The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Child Support Agency

  • PMQT – 13 December 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

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

    Mrs. Ewing: Does the Prime Minister believe in the principle of referendums?

    The Prime Minister: I have indicated in the House on several occasions that there may be circumstances in which I would support one. Clearly, in the case of Northern Ireland that is so, for I have already announced one.

     

    Q2. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind reports today of an official survey showing that 11-year-old pupils do not have sufficient command of English to answer questions in science and mathematics, and bearing in mind the mounting evidence of the damage being done by the National Union of Teachers’ boycott of tests, will my right hon. Friend urge Opposition Members with influence on that union to urge it to drop the boycott today?

    The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says illustrates the importance of regular testing of pupils and equally regular reporting of the results. I welcome very much the fact that most teachers’ unions have now called off their boycott. It is high time that the NUT did the same, and I hope that it will do so.

    Mr. Blair: On railway privatisation, is it right, as the report to the Transport Select Committee states, that the costs of legal consultancy fees and relocation costs for British Rail alone are now £100 million, and that when underwriting and City fees are added in the total cost may be as much as £700 million? Are those figures right or wrong?

    The Prime Minister: They are certainly not figures that I recognise, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter I will give him a more detailed answer.

    Mr. Blair: I believe that the £100 million figure was given in a parliamentary answer. Perhaps the Prime Minister will check that. Is it also right, as the report indicates, that if the privatisation targets are to be met, the rail network will virtually have to be halved or there will be savage reductions in the timetable across the service? Can the Prime Minister guarantee that if there is found to be the remotest possibility of those things happening he will cancel the privatisation?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is using yet another of the scare stories which have surrounded the privatisation process for some time. Since the start of the rail privatisation process, there has been no shortage of scare stories; that is just the latest one. As recently as 24 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport stated and restated unequivocally that franchise services would be broadly based on the existing timetable. That remains the position.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has not given that guarantee. If he proceeds with a privatisation which has no popular support, which will put the future of the railways at risk– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett -Bowman) should not be barracking from a sedentary position.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister proceeds with a privatisation that has no popular support, which will put the future of the railways at risk and, in the process, spend hundreds of millions of pounds which should be spent on providing a better public transport service, will that not show how completely out of touch the Government are with the British people?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. His comments about rail privatisation are precisely the same as the comments that his predecessors made about almost every privatisation that has occurred. Each privatisation has proved a success. The initial costs of past privatisations have been more than outweighed by efficiency and benefits, and that will be the case for rail users as well. The right hon. Gentleman relies on precisely the same scare stories which existed for each privatisation that has occurred. If he seeks further assurance, it will come tomorrow when the franchise director launches the pre-qualification documents. The right hon. Gentleman will then see how wrong he is.

     

    Gibraltar

    Q3. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the position of Gibraltar within the European Union.

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

    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the present appalling restrictions at the Spanish border, with four-hour delays for people and eight-hour delays for vehicles, seem designed to cripple the economy of Gibraltar, and as the European Union seems unable to prevent these illegal blackmail activities, will the Prime Minister give guidance to Ministers to the effect that there should be no further concessions to Spain in the EU until the problem is resolved? Is the Prime Minister aware that it would hearten the loyal people of the rock if he would visit Gibraltar and assure them of the full support not only of the Government but, I hope, of every party in the House of Commons which believes in freedom?

    The Prime Minister: On my hon. Friend’s second point, I can guarantee that we have no intention of deviating from the commitment that we made to the people of Gibraltar in the 1969 constitution. That commitment is there and it will remain. With regard to his first point, we have already made strong protests to the Spanish Government about the secondary checks imposed by the Guardia Civil at the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain. It is very important that the controls should cease and we have made it absolutely clear that the Spanish Government must bring them to an end. They are aware of our views, and we are in contact with them about it.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

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

    Mrs. Michie: Can the Prime Minister explain how an assembly for Northern Ireland will strengthen the United Kingdom while a Scottish parliament will apparently weaken it? The situations may be different, but surely the principle is the same.

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady graciously admits, the situation is not just different–it is wholly different. A tax-raising assembly is proposed for Scotland, whereas in Northern Ireland an assembly is proposed which will give Northern Ireland proper control over local government matters. That power already exists in Scotland.

     

    Q5. Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

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

    Mr. Haselhurst: Amid all the discussions about the European Union in the long term, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a practical and urgent agenda to try to ensure that the single market is working fairly and openly, so that British companies have a genuine opportunity to compete successfully in civil aviation, energy and other spheres in which there are currently impediments to competition?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that and about its importance. At Essen during the weekend it was self-evident that that is an agenda on which Britain is increasingly winning the arguments. There is wide recognition of the fact that the liberalisation of aviation, energy, telecommunications and a range of other areas is vital to Europe’s future competitiveness. A great deal of work needs to be done to ensure that. It must figure very prominently in the Community’s agenda in future, and we will ensure that it does.

    Mrs. Adams: Is the Prime Minister aware of the havoc wrought in the west of Scotland at the weekend by severe flooding in which lives were lost? Is he further aware that the Scottish Office Minister who visited the Paisley area yesterday gave us little comfort? Will the Prime Minister visit the stricken areas and make a statement that adequate funding will be available to reimburse families and local authorities?

