The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Animal Welfare

  • PMQT – 24 January 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

    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. Flynn: Was not top Tory John Maples right when he said that Tory Britain means the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor? Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor that the orgy of unashamed greed of top salaries is justified? How does the Prime Minister explain that the wage of one boss of a privatised industry is worth the same amount of money as that received by 20 doctors or 100 nurses?

    The Prime Minister: I have set out my views on board pay before and have made it clear that I do not agree with excessive and unjustified increases. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would agree. If he feels that the matter has been badly handled, he might discuss it with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who declares an interest in a company that advises British Gas and North West Water.

    Mr. Rathbone: When my right hon. Friend is making plans for the Tory manifesto for a Conservative victory at the next general election, will he pay particular attention to policies that touch on and support the encouragement of the family?

    The Prime Minister: Yes. I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend’s suggestion. We are embarking on perhaps the widest examination of the policies that will be right, up to the next century and beyond it, that any party has undertaken for many years. I look forward to contributions from my hon. Friend and many others.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister says that excessive pay awards are a matter for shareholders, and as the Government are the 40 per cent. shareholder in National Power and PowerGen, why will he not intervene?

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear from the outset that, having put the company in private hands, we are not going to retain control over detailed decisions within the company. Recently, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have been speaking about something that sounds much like the beginning of a pay policy.

    Ms Church: Yes.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady says yes. I am pleased to hear that she says yes. The right hon. Gentleman had better decide whether the new Labour believes in the free market or in controls and the politics of envy. The truth is that the language is new, but the prejudices are familiar.

    Mr. Blair: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what we believe in: public services run for the public and in the public interest. We can see whom the Tories represent. While they represent these excesses, the Labour party will speak up for the vast majority of ordinary people. People struggling to pay their bills and worried about their living standards are fed up with the same small group of people playing the boardroom equivalent of the national lottery and awarding themselves huge pay increases, hitting the jackpot week after week at the expense of the public.

    The Prime Minister: Well, now we see it: the right hon. Gentleman is becoming a slave to grievance politics. I shall tell him who is concerned about public services–the people who put the services that did not serve the public well in private hands. The result is that prices are falling, investment is rising and consumers are getting better service now, in the private sector, than before. The Labour party’s campaign shows just how unreconstructed and envious the Opposition still are. The right hon. Gentleman makes no reference to the improvements in services. All he is doing is milking prejudice and exposing the fact that the Labour party has not changed.

    Mr. Robert Banks: Has my right hon. Friend seen today’s most welcome reports confirming that the Samsung Heavy Industries Company from South Korea is to establish a manufacturing plant near Knaresborough in my constituency, ultimately providing up to 600 jobs? Does he agree that the United Kingdom beat off competition from eight European countries because our Government have managed the economy so well? We have an excellent infrastructure; more importantly, we have a brilliant work force in Yorkshire.

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that Samsung has decided to invest in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am only sorry that we did not hear the same sort of support for inward investment when NEC went to Livingston and Black and Decker went to Sedgefield. The fact is that more inward investment is coming to this country than to any other in Europe because of the policies that we have followed, and because we will not accept the social chapter. People can see that the economy of this country is doing better than any other major economy in Europe. That means jobs for people in this country–jobs that would be lost by the policies followed by the Labour party.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the life sentence handed out to Private Lee Clegg, although required by the law, is nevertheless shamefully inappropriate, and that this is the moment for him to be released under licence, and the law changed?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not for Ministers to comment on the actions of the court.

    There are two points that I can make to the right hon. Gentleman about Private Clegg. The first is that there have been suggestions in recent days of fresh evidence that might cast doubt on Private Clegg’s conviction. If so, that evidence should be provided to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He will then consider it and decide whether it is sufficient to refer to the Court of Appeal.

    Secondly, after the recent decision, the question arises what should happen to Private Clegg now that his conviction has been upheld by the court. As the House will know, as for all life sentence prisoners there is a process to be gone through before a release date can be set. It will include consultations with the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and it will take into account the nature of the offence. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that that process is undertaken both effectively and with due care.

    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend remember that when the Government banned veal crates and introduced the strictest regulations governing the transport of animals, and when they recently introduced welfare regulations covering the rearing of pigs, they did so hoping that Europe would soon follow? Will he persist in that policy?

