The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Scott Inquiry

  • PMQT – 8 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 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. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative and Unionist party will always stand four-square behind the Union? Is it not the case that the British constitution has evolved over centuries, but that it could take a matter of months for a meddling, middle-class public school boy to undermine or even destroy it?

    The Prime Minister: We have made some evolutionary changes to the constitution in recent years, and I believe that there is scope for more evolutionary change in the years ahead. I do not believe that large-scale changes that would significantly alter the face of the United Kingdom and the Union as we know it are in the interests of the United Kingdom. Frankly, I believe that many of the plans that have been put forward do not address the difficulties.

    I see no reason why Scotland should be taxed more highly than the rest of the United Kingdom. Neither do I see any reason why Scottish Members should vote on Scottish matters that English Members cannot vote on, and then vote in the House on the same matters as they affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those issues need very careful examination. I hope that they will receive that careful examination, as they clearly have not had it yet.

    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent newspaper article about education by the Labour transport spokesman, which I shall quote–[Interruption.]–which I shall paraphrase. It refers to public schools producing more social cripples than any other form of education devised by man. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that is yet another veiled attack on the Labour leader and some of his Front-Bench colleagues, or is it simply another example of hypocrisy?

    The Prime Minister: I feel as though I am in an air raid shelter on this occasion, speaking as a grammar school boy. My hon. Friend should not be too hard on the hon. Member concerned. I think that Labour Members are required to put their children down for private school these days so that they can remain in the vanguard of Labour education policy.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Scott inquiry was entirely fairly conducted and that no criticism can or should be made of its processes or procedures?

    The Prime Minister: As I said in the House on a previous occasion:

    “I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have confidence that he will do so”–

    and has done so–

    “thoroughly.”

    Mr. Blair: I must press the Prime Minister on that because he will know that, in the past few days, there has been a concerted attempt to rubbish the inquiry. Will he say unequivocally that he accepts that it was entirely fairly conducted?

    The Prime Minister: I just said to the right hon. Gentleman:

    “I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have every confidence that he will do so”–

    and has done so–

    “thoroughly.”

    The right hon. Gentleman is saying that neither he nor anybody else can comment fairly on the Scott report until people have had the opportunity to study it. I agree with that point, but it also applies to the past three years. It applies to the fact that the Opposition have made crude and blatant smears throughout those past three years without having had the evidence of the Scott report before them. If, in his question, the right hon. Gentleman was making it clear that he believes that those were unjustified attacks without any evidence, I would be pleased for him to withdraw them now and make it clear that he will repudiate them.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister is not even prepared to say whether the report is fairly conducted. When he says that we should await the findings of the report, let me remind him that he and his Ministers will have had the report for eight days, that four Government Departments have units working on it and that we are to get it a few hours before publication. I am not asking him to comment on its findings, but on whether it was fairly conducted. He set up the inquiry. He chose Sir Richard Scott. Is he now prepared to state that he is confident that it was fairly conducted? If he does not say that, the final vestiges of respect will be removed from the Government.

    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman had carefully prepared his third soundbite before my first answer, and I am tempted to refer him to the two answers I have just given. I made it clear that

    “I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have confidence that he will do so”–

    and has done so–

    “thoroughly.”–[Official Report, 6 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 15.]

    I have now said that three times. Will the right hon. Gentleman now stop preparing his soundbites in advance and listen to my answers before he prepares his questions?

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Illsley: Why cannot the Prime Minister publish such an important document as the report of the Scott inquiry a few days before the statement on it next week so that the Opposition, and indeed the House, can be properly informed? Is it not disgraceful that a few Conservative Members will have had that report for eight days, but the rest of the House will receive it on the day of the statement?

    The Prime Minister: We plan to follow the precedents for a weighty report of this nature, and to permit Opposition spokesmen to see the report several hours before the statement is made. Of course, the House will also wish to study and comment on the report. That is why we propose to find time in Government time for an early debate on the report a few days after the statement has been made, once the whole House has had the opportunity to study the report and comment on it on the basis of detail, not of innuendo and smear, which has been the nature of the comments thus far from a number of Opposition Members.

    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House of Lords provides a useful and important advisory service for this country at very little cost? It has no power to overrule or frustrate the will of the House of Commons. Has my right hon. Friend heard of the old phrase, “If it ain’t broke, don’t mend it”?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that this House should treat constitutional reform of any sort with care and consideration, and examine what the outcome of that reform might be before being committed to it. I do not believe that the reforms proposed to the House of Lords are relevant to the problems and opportunities facing this country over the next five to 10 years. It seems to me that the reform in question is irrelevant–and intended to be a spiteful, thoughtless irrelevance.

     

    Campbell Soups

    Q3. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit a Campbell Soups exhibition stand at a United Kingdom food trade fair.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister will be aware of the call for an international boycott of Campbell Soups and Fray Bentos products, arising out of the appalling decision by the company to close down the highly profitable Homepride plant in my constituency–having purchased it for £58.6 million only 11 weeks earlier. Are not the real stakeholders in Homepride not the greedy shareholders in America who do not give a damn about the people of Maryport, but the work force who have invested their lives in making that company a success and who are now being put on the scrap heap? Will the Prime Minister join the 341 Members of Parliament–a majority of this House–who have called on the company to reverse its decision?

    The Prime Minister: I realise the extent of the disappointment that must be felt at Maryport over the decision. I understand that Campbell’s has offered employees jobs at one of its five other plants–although, self-evidently, that will not be appropriate for many employees. I also understand the depth of the hon. Gentleman’s concern for his constituents, but I hope that he and everyone else will bear in mind the fact that Campbell’s has been in the United Kingdom for over 30 years. It employs more than 2,000 people here and has shown its commitment to the United Kingdom by investing more than £100 million here in the past 12 months. I would not wish to threaten and damage those investments, or the jobs that are safeguarded and are being created as a result of those investments.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Chidgey: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Social Security Secretary, who has described today’s proposed cuts of £1 billion in the social security budget as devastating?

    The Prime Minister: That is in no sense what my right hon. Friend has said about the outcome of the public expenditure round. The whole House will recall that, in recent weeks, I have been criticised by the Opposition for administrative costs being too high. Here we have a practical illustration of the Government seeking to cut administrative costs, in the interests of the taxpayer, to preserve the resources available for benefits–yet on that point the Opposition criticise me as well.

    The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind: does he criticise the Government for not cutting administrative costs or for making administrative savings? Even though he is a Liberal Democrat, he cannot have it both ways.

    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy to maintain that one is committed to the elimination of state subsidy and then to do the reverse? Do not the recent decisions by the Transport Commissioner show that the Labour party–whether old Labour or new Labour, in Westminster or in Brussels–is committed to state subsidy and to Spanish practices?

    The Prime Minister: The whole House will know of our concern about the Iberia decision. It is certainly not in the interests of the air travellers of Europe, and we have made that known to Commissioner Kinnock and to others.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Hoon: In a statement to the House about the setting up of the Scott inquiry, the Attorney-General stated that matters of form and procedure were a question for the learned judge. Why will not the Prime Minister condemn unequivocally those, such as Lord Howe, who have sought to impugn the integrity of the learned judge and to attack the contents of his report before publication?

    The Prime Minister: On attacks on the contents of the report, if anyone has predetermined what the contents of the report might be, it is the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and not my noble Friend Lord Howe.

    On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I refer him to what I said on 13 January 1994 at column 332.

    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of Lord Palmerston, who said that to be born British is like winning the lottery of life? Will my right hon. Friend now go further and say that to be born or to live in Milton Keynes is like winning the national lottery, and join me in welcoming the grant of £19 million to build what will undoubtedly be the best theatre outside London?

    The Prime Minister: There may be some challenges about the scheme being the best theatre, but I know that my hon. Friend is proud of the scheme and I congratulate him on it.