    The Prime Minister: I know that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing regret at the loss of life and the very significant damage following the severe flooding in Strathclyde. As the hon. Lady may or may not know, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for industry and local government was able to make a statement about the flooding to the Scottish Grand Committee this morning. He said that grant aid from central Government might be available under the Bellwin scheme.

     

    Q6. Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

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

    Mr. Gallie: Has my right hon. Friend seen the “Scottish Engineering Quarterly Review” issued this week, which shows that orders are up, investment is up, recruitment is up and optimism is strong? Is he further aware that today Jetstream Aircraft at Prestwick announced yet another order? Is that not good news in the run-up to Christmas?

    The Prime Minister: I must confess that I have not seen the journal to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will ensure that it is delivered to me regularly in future. I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend’s good news and delighted to hear about Jetstream. A further order will be another welcome endorsement of the success of Scottish manufacturing.

     

    Q7. Mr. McCartney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

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

    Mr. McCartney: The Prime Minister will know that the blood transfusion service is a unique service in the United Kingdom national health service. Last year, the British people gave 2.5 million units of blood freely and saved thousands of lives. Does he appreciate the dismay and disgust at the Bain proposals to privatise the service and close down five regional centres, from Plymouth to Lancaster, with 1,000 job losses? When will the Prime Minister put the national health service before private greed and abandon that proposal?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the NHS is getting more resources and more funding year after year. He also knows that there are areas which can be dealt with in the private sector without harm to patient care and that where that releases resources for patient care it is economically and medically sensible.

    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the results of the past four general elections show that the good sense of the British people can normally be relied on? Against that background, does he further agree that, if the 1996 intergovernmental conference produced substantial changes in the European Union the use of a referendum might be justified, but that in the intervening period speculation about the type of question to be asked is entirely bogus?

    The Prime Minister: In advance of the IGC, it is extremely difficult to know precisely what the question in a referendum might be. I have said that I am not prepared to close the door on the possibility of one, but, equally, that there are important constitutional matters to be considered and it would be very unwise to make snap judgments as to how to deal with that matter. As I understand it, two days after I stated that last week, it suddenly became the Opposition’s position as well.

     

    Q8. Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 December.

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

    Mrs. Jackson: According to official figures given to me by the Child Support Agency last week, that body has processed just four claims for compensation in the past 12 months. Will the Prime Minister ensure urgently that the thousands of families who have suffered from the incredible incompetence of that body are fully compensated for their financial and emotional losses?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is looking at the child support arrangements. He will be responding to the Select Committee’s report and will make an announcement as soon as the Government have finished their deliberations. Proposals for any changes will be brought forward at that time.

  • 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 – 24 May 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

    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.

    Dr. Wright : What does the Prime Minister say to the woman in my constituency who phoned my office the other day to thank me for taking up her husband’s case in relation to the Child Support Agency, but who said that I could close the file–the file that I have here–because her husband had just killed himself? Has not the time come when it is no longer enough to say that we all support the principle of the agency–which we do–or that it is being kept under continuing review–which it no doubt is ? Has not it become a monstrous and inhuman shambles that has to be changed and changed now?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows what I had to say about that recently. I have nothing to add to that today. On the personal circumstances that he mentioned, neither he nor I can know all the circumstances behind that tragedy. On reflection, he may think that it was unwise to raise it in that fashion.

    Sir Cranley Onslow : As the British electorate clearly cannot expect Opposition Members to spell out the full horrors of the sort of centralised and federal European Union for which they want people to vote on 9 June, will my right hon. Friend consider inviting Mr. Delors to come over here and do the job for them?

    The Prime Minister : The President of the Commission is welcome here in the United Kingdom at any time. I hope that when he comes, if he comes, he will spell out yet again that he believes that the fact that we are not part of the social chapter will make us a great magnet for external investment–I am sure that he is right about that.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does the Prime Minister recall what his party promised the British people in its last Euro-manifesto? It included the promise that the Conservatives would not put value added tax on gas and electricity, saying :

    “We stand by that pledge; we will honour it”.

    Has not it become clear that the Government are incapable of honouring any pledge?

    The Prime Minister : It is not remotely clear. Like every Government, we have to respond to the reality of events in the interests of the people of this country. The right hon. Lady should bear in mind some of the contradictions in what she and her colleagues have said and done. On one day they attack our tax proposals and on the next day they propose a string of new taxes. They then ask for fresh expenditure, but the shadow Chancellor says that there is no commitment. There is no consistency whatsoever in any of their policies.

    Mrs. Beckett : If that is the Prime Minister’s answer to why the Government broke the promises in their last Euro-manifesto, will he explain why, at the general election in 1992, he and his party promised not to extend or increase VAT, not to increase national insurance contributions and not to impose any other taxes and charges, and even promised tax cuts year on year? Why is it that, in manifesto after manifesto, the Government make promises that they then betray?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady is misquoting and misunderstanding. If she wants to talk about movements away from manifestos, she might look at the distinctions between the European socialist manifesto to which the Labour party is committed and the domestic Labour party manifesto for the European elections. She might then explain to the British people why, in this election, what it is saying domestically is not what it has agreed to internationally.

    Mrs. Beckett : Did not the Government prove at the last Euro- election and general election that they will say and do anything to get elected? The people now know that after the broken promises of the Euro- election and general election campaigns. Why should anyone trust the Government ever again?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady will also know that we made it clear that we would create the right circumstances for growth, and we have; that we would bring unemployment down, and we are ; that we would get interest rates down, and we have ; and that we would create the conditions for sustained growth without inflation, and we have.

