The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Asil Nadir

  • PMQT – 5 July 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th July 1994. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Bayley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) rose

    Hon. Members : Where is he?

    Mr. Newton : Hang on, and I will tell the House. I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Edinburgh to greet the King and Queen of Norway at the start of their state visit. Here in Westminster we await the visit of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to discuss the Police and Magistrates’ Courts Bill.

    Mr. Bayley : What help will the Government give to the victims of a £30 million theft–that is to say, Asil Nadir’s creditors, who yesterday announced that they were suing the Conservative party for the return of £400,000 given by Mr. Nadir to the Conservative party before the general election?

    Mr. Newton : I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has made it quite clear that the Conservative party will of course return the money received from Polly Peck and Unipac–if it proves to have been stolen.

    Mr. Forman : In the interests of enhancing the aesthetic and architectural attractions of central London, particularly some of our finer buildings and their surroundings, will my right hon. Friend have another look, within Whitehall and with his colleagues, at the apparent determination of Ministers to endorse the decision, suggested to them by senior civil servants, that Horse Guards parade should continue to be used, unusually, for the parking of motor cars by senior civil servants? Surely, its architectural and other beauties should be enhanced by leaving it as a public open space.

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will be well aware of the discussions that have taken place on these matters. I shall certainly bring his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

    Mrs. Beckett : Why does the Lord President think that the British Medical Association’s conference is saying that the Government’s health service changes have failed the nation?

    Mr. Newton : The British Medical Association’s conference is making those remarks, but it appears to be overlooking the fact that the number of patients treated in hospital has grown by record amounts, that the quality of care has improved and that the number of patients waiting more than a year has fallen by 100,000 to not much more than 60,000.

    Mrs. Beckett : But does not the Lord President understand that the remarks that he makes are recognised only by the Cabinet as a depiction of the picture of the health service and that those people at the sharp end of the national health service, including–but not only–the doctors, are talking about alienation, despair and a two-tier health service? They said yesterday :

    “treatment except in emergencies has now become a national and local lottery.”

    How can he defend that?

    Mr. Newton : I do not accept for a moment–and I do not think many of the people to whom I talk in hospitals and general practitioner practices up and down the country accept for a moment–what the right hon. Lady is saying. As for two-tierism, the Government stand four square on their 1991 agreement that common waiting lists apply to all urgent cases ; that all emergencies will be treated immediately ; and that no hospital is to offer contracts to one purchaser which will disadvantage patients of another.

    Mrs. Beckett : But the BMA is telling the Government that this is happening. Does the Lord President dispute the fact that there are three times as many managers and 12,000 fewer nurses than when all this started? I remind him again of what the BMA said yesterday : “business plans override clinical priority. Money does not follow the patient–The patient has no choice but to follow the money until it runs out.”

    The Government are destroying the principle on which the health service is based. What will it take to make them realise, acknowledge and stop that?

    Mr. Newton : The right hon. Lady’s criticisms and those she attributes to others simply do not stand up alongside the fact that, for every 100 patients treated in hospital in 1990-91–the last year before the reforms–the NHS expects to treat 121 this year. That is a 20 per cent. increase.

    Mr. Alexander : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern about the granting of legal aid on occasions to people of apparently significant means and sometimes to foreign nationals of very great means? Is not it time that the legal aid authorities looked far more closely at the applicants who come before them and said that under no circumstances should legal aid be granted to nationals of foreign countries unless there is a reciprocal arrangement in force?

    Mr. Newton : I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it would wrong for me to be drawn into commenting from the Dispatch Box on an individual case. I want to recognise the concern that he and others have expressed. He will know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor does consider carefully, and has made a number of adjustments of, the legal aid arrangements and will certainly want to look at what my hon. Friend has said.

     

    Q2. Mr. Betts : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Betts : Is the Leader of the House aware that, among its many inefficiencies, the Child Support Agency is regularly taking up to two weeks and sometimes longer to pass the maintenance that it receives on to parents with care? Is he further aware that that not only creates problems for those people, but means that the agency accrues large sums in interest on the money that it holds? Does he believe that the money should be paid back to those people making maintenance payments or those receiving them, or does he believe that the agency should continue to make a profit out of its own inefficiencies, and that the Government should make a profit out of the misery that they have inflicted on those people because of this appalling legislation?

