The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Policing

  • John Major’s Speech to the 1996 Conservative Political Centre – 29 January 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Political Centre (CPC) on 29th January 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Political beliefs rest upon principles. Fundamental principles which guide our policies, decide our actions.

    Labour have principles too. ‘Don’t do as I do, do as I say’ is the principle they live by these days.

    And Labour have policies. But they’re poorly thought through and designed to show Labour today isn’t so obviously vindictive as yesterday. Both their policies and their principles fall apart upon even cursory examination.

    They’ve had an easy time over the last two years. Now they’ve been rumbled.

    The lesson of the past week is clear: you can’t trust what Labour say, because given half a chance they’ll do the opposite.

    Unlike theirs, our beliefs are refreshingly constant.

    We believe in a Britain of enterprise and prosperity.

    A Britain of opportunity and ownership.

    Of first class public services.

    Where law and order is safeguarded.

    And where a proud, united sovereign nation is defended against any threat, at home or abroad.

    Conservatives hold fast to these fundamental beliefs even though our policies move with the times. That’s why, over the years, we’ve dictated the pace and direction of change more than any other party.

    The subject I want to talk about tonight is law and order. It concerns everyone, of all parties or of none, wherever they live. A subject where the approach of the two main parties is very different. And another subject where Labour’s words are completely divorced from Labour’s actions.

    ‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ is their slogan. And yet they have opposed almost every tough piece of action we’ve taken.

    Let me make three points that underpin my attitude to crime.

    For every crime there’s a victim. For that victim, that crime isn’t a dry statistic. It’s something personal.

    For every crime, there’s a criminal. Not a product of society, but an individual who has made a conscious decision to harm someone for personal gain.

    And, third, every crime is wrong. Whatever the case, whatever the excuse.

    I believe the public share this attitude. And I believe they want to see it reflected in our law and order system.

    To stop crime, we have to realise that to commit one is a decision, not a disease. It’s a decision freely taken in most cases. We’re dealing with an individual who flouts our laws and spurns our moral code.

    I reject the view that absolutely everything is responsible for crime except the criminal.

    The view that individuals should not be held responsible for their actions.

    The view that the rights of the criminal come before those of the victim.

    This is the same sort of well-meaning thinking that assumes you can’t teach children the difference between right and wrong.

    That tells us discipline suffocates self-expression in children and has no place in home or school.

    If I overstate the case – though frankly I don’t think I do – it’s to make the point that this kind of thinking is not just mistaken, it’s plain wrong.

    Punishment is not a dirty word.

    In my book, being tough on crime means being tough on criminals.

    And I’ll tell you why so you can see how I approach policy making.

    When I think of crime, I think firstly about the victims. The victims are not always selected by criminals because they’re confident, robust, well-heeled individuals who can easily brush aside the trauma of crime or the personal and financial loss involved. Quite the reverse.

    Most often they’re vulnerable. Easy targets. All too frequently they’re relatively poor, underprivileged people who live where progressive thinkers wouldn’t dream of going. Because never forget, crime batters on the door of three room flats on the twelfth floor of tower blocks in unsought after districts, just as much as at the homes of more affluent members of society.

    With professional criminals the loss of possessions is often large. With amateurs less so – but is often accompanied by wanton vandalism. In either case the invasion of privacy is brutal. And when was stealing the small possessions of people with very little a minor offence?

    I put the point vividly because crime is vivid to the victim. For many it isn’t just a passing experience. It lives with them for a very long time.

    It’s too easy to explain crime away by blaming social causes. Too simplistic. Wrong. And offensive to the vast majority of people who strive to live decent, law-abiding lives whatever their circumstances.

    Crime is a choice whether it’s burglary by a young tearaway or sophisticated financial crime.

    To suggest otherwise totally neglects the role of the individual. This marks a fundamental difference between us and Labour.

    The left mistakenly talk about economic success in terms of grandiose national plans and ignore the individual. The state everywhere. The individual nowhere.

    They talk about education in terms of blanket prescriptions – levelling down, not levering up.

    My experience is a world apart. I see individuals with varying ambitions, different abilities, making their own opportunities, their own choice. Individuals responsible for their own actions – and content to be so.

    That’s why we want a criminal justice system which recognises that individuals have the power to fight crime – but are also responsible if they commit it.

    If we are to achieve long-lasting success in the fight against crime, I believe we should start quite literally at the beginning – with our children.

    We owe it to each of them, individually, to help them grow up knowing the difference between right and wrong, respecting the rules of society, understanding the penalties for transgressing them. If this discipline is taught to the young, it’s likely to be a discipline for life.

    I don’t believe in a harsh society, but I do believe in a self-disciplined society.

    All of us – parents, teachers – anyone in a position of responsibility – need to pass on the values of right and wrong that underpin any civilised society. This begins as a role, first and foremost, for individual parents.

    But later on schools obviously have a role to play. Teachers can re-enforce what parents are teaching their children, or help make the difference if children are missing out at home. They deserve all our support in maintaining discipline in the classroom. So Gillian Shephard is reviewing some of the sanctions available to schools – in particular, some of the current restraints on schools’ ability to exclude pupils and schools’ rights to detain pupils after school.

    But when children do turn to crime, the first step down the slippery slope often starts by playing truant. Truancy is a problem for the community if there are children out on the streets making mischief during the day. And if children are out on the streets, they’re failing to learn the skills they need to get a job. And they’re also more likely to fall into criminality.

    We’ve taken action to identify those children who are at greatest risk of turning to a career of crime. We must make sure that the child who persistently plays truant becomes a concern not just of their school, but of all other agencies who can help – the police, probation, social services and voluntary bodies. Wherever possible we must support parents and schools in their fight against truancy.

    But sadly some children still end up in the courts. Sometimes one appearance in court is sufficient – the jolt of a salutary experience prevents any further misbehaviour. But too frequently that isn’t the case.

    The court is lenient and the child is relieved. He offends again – and again. And he learns that courts can do very little. So he begins to think there’s no proper sanction against anti-social behaviour.

    That’s very dangerous to an immature mind. Children, in their own interests, need a line in the sand. And they need to know that, if they cross it, there’s a price to be paid.

    They must learn that society will not tolerate this behaviour. And they need to understand this lesson early on. The courts must have the power to deal with them.

    So we will build five secure training centres for 12-14 year aids who persistently offend. They’ll be put through a disciplined and rigorous routine – regrettably, often for the first time in their lives – to put them back on the straight and narrow. And we’re trying a similar, disciplined approach for some 18-21 year olds, who will face a tough 16-hour day, starting with drill before breakfast, ending at 10 at night.

    But behind too much of today’s crime – from youth crime onwards – lies the growing menace of drugs. For many, drug addiction can be the first step in a life of crime. The defining experience that leads to an addiction that’s paid for by petty theft – and then more serious crime.

    Our strategy against drugs is wide-ranging. Tony Newton set it out last year. It covers both supply and demand. It addresses drug-related crime, the threat to young people and the health risks of drug misuse.

    We’ve set up teams to work with schools, health authorities, and the police to fight drug abuse in the community. But drugs aren’t simply a social problem. They’re a problem fuelled by greedy, ruthless, international criminals who see drugs as a cynical route to profit. As with all crime, it’s those individuals we have to deal with. Catch the drug pusher and you cut off the supplier. Stop the drugs supply and you cut off the problem.

    Drug supply is international. So we’re giving the Security Service the power to support the police in tracking down drug dealers and putting them behind bars. This is a new responsibility for the Security Service – but it’s justified. We must tackle the international drugs problem at its source – and we’re working with our European partners to do so.

    But Mr Chairman, fighting crime on the front line means fighting it on the streets. There’s no more reassuring sight than the bobby on the beat. He both prevents crime and removes the fear of crime.

    Since 1979 we’ve recruited 16,000 more police officers. 700 more are expected this year alone. Over the next three years we’ve budgeted for 5,000 more. And also since 1979 more than 17,000 civilians have been recruited by the police – freeing up police officers to do the work which only police officers can do.

    But obviously we can’t have a policeman on every street corner. The public have a role to play too. The famous silent majority can turn the tide against the criminal. And they’re doing so. Through 143,000 Neighbourhood Watch schemes. Or by becoming one of the 20,000 Special Constables.

    I could swamp you with figures galore to show how successful these schemes are. But what matters as much – or maybe more – is involving people in taking a stand on crime, fighting crime in the community, a community.

    Of course criminals are now more sophisticated – but increasingly the police are ahead of the game.

    Security cameras cut crime. There’s no longer any argument about who saw what. In Newcastle 870 suspects have been caught on camera in the last 3 years. Already, three quarters of these have come to court. 99 per cent pleaded guilty. 100 per cent were convicted.

    DNA – the genetic fingerprints of the twenty-first century – is another weapon in our armoury. A single hair can identify the criminal. There are now over 26,000 records – 26,000 who know they’re marked men.

    This is how we’re helping the police to take the fight to the criminal. And not only with science. For too long, police had to sit by while known criminals carried on committing crimes. So we’ve given them new powers to get the evidence they need to arrest them – including strengthening the power to stop and search.

    But having caught criminals, we must ensure that the guilty are convicted. Trials should be a search for the truth – not a game of cat and mouse. That’s why we have reformed the right to silence. And why we’re changing the procedures to stop defence lawyers playing procedural games to get their clients off when they’re guilty. Criminals mustn’t be allowed to make a mockery of the law.

    We’re delivering a level playing field in court. But what is a ‘fair’ sentence if the accused is convicted?

    Tolerance and understanding are characteristic of our people. I hope they will always be. But punishment – whatever form it takes – is central to our system of justice.

    The public want criminals to pay a price for their actions. Not out of vengeance. But because the feeling that the criminal has been allowed to get away with it adds a sense of injustice to the pain and loss of the victim.

    I have lost count of the times people have said to me that criminals should serve their sentence in full. I agree.

    At present a burglar sentenced to six years can expect to be out in four – no matter what. That’s wrong.

    It’s particularly wrong when we know a small number of hardened criminals are responsible for a high proportion of crimes. People want to know that professional criminals get tough sentences.

    The average sentence for a burglar on his first offence is 14.4 months. And he can expect to be released after 7.2 months.

    But what do you think is the average sentence for burglars who have ten or more convictions?

    16.8 months with automatic release – with the expectation of release after 8.4 months.

    Commonsense suggests that cannot be just. And commonsense says that, if a persistent criminal is not behind bars, he’s more likely to be out on the street offending again.

    No wonder many people feel the law is letting them down. Too many criminals are raising two fingers at justice. We’re determined to put that right.

    We’ve been consulting on plans to end automatic early release from prison. Under our proposals model prisoners will be eligible for time off for good behaviour. Everyone else will serve their sentences in full.

    Anyone convicted for a second time of a serious offence of sex or violence would automatically get life. They would only be released when they’re no longer a danger to the public.

    And for persistent burglars and drug dealers, we propose stiff minimum sentences. Behind bars, crime is out and they’re in.

    These are tough proposals. They will be controversial. Of course, we will consult on them. But I believe it’s right to have greater certainty in sentencing. And I believe most people will support this approach. They will see it as fair. And so do I.

    You might have thought that all this would be common ground with our opponents, the Labour Party.

    So would I. But we would be wrong. Their record shows it. No matter what they say about crime, they persistently do something else. On another subject, one of them recently said ‘Watch my lips’. Well, we watched. And we saw what they did. And it was quite different from what they said. And so it is on law and order.

    We gave the police better powers to deal with riots. Labour opposed us.

    We raised maximum sentences for serious offences – like taking a gun to a crime. Labour opposed us.

    We gave the Attorney General right of appeal against lenient sentences. Labour opposed us.

    We decided to set up the secure training centres for young offenders. Labour opposed us.

    We are cracking down on bogus asylum seekers. Labour oppose us.

    And when the Home Secretary announced his 27 proposals to fight crime, the Shadow Home Secretary – now leader of the Labour Party – dismissed them as ‘gimmicks’.

    And this from the man who, only tonight, is saying that ‘the only strategy with an ounce of honesty or commonsense is to insist that serious crimes require serious punishment’.

    But let me be fair. When it came to the last Criminal Justice Act – which, amongst other things, gave the police new rights to stop and search, courts the power to clamp down on bail bandits, and allowed for drug testing in prisons – what did Labour do? They abstained.

    Day by day, Labour show themselves in their real colours. And the colour they reveal is not soft focus blue. It’s the colour of envy and hypocrisy.

    Mr Chairman, our aim is to prevent crime where we can. Detect it where it takes place. And punish strongly but fairly. In short, to get a law and order system that works. And we’re making some progress. We’ve seen the largest ever drop in recorded crime over a 2 year period. 572,000 fewer recorded crimes. 380,000 fewer thefts. 175,000 fewer burglaries. 4,800 fewer violent crimes last year alone – the first annual drop in violent crime for almost 50 years.

    We’ve taken a few knocks along the way. I don’t mind that. The irony is that those who have opposed our reforms almost always claimed to do so under the banner of freedom. I’m more than happy to argue about freedom with our opponents. Our reforms are all about freedom.

    Where is the freedom if victims see their aggressors released after derisory punishment?

    When the persistent burglar gets little more than a slap on the wrist?

    People have a right to live in safety, without fear.

    And if that means sterner sentences to make professional criminals more fearful, so be it.

    If that means thugs in balaclavas are put out of reach of their prey, so be it.

    Crime isn’t one of those trivial issues which grabs the headlines for a day and is then forgotten.

    It runs much deeper than that. For many it makes their blood boil. For others, it saps their morale. For all decent people it offends their sense of right and wrong.

    As Prime Minister, my aim is to ensure we have a system of justice which protects the public and the innocent. Which respects the victim. Which punishes those who break our laws.

