Tag: 1992

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 November 1992

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Disabled People

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what is his policy towards introducing comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in favour of the rights of disabled people;

    (2) what plans he has to prohibit discrimination on the ground of physical disability; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : We continue to work to eliminate discrimination against disabled people on the ground of their disability. We believe that this is best achieved by a combination of legislation targeted on clearly identified needs and a programme of education and encouragement.

     

    Additionality and Transparency

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions Her Majesty’s Government have had with the EC in the last three years in relation to the definition, interpretation or implementation of the principles of additionality and transparency; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : There have been a number of discussions at ministerial and official level. An announcement was made by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 17 February. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on 30 June at columns 525-26.

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister how Her Majesty’s Government currently define and interpret the principles of (a) additionality and (b) transparency in relation to EC funding; in which ways these differ from those used by each of the other member states; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Article 9 of regulation 4253/88 requires that the structural funds have an additional economic impact in the regions concerned; and result in at least an equivalent increase in the amount of official structural aid in the member state concerned. The Government fully support these principles, which are reflected in our public expenditure arrangements, details of which were set out in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on 30 June.

    How other member states interpret the additionality and transparency requirement is a matter for the member state concerned and the Commission.

     

    Import and Export Control Act 1990

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty’s Government have to bring forward legislation to amend the Import and Export Control Act 1990.

    The Prime Minister : Her Majesty’s Government have no plans to amend the Import and Export Control Act 1990 which repealed section 9(3) of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. The Government intend, however, to introduce a new Export of Goods (Control) Order in the near future.

     

    China

    Sir Thomas Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Vice-Premier of the People’s Republic of China.

    The Prime Minister : My meeting with the Vice-Premier offered an important opportunity to reaffirm to the Chinese leadership the Government’s strong support for the Governor’s proposals for constitutional development in Hong Kong and to urge the Chinese to proceed through constructive discussion rather than confrontation. I also discussed commercial issues and human rights, including the visit of Lord Howe’s delegation to China in December.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Bendall : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the cost of the inquiry by Lord Justice Scott into the sales of equipment to Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : It is not possible at this stage to make such an assessment.

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister what specific measures have been taken to prevent the unauthorised removal, destruction of and tampering with all documents relating to the sale of arms and components to Iraq, held within Government Departments and elsewhere, which might be required by Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 November 1992] : Instructions have been issued to ensure that all papers relevant to Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry are kept in safe custody and are made available to the inquiry when required.

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his response to firms other than Matrix Churchill about the conditions of arms sales to Iraq.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 November 1992] : Arms sales to Iraq were considered under Her Majesty’s Government’s guidelines for the sale of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq until August 1990, when the United Nations embargo on trade with Iraq, including all arms sales, came into effect.

     

    European Central Bank

    Mr. Darling : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to persuade his EC colleagues that the European central bank be situated in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have consistently drawn the attention of my EC colleagues to the advantages for the Community in establishing the new monetary institutions in the United Kingdom. I shall continue to do so.

     

    Child Labour, Colombia

    Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to reply to the letter of 26 October from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby in respect of child labour in the Colombian coal mines.

    The Prime Minister : I will respond to the hon. Member’s letter shortly.

     

    Militarily Sensitive Equipment

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what armaments and military sensitive equipment, and in what quantity, were licensed by Her Majesty’s Government for export to (a) Iraq and (b) Yugoslavia since 1979.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 November 1992] : Details of export licence applications for Iraq were included in a Department of Trade and Industry memorandum supplied to the Trade and Industry Select Committee and published in the minutes of evidence, 26 November 1991, pages 37-106. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will write to the hon. Member about exports licensed for supply to Yugoslavia.

     

    Party Conferences (Security)

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister what amounts have been claimed from central funds by each political party for security costs associated with conferences in each of the last three years.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 November 1992] : Claims have been made only by the Conservative and Labour parties. The figures are as follows :

    |Conservative party £|Labour party £

    ————————————————————————————

    1989 |274,500 |70,500

    1990 |270,500 |76,900

    1991 |330,000 |90,500

    On each occasion the expenditure was certified by the chief constable concerned as being necessary in the light of the assessed threat.

     

    Drug and Alcohol Services

    Mr. Rathbone : To ask the Prime Minister what review Ministers have made of the effects of the ending of Government funding for health education co-ordination and of ring fencing of funding for residential drug and alcohol services; and if he will review the working of the Cabinet sub-Committee on drugs misuse.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 November 1992] : Support for drugs and health education has received specific grant funding for seven years and aspects of health education are now included in the national curriculum; schools and local education authorities now have a firm basis on which to build their provision for preventative health education.

    The community care special transitional grant of £539 million in 1993-94 will ring fence resources for the whole of community care; within this local authorities will be expected to allocate an amount for alcohol and drug services appropriate to their needs. The establishment of a special ministerial sub-committee reflects our firm commitment to tackling drugs misuse. We will continue to co-ordinate, and keep under review, our strategy in this area.

     

    Staff References

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to provide new guidelines to all Welsh non-departmental public bodies concerning the obligation to insist on a minimum of two references from previous employers for all applicants for senior appointments and for each reference to be taken up and checked before any appointee commences employment; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 November 1992] : Welsh non-departmental public bodies have been sent the “Practitioners Guide for Civil Service Recruitment” as guidance; it includes a range of pre-appointment checks to be undertaken before a permanent appointment is made. It is the responsibility of the individual bodies to decide on the most suitable processes for making these checks.

     

    Ministerial Appointments

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to amend paragraph 52 of the guidelines on public appointments set out in “Questions of Procedure” for Ministers so as to debar Ministers from appointing their own employees to be members of the boards of public bodies for which they are responsible.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 12 November 1992] : Under paragraph 52 of the guidelines set out in “Questions of Procedure”, Ministers, having made such inquiries as they think appropriate, may, subject to public accountability and the requirements of the law, appoint those considered best qualified for each appointment. I have no plans to change the paragraph in question, which seems to me to be adequate and appropriate for its purpose.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 November 1992

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Libya

    Mr. John Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on what Libya has done to comply with Security Council resolutions 731 and 748 and Her Majesty’s Government’s policy to bring Libya to compliance.

    The Prime Minister : It is our policy that Libya should implement in full the two SCRs to which the hon. Member has referred. Neither we nor the other co- sponsors of the resolution in question, France, and the United States, will be satisfied with less. Unfortunately, I cannot report more than limited success at this stage.

    During the summer the Libyan authorities closed, and in some cases dismantled, many of the camps previously used to house or train terrorists. They have also given us information on their links with the Provisional Irish Republican Army which we believe may prove useful. We welcome both these developments as steps towards demonstrating that Libya has renounced terrorism called for in SCR 731 and 748.