    Mr. Newton : This subject was rightly debated extensively in the House yesterday and the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt was here, will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security acknowledge that there is a need for improvement in the administration of the Child Support Agency and indicate that steps are being taken to bring that about. Indeed, that commitment is backed by some 700 extra staff and an increased budget to tackle just the sort of problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

     

    Q3. Mr. Sims : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Sims : Does my right hon. Friend agree that neither side in the signalmen’s dispute merits much credit for the way in which the dispute has been handled? Does he further agree that not only are his constituents and mine becoming increasingly frustrated by the weekly disruption of their business and social life but the economy is being damaged? Is not it time for all parties in the House to condemn this foolish and unnecessary strike?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Once again, I must regret the extent to which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) felt unable to make her position clear. I am sure that my constituents and those of my hon. Friends regard a strike in support of an 11 per cent. pay rise with no productivity or restructuring as one that should be reconsidered and called off with a view to returning to sensible negotiation.

    Mr. Chisholm : Did the Leader of the House see the research from North Thames health authority last week, which showed that more money is spent on average on the patients of GP fundholders than on those of non-GP fundholders? Has he seen the report in this morning’s papers to the effect that a trust hospital in Kent has admitted operating a two-tier system with the tacit approval of the local health authority? Will he act against this blatant inequity and instruct Scottish Office Ministers to withdraw their edict that 30 per cent. of patients in Scotland should be looked after by GP fundholders by next April?

    Mr. Newton : I have already commented on the allegations of a two- tier service that were made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South. Let me make one thing absolutely clear: GP fundholders are not preferentially funded. They make contracts with trusts on the same terms as health authorities.

     

    Q4. Mr. Matthew Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Banks : My right hon. Friend will be aware of the strong support on both sides of the House, particularly given recent tragedies, for the introduction of seat belts in minibuses and coaches. Britain has been at the forefront in Europe in introducing measures to reduce road casualties, but will he assure the House that Britain will continue to be at the forefront on this issue?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already indicated his support for some of the moves that are being proposed in Europe, but, more comprehensively, we are reviewing the fitting of seat belts in minibuses and coaches, including the technical and cost implications. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish the report, and our conclusions, before the summer recess.

     

    Q5. Rev. Martin Smyth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Rev. Martin Smyth : Is the Lord President prepared to commend to all our people for study and action the Alzheimer’s Disease Society’s publication “Home Alone”? Does he agree that more doctors should be aware of the disease and more ready not simply to diagnose people as suffering from old age when they are suffering from Alzheimer’s disease?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that, like him, I have had many contacts with the excellent Alzheimer’s Disease Society over the years. It is important with that disease, as with others, that general practitioners are alert in identifying it and do not see it simply as a phenomenon of age. They should be able to steer people in the right direction, and part of the aim of our care in the community policy, not least the emphasis on carers as well as sufferers, is to improve our capacity to deal with such difficulties when they arise.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week a pioneering project was opened in my constituency sponsored by Shaftesbury housing, which combines housing with long-term care ? Does he agree that that represents the very best of community care in action?

    Not only does it debunk Labour’s accusations of decentralisation but, more important, it gives residents a secure environment in which they do not have to sacrifice their independence.

    Mr. Newton : At the outset, I had better acknowledge that I was not aware of the scheme in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which certainly sounds excellent. It is representative of a number of community care schemes throughout the country that are assisted by the Housing Corporation, a mixture of public and private finance and voluntary organisations. Such schemes greatly improve our capacity to care for Alzheimer’s disease sufferers and for the others whom my hon. Friend has in mind.

     

    Q6. Mr. Gerrard : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Gerrard : Does the Leader of the House agree that it is completely unacceptable for the privatised electricity companies to apply a surcharge for consumers using pre-payment meters, such as key charge? Such consumers are nearly always those who are least able to afford to pay a surcharge. What action will the Government take to stop the practice?

    Mr. Newton : In general, charging policies for electricity companies or any other private operations are for the owners and managers of the individual operations to determine. Additional costs will often be incurred in providing a facility of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has described. That factor is one which, rightly, should be taken into account.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 July 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    No. 10 Downing Street

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what charges are made for the use of 10 Downing Street for charitable or other fund-raising events; and what use is made of the catering and other facilities of 10 Downing Street at such events.

    The Prime Minister : Where charitable or other non-official events are held at No. 10 Downing Street, the organisers are responsible for all catering and staff costs, as well as other miscellaneous direct costs. Organisers may use the kitchens or other facilities at No. 10 Downing Street.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what are the rules governing the use of No. 10 Downing Street for non-official purposes;

    (2) if he will give details of the rules governing the use of 10 Downing Street for the purposes of fund raising for political parties.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1993] : Ministers under this and previous administrations have been allowed–at their own or party expense–to host non-official or party receptions or functions in Downing street. All catering, staff and other direct expenses must be met by the organisers of the event. Appropriate arrangements are required for security clearance.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister how many functions to raise money for political parties have been held at No. 10 Downing Street since 1980.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1993] : Under this and previous Administrations, a variety of functions have been held at No. 10 Downing Street where the costs have been met by political parties. The purpose of such functions is not a matter for the Government, but I can confirm that since November 1990, there have been no functions at 10 Downing Street at which funds have been raised for political parties, or for which tickets have been sold for the benefit of political parties.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister what charities benefited from functions organised in No. 10 Downing Street in each year since 1984.

