouragement to get qualified – and encourage employers to help them on their way. Today more young people stay on at school, but there are still far too many 16 year-olds who bale out as soon as they can. And too many of those are never able to recapture the opportunities they have lost.

    Parity of Esteem for Vocational Training

    So as we prepare for the twenty-first century we must see that young people have the opportunity for further education, or training in job-related skills, to the very best of their capability. And if they are to have real choice, vocational education must become a high status route to follow.

    Why? Because it is important if we are to encourage the right people to develop the right skills. In this country we have always failed to give status to the practical as compared with the academic and the professional careers. All that is changing. Must change. These old-fashioned prejudices and snobberies can have no place in the world of education and should have no place in our society.

    Good vocational education is not inferior in status to good academic education. I hold vocational qualifications in trades, crafts and business in very high regard. The next generation must be able to decide between academic and vocational education and training without distinction or reserve – choosing a course of the kind that suits their own temperament and aptitude.

    That is our objective. But if the vocational route is to have equal status we must offer a range of qualifications that is both wide – yet at the same time easily recognised, understood and esteemed. Anonymous qualifications are not valued.

    It also means developing a system by which people’s acquisition of skills through life can be measured and recorded. We want to create a ladder of opportunity which encourages each and every young person to climb rung by rung – higher, in the end, than he or she may have thought possible at the start. We want to see learning and development treated as a life-long process.

    Employers as well as students stand to gain from such a system. They need a comprehensive and coherent framework of qualifications. Standards set by industry, to meet the needs of industry.

    It was Government that began this reform. But it is the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, in partnership with employers, that is turning Government vision into practical reality. I believe that we are now creating the most effective and flexible system of vocational qualifications in the world.

    Mr Chairman, we set you and your Council a challenge in our White Paper last year: that the system of national vocational qualifications which you have been developing since 1987 should spread right across industry and be within the grasp of all. The aim, stated in the White Paper, was to cover 80 per cent of the work force by the end of 1992. There were some who said that it simply could not be done. But it will be done. And I warmly congratulate you on reaching the 50 per cent milestone which John Hillier announced this morning. That is tremendous progress. I am confident that by the end of this year you will have reached 80 per cent coverage.

    And the purpose of this Conference is to make sure that the new system is used to full effect. Everyone here is aware that the skills of our people are the most valuable national asset of all.

    Of course, in one respect the future for today’s young people will differ from everything known before. Never again will a qualification once earned be sufficient for a lifetime. Training, re-training, updating will become increasingly necessary. In nearly all aspects of endeavour life-long learning will be needed.

    Quality and Choice in School

    The foundations for that must be laid in school. Our programme of reform in education, carried further in the Citizen’s Charter, will ensure that all schools concentrate on getting the basic things right. Step by step, Ken Clarke has been applying this principle to all age-groups in schools. From next September all pupils aged 14 will be following the National Curriculum course in English, maths and science. We will have clear national standards for the teaching of this key age-group on the threshold of decisions about their future education and working lives.

    But we are broadening as well as deepening the National Curriculum. Since 1990, all our 11 year-olds have been studying Technology, starting out for example on electronics, computer-aided design or working with metal and textiles. From 1993, technology will be extended to the curriculum for 14 year-olds – and will lead to GCSE or vocational qualifications.

    And we intend to enhance choice by developing a new breed of schools which will specialise in technology. The idea builds directly on our experience with City Technology Colleges. CTCs have become beacons of excellence in this field. We want to light more such beacons around the country.

    We are therefore committing 25 million to provide capital funding for a number of existing schools, which want to enhance their technology equipment and facilities. These will be chosen from amongst schools with a clear commitment to technology teaching. This initiative, I am happy to say, has attracted support from a number of industrial companies.

    The successful voluntary aided schools have already been announced. But I am particularly pleased today to be able to announce that 18 grant-maintained schools have now been chosen for the coming year.

    Good grounding is essential. But it is not good enough, if education stops at 16. By 1990, 60 per cent of 16 year-olds in England chose to stay on in full-time education and training. That is a sea-change from 1980 when it was only 40 per cent. And in 1990 no less than 90 per cent were doing some kind of education or training at least part-time. That was an investment in their future – in Britain’s future.

    As more young people stay on, one of the difficult decisions they face is how best to develop their skills. The choice of one route or the other is rarely clear cut. It’s hard to decide at 16 whether to study for higher education or to train for a job. Options need to be kept open. That was why we announced in the White Paper that we would develop a new system of more general vocational qualifications.

    New General NVQs

    These new vocational qualifications are designed mainly for young people still in full-time education. They are designed to be worked for in school or college rather than on the job.

    I can tell you today that we will be introducing the first General National Vocational Qualifications from September in a number of further education colleges and schools. Initially they will be at Level 3. They will be distinct from the existing NVQs, which are specific to a particular job or type of work. They will cover five broad areas – business and administration; manufacturing technology; health and social care; leisure and tourism; and art and design. And these new qualifications will be much more widely available from September 1993.

    The new courses will be structured to appeal to young people across a range of abilities. They will not replace GCSE, or our highly-valued A-levels but will run alongside them, thus widening choice. But some very able students may prefer them to the academic approach of A levels. I am confident that they will also appeal to many employers as a prelude to specific on-the-job training.

    But let me make it clear. This new qualification will not be an easy option. The aim is to offer young people the genuine choice between worthwhile, high-standard qualifications, along both the academic and the vocational paths. Qualifications of equal value – achieved at the end of courses of equal rigour. That way, they will attract equal esteem. Each offering the individual the opportunity to go as far as his or her own abilities allow. That was the vision in the White Paper. And – through NVQs and their new general equivalent in colleges and schools, that is what we are on target to deliver.

    Advanced Diploma

    We also announced in the White Paper our intention to introduce Diplomas to enhance the choice between an academic and a vocational education. There has been great interest in the idea of an Advanced Diploma which could be achieved either by those studying for A levels or by those who choose instead to study for NVQs. We intend to press forward now with the Advanced Diploma so that the first awards can be made in 1994.

    After consultation, we have decided what the qualifications for an Advanced Diploma should be. On the one hand, three advanced GCE passes (of which two may be only at A/S level); or, on the other, an NVQ at level three.

    On top of that, however, we shall also require a given level of attainment in English, mathematics and a modern foreign language from all those applying for a diploma -whether they have chosen the academic or vocational route. The evidence for this might come from GCSE, from A or A/S levels, or from within NVQ courses. Kenneth Clarke and Michael Howard will be consulting SEAC and NCVQ on the specific requirements.

    Attainment in English, maths and a foreign language will be assisted by the revision of GCSE for which I called last July. Work on this is progressing well. The new courses will begin in September this year. There will be a wider range of papers, so that we can not only cater for weaker candidates but also stretch the most able. There will be a sharp reduction in the proportion of marks awarded for coursework, and a rigorous examination at the end of the course. And the new GCSE will be related to the clear standards laid down under the National Curriculum.