    But the Libyans must take further steps in order to comply fully with those resolutions. In particular, it is necessary for them to surrender for trial in Scotland or the United States the two accused of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and for them to satisfy the French demands for co-operation on the investigation into the UTA bombing. Libya can be sure that a trial in Scotland will be fair, and in accordance with normal Scottish procedures, including trial by jury. If the Libyans convince us that they have decided to surrender the two suspects, then we would be willing to meet them to discuss the mechanics of handing them over.

    We have no hidden agenda, and we are not seeking to use this issue to undermine the regime in Libya. But it is now a year since the warrants for the two accused of Lockerbie were issued. There can be no question of any relaxation of United Nations sanctions, complete or in part, until Libya has surrendered the two accused of Lockerbie and satisfied French requirements on UTA. If they do, this situation will be transformed. If they do not, the consequences for Libya are bound to be increasingly serious.

     

    Iraq (Exports)

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the letter, reference 000399, dated 20 June 1990, from the principal private secretary to the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to the private secretary to the chairman of Customs and Excise, under the heading “Exports to Iraq” which was copied to him as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the previous letter, reference 000395, copies of which have been sent to him.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 November 1992] : The first document to which the hon. Member refers relates to consultations between Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise and the Department of Trade and Industry prior to a fact-finding visit by Customs officers to the premises of Matrix Churchill. A reply from Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise to the Department of Trade and Industry dated 22 June 1990 made it clear that decisions about any follow-up action would rest with the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise in accordance with their statutory responsibilities. These documents were copied to my Private Secretary in the Treasury. Treasury records do not reveal whether I saw this correspondence, but I have no recollection of having done so. The then Paymaster General was responsible in the first instance for matters involving Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise.

    The second document is an internal submission dated 14 June 1990 to the right hon. Lord Ridley, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, concerning the implications of the visit by customs officers to Matrix Churchill. It was not copied to other Ministers. It will be for Lord Justice Scott to consider the relevance of this document to the implementation of Government policy on the export of defence equipment to Iraq.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 20 November 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in London, held on Friday 20th November 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted to tell you this afternoon that after six years of very tough, very hard negotiations, there has finally been an agreement reached between the European Community and the United States on the most difficult issues in the GATT Uruguay Round.

    I cannot stress too much the importance of the agreement that has been reached today. Over the last few weeks we have been literally on the edge of what would have been a catastrophic trade war for Europe and for the United States. The agreement that has been reached today removes the threat of that trade war, removes the threat of sanctions over our industries and is the best possible news not just for the United Kingdom but for the whole of Europe and the United States as well.

    Over the past few weeks; as President of the Community, I have been pressing as hard as I can to make sure that negotiations continue, that the negotiators explored every avenue for an agreement and that a deal was reached.

    I would like this afternoon to pay a very warm tribute to the Community’s negotiators, Frans Andreissen and Ray MacSharry, and also to President Bush, Carla Hills and Ed Madigan, the United States negotiators, without whom no such agreement today could possibly have been reached. I believe we all owe them a very great debt for the fact that they have managed to reach an agreement on so many difficult issues.

    The way ahead is now clear to reach agreement on the single most important trade deal that the world has ever seen, it is a deal that when fully in force will have a dramatic impact on world trade and on world output. It is likely to increase output by around one hundred thousand million pounds a year across the world, it will be good for the industrial countries in the West, it will be good for the developing countries as well who will find fresh markets open to them in which they can sell their produce and their goods.

    I believe it is a remarkable opportunity to help lift the world out of the recession, it is clearly the single most important event that the industrial world needed to lift the gloom that has been in so many industrial countries over recent years.

    The deal now moves forward to Geneva where there are still further negotiations to be had, though the essential difficulties, as I said earlier, between the United States and the Community have now been resolved. I hope that those discussions in Geneva can come to a rapid conclusion so that the deal can be finalised with the dramatic effect I believe it will have on international trade and commercial confidence.

    Let me just say in conclusion, I believe this deal today will give a boost to confidence that will reinforce in the United Kingdom the strategy for growth that we set out and that was illustrated so clearly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer just a few days ago. It is quite literally the best possible news we could have had for industry, for commerce, for consumers, for free trade and for the prospect of secure and worthwhile jobs in the future. I believe we can be very happy indeed with what has been agreed today.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, is this the best possible deal for Europe because the French Trade Minister seems to think that the British Presidency has put Europe at a disadvantage to the United States?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As I said a moment ago, I think this is the best possible deal not just for Europe but for the world. This is a deal that will actually expand free trade, it is the largest free trade deal the world has ever seen. There is no nation that is involved in these negotiations that will not make gains and will also have made some sacrifices. Without this deal we would have faced a catastrophic trade war, with this deal we will have a dramatic increase in world trade and world output. There is no doubt that this deal is good for everyone, everyone across the Community, including France, and everyone outside the Community as well.

    QUESTION:

    But how are you going to get round the problem of selling the package to the French?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The European Community’s negotiators are the Commission, the Commission have agreed what their negotiators have decided, the matter now moves forward to Geneva and I have no doubt we will have a satisfactory outcome in due course.

    QUESTION:

    Can you be absolutely confident that you have got the majority in Europe even if France is going to vote against it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not believe that Europe will say ‘No’ to this deal when it is finally concluded.

    QUESTION:

    Does that mean that we could see a delay in agreement in voting on this section, perhaps until next year when we would put it in with a large slice of other measures?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we need to be clear about is what has happened today. What has been essentially holding up the GATT Uruguay Round have been a series of very important differences between two large trading areas the United States and the European Community. Those disagreements today have been removed, there are still other negotiations to continue, they will go back to Geneva, with Arthur Donkill in charge, and those negotiations will continue. None of the negotiators believes that the matters that are still outstanding cannot be solved and solved relatively quickly, so every last dot of the comma of the GATT deal is not in place but there is nobody close to the negotiations who now believes that the outstanding matters cannot be resolved. When they are resolved I think that will have a very dramatic effect on confidence around the world and shortly after that the deal itself will come into force.

    QUESTION:

    When is our recovery?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well whenever our recovery is going to be, this will most certainly help it, both in timing and it will also help it in terms of the scale of it. If what people are looking for is confidence, this trade deal today is the single most important event that will re-engender confidence in the industrial world, not just in this country but right across the industrial world.

    QUESTION:

    Do the French have the right to veto it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    At the end of the day the European Community would decide this on qualified majority vote.

    QUESTION:

    Do you expect this to improve the reputation of the Presidency because both the French Trade Minister and the newly-elected Chairman of the German European Affairs Committee have been talking in terms of the British Presidency being a disaster, a catastrophe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let us just look at some of the things that are happening. At Edinburgh we are likely to have a conclusion of the Single Market, the most important thing that the Community has wanted for a long time. Here, under the British Presidency, after six years of negotiations we have finally got a settlement between Europe and the United States on the GATT round. I suggest that people wait and see what the outcome is at Edinburgh before they pre-judge matters.