    As for being proud of being British, I just hope that we do not reach the situation where to live in Scotland is to lose the lottery of taxation because it has to face extra taxation and a tartan tax.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 November 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Specialist Advisers

    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister how many (a) specialist advisers and (b) press or public relations officers are employed by his Department; and what is the total annual salary bill for (a) and (b).

    The Prime Minister: I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons in (a) the Prime Minister’s Office or (b) the Cabinet Office are on the public payroll or employed as consultants or advisers and work on a part-time or full-time basis in relation to the Scott inquiry; if he will list their names; and how much each is paid.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 8 November 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

    The number of officials within the Cabinet Office wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry is five and their direct annual salary cost is approximately £140,000. There are no officials employed on Scott inquiry-related matters within my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s Office on a full-time or part-time basis, although some will inevitably be involved from time to time. There are also no external consultants or advisers employed on such matters by the Prime Minister’s Office or the Cabinet Office. It is not the practice to name staff or external advisers.

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons have been authorised to have access to documents held by the Cabinet Office or the Prime Minister’s Office relating to the Scott Inquiry; and if he will list such persons.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 7 November 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

    Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other advisers have access to material relating to the inquiry as necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities.

     

    Committee on Standards in Public Life

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list where appropriate for each Nolan commissioner his or her most recent public salary.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. Lord Nolan receives his judicial salary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) receive their parliamentary salaries. They receive no emoluments as members of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Of the remaining seven members of the committee, six were paid an honorarium of £1,000 per month from November 1994 to April 1995 and subsequently an attendance fee of £155 per day and one, who was then in receipt of a salary from public funds, was not. All seven are now entitled to the daily attendance fee.

    Five of the seven have previously held full-time positions paid at public expense. Two members of the committee hold other current part-time appointments paid from public funds. Sir Martin Jacomb is chairman of the British Council, for which he receives an honorarium of £10,250 per year, and Diana Warwick is a lay member of the Employment Appeals Tribunal, for which she is paid an attendance fee of £186 per day.

     

    Sir Gerald Warner

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what are the specific functions in the Cabinet Office of Sir Gerald Warner; and what are the terms on which he is remunerated.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 7 November 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

    Sir Gerald Warner is employed in the Cabinet Office at grade 2 level as the intelligence co-ordinator. As such, he advises the Secretary of the Cabinet on the co-ordination of the intelligence machinery and its resources and programmes. He chairs various formal and informal groups charged with intelligence management. He has particular responsibility for reviewing the United Kingdom’s intelligence requirements and for advising on the allocation of the resources to enable the intelligence agencies to meet them. He is remunerated within the civil service grade 2 range.

     

    Private Finance Initiative

    Mr. Betts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by type of project (a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 7 November 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

  • PMQT – 20 June 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 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.

    Dr. Jones: Yesterday the Prime Minister agreed that the public are opposed to Brent Spar being dumped at sea. Today we know that the Government’s own scientists also oppose that. Why were their objections overruled? Surely it is now time for the Prime Minister to act to prevent that dangerous dumping.

    The Prime Minister: With respect to the hon. Lady, she is a little behind the events of today. The views of a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food scientist were completely misreported in this morning’s press, and the scientist involved has now issued a statement and appeared on television to clarify the matter. He has made it entirely clear that the concerns expressed in the leaked paper expressly did not apply to deep-sea disposal, which is what is proposed.

    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend recall Kipling’s lines:

    “If you can keep your head when all about you

    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you”– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order to hear Mr. Davies.

    Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend remember the confusion that was caused when the Bosnian Serbs seized hostages a few weeks ago, when some people even suggested that we should beat a retreat or give in to blackmail? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the clearsightedness and resolution that he displayed then have saved not only the lives of the hostages, but the credibility of NATO? Will he now take a little credit where it is so obviously deserved?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and for reminding me of one of Kipling’s great poems. I am of course delighted that all of the peacekeepers have now been released, and I take the opportunity to make it clear to the House that no deal whatsoever has been entered into to ensure their release. That would not have been the wish of the House, and no deal at all has been made. We also said that we would hold the Bosnian-Serb leaders personally responsible for their release. I cannot be certain whether that had an impact on their decision, but certainly they were in no doubt whatsoever that, if any harm had come to our hostages, or indeed other United Nations hostages, we would most certainly have held them personally responsible for that harm.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall that, shortly before the Scott inquiry, he said that Parliament had not been misled deliberately or otherwise, and that the guidelines for the sale of arms to Iraq had not been changed after 1985? Is that still the Government’s position today?

    The Prime Minister: I recall very clearly what I said about that. I also recall that I set up an inquiry by Sir Richard Scott so that he might examine that to determine whether or not he felt that that was correct. That report is in the course of being considered at the moment. I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that I have no intention of commenting on the substance of that until Sir Richard has reached a final conclusion and has reported.

    Mr. Blair: What I was asking the right hon. Gentleman to do was to state the Government’s position, not to anticipate the findings of the report. [Interruption.] Fair enough, if he says that he has to await the report, then may we have his categoric assurance that if the report does find that Parliament has been misled he will abide by its findings and act upon them?

    The Prime Minister: Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman is unaware of the requirement set down clearly in “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”. I approved and published that guidance, so it is a matter of open report to the House. I have made it clear in “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” that Ministers who deliberately mislead Parliament should resign, except in exceptional circumstances like a devaluation–the Lord Callaghan example is a case in point. That remains the case.

    We are witnessing at the moment a series of quite malicious leaks. I say “malicious” because I believe that they should be seen for what they are. They are intended to blacken Ministers’ names before they have responded to a provisional report with which they strongly disagree. I hope that in future people will see these leaks for what they are and will await the final report from Sir Richard Scott.

    Mr. Blair: What I am trying to establish is whether the right hon. Gentleman will abide by the findings of the Scott inquiry. I accept that he has said that if Ministers are found to have misled the House deliberately they will resign; but will the right hon. Gentleman abide by the findings of the Scott inquiry on that point? If he does not, and rejects them, that will put the final seal of contempt on a disintegrating Government.

    The Prime Minister: I was wondering in which direction the soundbite would go today–now we know what the first two questions were intended to lead up to. I set up Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry; I am awaiting the report; I will consider it; and I will make my judgement when I have got it and seen it.

    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of many of my constituents about malpractice in local government? Has he seen the recent independent report on Monklands district council showing that, where the Labour party is in power, it cannot be trusted not to abuse it?

    The Prime Minister: Following the right hon. Gentleman’s question, my hon. Friend was called at an appropriate moment. On a day when we have heard yet more Labour accusations based on rumours and leaks, here, with this report on Monklands, we have a clear case of how Labour in office runs its own affairs. I have seen the reports on how the council apparently targeted spending for political reasons, on jobs for the boys and jobs for their families. It is no good the Labour party trying to get off the hook; this council is run by Labour councillors. It is not an isolated example: Lambeth council, Birmingham council, Monklands council– [Interruption.] My hon. Friends add to the list.

    If the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is so concerned about open government, will he say today that he will publish the earlier, secret report held by the Labour party into Monklands council, which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has consistently refused to make public?

    Hon. Members: Answer.

    Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down.

    Mr. Ashdown: Given that the Government are prepared to allow Shell to dump the toxic waste from Brent Spar into the sea, will the Prime Minister tell us how the Government intend to stop the other 50 North sea oil rigs waiting for disposal being similarly disposed of, by dropping them into some vast underwater toxic scrap-metal dump off the coast of Scotland?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman should know, there are a number of international commitments before there can be disposal of any oil-bearing rigs of this sort. We have complied with all the requirements under the Oslo convention, the London convention and the Ospar –Oslo-Paris–convention. In each and every case we shall do precisely the same. No case will be precisely similar, and on each occasion we will make a judgement of what we believe to be the right environmental way to dispose.