    The Prime Minister [holding answers 22 and 23 June 1993] : Since November 1990, there have been a total of 25 receptions, dinners or other functions at No. 10 Downing Street for charities or voluntary bodies. The organisations concerned have been :

    NSPCC

    Surrey County Cricket Club Youth Trust

    Lords Taverners

    MENCAP

    Age Concern

    EUREKA

    Wordsworth Trust

    Huntington’s Disease Association

    Action Research

    Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust

    National Council of Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Crossroads Care

    Animal Health Trust

    ORT

    Youth Clubs (UK)

    ChildLine

    Silver Trust

    Marie Curie Cancer Care

    Excalibur Scheme

    Motability

    Westminster Foundation for Democracy

    London Community Cricket Association

    International Spinal Research Trust

    Cambridge Arts Theatre Trust – two functions

     

    Mr. Asil Nadir

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of the functions attended by Mr. Asil Nadir in No. 10 Downing Street since 1984.

    Mr. George Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister how many times in the last 10 years Mr. Asil Nadir has attended functions in No. 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1993] : I understand that Mr. Nadir attended six functions in No. 10 Downing Street between 1984 and 1989. These were a dinner and a reception for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; a reception for the Harold Macmillan Trust; a lunch for the President of Turkey; and two lunches for industrialists.

     

    Vietnam

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the issues of the extent of religious freedom in Vietnam, and the continued imprisonment of persons in that country for their faith, with the Prime Minister of Vietnam during his forthcoming visit.

    The Prime Minister : I intend to raise our concerns about human rights in Vietnam with the Vietnamese Prime Minister, Mr. Vo Van Kiet, during his forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom.

     

    Plaques

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if inscriptions on plaques which are unveiled in the course of visits by foreign Heads of State are viewed in advance by representatives of Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister : We would agree in advance any inscriptions on plaques unveiled at official engagements. We would not expect to be consulted about private engagements.

     

    Republic of Ireland President

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if proposals by the person holding the position of President of the Irish Republic to visit the United Kingdom are communicated to Her Majesty’s Government by the office of the President of the Irish Republic.

    The Prime Minister : Proposals for visits to the United Kingdom by the President of the Irish Republic are communicated to Her Majesty’s Government by the Government of the Irish Republic.

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister what information he receives from the office of the President of the Irish Republic on thanks received in respect of visits by the person holding the position of President of the Irish Republic.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Heads of State

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the private visits to Northern Ireland by foreign Heads of State in each of the last three years.

    The Prime Minister : The information is as follows :

    16 December 1990 –President Robinson

    4 February 1992 –President Robinson

    22 May 1992 –President Robinson

    6-7 September 1992 –President Robinson

    18-19 June 1993 –President Robinson

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister what criteria are used to distinguish between private and official visits to the United Kingdom by foreign Heads of State.

    The Prime Minister : Official visits are those undertaken at the invitation of the British Government.

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the public engagements which have been fulfilled by Heads of State during private visits to Northern Ireland in each of the last three years.

    The Prime Minister : The information is as follows :

    16 December 1990 – President Robinson attended the Installation of Archbishop Daly at Armagh and visited the Armagh Observatory.

    4 February 1992 – President Robinson met women’s groups at the EOC Offices in Belfast; had lunch with the Law Society; met voluntary groups and cultural traditions groups in the Linenhall library; and attended a reception in Stormont castle.

    22 May 1992 – President Robinson, as part of “Impact 92” in Londonderry, lunched with Church leaders, visited Foyle day care centre, opened “The Craft Village”, visited community groups, and attended a civic reception and pageant.

    6-7 September 1992 – President Robinson attended the “Beyond Hate Conference” in Londonderry; opened Belcoo enterprise unit; lunched with Enniskillen Rotary; and met community groups in Enniskillen library.

    18-19 June 1993 – President Robinson visited the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, Down museum, and West Belfast community groups; attended the Solicitors’ Association annual dinner; and visited Coalisland enterprise centre and Ballance house, Glenavy.