    QUESTION:

    Do you expect at Edinburgh to actually put the seal on the GATT deal?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That depends on how rapidly the further negotiations conclude in Geneva. But the important breakthrough was the one that we needed and have got today, that is what people have been waiting to see, that today has been achieved, so it is a landmark in the negotiations and will now enable the negotiations to go ahead to a satisfactory conclusion.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 November 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th November 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to place the issue of Kashmir on the agenda of the next Commonwealth conference to take place during 1993 in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Government believe the Kashmir dispute can be resolved only by peaceful agreement between India and Pakistan. We have offered to help to achieve a lasting settlement, if both sides wish us to do so.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

    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.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Darling : To ask the Prime Minister when he became aware that Bank of Credit and Commerce International accounts were being used to facilitate arms trading with Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 November 1992] : I have no such knowledge.

  • PMQT – 19 November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th November 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

    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. Pike : Does the Prime Minister recognise that urban programme authorities, such as Burnley, which have been designated programme authorities because of deprivation, on the Government’s own criteria, are devastated by the axing of the urban programme? That has brought despair and despondency to those areas. Will the Prime Minister now guarantee that those deprived areas will get more resources, not less, as a result of the change in Government policy?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is probably overlooking, first, the impact of city challenge, secondly, the impact of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and, thirdly, the fact that the urban programme has not been cancelled. Some £176 million will be available in 1993-94.

    Mr. Riddick : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following yesterday’s publication of school league tables, there can be no turning back on providing extra information to parents about their schools? Did my right hon. Friend notice that while the Labour party and the education establishment mafia were opposing the league tables, parents throughout the country were jamming the switchboard of the Department for Education demanding copies of those very league tables?

    The Prime Minister : It is indeed the case that the education service will never again be able to hide this important information. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will agree that this is information which should legitimately be available to parents, is now available to parents, and should continue to be available to parents.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister none the less explain why his Government are so incompetent that they cannot even produce an accurate record of the examination results?

    The Prime Minister : That is a bit rich coming from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls his infamous Jennifer’s ear broadcast not long ago, he will recall that the day after that, the Labour party’s dossier of people it claimed had to wait for treatment was wholly wrong. Out of 10 people it listed, five were wrong.

    Mr. John Smith : To return to the subject, can the Prime Minister explain why in the case of Manchester high school, which had a 100 per cent. pass, the figure was recorded as 16 per cent. and in the case of Holyrood comprehensive school in Chard, a 46 per cent. pass was recorded as 6 per cent? In both cases the schools contacted the Department to correct the misleading information that they thought was likely to be published. Why cannot the Department for Education perform the simple task of recording and transmitting information?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to hide the fact that he and his party want a cover-up on these statistics- – [Interruption.] If there are errors in the statistics, the Department will correct them. The main point is that it is right to give this information to parents and astonishing that the Labour party should wish to hide this information from parents– [Interruption.] —

    Madam Speaker : Order. Members must come to order instead of bawling and shouting all the time like this.– [Interruption.] –Order. Ministers must be heard in the House, as must every other Member. I call the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful, Madam Speaker. It would be interesting to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with this morning’s Guardian, which said :

    “What’s new is that parents have more information than they had before. No democrat should regard this as a reverse. This will allow a more informed choice.”

    Is Labour against more choice and more information?

    Mr. John Smith : We favour, above all, the provision of accurate rather than dogma-ridden information. When the Prime Minister is engaged in the task of correcting the errors, will he look at the case of Cambridgeshire, where, according to the county council, there have been 53 errors affecting at least 30 schools? Why does the Prime Minister not admit that the Government have made a botch of this, take it away and start again, this time trying to reach the minimum competence levels which even this Government should be able to attain?

    The Prime Minister : I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledges that we shall continue to provide this information, and next year we shall go further with the information. This is the biggest exercise of its kind ever undertaken by a Government : a quarter of a million statistics in one complete set of tables. Every school had a chance to check its figures. In addition, some complaints may have originated in the information wrongly presented in the media, based on our figures–[Hon. Members :– “Oh!”] It is hardly surprising that there are some errors.

    We shall correct them. Next year– [Interruption.] Hon. Members had better listen, because this is what they will get next year : extra information ; national curriculum results in English, maths, science and technology, routes taken by pupils at age 16 ; truancy rates ; and examination results. They will also get the first primary school tables giving national curriculum results for pupils aged seven. That is the information which the Opposition would hide and we shall provide.

    Mr. Butcher : I commend to the attention of my right hon. Friend an article in the current issue of the Fabian reviews in which it is argued that selective education should be reintroduced and that our secondary schools should be reformed on the German model of vocational and academic education. If this is now a legitimate subject of interest for the more enlightened socialists, why are our own Ministers so coy about reintroducing grammar schools?

    The Prime Minister : The main thing that we are concerned with is the highest quality of education across the whole of the public sector. That is what we are seeking to provide, together with the greater spread of information. With regard to what my hon. Friend has to say about the socialist party, he must speak for them in so far as he wishes to do so–I certainly would not wish to do so.

    Leaving aside for the moment the 180 refugees for whom Austria has provided refuge because Britain would not, may I again remind the Prime Minister of the more than 6,500 innocent civilians without adequate refuge, trapped in Serbian prison compounds, their lives threatened imminently by starvation and cold because no third country will have them? Does the Prime Minister realise that they are there, at least in part, because of his failure as President of the European Community to provide a co-ordinated European plan for Yugoslav refugees? Why?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman knows that this country has taken the lead in most of the initiatives dealing with Yugoslavia in recent months. We have welcomed more than 40,000 visitors, of whom 4,000 have applied for asylum. This country has shown great generosity and will continue to do so, but we share the view of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that help should be provided as close as possible to people’s homes, and not by taking them abroad when that is not absolutely necessary. That is the policy which we have been following and the policy which I believe it is right for us to follow.

    Mr. Dunn : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the publication of league tables for local schools is entirely responsible? Is he also aware that the reason why certain parties in the House object to the publication of information for parents is that it brings into the open the mediocrity introduced into our schools by the left in the 1960s?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend–and, more to the point, so do parents up and down the country, who know very well where the bad education authorities are. The Labour party has tried to block every one of our education reforms, so it is hardly surprising that it is now trying to block information.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

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

    Mr. Hall : Is the Prime Minister aware that the ICI chlora-alkali factory in Runcorn has experienced a 60 per cent. increase in its electricity bills in the past 18 months? Unless it can negotiate a more realistic price for its electricity, or benefit from bulk purchasing, it will go out of business–putting 4,000 people in Runcorn out of work. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment that he will intervene on behalf of jobs in British industry and ensure that ICI is treated fairly in this matter?