    The National Record of Achievement

    But I believe that it is not just formal qualifications that give the measure of the individual. Almost a year ago, Michael Howard launched the idea of a National Record of Achievement for young people. Such records would give them credit for their many informal achievements, which are not reflected in exams, diplomas or degrees – but which may be just as important to them – and to their employers, too. Voluntary work, for example. Excellence in sport. The enterprise shown by pupils in running a business at schools. Or the leadership of an employee who heads up a project team. These are individual records. They foster pride in past achievement and encourage future effort. In a few short months this idea has become a phenomenal success. Over 2 million record forms have so far been ordered – by many thousands of schools, and more than 600 firms.

    I want to encourage this trend. But that is not really a job for government. So we are today inviting your Council, Mr Chairman, to take responsibility for its future development. I know you will work hard to spread the use of National Records of Achievement, so that they become a permanent and valued feature of the landscape of personal achievement.

    Taken together, the extension of NVQs, the new general qualification, the Advanced Diploma, and the Record of Achievement are all substantial initiatives. But we intend to carry the underlying philosophy further and deeper into training through life.

    Training and Enterprise Councils have given local employers a key place in establishing patterns of training that are suitable for their area. At the same time, our new pilot project with Training Credits will give young people the purchasing power to become investors in their own future. They will have the choice as to how they use this new opportunity.

    And we have evolved other innovative ways of creating new incentives for people to invest in their own training and development. Career Development Loans, for example. And, from April this year, a new tax relief for the fees which individuals pay for training leading to NVQs.

    These increasingly open and flexible approaches to learning are bringing better education and training within reach of all – even to those who once would have been prevented by work or domestic circumstances from pursuing them. Now qualifications that count can be gained by anyone who can demonstrate competence -whether it was gained under formal instruction or whilst doing a job.

    The Role of Employers

    It is right that employers should be involved in defining the standards of occupational competence. And I should like to add my personal thanks today to the thousands of employers who are actively engaged in that work.

    I believe that so many employers are sharing this commitment because they recognise the benefits which the new qualifications can bring. Real tangible benefits, which some are already enjoying.

    Being able to match people’s skills much more closely to the needs of their business.

    Knowing exactly what additional training anyone needs in order to move to another job.

    Choosing the most appropriate form of training.

    Knowing that people have been trained systematically to clearly defined high standards.

    Working through qualifications developed by and for the real world of employment. They are already in regular use in key sectors such as retailing, catering and construction. But the success of our reforms hinges on the wider use and understanding of the qualifications which we are developing.

    The Skills Revolution

    This Government has launched a Skills Revolution – a revolution that is gathering momentum year by year. And yet, in truth, to say that under-states what is happening. For it is really two revolutions which are happening together. A revolution among individuals, who are demanding and playing a much greater part in their own training and development. And a revolution among employers who are training their employees as never before. I have no doubt that employers must be in the lead in this skills revolution.it That is why I have supported strongly the establishment and development of TECs. And why this Government will always resist a return to the old centralist policies of compulsory training levies and bureaucratic control that some still seek. Industry is proving its commitment to high quality training. And it is doing that, too, by the support that it is giving to this Council.

    You, Mr Chairman, can be sure of this Government’s support in the work you still have ahead. For your council is developing a system which is raising our nation’s skill levels. You are developing a system of quality against which employers can assess the skills of their people and individuals can judge their success in developing their talents.

    Wider choice. Personal motivation. Employer leadership and commitment. That is the basis of our approach. It is the best path to personal fulfilment and to more competitive enterprise. It is the path that will lead to high standards in education and training. And to success for our country in matching – and outclassing – our trade competitors in the years ahead.

    It is the right path. And I wish you well in developing it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

    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.

     

    Honours

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any proposals to review the present honours system; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have no immediate plans to do so.

     

    EC Heads of State

    Mr. John Browne : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement as to the effect of the Maastricht agreement and the Single European Act upon the powers, role and future of the Crown and the heads of state of other European Community members.

    The Prime Minister : The powers, role and future of the Crown remain unaffected by the Single European Act and the treaty on European union agreed at Maastricht. The position of heads of state of other member states of the Community depends on their respective constitutional arrangements.

     

    Farmland

    Dr. David Clark : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any specific plans to reduce the protection to farmland currently in operation through the planning system; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : New planning policy guidance was set out on 22 January at columns 203-4 in a reply from my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). This affirms the Government’s commitment to protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land. Planning authorities should also weigh environmental considerations, including any special designation of the area, and economic factors, including the need for diversification to provide wider employment opportunities in rural areas, in preparing development plans and deciding planning applications.

     

    Legislation (Repeal)

    Mr. Tebbit : To ask the Prime Minister under which sections of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Maastricht agreement, the powers of Parliament to repeal legislation enacted by its predecessors are curtailed.

    The Prime Minister : The powers of Parliament to repeal legislation enacted by its predecessors are not curtailed by the treaty of Rome, either in its present form or as amended by the treaty on European union agreed at the Maastricht European Council.

  • PMQT – 23 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Harry Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Barnes : The Prime Minister has cut 110,000 training places in the past year. Furthermore, training schemes do not produce the skills or the qualifications for the jobs that are needed in Britain at this time. Is that because, as the Prime Minister said in another interview with Sue Lawley, from his point of view qualifications “are wholly useless”?

    The Prime Minister : Despite the unfavourable economic climate, both youth training and employment training continue to help young and unemployed people on a very substantial scale to go into further training and further education. Very large numbers of young people are being helped. We are investing enormous sums in training, in enterprise and in vocational education–two and a half times as much, after taking account of inflation, as was invested by the Labour party when it was last in government.

     

    Romford (Visit)

    Q2. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to make an official visit to Romford.

    The Prime Minister : I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country, and very much hope to include Essex among them.

    Sir Michael Neubert : Will my right hon. Friend be assured that any time that he cares to come to Romford, Essex men and Essex women will throng the streets in their thousands? In the meantime, will he give my constituents an assurance that he welcomes the report of the three wise men on primary education, and that the Government fully subscribe to the importance of the three Rs? Will he confirm that it is our top priority to get back to the basics in education and to sweep away the leftist progressive teaching methods that, having been put to the test, have failed?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend couches his invitation to visit Essex in irresistible terms.

    The report that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State published yesterday is extremely important. It challenges some of the teaching methods that have been used in recent years and it suggests that schools should concentrate on commonsense, practical teaching. I believe that that is what parents want and that it is the best way to ensure that children are taught the essentials. We certainly hope that both schools and teachers will adopt the proposals in the report.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Taylor : The Prime Minister will be well aware of the appalling environmental problems in the Fal estuary arising from the water pollution after the closure of the Wheal Jane mine. I do not think that people in Cornwall want to allocate blame at the moment, but they do want to ensure that the environmental clean-up is carried out both in the short term and the long term without hold-ups. Will the Prime Minister ensure that there are no financial problems at any stage in ensuring that the long-term and short-term clean-ups take place?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we set up the National Rivers Authority specifically to respond in the first instance to the sort of pollution incidents to which he refers–this one is a very serious incident. The NRA has been closely monitoring the situation since the mine closed. It had developed contingency plans before the incident and put them into effect when water in the mine began to overflow. I am sure that the NRA considers that it will be able to deal with the problem with the resources that it has.

     

    Q4. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports from the German chambers of commerce which show that German industry has invested £7.8 billion in this country in recent years? Does not that demonstrate that low taxation, low inflation and good industrial relations are the basis for strong investment, including inward investment; and does it not also show that the future of this country is excellent under this Government?