    All the above visits were private. President Robinson attended each engagement at the invitation of the organisers.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister which of the undertakings given by the Federal Yugoslav Government at the London conference on 26 and 27 August 1992 have been fulfilled; what assessment he has made of changes in their policy and actions towards the crisis in the former Yugoslavia; what changes he considers to be still required; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The London conference established principles and a negotiating structure as the basis for a settlement of the problems of the former Yugoslavia and set out specific steps to secure an effective and durable cessation of hostilities. The Yugoslav authorities have failed to co-operate satisfactorily with the efforts of the international community to achieve peace in Bosnia and to resolve the problems of minorities in Croatia and Serbia. The international community is committed to the rigorous enforcement of United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro until the conditions for their lifting have been met.

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister when the question of sanctions against the Republic of Croatia was last considered by Her Majesty’s Government; and what plans he has to raise this matter again with the international community in the future.

    The Prime Minister : Policy towards Croatia is regularly reviewed in the light of Croatian Government co-operation with the efforts of the international community both to ensure a peaceful resolution of the problems in the Krajinas and to achieve a lasting and equitable peace in Bosnia. Croatia was put on notice by the 8 June meeting of EC Foreign Ministers that restrictive measures would be initiated against Croatia if the situation so requires.

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister to what extent the Croatian Government have complied with its obligations, as outlined in the London conference; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The London conference established principles and a negotiating structure as the basis for a settlement of the problems of the former Yugoslavia and set out specific steps to secure an effective and durable cessation of hostilities. The Croatian Government are expected to do more to co-operate with efforts to achieve peace in Bosnia. Croatia was put on notice by the 8 June meeting of EC Foreign Ministers that restrictive measures would be initiated against Croatia if the situation so requires.

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister which of the undertakings made by the Serbian Government at the London conference on 26 and 27 August 1992 have been fulfilled; to what extent there have been changes in their policy and actions towards the crisis in the former Yugoslavia; if he will list the changes still required; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The London conference established principles and a negotiating structure as the basis for a settlement of the problems of the former Yugoslavia and set out specific steps to secure an effective and durable cessation of hostilities. The Belgrade leadership has failed to co-operate satisfactorily with the efforts of the international community to achieve peace in Bosnia and to resolve the problems of minorities in Croatia and Serbia. The international community is committed to the rigorous enforcement of United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro until the conditions for their lifting have been met.

     

    Unemployment, Liverpool

    Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and the deputation representing the unemployed in Liverpool.

    The Prime Minister : I met the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside with a number of other people from the area on 16 June. I will be writing to him shortly about points raised at the meeting.

     

    Mr. Shabir Shan and Mr. Yasin Malik

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 27 May, Official Report, column 663, what further information he has received about the detention in India of Mr. Shabir Shah and Mr. Yasin Malik; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Our high commission in New Delhi is in regular touch with the Indian Ministries concerned, but have received no further information on the cases of Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik since receiving the aide memoire from the Indian Home Ministry which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs forwarded to the hon. Gentleman under cover of his letter of 30 June.

     

    Mr. Gazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 8 June, Official Report, column 226, what further information he has received about court proceedings in Pakistan relating to Mr. Gazanfer Ali; and if he make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs wrote to the hon. Member for Bradford, West on 24 June with information on the two cases involving murder charges against Mr. Gazanfer Ali. Both cases have been further adjourned.

  • PMQT – 24 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Quin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

    Ms Quin : In view of the leaked letter in the Daily Mail today, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say where he thinks the borderline lies between a ministerial misjudgment and a resignation offence?

    The Prime Minister : I have stated before in the case to which the hon. Lady refers, and I reiterate today, that I believe that my hon. Friend has acted with complete propriety in raising with the Attorney-General concerns that had been put to him about Mr. Nadir’s case. I have no criticism of my hon. Friend on that account, or of his performance as a Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office.

    My hon. Friend has been to see me this afternoon. He told me that he deeply regretted the embarrassment being caused to the Government by continuing speculation about his role. On those grounds, and on those grounds alone, he asked me if he could stand aside from his duties. With regret, I have accepted his resignation.

    Mr. Ian Bruce : May I ask my right hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. We are wasting valuable time.

    Mr. Bruce : As my right hon. Friend has personal knowledge of Nigeria, may I ask him to say what reaction Her Majesty’s Government have to the declaration by the military regime in Nigeria that they will overturn the results of the general election for the president, particularly in view of the fact that all the international observers and internal monitors felt that the election was free and fair?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that this is an important matter. I wrote to President Babangida last week to support the transition to civilian rule. I deplore the military Government’s subsequent decision to ignore the results of elections which British and other observers considered free and fair. We are, as a result, reviewing our relations with Nigeria, including new aid, and we have taken a number of immediate steps.