    The Prime Minister : I cannot intervene in the way in which the hon. Gentleman invites me to, and it would not be right for me to do so.

    Mr. Ian Bruce : Will the Prime Minister find time in his busy schedule to visit Portland to speak to those running the naval base there and, in particular, to examine sea training? It is not planned to reduce sea training, but simply to move it to Devonport. Is not the best place to undertake such training the place where it has always been undertaken– Portland?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend knows of the decision, which has been taken after careful examination. I am not able to announce any change in that decision this afternoon. I am, of course, perfectly happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.

     

    Q3. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

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

    Mr. Ross : Following the announcement today that 3,500 jobs are to go at the Royal Bank of Scotland and 550 at Blue Circle cement, does the Prime Minister realise that while unemployment continues to soar out of control no one will have any confidence in him or in the economy? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that he has not a clue what to do about unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : Given that the hon. Gentleman supports a party which wanted a tax on jobs, all the burdens of the social charter and a national minimum wage, I find his remarks a bit rich. It is odd that the hon. Gentleman did not notice the reductions in interest rates, the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week, or the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment over many months. Where has the hon. Gentleman been during all this time?

    Mrs. Gillan : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating a company in my constituency–Amersham International–on winning the Queen’s award for industry for its brain-imaging agent, ceretec? The company leads the world in the field. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is further evidence of the success of the Government’s privatisation policy?

    The Prime Minister : I most certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It is a fact that most of the industries that have been privatised have had a substantially better record in the private sector than they had in the public sector. That is why it is entirely right for us, wherever we can, to look to move enterprises from the public to the private sector, where they can be run by business men, run for profit, and provide secure, long-term, permanent employment.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ronnie Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

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

    Mr. Campbell : On 16 November the Prime Minister wrote a letter to the National Union of Mineworkers saying that the 10 pits in the review would have to close because they were not making a profit. [Interruption.] I am not reading. Is the Prime Minister aware that five of those collieries are currently making a profit and two of them are expected to make a profit at the end of the financial year? Who is telling the truth in the matter–the Coal Board or the Prime Minister? The pits are to close–yet they are making a profit. Does the Prime Minister not want to keep the pits open because he would tarnish his reputation again?

    The Prime Minister : The Government are seeking to ensure that we can have a coal industry in the future which is sustainable, profitable and viable. That is in the interests of the coal industry, in the interests of energy users and in the interests of the local communities–and it is what the Government wish to see.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 November 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th November 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Britain in Europe

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister what are his reasons for omitting from the booklet “Britain in Europe” a reference to the provisions contained in article K.3 of the treaty on European Union on qualified majority voting on certain decisions relating to foreign policy on security.

    The Prime Minister : Article J.3 provides for the use of qualified majority voting for certain implementing decisions in areas of the common foreign and security policy subject to joint action. Majority voting would, however, apply only where member states have explicitly and unanimously so decided. It is not possible to cover all the provisions of the treaty in a 24-page booklet.

     

    British-German Meeting

    Mr. George Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister what were the costs to the Exchequer of the bilateral British-German meeting at Ditchley park on Wednesday 11 November.

    The Prime Minister : The estimated cost to the Exchequer is £57,000.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty’s Government were informed that Iraq’s military capabilities were potentially directed against a country or countries other than Iran.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 November 1992] : Prior to the invasion of Kuwait, the assessment made by the United Kingdom, and other countries, including Iraq’s neighbours was that Iraq would use her military strength to bolster her position as a dominant power in the region, but that she would not risk world hostility by aggressive action. That assessment changed when Iraq started to make threats against Kuwait, but it was still thought that Iraq would use the threats to extract concessions from Kuwait, not launch an invasion.

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the current list of special advisers attached to Ministers stating the Minister they work for and their previous occupations.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 November 1992] : There are currently 37 special advisers attached to Ministers. The names of the advisers, the Ministers they work for and their previous occupations before the last general election are as follows :

    Name |Minister(s) served |Previous Occupation

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

    1. Adams |Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food |Special Adviser
    2. Bickham |Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs |Special Adviser

    Sir R. Braithwaite |Prime Minister |British Ambassador, Moscow

    1. Burke |Secretary of State for the Environment |Special Adviser
    2. Caine |Secretary of State for Northern Ireland |Special Adviser
    3. Cameron |Financial Secretary to the Treasury |Conservative Central Office

    Dr. E. Cottrell |Secretary of State for Employment |Conservative Central Office

    Sir C. Foster |Secretary of State for Transport |Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

    1. Fraser |Minister of State for Overseas Development |Special Adviser
    2. Grantham |Secretary of State for Education |Special Adviser
    3. Gray |Jointly to the Ministers for Local Government and Inner Cities; Environment and Countryside and House and Planning |GNI Ltd.
    4. Green |Prime Minister |Journalist

    Professor P. Hall |Secretary of State for the Environment |Special Adviser

    Ms. S. Hole |Chief Whip |Special Adviser

    Mrs. S. Hogg |Prime Minister |Special Adviser

    1. Kemp |President of the Board of Trade |Special Adviser

    Mrs. T. Keswick |Home Secretary |Special Adviser

    Mrs. E. Laing |Secretary of State for Transport |Special Adviser

    1. Mackay |Secretary of State for Scotland |Special Adviser
    2. Marsh |Secretary of State for Health |Special Adviser
    3. Mayhew |Secretary of State for Social Security |Special Adviser

    Miss S. McEwen |Chief Whip (House of Lords) |Special Adviser

    1. McManus |Secretary of State for Wales |Conservative Central Office
    2. Miller |Secretary of State for Defence |Special Adviser

    Dr. J. Nicholson |Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster |John Nicholson Associates

    Sir I. Pearce |Secretary of State for Transport |Richard Ellis and English Estates

    1. Poole |Prime Minister |James Capel

    Mrs. K. Ramsey |Prime Minister |Special Adviser

    Dr. W. Robinson |Chancellor of the Exchequer |Special Adviser

    1. Rock |Secretary of State for the Environment |Conservative Central Office
    2. Rosling |Prime Minister |Special Adviser
    3. Ruffley |Jointly to the three Ministers of State and the Under Secretary of State in the Home Office |Special Adviser
    4. Stewart |Lord President |Special Adviser

    Lady Strathnaver |President of the Board of Trade |Special Adviser

    1. True |Prime Minister |Special Adviser
    2. Wilton |Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster |Special Adviser
    3. Young |Secretary of State for Scotland |Special Adviser

     

    Matrix Churchill

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the papers supplied to defence counsel in the Matrix Churchill case to be placed in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 November 1992] : No. The papers were supplied to the defence for the purposes of the trial. Lord Justice Scott will have access to them.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 November 1992

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Security Service

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he intends to make for parliamentary scrutiny of the Security Service and the secret intelligence service.

