Tag: 1995

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Consultants

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions during the last five years when his Office or its agencies has taken legal action against a consultancy firm; and what were the reasons in each case.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Public Appointments

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 January, Official Report, columns 398-99, how many appointments to public positions have been made by his Department in the last year.

    The Prime Minister: I have made 18 appointments since January 1994 to bodies listed in “Public Bodies 1994”.

     

    Intensive Care Beds

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister what action he plans to take to ensure a higher priority within public spending to the provision of intensive care beds.

    The Prime Minister: It is for each purchasing authority to determine the appropriate level and type of provision of intensive therapy, and to priorities these accordingly based on an assessment of the total needs of its population. For their part, the Government have undertaken to increase the real level of resources devoted to the health service.

     

    Education Priorities

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 9 February to the right hon. Member for Bridgewater (Mr. King), Official Report, column 452, if he will list those local education authorities which may need to look carefully at education priorities.

    The Prime Minister: All local education authorities need to consider their priorities to ensure that they provide an effective and efficient service.

     

    Hong Kong

    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to travel to Hong Kong in 1995.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to visit Hong Kong in 1995.

     

    Marchioness

    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will (a) meet those who survived the sinking of the motor vessels Marchioness and their relatives, and (b) respond positively to the requests for legal aid to be granted to them for their representation at the forthcoming inquest.

    The Prime Minister: My right Hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor would be willing to meet a delegation of survivors of the tragedy and their relatives. Legal aid is not available for representation at inquests. Subject to financial eligibility, advice and assistance may be available before the hearing under the green form scheme.

  • PMQT – 14 February 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

    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.

    Mrs. Michie: Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that a single currency was a constitutional issue. Last Thursday, the Chancellor said that it was not. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us who is right?

    The Prime Minister: I have told the hon. Lady, I think, directly, and many people in the House precisely what the position is as far as a single currency is concerned, and I have also told people exactly how we propose to approach it. There will be no single currency involving the United Kingdom in 1996 or 1997. When and if it arises at a later stage, whether 1999 or thereafter, we will examine both the economic implications and the other implications, and we will then make a judgement on the national interest.

    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are determined to protect the country from terrorism, drug smugglers and a tidal wave of economic refugees into this country?

    The Prime Minister: I should say to my hon. Friend that in recent years we have seen a very welcome improvement in race relations in this country and I do not wish to see that put at risk in any way. Raising fears about immigration tends to put that at risk. For that reason, I am entirely determined to maintain our fair but firm immigration policies, and that means that we shall retain our border controls.

    Mr. Blair: Following the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment last Thursday to reducing inequality, may we now put it to the test? As the national electricity grid is an absolute monopoly subject to no competition, will the right hon. Gentleman act against the excesses of the few regional electricity chiefs who stand to make £50 million out of share options on the back of it?

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I find much of his opposition to share options rather synthetic since a good deal of his leadership campaign was financed out of the proceeds of share options.

    Mr. Blair: So the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do nothing on that. Let me now put this to him: as there still remain about 1 million long-term unemployed and the Government are proposing a £50 million cut in help to the unemployed, will he therefore act in respect of that?

    The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not respond to the earlier point. As for his general concerns about poverty, perhaps I can help him by filling in some of the facts that he overlooks. As he will know, and as there are ample statistics to show, the vast majority of people are better off. Average income has risen by more than one third since 1979, the average income of all economic groups and family types has risen, vulnerable groups have been protected and average incomes are up by more than 10 per cent. for poorer pensioners, and up for the unemployed as well as for those in full-time work. Those are the results of the Government’s actions, and they exceed by far the results achieved by any previous Government.

    Mr. Blair: So the Prime Minister is prepared to do nothing about that either. Whatever he says about reducing inequality, he will do nothing about greed at the top and nothing about protecting the unemployed at the bottom. Are the British people not right to conclude, therefore, that his commitment to reducing inequality will be seen in time as just one more easily made, easily broken Tory promise?

    The Prime Minister: I look forward to the day when the right hon. Gentleman listens to the answer before continuing with his question. As “Social Trends” is a publication often cited by Opposition Members, perhaps they will take notice of the information available in the latest edition, which states that the income of recently retired pensioners has increased by just over a half in real terms since 1981, and the real income after tax of a lone parent on the lowest decile of female earnings and with two children rose by 50 per cent. between 1981 and 1993. Why do we never hear about the reality of what has happened rather than the accusations without base which come from the right hon. Gentleman?

    Mr. Marlow: If European institutions produce measures to dismantle our external immigration controls, and those measures are subsequently supported by the European Court, how will my right hon. Friend maintain our external controls?