    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of an illustrious predecessor, who was a great patriot and a good European, who said that the dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on? Does he take those words to heart? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. We must hear the answer to this one.

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted that my campaign for literacy is bearing fruit in all directions.

     

    Q2. Mr. John Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Evans: Does the Prime Minister agree that President Chirac’s cynical resumption of nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific is treating the people of that region with contempt and putting at risk the health of their children and children yet unborn? If the French must have nuclear testing, why cannot they do it in central France?

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether that will add to the hon. Gentleman’s European credentials. The decision on nuclear testing is not an easy one for the French. It is for them and they have made it. The principal objective at the conclusion of the short series of tests is the early conclusion of an indefinite comprehensive test ban treaty. President Chirac has confirmed his commitment to it, we are committed to it and I hope we can achieve it as speedily as possible.

    Mr. Gale: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study reports in the press indicating that Opposition spokesmen now have the effrontery to suggest that it was the fault of the Scottish Office for not conducting an inquiry into the Monklands issue that led to the present position? Is it possible that the Scottish Office might have been unwise to accept assurances from Labour Front-Bench spokesmen that nothing was wrong?

    The Prime Minister: I must confess to my hon. Friend that I am not entirely sure of the background, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has today written in detail to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), asking him to make public all the information that he has and that so far has been kept private. I hope that, in the new spirit of openness, the Labour party will respond immediately and comprehensively to that request.

     

    Q3. Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Clarke: Does the Prime Minister agree that discrimination against disabled people is wrong? [Interruption.] The House and the country will note that the Conservative party does not seem interested in the concerns of 10,000 of my constituents. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Mr. Shaw. Order now. [Interruption.] Order. I shall have silence in the House when Members are asking questions. I call Mr. Clarke.

    Mr. Clarke: Does the Prime Minister agree that discrimination against disabled people is wrong, whatever its nature and origin? If he does, will he join me in congratulating the House of Lords on extending the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Bill by a majority of two to one, so that any discrimination against disabled people, whatever its origins, will be seen as unfair, unjustified and rightly unlawful?

    The Prime Minister: I have always opposed discrimination in all its forms and the Disability Discrimination Bill sent by this House to the other place, promoted by this Government, is the greatest single advance in disability legislation that we have seen for a long time–perhaps the greatest single advance on any occasion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the case, for he knows it to be so. If he is concerned about discrimination, he might also be concerned that people ought not to discriminate in favour of their relatives on his local council. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. There is no injury time.

    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abolition of independent funding and management of grant-maintained schools destroys the whole notion of grant-maintained status, and that no amount of words from Labour Members will be able to hide their instinctive hostility towards grant-maintained schools?

    The Prime Minister: I do find myself a very strong advocate of grant -maintained schools. I understand that the Labour party now wishes to channel grant-maintained funds through local education authorities, allowing the political opponents of grant-maintained schools to control the purse strings. It also seems to be prepared to stuff the grant-maintained schools’ boards of governors with Labour party leaders from the local councils. So much for its professed concern about quangocracy. When it suits it, that is precisely what it will do. Having preached one thing, it practises another. It pretends that it favours grant-maintained schools with strings but, in reality, it is a string that will break the neck of the grant-maintained system.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister what communications he has received from Lord Justice Scott over the evidence he gave to the inquiry into arms for Iraq; on what dates the communications were sent to him; and what were the dates of his replies.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 12 June 1995, Official Report, column 373.

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants in his Department are currently working on matters related to the Scott inquiry; if a dedicated unit has been established; and what is the estimated cost to date of civil servants dealing with matters relating to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: Within the Cabinet Office, the number of civil servants working exclusively on matters relating to Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry is five, all of whom are members of a dedicated unit. The cost of the unit since December 1992 has been approximately £400,000.

     

    Former Prime Ministers (Payments)

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister what payments are available to former Prime Ministers; which of these cease immediately upon their death; which are phased out or continued for a fixed or indefinite period to allow their bereaved spouses to deal with duties following their death; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Under the provisions of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991, former Prime Ministers are entitled to receive payment from the Consolidated Fund of half of the salary payable in respect of the office of the Prime Minister at the time of leaving office. This Act also increased the pensions of then former Prime Ministers to an amount equal to the new pension entitlement of the office of that time.

    Payments cease on death, subject to arrangements for spouses and children based largely on the parliamentary pension scheme. On 1 April 1991, an allowance was introduced to assist former Prime Ministers with the continuing heavy burden of office and secretarial costs arising from their special position in public life. The allowance is similar in purpose and amount to the parliamentary office costs allowance but is paid in respect of public and not parliamentary duties. It ceases immediately on death, but a sum equal to one third of the annual amount is made available to the executors of the will to assist with the costs of winding up any office organisation.

     

    Terrorist Prisoners

    Dr. Spink: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that no terrorist prisoners will be given special treatment in respect of early release; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The Government have already stated that prisoners convicted of terrorist offences are not political prisoners and must expect to serve their sentences in accordance with the law.

     

    Royal Family (Official Engagements)

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the official engagements programmes of members of the royal family who receive funds from the civil list.

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister what advice is issued to Ministers by him and/or the Cabinet Office in respect of answering written questions tabled by right hon. and hon. Members which directly relate, appear to relate or which could be construed to relate, to their declared financial interests; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have no reason to believe that guidance is necessary on this matter.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 8 June, Official Report, column 271, regarding parliamentary questions, if he will list the dates on which his answers were subsequently clarified by means of written questions.

    The Prime Minister: This is a matter of public record.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 January 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

    The Prime Minister: 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.

     

    Hugh Colver

    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister during which years Mr. Hugh Colver was employed by Her Majesty’s Government in (a) the Ministry of Defence, (b) other Departments and (c) No. 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister: Mr. Hugh Colver was employed as an information officer in the Ministry of Defence from December 1975 to July 1981 and again from September 1985 to June 1987 as deputy chief of public relations and from then until July 1992 as chief information officer. He was a press officer at: No. 10 from July 1981 to July 1982; at the Department of Education from July 1982 to January 1984; and at the Metropolitan police from January 1984 to September 1985. He is no longer employed by a Government Department.

     

    Card Systems

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will consider setting up a committee to consider the developing technology of card systems, and the potential demand for such systems from Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science today.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers and former Ministers have given evidence to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: Ministers and former Ministers who the Government are aware have given evidence to Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry are:

    Ministers who have given written and oral evidence :

    In addition to myself,

    The Right hon. Kenneth Clarke QC

    The Right hon. Michael Heseltine RD

    The Right hon. Douglas Hurd CH

    The Right hon. Peter Lilley

    The Right hon. Sir Nicholas Lyell QC

    The Right hon. Sir Patrick Mayhew QC

    The Right hon. Malcolm Rifkind QC

    The Right hon. the hon. William Waldergrave

    Former Ministers who have given written and oral evidence :

    The Right hon. Kenneth Baker CH

    The Right hon. Sir Adam Butler

    The Right hon. Paul Channon

    The Right hon. Alan Clark

    The Right hon. Tristan Garel-Jones

    The Right hon. The Lord Howe QC

    The Right hon. Sir Richard Luce

    The Right hon. David Mellor QC

    The Right hon. Timothy Renton

    The Right hon. The Baroness Thatcher OM FRS

    The Right hon. Lord Trefgarne

    Ministers who have given written evidence only :

    The Right hon. Jonathan Aitken

    The Right hon. Douglas Hogg QC

    Former Ministers who have given written evidence only :

    The Lord Glenarthur

    The Right hon. the hon. Sir Archie Hamilton

    Neil Hamilton

    The Right hon. the hon. Sir Timothy Sainsbury

     

    Science Promotion

    Dr. John Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken since 1993 to promote science and its applications.