    The Prime Minister : As I explained to the hon. Member on 13 May 1992, Official Report, column 103, the security and intelligence services are all subject to close ministerial oversight, and the Ministers are responsible to Parliament. There is now also a Commissioner for the Security Service who produces an annual report to Parliament, and a tribunal for those who have grievances. There will be an opportunity for Parliament to debate such matters when legislation is brought forward.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

    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.

     

    Cabinet Committees

    Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister whether it is customary for decisions made in Cabinet Committee to be relayed to Members of the Cabinet who have not attended that meeting.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 November 1992] : Not in all cases. The procedures for Cabinet committees are set out in paragraph 4 of the “Questions of Procedure for Ministers,” which is available in the Library.

  • PMQT – 17 November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th November 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Heppell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Heppell : Will the Prime Minister inform the House why a trade mission from Nottingham chamber of commerce was allowed to go ahead on 22 June 1990 even though the products of the companies involved would have been useful to Saddam Hussein’s war effort? Will he assure the House that the role of such trade missions will be part of the Scott inquiry?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly examine the hon. Gentleman’s point. As he may well know, my office receives about 3,000 letters and innumerable documentation each week so I cannot reply directly, but I will examine the point that he made.

    Mr. Lord : Does the Prime Minister agree that the Chancellor’s autumn budget contained excellent news for the building industry? Does he further agree that allowing housing associations more resources to buy empty properties and local authorities more discretion to spend their capital receipts will be an excellent boost for the housing market?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is quite right. There were a number of aspects of my right hon. Friend’s statement that were very good news indeed for the housing market. As Abbey National has said, this may prove to be the point at which the housing market turns. That is the view of Abbey National, and I hope that it proves to be correct. My right hon. Friend had a meeting with mortgage lenders yesterday to discuss ways of ensuring that the money is used as effectively as possible to reduce the overhang of empty properties on the market. If it is, it will have a material impact on the housing market and a beneficial one.

    Mr. John Smith : Last night, a Downing street spokesman briefed the press that the 1984 guidelines for exports of arms-related equipment to Iraq were changed in 1988. Can the Prime Minister tell why Parliament was not informed of this change?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware that we have set out the most wide ranging terms of inquiry possible–far more wide ranging than most people imagined–and that all these matters will be discussed on that occasion. I hope that he will now accept that those terms are so wide ranging and cover so many aspects that nothing will not be fully examined.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell me, then, why the question whether Parliament was misled is not included in the terms of reference of the inquiry?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being extremely silly. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : If he reads the terms of inquiry more carefully he will see that they allow the judge to examine all the facts, all the decisions, the basis for those decisions and whether Ministers operated in accordance with the policies of the Government. The judge will have access to all the documentation as well as to individuals. So the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s fears are wholly unfounded.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister will recollect that he quoted the terms of reference as being whether Ministers operated in accordance with the policies of Her Majesty’s Government. But the allegation which is made, and which I also make, that this Government consistently, over a long period of time, misled Parliament, is not included in these terms of reference. If the Prime Minister and his colleagues have nothing to hide, why not include the misleading of Parliament in the terms of reference of the inquiry?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman should read the terms of reference, when he would see that this is entirely implicit in them. The suggestion that Ministers misled the House is a serious charge, a scurrilous charge and has no basis whatsoever in fact. It is typical of the charges that have been made by the Labour party before. It is typical of the charges over the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which were utterly unfounded and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues have never apologised for making.

    Mr. Fabricant : Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite the ever growing recession in Germany over £360 million worth of property in central London has recently been bought by German investment trusts? Is not this a demonstration, by putting their Deutschmarks where their mouths are, of confidence in British economic policy?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, there is a very large amount of inward investment in this country from both within and beyond the European Community. Indeed, in terms of investment in countries within the Community by countries beyond it, by far the lion’s share comes to this country, because of this Government’s policies over recent years.

     

    Q2. Mr. Morley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Morley : Is the Prime Minister aware of the effects of his economic incompetence on companies such as British Steel in Scunthorpe, and on unemployment? Is he aware, further, that long-term unemployment has risen by 48 per cent., to stand at 302,000? Is it not a matter for regret that of all the things that the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech at the Lord Mayor’s banquet unemployment was not one?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly understands even less than I thought he did. He clearly has not read my speech or the press reports. The speech was nearly all about the strategy for growth to provide long-term secure jobs. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he does not understand anything.

    Mrs. Roe : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House will settle down. Let us have some order. Front-Bench Members are bawling and shouting. Order.

    Mrs. Roe : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his autumn statement, which did so much to preserve the Government’s capital programmes : programmes for new roads, new railways, new hospitals and new schools? Does he agree that this will not only help modernise Britain’s infrastructure but create new jobs in our construction industry?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. It is, of course, in sharp contrast to what happened under the last Labour Government, when they would always cut capital as the first and easiest cut, while avoiding the difficult decisions on current account. We have taken the difficult decisions on current account precisely to preserve capital, build up our future, create jobs and build up prosperity.

     

    Q3. Ms. Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Ms. Hoey : Is the Prime Minister aware of the revulsion in the country caused by his Government’s inhumane, shameful and sickening policy on Bosnian refugees? Why was the Prime Minister so ready to provide a safe haven and air support for the Kurds when they were running from Iraqi aggression when he is not ready to provide a similar safe haven or air support for women and children fleeing from Serbian aggression in central Europe?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say to the hon. Lady that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will deal with this at greater length in a few moments. Let me say to her now that we have welcomed more than 40,000 visitors from Yugoslavia this year of whom more than 4,000 have applied for asylum, and we have agreed to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and with the International Red Cross to take the priority refugees they want us to take under the 1951 Geneva convention. With the best will in the world we simply cannot take everyone who, for understandable reasons, wants to leave Yugoslavia and, in this case, the group concerned were warned in advance that they should not go ahead with their mission to Yugoslavia.

     

    Q4. Mr. Luff : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Luff : Is my right hon. Friend aware that his determination to bring a successful outcome to the current GATT round will bring enormous benefits not only to Britain and Europe, but to the countries of the third world whose interests the Government so clearly protected last week in the welcome and substantial increase in our overseas aid budget?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of the GATT round to the third world. It is entirely unreasonable for the west to say to the third world, on one hand, here is some aid to help with your difficulties and, on the other hand, close our markets, which are of even greater benefit to them. It is imperative that we have the GATT round for the industrialised world, but it is no less imperative for the non-industrialised world.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Could the Prime Minister spare a few moments at 3.30pm to go downstairs to the Grand Committee Room and explain to a lobby of several hundred people from residential drug and alcohol projects why the Government have gone back on a clear commitment to ring-fence their funding with effect from 1 April next year? Is he aware that the decision will result in several of the projects closing, with obvious human consequences? It would be especially appropriate during European Drug Prevention Week for the Prime Minister to do a U-turn on the matter.