    The Prime Minister : I have seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I have also seen the important comments of the CBI, which set out the fact that Britain now attracts nearly half of all the inward investment from Japan that comes to the European Community. I believe that, by investing here, German and Japanese companies and those of other countries have shown their confidence in the British economy. It is a shame that some of the gloom and doom-mongers in this country do not share that confidence.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister confirm that under his Government the British economy is in its longest recession since the second world war?

    The Prime Minister : I will confirm to the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure that he will be pleased to hear what the European Community has to say, that the United Kingdom is the only country where signals of a sustained economic recovery are discernible, by contrast with a tendency towards gradual slackening of growth continuing in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal.

    Mr. Kinnock : Slightly closer to home, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British chambers of commerce today report that this is the seventh consecutive quarter in which the United Kingdom economy has suffered from recession, with levels of economic activity continuing to decline? Is not it clear that the recession caused by the Prime Minister’s policies is continuing because of the Prime Minister’s paralysis?

    The Prime Minister : The British chambers of commerce are clearly wrong about the seventh consecutive quarter. That would imply that the recession started in the second quarter of 1990, which it clearly did not, because output rose between the first and second quarters of 1990.

    I notice also that the president of the chambers of commerce said that British industry and commerce were on

    “an improving trend of slowly and steadily climbing out of the recession”.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will not the Prime Minister refer to the report and listen to the voices of business and commerce from all over the country when they say :

    “A worsening position on employment expectations,”–

    higher job losses–

    “and a major down-grading of business confidence, however, give no cause for comfort in this survey”?

    How can the Prime Minister be so complacent and so indolent when he is receiving advice that something now needs to be done?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening. I quoted from the president of that particular group of chambers of commerce. The report itself says :

    “an improving trend of slowly and steadily climbing out of the recession.”

    The right hon. Gentleman should look at other surveys and forecasters. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund both forecast recovery. What is equally clear among business men is that they have no enthusiasm whatever for a Labour Government. A survey of the top hundred British companies showed that 63 per cent. of them believed that recession would get worse under a Labour Government, and not one of them believed that it would get better.

    Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to tell the House of the decision made yesterday to restore to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia the gold deposited for safe keeping in the Bank of England but misappropriated by the then Labour Government with the support in the Division Lobby of the leader and Chief Whip of the Liberal party at that time?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that when I met President Landsbergis yesterday I was able to indicate that we would be returning the gold. As the House well knows, the Labour Government in 1967 ordered the gold to be sold. The then Conservative Opposition roundly opposed that, and I am delighted that this Conservative Government have been able to correct that smear of dishonour.

     

    United Nations

    Q5. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : I shall chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on 31 January.

    Mr. Cryer : Will the Prime Minister confirm that 140 nations have signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, including Tory Canada? Why cannot this Tory Government honour their pledge under the treaty to get rid of nuclear weapons, which will mean the withdrawal of Polaris–which is literally cracking up–and the saving of £10 billion on Trident, to be spent on the national health service to care for lives instead of threatening them with mass murder? If nuclear non-proliferation- –

    Hon. Members : More, more.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. That is very unseemly.

    Mr. Cryer : Quite so, Mr. Speaker.

    If nuclear non-proliferation is good enough for the rest of the world, why is not it good enough for us?

    The Prime Minister : We seek to promote non-proliferation and disarmament, and that will be one of the matters to be discussed at the United Nations Security Council meeting that I shall chair next week. But I must say to the hon. Gentleman who suggests that it would be appropriate at present for this country to scrap its nuclear weapons and Trident that to do so would leave the country wholly defenceless. That may be the view of the hon. Gentleman. It may even be the view of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in their secret hearts. It is not the right policy for this country, it is not the policy of the Government and I hope that the Opposition will make clear how many of their members support that policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament rather than a policy of secure defences for this country.

    Mr. Bellingham : When my right hon. Friend visits the United Nations, will he raise the issue of the RAF aircrew who were shot down over the Gulf, some of whom came from west Norfolk? They were tortured, humiliated and abused in gross contravention of the Geneva convention. Is it time that the perpetrators of the crime were brought to justice?

    The Prime Minister : I strongly share the view expressed by my hon. Friend. I do not think that it is a matter for discussion at the special Security Council meeting next week ; it is certainly a matter which remains on our agenda.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Douglas : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Douglas : The Prime Minister’s view of an expanded European Community, composed of many states in eastern Europe, together with existing members, is extremely attractive, but will he contrast that with the instability within the United Kingdom because the aspirations of a nationwide Scotland are frustrated by its being unable to secure its independence and membership of the Community? Will he take steps to have that issue ventilated in a multi-question referendum of the people, which could perhaps be held in harmony with the general election?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he had to say about the European Community. That is the right way forward for this country, the European Community and the wider Europe which I hope in due course will join the Community. The hon. Gentleman spoke about devolution. The Union has served Scotland and England well. In terms of a debate, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has called for debates in the Scottish Grand Committee and I hope that everyone will contribute to them.

     

    Q7. Mr. Mans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Mans : Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to increase the top limit on national insurance contributions because of the plight in which that would place many of my constituents and people in neighbouring Blackpool who earn under £15,000 a year but during the holiday season earn more than £400 a week?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will need no such encouragement. The policy suggested by my hon. Friend would hit many people on modest incomes who have bonus or overtime earnings and who occasionally earn above £390 a week. Such an impost would be quite contrary to the policies of the Government and the Conservative party and we shall not introduce any such policy.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    East Timor

    Mrs. Clwyd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will support a United Nations Commission to East Timor to investigate the killings in Santa Cruz on 12 November 1991.

    The Prime Minister : We support the UN Secretary-General’s proposal to send a representative to examine the situation in East Timor.

     

    Severely Disabled People (Personal Assistants)

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretaries of State for Health and for Social Security concerning policy towards direct payments to severely disabled people to employ their own personal assistants; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Yes.

     

    Armed Forces (Liability to Injury) Bill

    Mr. John Browne : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy with regard to the Armed Forces (Liability to Injury) Bill.

    The Prime Minister : As the Armed Forces (Liability to Injury) Bill will not receive its Second Reading until Friday 24 January 1992, it would not be appropriate for me to make a statement.

     

    British Steel

    Mr. Dewar : To ask the Prime Minister what meetings he has had with British Steel in the last six months; and on what dates.

    The Prime Minister : None, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had four meetings with British Steel during the last six months.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Lithuanian President – 22 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview at Downing Street with the Lithuanian President, President Landsbergis, on Wednesday 22nd January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This morning, I have had the opportunity of having discussions with President Landsbergis and have had the very great pleasure of welcoming him here as President of an independent country. That is an especial pleasure to us in the United Kingdom for we had never recognised the Baltic States’ absorption into the former Soviet Union and to see them again recognised as an independent country gives us especial pleasure and I am delighted that we now have diplomatic representation in his country.