    The Prime Minister: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) a moment or so ago, we believe in our right to maintain controls. My predecessor set out our determination and received a solemn declaration to that effect some time ago. Let me make it clear that we shall argue strongly for the maintenance of that position and shall take whatever steps are necessary to that end. I will tell my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about that declaration: it was solemnly entered into by all the Heads of Government of the other European countries. They pledged their word, and I intend that they will keep it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Mr. Cousins: Is the Prime Minister aware that, following the Government’s deal with Trafalgar House to kill off Northern Electric this morning, the resulting free-for-all in electricity companies has caused electricity shares to rise by 10 per cent. in a Valentine’s day orgy on the stock exchange, while there has been a Valentine’s day massacre of job security in the north? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Confederation of British Industry that growing unfairness in society affects not only jobs but competition and business?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will have observed over the last couple of years, competition in business has been creating jobs, not losing them, which is why unemployment has dropped by more than half a million.

    Mr. Foulkes: Rubbish.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has apparently not noticed the drop of half a million in unemployment, so I will tell him that it has dropped right across Scotland, which he cares about, as well as in England, in Wales and in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman has not understood even that, I can understand why he is on the Opposition Benches–because he understands nothing.

     

    Q3. Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Lady Olga Maitland: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report that tourism in Northern Ireland has doubled since the ceasefire was announced? Does he agree that that reflects in an important way the outcome of the peace process?

    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the remarkable increases in tourism. There have also been remarkable changes in the life styles of the people in Northern Ireland and in the success of large and small businesses in Northern Ireland. I believe that those are results of the ceasefire, which I hope we shall be able to turn into a permanent peace.

     

    Q4. Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Mr. Cunningham: Does the Prime Minister recall that last Thursday in the House he gave an undertaking to commit the Government to fighting injustice and inequality? Will he now, as a first step, take the opportunity to reintroduce wages councils and, as a second step, abolish the jobseeker’s allowance?

    The Prime Minister: I will not give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking, because I do not believe that wages councils acted in the interests of people who were low paid. I believe that they kept a lot of people out of work who might otherwise have been in work. I accept that the Government have a responsibility to help the poor, and we have sought to do that. That is why extra help of more than £1 billion since 1988, over and above inflation, has been provided to help low-income families. That is the point that I invite the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends to concentrate upon.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Mr. Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the decision of the parents of pupils at 88 schools in Kent who voted overwhelmingly for the schools to become grant maintained? Will he congratulate those Kentish parents on their choice? Does he welcome the fact that they had the choice in the first place–a choice exercised by the Leader of the Opposition and a number of Labour Back Benchers–or does he consider that choice to be wicked?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that every parent should have the right to choose what is best for his or her children, and I have no criticism of any parent who does so. I simply ask that all parents should have the same choice.

     

    Q6. Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Mr. Watson: What does the Prime Minister suggest that I could do to help my constituent, Jane Pepper, who gave up a secure job in the civil service last year to attend an access course for university? She secured three offers of places, but is now having to give them up because she loses £5,000 as a result of the Government’s penny pinching in cutting the mature students’ allowance. Leaving aside the waffle that the Prime Minister usually gives us, what advice can he give to Jane Pepper and the thousands of other people who missed out on higher education the first time around and are now having the door slammed in their faces again?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the number of people going on to further and higher education has increased dramatically. When the hon. Gentleman’s party left office, one in eight of our children went to university. The figure is now one in three, and it is increasing.

     

    Q7. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rather disappointing performance of the English cricketers in Australia illustrates the need for more competitive sport in our schools?

    The Prime Minister: I should certainly like to see more competitive sport in our schools, and we intend to ensure that there is more. Beyond that, we must ensure that there is a much better sports environment through the clubs, so that there is a proper throughput from school to club level and to more senior levels in sport. I intend to do what I can to bring that about.

     

    Q8. Ms Jowell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

    Ms Jowell: Is the Prime Minister aware that last week a senior manager at Guy’s hospital in London had to telephone 24 hospitals to arrange cover for patients needing acute and intensive care beds? Does he accept that patients’ lives are at risk because of the shortage of beds in London? Will he instruct the Secretary of State for Health that no further bed closures should be allowed?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady had wished me to comment on that, no doubt she would have given me earlier notice of the question. Often enough, there have been cases in which a direct answer could have been given if information had been provided, and often enough I have examined matters subsequently and found them to be a touch different from what had been suggested on the Floor of the House. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard what the hon. Lady had to say.

    Mr. Michael Brown: Is not the situation with regard to the single currency quite straightforward–that if my right hon. Friend remains Prime Minister we will not have a single currency, but if the Leader of the Opposition becomes Prime Minister we will?

    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated to my hon. Friend on previous occasions, I will make a judgment on what I believe the national interest demands. If it demands no, I will say no.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what action Her Majesty’s Government have taken in relation to Lockerbie and Libyan sanctions since the Adjournment debate on 1 February.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has written to two hon. Members on matters which arose during the Adjournment debate on 1 February. Discussions about Lockerbie and UTA 772 with our closest partners have continued. The Government’s policy towards Libya is kept under constant consideration, but it is only the Libyan Government who can bring about the lifting of sanctions by complying in full with the relevant Security Council resolutions.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

    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.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Advertising

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure on all forms of advertising by his Office for each year since 1979, in 1994 prices.