    The Prime Minister : The Government recognise that there are special circumstances for alcohol and drug misusers and we have met the specialist service providers. We will be encouraging fast-track assessment procedures, encouraging good practice in identifying who is responsible for each client and setting up special monitoring arrangements for those services for the first three months following implementation. That is in addition to the action we have already announced to ensure that the community care grant is spent on services that reflect people’s wishes and causes minimum turbulence and disturbance to them. The hon. Gentleman should be more accurate about our proposals.

     

    Q6. Mr. Adley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Adley : I am sorry that I am in the wrong place, Madam Speaker, but these young whipper-snappers show no respect to us old fogies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the retention of a national timetable is an essential element in changes that are made to railway policy? Is he aware that this morning, Select Committee on Transport members visited Crewe? Incidentally, we got back eight minutes early and were back here in time for lunch. We went to the national timetable centre and were somewhat dismayed to find that not only Ministers, but officials from the Department of Transport had not been there. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the civil servants responsible for the documentation to do a little more homework please?

    The Prime Minister : I suspect that my hon. Friend has just done that, and in the most effective way possible.

     

    Q7. Mr. Loyden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Loyden : Given the Matrix Churchill debacle of the past few weeks and the Government’s obvious inadequacy in dealing with that matter– giving rise to questions regarding the very accountability of the Government–will the Prime Minister now accept that the only way to overcome such difficulties is to introduce a freedom of information Bill so that such situations can be avoided in future?

    The Prime Minister : I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, and, on the substantive matter that he mentioned, I have already said to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that there will be a full and wide-ranging inquiry to which every Minister concerned will give evidence, all papers will be available and all civil servants will make themselves available. There will be a full and total disclosure of all those events.

     

    Q8. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say what further steps he can and will take to press banks to lower their interest rates in line with reduced bank rates so that businesses can profit and, more particularly, so that young home owners and mortgage payers in my constituency and throughout the country can benefit?

    The Prime Minister : Clearly, lower interest rates should benefit businesses and consumers alike and thus help the economy. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear, he will be taking the matter up with the individual clearing banks, and the Bank of England will be reviewing current practice by the banks.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 November 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th November 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Private Detectives

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister what use his Department has made of private detectives in each of the last five years; at what cost; and if he will list the firms involved.

    The Prime Minister : My Office has not made use of private detectives.

     

    President Yeltsin

    Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent visit of President Yeltsin of Russia.

    The Prime Minister : President Yeltsin paid a highly successful visit on 9 and 10 November, the first official visit to the United Kingdom by a President of Russia. During his visit he addressed Members of both Houses in the Royal Gallery, attended a luncheon given by Her Majesty the Queen and met businessmen at the London Stock Exchange. I hosted a dinner for the President in the painted hall of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich.

    President Yeltsin and I signed a treaty on the principles of relations between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation and five other agreements and memoranda of understanding were signed by representatives of the two Governments during the visit. In discussions with the President, I welcomed the new and friendly relations between the United Kingdom and Russia and underlined the Government’s support for the process of economic and political reform in Russia.

     

    Classless Society

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made towards the creation of a classless society in Britain.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s policies are aimed, and will continue to be aimed, at widening choice and opportunity for all members of society. Most recently, progress has been made through the introduction in the 1992 Budget, of a new lower rate band which reduced the marginal rate to 20 per cent. for almost 4 million people on low incomes, including over 1 million working wives; through our recent reforms in education and health; and through other public service initiatives, including the introduction of the citizens charter.

     

    Environment

    Mr. David Porter : To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made on implementing the involvement of young people in environmental awareness following the decisions agreed at the 1992 Earth summit; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Many of the recommendations relating to young people in Agenda 21 have already been implemented in the United Kingdom; for example, the requirements of a number of subjects in the national curriculum include studies relevant to the environment. We are also supporting informal environmental education initiatives through the Department of the Environment’s grant schemes. Chapter 17 of the Second Year Report (Cm 2068) on the anniversary of the “Environment” White Paper explains our action in detail.

     

    Office Telephone Lines

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 November, Official Report, column 672, regarding facilities for the public to telephone his Office, if he will give details of the existing practice.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 10 November at column 672.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on 10 November, Official Report, columns 737-38, what was the start date for the application of the full embargo on the supply of arms to Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : The full embargo came into force at midnight on 8 August 1990 in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution 661.

    All relevant issues will be covered by Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry whose terms of reference will be :

    “Having examined the facts in relation to the export from the United Kingdom of defence equipment and dual use goods to Iraq between December 1984 and August 1990 and the decisions reached on the export licence applications for such goods and the basis for them, to report on whether the relevant Departments, Agencies, and responsible Ministers operated in accordance with the policies of Her Majesty’s Government; to examine and report on decisions taken by the prosecuting authority and by those signing public interest immunity certificates in R v Henderson and any other similar cases that he considers relevant to the issues of the inquiry; and to make recommendations”.

    The terms of reference have not been restricted to Matrix Churchill. They include the supergun and other defence and dual-use sales.

    The terms of reference relate not just to arms questions but to decisions taken on the prosecution of companies and on public interest immunity.

    All Ministers who are called will give evidence.

    All civil servants who are called will be instructed to co-operate.

    All papers that the inquiry calls for will be made available. Lord Justice Scott will be entirely free to decide on the publication of his report and of the evidence he takes.

    If Lord Justice Scott finds that his powers are in any way insufficient, he can invite the Government to alter the basis of his inquiry and the Government would agree to do so.

    The inquiry will report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

     

    Cabinet Committees

    Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister whether the rules of collective responsibility for decisions made in a Cabinet Committee are applied only to those attending the meeting.

    The Prime Minister : Decisions reached by the Cabinet or Ministerial Committees are binding on all members of the Government.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet – 16 November 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech in London to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, held on 16 November 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    My Lord Mayor, My late Lord Mayor, Your Grace, Your Excellencies, My Lords, Aldermen, Sheriffs, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    May I begin by thanking you for the toast this evening and congratulating you on your election. Let me give you a message of good cheer. I hope the six months after your election are less eventful than the six months after mine. And may I say, on behalf of all of us here, how glad we are to see the Lady Mayoress at your side tonight, and how much we admire her courage after her recent accident.

    It is a time-honoured tradition to speak to this audience about foreign affairs. I can imagine how much you are looking forward to a detailed exposition of Title 6, Article KI, Clause 2, Line 3 of the Maastricht Treaty.

    But tonight I would like to break with tradition. I will talk about the international situation for a while, but primarily I intend to talk about confidence. About recovery. About the future of our country. About how to generate growth and bring lasting jobs and prosperity.