    The Prime Minister: In May 1993, we published the White Paper “Realising our Potential”–Cm 2550–which sets out the Government’s policy for science, engineering and technology. It announced a number of new initiatives such as technology foresight and the restructuring of the research councils to carry forward the Governments strategy. That strategy is to improve the nation’s competitiveness and quality of life by maintaining the excellence of science, engineering and technology in the United Kingdom.

    In a speech to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee in February 1994, I underlined the importance of the White Paper and my commitment to the policy it sets out.

    The White Paper recognised the important benefits of international collaboration. In September I visited South Africa and met President Mandela. I exchanged letters of intent with him, committing the United Kingdom and South Africa to continuing discussions with a view to concluding in due course a bilateral science, engineering and technology agreement.

    In September I also met members of the Council for Science and Technology which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster chairs on my behalf. We discussed the vital contribution of science, engineering and technology to the nation’s prosperity and quality of life. I emphasised our determination to create a culture of partnership, where excellence in science and the development of new applications go hand in hand.

     

    Women Workers

    Mrs. Maddock: To ask the Prime Minister what practical measures he has introduced to help (a) employers in the private sector and (b) employers in the public sector to increase the quality and quantity of women’s participation in the work force, since the launch of Opportunity 2000 in 1991.

    Miss Widdecombe: I have been asked to reply.

    Opportunity 2000 is an employer-led campaign which the Government have supported since its launch in 1991.

    The Employment Department helps private and public sector employers increase the quality and quantity of women’s employment by promoting a competitive, efficient and flexible labour market. Details of the ED’s initiatives introduced since the launch of Opportunity 2000 are contained in the ED’s annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library, and include, the out-of-school child care grant, new horizons for women, and fair play for women.

  • PMQT – 17 March 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Bridget Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

    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.

    Mrs. Prentice : In the light of today’s newspaper reports, does the Attorney-General still have the full confidence of the Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : The Attorney-General has my full and complete confidence. He has made it perfectly clear today, in the light of the reports in this morning’s newspapers, that he has no knowledge of any approach by MI6 to him or to his office asking that the Matrix Churchill prosecution should be stopped. He has received no notification from the Scott inquiry that any such evidence has been given to it, and the inquiry has made it clear that it cannot recall that any such evidence has been given.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bellingham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

    Mr. Bellingham : Will the Prime Minister find time today to plan a visit to Birmingham and Manchester city councils, where he will find debt at the same level as the national debts of Paraguay and El Salvador? Is it not a disgrace that those Labour-controlled councils, encouraged by Opposition Members, have betrayed not only their electorates but future generations? Is not it time that they were flung out of office?

    The Prime Minister : Those councils certainly have a very poor record, as my hon. Friend says, and although the people of Birmingham and Manchester have a great deal of which they can be proud, in Birmingham, certainly, the people cannot be proud of the record of their Labour council. Of every £10 that Birmingham receives in council tax it now has to spend £7 on servicing its debt, but when one considers many other Labour authorities one realises that it is by no means alone in that appalling record.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does not the Prime Minister realise that he need look no further than Westminster, which has a debt higher than that of Mongolia? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the average council tax to be charged in Labour local authority areas this year will be £40 lower than the average council tax to be charged in Tory areas?

    The Prime Minister : On the right hon. Lady’s first point about debt, she might bear in mind the fact that Islington owes more than Togo, Camden more than Chad, Bradford more than Botswana and Leeds more than Lesotho. As for council tax, the right hon. Lady knows very well that she is not comparing band for band or like with like. When she compares band for band she will see that Conservative councils are many tens of pounds– in some cases more than £100–cheaper.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does not the Prime Minister realise that the measure that we have consistently used not only gives the best overall picture but is the measure with which the Government started out? It is the measure that was used by both the Department of the Environment and Conservative central office in their documents. Is not the truth that the Government changed the measure only when they realised that it showed that people pay less in Labour local council areas? Is not that the reason why?

    The Prime Minister : I must say that the right hon. Lady is being extremely silly and is talking rubbish. What the figures show across the country is that Conservative-controlled local authorities set far lower council taxes than do Labour. So far this year the figures…

    Mrs. Beckett indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister : It is no good the right hon. Lady shaking her head : it is quite true. The figures show that where Labour controls both tiers of English local government the average council tax is £560 for a band C property, over £130 more than the Conservative average of £429. However the right hon. Lady wriggles, she will find that pattern across the country.

    Mrs. Beckett : It is the Prime Minister who is wriggling. He started off with average measures of council tax, he went on to quote band D and now he is quoting band C. Is not this just further evidence that we are fast reaching the stage where the Government are incapable of telling the truth about taxation? In local government or national government, with the Conservatives one pays more and one gets less.

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Lady wants to see some high taxes in local government she should look in the mirror, for it is her party which is providing them. Of the 10 highest council taxes announced, seven are from Labour local authorities and none has been set by a Conservative authority. Of the 10 lowest council taxes announced, none comes from a Labour authority. Five of the 10 districts announcing the lowest bills are under Conservative control. Whatever the hon. Lady has to say, she cannot hide the fact that one gets a better deal under Conservative councils, that the services are better and that the council tax is lower. Though she wriggles from here to next Tuesday, she cannot hide that fact.

    Mr. Knapman : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust stance to date on qualified majority voting. Does he agree that it will be in the best interests of both the country and the party if that robust stance is maintained?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in the middle of negotiations that are important for the future of the European Community and for us, and I have no intention of being moved by synthetic efforts at pressure from any source. We shall defend the country’s best interests in those negotiations and I am entirely confident that that can be done in an acceptable way without any question of delaying enlargement.

    Mr. Ashdown : Why does the Prime Minister not realise that investing the £900 million necessary to provide fully funded, high-quality nursery education, available to every three and four-year-old in the country, is the best investment that the country can make? Instead of raising taxes to prepare for tax bribes at the next election, why will he not invest to prepare our children for the next century?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would raise taxes and he has made that clear. I hope that everyone understands that. We have made it perfectly clear that, as and when resources are available, we shall move towards further nursery education, towards universal nursery education. The reports that may have excited the right hon. Gentleman’s interest earlier this week in one national newspaper were wrong.

    Mr. Marland : As my right hon. Friend is aware, the report of the forestry review group is now in the hands of Ministers. As my right hon. Friend recognises, the Forestry Commission is included in the review. Not only by my constituents in the forest of Dean but throughout the nation, the Forestry Commission is held in high esteem. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, before any decisions are made in the light of the report, interested parties will have the opportunity to comment?

    The Prime Minister : Of course we are examining the report carefully and will seek a good deal of consultation. We have the report, we are examining it and it will be some while before we reach a decision.

     

    Q3. Mr. Austin-Walker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

    Mr. Austin-Walker : Has the Prime Minister seen the report today which shows that the response times of the London ambulance service have worsened since the Secretary of State intervened to sort out the chaos? In view of the inability of the London ambulance service to come anywhere near patients charter standards, does it make sense to close up to 10 of London’s accident and emergency units–or is it nothing to do with him?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows that, in terms of London health, we are seeking first to make sure that we have the resources for the improvement of primary health care, which needs substantial improvement in London. In order to do that, it is necessary to rationalise a proper hospital system. We have taken action..

    Mr. Foulkes : Answer.

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will stop shouting and wait for the answer, I shall give it to him. As for the ambulance service, the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) will know of the measures that have been taken to ensure that a proper service is readily available.

    Mr. Thomason : Has my right hon. Friend seen today’s car production figures? Will he join in welcoming them? Does he agree that the Labour party, many of the members of which have car plants in their constituencies, has consistently talked down our motor industry, and Britain generally?