    The vast majority of our people are law abiding citizens. They are the backbone of this country we all share. Our job is to maintain a system that defends their rights, their children and their property. And that’s what we’re determined to do.

  • Mr Major’s Comments at Memorial for James Morrison – 22 April 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments at the unveiling of the memorial for Detective Constable James (Jim) Morrison, held on 22nd April 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am privileged to be here today to unveil this memorial to a young man of great courage.

    You have heard from the Commissioner what kind of police officer Jim Morrison was. He proved his dedication by his courageous actions on 13th December 1991. Despite being off duty, he refused to let a dangerous criminal escape. Despite being threatened with a knife, he continued to chase his assailant.

    Such people are rare. I didn’t know Jim Morrison but I know a great deal about him. One of his greatest strengths was his tenacious approach to crime investigation. He wished to serve his community in the best way he knew – in the finest traditions of the Police Service. He had an aptitude for detective work. He pursued his investigations with great enthusiasm.

    Modern policing is a demanding and responsible service which requires professional commitment and courage. Jim Morrison displayed both qualities by accepting that, even when off duty, his first responsibility was to protect the public against crime whatever the threat to his own safety. It was that commitment and courage which Her Majesty the Queen honoured earlier this year with the posthumous award of the Queen’s Gallantry Medal. And I am honoured to pay my own tribute today.

    We owe so much to police officers like Jim Morrison. Every day – up and down the country – thousands of police officers expose themselves to danger to protect the public. They do so willingly, with dedication and bravery. On behalf of us all, I offer my thanks to them.

    Jim Morrison made the ultimate sacrifice. He knew the danger he faced, but he did not hesitate. He saw a dangerous criminal and he sought to arrest him. It was a brave act by a brave man.

    But Jim Morrison was not only a dedicated police officer. He was a husband, a son and a brother. His friends and family will have their own memories of him and a special sense of loss. No words of mine can properly do him justice, but I know the police service lost a distinguished, dedicated and well liked officer. This memorial will, I hope, remind those who see it of the bravery, dedication and vulnerability of those at the forefront of upholding the law. With respect and gratitude I honour Jim with you today.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the IPEC Community Police Officer of the Year Awards – 13 October 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the IPEC Community Police Officer of the Year Awards, held on 13th October 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you for your warm welcome. I am extremely delighted to be here for three reasons. First because it gives me an opportunity to offer my sincere congratulations to Sergeant Alan Evans on becoming Community Police Officer of the Year. Remarkable achievement. Second, an opportunity to congratulate the other 35 officers who were nominated for this prestigious award. The number of nominations indicates the high quality of policing we often take for granted. 36 nominated – but many more could have been.

    Being here also allows me to pay my personal tribute to the very many police officers – and their civilian colleagues – up and down the country, who do so much each day to serve our communities.

    Last week I pledged there would be no compromise and no excuse for crime. I said it was time to sweep away the fog of fashionable theories and get back to basics. Time for everyone in Britain to stand up and say what the whole police force has always known. Crime can never be justified.

    Michael Howard’s announcements on crime last week were warmly welcomed by Police bodies. That is good news. The police are at the forefront in the battle against crime, and they know the measures needed to tackle it.

    Others have taken a different view and question the role prison has to play in our criminal justice system. I welcome a debate but only in as much as it leads to constructive measures to combat crime.

    No-one denies that prison is expensive and criminals coming out of prison often offend again. But those who make such points must not miss two simple facts.

    – First, while criminals are in prison they cannot commit crimes;

    – And second, the existence of prison, as a sanction against criminals, deters many others from committing crimes.

    In short, prison does work.

    We must continue to do what we can to ensure that criminals are rehabilitated while they are in custody. And we must continue to do what we can to ensure that there are humane conditions in our prisons.

    As the Home Secretary has said, conditions should be decent, but austere.

    We have introduced programmes to make criminals confront their behaviour. And we have succeeded in cutting overcrowding by one half.

    Above all the first duty of any Government, above anything else, is to protect the public. That means the courts must be able to imprison those criminals who pose a threat to their communities.

    The public, quite rightly, demand that protection. And the Government, quite rightly, is determined to provide it. I reject outright any proposal that would penalise the victims of crime rather than the criminal. We need to consider victims more, not less.

    Tonight, I am glad to pay personal tribute to those tens of thousands of police officers who do so much for communities up and down the country each day. Good policing and safe communities need a partnership. And all sections of the community must take their share of responsibility, alongside the police, for stopping crime.

    I know that across the police service there is a clear recognition of the need to work closely with the broader community.

    But good policing also needs the full backing of Government. The police have that wholehearted commitment. That is why last week we announced new powers, a reduction in red tape, new measures to make investigation easier, and new sentences for a wide range of crime.

    I make this promise – Michael Howard’s measures are the start, not the end, of a renewed drive on crime.

    In finishing, let me pay tribute to Victor Green and to IPEC for their initiative in establishing these awards and to thank them for their continuing support of them.

    And let me once again offer my congratulations to the contribution made by the police officers around the country to the communities they serve. On behalf of the people of Britain, thank you.

  • PMQT – 1 July 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

    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.

    Mr. Paice : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to assure the people of Ulster that this Government are totally committed to the Union? Will he also point out to them that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has a plot to ditch them? The leader of the Labour party should either support that betrayal of the people of Ulster or sack his spokesman.

    The Prime Minister : The Union is vital for all parts of the United Kingdom. It has the democratic approval of the people of Northern Ireland and we in the Conservative and Unionist party stand four-square behind it. I am aware of the opinions that have been attributed to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I believe that he has proposed “shared responsibility”, which “would have to be imposed against the wishes of a majority of Northern Ireland’s citizens.”

    Frankly, I think that that is appalling. The hon. Gentleman also complains that progress in Northern Ireland could strengthen the Union, and he certainly appears to regret that. I assume that can mean only that the Labour party has abandoned its manifesto commitment to consensus and that it wants to promote a united Ireland through economic deprivation. If those are the Labour party’s policies, they are cynical and shameful and are a betrayal of democracy and of the people of Northern Ireland.

    Mr. John Smith rose–

    Hon. Members : Answer.

    Madam Speaker : Order. Settle down now.

    Mr. Smith : Following the revelation that the taxpayer was defrauded — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down and listen not only to answers but to questions, too–all of you.

    Mr. Smith : Following the revelation that the taxpayer was defrauded of £97 million in Britain’s biggest ever tax fraud involving Nissan UK and that, during the period in which the fraud was perpetrated, Mr. Octav Botnar gave £1 million to the Conservative party, will the Prime Minister invite the Conservative party to repay that sum to the Inland Revenue?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the whole House and the whole country will notice what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not have to say about his party’s policies for Northern Ireland. If his fundamental concept is that we should clean up British politics, I agree. We should, for a start, have rules that no donor can buy votes at a party conference, that no donor should buy votes for the selection of party candidates and that no donor should buy votes for the selection of a party’s leader. It is that sort of action, not his sort of smears, that demeans British politics.

    Mr. Smith : The House and the country will have noticed that the Prime Minister did not answer the question.

