The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Agriculture

  • PMQT – 7 May 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 25 April 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Agriculture Spending

    Q1. Mr. Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the discussions of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on the level of agriculture spending in 1991.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : The Agriculture Council is currently considering proposals to keep spending on the common agricultural policy in 1991 within the agricultural guidelines. I hope that the issue will be resolved before the meeting of the European Council.

    Mr. Taylor : Does the Prime Minister accept that, despite the brave battle that is being fought alone by Britain and Holland to maintain the legal limits that his predecessor fought hard to achieve, Brussels will inevitably find some device or accountancy fiddle to break through, as has happened before? As the agricultural policy is causing damage to taxpayers, consumers, the third world and, now, to farmers, and as we are suffering from an uncontrollable protection racket which is riddled with graft, will my right hon. Friend consider suggesting to Brussels that it would strengthen the Economic Community and everyone else if agriculture were repatriated to individual member states?

    The Prime Minister : I confirm to my hon. Friend that we shall continue to insist that the guidelines are respected. I am not sure that it would be in the interests of the United Kingdom to see the break-up and repatriation of the common agricultural policy. The danger I foresee is that separate national agricultural policies would lead to increased protectionism and considerable distortions of trade. I believe that our interest is best served in this area by common policies and by seeking to improve them. In essence, we need to win the match in Brussels, and that we shall seek to do.

    Mr. Cryer : It is outrageous that the British Government are allowing to continue a common agricultural policy that is costing every family in this country £16 a week as part of the policy of the Conservatives, who have handed over in 10 years more than £40 billion to the Common Market. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is time that the food mountains were made available to the starving nations of Africa and to help the Kurds? Instead of that, the CAP ensures that food is bought on the open market. Stocks continue to soar and the Prime Minister is doing nothing about it.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been in the forefront of the battle in the Community to impose guidelines and to prevent unnecessary agricultural production. The answer to his second point about food mountains being used to assist people in need is that I agree that whenever that can be done, it should be done.

    Mr. Colin Shepherd : In his consideration of United Kingdom agriculture within the context of the European Community, will my right hon. Friend continue to bear it in mind the remarkable contribution that has been made by agriculture to the rural economy? Will he also bear it in mind that farm incomes are now about half what they were two years ago and that the Samaritans have expressed grave concern about the increase in suicidal thought in the farming industry? Will he bear those points in mind at all stages because we must protect the foundation of our rural economy?

    The Prime Minister : I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to bear those matters in mind. He will know that some of the direct assistance that we have been able to give within the common agricultural policy has been aimed at areas like hill farming, where there are particular difficulties.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mrs. Irene Adams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.

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

    Hon. Members : No.

    Mr. Speaker : We had better have the answer.

    The Prime Minister : I made the mistake because of the tedious aspect of the regular questions that I am asked.

    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 will be having further meetings later today.

    Mrs. Adams : Has the Prime Minister seen the letter in today’s Evening Standard from the private secretary of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) which says that the Government’s new local tax is

    “not fair–grossly inequitable and hurtful”?

    The lady goes on to ask why she should pay more for a small, one-bedroomed flat on her own in one part of London than the entire family of the Secretary of State for the Environment will pay in his luscious home in the west end? What answer will the Prime Minister give to that lady?

    The Prime Minister : The answer that I will give to the lady is that she lives in one of the most expensive houses in London. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends need to make up their minds. They allege with one breath that the council tax will benefit the rich, who, they say, are Conservative voters, and with the next breath that it will hurt Conservative voters.

    Mr. Fry : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to examine the illustrative bills for the new council tax for those authorities where householders will pay substantially more than under the existing community charge for two people? Will he note, for example, that for the dearest house in Westminster, the tax will be less than for the cheapest house in Wellingborough? Whereas Westminster has benefited from large Government grants, Wellingborough has been penalised by loss of grants because it has traded profitably and passed the profits on to its charge payers. If I am to propose that the new tax is fair to my constituents will my right hon. Friend initiate an investigation without delay into Wellingborough’s position?

    The Prime Minister : If councils spend at the same standard spending assessment, they will pay the same in each band. That is the essential equity of the scheme that we have proposed. Over 70 per cent. of people will be gainers under the scheme that we have proposed. Where there are losers, there will be transitional protection and, for people on low incomes, the generous rebate scheme. That is by far the best deal that the ratepayer, the community charge payer, or in future the council taxpayer, has ever received.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister agree with the considered view of the Governor of the Bank of England, who recently testified that Britain’s deep and worsening recession is, in his words, “home grown”?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, for he has asked me that question on previous occasions, I do not accept the proposition that the recession is home grown. There are a variety of causes of the downturn in world trade here and elsewhere and we cannot be immune from all those.