    The Prime Minister : It is certainly the case that the motor car industry was in a very desperate state a few years ago. That has changed dramatically. The production figures this morning show that car production is up 6 per cent. on a year ago. The British car industry is now a success story to an extent that was inconceivable in the strike-ridden days so beloved in the memory of Opposition Members.

     

    Q4. Mr. Darling : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

    Mr. Darling : Is the Prime Minister concerned about the sale by Scottish Homes–a Government quango–of 1,200 houses, some for as little as £1 each, to a housing association chaired by a former Scottish Office Minister, an hon. Member who is now a Northern Ireland Minister? Does he agree that it is no surprise that many people believe that the Government are drowning in a sea of sleaze and secrecy entirely of their own making?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman has any firm charges to make, perhaps he should make them other than by innuendo and under privilege of the House. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was an unpaid, voluntary, non-executive chairman of the Waverley housing trust. He had no financial interest whatever in the trust. His involvement was solely to pursue an interest in providing new forms of social housing management involving participation by tenant representatives. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on his question and he should then offer a public apology to my hon. Friend.

    Mr. Coe : In the wake of the recent tragic murder investigations in Gloucester, is my right hon. Friend aware of the welcome news this week that four missing people have been reunited with their families ? Will he welcome with me and salute the superb work of the Missing Persons Bureau and the national helpline?

    The Prime Minister : I had heard that welcome news. Out of the dreadful saga of recent weeks, it is at least one positive outcome that everyone can welcome. I certainly think that it shows how important is the work of organisations such as the Missing Persons Bureau. I willingly pay tribute to it and to the National Missing Persons Helpline, as requested by my hon. Friend.

     

    Q5. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : As a Home Office Minister said on Friday that the Government would not support the Racial Hatred and Violence Bill that has been prepared by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), and setting that against the background of the eight racial murders that have been committed in the past few years, how can the Prime Minister justify to the relatives of those who have been murdered in that way the fact that the Government can find time in their legislative programme to outlaw hunt saboteurs, but cannot find the time to tackle the escalating tide of racial violence to which my party drew attention this morning?

    The Prime Minister : Every sensible person will share a concern about crimes motivated by racial hatred. That is certainly the position of the Government. As for the Bill, we believe that the scope of the existing law is adequate, although we shall continue to consider how that law is working in practice. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is already a specific offence punishable by imprisonment for up to two years to stir up racial hatred. In addition, the full range of criminal law is available to deal with other crimes motivated by racial hatred. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, for example, deals with low-level harassment. A range of measures is available. Of course we will keep them under review because there should be no place in this country for racial hatred of any sort from any group directed at any other group.

    Mr. Duncan Smith : I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on standing firm in his negotiations on the blocking minority. Does not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that if the Foreign Secretary chooses to stand firm next week, he will have the wholesale support of Conservative Members and of the country?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend will certainly take the position in the negotiations next week–at the moment, those negotiations are at an extremely serious stage–that he believes to be in the interests of this country, both in the short and in the long term. There are important interests, both short term and long term, to be safeguarded, and it is on that basis that my right hon. Friend will negotiate.

  • PMQT – 3 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir

    Q1. Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister how many independent observers have been allowed by the Indian authorities to visit the Indian occupied area of Kashmir since his visit last year.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : A number of independent observers have visited Kashmir since January 1993. They include parliamentarians, jurists, diplomats, journalists and human rights groups. The Indian Government have also recently agreed to a visit by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

    Mr. Cox : I note that reply. Is the Prime Minister aware, however, that the Indian Government are reluctant to allow independent observers to visit the occupied area? Indeed, they refused to allow an all-party group from the House to go there.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that the forthcoming visit of the Indian Prime Minister gives him an opportunity to make known to that gentleman the deep revulsion felt by many hon. Members about the on-going attacks and brutality perpetrated by the Indian security forces against men, women and children in occupied Kashmir? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will make that known?

    The Prime Minister : I look forward to Prime Minister Rao’s visit to this country. We have excellent relations with the Indian Government, and I look forward to discussing a range of matters with him. As for access for independent national groups, we have encouraged the Indian Government to allow independent access to India. There have been steps towards greater openness in recent months, and I thoroughly welcome that.

    Mr. Jessel : Is this not just one more attempt by Opposition Members to wreck Britain’s excellent relationship with a most friendly Commonwealth country? Will my right hon. Friend not only welcome India’s own decision to set up a human rights commission but remind all the independent observers that terrorists are murderers, and that the most important human right is the right to stay alive?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend says, we have an excellent relationship with the Indian Government, both politically and in terms of a greatly increased flow of two-way trade with India. As for my hon. Friend’s second point, I think that we shall soon have a report from the Indian human rights commission, and I look forward to that. I understand that it will deal with a wide range of issues that have been drawn to the commission’s attention.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. O’Hara : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

    The Prime Minister : 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. O’Hara : Does the Prime Minister share the President of the Board of Trade’s low opinion of the legal advice offered by the Attorney- General?

    The Prime Minister : That is not the position of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    Mr. Thurnham : Does my right hon. Friend welcome the news that nearly 2 million North Western electricity board–NORWEB–customers are to benefit from a 6 per cent. cut in the price of their electricity from 1 April? Coming on top of a cut of nearly 2 per cent. last summer, does that not prove that privatisation works?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that that is certainly the case. There have been significant reductions in fuel prices in recent years, and I welcome that.

    Mr. John Smith : Madam Speaker– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. What a total waste of valuable time in Prime Minister’s questions.

    Mr. John Smith : Concerning the excessive pay awards of top executives, does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comments today, or does he maintain his own response of a few weeks ago, that it is not a matter for him?

    The Prime Minister : I set out in the House, from memory, to the former right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and, before that, to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), my view that excessive pay awards are not justified. I equally maintain the point that that is a matter between employer and employee or company and management rather than a matter for the Government, but my personal view remains as first set out in the House to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in 1991.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister has clearly said contradictory things, because he told us that it was not a matter for him. Whatever he says, does he not notice that those top executives do not pay a blind bit of notice? They carry on regardless, relentlessly increasing their pay and their perks. At the same time, pay restraint is imposed on millions of people with modest incomes. Is that not inconsistent, unfair and hypocritical?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have said precisely the same thing on that issue and, as I indicated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and he might have the grace to acknowledge, I first said it in 1991.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister yet appreciate the anger felt throughout the country at massive pay increases for top people occurring at the same time as massive tax increases for the rest of the country? Why are the Government so soft and indulgent on the very rich but hard and unfair on everyone else?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has returned to the same point three times after having two answers, I will now quote to him what I said to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in 1991 :

    “I made it perfectly clear when I was Chief Secretary that I do not believe that excessive salary increases are right.”–[ Official Report , 1991 ; Vol. 193, c. 857.]

    That still remains my view. [Interruption.] For the hon. Gentleman who shouts, “What are you going to do about it?” may I say that this happens to be a free capitalist country, in which companies determine their wages. I take it from this that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would himself interfere with companies in the payment of employees and the payment of management by the companies themselves. If that is so, it blows out of the water any of the Labour party’s modernising ideas of understanding free enterprise.

    Mr. Churchill : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week’s sacking of 7,000 British soldiers from the Army is deeply regrettable, and indeed mistaken, bearing in mind that the British commander of the UN force in Bosnia has now repeated three times his request for more troops? Can my right hon. Friend now give a positive response to that request by a British general in the field?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we set out the position in “Options for Change” some time ago and the redundancies that were announced–

    Mr. Churchill indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend may shake his head, but it happens to be a matter of fact and record. We set out the decisions on “Options for Change”, and this measure implemented that decision, taken some time ago.

    As for the request for troops in Bosnia, my hon. Friend will know that we have a significant contingent already in Bosnia, who have done magnificent work. If a request is made to the United Kingdom, we would of course consider providing more forces proportionately as part of a wider international effort.