    We are withdrawing our military advisory team and will not provide new military training courses. We have suspended the issue of visas to members of the Nigerian armed forces and the privileged treatment of visa applications by Government officials. We are consulting European Community partners and other allies on possible further measures. I hope that the Nigerian Government will take full account of the strength of international feeling and will reconsider what I believe is a gravely mistaken decision.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it not deplorable that the lack of any industrial policy or of a proper strategy for our defence industries has resulted in a polarised choice between Rosyth and Devonport for the Trident contract and a loss of thousands of jobs at both yards? Why do the Government not accept that, for industrial and defence reasons, this country needs the capability and expertise of both dockyards and their highly skilled management and work force?

    The Prime Minister : I must say that the right hon. Gentleman neglected to mention in that supplementary question precisely what the circumstances might be if the defence cuts that his party proposed should ever come into being. He proposed defence cuts that would probably have meant that we had no yards at all, no capacity to defend ourselves, very few soldiers, hardly a Navy and barely a plane.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it not a matter of record that the Government announced in the House in 1984, and repeated in 1985, that the refit contract would go to Rosyth and that such a commitment was repeated to the work force at the time of privatisation? What weight does the Prime Minister attach to specific promises given to either Rosyth or Devonport?

    The Prime Minister : I seem to recall that at that time the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party were keen to scrap Trident and said so repeatedly. How odd it is, people may think, that the Opposition want to scrap military hardware on one day and then fight for it desperately on another day. One is bound to ask where their hearts really lie.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister accept, as he was reminded by the noble Lord Younger, who had responsibility in the Conservative Government, that a specific commitment was given to the House in 1984? Does the Prime Minister accept that that is the case? If it is, what weight can anyone give to any undertaking that the Government give to anyone?

    The Prime Minister : In view of the total disconjunction between the Opposition’s policies and what they are now saying, that sort of comment from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is barefaced cheek. I suggest that he sets that aside.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hawkins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

    Mr. Hawkins : My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the construction industry has had a difficult time during the recent recession. Will he join me in welcoming the good news yesterday that orders for new housing are now up by nearly 30 per cent. and that building is going on across the country, including in my constituency? Will he join me in saying that that is good news for the construction industry and all those who work in it?

    The Prime Minister : I know that it has been a difficult time for our construction industry throughout the United Kingdom. That is why we announced special measures to help that industry in the autumn statement last year. I welcome the much better news that is becoming more apparent daily. It is good news for builders and for the economy as a whole. In construction, manufacturing, exports and on all sides, our prospects are improving and the economy is strengthening.

    Mr. Ashdown : Last night the Secretary of State for Social Security called for a widespread cross-party public debate on the problems created by our present mountain of debt and the implications for long-term rises in social spending. That is an interesting suggestion. What specific proposals does the Prime Minister have to make it a reality?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it perfectly clear that we are carrying out a review of social security and I understand that, in secret, the principal Opposition party is doing the same. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will also contribute to that debate and we shall be happy to receive any representations from them. However, the day that I get representations from the Liberal Democrats about any difficult decision will be a remarkable day indeed.

    Mr. Roger Evans : Will my right hon. Friend join me in rejecting the impudent talk about an industrial policy from the Labour party and welcome, for example, the success of QPL Holdings of Hong Kong and its new £42 million investment in south Wales? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is the significance in commercial and industrial prosperity of the concentration of enterprise and expertise which attracts orders and creates jobs?

    The Prime Minister : I note with interest that the Opposition scoff at fresh jobs for Wales. It has been a good week for Wales and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. It shows how attractive Britain now is to inward investors. It shows also that the Labour party hates new jobs, wherever they may come from, if it feels any of the credit will rub off on the Government’s policies. We intend to keep Britain attractive for inward investment. There will be no minimum wage, no works councils, no social chapter and none of the nonsense that we hear from the Opposition that represents their industrial policy.

     

    Q3. Ms Coffey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

    Ms Coffey : Is the Prime Minister aware of the escalation in housing association rents, which is causing especial hardship to elderly people who are not entitled to full housing benefit? What has he to say to my constituent, Mrs. Riley, whose rent has increased from just under £26 a week to just over £50 a week? Does he think that that is totally unacceptable and what is he prepared to do about it?

    The Prime Minister : In this country, we have perhaps the most generous system of housing benefit that we have ever seen and if the hon. Lady genuinely wanted a response to her question, she should have provided me with details of Mrs. Riley’s income so that I could have responded.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when Mr. Baldwin, in his day, was under assault from the press barons of that time, his retort was that the newspapers were seeking to exercise power without responsibility, which is the traditional role of the harlot?