    The Prime Minister: We certainly will persist in that policy. We need a European-wide level of legislation if we are truly interested in animal welfare. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pressed that issue in Brussels yesterday. He secured agreement yesterday to advance the review of European Union requirements, which was scheduled for 1997, and found that there was considerable sympathy for the aim of phasing out the veal crate. I believe that the writing is on the wall for that production system, and there is no one in Europe who can take more credit for that than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

     

    Q2. Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

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

    Mr. Battle: As the Prime Minister and his Government hold the golden shares in the privatised water companies, why is he allowing Yorkshire Water to force people to have compulsory, expensive water metering, so that families, pensioners and the disabled pay the highest price for their water while Sir Gordon Jones and his directors hoard thousands of shares to themselves and skim off some £829,000 in boardroom remuneration?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my first answer, he would have known the answer about the golden share. What the hon. Gentleman illustrates, yet again, is that, whenever they can, the Opposition wish decisions to be taken by Labour Members of Parliament. They are in no sense interested in the private sector. They are not interested in putting decisions out to the private sector. [Hon. Members:– “Sleaze.”] Whatever they may say, they want centralisation and nothing but. [Hon. Members:– “Sleaze.”] Those Opposition Members who are chanting may well be directing their chants to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), but they need not chant at me.

     

    Prime Ministerial Visits

    Q3. Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited the Ruislip-Northwood Parliamentary constituency.

    The Prime Minister: I have not had the opportunity to do so.

    Mr. Wilkinson: Had my right hon. Friend been able to visit the Ruislip-Northwood constituency since 28 November 1994, he would have found strong support from local people, backed by their local Member of Parliament, for the view that RAF Northolt, which is frequently used by Her Majesty’s Ministers, should develop its services to the armed forces to the full. It welcomes the forthcoming arrival of the Queen’s flight, but local residents would not approve of any extension of civil movements to RAF Northolt beyond those already permitted.

    The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on one of the most effective pieces of coat-trailing that we have heard in the House for some time. I understand the points that he made and will draw them to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

     

    Taxation

    Q4. Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister what was the tax burden on an average income family in 1991; and what is the estimated burden on a similar family in 1995.

    The Prime Minister: The answer would depend on a number of factors, such as family size and expenditure pattern, which the hon. Gentleman does not specify, but I can tell him that real take-home pay after tax and inflation has risen by 4 per cent.–about £11 a week in today’s prices –since 1991 for a one-earner family on average earnings and is expected to rise further next year.

    Mr. Cohen: Despite the Prime Minister’s manifesto assertion, “I believe in low taxes,” since the previous general election an average family must pay an extra £15.50 a week in tax. Will he give the reason for that whacking increase, especially as public services have deteriorated or been privatised? Surely the Prime Minister should be referred to the Nolan committee for bringing manifesto commitments into disrepute.

    The Prime Minister: Were that to be so, after that question the hon. Gentleman would have to join me, for he will know that the Labour party proposes to introduce–in addition to existing taxes–a windfall tax, a payroll tax, a health tax, an entertainment tax and a development tax. That is on top of the intricate piece of accountancy by the Liberal Democrats, on which I congratulate them, which suggests that Labour party plans would already add 5p to the standard rate of income tax. While we head for 20p, the Labour party heads for 30p.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Legg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

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

    Mr. Legg: Will my right hon. Friend please assure those of my constituents whose children are at grammar and independent schools that he has no plans to abolish the assisted places scheme or charitable status, or to stop selection? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the Opposition wish to abolish such schools, many of their spokesmen have benefited from them?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. A large number of what I believe are called, in current Labour terminology, “sensible” parents have evacuated their children from Labour-controlled education authorities and sent them elsewhere, including the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms Harman), for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Barking (Ms Hodge).

    Mr. MacShane: Cheap.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is cheap, but that is what they have done.

     

    Indonesia

    Q6. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Indonesia.

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

    Mr. Corbyn: As the Prime Minister has no plans to visit Indonesia, will he convey to the Indonesian Government the British people’s abhorrence of the illegal occupation of East Timor and the death of 200,000 East Timorese people at the hands of the Indonesian army? Will the right hon. Gentleman halt all British arms sales to Indonesia, which have been used to suppress and oppress the people there, and specifically ban the export of the Scorpion personnel carrier which can be used to kill and injure people in East Timor in order to maintain that illegal occupation?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have not recognised the Indonesian annexation of East Timor. That has been our position for a long time and we continue to support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to find a lasting solution to the problem. However, there is neither a European Union nor a United Nations embargo on arms sales to Indonesia; nor do I believe that one would be justified.