    Mr. Ashdown : May we take it from that answer that our Prime Minister and our Government really are prepared to let go to waste the peace that has been obtained by General Rose in Sarajevo during the past two weeks, rather than this country backing a request, made by a British general and supported by his own chiefs of staff, for more troops to ensure that that peace succeeds?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman yet again mistakes the position. It was the British Government who moved troops in to Sarajevo to ensure that the peace negotiated by General Rose and the corralling of weapons brought about by General Rose was able to be properly monitored. For once, the right hon. Gentleman might have the grace to acknowledge what we have done rather than carp and criticise inaccurately.

    Mr. French : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the British economy is to remain competitive in the future, it is essential that our children are trained now in the skills that they will require in the 21st century? Will he therefore join me in welcoming the announcement of the 12 technology schools, one of which is in my constituency and one of which I attended?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right in his diagnosis. We certainly face greater competition in the years ahead and we will certainly need greater skills. One of the ways of obtaining them is the greater diversity in education brought about by the new technology colleges. I hope that many other schools and businesses will follow the lead set by those colleges.

     

    Q3. Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

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

    Dr. Wright : In the light of the Prime Minister’s emphasis on the importance of personal responsibility, does he welcome the clear statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will resign if his conduct is criticised by Lord Justice Scott’s report ? Will the Prime Minister make an equally clear statement and will he expect the same of other Ministers?

    The Prime Minister : I have said repeatedly that I propose to make no comment on Lord Justice Scott’s report. I propose to make no comment of any sort on Lord Justice Scott’s report until he has reported. I set up that report and I gave it very wide terms of reference. I have assured Lord Justice Scott– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Ms Armstrong.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. I have assured Lord Justice Scott that he will have the power and authority that he needs to complete his report satisfactorily, and I believe it follows from that that I should make no comment until I have that report.

     

    Q4. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Does my right hon. Friend welcome recent surveys which show that council tax bills this year will rise less than the rate of inflation? Does he agree that the revenue support grant settlement was correct in estimating needs for local councils, and is not that in stark contrast to the waste, inefficiency and nepotism of many Labour-controlled councils, especially that in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the news that council tax bills are on average likely to rise less than the rate of inflation is very welcome indeed and I believe that it shows that the local government settlement was very finely judged. That is, of course, very different from what was said by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who predicted at the time that the council tax would rise by four times the level of inflation. Clearly, he was scaremongering or wrong, or both.

    Mr. Galloway : Does the Prime Minister have a message for Nabil Shaath, the chief Palestinian negotiator, who is in Parliament this afternoon? In view of the fact that, since last Friday’s massacre in Hebron, the Israeli army has shot down more people than were shot by the murderer in the mosque, will the Prime Minister support a protection force made up from the United Nations or at least the co-sponsors of the peace process to protect the Palestinians under illegal Israeli occupation?

    The Prime Minister : I think that violence from any source in that powder keg of the middle east is to be regretted, whether it comes from the dreadful massacre at Hebron or any other source. There are some United Nations observers there and I believe that they are doing an extremely good job. I had the opportunity of discussing that with the Secretary-General just the other day. What would be most helpful would be if, as soon as it seemed politically practicable, the two sides were to sit down again and continue with the negotiations that have made more progress in the past 18 months than for many years past. I believe that everyone wishes to see a comprehensive peace settlement that will enable the people who live there to live a decent, civilised and safe life.

     

    Q5. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

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

    Sir John Hannam : During his visit to the United States, and remembering his excellent record as a former Minister with responsibility for the disabled, did my right hon. Friend observe the remarkable increase in the number of disabled people in America who are now attaining full, normal employment as a result of President Bush’s anti-discrimination legislation? Will my right hon. Friend support our efforts in the House further to remove the barriers facing disabled people?

    The Prime Minister : I share my hon. Friend’s desire to end discrimination against disabled people. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to identify further practicable and affordable ways to combat discrimination. There is much that may be done and I have asked my right hon. Friend to examine that matter.

  • PMQT – 1 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st March 1994. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mudie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in the United States for a series of meetings, including some with President Clinton and the United Nations Secretary-General.

    Mr. Mudie : Is the Lord President aware that more than £1 billion of taxpayers’ money spent to persuade people to take out personal pensions ended up in the pockets of salesmen through commissions? Is he also aware that more than 300,000 men and women are losing benefit because of bad advice? Given that growing scandal, is not there a case for urgent Government action, or is this, once again, something for which the Government will take no responsibility?

    Mr. Newton : I do not regard the fact that some 5 million people have taken out personal pensions, which will significantly improve their prospects in retirement, as anything like a scandal. The hon. Gentleman will know that some of the advice that has been given is currently under examination, which is entirely right. I know of no reason to justify his accusation.

     

    Q2. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the obvious success of the Prime Minister’s visit to the United States? Does he recall that Sir Winston Churchill variously described the temperature of our special relationship with the United States as normal and blazing? What is the temperature now?

    Mr. Newton : I can best describe the relationship as very cordial indeed. It is a long-standing relationship based on shared interests, as has been confirmed at a joint press conference which my right hon. Friend and the President held within the past hour or so. Their discussions have covered a wide range of international issues, including Bosnia, Russia and the world economy. The President’s support for the joint declaration on Northern Ireland was particularly welcome. The visit is confirmation that we have a continuing, strong, all-round relationship with the United States.

    Mrs. Beckett : When the President of the Board of Trade has need of legal advice, to whom does the Leader of the House suggest he turns?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been advised, quite properly, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and made the position entirely clear in his evidence to the Scott inquiry yesterday.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is not the position of the Attorney-General as the Government’s chief legal adviser becoming increasingly untenable as Ministers seem to use him as a scapegoat to save their own skins?

    Mr. Newton : The concern of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was clearly an anxiety that people might misrepresent him in exactly the way that the right hon. Lady is now seeking to do. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General’s advice on public interest immunity has remained consistent and, of course, he is due to give evidence to the inquiry.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does not the Leader of the House realise that what sticks in the throat of the British public is that, having secretly sold arms to Saddam Hussein, which were used against British troops, Ministers were prepared to see innocent men go to gaol to cover up their conspiracy and that is what people cannot stomach?

    Mr. Newton : Let me remind the right hon. Lady what was written in a letter to The Times as long ago as 12 November 1992 :

    “Public interest immunity cannot be waived by either the prosecution or the Ministers. It was for the judge to decide whether the interests of justice in ensuring a fair trial for the defendants outweighed those considerations of public interests referred to in the certificates. There was no question of anyone attempting to suppress evidence”.

    That letter was written by counsel for one of the accused.

    Mrs. Peacock : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Department of Health action on safari holidays for young offenders?

    Mr. Newton : Yes, indeed I shall. There is a widespread view that those overseas trips were inappropriate. We are all concerned to see effective, proper treatment and deterrents for young offenders and the statement this afternoon will help bring that about.

     

    Q3. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Janner : When the Prime Minister returns from his visit to the United States, will he be kind enough to look personally into the case of my constituent Paul Kenney, who did not return from his journey to Portugal, but was found dead on a beach? Will he please consult his colleague the Prime Minister of Portugal, who has not had the common decency to tell the parents, or me as their representative, why this lad died, how he died, whether he was murdered or why the parents could not find the body for a month? If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is the Government’s duty to look after ordinary citizens when they travel abroad, will he please start raising merry hell about this case?

    Mr. Newton : I am conscious of the hon. Gentleman’s understandable concern for his late constituent and I have of course looked at the Adjournment debate he had not long ago. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that during his visit to Portugal on 24 and 25 February, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the case with the Portuguese Foreign Minister and I hope that that was helpful.