    Does not the Prime Minister accept that, as First Lord of the Treasury, his principal responsibility is to the British taxpayer? Should he not be encouraging action to recover money of which the Revenue has been defrauded? Is not that a more important responsibility than defending the finances of the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, for I have told him before, that where tainted money has been provided to the Conservative party, we will replace it. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now have the grace to accept that. So far as Mr. Botnar is concerned, no doubt the Inland Revenue will pursue that matter. It is a matter for the Inland Revenue.

    Mr. Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Conservative party received money from Mr. Botnar?

    The Prime Minister : I have no idea whether the Conservative party received money from Mr. Botnar around 10 years ago. I am not responsible for that.

    Sir Malcolm Thornton : Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity today to read the report by Ernst and Young entitled “Inward Investment in the 90s–Maintaining the United Kingdom’s Lead”? If so, does he agree with its recommendation that one of our main advantages–the flexibility and cost of our labour force–would be placed in considerable jeopardy if we were to accept the social protocol and that that would further undermine the country’s lead in attracting inward investment, which we need to maintain the recovery?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. Our system for encouraging inward investment is second to none. We have received far more inward investment in this country as a result of the policies followed by this Government and their immediate predecessor than any other country in the European Community. Because of those policies, we remain the preferred location for investment in the Community by Japan, the United States and many other countries. Policies of excessive social costs and excessive regulation would damage that inward investment and the jobs created by it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Beith : Will the Prime Minister, recognising the importance to the north-east and to shipbuilding in Britain of the Swan Hunter shipyard, take steps today to make it clear that the frigates that were built by the yard can be completed at the yard? Will he tell the Government of Oman that he has done that, as that would indicate to them that he is confident that the yard can complete the Omani order for which it has tendered and which would otherwise be lost to Britain?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman touches on a very important matter. I very much hope that it will be possible to complete the three type 23 frigates at Swan Hunter. The Ministry of Defence is in negotiation with the receiver. Some more detailed work remains to be done, but I suspect that those discussions will be concluded very shortly indeed. If and when agreement on the terms for completing the type 23s has been reached, I will of course ensure immediately that the Omani authorities are informed of that fact. Once Swan Hunter has found a buyer–that is one of the matters of concern to the Omani Government–and is back on a secure financial footing, there is no reason whatsoever why, among seeking other orders, it should not begin once more to tender for orders from the MOD.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Bates : Would my right hon. Friend agree that excess bureaucracy and over-regulation stifle initiative and efficiency, not only in British industry but in the police force in its battle against crime and the criminal? Is he aware of the remarks made two weeks ago by the chief constable of Dorset police when he pointed out that, for the most simple arrests, the average police officer is required to complete 23 forms and, in the most complex cases, that figure rises to 47 forms? That takes the average police officer off the beat and puts him behind a desk for half a day on average. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such excessive bureaucracy exists, that the average police officer feels deep frustration about it and that it is a source of bewilderment for the public and a source of delight for the criminal?

    The Prime Minister : I did see the chief constable’s remarks and I am aware of the extent of the bureaucracy facing many officers in the police force. It is partly for that reason that we are seeking to deregulate so substantially. The whole purpose of the series of reforms that my right hon. and learned Friend is now taking forward is to ensure that we have a modern, professional and effective police force with the powers that it needs to deter crime. I share the concerns that are expressed by my hon. Friend and felt by the police force. That is why we are seeking to reform and modernise the police force, so that it can concentrate on the job that it is really there for–catching criminals, not filling in forms.

     

    Q4. Mr. Chisholm : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Chisholm : Has the Prime Minister seen the report which was published this week by the Day Care Trust, which is funded by the BBC’s Children in Need, which analyses the poverty trap faced by a large number of Britain’s 1.3 million lone parents and which advocates that income spent on child care should be substantially disregarded in calculating income support or family credit entitlements? Does the Prime Minister support that proposal? Would he prefer to boost the supply of affordable child care, or does he regard child care as one of the byways of politics about which he said on Saturday he would prefer not to be asked?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should look at the record of the care and the support that have gone into child care over recent years. Expenditure on families with children now totals nearly £13 billion, a rise of three quarters during the period since the Conservative Government came to office in the late 1970s. The hon. Gentleman would be better served offering support for some of those policies rather than misrepresenting other people’s reports.

    Mr. Devlin : As today is the end of the first six months of the single market which this country and the Government did so much to bring about, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to explain to the people of the north of England the benefits of the single market and re- emphasise the Government’s commitment to unfettered markets and free trade?

    The Prime Minister : There is absolutely no doubt, not just in this country but in countries all around the world, that free trade increases the volume of trade and, with it, the volume and levels of prosperity. We certainly see within the European Community the increasing advantages of the single market. I am delighted that it was concluded during our presidency of the Community, and I hope that the general principles of free trade will win through in the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations that we are currently in the midst of.

     

    Q5. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Pike : Will the Prime Minister recognise the widespread concern and anger of people in the north-west, particularly those on low pay–such as nurses and firemen, whose pay was limited to a 1.5 per cent. increase– at pay increases that were announced by the privatised monopoly, North West Water? It increased payments to its chief executive and management by 43 per cent. in the past year and by 506 per cent. during the recession, over the past five years. Of course, they also have their share options. Will the right hon. Gentleman condemn such action by that privatised industry?

    The Prime Minister : It is not a matter for me to condemn. My responsibility across the public sector is to make sure that we retain proper control of costs, not least to ensure that we provide the services that the public want and not least to ensure that we are able to retain within the public sector the levels of employment that are necessary. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate on that rather than parade yet again his politics of envy.

    Mr. Clappison : Is my right hon. Friend aware of recent judicial comments and public concern about the absence of a power for the courts to send persistent juvenile offenders into secure accommodation? Does he agree that it is essential for the courts to have such a power? Does he agree further that the Opposition’s refusal to support giving such a power to the courts shows that they totally lack commitment to the fight against crime and that, far from being tough on crime, they are tough only on the victims of persistent juvenile offenders–victims whom they would continue to allow to suffer?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend clearly knows, one of the sectors in which the greatest increase in criminal statistics can be found is in crimes against property by youngsters, largely between the ages of eight and 18. It is for that reason that we are looking at the method of dealing with offenders and, in particular, finding secure accommodation for them. It is our intention to provide such accommodation.

     

    Q6. Mr. Bayley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Bayley : Is the Prime Minister aware that ABB Transportation Ltd. is the last surviving company manufacturing railway carriage body shells in Britain and that it recently announced 532 redundancies among the employees at its York works and a further 364 at Crewe and Derby ? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that situation has arisen because of a haemorrhaging of orders in the run-up to railway privatisation ? Will he do something to stop the next round of job losses, which would mean the closure of the York works and the end of Britain’s ability to build railway carriage body shells, which we should be left to import from abroad at yet further expense to our balance of payments ? When will we have more orders ?