    Only a few weeks ago, the Labour party was signing up to promises in Europe to which it dare not admit domestically in the current election. If the right hon. Lady will not admit to that, she will find that, throughout the campaign, quote after quote after quote of what the Labour party has signed up to not long ago will be brought up. The Labour party is now trying to duck, dodge and weave around those promises because it knows that the British people will not stand for its policies on Europe.

    Mr. Dykes : I thank my right hon. Friend for yesterday reminding the British public yet again that we gain enormously in real sovereignty and strength in Europe by working closely, harmoniously and positively with the other member countries.

    The Prime Minister : As I said last night in my speech, which I know that my hon. Friend will have read, our policy is to make a success of the European Community and to make sure that it regains the affection of people, not only in this country, but right across Europe. That is the policy of the Government, and I set out a range of ways in which we believe that that can and must be brought about. It is essential to the future well-being of the country that we are able to ensure not only that the European Union is accepted by the people but that it continues successfully for many years to come.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister will be aware that, for as long as he continues to hold firmly to the view that there will be no question of negotiation with the men of murder in Northern Ireland for as long as they continue with violence and unless and until they renounce it permanently, he will continue to enjoy the full support of the vast majority of this House and, I believe, the majority of the country. However, is he aware of just how much the momentum for peace in Northern Ireland is now evaporating? Does he accept that it is urgent and important that the British and Irish Governments should now put forward joint proposals based on the joint declaration through the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, if the high hopes for peace which we enjoyed at Christmas are not to be killed off by the new wave of terrorism being implemented by both sides?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the whole House will share the right hon. Gentleman’s wish to see an end to violence. Where I would take issue with him is in his assertion that there is an evaporation of the movement toward peace in Ireland, both north and south of the border. I do not believe that that is the case, and it is not the information which comes to me.

    After what has happened in recent weeks, but one question remains to be answered : when will the IRA give up violence? There never has been any justification–now, clearly and undoubtedly, there is not a single shred of justification in anyone’s mind–for its barbaric murders. It is losing support on all sides and becoming increasingly isolated. We should stick with the joint declaration and pursue the discussions that we are having with the constitutional parties and with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. We should also pursue the mechanism that we have been following for the past two years, which is bringing us nearer to peace than we have been for many years.

    Mr. Kynoch : Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider what would be the impact on traditional British interests were we to forgo completely the national veto in Europe, as urged by the sell-out Liberal Democrats?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is

    Mr. Skinner : It is that lot behind me.

    The Prime Minister : Tempting though it is to respond to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I shall respond first to my hon. Friend.

    It is inconceivable that any responsible party would wish completely to eliminate the national veto or dilute it in any way. On vital issues, it is important that that national veto remain. I shall give just one example. Had we had no national veto at Edinburgh, where we discussed future financing, under qualified majority voting we could have lost our rebate of £3 billion a year, which was so hard-fought for by my predecessor and retained in those discussions.

     

    Q3. Mr. Ainger : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

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

    Mr. Ainger : The Prime Minister will be aware–it is now a matter of public record–that, on 20 April, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled

    Madam Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put a direct question to the Prime Minister.

    Mr. Ainger : Is the Prime Minister aware that, on 20 April, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People instructed his civil servants to produce amendments designed to ensure that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would be talked out? Is he also aware–I am sure that he is–that, only 16 days later, the same Minister denied to the House that he gave those instructions? Will the Prime Minister now do the honourable thing and, first, apologise to the 6.5 million disabled people for the deceitful and shabby way in which they have been treated and, secondly, sack the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People for misleading the House, the disabled and the country?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the direct questions is certainly not.

    The Government’s record on assisting people who are disabled is very good. We have made it perfectly clear that, over the next few months, we shall consult to try to find a Bill that will achieve assistance for disabled people, but not a Bill with a cost of £17 billion. Until and unless the Opposition say that they are prepared to impose costs of £17 billion on private industry, their attitude over the Bill is utterly and totally bogus.

    Mr. Allason : Tonight, the House will be asked to review the provisions of the prevention of terrorism order. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the abuse of the broadcasting ban, which is so widely circumvented by all the broadcasting media, should be reviewed so as to prevent known terrorists from appearing on television and having their voices dubbed by out-of-work actors from Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I understand the frustration that my hon. Friend feels about that matter. A number of complex matters are involved, but I will certainly discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Bridget Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

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

    Mrs. Prentice : Why do so many people believe that foreign millionaires can queue jump their way into Britain? Can they do that because they give substantial donations to the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that the hon. Lady quite understands the immigration rules, which are very complex. If she did, she would know that for a long time–even under the last Labour Government and I believe since 1970 or before–the immigration rules have allowed people of independent means to come to the United Kingdom. That has been the position for a very long time.

    Mr. Bill Walker : During his very busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider having a wee dram to celebrate the fact that the Scotch whisky industry is now in its 500th year? Is he aware that that industry provides massive employment in Scotland, provides export earnings of £2,000 million and brings pleasure to many?