    The Prime Minister: None.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what response he is giving to the report on famine in Iraq sent to him by Mr. Riad-el-Taher about his recent visit to Baghdad.

    The Prime Minister: The recent communication has been noted by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that an ad hoc tribunal should be set up by the United Nations Security Council to try those accused of the Lockerbie bombing; and what representations he has had in this regard.

    The Prime Minister: No. It is clear from resolution 883 that the United Nations Security Council envisages trial only before the appropriate United Kingdom or United States court.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Queen’s Anniversary Prizes Dinner – 9 February 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech at the Queen’s Anniversary Prizes Dinner on 9th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Four years ago – as a matter of principle and for the sake of our national interest – I said I would put education – standards of education – at the top of my agenda.

    I did so because our future prosperity – and our own very civility – depends on a population that is well-educated and highly skilled.

    But there were other reasons, too. Good education is the key that unlocks the door to a better future for every child. It is the route by which people – throughout history – have risen from the bottom of the heap to the top.

    And literally millions of people have had their lives enriched by the sheer joy of learning; by the love of literature, the arts and the sciences.

    Yet, in the past, too many children – bright eyed curious, normal children – university might have been another planet, an impossibly remote place whose arcane activities never seemed to touch their lives. University, many felt, was not “for the likes of us”. So much talent and potential went to waste.

    I knew children like that; in some senses I was one myself. So when I became Prime Minister I wanted to see that change.

    The target I set for the ’90s was to make a move forward in further and higher education greater than anything we had seen for a generation.

    Everyone should have a chance to succeed on merit. Not because of who they are, but of what they are, and what they have proved themselves to be. That is what I mean by a classless society – and high-class education is at the very core of it.

    Tonight we are here to honour today’s prizewinners. And can I add my own – and warmest – congratulations to all those the winners have rightly received?

    The awards are given by the Queen’s Anniversary Trust. So it is reasonable today to look back 40 plus years to the time of the Coronation.

    Then – though it’s hard to believe – there were only 16 universities in England – and just over 100,000 students. Less than one in 20 of all young people went into higher education.

    Ten years later the Robbins report set out wider objectives for higher education beyond the purely academic. Those principles are still valid today.

    In particular, Robbins proposed significant expansion of higher education. So, in the 1960s, the 10 colleges of advanced technology became universities. New universities were created. And 30 polytechnics were set up to offer education with a vocational emphasis.

    Finally, the pioneering institution of the Open University was established to provide opportunities for those who wanted to study from home.

    By 1979, one person in 8 was entering higher education. Excellent – but still not alpha plus. For today’s world throws up constant new challenges. Patterns of work that had seemed settled since the Industrial Revolution have gone for ever.

    That was why, in 1991, I launched White Papers on education beyond 16 that set out a vision for the rest of this century.

    We promised to enable more young people to go on to Higher Education. To scrap the out-dated distinction between universities and polytechnics. And to provide the funding that made renewed expansion possible.

    As a result today more young people are going on to university than ever before. It took 25 years to double participation levels up to the 1980s. It took only five to double them again between 1989 and 1994. We now have the highest graduation rate in the EC.

    Nearly one in three young people now enjoy higher education. There are now over 1 million students following full-time courses and a further 500,000 studying part-time.

    We have abolished the binary line to enable our universities to offer wider choice and diversity. Today there are degree courses in universities in subjects such as art and design, and business studies, as well as in more traditional academic subjects.

    We need those new skills. At the start of The Queen’s reign twice as many people worked on farms as in financial services. Now seven times as many work in financial services as on farms.

    Look at some of our other great competitive strengths – pharmaceuticals, health care, telecoms, IT software, biotechnology, food processing, engineering, design, fashion, the media. The list is almost infinitely extendable.

    Britain is less than a quarter of one per cent of the world’s land mass; one per cent of the world’s population. But in the growth industries of the 21st century we are in the world’s top three.

    This is due not just to our native genius – but to one of the best education systems in the world.

    Look at what Britain’s higher education system has produced in the last 40 years:

    – Watson and Crick unfolding the beautiful symmetry of life in the DNA double helix;

    – Cesar Milstein and others at the MRC Cambridge who have created a whole new industry, biotechnology, on the back of their work;

    – Hawking and the physicists who plumb the secrets of our universe from the smallest particle to the infinity of space.

    Our universities continue to lead the world in research. No less than 30 Nobel Prize winners from the UK between 1957 and 1992 in physics, chemistry or physiology – nearly one in seven of the total.

    And let no-one say that pure research is not commercial. Faraday’s pure research led to our harnessing electricity. A discovery whose value is greater than the total capitalisation of London’s Stock Exchange.

    We must exploit the resource of intellect to improve the prosperity and the quality of life for all. I want to see our universities as world-leaders in forging links between the academic world and industry and commerce.