    We have had a wide-ranging discussion this morning and have touched on many matters of bilateral interest. One in particular I would like to mention to you this morning and that is that I have agreed this morning with President Landsbergis that we will repay to his country the Baltic gold that was deposited here in 1940 and that had been sold by a previous government in the late 1960s. What we have agreed is that we will replace the quantity of gold that was originally deposited. President Landsbergis has agreed that he will wish this gold to remain deposited with the Bank of England but we will arrange the transfer of title once legal formalities have been completed.

    We have also agreed this morning that there are a series of relatively small intergovernmental claims one country against the other that have been outstanding for many years. We have decided, in parallel with the agreement over Baltic gold, that we will both renounce the claims one country against another and leave the diplomatic/economic slate entirely clean for us to develop a relationship from now onwards.

    It has been an extremely helpful and useful discussion. We have discussed other economic and wider matters and I am delighted to have had the opportunity of this meeting with President Landsbergis this morning.

    PRESIDENT LANDSBERGIS:

    I am very glad to be here to have this meeting to meet Mr. Prime Minister and say that we had a very good understanding of each other. Mr. Prime Minister understands very good the Lithuanian problems and supports us – has supported before and now – in our goals to be a more democratic, more prosperous country as a member of the European and whole world community of free nations.

    We resolved the old problems; we touched the new ones and we have a very good perspective of cooperation for the future.

    I am very glad Mr. Prime Minister for this meeting.

  • PMQT – 21 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    South Africa

     

    Q1. Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke) : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on his policies towards South Africa.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I welcome the meeting of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa in December. The Government will continue to encourage all parties to play a constructive role in the reform process. In order to encourage the growth that the South African economy desperately needs, we shall continue to work for the removal of the remaining economic and financial sanctions.

    Mr. Hunter : As many United Kingdom citizens live and own property in South Africa, or in other ways invest there, will my right hon. Friend discuss with President de Klerk the increasing violence there, and seek clarification on how the new South Africa can be built without the effective and practical renunciation of violence by all parties?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend said, and I shall have the opportunity to discuss that with President de Klerk when he visits London early next month. I believe that all parties have a role to play in implementing the peace accord, but of course the South African Government have the primary responsibility for the impartial maintenance of law and order.

    Mr. Robert Hughes : Will the Prime Minister throw his full weight behind the proposition that an interim Government should rule South Africa during the transition period to democratic elections? As the situation is so delicate and as negotiations with the CODESA committees are currently under way, will he not–please not–do anything to damage that process by precipitate action on sanctions?

    The Prime Minister : On the latter point, I do not think that precipitate action on sanctions is the point at issue. One of the great difficulties faced by the South African Government and people at the moment is the need to see growth in their economy, which runs at present with no growth, as against a population growth of around 3 per cent. a year. That is leading to very real hardship for all the people of South Africa–most notably those in South Africa who have least–so I think that the progressive removal of sanctions is desirable for economic and social reasons, and I hope that that progressive removal of sanctions will take place.

    On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I wish to see progress made in South Africa. I think that that can best be done through the constitutional conference rather than by remarks from across many hundreds of miles.

     

    Q2. Mr. Robert Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Banks : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that, even in the teeth of an international recession, the Government have achieved reductions in interest rates, which means that the family man with an average, typical mortgage of £30,000 pays £100 a month less? Does not that augur well for the home owner and the property market in 1992?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I do welcome the reductions in interest rates and, of course, in mortgage rates that we have seen. In particular, I welcome the cuts in interest rates which three more building societies have announced this morning. The background of lower interest rates and a continuing reduction in underlying inflation provide what we most need–the opportunity for steady, sustainable, non- inflationary growth.

    Mr. Kinnock : Why is the United Kingdom the only economy in the European Community that is in recession?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is aware that a number of European economies either have been in recession or are moving towards recession at precisely the moment when the United Kingdom economy is poised to come out of recession. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that there is a recession in many other parts of the world as a result of the general world trading conditions.

    Mr. Kinnock : It is a pity that the Prime Minister did not answer the question that I asked. Perhaps he should refresh himself with the facts. Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland and Italy all have growth rates of over 1 per cent., Spain, Portugal and Holland over 2 per cent., and Germany and Luxembourg over 3 per cent. They are all growing ; our economy is shrinking by 2 per cent. Is not that because this country and its people are paying the price for having a Government of unique incompetence?

    The Prime Minister : No, Sir. Almost every country of the industrial world is experiencing economic problems. French unemployment has now reached its highest level. Unemployment in the United States is at its highest level for five years. In recent months, unemployment has risen in every European Community country except the Netherlands. It is higher than a year ago in every EFTA country and in every G7 country except Japan. The right hon. Gentleman cannot live in a cocoon and overlook those facts.

    Mr. Kinnock : On the subject of cocoons, the Prime Minister should acknowledge that the USA, Japan, Australia and Canada are not actually in the European Community. In this country, under his Government, unemployment is going up faster, investment is lower and production has fallen more than in any other European country. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Why is that happening only in Britain under his Government?

    The Prime Minister : The fact of the matter is that it is not, as I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, happening only in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about unemployment and recession, why does he not acknowledge the impact that his minimum wage would have upon unemployment? Why does he not acknowledge what the £6 billion-worth of cuts in defence would do to employment? Why does he not acknowledge what the impact of his tax on savings would do to investment? Why does he not acknowledge what his strikers charter would do to industrial relations? Why does he not acknowledge what his party’s attitude to inward investment would do to jobs in the north-east, in Wales, in Scotland and in many other parts of the country? The policies that the right hon. Gentleman follows will ensure a long-standing and deep recession in this country.

    Mr. Riddick : Is my right hon. Friend aware of policy proposals which would introduce a new payroll tax on every job in this country, policy proposals which would reintroduce secondary picketing, and policy proposals which would introduce a minimum wage which would put literally hundreds of thousands of people out of work? Is my right hon. Friend aware that those policy proposals go under the somewhat misleading title of “Labour’s help to the unemployed”?

    Mr. Speaker : The Prime Minister should answer the first part of that question, but not the second.

    The Prime Minister : We have no plans to introduce any such policies. Industry knows that such policies would be absolutely disastrous to it and knows from what source those policies would come, which is why its hostility to the Opposition’s policies is so severe.

     

    Q3. Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Vaz : Does the Prime Minister recall that, on 26 February 1991, I met him to discuss the case of my constituent, John Hall, who is seriously ill with leukaemia, an illness contracted while he was serving on Christmas island? At the meeting, the Prime Minister told me of his personal knowledge of the suffering of cancer victims and of their families and friends. He also told the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that he hoped that the matter would be expedited as quickly as possible. Almost a year later, nothing has been done. John Hall has spent the last year receiving chemotherapy and blood transfusions in order to stay alive. Will the Prime Minister please show some compassion and award John Hall and the other nuclear test veterans the compensation that the House and the country believe they richly deserve?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) renders Mr. Hall’s case particular assistance in raising it in this fashion. I cannot go into the details of Mr. Hall’s case. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government are willing to consider any claim where any evidence can be adduced of exposure to radiation. We are conducting a validating study into the background of this, and as soon as it is complete, we can reach a general policy conclusion. Until then, I simply have no evidence on which to base a response to individual cases such as Mr. Hall’s.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ian Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Taylor : Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the tax implications of an extra £35 billion of spending pledges? If any Government were to bring in these pledges, they would either have to dishonour them and thereby deceive the public, or income tax payers at all levels of income would need to cough up and pay more to fund them. Is it not true that spending pledges such as those made by Labour politicians would mean that nothing would happen?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Before the Prime Minister answers, let me repeat that a Member must ask questions about matters for which the Prime Minister is responsible ; he cannot answer for Labour party policies. Answer the first part, please.