    The Prime Minister : I am more amenable to the suggestion that I might have a wee dram than I am to many that I get these days, and I would be happy to take up that suggestion. I am happy to join my hon. Friend in his congratulations to the Scotch whisky industry, which has been a huge success. It is increasing its exports of a product which is enjoyed in every part of the world.

  • PMQT – 17 May 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Dunnachie : Will the Prime Minister agree to scrap the Child Support Agency in its present form and go back to the drawing board to produce a more efficient and fair method of supporting children of lone parents?

    The Prime Minister : I think that children are entitled to be supported by their own parents and that taxpayers should help only to the extent that parents do not have the means to do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in February we made some changes to the Child Support Agency and I repeat what I have said to the House on previous occasions : we shall continue to keep it under review and, if further changes are necessary, we shall make them.

     

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

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

    Mr. Lidington : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week’s decision by the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill has caused immense dismay among my constituents in Aylesbury and among many other people in London and south-east England? Will he assure the House that the Government will look urgently at other ways in which that project might be taken forward?

    The Prime Minister : I share the disappointment that the Select Committee has rejected the Crossrail Bill. We have consistently made clear our commitment to the project and I am pleased to tell the House that that commitment remains. The promoters are now urgently considering the position and we are in discussion with them on how to proceed.

    Mrs. Beckett : When does the Prime Minister expect to publish the Department of Transport’s report on the technical and legal aspects of fitting seat belts in minibuses and coaches, especially in view of the fact that the Government have been saying since January that that research would be published “in a few weeks’ time”?

    The Prime Minister : I hope that it will not be very long before we are able to publish it. The report has now been delivered to Ministers and I hope that they will be able to announce their conclusions shortly.

    Mrs. Beckett : Could I urge the Prime Minister to make that very shortly indeed, as the report has been in preparation for some time and safety organisations, coach operators and the general public have been calling for a measure along those lines for a considerable time?

    The Prime Minister : We are looking at a range of things. The Department of Transport has been conducting a full review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to both minibuses and coaches. We also wish to take into account the circumstances of the minibus accident last Sunday and the vehicles in that respect are still being examined by the Vehicle Inspectorate. It is right that we examine all the circumstances. As soon as we are ready, we shall bring forward our conclusions.

    Mrs. Beckett : Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that when the Government have looked at this report they will be prepared to introduce legislation as a matter of urgency ? I believe that the amendment paper contains an amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) which might make possible the adoption of a decision in principle as early as tomorrow night. I repeat the offer of all-party talks which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) as long ago as December, with a view to ironing out the difficulties regarding such legislation. I assure the Prime Minister that, subject to proper scrutiny, the Opposition would certainly give any legislation a speedy passage.

    The Prime Minister : We wish to conclude our examination of this matter before deciding what is the right way to proceed. Increasingly a number of minibus manufacturers are fitting seat belts as a matter of course. That is a decision for them. It is also open to potential customers, when making coach or minibus bookings, to ask whether belts are fitted. I do not wish to give any indication of the outcome of the review until we have had time to study the conclusions and to reach a decision based on all the evidence that is available.

    Mr. Couchman : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while regretting the need for such a course, the House will back the decision of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to increase the number of armed response units?

    The Prime Minister : There is a feeling–in the House and across the country, I suspect–that people certainly do not wish the police to be armed as a matter of course. This is a very limited measure and I believe that it is justifiable. Of course, the number of armed policemen will be very small–about 50. These officers are highly trained in the use of firearms and they will be called only to incidents where firearms might be needed.

     

    Mr. Ghazanfer Ali

    Q3. Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he had made to the Government of Pakistan to secure the release of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali from prison in Mirpur.

    The Prime Minister : Although Mr. Ali is not a British citizen, our high commissioner in Islamabad has followed this matter closely on a humanitarian basis. We are concerned that Mr. Ali’s case keeps being adjourned. Officials at the Foreign Office are arranging to meet his son to discuss future courses of action.

    Mr. Madden : I thank the Prime Minister, on behalf of Mr. Ali’s wife and family, for his past efforts on this man’s behalf. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Mr. Ali has been held without proper trial for the past four years. I urge him to make further representations to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and to the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir, who will be visiting Britain and calling at the House of Commons later this week.

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a very great interest in the matter. So far, we have pursued it on a humanitarian basis. Given the length of time that Mr. Ali has been detained without trial, I shall consider raising his case again with the Pakistani authorities. The hon. Gentleman knows that as Mr. Ali is not a British national we cannot assist specifically with consular advice. However, on a humanitarian basis, it is right that we should again raise with the Pakistani authorities the question of his lengthy detention without trial.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Dr. Spink : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

    Dr. Spink : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the breast cancer lobby that is taking place at the House of Commons today? Did he have time to read the report on the subject in The Daily Telegraph today? Will he draw its importance to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health?

    The Prime Minister : I think my right hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend’s question. I am very pleased that the Macmillan Fund for Cancer Relief survey shows that there was a high degree of satisfaction with the treatment that women had received from the national health service. That was particularly marked among those who had received treatment more recently. I understand that the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales will publish tomorrow their consultative report on the provision of cancer services. I believe that it will have far-reaching consequences for the services provided for patients with cancer.

     

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

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

    Mr. Grocott : Is not it salutary for the international community to note that in Rwanda more people have been killed in the past six weeks–one estimate puts the figure at 500,000–than were killed in the former Yugoslavia in the whole of the past three years? Is not it vital that the United Nations, the European Community and other international agencies ensure that the time, energy and effort that they devote to the solution of crises worldwide are at least in some way proportionate to the degree of suffering on the ground?