    The Prime Minister : I find it very strange, on some occasions at the Dispatch Box, to be criticised by Opposition Members for the fact that we appear to have too large a deficit, while on other occasions I am urged to spend more and more money–usually for some particular interest of the hon. Member concerned. I regret very much the job losses at ABB. However, ABB, like every other enterprise in this country, must find its way in the marketplace.

  • PMQT – 30 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th June 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 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. Robertson : On behalf of the people of Aberdeen, South, I extend to my right hon. Friend every best wish as he prepares to take on the presidency of the European Council. Given that there is concern about too much centralism in Europe, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Maastricht treaty, with its emphasis on subsidiarity, starts to reverse many of the centralising tendencies of previous treaties? Does he recall that it was in the Single European Act that the first commitment to economic and monetary union was based and that qualified majority voting was extended to a number of key areas?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The Single European Act was very far reaching. It secured, first and foremost, the single market commitments which are necessary to fair trading throughout Europe. It also represented the most far-reaching amendments since our entry into the Community under the treaty of Rome. It increased majority voting by a significant extent and did a great deal to transform relationships between members of the Community. In the Maastricht treaty, we look forward to decentralisation, and the House had ample opportunity to discuss that yesterday.

    Mr. Kinnock : When Mr. George Nissen, chairman of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, honourably resigned yesterday, he said :

    “for some years we have been telling the Government of the problems of pension and trust law.”

    Why did the Government take no effective action in response to those repeated warnings from the regulatory body?

    The Prime Minister : I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman said and, as he knows, we have made a series of announcements about how we propose to deal with the problem in the short term. We are still waiting for further information and we have made it clear that in due course further information will be released.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister suggesting that Mr. Nissen, who had no reason to mislead anyone, was seeking to mislead those listening to him yesterday and those reading his words today? Is it or is it not the case that over a period of years, and long before the Maxwell scandal, the regulatory body was giving warnings of the problems to the Government? As I am inclined to believe Mr. Nissen’s word, as is everybody else, I again ask why the Government did nothing in response to those warnings from that authoritative body.

    The Prime Minister : I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s conclusions. When Mr. Nissen resigned on 29 June, he said : “We have freely acknowledged that we are open to a share of reproach although much of that criticism, to those who knew the facts, is misplaced. In these circumstances, I think it right that I should resign the Chairmanship.”

    That is what he said.

    Mr. Kinnock : Mr. Nissen also said that, while he accepted his full share of responsibility, as the Prime Minister has indicated, no one should attach the blame solely to IMRO. He then uttered the sentence that I have quoted to the Prime Minister. As Mr. Nissen has taken his share of responsibility and has honourably resigned, can we expect the Government to take their share of the responsibility? When can we expect Ministers to follow Mr. Nissen’s example?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman, as he did last year in respect of another matter, is seeking in a truly disgraceful manner to spread blame where it does not belong– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I insist that there be order in the house so that the Prime Minister may be heard.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman may seek to smear, but he will have to wait until the information is available. As I said to the House the other day, the Securities and Investments Board will wish in due course to publish as much as possible of the IMRO review. We have made it clear that it may not be possible to publish the review in full, and we have made clear why that is so. I am advised that publication of the full review by the Securities and Investments Board or by the Government would be severely prejudicial to criminal proceedings. Would the right hon. Gentleman like us to damage criminal proceedings? Is he so concerned to make a party point that he is unconcerned with the law of the land?

    Mrs. Peacock : My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance to the textile industry of this country of a successful outcome to the GATT round. Can he today assure the House and the industry that during his presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Community he will endeavour to secure a successful outcome?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that we are looking for a successful outcome that is satisfactory to all elements of British industry and will bring the GATT round to a satisfactory and early conclusion.

     

    Q2. Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

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

    Mr. Alton : Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the decision made by the House of Lords last week in connection with Kirklees council and the Shops Act 1950? Does not he agree that the private Member’s Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) deserves the support of the whole House to ensure that Sunday is kept as a special day by defeating those vested interests who continue to trade illegally on Sundays?

    The Prime Minister : I am, of course, aware of the Bill that is before the House. I think that it would be premature to take a view on any Sunday trading legislation before we know the position in Community law, which is something that we await. Before the election, we made it clear in our manifesto that once the law was clarified we would bring forward a Bill so that the House of Commons might make its decisions and put the law in a state of grace.

    Mr. Haselhurst : In view of the critical situation over the European fighter aircraft project, can my right hon. Friend say what discussions he has had with the Italian and Spanish Governments, and whether there is still full accord between them and the British Government about the future of that vital project?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has spoken to both the Italian and the Spanish Governments about the EFA. On more than one occasion I have spoken to the German Government, and in particular to Chancellor Kohl, about it. It is possible that a decision on the European fighter aircraft will be taken by the Germans today, tomorrow or perhaps later this week. The Government and many right hon. and hon. Members have been in close touch with the German Government to try to persuade them to stay in the project. I tried again in my discussions with the Chancellor at the weekend. It is our view, on military grounds, that there is a clear and continuing need for an aircraft with the capabilities of the European fighter aircraft. If the Germans withdraw, as I believe my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence may have indicated earlier this afternoon, we shall need to discuss the future with our Spanish and Italian partners. But we await a decision.

    Mr. Stevenson : Is the Prime Minister aware that thousands of people throughout the country are being denied access to his social fund as the result of a mistake that is admitted by the Department of Social Security? Does the Prime Minister accept that nonsense will be made of the much- vaunted citizens charter until mistakes by public authorities and bodies are acknowledged and the people who have suffered are recompensed? What action does the Prime Minister intend to take to ensure that those thousands of people are protected from mistakes made by his Government?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion without backing it up. If he would care to back it up, I shall examine it.

    Mr. Butterfill : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the principle of subsidiarity had been built into earlier European treaties, many of the decisions of the European Court of Justice might have been different?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, but subsidiarity exists and is legally judicable. We propose to build on it during the British presidency.

     

    Q3. Mr. Nigel Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

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

    Mr. Jones : Is the Prime Minister aware that the chief constable of Gloucestershire recently announced a 32 per cent. increase in crime, yet when he asked for 56 extra officers a year ago, the Government allowed him only one? When will the Government allow chief constables the resources that they need to crack down on crime?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should have the grace to recognise that no party has a monopoly of concern about crime and that no Government have provided more resources to tackle crime than the Conservative Government in recent years. He should also acknowledge that the Government have consistently ensured that the police have adequate resources. We have provided almost £5.5 billion on police services in England and Wales, which is a rise of three quarters since 1979. Total manpower is up by 30,000– [Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not like it because their record in government was lamentable. There were many reasons why we won the last election and they lost it. One of the reasons why they lost was their criminal neglect to deal with crime in their manifesto.

    Mr. John Townend : Will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government’s commitment to financial rectitude and lower taxes? If so, will he remind his colleagues that, due to the continuation of the recession, receipts from revenue are falling and they must reduce their expenditure demands this year if the Government are not to be faced with increasing taxes or the public sector deficit? As a gesture of support to the Financial Secretary, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the £100 million additional spending as a result of the biodiversity treaty will have to come out of the existing overseas aid budget?