    Look at the growth of science parks in places like Cambridge, the close ties with industry of a Warwick or Salford, and the development of university companies to exploit new ideas. Approaching one-third of university income comes from private sources. All these things are good for the country and a boon to all those bright young people who will make our future.

    Young people are not the only gainers in today’s universities. Yes, lifelong learning does matter. The number of mature entrants has risen by 140% since 1979. They now account for over a half of all enrolments.

    People who thought the doors of academe were for ever locked against them are finding them open.

    But I am not complacent. I do not pretend all has – or will be – easy. Expansion inevitably brings problems in its wake. And change is ever the mother and father of insecurity.

    So we now need to pause and think how higher education should develop in the future. That is why we have launched a national consultation – and I hope that all of you here in higher education will have your say.

    We have to look at the competitive challenge that lies ahead. At the needs of society in the twenty-first century. We must ask ourselves. How best can higher education preserve and enhance all that is good from our past, while meeting the needs of the future? Can we, in today’s world, any longer equip people with all the skills and knowledge they will need in life in one initial dose of higher education?

    Above all, how best can we accommodate change without compromising standards?

    So an important debate lies ahead. But have no doubt. I see higher education as one of Britain’s great success stories. And, whatever unfolds, I am determined to keep it that way.

    It is now just under two years since we launched our reformed Further Education sector. Since then over 500 colleges have been given the freedom to run their own affairs.

    Visit an FE college today and you’ll experience the bustle and hum of learning.

    All human life is there – from eager young school leavers to retired people taking exams for the first time in 50 years. From full-timers with their eyes on university or top flight jobs, to part-timers brushing up their skills to get on at work or to start a business themselves. From apprentice hair dressers to apprentice historians.

    The last two years have seen dramatic changes. More students are staying on. They are getting better results. And they’ve been given more choice.

    Back in 1979 only 40% of young people were staying on in education after the age of 16. Now over 70% stay on in full-time education after 16 – most of the rest are in part-time training either in colleges or based at work.

    As a result, one awful British stereotype has virtually bitten the dust – the 16 year old with no qualifications, no ambitions and no intention of learning anything ever again.

    But still we need to do more.

    First, we want more people to benefit. Our target is to expand by 28% over five years. We are providing the funding for that.

    Second, colleges must work even more closely with employers to meet the needs of their own local labour market. Our new employer-led modern apprenticeships will help here too. By the year 2000 our target is for some 70,000 of these each year.

    Third, we have to do more to raise standards of vocational qualifications – so they truly earn the parity of esteem in which I profoundly believe.

    One of the curses of education in the ’50s and ’60s was that vocational education was often disparaged, and rarely admired.

    In seeking to address that, serious errors were made. We still live with some of the consequences. There is no place in education for tackling low standards by levelling down the high.

    I know it is not a fashionable view. But, for my own part, I believe that a high quality GCE A Level must remain at the core of further education in England. It has underpinned a 3 year university degree that is a benchmark for academic excellence. We remain committed to it.

    Our strategy is to level up, not down. That is our aim through the General National Vocational Qualification. GNVQs were launched a mere 2 years ago. But already this year over 150,000 students are beginning a GNVQ course in England – equivalent to a quarter of all 16 years olds. From a standing start to 150,000 in 2 years.

    That is astonishing.

    So there’s no doubt about their popularity with students. Nor about the enthusiasm and commitment of the teaching staff who deliver them. Good. But we can do better still.

    The Chief Inspector of Schools and the Further Education Inspector have done us a signal service in showing what more we must do to make GNVQs the equal to the best in Europe.

    Parity of esteem is vital. That means more hard edged, practical material. It means raising teachers’ expectations of their students. It means clarity for teachers on what they should cover and to what standard. But it also means less prescription about how they should do it.

    More external inspection to ensure rigorous standards. But a simple assessment system that does not leave teachers knee deep in paper at 3 o’clock in the morning.

    We are working on that. We’ve put in 25 million pounds extra to help course support, best practice and training. Ron Dearing’s work to extend GNVQ courses for 14-16 year olds in schools will feed through into existing courses. The prize, if we get it absolutely right, is huge.

    People ask why I care so much about standards in education. Well, picture, if you will, the small child setting out with shining morning face for the first day at school – her life before her – fearful yes, but full of all the limitless potential that is breathed at birth into every child. Then ask yourself how could you not care?

    That has been my child – and, no doubt, yours. And that child is being born today and tomorrow and the next day – in Brixton and in Borrowdale alike. A child whose chance in life will be decided by what they learn in school and in college and in university. For the sake of every one of those children, the best chances must be open to all.

    Parents lay the foundation of every young life. But it is you in our colleges and universities who finally top out the edifice of learning. Yours is a high and honourable vocation – among the first in this or any land – and it is my privilege to salute you, and above all, the prizewinners tonight.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Consultants

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

    The Prime Minister: There has been no expenditure by my Office on external consultants, including management consultants, since 1987.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

    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 this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

     

    Permanent Secretaries

    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the pay of permanent secretaries.