    The Prime Minister : I will reply in a parody of the words of another great Englishman : Assault? I see no assault.

     

    Q4. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

    Ms Eagle : Does the Prime Minister share the sense of outrage at today’s revelations that British taxpayers will have to foot a £1 million legal aid bill run up by that generous benefactor of the Tory party and bail bandit Mr. Asil Nadir, who does not seem to be short of a bob or two in northern Cyprus, at the same time as his Government are denying millions of people of modest means any access to legal aid at all? What is the Prime Minister prepared to do about that outrageous use of public money?

    The Prime Minister : It is extremely unusual to hear the Labour party worrying about the taxpayer–refreshing perhaps, but just a touch unusual. As for legal aid, the usual cry from the Opposition Benches is for more and more legal aid.

    Mr. Coe : Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent education and industry initiative that encourages industry to make an input into the future direction of our educational needs? Does he agree that those people who are for ever claiming to speak on behalf of the country’s manufacturing base, and the necessary skills for its survival, do so with no credibility whatever while they are still supporting the boycott of tests this year and the dismantling of our city technology colleges?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, my hon. Friend’s logic is unanswerable. I agree with him entirely. Opposition Members may claim to speak for industry –we build for it.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Anne Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

    Mrs. Campbell : In view of the Government’s decision to cut the defence budget by 15 per cent. over the next five years, will the Prime Minister tell the House when he will announce a proper defence diversification strategy and prevent an appalling loss of skilled jobs?

    The Prime Minister : I can only assume that the hon. Lady was not here for the earliest part of Question Time or she may not have asked such a question. She should consider the impact of her own party’s defence policies before she criticises ours.

     

    Q7. Mr. Rowe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

    Mr. Rowe : Can the Prime Minister advise me on how I might reply to a 73-year-old constituent, who is in frail health and is partially deaf and partially blind? She wrote to me about the review of the social security budget and said that the Opposition have no programme whatsoever except to take taxation up and that were this Government ever to be unseated the results would be unthinkable.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend’s constituent is very perceptive. I think that he should say to her that she can rest assured that the Government will stand by their commitment to the weak and vulnerable. Secondly, he could say to her that she should not believe the routine scares that come from Opposition Members day by day. Thirdly, he could tell her that the Labour party has no constructive ideas and, fourthly, he could tell her that we have no intention of doing other than remaining in government for the rest of this century and beyond.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Copenhagen (I) – 20 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Copenhagen on Sunday 20th June 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how do you react to suggestions that Mr Mates’s position is now untenable?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am here to talk about the European Council, there is a great deal to be done. There are across Europe around 17 million Europeans unemployed, I think we have to address the question why that is and what we have to do. And there are a range of other serious things we have to discuss: subsidiarity clearly is in the middle of it; enlargement, I want to see some dramatic approaches towards the enlargement problem in the Community, it is clearly the way we must go. So we have quite a substantive agenda in front of us.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think you are going to be pushed on this question of economic and monetary union, do you think that you will have another battle with the federalists?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure, to be honest I doubt that very much, I do not think so. It may be that some people will raise the matter but our position about that is quite clear, I have made it quite clear and I will reiterate it here. But I think the problem that rests in the front of most people’s mind is the problem of unemployment in the Community and the prospects for growth. If one looks across the whole of the European Community, the United Kingdom is coming out of recession and is beginning to grow, but most of the European economies are going in the other, direction and that is a source of great worry. We are overall in the Community becoming less competitive compared to Japan and the United States and that is something we have to reverse.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia, would you accept the criticism that has been made that Bosnia should not go into separate states as a result of Serb aggression?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are going to have quite a substantive discussion on Bosnia I think over the next couple of days, Foreign Ministers will be meeting tonight, they will be briefed by David Owen, I think the position will be a little clearer at the end of that briefing. Quite a lot has happened both on the ground and in terms of diplomacy over the last few weeks. What everyone wants to do is to find a settlement that is satisfactory, that will stop the killing, that will stop the fighting and a settlement that will last. That will not readily or easily be obtained, but I think we will have to look pragmatically at what is possible, I look forward to meeting Douglas Hurd after his meeting tonight and the discussion we will have tomorrow.