    It is fitting to do so here – surrounded by so many who have a leading role in commerce, in industry, in the media, in the professions. All have a vital part to play in building up our confidence in our country and our future.

    It is only three years ago that Western leaders spoke with euphoria of a “New World Order”. They looked forward to a new age of prosperous, stable democracies.

    The Cold War has gone. The Soviet Empire has gone. The Berlin Wall has gone. But so have their simple certainties. The collapse of the Communist system has left a vacuum and it will take time for freedom and the market to fill it. Throughout history, such circumstances have been fertile breeding ground for extremism and unrest. We must work to ensure the late twentieth century is an exception. But the genie is out of the bottle, and that narrow line between patriotism and nationalism is in danger of being overstepped in many countries.

    So there is great hope – but greater uncertainty. And we are living through a fundamental reappraisal of how the West should respond in difficult economic circumstances.

    Britain is in a unique position to influence that response. As a permanent member of the Security Council, as a member of NATO, the CSCE, the Commonwealth and the European Community, we are at the centre of the overlapping groups of nations which seek to order the world’s affairs. Our role as a leading power in Europe has brought added value to our relationship with the United States.

    And let me pay tribute here to President George Bush. There are many dangers in today’s world. But the world is safer today than when George Bush first took office four years ago, and much of that is due to his leadership and his values. As we congratulate President-elect Clinton, let us not forget our old friend George Bush, and say to him: you have been a true friend to our country and you will always be an honoured guest here.

    As we look at our overseas responsibilities we know we have a special responsibility for Hong Kong. There is no one better than Chris Patten to lead Hong Kong through to 1997 with energy, skill and wisdom. I hope the Chinese Government will look at his proposals for Hong Kong, not with suspicion, for which there is no cause, but in the spirit that we and he intend. “One country, two systems”, was what Deng Xiaoping promised. Our proposals are entirely consistent with that philosophy. They do not threaten China. They do benefit Hong Kong. And we want a happy, prosperous and confident Hong Kong to be our enduring legacy to China after 1997.

    There are few greater human tragedies than in Yugoslavia. Over recent months Britain has led the international community in a search for a peaceful settlement and in efforts to bring humanitarian relief to those in need. We have sent trucks, mechanics, winter shelter, medicines, food and clothing. And our RAF pilots have led the repeated air lifts into Sarajevo with great courage and tenacity for many months. In August we mobilised the world community on behalf of peace in Yugoslavia. We have sent British troops – the Cheshire Regiment – to help deliver humanitarian aid in difficult and dangerous circumstances. We owe that help to the innocent victims of the conflict. We owe it also to ourselves, for if the conflict spreads it could spread far beyond the borders of the former Yugoslavia itself.

    It is a moot point whether the Yugoslav war would have begun if the Soviet Empire had not collapsed. But it is in our long-term interests that a new democratic Russia emerges confident and free. Last week President Yeltsin visited London and agreed a Treaty of Friendship and five other agreements. It was the first such Treaty between our countries since George III and Catherine the Great.

    President Yeltsin sees clearly that Russia’s future can only lie in democracy and a free market. There are powerful forces ranged against him. No one alive in Russia today knows first-hand what a modern market economy is. The Russian people are being asked to make enormous short-term sacrifices for the longer term gain.

    The route mapped out for them by Boris Yeltsin is a hard one, but it is the only one. The alternative would be to turn the clock back to the grisly apparatus of repression. Back to the old structures which once supported the Soviet State and have now gone, and – hopefully – gone for good. I hope that for their own sake as well as for ours, the Russian people will follow the lead that President Yeltsin has set them. It will not be easy. We cannot bear their sacrifice for them. But we can help them. Support them. Encourage them. And so we shall. Because we have the chance in our generation to fashion a new Europe from West to East. One where inter-locking trade interests enable future generations to live in greater security than we have known before. There is no greater prize than that.

    Of course the Russians and others are struggling to reform against a uniquely difficult background of world recession. In America – as in Britain – consumers and businessmen have been battling to reduce their burden of debt, built up in the boom years of the late 1980s and impeding recovery today.

    In Japan, growth is stalling. In Germany, people are facing what Chancellor Kohl recently called the “hour of truth”. In Italy, the Government has had to take drastic measures to restrain the growth in public debt. In France, unemployment exceeds 3 million and yet their real interest rates are nearly twice as high as ours.

    There is evidence of an instinct that is dangerously strong in times of economic difficulty: to look inwards, put up the shutters and slam the door on the free trade that has brought prosperity to the post-war world.

    My Lord Mayor, you referred to the GATT round. I agree with you. It is vital we get an early and comprehensive settlement. It is not tolerable for the world to fail to agree. We cannot let a handful of oil seeds or a sack of grain get in the way of the boost such a settlement would give to the world economy. At a conservative estimate, it would add nearly 200 billion dollars to world output. Two hundred billion dollars of prosperity, income and jobs.

    Nor is an agreement merely an economic necessity. It is a moral imperative. Because it is not only the businessmen of Europe and America who stand to gain from the successful completion of the Uruguay round. Developing countries in the third world, aspiring market economies in eastern Europe: both need the opportunity to sell, so they can earn their way to the prosperity we tell them will follow from economic reform.

    We, too, stand to gain enormously from a successful outcome. The stakes are high. Of all the successive rounds of negotiations to liberalise world trade that have lubricated post-war economic growth, this is the most ambitious. It needed to be, because trade today takes new forms, susceptible to new and less visible barriers. Of course, the old battle against tariffs is not over. British manufacturers still face some swingeing imposts, not least in the United States, where a successful Uruguay round will open up new opportunities to our textile, chemical and ceramic industries.

    As the City well knows, British financial services meet more subtle but no less damaging national restrictions. Our “intellectual property” – books, cassettes, discs, software – is still counterfeited in many countries. Our foreign investments are hampered by some countries’ dog-in-the-manger restrictions on the repatriation of profits. All these trade barriers and abuses are being tackled in the Uruguay round that now hangs in the balance.

    What is true for Britain is true for Europe. The European Commission has suggested that the Community could quadruple its exports of services with an agreement. European industries have much to gain from success. That is why, during our Presidency of the Community, I have put Britain’s weight behind the effort to secure agreement; supported the Commission’s negotiators; constantly warned our partners of the danger of delay. We have lost no opportunity of pressing for a settlement.

    But, even as President of the Community, Britain is now able to conduct the negotiations. That is the duty of the Commission. Responsibility for trade matters cannot be escaped or buried behind newer preoccupations. Brussels must not fail in this fundamental duty. Britain will give every support to a settlement. Nothing would break the clouds of world recession more surely than the boost to confidence of a successful Uruguay round.

    The GATT settlement is a vital complement to the opportunity opening before Britain in the single European market. 1993 will see the culmination of a European effort in which Britain has taken the leading part. It is a clear example of the cold, hard common sense and commercial self-interest that lies behind our decision to be part of Europe.