    The Prime Minister: The Government announced in Cm. 2748 presented to Parliament on 26 January that they intended to introduce new arrangements for the pay of Permanent Secretaries from 1 April, and that they would make a further announcement in conjunction with its response to the report of the senior salaries review body. The Government have now considered the recommendations of the review body.

    As foreshadowed in the Command Paper, a remuneration committee will be established to advise Ministers on where individual permanent secretaries should be placed within the pay range. The full terms of reference are given.

    The final decisions on the pay of individual permanent secretaries will be for the Government, who expect normally to accept the recommendations of the committee.

    There will be five members of the committee–three members of the review body, the head of the civil service and the head of the Treasury. The chairman of the review body will normally chair the committee.

    The three external members will, sitting alone, make recommendations to the Government on the salaries of the Heads of the civil service, the Treasury and the diplomatic service.

    Sir Michael Perry, who will succeed Lord Nickson as chairman of the review body in April, has agreed to chair the committee. Mr. Gordon Hourston and Ms Yve Newbold, both members of the review body, have agreed to serve on it. I am grateful to all of them for undertaking this important additional task.

    The review body proposed a pay range of £90,000-£150,000. The Government accept this recommendation. The salaries of individual posts will be published in £5,000 bands once each year in the following annual report of the review body. Parallel arrangements will be made for the most senior ambassadors.

    Terms of Reference of the Remuneration Committee

    Membership

    1. There shall be a committee on the pay of Permanent Secretaries of whom the members will be:

    3 members of the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB); the Heads of the Home Civil Service and Treasury.

    1. The chairman of the committee will be one of the members, normally the Chairman, of the SSRB.

    Remit: Permanent Secretaries other than the Heads of the Home Civil Service, the Diplomatic Service and the Treasury

    1. The purpose of the committee is for the three SSRB members to make proposals to Ministers on the pay of individual Permanent Secretaries save insofar as their pay is determined by the terms of an individual appointment.
    2. The pay of Permanent Secretaries will be accommodated within the pay range to be determined from time to time by the Government. The committee may not propose other forms of remuneration or benefit than pay falling within this range.
    3. In making proposals the committee shall take the following factors into account in relation to individuals:

    the relative level of responsibility of the post occupied; the performance of the Department in executing the policy of Ministers and the personal contribution the individual has made in terms of policy advice and efficient management, including where appropriate meeting the measured objectives of the Department; the experience of the individual in the present post or in others occupied at Permanent Secretary/Head of Department Level;

    in the case of those newly promoted, the level of pay in their previous post;

    any views which the Minister, to whom the Permanent Secretary is principally responsible, may wish to offer to the committee; the individual’s own assessment of his/her achievements and the main requirements of the job.

    1. The committee should also take into account these wider factors:

    the pay levels of other staff in the Senior Civil Service, and in particular those immediately below Permanent Secretary;

    the increases recently given to, or likely to be given, in the period ahead, to civil servants generally, and the pay progression available to them;

    the extent of the change for any individual as well as the absolute level of pay, and the presentation of both;

    any movement in the pay range as a whole;

    the nature and terms of the Civil Service pension scheme; any statements made by the Government on public sector pay; the maintenance of the confidence of the individual, that recommendations have been properly and fairly determined;

    the need to ensure recommendations are consistent with the Government’s equal opportunities policy.

    Remit : Pay of Civil Service members of the Remuneration Committee and Head of the Diplomatic Service

    1. The SSRB members of the committee will, sitting alone, make proposals to Ministers on the pay of the Heads of the Home Civil Service, of the Diplomatic Service and of the Treasury. For this purpose they will take account of all the factors noted in paragraphs 4 6 above as relevant to the pay of Permanent Secretaries.

     

    Review Bodies

    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the review body reports.

    The Prime Minister: The 1995 reports of the review bodies on the pay of schoolteachers, senior civil servants, the senior military, the judiciary, the armed forces, doctors and dentists, nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and the professions allied to medicine have now been published. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. The Government are grateful to the members of the review bodies for the time and care which they have put into the preparation of the reports.

    The Government’s policy is that increases in pay must be fully met from existing budgets. Pay increases for public sector staff therefore have to be paid for by greater efficiency or by other economies. This position was reaffirmed in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement on public sector pay on 14 September 1994, and in the Government’s evidence to the review bodies. It is fundamental to the Government’s response to their recommendations.

    The review bodies have made the following recommendations: The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has recommended a range of increases in daily rates of between 2.5 and 2.9 per cent., averaging 2.6 per cent. for the various ranks in its remit group.

    The Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine has recommended a 1.0 per cent. increase in national salary rates to be supplemented by local negotiations on pay and, where appropriate, leads and allowances and/or conditions. The Review Body has said it expects that, in the majority of cases, the outcome of local negotiations would provide improvements for the staff concerned totalling between 1.5 and 3 per cent., including 1 per cent. increase in national rates.