    The Prime Minister : The implications of such spending increases are either that borrowing would rise to unprecedented levels, and no doubt interest rates with them, or, alternatively, that taxes would rise to a remarkable extent. It is noteworthy that those who advocate these policies also themselves concede in surveys that they would welcome an increase in the basic rate of tax as well as other tax increases.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister recall that the cause of reconciliation in Northern Ireland was tragically set back in the aftermath of the 1974 election? Will he agree that it would be appalling if we were to allow history to repeat itself after this election? Will he therefore support a cross-party approach to Northern Ireland affairs during the election and unequivocally reject any partisan trading with the Anglo-Irish Agreement in a way that would reverse the peace process after the next election?

    The Prime Minister : This party stands four square against terrorism, and we have set out our policies from this Dispatch Box on many occasions. I see no imminent change.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a diabolical liberty for people to suggest that they can increase people’s taxes by the underhand method of raising national insurance contributions, as is proposed by the Labour party? Is it not true that the choice for the British people is between our party, which calls for lower taxes and greater spending by the people, and the Labour party, which wants to take people’s money and spend it itself? Is not that robbing Peter to pay Paul?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes her point in her own individual manner. As I have said before, if people advocate spending and tax increases, they should be prepared to defend them. The Labour party knows that its spending and taxation plans have been rumbled–and they dislike it.

    Mr. Barron : Is the Prime Minister aware that, this morning, the Selby group of the British Coal Corporation announced more than 1,100 job losses at four coal mines? Will he get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to take action now, as he has been urged to do by the European Energy Commissioner, to stop pit closures in this country, given that we produce the cheapest deep-mined coal in the European Community? How long will the country continue to lose jobs and to lose access to the great national asset of our coal, given that the Government want to sell off British Coal overnight at a cheap price, for the benefit of the Treasury?

    The Prime Minister : I am sorry to hear of the job losses to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but the only secure future for the coal industry or, indeed, for any other industry, is for it to produce something that people want at a price that people can afford. That is the only long-term future for the coal industry.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Union

    Mr. Tebbit : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the commitments of the United Kingdom under the declaration of the conference within article C of the provisions of a common foreign and security policy of the draft treaty on European union.

    The Prime Minister : The declaration has no legally binding effect. It does not alter the fact that unanimous decisions will still require the unanimous support of all member states. It is similar to the provision in the Single European Act calling upon partners to refrain from impeding the formation of a consensus.

    Mr. Tebbit : To ask the Prime Minister if, in relation to article E of the provisions of a common foreign and security policy of the draft treaty on European union with regard to matters coming within the common foreign and security policy, he will state within which international organisations and international conferences the United Kingdom will retain its own representation rather than be represented by the presidency of the European union.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom will retain the membership and representation in all international organisations and international conferences it enjoys at present.

     

    Sir Basil Feldman

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he last met Sir Basil Feldman on official business; and what subjects were discussed;

    (2) how many times he has met Sir Basil Feldman in the last 12 months; and whether Sunday trading has been discussed.

    The Prime Minister : My normal practice is to neither confirm nor deny whether meetings with private individuals have taken place.

     

    Office Costs

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the cost of running his office in 1989, 1990 and 1991.

    The Prime Minister : The cost in 1990-91 was £8,225,816. The cost in 1989-90 was £7,669,276.

    Note : Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, the costs of office services and the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust are included in the costs. The Prime Minister’s salary is excluded.

     

    Businesses (Environmental Performance)

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any proposals to recognise businesses who improve their environmental performance.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s environment White Paper “This Common Inheritance”, and last year’s first anniversary report on it stressed that all parts of society have a role to play in securing environmental improvements. This applies not least to business. The Government want to create the right conditions to encourage business to improve its environmental performance and to recognise and reward those businesses which rise successfully to the challenge. On my recommendation, Her Majesty the Queen has given her approval in principle to the introduction of a new Queen’s award for environmental achievement.

    The new award will recognise product and process development which has major benefits for the environment and which is commercially successful. It will form part of the established Queen’s awards scheme alongside business awards for export and technology achievement. It is planned that applications will be sought in June and that the first environment awards will be made on the Queen’s birthday on 21 April 1993.

    The addition of environment achievement to the Queen’s awards builds on the pioneering work of the Royal Society of Arts whose better environment awards for industry have led the way and generated invaluable experience in awards for business in the environmental field. The RSA plans to continue activity in this area in a way which will complement the new Queen’s award.

     

    Lord Lieutenants

    Mr. William Powell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the lord lieutenants with the dates of their appointment and expected retirement.

    The Prime Minister : A list of lord lieutenants, together with the dates of their appointment and expected retirement, is set out in the table.

    County |Lord-Lieutenant |Date of Appointment |Date of Retirement

    —————————————————————————————————————–

    England

    Avon |Sir John Wills, TD FRICS JP |April 1974 |July 2003

    Bedfordshire |Samuel Whitbread, Esq |January 1991 |February 2012

    Berkshire |John Henderson, Esq, CVO OBE |June 1989 |May 1995

    Buckinghamshire |Commander, The Hon. John Fremantle, RN (Retd.) JP |September 1984 |January 2002

    Cambridgeshire |Michael Bevan, Esq |August 1985 |August 2001

    Cheshire |William Bromley Davenport, Esq. JP |June 1990 |March 2010

    Cleveland |The Lord Gisborough, TD |March 1981 |July 2002

    Cornwall |The Viscount Falmouth |October 1977 |October 1994

    Cumbria |Sir Charles Graham, Bt |February 1983 |July 1994

    Derbyshire |Colonel Peter Hilton, MC JP |January 1978 |June 1994

    Devon |The Earl of Morley, JP |May 1982 |May 1998

    Dorset |The Lord Digby, JP |September 1984 |July 1999

    Durham |David Grant, Esq, CBE |April 1988 |January 1997

    East Sussex |Admiral Sir Lindsay Bryson, KCB |November 1989 |January 2000

    Essex |Admiral Sir Andrew Lewis, KCB JP |August 1978 |August 1992

    Gloucestershire |Colonel Martin Gibbs, CB DSO TD JP |June 1978 |February 1992

    Greater London |Field Marshall, The Lord Bramall, GCB OBE MC JP |January 1986 |December 1998