    Sir Roger Moate : Will my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Secretary, personally do their utmost to ensure the success of the negotiations, which are at a critical point, on Norwegian entry into the European Community? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be quite outrageous if the unreasonable demand by the Spanish Government for a few thousand tonnes of Norwegian cod were to prevent the entry into the Community of one of our closest friends and a fine European country?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend knows very well that it has been a prime objective of the British Government to bring about enlargement of the Community and the progress that has been made is one of our significant achievements over the past couple of years. On some reports I have seen today, progress has been rather greater so far in respect of Sweden and Finland ; apparently, there remains some way to go, but we shall wish to see negotiations with all four applicants successfully negotiated.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gunnell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Gunnell : The right hon. and noble Baroness Thatcher missed one Prime Minister’s Question Time in 12 ; the present Prime Minister has missed one in eight. Whatever the importance of the present visit, does not that frequent absence devalue his accountability to the House? Why is he more anxious to answer questions in Pittsburgh than in Parliament?

    Mr. Newton : I must say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I usually regard as among the more reasonable of those on the Opposition Benches, that I reject out of hand the suggestion that he has made. I think that my right hon. Friend’s achievement in various international negotiations both in Europe and on the wider scene are among the main achievements that he has put forward on behalf of the Government.

    Mr. Garnier : While my right hon. Friend is in the United States, will he be given an opportunity to tell the people, as opposed to the President of the United States, of the true nature, history and habits of the IRA?

    Mr. Newton : I have already referred to the very welcome support of the President for the joint declaration. I hope that that in itself will have an effect on some strands of opinion in the United States which may perhaps have failed to appreciate the true nature of the IRA.

     

    Q5. Mr. Mandelson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Mandelson : Does the Lord President of the Council agree that, with unemployment still up around the 3 million level, with many young and long-term unemployed in that number, jobs remain the biggest single issue facing the country? In the light of that, will the Lord President of the Council respond positively to the important initiative taken today by the Trades Union Congress to work in co-operation with all political parties on policies to get unemployment down?

    Mr. Newton : I welcome any kind of co-operation by the TUC or, indeed, anybody else, in the interests of maintaining the recovery from recession, which is the secure basis for the jobs that the hon. Gentleman wants to see. If I may say so, it will not be served by the Labour party’s support for a minimum wage, a 35-hour week and many new burdens on business.

     

    Q6. Lady Olga Maitland : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Lady Olga Maitland : May I convey to my right hon. Friend the House’s full support for the Downing street declaration on Northern Ireland? Has my right hon. Friend been able to take note of the survey that took place over the weekend in the Irish Republic which showed that the vast majority of the people there call on the IRA-Sinn Fein to renounce violence?

    Mr. Newton : I do very much agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful for her words. As she knows, the Government are making every effort to seek peace in Northern Ireland. It is heartening to note that some 94 per cent. of people questioned in the Irish marketing survey agreed with calls on the IRA and Sinn Fein to renounce violence. I am sure that that corresponds with the overwhelming wish in this country and, indeed, many others. I hope that their leaders will take note.

     

    Q7. Mr. John Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Evans : Is the Lord President of the Council aware that if the highly efficient borough of St. Helens received the same level of revenue support grant as the boroughs of Wandsworth and Westminster it would not be required to charge its citizens one single penny in council tax? Does he feel that there might be a whiff of scandal and corruption in that?

    Mr. Newton : No, I do not.

    Mr. Fabricant : While condemning the appalling massacre in Hebron, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that that was the work of a lone madman and that, for the sake of the 300 million people who live in that area, it should not in any way impede the peace process?

    Mr. Newton : Like, I am sure, everyone on both sides of the House, I share the horror at the massacre of innocent Palestinians in Hebron on 25 February. I am sure that the whole House would once again want to send its condolences to those who were affected and their families. I accept entirely and agree with my hon. Friend that the massacre must not be allowed to jeopardise the peace process. The British Government will certainly do everything that they can to see that it does not.

     

    Q8. Mr. Jim Cunningham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Cunningham : Does the Lord President recall that, referring to the setting up of the Scott inquiry, the Prime Minister said that no restrictions would be placed on its terms of reference? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that ex-employees of Matrix Churchill and their representatives have been denied the right to give evidence to the inquiry, and that Lord Justice Scott has said that he will consider the matter if the Government and the Prime Minister agree? What is the Lord President going to do about it?

    Mr. Newton : I think that it is generally true to say that the procedures of the inquiry are for Lord Justice Scott to consider and operate. Obviously, if there were perceived to be problems and if representations were made to the Government about difficulties that they could do something about, those difficulties would be considered extremely carefully.

     

    Q9. Mr. Riddick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Riddick : Is my right hon. Friend aware of any Government Department that hands out special green forms to job applicants who are related to politicians–forms that receive preferential treatment–and pink forms to everyone else? Is he aware that that disgraceful form of nepotism is being practised by Labour-controlled Monklands council? Will he join me in urging condemnation of the practice by the local Member of Parliament–the Leader of the Opposition, who has been strangely silent on the subject?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend may feel surprised that his question has been reached. He has raised a very interesting point; I might speculate that the absence of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) arose from nervousness that the question might be reached.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the US/UK Relationship – 1 March 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom, made during an interview given in Washington on Tuesday 1st March 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the relationship between the US and the UK].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a very close relationship, it is a very hard-edged relationship. It is based on shared instincts, it is based on shared interests. There is a tendency for Britain and America to see international problems in the same way. Occasionally there are different points of emphasis and they are highlighted but overwhelmingly we tend to see the same sort of problems and seek the same solutions for them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he felt President Clinton regretted his decision to give Gerry Adams a visa].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think he has given us very strong support for the Joint Declaration and I don’t propose to traipse over old ground. What is important I think is the very strong support we have had from the United States for the Joint Declaration and for both the peace process and the talks process that we have established in Northern Ireland. Upon that, the President has been very resolute.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the President would give another visa to Gerry Adams].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going into the details of that. I think people saw what happened when he came, they saw what happened when he went back. The President would like to see some progress under the Joint Declaration.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had asked the United States to send more troops to Bosnia].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We looked at what happens in the short-term and that is of course why we turned particularly to the problems of Sarajevo and decided to send a team there to examine what is needed to correct the obvious deficiencies in life there; there is very little water, very little electricity, very little proper health care, not sufficient, and we are sending teams there. I think these must be dealt with on an incremental basis. The first thing to do is to deal with the civil problems in Sarajevo and we spent some time discussing that and deciding how to proceed.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Russian’s involvement in the Partnership for Peace].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We very much want them to join Partnership for Peace, I discussed this with President Yeltsin. Clearly, Russia is a very large and very important country but Partnership for Peace will vary with individual countries so clearly there would be a special position for Russia, we very much want them to take part.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how the relationship with the US would change given Britain’s integration within the European Union].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would replace the word “integration” with the word “influence”. It is certainly true that it is helpful that we have a greater degree of influence in Europe. I believe we do have a greater degree of influence in Europe. What we are seeing is that so much of the European debate is now turning towards matters that we have regarded as important for some time. I think that is self-evidently so both in terms of social on-costs, the widening of the European Community and a number of other illustrations I could give.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the Scott Inquiry].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to anticipate the Scott Inquiry’s report. I set it up with very wide-ranging terms of reference, I told Lord Justice Scott if he found his terms of reference inadequate or found himself impeded he should say so and we would provide him with the assistance he needed. I think we must wait for his report. I have no judgements to make until then.

  • PMQT – 22 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Foulkes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

    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. Foulkes : Is the Prime Minister aware that a schoolboy was killed last year in Auchinleck in my constituency, another was killed last week in Biggar, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), and there is widespread concern throughout the United Kingdom that school buses have no seat belts but three children to a seat, with no attendants? Will the Prime Minister order immediate action to prevent further deaths, without waiting for Europe to act, or is he more concerned about saving money than saving lives?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman’s last remark was unworthy and I hope that he will withdraw it. I am aware of the tragic incident that occurred last week in Scotland. There will be an inquiry into that death. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to report to me on the basis of that inquiry so that we can examine whether action is appropriate.