    The Doctors and Dentists Review Body has recommended pay increases of 2.5 per cent. generally for members of its remit group, and 3 per cent. in the intended average net remuneration of general medical practitioners. It has recommended that Trusts able to conclude local agreements with the profession should proceed accordingly. It also recommends an alternative system of transititional local pay for hospital consultants accepting a divergence from the nationally determined scale subject to a maximum increase of 5 per cent. in consultants’ average salary in each Trust.

    The School Teachers’ Review Body has recommended a 2.7 per cent. increase in teachers’ pay.

    The Senior Salaries Review Body has recommended:

    (i) an increase of 2.5 per cent. in the budget for performance related pay for civil servants in Grades 2 and 3 and increases in the relevant pay ranges.

    (ii) a new pay range for Permanent Secretaries to replace the existing system of spot rates with pay decisions to be made on the basis of advice from a new remuneration committee.

    (iii) a range of increases between 2.5 and 3.8 per cent., averaging 3.2 per cent., in the pay of senior armed forces officers. (iv) a 2.5 per cent. increase in the pay of the judiciary. The Government have taken their decisions on these recommendations on the basis of our approach to public sector pay. We accept the recommendations and propose to implement them from the due date of 1 April. The costs will be met from the public expenditure totals published at Budget time. There will be no new money to finance these pay increases, and for the third year running there will be no call on the reserve.

    The Government in particular welcome and support the recommendations of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine for the development of local pay determination for members of its remit groups. Negotiations with the staff sides at national level need to be concluded quickly to facilitate additional local payments. The Doctors’ and Dentists’ Review Body has reaffirmed its support for moves towards local pay determination and negotiations are being held with the professions on changes to the distinction awards scheme for consultants which should lead to much greater local involvement. The review body had advocated brisk progress and both sides expect these negotiations to be concluded in the next few months.

    I am making a separate announcement on the arrangements for determining the pay of individual permanent secretaries.

    Summary of Main Pay Recommendations

    |Main pay

    |increases |Paybill cost <1>

    |per cent. |£ million |Per cent.

    ————————————————————————————————

    DDRB (Doctors and Dentists) |<2>2.5-3.0 |144 |2.9

    NPRB (Nurses and Allied Professions)

    Nurses and Midwives |1.5-<3>3.0 |117-234 |1.5-3.0

    PAMs |1.5-<3>3.0 |15-31 |1.5-3.0

    All NAPRB groups |1.5-<3>3.0 |132-265 |1.5-3.0

    SSRB (Senior Civil Service, Military and Judiciary)

    CS Grades 2-3 |<4>- |1.2 |2.5

    Senior Military |2.5-3.8 |0.4 |3.2

    Judiciary |2.5 |3.9 |2.8

    All SSRB groups |5.5 |2.7

    AFPRB (Armed Forces |2.5-2.9 |140 |2.6

    STRB (School Teachers) |2.7 |294 |2.7

    Notes:

    (1) Pay bill costings include employers’ national insurance and superannuation payments.

    (2) Plus up to 2.5 per cent. on average salaries for consultants under transitional local pay arrangements

    (3) Comprising 1 per cent. on national pay scales and the NPRB estimate of additional amounts likely to result from local pay negotiations.

    (4) No across-the board increases 2.5 per cent. to be paid through the performance pay budget.

    (5) Increase on daily rates.

  • PMQT – 9 February 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

    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 have further meetings later today.

    Mrs. Roche: Given the news that Eastern Electricity has made millions of pounds by billing its customers up to three weeks early, that seven of its directors now have share options of £3 million, and that the salary of its chairman has more than doubled since privatisation, is not it about time that the Prime Minister intervened, or will he just let them get away with daylight robbery?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what has been said about the undesirability of early billing, and no one should have the slightest shred of doubt that I do not approve of that particular mechanism. I understand that the company has indicated that it will not occur again, and I am delighted that that is the case. We have debated extravagant awards in the House on previous occasions. I have made it clear that that is a question for peer pressure in the private sector. I look forward to the recommendations of the Greenbury committee and to examining them, but it is best dealt with in that manner.

    Mr. King: Does my right hon. Friend recall the attack on Tuesday by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about being forced to sack teachers? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Gentleman is, at this moment, supporting the Liberal Democrat leadership in Somerset, which is insisting on sacking teachers, even though Conservative councillors have put forward proposals so that those jobs need not be lost, and for ways in which the education in the county can be protected? Is not that symptomatic of the Liberal Democrat party, which is more interested in scoring political points than in genuinely seeing how the education of children can be protected?

    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the point about the Liberal Democrat council to which my right hon. Friend refers, and, frankly, I wish that I had been aware of that when the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked his question on Tuesday. It is important that, in the question of priorities in all local authority budgets, and particularly in education budgets, education authorities look carefully at the right education priorities for the children in our schools. That may well apply to Somerset county council, to which my right hon. Friend refers. It applies equally to many other education authorities.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister accept it as a responsibility of Government to reduce inequality?