    QUESTION:

    Rasmussen has said that later interest rates will be on the agenda, do you see any room for concerted action on interest rates after this meeting?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think perhaps I am the one member of the Community here that perhaps is least likely to respond to that. The problems of interest rates across the European Community I think are self-evident, that Europe as a whole would benefit from lower interest rates I think is beyond doubt, but that is a matter that must be discussed amongst those who find themselves locked together.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that the Conservative Party should return the funds that it has received from Mr Asil Nadir?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Norman Fowler has made the position absolutely clear, any money that was dishonestly obtained and dishonestly donated to the Conservative Party is not wanted by the Conservative Party. If it proves to have been dishonestly obtained and dishonestly remitted to us then of course we will return it. The Conservative Party exists on funds raised within the constituency and honestly and freely donated to the Party, that is the way for a democratic party to survive, it is the way we survive, it is the way we have behaved in the past. These are matters that happened some time ago, if it turns out that money was illegally donated then it will be returned.

  • PMQT – 15 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Chisholm : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

    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. Chisholm : What progress did the Prime Minister make at his meeting this morning in rewriting his election manifesto and rewriting the rules on invalidity benefit? In particular, will he say who else he intends to exclude from invalidity benefit, apart from the retired builder with heart disease mentioned in the leaked document? Will he also say why on earth those still receiving it should have to pay, through benefit cuts, for the Government’s unsurpassed economic incompetence?

    The Prime Minister : We were not rewriting our manifesto this morning. We were reviewing invalidity benefit and it would be irresponsible of us not to do so.

    Mr. Viggers : I am grateful for the chance of hearing my right hon. Friend’s comments. Does he agree that our troops in the former Yugoslavia have done an exceptionally difficult job with great skill and courage and that they have consistently carried out the policy of distributing humanitarian aid for as long as it has been possible for them to do so? Does he further agree that the person to emerge from the recent crisis with the least credibility is the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who demanded further troop deployments and then immediately demanded that they be pulled out– [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : I must first congratulate my hon. Friend on his narrow escape and his capacity to swim. We are delighted to see him here today. He is right to say that British forces are doing an outstanding job in a dangerous situation. They are inevitably running risks as the difficulties on the ground become more serious. I wish to ensure that those risks are kept to a minimum and I assure the House that the necessary contingency plans exist should there be a further deterioration in the situation. As my hon. Friend intimated, I believe that the policy that we have followed in Bosnia has been right and any other policy would have been reckless of the lives of British soldiers.

    Mr. John Smith : What changes in the law is the Prime Minister considering with regard to the disclosure of secret donations to political parties, given the continuing scandal over the £1.5 million donated to the Conservative party by Mr. Asil Nadir?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman may occasionally care to comment on some of the people who may in the past have donated money to his party– [Interruption.] I have no present proposals for changes in the law.

    Mr. John Smith : Why does the Prime Minister refuse to introduce legislation requiring the public disclosure of all substantial donations made to all political parties, so that the political parties that receive them have to declare them? In addition to putting political contributions on an open and honest basis, would not that also prevent the breaches of company law which occurred in the case of Mr. Nadir, whose companies apparently made seven illegal donations amounting to £440,000 to the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the requirement to declare company donations to political parties under the Companies Act falls on the directors of the donor company, not on the recipient. He is wrong in his later comments–the payment itself would not be unlawful. Only the failure to declare it in the company accounts would be unlawful and that is a matter for the company, not the recipient.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that, if the Conservative party had had to disclose the payment, the breach would have been revealed when the company acted illegally? Does he not realise that he cannot sweep the matter under the carpet and that there are people in the United Kingdom who believe that it is wrong that political parties should be financed in a furtive way or by excessively large donations from those who are not prepared to be publicly identified? Those are the words of concerned members of the Conservative party. Why cannot he act in this matter to get a level playing field that will encourage honesty and equality?

    The Prime Minister : Donations to the Conservative party are freely offered and they are accepted on that basis, unlike the way in which so much is donated to the Labour party.

    Mr. Garnier : Will my right hon. Friend welcome the visit of the President of Azerbaijan later this month and confirm that it underlines the strong diplomatic links between our two countries and confirms the existence of strong commercial links to the mutual benefit of our two countries?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I certainly share the view expressed by my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that there are huge markets opening up in that part of the world which I believe will be satisfactory for the United Kingdom, provided that we are prepared to take an interest in them at an early stage. Undoubtedly, we are prepared to take that interest and I very much welcome the visit here.

     

    Q2. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

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

    Mr. Canavan : What exactly is the Prime Minister going to do now that Lady Thatcher has effectively given him the kiss of death, Asil Nadir is overtaking him in the opinion polls and Sir Bernard Ingham tells us that the Tory party is behaving like a headless chicken? If the party is too chicken to take the necessary steps– [Interruption.] –would not it be more honourable for heads to roll voluntarily and let the people decide on a fresh menu?