    Greater Manchester |Colonel J B Timmins, OBE TD JP |December 1987 |June 2007

    Hampshire |Sir James Scott, JP |December 1982 |October 1999

    Hereford and Worcester |Captain Thomas Dunne, JP |July 1977 |October 2008

    Hertfordshire |Simon Bowes Lyon, Esq, FCA |January 1986 |June 2007

    Humberside |Richard Bethell, Esq |October 1983 |March 1997

    Isle of Wight |The Lord Mottistone, CBE |August 1985 |December 1995

    Kent |The Right Hon. Robin Leigh-Pemberton |August 1982 |January 2002

    Lancashire |Dr. Simon Towneley |March 1976 |December 1996

    Leicestershire |Timothy Brooks, Esq, JP |January 1989 |March 2004

    Lincolnshire |Henry Nevile, Esq |November 1975 |March 1995

    Merseyside |Henry Cotton, Esq |May 1989 |July 2004

    Norfolk |Timothy Colman, Esq |March 1978 |September 2004

    Northamptonshire |John Lowther, Esq, CBE JP |January 1984 |November 1998

    Northumberland |The Viscount Ridley, TD |January 1984 |July 2000

    North Yorkshire |Sir Marcus Worsley, JP |March 1987 |April 2000

    Nottinghamshire |Sir Andrew Buchanan, Bt. |February 1991 |July 2012

    Oxfordshire |Sir Ashley Ponsonby, MC |January 1980 |February 1996

    Shropshire |John Dugdale, Esq |February 1975 |May 1998

    Somerset |Lt. Col. Geoffrey Luttrell, MC JP |March 1978 |October 1994

    South Yorkshire |Hugh Neill, Esq, CBE TD JP |May 1985 |March 1996

    Staffordshire |Sir Arthur Bryan |July 1968 |March 1998

    Suffolk |Sir Joshua Rowley, JP |March 1978 |December 1995

    Surrey |Richard Thornton, Esq, OBE JP |May 1986 |October 1997

    Tyne and Wear |Sir Ralph Carr-Ellison |July 1984 |December 2000

    Warwickshire |The Viscount Daventry |February 1990 |December 1996

    West Midlands |The Earl of Aylesford, JP |April 1974 |November 1993

    West Sussex |The Duke of Richmond and Gordon |March 1990 |September 2004

    West Yorkshire |The Lord Ingrow, OBE TD JP |May 1985 |August 1992

    Wiltshire |Field Marshal, Sir Roland Gibbs, GCB CBE DSO MC |December 1989 |June 1996

    Wales Clwyd |Sir William Gladstone, Bt. JP |August 1985 |October 2000

    Dyfed |David Mansel Lewis, Esq, JP |February 1979 |October 2002

    Mid Glamorgan |Murray McLaggan, Esq, JP |January 1990 |September 2004

    South Glamorgan |Captain Norman Lloyd-Edwards |June 1990 |June 2008

    West Glamorgan |Lt. Col. Sir Michael Llewellyn, Bt. |December 1987 |June 1996

    Gwynedd |Meuric Rees, Esq |January 1990 |March 1999

    Gwent |Richard Hanbury-Tenison, Esq, JP |June 1979 |January 2000

    Powys |Mervyn Bourdillon, Esq, JP |July 1986 |August 1999

    Scotland

    Highland region

    Caithness |The Viscount Thurso |April 1973 |December 1997

    Sutherland |Major General David Houston, CBE |November 1991 |February 2004

    Ross and Cromarty |Captain Roderick Stirling, TD |February 1988 |June 2007

    Inverness |Lt. Cdr. Lachlan Mackintosh of Mackintosh, OBE RN (Retd.) | September 1985 |June 2003

    Nairn |The Earl of Leven and Melville |July 1969 |May 1999

    Grampian region

    Moray |Captain Sir Iain Tennant |January 1964 |March 1994

    Banff |James McPherson, Esq, CBE |August 1987 |November 2002

    Aberdeen County |Captain Colin Farquharson, FRICS |March 1987 |August 1998

    Kincardine |The Viscount of Arbuthnott, CBE DSC |January 1977 |October 1999

    Tayside region

    Angus |The Right Hon. The Earl of Airlie, KT GCVO |June 1989 |May 2001

    Perth and Kinross |Major Sir David Butter, KCVO MC |November 1971 |March 1995

    Fife region

    Fife |The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine |October 1987 |February 1999

    Lothian region

    West Lothian |The Earl of Morton |August 1985 |March 2002

    Midlothian |Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, Bt CBE VRD FRSE JP |June 1972 |January 1992

    East Lothian |Sir Hew Hamilton Dalrymple, Bt KCVO |November 1986 |April 2001

    Central region

    Clackmannan |The Earl of Mar and Kellie |September 1966 |February 1996

    Stirling |Lt. Col. James Stirling, CBE TD FRICS |December 1983 |September 2005

    Borders region

    Peebles |Lt. Col. Aidan Sprot, MC |October 1980 |June 1994

    Roxburgh |The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry |January 1974 |September 1998

    Berwick |Major General Sir John Swinton, KCVO OBE JP |April 1989 |April 2000

    Strathclyde region

    Argyll |The Most Hon. The Marquess of Bute, JP |June 1990 |February 2008

    Dunbarton |Brigadier Donald Hardie, TD JP |June 1990 |January 2011

    Lanark |The Lord Clydesmuir, CB MBE TD |August 1963 |May 1992

    Renfrew |Major David Crichton Maitland |November 1980 |September 2000

    Ayrshire and Arran |Major Richard Henderson, TD |April 1991 |July 2006

    Dumfries and Galloway region

    Wigtown |Major Edward Orr Ewing |September 1989 |September 2006

    Stewartry |Sir Michael Herries, OBE MC |March 1989 |February 1998

    Dumfries |Captain Ronald Cunningham-Jardine |October 1991 |September 2006

    Island areas

    Orkney |Brigadier Malcolm Dennison |March 1990 |March 1999

    Shetland |Magnus Shearer, Esq, JP |October 1982 |February 1999

    Western Isles |The Earl of Granville, MC |March 1983 |December 1993

    Northern Ireland

    County

    Antrim |Captain Richard Dobbs |April 1975 |April 1994

    Armagh |The Earl of Caledon |March 1989 |May 2030

    County Borough of Belfast |Colonel J Elliott Wilson, OBE JP |March 1991 |May 2000

    Down |Colonel William Brownlow |January 1990 |August 1996

    Fermanagh |The Earl of Erne |May 1986 |July 2012

    Londonderry |Colonel Michael McCorkell, OBE TD |April 1975 |February 2000

    County Borough of Londonderry |James Eaton, Esq, TD |January 1986 |August 2002

    Tyrone |The Duke of Abercorn |December 1986 |July 2019

  • Mr Major’s Comments at Belfast City Hall – 20 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on his arrival at Belfast City Hall on the morning of Monday 20th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Firstly, I’m delighted to be back here in Belfast, and the first message I bring to the people of Belfast is absolutely clear. We admire the way Belfast, year after year, stands up to some of the terrorist activities that they have to live with. It’s immensely brave and it has the Government’s full support. By being here today I hope I’m going to state that yet again.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, could you reassure the people about the security situation. They want some sort of action taken after the massacre of only two or three days ago.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I understand that and I think the people who were responsible for that massacre are unspeakable. It is difficult to comprehend the evil of people who can stand there, at some distance, and brutally slaughter and murder innocent people in the way they did, and it is against that background that I will repeat again and again and again. “They cannot bomb Belfast out of its way of life. They cannot bomb Northern Ireland out of its way of life and they cannot bomb the British Government out of its policy.” We had made the decision before that atrocity to send more troops here to improve the security situation.

    I am not going to go into details of what can be done and what will be done, but that we will stand four square with the people of Northern Ireland against this terrorism, they need have no doubt.