    Well over half of all our trade is with the European Community. Inward investment flows here to take advantage of British skills and a flexible British labour market – and Britain’s opportunity to sell into the biggest free trade area in the world. We have the lion’s share of inward investment into the Community; but we get it because we are in the Community.

    The single market in Europe is an opportunity for which Britain is uniquely well placed. We have now put in place the policies and the measures. We must now ensure Britain takes full advantage to advance the recovery we all want to see. As more and more people – businessmen, consumers, house-buyers, investors – start to look forward with more confidence to what the future offers, that will itself provide the engine for recovery.

    Our economic policy objective has always been the same: sustainable non-inflationary growth.

    The essential precondition – lower inflation – is now clearly in place. When I became Chancellor three years ago inflation was rising towards 11 per cent and many feared it would rise still further. Interest rates were 15 per cent and seemed stuck there. How easy it is now to forget the perils of that position. That was why we joined the ERM. For two years that policy succeeded beyond all expectations: inflation fell to under 4 per cent, and interest rates fell from 15 per cent to 10 per cent.

    Our commitment to maintain low inflation remains as strong as ever. Inflation ravages peoples’ savings. And if people cannot be confident even in the value of money, how can they be confident about their economic future? But we now face a world where the inflationary pressures are weak. And that has given us the opportunity to loosen monetary policy and create a more competitive environment for business and industry.

    Since we left the ERM, we have reduced interest rates by a further 3 per cent. Down to 7 per cent, the lowest in the European Community. Down by 8 per cent over the last two years. Down to the lowest level for nearly 15 years.

    This should provide a huge boost to industry. The cut last week will take a further £1 billion off industry’s interest costs – provided it is passed on to borrowers, to small businesses as well as large, as I trust it will be. This brings the total saving to industry to over £10 billion a year. And low interest rates also provide additional spending power for consumers: £145 a month off repayments on an average mortgage.

    In addition, we now have an exchange rate that is fiercely competitive. Not just in export markets but here at home too. And the Government is determined that that competitive advantage should not be frittered away by higher inflation.

    It was against this background that Norman Lamont presented his Autumn Statement last Thursday. And what he set out to do was to demonstrate how the Government’s commitment to industry is right at the heart of our policies. To demonstrate that not just by words, but by decisions. Decisions to give priority to industry in the Government’s spending plans and in our tax policies.

    Support for industry is not – indeed could not be – our only priority. I believe that people right across the country share my view that the poorest and neediest members of society must be protected. So we honoured all our commitments to uprate pensions and other benefits, in spite of the heavy financial cost.

    But this does mean we have to look for some sacrifice by those in work. We cannot turn our back on our responsibilities to those who are not. That is why we have decided to restrict pay settlements in the public sector to a maximum of 1.5 per cent next year. I know that is tough for some. I do not like doing it but I believe it is necessary. I am asking for sacrifices by those in work to help get others back into work. And I believe there is an instinct for fairness in the British character that will understand that and accept it.

    Ministers and MPs should make their contribution too. There will be no increase at all in Ministers’ pay next year and we shall introduce a Resolution in the Commons to provide for no increase in Members’ pay either.

    Salaries in the private sector are for the private sector to determine. But it would be wrong of me not to use this gathering tonight to say very frankly that costs must be controlled everywhere, not just on the shop floor but in the boardroom too. We have set a lead in the public sector. I hope we will see that mirrored throughout the private sector.

    In his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced a wide range of measures to help business. We listened to what industry was saying. Industry can only succeed if it is able to adapt to changing circumstances. And Government must be ready to do so too.

    So, for example, Norman Lamont announced huge changes to the rules on private finance for capital projects, giving new encouragement to joint ventures between the public and the private sector. Joint ventures that should help to bring forward infrastructure projects in Scotland, in the Midlands, in the South East, in London, and indeed right across the United Kingdom. Lord Mayor, I welcome your theme of “the City and industry in partnership”. But we should go further: my theme is “the City, industry and the Government in partnership”.

    It was essential that, in settling public expenditure, the Government did not spend more than could be afforded. Industry would not have thanked us for that, if the result had been higher taxes. So it was vital to stick to the remit set down by Cabinet in July. The Autumn Statement did just that.

    It required some tough decisions. But we had to give priority to capital spending and to the needs of industry. So we have provided for the Jubilee Line extension to go ahead, and for British Rail to invest £1 billion next year. We have protected the roads programme – and lower tender prices should permit nearly twice as many new roads projects to be started next year. And there will be record capital spending in the health service.

    Norman Lamont also announced extra help for the housing market and the construction industry. £750 million to buy up empty properties that are overhanging the housing market. And a relaxation of the rules on local authorities’ receipts, to stimulate an extra £1.75 billion of capital spending.

    He also increased ECGD cover for exporters by £700 million, to ensure that they really can take advantage of the competitive opportunities now open to them.

    On the tax side, he announced an increase in first year allowances for investment by industry. And the complete abolition of the car tax. These are measures that industry had been seeking. Measures that will help generate confidence and underpin the economy.

    Lord Mayor, we need to build up our manufacturing base to meet the demands of today’s markets. I do not regard manufacturing industry as a marginal add-on optional extra – it is fundamental to our future prosperity. That does not mean supporting industries whose markets have been irretrievably lost – lost because developing countries now manufacture for themselves what they once imported from us.

    What it does mean is to provide the sort of environment that encourages modern, well-equipped British industry to compete with the best in the world. Our supply side reforms continue to transform industrial relations and strip away many of the inefficiencies that had dogged British industry. We now have an industry that can compete with the best – and beat it.

    My Lord Mayor, I do not have too many prejudices. But let me share with you one that I do have. I am sick and tired of hearing people talk down our country and play down our achievements.

    Modesty may be an attractive quality. But as a nation we carry it too far. Too often we slip from healthy self-deprecation into an unhealthy, self-denigration. I know of no country more tolerant, more free, more open. Too often the Britain I read about is not the Britain I see when I travel around the country. Too often the views and opinions I hear quoted are not the views and opinions I hear direct from the lips of ordinary Britons.

    So let us have confidence in our skills, our design, our ingenuity and – yes, our achievements.

    – With low inflation;

    – With the lowest interest rates in the European Community;

    – With a very competitive exchange rate;

    – With the Single Market on our doorstep;

    – With a GATT deal tantalisingly close,

    There is a great opportunity for British business.

    The Government has listened to what industry has been saying. It has introduced the policies and the measures that industry has been seeking. So let us capitalise on our assets. Throughout this country there is a deep sense of national pride. An overwhelming desire to pull together and work together. We have done it often enough before in our history. Now, in order to recreate confidence and lift us back into growth and recovery we must do it again, in a true partnership for prosperity.