    The Prime Minister : On the latter point, that is a matter for discussion in the public expenditure round when we look at all those subjects but I expect that the £100 million will, over a period, be additional to the resources currently provided in that budget. We shall look at the expenditure position as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been holding early discussions this year with Departments on how their departmental spending programmes relate to total spending plans. As usual, this year our programme will be based on what the country needs and can afford. That is absolutely essential.

     

    Q4. Mr. Wray : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

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

    Mr. Wray : Does the Prime Minister realise that the police do not have enough money and resources to deal with the escalating problem of drug dealing and murder in the streets? If the Prime Minister visits cities throughout Britain he will find it commonplace that 12 and 13-year-old kids are involved in drug dealing. What plans has the Prime Minister to eradicate the problem of that evil trade?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged the action that we took through the European Community at the summit last year and the domestic action that we have taken here. Clearly, he also missed my mentioning a moment ago the extra 30,000 policemen during the period of Conservative Government to deal with all problems of crime, including the important problem of drugs.

     

    Q5. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

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

    Mr. Townsend : While we are all greatly aware of the human tragedy and suffering in the former state of Yugoslavia and the need for humanitarian aid, is it not clear that one cannot impose peace from outside on centuries-old feuds? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the British Government will not commit infantry or armoured units to that part of the world without first having a debate and vote in the House of Commons?

    The Prime Minister : I share many of the reservations on the difficulties of putting troops on the ground in Yugoslavia set out by my hon. Friend. Indeed, I set some of them out in answer to questions yesterday when I made a statement on the Lisbon summit. Following yesterday’s meeting of the Security Council, United Nations forces are now at Sarajevo airport and it is hoped that the relief operation, at least, can get under way soon. We have offered up to four Hercules flights a day and our aircraft are ready to take off at short notice. That is a different operation from ground action which, as my hon. Friend suggests, would be extremely hazardous. At present, we do not have such action in mind.

     

    Q6. Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

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

    Mr. Wigley : Is the Prime Minister aware that, whereas 90 per cent. of the housing stock in Sweden is insulated to a standard as good as or better than that required for new-build houses, the corresponding figure in Britain is only 16 per cent? Does he accept that a drive to improve insulation standards would not only reduce the demand for energy, which would be favourable for the environment, but assist people such as pensioners, the disabled and those on low incomes, and create jobs in a labour-intensive industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?

    The Prime Minister : We have examined the broad principles of what the hon. Gentleman suggests and I have some sympathy with the points that he makes. The budget of the Energy Efficiency Office has been increased substantially this year to £59 million–a 40 per cent. increase on the previous year. A further increase in the public expenditure plans–to £75 million–is already set out in those plans for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman.

  • PMQT – 21 May 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st May 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 May.

    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.

    Mr. Smith : The Prime Minister must be aware that this year there will be some 150,000 homeless families in Britain, that many more thousands of our fellow citizens are living in overcrowded and inadequate accommodation, that thousands of construction workers are unemployed and that local authorities have more than £6 billion worth of capital receipts which the Government do not allow them to use because of current Government rules. Will the Prime Minister now allow the local authorities to use their money to build the homes that are needed? Surely that is a matter of simple common sense, and of simple humanity, too.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have a homelessness programme on which more than £300 million was spent last year and which has produced about 17,000 permanent lettings during the past two years for the benefit of homeless families. Local authorities can still learn a great deal about value for money by looking at that programme and in the management of their housing affairs. We have no plans at present to change the present regulations on the release of capital resources.

    Mr. Moate : Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement the other day that the sovereignty of the House was not up for grabs was warmly welcomed? Bearing in mind the fact that the original European Communities legislation was carried through in a way that precluded the possibility of any amendment whatever, will my right hon. Friend allow a rather more open- minded attitude to any amendments that might come forward to the current Bill which seek to strengthen the sovereignty of this Parliament in relation to future developments in the EC?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, it is not possible to change the terms of the treaty, although that does not necessarily exclude extensive debate and, in certain circumstances, amendment. But the treaty that we have agreed is the treaty to which we shall be inviting the House to give its approval.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recall saying on the radio in January :

    “We”–

    meaning himself–

    “stopped the repossessions before Christmas.”

    Would he still make that same claim now?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I think that the range of schemes that has been produced by the building societies has led to the stopping of many repossessions that would otherwise have taken place, and it is now quite clear that the number is falling away. Where people are entitled–it was to this point that I suspect that I was referring–to income support payments, those payments can be made and repossessions should not continue.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister was right to suspect what he was saying. It provoked exactly the same reaction in me. Does he recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in December that his mortgage rescue scheme would reduce repossessions by 40,000? Yet, according to replies from his own Ministers, in the first three months of this year, action was started against 42,000 families. Will he not now concede that the scheme has been a complete flop and start taking steps to ensure that we have an effective scheme before thousands more families are put out of their homes?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows that repossessions occur at any time–not just at times of difficulties. There have been repossessions at times when this country’s economy has been the strongest ever known–and often they are because of domestic difficulties in the families themselves. Everyone regrets owner-occupiers losing their homes, but the right hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that only about 0.5 per cent. of home owners have had their properties repossessed. He ought to put that in the context of what happened in the past as well.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does not the Prime Minister recognise that for the small percentage of home owners to which he referred, repossession is a 100 per cent. tragedy? Does he acknowledge that many more families are under intense pressures? Will he not address himself to the fact that it is necessary, in a country in which there could again be 80,000 repossessions this year, for the Government to introduce a proper mortgage rescue scheme? It makes no sense at all to put thousands of families out of their homes.

    The Prime Minister : We have done so. As the right hon. Gentleman clearly did not take this on board last time, I reiterate that the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor are helping people facing difficulties. Many lenders have agreed not to repossess where mortgage interest is covered by income support. That is the position. Rescheduling is proving particularly helpful. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to be so hypocritical. His party would have denied nearly 1.5 million people the opportunity to become home owners in the first place.

    Dr. Michael Clark : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the last election, several old and disabled people in my constituency–and I suspect elsewhere–did not vote because doctors wanted to charge £8 for a sick note that would have allowed them a postal vote? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that situation ought not to prevail and that some greedy doctors should not deny old and disabled people the vote? Will he think about that matter and see what can be done in time for the next general election?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of that situation, and I will invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to examine it.

     

    Fixed-term Parliaments

    Q2. Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation for fixed-term parliaments.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so. The present system serves the country well.

    Mr. Mackinlay : Will the Prime Minister reflect that there will be disappointment across the political parties, and among democrats of no party, at his closed mind on the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments? It is wholly wrong that Prime Ministers of any party can manipulate the calendar–[ Hon. Members :– “Question.”] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the capacity of any Prime Minister to manipulate the decision-making process by choosing the timing of a general election to create a window of opportunity is wholly undemocratic and betrays the right hon. Gentleman’s bogus concern for reform?