    QUESTION:

    Can I just ask you, Sir, coming here today, coming to Belfast and going to Craigavon, where there has been trouble. But the people of Magherafelt, Ballymena, these other areas, they will feel very hurt at your absence in those areas today. Are you intending to meet with people, the relatives [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This isn’t my first visit to Northern Ireland, to Belfast, and other parts of Northern Ireland. It isn’t going to be my last. You can expect me to be back again and again and again. What has happened in parts of Northern Ireland; the way in which it has built itself up against the most difficult background, I think is one of the moat impressive stories one could imagine. Yes, I will be back again and again and I will be meeting representatives of people of every part of Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] of the people who were killed, Prime Minister, what about the relatives of those people who were killed, who are burying their dead today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, what can one say except to express one’s sympathy for this quite needless and pointless tragedy. I wish I could find the right words of comfort for them. It isn’t easy to do; it’s a blot on their lives that these people have created that will never go away and I understand that. I wish there was something I could say to offer them greater comfort than I can. What I can say is that they may be absolutely certain that the people responsible for this outrage will be hunted and hunted and hunted for the rest of their days until we find them.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what about the Secretary of State, did he make an error of judgment on Friday night in Dublin?

    [Question not answered]

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I am sorry for repeating this but to the people who are lying in hospital injured and the relatives of those people, have you any real understanding of their plight today, the sense of despair? Will you have anything to say to them, will you be able to say anything to them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe I do understand their sense of despair. No one who isn’t living through it can quite appreciate the horror of what has happened to them, to their lives and to the lives of their relatives. I do understand that and I think I understand what they want in the future as well. They want to be absolutely certain that they are not going to be abandoned and that Northern Ireland isn’t going to be abandoned, and I can promise them that it isn’t.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Oxleas Wood

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited Oxleas Wood, south-east London; and if he will make a statement. The

    Prime Minister : I have not visited Oxleas Wood.

     

    European Union

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 13 January, Official Report, column 470, concerning the inclusion in the draft treaty of European union of a reference to the role and significance of European parties, when he expects to receive a draft formulation from the presidency; when he expects to lay this before Parliament; and what is the objective of the provision.

    The Prime Minister : The Portuguese presidency has proposed the following draft treaty article :

    “Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union”.

    Discussion is continuing in Brussels as to where this article should appear in the treaty. This is one of a number of technical points which will be settled before signature in early February. The text of the treaty will be published in the normal way after signature.

     

    Advisory Council on Science and Technology

    Dr. Bray : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the current members of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology; if he will give the date of their original appointment; and what is the date on which their current term of office will end.

    The Prime Minister : The current members of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology are as listed. In addition, the chief scientific adviser, Cabinet Office, Professor William Stewart, attends council meetings. Departmental chief scientists/scientific advisers are also invited to attend most meetings.

    Name |Date of original appointment |Appointment ends

    —————————————————————————

    Sir Robin Nicholson (Chairman) |July 1990 |July 1993

    Executive Director, Pilkington plc

    Professor Roy Anderson |July 1989 |July 1992

    Department of Pure & Applied Biology Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

    Professor Sir Michael Atiyah |July 1991 |July 1994

    President, The Royal Society

    Professor Michael Brady |July 1990 |July 1993

    Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford

    Lord Chilver |May 1989 |<1> n/a

    Chairman, Universities Funding Council

    Dr. Peter Doyle |July 1989 |July 1992

    Director of Research and Technology, Imperial Chemical Industries plc

    Mr. Ian Harvey |July 1989 |July 1992

    Chief Executive, British Technology Group

    Mr. Keith Henry |July 1991 |July 1994

    Chief Executive, Brown and Root Ltd.

    Sir Graham Hills |July 1987 |<2>July 1993

    Past Principal of University of Strathclyde

    Dr. Nigel Horne |July 1990 |July 1993

    Head of IT Practice, KPMG Management Consulting

    Professor Christopher Llewellyn Smith |July 1989 |July 1992

    Chairman of Physics, University of Oxford

    Professor Leonard Maunder |July 1987 |July 1993 <2>

    Department of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

    Professor Sir David Phillips |July 1987 | <1> n/a

    Chairman, Advisory Board for the Research Councils

    Professor Gareth Roberts |July 1989 |July 1992

    Vice Chancellor, University of Sheffield

    Sir Alfred Shepperd |July 1989 |July 1992

    Former Chairman and Chief Executive, Wellcome plc

    Dr. David Smith |July 1987 |<2>July 1993

    Consultant

    Dr. William Wilkinson |July 1990 |July 1993

    Deputy Chief Executive, British Nuclear Fuels plc

    Sir Martin Wood |July 1990 |July 1993

    Deputy Chairman, Oxford Instruments Group plc

    <1> Lord Chilver and Professor Sir David Phillips are ex-officio members in their capacities as chairman of the Universities Funding Council and Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils respectively.

    <2> Members in their second term.

     

    Staff Salaries

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the number of those employed in his office, their position and the salary range in each case, excluding secretarial and clerical staff.

    The Prime Minister : The number of those currently employed in my office excluding Secretarial and clerical staff and paid from public funds are :–

    Positions Held |Grade

    ————————————————————————-

    1 Principal Private Secretary |Grade 2

    1 Private Secretary-Overseas Affairs |Grade 3

    1 Private Secretary-Economic Affairs |Grade 5

    1 Private Secretary-Parliamentary Affairs |Grade 7

    1 Private Secretary-Home Affairs |Grade 7

    1 Secretary for Appointments |Grade 5

    1 Chief Press Officer |Grade 3

    1 Deputy Chief Press Officer |Grade 5

    1 Policy Adviser |Grade 3

    1 Policy Adviser |Grade 5

    1 Security Co-ordinator |Grade 7

    2 Assistant Private Secretaries |SEO

    1 Parliamentary Clerk |HEO

    5 Special Advisers |-

    3 Senior Information Officers |-

    4 Higher Executive Officers |-

    11 Executive Officers |-

    It is not our practice to reveal the salaries of individual advisers as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential. The rest are paid in accordance with the civil service pay scales.

     

    Televisions

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister how many television sets there are at 10 Downing Street; and how many television licences are held for 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister : Nineteen television sets are currently in use at 10 Downing Street. No licence fees are payable for television sets on Crown property used for Government purposes.

  • PMQT – 16 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Winnick : In view of the evidence given yesterday should there not be a full and frank ministerial statement–which should come from the Prime Minister–of what was known inside the Government at the time about the supergun affair? Bearing in mind the number of military items sold to the Iraqi regime by this country right up to the invasion of Kuwait and the highly critical comments made about the conduct of Ministers during the Gulf war, what right do the Government have to lecture hon. Members on the Opposition Benches over defence matters?

    The Prime Minister : In so far as the Gulf war is concerned, the hon. Gentleman is referring to one of the most successful military operations ever undertaken by this country or any other. It achieved its objectives more swiftly and with less bloodshed than anyone could possibly have imagined. As to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, he knows that much of what he said was nonsense. It has been dealt with often enough.