    The Prime Minister : There are many people who feel as the hon. Gentleman clearly does about the dreadful bloodshed in Rwanda. It is clearly a bitter civil war and some of the atrocities that have taken place are unforgivable by any rational judgment. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously adopted resolutions calling for a ceasefire. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to assist where practicable. The mandate is primarily humanitarian, contributing to the security and the protection of refugees and civilians at risk. The resolution also imposes an arms embargo.

    Mr. Bowden : As we approach the 50th anniversary of D-day, will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the war widows whose husbands made the supreme sacrifice, to see whether there is some way in which he can ensure that additional recognition is given to that sacrifice this year by some form of financial payment?

    The Prime Minister : I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for pensioners generally, and war widows in particular, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will have heard what he has to say. My hon. Friend will agree that, over the years, we have taken great care to recognise the remarkable sacrifice made by many widows whose husbands were killed in the war and most people will consider it right of us to have done so.

     

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

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

    Mr. Foulkes : If the economy is on the mend, as the Prime Minister keeps claiming, instead of increasing VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. in April, will he consider getting rid of it altogether?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that many people doubt that the economy is on the mend. All the indicators show that that is certainly the case. Not every single indicator in the months ahead may be as good as we would wish, but the overall trend is undoubted. One of the reasons why the economy is moving ahead is that we have taken the tax measures necessary to improve our public finances.

     

    Economy

    Q7. Mr. Luff : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the prospects for economic growth and inflation in the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : The prospects for the economy are extremely good– [Interruption.] –and not only that, this year the United Kingdom is set to be the fastest-growing major European economy for the second year running. Underlying inflation is under control, at its lowest for 25 years and well within its target range. I shall spare Opposition Members all the rest that it says here.

    Mr. Luff : I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the hardest lessons we have to relearn as a country is that British manufacturing industry can prosper only if it is competitive? Against that background, will he join me in welcoming yesterday’s news that factory gate inflation is at a low level not seen in Britain for a generation?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right about competitiveness. The more competitive we are, the more we will sell and the more jobs we will be able to create in this country. The figures on factory gate prices are extremely good–better than we have seen for many years. One of the reasons why we are competitive and will remain so is that we have no intention of saddling our companies with the social on-costs that so many in Europe have now undertaken and which so many in the House would be prepared to undertake.

    Mr. Purchase : Will the Prime Minister contrast the sweeping victories of many Labour groups in the local elections recently

    Madam Speaker : Order. I am listening carefully because the hon. Gentleman’s question has to be tied to the question on the Order Paper on prospects for economic growth and inflation.

    Mr. Purchase : Indeed, Madam Speaker. Will the Prime Minister compare that record with the awful record of the Black Country development corporation on economic development in the black country? In the light of that comparison, would he care to give back to Labour authorities the money taken from them for that economic development?

    The Prime Minister : I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the record of the Black Country development corporation. It is clear that right across the black country and the country as a whole the prospects for manufacturing industry and other industries are rapidly improving. That is self-evident in the growth seen in the past 12 months, the growth that we are seeing now and the growth that we can safely anticipate in the future.

     

    Engagements

    Q8. Mr. Richards : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

    Mr. Richards : Does my right hon. Friend agree that sharpening the skills of our schoolchildren will improve the competitive edge of the economy in the future? Does he welcome the recently announced statistics showing that more of our schoolchildren are staying on at school than ever before?

    The Prime Minister : I do welcome that, just as I welcome the fact that the number of people who are unemployed is falling and has been consistently for 15 months. Some years ago, about one in eight of young people went on to further education; that figure is now one in three. Some 70 per cent. of our 16-year-olds are now in full-time education. I am sure that that trend is right and I thoroughly welcome it.

  • PMQT – 10 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

    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 have further meetings later today.

    Mr. Flynn : In a letter to me from the Imperial Tobacco Company, the corrupt practice is exposed that, in the general election, it awarded 1,000 advertising sites to the Tory party because the Tory party promised not to ban tobacco advertising. The Government have now delivered on that promise to their paymasters. The cost will be borne by the nation in several thousand avoidable and unnecessary deaths. Will the Prime Minister promise today that never again will the Tory party accept bribes, favours or money from the tobacco industry?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly overlooks the excellent record that this Government have had in reducing smoking–down from 45 to 28 per cent. He knows very well of the changes in taxation that have been necessary to achieve that. He illustrates that no company that was remotely sensible would support the policies of the Labour party.

    Mr. Waterson : Will my right hon. Friend consider making public funds available so that every business in the land can be sent a copy of the European socialist manifesto so that they may judge for themselves whether it is a constructive business plan or a fast route to failure?

    The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure that would be a proper use of public funds. I very much doubt whether anybody would really wish to read it. It is certainly clear that what is contained in that socialist manifesto, which was signed up to by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)–without, as I recall, reading it–would be desperately damaging for British industry. It is equally true that the decision in the past of Members of the European Parliament who support the Labour party to vote for ending single nation vetoes would in effect mean that we would not be able to sustain our rebate, at a cost of many billions of pounds to the British taxpayer.