    The Prime Minister : More rehearsal needed, I think.

    Mr. Dover : Has the Prime Minister noticed that, during the recession, the private sector has frozen wages and earnings, reduced earnings on many occasions and had massive job reductions? Are not there lessons to be learnt by the public sector, especially if the burden on the private sector is not to continue increasing?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the private sector has taken dramatic action in order to keep its costs down. The implications of that are now being seen in the extent to which many companies are now recovering. As far as the public sector is concerned, as my hon. Friend knows, we have held strict control over public sector wages over the past year.

    Mr. Hoon : Last week, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) suggested that the Prime Minister ordered interest rate cuts for purely political reasons against the advice and better judgment of his then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is that true?

    The Prime Minister : It is not what my right hon. Friend said and it is not so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jenkin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

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

    Mr. Jenkin : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a further 1.8 million people so far have registered an interest in applying for the third British Telecom share flotation? Is not that the clearest evidence possible that, far from running out of steam, the British people cannot get enough popular capitalism?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend is right about that. Today, almost one in four adults owns shares compared with about one in 20 a decade or so ago. People want to build up a stake in Britain. They want to own a part of it. That is very much part of our philosophy and we will continue to encourage it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Davidson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

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

    Mr. Davidson : Will the Prime Minister accept my delayed but sincere congratulations on his decision to sack his Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he come to Govan soon, while he is still Prime Minister, and tell the people there that he will sack any Minister who proposes a drastic reduction in the already inadequate level of invalidity benefit?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated earlier to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), we are considering invalidity benefit and I believe that it is entirely right that we should do so. Expenditure on invalidity benefit has risen from about £1.5 billion 10 years ago to more than £6 billion this year. No responsible Government could ignore an increase of that order. We have a duty to consider whether all that taxpayers’ money is being wisely spent. The number of people receiving invalidity benefit has more than doubled during the past 10 years from 700,000 to more than 1.5 million. Frankly, it beggars belief that so many more people have suddenly become invalids, especially at a time when the health of the population has improved. I make no apologies for looking at this area of expenditure.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth : When my right hon. Friend goes to the European Council meeting in Copenhagen, will he take the opportunity to impress on our partners that all of us in Europe operate in an intensely competitive international market and that the costs of bureaucratic regulation, particularly the social chapter, represent a severe disadvantage to Europe’s competitiveness in world markets?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I undertake to raise that matter at the European Council at the weekend. The president of the European Employers Federation recently appealed to Community employment and social affairs Ministers to

    “stop taking measures which unnecessarily destroy jobs”. I agree with that. I have made it clear in the past. I believe that the social chapter falls into that category and I shall reiterate that view at the European Council meeting this weekend. It is not just a problem for the United Kingdom. All of Europe is facing increasing competition from Japan, the Pacific basin and the United States. Unless all Europe keeps its costs down, we shall not create jobs, but export them.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hanson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

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

    Mr. Hanson : When the Prime Minister visited Wales last week did he have a chance to see the report showing that in the last year of the Labour Government family incomes in Wales were 87 per cent. of those in southern England, whereas in the first year of his premiership those incomes fell to 64 per cent. of those in southern England? Is that a record to be proud of? How, tell me, will the abolition of the wages councils help to improve that situation?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman in his litany unexpectedly neglected to mention that in recent years unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 49 per cent. That is because of this Government’s policies. It will probably fall even further as a result of the abolition of wages councils, which themselves cost jobs.

    Mr. Heald : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposed European Community ban on large engined motor cycles, which would have damaged the British Triumph, has been successfully resisted by the Government? Will he accept the congratulations of motor cyclists throughout the country, including the North Herts Motor Cycle Action Group, on that achievement? Does he agree that that achievement will enable the British Triumph motor cycle to be successful throughout the world, knocking spots off the opposition, something which my right hon. Friend has done since he became Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the Government received a derogation from a Community directive relating to motor cycle engine size. That has had some beneficial effects for the United Kingdom and it means that our industry can continue to sell motor cycles with a large engine in the United Kingdom until at least the start of the next century. That is excellent news for Triumph and British motor cyclists. I am delighted at that outcome.

     

    Q6. Mr. Pope : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

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

    Mr. Pope : Does the Prime Minister recall the recommendation last year from the Select Committee on Health that maternity services should be community based and close to a woman’s home? How does the Prime Minister square that with the decision to close the maternity unit at the Accrington Victoria hospital in my constituency? He claims to be a listening Prime Minister ; when will he listen to the women in my constituency who want their maternity unit kept open?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take up his particular constituency point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, I am sure that she would be prepared to listen to him.