  • PMQT – 25 November 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th November 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 November.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Anglo-German summit in Cologne.

    Dr. Wright : What will the Lord President say to the 500 miners and their families at Littleton colliery in South Staffordshire? They were told a few months ago that Littleton was a core pit, and that was confirmed in the coal review, yet now they have been told that their pit is to close in a fortnight’s time. When the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who cannot be here today, and I saw the chairman of British Coal this morning, he told us that Government action was the direct cause of the closure, and that only urgent Government action could stop it.

    Today, when the whole nation is in anguish following the events in Liverpool, I ask the Lord President : should not the Government do all that they can to strengthen families and communities, rather than destroying them?

    Mr. Newton : The whole House knows that the Government have put about £20 billion into helping the coal industry since we came to power and that we have offered additional assistance to help the industry to sell coal at world prices, but that, at the end of the day, we cannot insulate any industry in this country from the fact that people do not want to buy as much as is being produced.

     

    Q2. Mr. Sumberg : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 November.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Sumberg : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend drastically to reduce the number of police cautions given to young offenders? People in my constituency are outraged at the fact that such people get away with it, and they demand a return to basics– [Interruption.] –to the basic principle of making the punishment fit the crime.

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend certainly may remind me of that fact, and I, in turn, remind him what the Home Secretary said a few days ago. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he believes that there is too much cautioning, and that too many young people have come to believe that they are virtually entitled to commit a crime and to receive nothing but a caution until something else happens. My right hon. and learned Friend believes that cautioning should be reduced, and his new guidance will reduce it.

    Mrs. Beckett : Returning to basics, does the Lord President agree with the Prime Minister that the national insurance Bill will mean that most wage earners will pay £3 to £4 more per week, and that the total effect of increases in value added tax and national insurance and of cuts in mortgage interest relief and tax allowances will be that a typical family will pay £8.50 more per week in tax from April?

    Mr. Newton : I should find a greater degree of credibility in the right hon. Lady if on this occasion–as on the previous occasion on which she and I had one of these exchanges–she showed the slightest understanding that increased funding of the national insurance fund is needed to ensure that we can continue to maintain our obligations to pensioners. As the right hon. Lady was for some years a senior Front-Bench spokesman on social security, I find it surprising that she does not understand that. Perhaps she needs to go back to basics.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is the Lord President saying that he does not support what the Prime Minister said last Tuesday?

    Mr. Newton : I am saying that the Government are taking–as they announced in the last Budget–and will continue to take in the forthcoming Budget responsible action to ensure the future of this country’s economy so that we can maintain our promises to Britain’s pensioners.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does the Lord President remember that the last Budget was the biggest tax hike in British history, and put the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) narrowly ahead of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Howe, in the league table for increasing taxes? Would it not have been responsible of the Government to tell the British people that before the last election?

    Mr. Newton : What I remember about the last Budget was the Leader of the Opposition telling us that the judgment made in November would be whether the March Budget had brought down unemployment. He said : “If Conservative Members want that to be a test, we shall make it a test for the Government.”–[ Official Report, 16 March 1993 ; Vol. 221, c. 199.]

    The Government have passed that test, have they not?

    Mr. Heald : Can my right hon. Friend tell the House when Britain last had low inflation, low interest rates, falling unemployment and rising output? Does he agree that that is good news for Britain and for north Hertfordshire–and that good news is something which Opposition Members would not recognise if it jumped up and bopped them in the face?

    Mr. Newton : As I indicated in my previous reply to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), no doubt we shall soon have the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) trying to pretend that the test that he put to the Government earlier this year was not what he meant at all. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have the lowest inflation for a quarter of a century and the lowest interest rates for more than 15 years. At a time when unemployment in this country is 10.2 per cent. and falling, in the rest of Europe it is an average of 10.6 per cent. and rising.