    Mr. John Smith : Given the widespread concern throughout the country at the arbitrary and unfair decisions that are being produced by the system operated by the Child Support Agency, why are the Government so opposed to allowing an independent review of its decisions?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there will be a full debate on that issue later today. As I have said on previous occasions, we have made it clear that we shall keep the nature of the system under review and if it seems necessary to make changes we will do so. We are embarking on implementing a principle that is supported uniformly across the House. We need a little more experience of how it works. We will keep it under review. If it is necessary to make changes, we shall make them then, not now.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the Prime Minister aware that the phrase “keeping under review” has been the bromide response of bureaucrats down the decades? Why do the Government–despite all the evidence–stop the Child Support Agency from taking into account divorce or separation agreements involving the transfer of assets, which may be highly relevant to establishing justice between the parties?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously did not listen to what I said a moment ago. I made it perfectly clear that we would continue to evaluate the workings of the Child Support Act 1991 and the agency. We intend to secure a well-accepted, consistent mechanism to deliver a better child maintenance system than we have had in the past. That is why I said that we would keep the matter under review.

    This system is unlike anything that has been tried before. It is generally accepted to be right in principle–not least by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is nodding. It is right to consider it and, having considered it, decide then whether further changes are necessary.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister cannot be so complacent about the anger that is now felt throughout the country–and his Back Benchers certainly should not be so complacent about it. Does not 80 per cent. of the money recovered by the agency go straight to the Treasury? Did the Government intend that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman reveals instinctively that he thinks in terms of “big government”, rather than thinking of the taxpayer. The money is actually returned to the taxpayer who contributed it in the first place.

    Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain’s only interest in Bosnia is assisting in the provision of humanitarian aid? Can he assure the House that we will not prejudice that effort by attacking any of the combatants?

    The Prime Minister : The measures agreed yesterday at the North Atlantic Council are intended primarily to reinforce the peace process. There will be renewed diplomatic effort to encourage all sides to reach an agreement and stick to it.

    No course in Bosnia is free of risks; that has been the case from the beginning. I do not myself believe, however, that doing nothing would be the right option for the House or NATO to adopt in the circumstances that have now arisen. In the discussions at the North Atlantic Council, we urged our allies to look forward. We do not favour purely punitive action; force should not be used unless it is genuinely necessary, and increases the chance of a peaceful settlement.

    Another relevant point is the fact that NATO has warned all sides to cease their bombardment. It has taken specific and carefully constructed decisions to reinforce the efforts of the commanders on the ground, but the objective is to help the civilian population without changing the character of the United Nations’ role.

     

    Q2. Mr. Cousins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Cousins : Does the Prime Minister agree that, although private matters can be cruelly exposed within hours, issues of public accountability can sometimes lie dormant for years? Can he assure the House that British aid and export packages have never been used to cover the cost of large-scale commissions and backhanders?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of no circumstances in which that has happened. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I hope that he will show it either to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or to me.

    Mr. Cash : Has my right hon. Friend seen the manifesto adopted by the European Peoples party on 3 February? Is he aware that it contains a commitment to a single currency, a central bank, the social chapter, a common immigration policy and a constitution for the whole of Europe? Does he agree that Conservative Members could not possibly accept those proposals, and repudiate them explicitly?

    The Prime Minister : Neither do we have to accept them; nor will we. The Conservative party at the European elections is in agreement and will contest those elections on a distinctively British Conservative manifesto on the future of Europe.

     

    Q3. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Illsley : On the subject of the appropriate use of the taxpayers’ money, does not the Prime Minister agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Department of Employment can waste £59 million on unused computer equipment, when thousands of my constituents are facing cuts in unemployment benefit as a result of his mismanagement, or are bureaucratic waste, sleaze and corruption no longer his responsibility?

    The Prime Minister : The Government always study Public Accounts Committee reports carefully. The lessons in that have already been learnt and put into practice.

     

    Q4. Mr. Alan Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend agree that national health service trusts, general practitioner fundholding and the patients charter are yielding valuable improvements in efficiency and quality of service? Does he further agree that not only the patients, but those who work in the national health service do not want those reforms undone and everything turned upside down, as the Labour party proposes?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The test that we should apply to the health service and efficiency is perfectly straightforward. Is the health service treating more patients? Is it providing better care and is it treating people more quickly? The answer to each of those questions is yes. The national health service treated 2.5 million more patients last year than in 1979. By contrast, the ludicrous document launched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman this morning, contains nothing that would lead to a single extra patient being treated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would like to abolish trusts and fundholding. That is a recipe for inefficiency, upheaval and chaos.

    Mr. Jamieson : Is the Prime Minister aware that his education Minister in the other place announced last week that there would be no extra assistance to grant-maintained schools for their liability to pay value added tax on fuel? Is he aware that grant-maintained schools are now paying £2.50 in every £100 in taxation rather than on books?

    The Prime Minister : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more and more schools are seeking to become grant maintained and doing so week after week?