    The Prime Minister : I think that that question had more than a touch of sour grapes about it. We rightly have a fixed-term maximum for Parliaments and that will be retained. Flexibility within that maximum is part of our constitution. That is right and helpful and it is not going to be changed.

     

    Q3. Mr. Ancram : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Ancram : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the early encouraging progress of the negotiations in Brussels on reforming the common agricultural policy? Will he congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on continuing firmly to resist the MacSharry proposals that would be so damaging to British agriculture? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if the agreement on the table is successfully concluded, that will result in a better than expected deal for British farmers which will be good for British consumers and provide a boost to the prospects of future world trade?

    The Prime Minister : Progress does appear to be being made and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on that. I hope that that progress will be sustained today and that, however long the negotiations go on, it will lead to a settlement. The negotiations are continuing ; they have not yet been concluded, as has been reported in some quarters. If we do succeed, it will be good news for the British farmer, the British consumer, the GATT negotiations, world trade and many developing countries.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister told us before the election that inflation was licked. The Chancellor told us on Tuesday that inflation was proving a hard nut to crack. Which is correct?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, if he looks at the input measures of inflation–particularly producer price inflation– he will find that it is now at its lowest level for almost 20 years and is forecast to be around 1.5 per cent. by mid-1993. I think that most people, bearing in mind our historical position, would regard that as inflation being licked.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 May.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : When my right hon. Friend goes down to Rio for the Earth summit, will he find room in his bag for a copy of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration report? The report casts grave doubt on the concept of the greenhouse effect. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it points out, for example, that the evidence of holes in the ozone layer is extremely suspect and that there has been no appreciable increase in the temperature of the earth over the past two decades? In the light of that, will he please continue to resist the blandishments of people who seek to impose a carbon energy tax–which would have a severe effect on our industry–on the ground that the whole concept of global warming will probably turn out to be poppycock?

    The Prime Minister : I have a number of reports on the ozone layer, including the report produced by NASA. I know that a number of contrary views have been expressed about the cause and effect of the ozone layer. We do take the matter seriously and we shall therefore look very carefully at any proposals for a carbon tax from the European Community. There can, of course, be no question of the Community’s unilaterally imposing a carbon tax on this country–or, I believe, of Europe’s accepting such a tax itself –unless comparable action is taken by Japan, the United States and other competitor countries.

    Mr. Hume : In the classless society that the Prime Minister tells us that he has built, how would he like to be unemployed? How would he like it if his family were in special need and if, instead of receiving a grant–as they could have before the right hon. Gentleman became Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security–they received a loan from the social fund which they had to repay out of their unemployment benefit? Does the Prime Minister agree that the social fund is targeting the poor and recycling and intensifying poverty?

    The Prime Minister : No, I do not agree with that. The hon. Gentleman would do well to bear in mind the reason for which the social fund was introduced, and the failures that existed in the old single payments scheme. Then, many people who were entitled to help fell through the system because they did not come into a particular category. The social fund was introduced to provide a degree of flexibility and that is what it has done. It has done it well and I believe that it has served its purpose very well indeed.

     

    Q5. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Does my right hon. Friend agree that police officers who do well a difficult and often very dangerous job deserve our full confidence and support? Does he therefore welcome the review announced yesterday by our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary which will do much to reinforce the determination of the police to continue to maintain public confidence in my own county of Wiltshire and throughout the country?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I very much welcome the review announced by my right hon. and learned Friend and I am delighted that the chairman of the Police Federation also gave it a generous welcome yesterday. In the fight against crime, it is essential that the police adopt every means of increasing their efficiency. I know that that is what the police wish to do ; it is what the public wish to see them do ; and I hope that the review will help to bring it about.

    Mr. Robert Hughes : In relation to the Maxwell pensioners, has the Prime Minister seen the “Dear Colleague” letter sent out by the Secretary of State for Social Services in lieu of a statement, which says, of the Maxwell pensioners who are having their pension money stopped, “Hard cheese. Put yourself at the mercy of the social security system”? In relation to the premature winding up of pension schemes, the Secretary of State simply says that he does not think that that will happen. While I appreciate that today the Under-Secretary of State is seeing representatives of British International Helicopter employees, does not the Prime Minister accept that the Secretary of State’s reaction is grossly inadequate? Will he therefore take personal charge and make sure that these people get justice?

    The Prime Minister : I think that everyone in the House will sympathise with the plight of the Maxwell pensioners and scheme members. Every hon. Member knows how that problem came about. We have already promised that we shall secure pensions to the level of the guaranteed minimum pension for those who have been contracted out of SERPS since 1978, but until what precisely went wrong is a little clearer, we cannot sensibly say what should be done to put the matter right. The hon. Gentleman may know, however, that we intimated some time ago that the Government propose to review the framework of the law and regulations within which occupational pension schemes operate. We shall be making detailed announcements on the scope of that review shortly. Then, in due course, we shall respond to the Committee’s detailed report and recommendations on Maxwell, but at the moment a great deal more information needs to be uncovered.

  • PMQT – 21 February 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st February 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Viggers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 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 be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Viggers : Bearing in mind the horrors that have been perpetrated in Kuwait, where thousands have been murdered and tortured, and bearing in mind also the awful nature of the weapons available to Saddam Hussein, does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no doubt that the implementation of all the United Nations resolutions is both a just and a necessary cause? Does he also agree that since August Saddam Hussein has had every opportunity to withdraw from Kuwait, and that if a major land offensive should now be necessary our forces will carry with them the gratitude and good will of the entire nation?

    The Prime Minister : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The only message that we wish to hear today is that Iraq is prepared to accept and implement all the Security Council resolutions in full and immediately. That is a message which can be given to us at any time. As I told the House on Tuesday, only when such a message is received and has begun to be implemented can there be an end to the conflict.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister confirm that within the past 48 hours every one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council has made it crystal clear to Saddam Hussein yet again that if immediate and unconditional removal of all Iraqi forces were to take place the fighting could end? Does the Prime Minister agree that that is what the whole world wants–including, had they but the freedom to say it, the ordinary people of Iraq? Knowing that, is not it obvious that of all the many cruelties committed by Saddam Hussein, the greatest would be his failure to take the opportunity, which has always existed and still exists, to avert a major land battle and the great suffering that it would bring?

    The Prime Minister : It has certainly been made clear by the allies that we stand by the Security Council resolutions in full. As the House may know, I understand that, within the past few minutes, Saddam Hussein has begun broadcasting to Iraq. There is no indication yet of what he has said or what he will say, but I am bound to say that he preceded his broadcast with yet another Scud attack.