     

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

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

    Mr. McGrady : Could I remind the Prime Minister that one of the consequences of his Maastricht agreement is to prevent Northern Ireland from participating in the new cohesion fund, to the extent of losing tens of millions of pounds? I am sure that he is aware of the total lack of adequate funding for roads, transport and the environment in Northern Ireland, especially now that the Secretary of State has imposed a total moratorium on all public spending in Northern Ireland. Would he assure the people of Northern Ireland and the House that as soon as possible he will remedy that appalling error, and allow Northern Ireland to benefit from the new cohesion fund as a category 1 area?

    The Prime Minister : There is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a higher level of public expenditure per head of population in Northern Ireland–and rightly so–than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The establishment of the cohesion fund and eligibility to benefit from it were agreed by all the member states. There is a misapprehension that Northern Ireland is the only category 1 area that will not benefit from that, but that fund is designed to help the poorest member states, not poorer regions or provinces within the more prosperous nations. So, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the purpose for which the fund was devised.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gwilym Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has no plans to increase income tax and national insurance contributions for millions of ordinary taxpayers? Does he agree that it is the height of irresponsibility to try to pretend that there can be a massive increase in spending from day one of a Government if the tax increases to pay for that are to be phased in?

    The Prime Minister : I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that we have made no plans for a super increase in VAT, as the Opposition have apparently considered. There is no doubt that the Opposition are now in a shambles over their tax plans. Their muddled statements show that they cannot be trusted on tax ; they shift their position from day to day. The only thing that is certain is that a party that promises to spend and spend is a party that would have to tax and tax.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister tell us why his record on unemployment is even worse than that of his predecessor?

    The Prime Minister : Everyone in the House and beyond regrets the fact that unemployment rises. That is why we are persisting with policies that will create long-term, permanent jobs for the future. We have put those policies in place–low inflation, lower taxes and lower interest rates. Those are the only measures that will get people into work and keep them in work, which is the only proper policy to follow.

    Mr. Kinnock : Unemployment has risen by nearly 1 million in the time that the hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor and Prime Minister, but still he refuses to do anything useful to stop that remorseless rise. Is it not because he believes that 2.5 million unemployed is “a price worth paying”?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should not be so cheap over such a problem. Unemployment is greater than a year ago in every country in EFTA and in every G7 country except the Netherlands. French unemployment is at its greatest level ever. United States unemployment is higher than for the past five years. What the right hon. Gentleman might also have fastened his mind upon is the fact that reported job vacancies are rising, that the number of people placed in jobs is rising and that there are 500,000 more people in work than in 1979. Those are some of the facts which the right hon. Gentleman should absorb.

    Mr. Kinnock : The right hon. Gentleman is a dodger.

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : In the last year employment in Britain went down by 873,000. Job vacancies are still 10,000 lower than they were this time last year. When Sir Nicholas Goodison of the Trustee Savings Bank says that this is the worst recession in living memory, is it any wonder that the whole country knows that this is the Government of high unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : Some people might say that on policy rather than on personal matters the right hon. Gentleman is a tax dodger. He can give no lecture to us on unemployment. [Hon. Members :– “Withdraw.”] His policies would cut jobs across the whole country.

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that that was meant in a personal sense.

    The Prime Minister : Indeed ; I expressly said that, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman’s minimum wage would increase unemployment by putting 2 million people out of work. His plans to slash defence budgets by £6 billion would cost 100,000 more their jobs. His tax on jobs would cost another 100,000. He is the only person in opposition to plan for greater unemployment as a matter of policy.

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to settle down.

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions were to be removed, it would punish not just somebody earning £20,280 a year but would punish anyone who earned £390 in a single week? Does he agree that a proposal that would impose a massive tax burden on 4 million ordinary people could be produced only by a shower such as those who currently comprise the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The House is in a very excited state.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that the Labour party simply did not understand when it drew up its policy that everyone would pay more national insurance contributions in a single week if they earned above one fifty second of statutory UEL. The Independent pointed out, for example, that the Opposition’s tax plans would mean

    “the largest ever peacetime tax increase.”

    The Leader of the Opposition promised explicitly that anyone earning less than £21,000 a year would not pay a penny tax extra in income tax or national insurance under a Labour Government. Clearly, he was wrong about that. He should admit it, and do so publicly.

     

    Q4. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Canavan : Will the Prime Minister confirm that he personally was informed about British Steel’s decision to close Ravenscraig over a fortnight before the official announcement last week–[ Hon. Members :– “Oh?”]–and that instead of trying to reverse the decision, he and the Secretary of State for Scotland took part in a conspiracy of silence? Will the right hon. Gentleman now, even at this late stage, intervene to try to stop the closure, bearing in mind the Government’s responsibility for privatising the steel industry, thereby allowing a butcher such as Bob Scholey to betray the Scottish steel workers?

    The Prime Minister : It is noticeable that the Labour party has not offered to keep Ravenscraig open. I was informed that British Steel would be making a decision on the day that it made the decision– [Interruption.] I was informed in confidence some days before that it would be making a decision on that day. It was a commercial decision by British Steel. It is clear, despite all their words, that Opposition Members would have done nothing different.

    Mr. Irvine : Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence cuts of £6 billion would lead to a massive loss of jobs in defence industries throughout the country? Does he further agree about the hypocrisy of those who call on the one hand for the maintenance of defence contracts in public and, on the other, plan in private for defence reductions?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our policy, both for nuclear and conventional defence, is clear, has been set out in a number of documents and is properly costed. The Opposition do not say where they stand, cannot say where they stand and cannot admit to the jobs that would be lost if their policy were carried out. The Labour party conference has three times voted to cut £6 billion from the defence budget, and we can see the extent to which that would devastate the defence industry and the defence of this country.

     

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

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

    Mr. Madden : Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about which I gave notice to his office earlier this morning? Will he arrange for X-ray and metal detection equipment to be installed immediately at Armley prison in Leeds? I ask for this following a serious breach of security at the prison last Friday, when a visitor inside the prison drew a knife and sought to attack another visitor. As this is the latest in a series of serious breaches of security at prisons, will the Prime Minister call upon the Home Secretary, who has clearly lost control of his own Department and no longer enjoys the confidence of the public, to resign now or else sack him?

    The Prime Minister : First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the detailed point that he wished to raise. Security at prisons holding category A prisoners is already very tight, with rigorous searching procedures. In addition, however, we are providing X-ray equipment, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested we should. A contract has been placed for the supply of this equipment to prisons that hold category A prisoners. Devices have to be specially constructed, and they will be delivered as soon as possible.

    In reply to the hon. Gentleman’s last point, I can say that I have complete confidence in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

     

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

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

    Mr. Evennett : Does my right hon. Friend agree that to base defence policy on defence cuts–the North Sea oil of the 1990s–is irresponsible and misguided? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Opposition Front- Bench spokesman on Treasury affairs has actually stated this as a belief–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about Government policy.

    Mr. Evennett : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Labour remains unsound on defence?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, it is clear that, as my hon. Friend says, Labour would cut the defence budget to ribbons. It is true that on defence Labour cannot be trusted. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the Prime Minister please answer the matters for which he has responsibility?

    The Prime Minister : I am seeking to do precisely that. It is perfectly clear that, while the defence of this country is the first priority of the present Government, it might not be the first priority of the Opposition if they were to make the defence cuts to which they have committed themselves.