     

    Q5. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mrs. Gillan : In his very busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to look at the recent Confederation of British Industry survey, which shows that business confidence in Britain is at an all-time high? Orders are up and, in the words of the CBI survey, the recovery is deepening and widening. Does he agree that such good economic indicators and such good signs bode well for private investment in projects such as crossrail?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend refers to one of a number of surveys that have highlighted the improving economic circumstances. The survey to which my hon. Friend refers shows business and export optimism up in each and every region of the country. Orders are up, output is expected to rise and investment in plant and machinery is expected to rise. That is against a background of low inflation with unit costs falling in most regions. The prospects for British business are extremely good. By getting inflation under control, cutting public spending and bringing interest rates down, we have provided exactly the right economic circumstances for long-sustained growth with low inflation and the creation of employment.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Q6. Mr. Macdonald : To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the number of people killed in Sarajevo since the passage of the United Nations Security Council resolution of June 1992 authorising the use of force by UNPROFOR to protect the safe areas.

    The Prime Minister : We do not have reliable estimates for casualties in Sarajevo. The death toll has been high. The killing of 68 shoppers in the market last Saturday was a step change in a deteriorating situation. There can be no guarantee of peace in Sarajevo or in any other part of Bosnia. There is no feasible and certain means of resolving the problem from outside, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s decision yesterday will put the parties under heavier pressure to stop the bombardment and make peace.

    Mr. Macdonald : Does the Prime Minister accept that there can be no logical or moral justification for distinguishing between Sarajevo and the other UN-designated safe areas in Bosnia, and that about 2, 500 civilians have died in all those safe areas since June last year, when the UN authorised the use of force to protect those people? Will he, therefore, undertake to work to extend the ultimatum that has been issued in respect of Sarajevo to those other safe areas?

    The Prime Minister : We have to determine what is practicable. We are already working, as far as Srebrenica and Tuzla are concerned, to try and ensure that the situation improves. We are now doing that having seen the special difficulties in Sarajevo. To follow to its logical conclusion the concern that the hon. Gentleman set out would involve our becoming involved, very probably with troops on the ground, throughout the whole of the area of conflict. However strongly the hon. Gentleman may feel about the matter, or others, that is not a practicable proposition.

  • PMQT – 2nd November 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd November 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

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

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Is the Prime Minister aware that early next month Mrs. Margaret Humphreys will become the first British citizen outside the royal family to be awarded the prestigious Order of Australia medal for her work in rehabilitating victims of the British child migrants scheme? In recognition of that award, will the Prime Minister set up an independent public inquiry into the operation of the scheme until 1967 and the resulting appalling treatment of vast numbers of British children? In view of his professed commitment to open government, will the Prime Minister end the disgraceful Government cover-up of the issue once and for all?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly happy to congratulate Mrs. Humphreys on her award. I was not aware that that was the case, but I give her my warmest congratulations. As the hon. Gentleman will know–for I am aware that he has taken a great interest in the matter–the migration schemes to Australia and other countries were run at the time by respected national voluntary bodies. The Government’s concern now is to ensure that former child migrants who want to make contact with their families are able to do so. Any concern about the treatment of the children in another country is essentially a matter for the authorities in that country.

    Dame Jill Knight : In the light of the broadcast by Gerry Adams last week and the offence that it caused to a great number of people, will my right hon. Friend consider whether the arrangements for the broadcasting on our television screens of self-confessed terrorists and supporters of mass murderers should be revised?

    The Prime Minister : Many people felt that the incident to which my hon. Friend refers stretched the present guidelines to the limit and perhaps beyond. That is a matter that perhaps we should examine.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister agree that, while it must be right for both parents to contribute properly to the maintenance of their children, the Child Support Agency is causing widespread anxiety and dismay by imposing a rigid and inflexible financial formula that often ignores the realities of people’s lives? Will he institute an immediate review of the operation of the Child Support Act 1991?

    The Prime Minister : The whole House recognises the need for both parents to contribute to the bringing up of their children–that is not a point of dispute between myself and the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The purpose of the Child Support Agency is to ensure that fathers who desert their children face up to their responsibilities. I know of the concerns that have been raised about that matter and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is examining them.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, in any examination of the system, account is taken of the fact that the formula appears to disregard a property settlement, which provides a home for children, and also the cost of exercising access? Should not those factors, at the least, be taken into account and will they be encompassed in any further considerations of the operation of the Child Support Act?

    The Prime Minister : There are a number of matters to be considered, including the maintenance formula to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers. My right hon. Friend is aware, as I indicated a moment ago, of the concerns that have been raised and he will examine them.

    Mr. John Smith : If further consideration is to be given, will the right hon. Gentleman look into what appears to be another possible fault in the system? Is it right that out of the £530 million that the agency is to raise in its first year, £480 million should go to the Treasury and only £50 million to the benefit of children? While recognising, of course, the legitimate interest of the taxpayer, does not that show a lack of balance in what is supposed to be a Child Support Act?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the main purpose of the Child Support Agency is to ensure that assistance is given by both parents towards their children. That is the purpose of the agency and that will continue to be its purpose in the future.

    Mr. Lidington : In view of this morning’s press comments about the attitude of Her Majesty’s Government towards possible payments from the European social fund, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to make the Government’s position clear?