    The Prime Minister: Yes.

    Mr. Blair: Then, if the right hon. Gentleman accepts that– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: If he accepts that, is not it a matter of shame that Britain is today more unequal than at any point in time since the second world war?

    The Prime Minister: If people were relatively less well off, then I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The primary concern of all Governments must be to ensure that those people who are most vulnerable and those who are most in need are not ignored by the legislation of the day and that special care is taken to look at their particular interests. If the right hon. Gentleman examines the record, he will find that that is what we have continually done. It is the right way to proceed and it is the way in which people develop policies, not just through the social security system, but right the way through the whole gamut of Government responsibilities. That is persistently what we have done and will do.

    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman has not contradicted the fact that inequality is greater than at any point in time since the second world war. Now, if the Prime Minister wants a fact, let me give him one. Is not the most telling fact of this week that, at the same time as the Government are doing nothing about the head of a privatised utility awarding himself 70 times as much as a teacher and 100 times as much as a nurse, the Cabinet has today devised a strategy that may see teachers sacked and classroom sizes rising? Is not it the case that, far from reducing inequality or creating a nation at ease with itself, after 16 years the Government have created a Britain that is divided, inefficient and unjust?

    The Prime Minister: That is an extremely good soundbite, but it is not true. There are two ways in which one can deal with the sort of people about whom the right hon. Gentleman and I are concerned. One is by ensuring that their chances and opportunities are greater so inequality falls; that is the right way and that is what the Government are doing. The other way is to try to restrain success and that is what the right hon. Gentleman strives to do; that is the wrong way. What must concern people is that action is taken to improve the opportunities and living standards of the people who face the greatest difficulties. That is consistently what we have done and I believe that, in respect of that, we deserve not the kind of carping comments that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, but his support and that of every other Member of the House.

    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend accept that thousands of women agree with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London? When they travel on public transport and happen to sit beside a drunk, someone high on drugs, or young thugs, they feel intimidated. They feel much safer in their motor cars and they will not give up those cars purely as a gesture of environmental tokenism.

    The Prime Minister: I believe that the need to ensure that everyone, whether a lady or anyone who is vulnerable, can travel on public transport or on the streets with proper protection, is a point that everyone will readily understand. The point made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London yesterday, which was widely misinterpreted by some, was that motorists’ attitudes need to be changed and few will disagree with that.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Campbell: The Prime Minister will be aware that Trafalgar House is making a bid to take over Northern Electric plc. Is he also aware that if that bid takes place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury stand to lose £223 million–the equivalent of £8 in every taxpayer’s pocket? Will the Prime Minister assure me that he will stop that merger and stop ripping off the taxpayer?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that I am not remotely likely to respond to something of that sort happening in the private sector. I am not likely to respond to it now, but if he wishes to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, he should contact him.

    Mr. Tracey: Has my right hon. Friend caught sight of the letter in today’s edition of The Times , signed by 17 of Britain’s senior business men, in which they say that their firms would see no discernible benefits from a single European currency? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that gives great force to the policies of Her Majesty’s Government–now and in the foreseeable future?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I have taken the view that we ought not to contemplate a single currency until and unless we are convinced that that would be right for the country. That is the only basis on which we can make that judgement. We need to know the circumstances of the day and they cannot possibly be known now. What is in the interest of this country must be paramount.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Michie: Following the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Prime Minister’s reply, how can the Prime Minister reconcile supporting a financial policy which is depriving our children of a good education, taking away remedial help and cramming children into overcrowded classrooms, with waving the flag in Europe and saying that he is defending the future of this country? The future of this country is with our children.

    The Prime Minister: I cannot imagine anyone possibly disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman about that. Of course, that is the reason why funding for education has dramatically increased over the years; it is the reason why more of our children are getting O and A-levels than ever before; it is the reason why one in three of our children now go on to further and higher education, rather than one in eight when the Labour party was in power; it is the reason why we have introduced new vocational qualifications; it is the reason why we are extending nursery education; it is the reason why I abolished the binary divide. If the hon. Gentleman looks, he will see the greatest revolution for good in education in the past five years that we have known for generations.

     

    Q4. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that to govern effectively in the long-term, the Prime Minister and the Government of the day must understand and reflect the concerns of the people of the country? Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), is not my right hon. Friend increasingly encouraged by the fact that his robust and realistic stand on a single currency and his opposition to any further political integration in Europe is increasingly supported by the people–in business and elsewhere–of this country?

    The Prime Minister: There comes a moment when consensus becomes unanimity.

    Mr. Soley: Why does the Prime Minister think that a free market operating between countries that has got rid of all our trade barriers will not inevitably lead to a single currency?