    Mr. Dover : Was not one of the best achievements of the Conservative Administration the creation of enterprise zones? Many of us welcome the latest plans for such zones to be set up where coal mining is running down. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with other Ministers the possibility of creating enterprise zones in areas such as Chorley–where defence industries are running down as a result of the peace dividend–because of capital allowances, no business rates and no planning restrictions?

    The Prime Minister : I had the opportunity of looking at some of the work done in the enterprise zone in Lanarkshire just last week. I certainly can confirm that they have been very successful. In areas that face particular difficulties because of substantial job losses, perhaps because of the collapse of a single employer or industry, we look across the board to see what help can be given. Enterprise zones are an important part of that, but not necessarily the whole of it.

    Mr. John Smith : Following the success achieved so far in stopping the killing in Sarajevo as a result of the threat of military action, will the British Government adopt similar firm initiatives to end the sieges of the proposed safe areas of Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde, Srebrenica and Bihac? Will the Government also support urgent action to bring relief and protection to the inhabitants of Mostar?

    The Prime Minister : We have been examining what can be done following the successful action at Sarajevo.

    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed that in Paris yesterday. Even as we speak, a meeting on that matter is going on among political directors and I hope to have the opportunity of discussing it further with President Clinton in the early part of next week. What we wish to see is the relief of the United Nations contingent in Srebrenica by the end of February–within a week–and we hope to open Tuzla airport in the first week of March.

    Mr. John Smith : I hope that the Prime Minister and the other countries will maintain the momentum that recent events have created. In that connection, is not it clear that further troops will be required? If General Rose, who is the commander on the spot, asks for further troops, ought not the Government not hesitate in giving him further support from his own country?

    The Prime Minister : On the first point of developing plans further, we think that the UN should develop plans for other towns urgently. Mostar, Vitez and Maglaj are the three at which one would look first. The situation in each of those towns is different. In Mostar and Vitez, for example, the conflict is between Croats and Muslims, but all of them undoubtedly are in need of desperate assistance and relief. We hope to use the example of Sarajevo to build new impetus in the peace negotiations and the closer involvement of the United States and Russia will help that.

    As to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s second point about troops, we shall examine that matter when there are requests. Those requests are directed not just at the UK, which has made a substantial contribution already–as has France–but at the whole range of countries. We hope that they will all see what special assistance they may be able to give.

    Sir Anthony Grant : Regardless of the outcome of the vote last night, does my right hon. Friend agree that the disgraceful scenes at St Stephen’s entrance were an affront to parliamentary democracy?

    The Prime Minister : The House yesterday had the opportunity to examine in detail a matter of great complexity and importance for many people. My judgment is that the House came to the right decisions, and I support the decision that was taken. I regret the difficulties that occurred outside the House yesterday and I hope that, after reflection, there will not be a repeat.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister agree with Lord Justice Scott, who said today that public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill affair were used by Ministers to withhold information that was trivial and which there was no sensible public justification in withholding?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen those remarks by Lord Justice Scott, nor have I seen the context in which they were made, nor whether it was a statement or a point put to a witness for response. On this and any other point related to the Scott inquiry, I will say that I set up that inquiry so that Lord Justice Scott could report. I am content to leave it to him to report and I do not intend to comment on those matters until such time as I have that report.

    Mr. Bellingham : Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the Financial Times survey which shows that, of the top 25 European companies, a staggering 14 are British? Is not that remarkable fact another sign of our growing economic strength and should not we be proud of it ? Will my right hon. Friend tell the Opposition to stop running the country down?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt among any of our European partners about the strength of the economic recovery in this country. It is steady and shows every sign of continuing at a time when many other European countries still face great difficulties. My hon. Friend is entirely right that many of the largest and most effective international companies in Europe are British.

     

    Q2. Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

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

    Mr. Fatchett : Does the Prime Minister share the concern of the British people that the future of Britain’s last car manufacturer was determined yesterday by a Japanese company and a German company without any reference to long-term British industrial interest? What will the Prime Minister do to secure the future of Rover? Will he simply come to the Dispatch Box again and say that this important matter of industrial strategy which is of concern to the public has nothing whatsoever to do with him?

    The Prime Minister : A few years ago, there was not a remotely profitable and worthwhile car industry in this country at all. We now have a series of companies providing a lot of jobs, making a lot of profits and exporting. It will not be long before we are net exporters of motor cars, and that could not possibly have happened but for inward investment which is itself related to the policies of the Government.

    Mr. Devlin : With regard to the comments by the chairman of Honda, reported in today’s newspapers, that the British are no longer serious about manufacturing, will my right hon. Friend take steps to reassure the heads of Japanese businesses, particularly those that have already invested heavily in the north of England and south Wales, that Britain’s future lies with manufacturing and that the British are serious about producing cars, fridges and other solid goods?

    The Prime Minister : Just yesterday, Honda Motor Europe publicly confirmed its intention to develop Swindon as

    “a centre of manufacturing excellence”

    and to continue its work in helping improve the performance of United Kingdom component suppliers, in particular, to help them to win export orders to Honda in Japan. There is no doubt whatever about the position of the Government. We believe that manufacturing industry is important and requires support. It is getting support and it is beginning to export abroad on a scale we have not previously seen. That support and assistance will continue.

     

    Q3. Ms Corston : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

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

    Ms Corston : Is the Prime Minister aware that “Social Trends 1994”, a Government publication, reveals that as a direct consequence of Tory Government policy since 1979 the average disposable income of the richest 20 per cent. of households has increased by £6,000 a year while the 20 per cent. of households at the bottom of the income scale have had their average disposable income cut by £3,000 a year? Does not that reveal the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister’s professed commitment to creating a nation at ease with itself?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady was being selective in what she said– [Interruption.] She was selective from the report. The net disposable income of people at all ranges of income has increased and the proportion of total tax take paid by those on top incomes has increased, not been reduced.

    Mr. Cormack : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to convey the thanks, congratulations and good wishes of the House to General Sir Michael Rose? Do not the events of the past fortnight show that firm, clear, decisive leadership–political and military–produces results?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt about the success that General Rose has had. I shall be happy to convey my hon. Friend’s congratulations to him.

     

    Q4. Mr. Denham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

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

    Mr. Denham : Since the Conservatives came to power, everyone who is paid less than £64,000 a year has seen his total tax bill go up, but everyone who is paid more than £64,000 a year has seen his tax bill go down. Why?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about tax bills– [Hon. Members :– “Answer the question.”] I am about to answer in my own way. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about tax bills, why did he and his colleagues vote against every tax reduction in the last decade ?

     

    Q5. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

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

    Mr. Coombs : May I thank my right hon. Friend for his positive remarks a moment ago about manufacturing industry in Britain and particularly for what he said about the contribution of Honda in Swindon to manufacturing in Britain? Will he confirm that it remains the policy of the Government, in the interests of manufacturing industry in Britain, to oppose the social chapter and do everything possible to resist moves towards a single currency in Europe? Will he further confirm that Conservative candidates in the European elections later this year will fight on a manifesto that clearly rejects such damaging centralising tendencies?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can confirm that. The Government’s position on the matter is totally clear. When the European People’s party publishes its manifesto later this week neither the Conservative party nor Conservative Members of the European Parliament will be bound by that document, although there will be much in it with which we shall agree. On the question of a single currency and the social chapter, our policy is entirely clear. So, alas, is the policy of the Labour party, which would swallow a single currency immediately, irrespective of the economic damage that it would cause, and would accept the social chapter, with its very damaging consequences for productivity and jobs.