     

    Q2. Dr. Michael Clark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

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

    Dr. Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is an inventive nation and that we maintain a strong science base? Will he, therefore, join me and other hon. Members from both sides of the House in congratulating the Royal Society of Chemistry on celebrating its 150th anniversary this year? Will he also pay tribute to the chemical industry, which contributes a balance of payments surplus of more than £2,000 million per annum to Britain?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to do that. Only last Friday I had the pleasure of opening an innovative ICI factory in Runcorn in the north- west which will manufacture an alternative to CFCs–the first such factory in the world. The chemical industry has an impressive record both in investment in research and development and in the exploitation of that investment by our scientists. That is the basis of industry’s necessary recovery.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister agree that no one, but no one, can relish the prospect of having to fight a land war in the Gulf, that even at the 11th hour every realistic avenue for peace ought to be pursued, but that we cannot allow ourselves to be distracted by cul-de-sac designed to delay the freedom of Kuwait? Will he confirm that the aim of the allies is not a temporary peace, leading to conflict later, but a durable, United Nations-based peace, a basic ingredient of which must be recognition of the legitimacy of Kuwait?

    The Prime Minister : I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman, particularly about durability and security. There is no need for particular peace proposals. The peace proposals that we wish to hear are those that we have set out and agreed with our allies and others in the United Nations Security Council resolutions. That has been and remains the position. If Iraq is prepared to accept and implement those, the conditions exist for an end to the conflict. Without that, they do not exist.

    Mr. Barry Porter : Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to congratulate the management and work force of the Rover Group on their contribution to the British export drive? Does he agree that the figures recently announced are self-evident proof that it was a very good deal between British Aerospace and Rover for the west midlands, the taxpayer and the country?

    The Prime Minister : There has been a remarkable renaissance in the motor car industry generally. That, of course, includes Rover.

     

    Q3. Mr. Lofthouse : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

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

    Mr. Lofthouse : Is the Prime Minister aware that West and South Yorkshire police and fire authorities are about to set their budgets this weekend for the forthcoming year? Is he also aware that the options before them are to do so in accordance with the Home Secretary’s guidelines, and thus maintain their present effective forces, or to set the budget according to the standard spending assessments of the Department of the Environment, which would result in the loss of hundreds of police and firemen’s jobs and consequently of services? Considering the increase in the crime rate and the ever-greater demands on the fire service, what advice does the right hon. Gentleman have for them?

    The Prime Minister : Like all authorities, this one must select its own priorities.

    Mr. William Powell : My right hon. Friend will be aware, not least from his knowledge of his own constituency, of the wonderful work done by many thousands of people working for village hall committees. Is he aware that, notwithstanding the marvellous efforts of our right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) two years ago to protect village hall committees from some of the worst trepidations of EEC VAT directives, VAT remains a serious problem for them? Will he have a word with the Chancellor and encourage him to try to find a fiscal device to make life easier for those voluntary fund-raisers?

    The Prime Minister : It is not readily apparent what fiscal device my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he cares to suggest something I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will examine it.

     

    Q4. Miss Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

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

    Miss Hoey : Does the Prime Minister recall when he was a young man being a councillor in Ferndale ward in my constituency? Does he realise that this month there is 25 per cent. unemployment in Ferndale ward? Will he have time in the next couple of weeks to come and see the people there, many of whom have been out of work for more than two years, and tell them what more they can do to get jobs under the Conservative Government?

    The Prime Minister : While visiting Ferndale ward, which I had the privilege of representing for a period after 1968, I might also discuss with the people why, so many years later, nothing has been done by Lambeth council to improve their environment, their housing, their street cleaning or any of the other matters that concern them.

    Mr. Michael Brown : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the answers to any review of the community charge are staring us in the face from Westminster city hall? Would my right hon. Friend note that that council–a single-tier authority–has been able to reduce its community charge as a result of good housekeeping? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Dame Shirley Porter is made a member of the Government review team immediately?

    The Prime Minister : We should be happy to have Dame Shirley’s advice on that or on many other matters and I am happy to congratulate Westminster city council on the community charge that it has levied. It is certainly an example to other authorities and I hope that they will follow that example.

     

    Q5. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

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

    Mr. Michie : Does the Prime Minister agree that concern about loss of face, or part face, by any leader leading a nation involved in the Gulf war pales into insignificance when compared with the possible loss of life if a land war is embarked upon?

    The Prime Minister : Nobody wishes artificially to bring about a land war if it is avoidable. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind who began this conflict, what the aims were and what is necessary both to end it and to ensure that there is a secure and durable peace, which means that conflict will not recommence at a later date. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.

    Mr. Cash : When my right hon. Friend saw Chancellor Kohl the other day, did he discuss the German proposals for political union, which have now been submitted to the intergovernmental conference? Did he agree that those proposals were completely unworkable and that if they were put into effect they would mean, to all intents and purposes, the end of the Westminster Parliament?

    The Prime Minister : I discussed a range of matters with Chancellor Kohl. I did not discuss the letter which the French and the Germans put forward, although we discussed in general terms some of the matters related to both the economic and monetary union IGC and the political union IGC. I set out for Chancellor Kohl our concerns about those matters and the policies that we have set before the House.

     

    Q6. Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

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

    Mr. Michael : On a day when the Government’s own gross domestic product figures have illustrated the depth of the recession and the frightening drop in production created by his policies as Chancellor and now as Prime Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the stupidity of adding 6,000 experts on training the unemployed to the queues of unemployed? Opposition Members have lived with the misery caused by the Government for millions of people during the recession in the early 1980s. How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to prevent a repetition of that misery for millions in the 1990s?

    The Prime Minister : We have an excellent record on training, as the hon. Gentleman knows. As for economic circumstances in this country and elsewhere, the hon. Gentleman will know that three of the G7 countries are now officially in recession and two more have had a downturn in output. The hon. Gentleman imputes too much authority to me if he thinks that I am responsible for all that.

    Mr. Hill : Does my right hon. Friend agree that probably one of the biggest mistakes that the western alliance has made was to try to treat Saddam Hussein as though he were an honourable man when in fact his words are worthless? When my right hon. Friend next telephones President Bush, he may be able to tell him of some of the evidence that we have heard in the House about the human rights being destroyed in Kuwait and the genocide taking place there which must mean more and more deaths for the Kuwaitis every day.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend expresses a view which is held by the vast majority of hon. Members in the House. There is no doubt that since 2 August the Iraqis have broken any number of international obligations and there must be some considerable concern about whether we can trust what is said to us by them.

     

    Q7. Mr. Loyden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

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

    Mr. Loyden : Does the Prime Minister recall the statement that he made on 29 November following his election to his present position? He said then that he wanted to see a country at ease with itself. Does he believe that 2 million unemployed, the continuing decimation of our health service, the imposition of the hated poll tax and the current deepening recession represent a climate in which the people of this country can be at ease with themselves? Does he not now recognise that the only way to remove those problems is by the removal of the present Government?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is a class warrior who believes in conflict ; I am not. That is the difference between us.

     

    Q8. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

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

    Mr. Marshall : Will my right hon. Friend tell the House and the country which five local authorities have the highest community charge, which five have the worst education results and which five have the largest rent arrears?

    The Prime Minister : I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend will a detailed list of those authorities. I think that I can tell him now, however, that he will find no Conservative authorities among them, and an overwhelming predominance of Labour authorities, almost certainly including Brent, Camden and Lambeth.