    The Prime Minister: I see no reason to suppose that it should. [Interruption.] We have had free markets in many parts of the world for a very large number of years. I see no evidence that a single currency is inevitable as a result of that, nor do I share the view of the hon. Gentleman, which he clearly holds as it becomes more apparent that the Labour party is already wedded to a single currency, whatever the economic circumstances may be. That is the only implication which can possibly be drawn from the hon. Gentleman’s question. I simply have to say to him that I disagree with him.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the all-party Eurim group’s report on wealth creation through technology? Will he lend his name– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must calm down. This is using up our precious time.

    Mr. Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend read the all-party Eurim group– [Interruption.] –of which many hon. Members are members– [Interruption.] –they might not know it, but they are–report on wealth creation through technology? Will he lend his name, as Al Gore and Jacques Delors have, to promoting information superhighway technology projects such as SuperJANET, the cable network and Internet, and make sure that the Government become a major customer of those technologies?

    The Prime Minister: The direct answer to my hon. Friend is no, I have not read it, but I have to say that it sounds irresistible. I will make it an early priority over this weekend to read it and discover the information contained therein about superJANET and other aspects of broad- band networks.

    Madam Speaker: An excellent question on which to end.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Union

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what consultations have taken place on the European content on the draft framework document on Northern Ireland with (a) heads of Government in the EU other than the Taoiseach, (b) ministerial councils of EU states other than the Irish Republic, (c) the President of the EU and (d) individual commissioners of the EU.

    The Prime Minister: None.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that so long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland interests will continue to be represented in the European Union’s various ministerial Councils exclusively by Ministers answerable to the Parliament at Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Under article 146 of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the treaty on European Union, member states’ representatives on the Council must be authorised to commit the Government of that member state. United Kingdom Ministers are answerable to the Parliament of Westminster, and will continue to represent the United Kingdom.

     

    Ian Greer

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Chequers

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of the meeting held at Chequers on 13 January to review British foreign policy; and what are the rules determining which expenditures at Chequers shall be met from public funds.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer Tuesday 7 February]: It is not my usual practice to give the costs of individual meetings or receptions.

    Expenses incurred by Ministers and officials meeting at Chequers in the course of official duty are met by the Cabinet Office.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 February 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th February 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

     

    Constitutional Change

    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister what constitutional change he proposes should take place in the United Kingdom before the end of the century.

    The Prime Minister: Any proposals for constitutional change will be put before Parliament when it is appropriate to do so.

     

    Staff Inquiry

    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister between what dates Ms Baxendale served on the Scott inquiry team; and if he will list the members and grades and originating departments of the current team.

    The Prime Minister: Miss Presiley Baxendale QC has worked on Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry from 18 January 1993 to 31 March 1994 inclusive, and from 2 May 1994 to 13 May 1994 inclusive and thereafter from time to time as the need arises.

    The current members of the inquiry team are:

    |Department

    ————————————————————————————————

    Christopher Muttukumaru |Treasury Solicitor’s Department (Grade 5)

    David Price (Grade 5) |Department of Trade and | Industry

    Peter Edwards (Legal Officer) |Inland Revenue Solicitor’s | Office

    Karen Wiseman (Grade 7 |Crown Prosecution Service (Legal))

    Catherine Southern (Grade 7 |Crown Prosecution Service (Legal))

    Christopher Stone (HEO) |Department of Trade and | Industry

    Mufassir Mohammed (EO) |Department of the Environment

    Sonia Octave (AO) |Home Office

    Joanne Bishop (AA) |Home Office

    Velma Bernard (Personal |Department of Trade and Secretary) | Industry

    Wendy Moore (Personal |Department of Trade and Secretary) | Industry

     

    Downing Street Policy Unit

    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister from what sources the head of the Downing Street policy unit is paid; and if he will make a statement on the division of his role in relation to official and party matters.

    The Prime Minister: The head of the Downing street policy unit is paid from the Cabinet Office other services vote as a special adviser. Like other special advisers, and like his predecessors under this and previous Administrations, he assists me with work which is partly governmental and partly political.

     

    Coastal Protection

    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Prime Minister what funds are available other than funds available through the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the current financial year for coastal protection and repair.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the replies given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Official Report, column 85, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Official Report, column 12 .

     

    Deception Island

    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister what plans exist to clean up the site of the former British whaling station on Deception island.

    Mr. David Hunt: I have been asked to reply.

    Further work on the clean up of the former British station on Deception island is planned for 1996 97, subject to the allocation of funds and the co-operation of the other Antarctic treaty partners involved.

     

    Pay Rises (Utilities)

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to establish a committee to examine utility directors’ and chairmen’s pay rises, pension contributions and share options.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 February 1995]: No. As I have previously made clear, private sector salaries and other remuneration are a matter for companies and their shareholders to decide, not the Government. We welcome the establishment of Sir Richard Greenbury’s group, which will prepare a code of good practice on directors’ pay and conditions, and the recent contribution made by the Institute of Directors.

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the severance payments made to special advisers in each of the last five years indicating (a) the amount and (b) the date.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 February 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, Official Report, column 69.