     

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

    Mr. Newton : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Trimble : Recalling that we entered the talks process last year with the objective of replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement and thus reducing Dublin’s role in our affairs, does the Leader of the House agree with recent editorials in The Times that the problem of disenchantment and militarisation of the Unionist community cannot be ended by the very diplomatic structures that created the problem? Does he agree that the only course that would command widespread acceptance in Northern Ireland would be to govern it fairly as part of the United Kingdom?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman asked his question, as he always does, with genuine sincerity–and I hope that I will reply with equal responsibility by repeating what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister only last week :

    “Nor will we compromise on the vital principle that there can be no change in Northern Ireland’s status without the freely expressed consent of its people. It is for the people of Northern Ireland”– including the hon. Gentleman–

    “freely and democratically to determine their own constitutional future.”– [ Official Report, 18 November 1993 ; Vol. 233, c. 28.]

    Mr. Butterfill : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the pound has risen on foreign exchanges at a time when we have reduced British interest rates to the lowest in Europe is a tribute to the management of the economy and, in particular, to the reductions that we have made in inflation? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that only by continuing to reduce inflation will we be able to reduce interest rates further, to the benefit of industry and of the British economy as a whole?

    Mr. Newton : The short answer to that question is yes. As a result of our success, which I outlined earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has felt it possible to make a further reduction in interest rates. That is the background to the Budget and to the continuing policies that the Government will pursue to bear down on inflation and make further progress possible.

     

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hanson : Does the Leader of the House think that it is fair for the Government to have broken their election promises by raising national insurance contributions and VAT at the same time as refusing to raise taxes for those such as the chairman of Direct Line Insurance who paid himself £18 million this year?

    Mr. Newton : I have already dealt with the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. He will well know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has frequently expressed the view that those responsible for determining rewards in the private sector should set a proper example to those in that sector. It is a matter for them to determine. I hope that the hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged the unusual background to this. Direct Line was started from scratch in 1985. It now employs 2,000 people, 900 of them taken on in the past year. It has 1.25 million customers and is growing at the rate of 25,000 customers a week. As a company, it has done a good job for consumers.

    Sir Teddy Taylor : What is the purpose of the Anglo-German summit that the Prime Minister is attending today?

    Mr. Newton : The purpose of the Anglo-German summit is to continue and develop co-operation between the two Governments on a wide variety of matters of great importance to everyone in Europe and in the House, including the advancement of the GATT negotiations.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert Ainsworth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 November.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Ainsworth : Has the Leader of the House had time to see the report of the Public Accounts Committee into what it calls a catalogue of mismanagement at the West Midlands regional health authority? What will the Government do about the culpable individuals and what do they intend to do to restore the accountability of public officials to the communities whose moneys they spend?

    Mr. Newton : I am aware of the report and I hope that I need hardly assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will consider it with great care. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that a great deal has already been done, nationally and in the west midlands, to address the problems raised by the report. The health authority already has a new chairman, a new chief executive, new senior managers and new non-executive members. None of the individuals criticised by the report is still with the authority.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : May I invite my right hon. Friend to turn his mind to the issue of animal welfare in Europe? Will he tell the House whether the European Commission reports about relaxing the European ban on the import of seal pelts and other seal products are true? Will he try to ensure that we do nothing to relax the battle against unnecessary suffering of animals in this country and the rest of Europe?

    Mr. Newton : I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the Government, who have taken a leading part in Europe in encouraging greater concern for animal welfare, will continue to ensure that those interests are properly represented in European discussions.

     

    Q6. Mr. Gerrard : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 November.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Gerrard : Did the right hon. Gentleman see the report in Monday’s Daily Express that the Prime Minister is determined to provide nursery education for every three and four-year-old and recognises the value of such education in preventing juvenile crime and delinquency? Will he convey to the Prime Minister the fact that, assuming that the report is true, it represents a welcome change in Government policy? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Education knows about it, because it seems that he knew nothing about it on Tuesday? How much extra money will there be next year for new nursery schools?

    Mr. Newton : I did, indeed, see the report. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in recent years there has been a substantial increase in the amount of provision of various kinds, both private and other, for children at school age. I also know that a crucial ingredient in countering the sort of argument that the hon. Gentleman seeks to advance is the fact that children start full-time school in this country earlier than in almost any other country in Europe.

    Mr. Allason : Following the conviction of Michael Smith last week, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time the Security Service took full responsibility for all aspects of positive vetting? Is he ready to tell the House whether a decision has been taken by the Government to pass this case to the Security Commission?

    Mr. Newton : I would not wish to comment on the specific case, but my hon. Friend will know that in the past two days the Government have put before Parliament the Intelligence Services Bill, which it is envisaged will increase the openness, transparency and accountability of the services to which he refers.