    The Prime Minister : I have seen suggestions in the press in recent weeks that sums due from the social fund would not be paid. Those reports are misguided. It is my expectation that the £300 million figure that has been mentioned in those press reports will be taken up by authorities within the calendar year.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

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

    Mr. Hoyle : Is the Prime Minister aware that the imposition of a guillotine on the Railways Bill is an affront to democracy– [Interruption.] –which has caused disquiet not only on Opposition Benches, but on his Benches, too, because it will curtail discussion of vital subjects such as pensions, railcards, and British Rail’s bid for franchises? Does not he realise that it will be seen by the public as a cheap, gerrymandering attempt to get an unpopular measure, which was introduced by his Government, through the House when it could have been debated fully in the two weeks up to the Queen’s Speech?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a long time and I congratulate him on keeping a straight face while he asked that question. When the arrangements for consideration of Lords amendments to the Railways Bill were announced, no one suggested that the two days proposed were insufficient. The majority of the amendments that have been brought from another place are uncontroversial, many of them demonstrate the Government’s positive responses to the points made in the Lords and all aspects of the proposals have been discussed exhaustively at all stages.

    The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that so far there have been more than 186 hours of debate, including 130 hours in this House alone–hardly a negation of democracy.

     

    Q3. Mr. Brandreth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

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

    Mr. Brandreth : May I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal involvement in encouraging the Maryland bank of North America to bring its European headquarters to the city of Chester and with it the prospect of 1,000 new jobs for my constituents? Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment and employment prospects must now go to the top of the European agenda and that the British approach gets the right results–less regulation means more jobs?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the relationship between regulation and jobs. The greater the extent to which we can reduce both regulation from Brussels and domestic regulation, the greater will be the likelihood of increasing the number of jobs in the United Kingdom. I am delighted at the excellent news from Chester and I congratulate my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Ministry for Industry on their part in obtaining that institution.

    Mr. Galloway : Will the Prime Minister find time today to call for the court reports referred to in early-day motion 2534, standing in my name and that of other hon. Members, on the torture of a British citizen, Sulaiman Al-Adsani, by Sheikh Jabar Al-Sabah, a member of the Kuwaiti royal house? That matter is now to go before the courts in Kuwait. The torture, which consisted of the burning of 25 per cent. of the body of that British citizen and of his being held repeatedly under water in a swimming pool that was floating with dead bodies and being pistol-whipped and brutally beaten, is a serious matter. Given that the Al-Sabah family business was reinstated to power at the point of British arms and at much British sacrifice, does the Prime Minister think that it would be a worthwhile subject of discussion between him and the Government of Kuwait?

    The Prime Minister : My understanding is that the matter is being dealt with by the courts of Kuwait, but in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall look at the information available to us.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hawkins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

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

    Mr. Hawkins : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his desire to get back to basics in education? Does he agree that it is essential to keep A-levels as a beacon of excellence at the top of secondary education, to concentrate on reading and writing in primary schools and to ensure that there is strong discipline in schools?

    The Prime Minister : I want to see us get back to basics in education, as in other subjects. We want to hear a good deal more of common sense and traditional values and rather less of the fashionable views that have so often offended parents and damaged education. I know that many teachers are concerned about the problem of discipline in schools and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education wishes to discuss with teachers what action can be taken.

    Mr. Stevenson : In view of the collapse of the Government’s policy on law and order, which has led to rocketing crime figures and equally record prison populations, does the Prime Minister agree with Mr. Derek Lewis that a return to that Victorian value, the prison ship, would be regrettable?

    The Prime Minister : There is an internal contradiction in the hon. Gentleman’s question. If he is right and our policy has collapsed, we would not be catching villains and our prisons would not be crowded. He should listen to what the chairman of the Police Federation said just eight days ago :

    “There has been a lot of comment about prison in the last few days One fact is clear. Society must be protected from the small but vociferous minority who put two fingers up to the criminal justice system. They are cautioned or bailed simply to be let out again and to reoffend and reoffend again These criminals should be behind bars. By locking them up they will be unable to ruin other people’s lives.”

    Those are my views as well.

     

    Q6. Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell : May I urge my right hon. Friend to be sceptical about the siren voices predictably suggesting to him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a major contribution can be made towards reducing the public sector borrowing requirement by relying on the future growth of our economy? That is the fairy gold school of economics, greatly beloved by Opposition politicians all over the world. Does he agree that it is important that, on Budget day, it should be seen that we are making an immediate, substantial and steady movement towards a reduction of our fiscal deficit?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the need to make a steady and consistent move to reduce our fiscal deficit. We have been looking at the range of Government expenditure to find out whether it is necessary; if it is, whether it is being spent effectively; and whether there is waste that we can cut. Those are propositions behind which all my right hon. and hon. Friends can unite, in stark contrast to the Opposition, who would throw taxpayers’ money at every problem. There will be a series of ways to reduce the fiscal deficit : withholding public expenditure is one; and growth and other factors will make a contribution.

     

    Q7. Mr. O’Hara : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

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

    Mr. O’Hara : Yesterday in the House, the Government failed to refute a figure in a Department of Transport working paper of £1.15 billion extra subsidy that would be needed for British Rail after privatisation. That is considerably in excess of the sum that would be raised were VAT imposed on domestic fuel bills at a rate of 8 per cent. next year. Will the Prime Minister apologise to pensioners who will be shivering through next winter when he tells them that they will be contributing to the placing of not one more train on our rail tracks or one more passenger on those trains, but to a semblance of profitability in a sham of privatised railways?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is talking total nonsense, as the House will have expected of him. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are looking at assistance to help vulnerable people with their heating costs during the winter. I remind the hon. Gentleman that matters such as special cold weather payments were never raised, provided or thought about by previous Governments.