    Mr. Kinnock : Did not the Prime Minister notice the comments of the Governor of the Bank of England on the subject of the recession’s origins? He said that, while Britain

    “is in recession, Japan and Germany undeniably are not and our other EC partners”–

    [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to quote the Governor of the Bank of England, who is not yet a member of the Labour party. He said that, although the economies in the remainder of the European Community have slowed down, they are not in recession.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that that view is borne out by the International Monetary Fund and that Britain’s condition is the direct result of the Prime Minister’s policies? Why will he not accept his responsibility or, better still, take action to reverse the recession that he has caused?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman had examined the matter more carefully, he would have seen that the United Kingdom is coming out of its economic difficulties, while other countries are still facing deepening difficulties. He might also have observed that we have been in a position, since joining the exchange rate mechanism, to make five cuts in interest rates–four in the past 10 weeks. At the same time, we have seen an appreciation, not a depreciation, in sterling.

    Mr. Kinnock : I wish that the Prime Minister’s optimism was well placed. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer testified to the Treasury Committee a few weeks ago, rather diffidently :

    “I think that there are cautious grounds for believing we, somewhere about the middle of this year, may begin to come out of recession”.

    The Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the International Monetary Fund and anyone else with eyes to see, and who is concerned about the condition of our economy, knows that the right hon. Gentleman has plunged Britain into deep recession. What will he do to combat the rises in unemployment and the depression of our economy?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman, who has policies for a minimum wage that will create another million unemployed, has nothing to say about that. With interest rates and inflation having fallen and being set to fall significantly further, and with a balance of trade gap narrowing, it is difficult even for the right hon. Gentleman to deny the improvements now coming about.

    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson : In the course of his busy day, might my right hon. Friend find a moment to visit the organ transplant exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall? If he does so, he will be told that there are 5,000 people awaiting transplants in this country and that current organ donation must double to meet that demand. In those circumstances, will it be possible to include an item on organ transplantation and the increase in the programme at the weekend meeting at Chequers that my right hon. Friend is having with health service managers?

    The Prime Minister : I hope that, at my weekend meeting in Chequers, I shall be able to discuss with health professionals a wide range of matters and I shall endeavour to include that subject among them.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mullin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.

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

    Mr. Mullin : Is the Prime Minister aware that last year, in a secret ballot supervised by the Electoral Reform Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the employees of the North of England building society voted by 257 to 81 to join the Banking Insurance and Finance Union? The response of the management was to embark upon a programme of intimidation designed to get employees to resign from that union. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is Government policy that employers as well as employees should be bound by the outcome of properly conducted secret ballots? Or am I being naive?

    The Prime Minister : I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being naive. The strict answer to the first part of his question is that I was not aware of that incident. However, if it is as he describes, I can confirm that both sides should be bound by the agreement.

     

    Q4. Mr. Arbuthnot : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.

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

    Mr. Arbuthnot : What would happen to the figures produced for the local council tax if we were to abolish capping and competitive tendering, and raise a higher proportion of local funding from local taxes–the policies of the Labour party? Would the figures, like those in the Labour party’s unfair rates proposals, go through the roof?

    The Prime Minister : There is absolutely no doubt about what would happen to council tax bills under Labour’s proposals–that is precisely why the figures that it has produced are wholly bogus.

     

    Refugees (Kuwait)

    Q5. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards receiving ecological refugees from Kuwait and surrounding countries into the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : All applications for entry to the United Kingdom are individually considered against the requirements of the immigration rules and in the light of compassionate considerations outside the rules.

    Mr. Dalyell : Are not thousands of Kuwaitis now taking residence in countries as far away from the photochemical smog and respiratory diseases as they can, and is not the root of the problem that, frankly, Kuwait is so paralysed that Kuwaitis cannot tackle the oil inferno? In those circumstances, would the Prime Minister consider the advice from the Saudi sources that I have named that, with the Americans and the Saudis, we should step in and tackle the oil fires, as we did with operation Desert Storm?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point that he wished to raise. I can assure him that the United Kingdom Government are treating the matter of the oil well fires in Kuwait very seriously. The United Kingdom industry, together with officials from both the Department of Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry, are examining how best to contribute to the resolution of the problems faced in Kuwait. A number of possibilities have been identified and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will tomorrow lead a delegation of key British industrialists to Kuwait to pursue the specific proposals that have already been put to the Kuwaiti Government.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Agricultural Tenancies – 5 February 1982

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Agricultural Tenancies, published on 5th February 1982.

    Mr. Major Asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the number of new agricultural tenancies currently being created; and if he has any proposals to increase new lettings.

    Mr. Peter Walker I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier to my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle).