The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 July 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Railtrack

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 7 July, to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), Official Report, column 447, what assessment he has made of the appropriateness of the payment of £500 to members of the Railtrack board for attendance at a board meeting.

    The Prime Minister : All Railtrack board payments were agreed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and by the Treasury before Railtrack was established. No additional payments have been introduced since that time.

    Non-executive directors of Railtrack receive a £500 fee for each meeting of one of the board’s committees–safety, environment and health ; audit; and remuneration–which they attend as a member. Each committee meets up to four times a year, and no non-executive director is a member of more than two. They receive a separate annual fee of £10,000 for their main board duties.

    These payments are consistent with the Treasury guidelines on nationalised industry board members’ appointments, pay and bonuses.

     

    Disability

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to establish a pre-legislative committee or working group to consider the findings of the consultation on disability issues.

    The Prime Minister : Decisions on the way forward will be made in the light of the responses to the consultation document “Disability on the Agenda”, issued on 16 July.

     

    Debt Relief

    Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with (a) European leaders and (b) Commonwealth leaders about (i) the Trinidad terms and (ii) Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I announced in the House on 11 July 1994, Official Report, column 668, that the Naples summit had agreed to pursue additional measures aimed at increasing the level of debt relief for the poorest countries in line with the initiative that I originally proposed four years ago. We have consistently pressed for the implementation of full Trinidad terms in contacts with European, Commonwealth and other Governments. We regularly discuss Kashmir with our European Union partners, and with the Indian and Pakistan Governments who are the Commonwealth Governments most directly concerned.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

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

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty’s Government have received from the Secretary General of the Arab League about the Arab League’s resolutions on Lockerbie and the destruction of Pan Am 103.

    The Prime Minister : The Secretary General of the Arab League handed a copy of the Arab League resolution concerning the Lockerbie bombing to Her Majesty’s ambassador in Cairo on 31 March this year.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Mrs. Roche : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 July, Official Report, column 483, how many overseas visits he has made as Prime Minister during which he undertook fund-raising activities for the Conservative party.

    The Prime Minister : Fund-raising activities for the Conservative party are not part of my official duties.

     

    European Council

    Mr. Channon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the special European Council held in Brussels on 15 July.

    The Prime Minister : A special meeting of the European Council was held in Brussels on 15 July to consider the presidency of the European Commission and certain international questions. I attended with my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary and with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Following his consultations with Council members over the previous two weeks, the President of the European Council, Chancellor Kohl, proposed that the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Mr. Jacques Santer, should take over as the President of the European Commission on 7 January 1995.

    All members of the Council endorsed this proposal. During a short discussion, I underlined the challenges facing the European Union in the period ahead, including making the single market and the need to extend prosperity and security to the east. I believed that Mr. Santer was well qualified to lead the European Commission during this period. He will have an important role to play in bringing together different points of view.

    In accordance with article 158 of the treaty on European Union, the Council President will now consult the European Parliament on the nomination of Mr. Santer.

    After a report by the Italian Prime Minister on the Naples summit, the Council discussed the former Yugoslavia. My right hon. Friend reported on the visit which he had paid earlier in the week to the region with the French Foreign Minister. Heads of Government expressed their support for the contact group’s plan. They believed that everything possible should be done to secure its acceptance and avoid a yet more dangerous situation.

    The French Prime Minister briefed the Council on the action taken by his Government in Rwanda. In the light of the grave humanitarian situation there, the Council asked the Commission to bring forward proposals for additional aid from the European Union.

    Finally, the Council discussed the Baltic states and Ukraine. The European Union is seeking to develop its relationships with those countries; to work for the withdrawal of the last Russian troops from the Baltic States; and to help Ukraine to develop a new energy strategy, including closure of the nuclear power plants at Chernobyl.

  • PMQT – 19 July 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Burns : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

    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. Burns : Does my right hon. Friend agree with the conclusion that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development drew from its perspicacious study of the British economy that the route to higher output, lower unemployment and lower inflation is through sound public finances and deregulation, not placing additional burdens and red tape on business, as advocated by the Opposition parties?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly recommend the OECD report to the House for what it says on both the economy and the health service. I hope that Opposition Members will take time to read it–I know that they have been preoccupied, but it is a good read. The point about the OECD report is that it recognises that the policies that the Government have pursued have helped to transform our economic prospects, which are better now than I can remember for many years–we intend to keep them that way.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in this country we still exempt far too many goods and services from value added tax?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady should read all that my right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday before selectively misquoting what he said. I shall remind the right hon. Lady what my right hon. and learned Friend said in reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) who is chatting on the front Bench. My right hon. and learned Friend said:

    “It is utterly pathetic to come out with constituency letters in which I merely state my long-stated and well-known view that if we were starting again we might have a lower rate of VAT and fewer exemptions. As he knows, that is not policy now”.–[ Official Report, 18 July 1994 ; Vol.247, c.59.]

    Mrs. Beckett : But the Prime Minister is doing it again–he is running away from the question. I am asking him whether he agrees with the Chancellor that too few goods and services are subject to VAT. Surely he knows the answer to that. Most people in this country believe that too much is already subject to VAT and they want to know whether the Government are, as it now appears, looking for an opportunity to put VAT on fares, books or children’s clothes. It seems that the Government want to do that. Will the Prime Minister now admit it?

    The Prime Minister : Besides listening to what I said a moment ago, the right hon. Lady might care to look at what I said in the House on 14 June, 17 May and 25 January this year, and on 19 October, 6 May, 23 March and 18 March last year. If she is concerned about extra value added tax, perhaps she will tell me whether she agrees with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who has said in relation to VAT on private schools and private medical care :

    “That is something specifically being looked at”.

    Mrs. Beckett : Surely the Prime Minister realises that the Chancellor has yet again let the cat out of the bag, by giving an indication that the Government want to put VAT on fares, children’s clothes and books. The Prime Minister was willing enough to deny his intentions on VAT before the election, when he was seeking votes, so why is he not prepared to come clean now? Does not the Tory party have a party addiction to VAT ; and is not that addiction damaging the budget of every British family?

    The Prime Minister : So much for a clear denial of extending VAT to private medical health care–we can draw our own conclusions from that.

    As for our policy, I refer the right hon. Lady again to what my right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) knows–he is raising this scare again–this is not our policy now and we are not starting again. I see no likelihood of extending VAT. I look forward to a clear denial of what the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said the other day about his plans to put VAT on private education.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : During his very busy day, will my right hon. Friend accept an invitation from me to visit Macclesfield, which has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and where manufacturing industry has a very meaningful presence? Will he also accept an invitation to sample the culinary expertise of my constituent, Mrs. Annie May of Sutton, which is near Macclesfield, who won the Good Housekeeping recipe competition and gave her £10,000 first prize to Save the Children Fund? Is not that an example of the success of private enterprise and social concern and involvement?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend’s– [Interruption.] I know it is the end of term : relax. My hon. Friend’s invitation is irresistible. On a date that I cannot yet give him, I shall be happy to accept it.

    As my hon. Friend rightly says, unemployment is falling and has been falling for quite a long time–almost since the shadow Chancellor predicted that it would go up month after month.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Prime Minister list what steps Britain is taking to assist in Rwanda and what further steps he proposes to relieve suffering and save lives from the terrible catastrophe taking place today on Rwanda’s borders?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman may know, we have already provided air lifts to help with the food required in Rwanda. They are likely to continue. We are liaising with our partners on what may be done.

    Mr. Budgen : Will my right hon. Friend explain why he has decided not to take the opportunity to make a formal statement on the important choice of Mr. Santer as president of the European Commission? Also, why does he not explain why he proposes the appointment of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) as a Commissioner–an appointment which will give much pleasure to all members of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : Upon the latter point, no formal decision has been made. When I have a decision to announce I will announce it. As for a statement, none was necessary. If any hon. Member thought that it was necessary, but not forthcoming, he would no doubt have tabled a private notice question.

     

    Q2. Mr. Lewis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

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

    Mr. Lewis : Does the Prime Minister concede that the 1988 changes in the television concessionary licence scheme have proved to be very unfair– even more than they were previously–and that now that it has been determined that the Government will continue the television licence, will he not now return to 1988 and install some fairness into the system, for all pensioners?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that returning to 1988 is an easy proposition, but I note the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

     

    Industrial Relations

    Q3. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the change in industrial relations in the United Kingdom since the 1970s.

    The Prime Minister : The strike statistics speak for themselves. There were fewer strikes last year than in any year since records began. Legislation to establish a fair framework for industrial relations has been a key element in attracting inward investment and creating jobs.

    Mr. Bates : As 2 million passengers brace themselves for another day of disruption on our railways, caused by the inflation-busting pay demand of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, can my right hon. Friend confirm that some 75,000 members of the RMT pay their political levy to the Labour party and have been eligible to vote in the Labour party’s leadership elections?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of that, but 75,000 is an awful lot of potential votes. Perhaps we will get a clear condemnation of the strike now that the ballot has closed.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

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

    Mr. Barnes : The next Prime Minister’s Question Time is in exactly 13 weeks time. That is three whole months. What does the Prime Minister think should be done to respond to the representations of Members of Parliament in the meantime? What avenues are supposed to be available to us?

    The Prime Minister : The same avenues that have been available to every Government since 1945, including those available to Members of Parliament under previous Labour Governments.

    Mr. Paice : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of pressure from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the German Government have withdrawn their totally unwarranted threat to ban British beef? Will he congratulate the European Commission on using sound scientific evidence as the basis for decision making and encourage it to do likewise with future scientific matters?

    The Prime Minister : I should certainly be happy to do that and am happy on this occasion to offer my congratulations on the way in which the matter has been handled in Europe. I think that it has been handled very well. The Chief Medical Officer has repeatedly made it clear throughout the saga that British beef can safely be eaten by anyone, both adults and children, including patients in hospital. I am delighted that Germany has confirmed that unilateral measures will not now enter into force. I think that that shows that the whole of the Community, including Germany, now accepts that British beef is safe.

     

    Q5. Mr. Simpson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

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

    Mr. Simpson : Does the Prime Minister accept that the £500,000 retirement hand-out paid by Severn Trent Water to its former chairman will go down as the most expensive disconnection in the history of the water industry? Will he explain why, at the end of the 12th wettest winter since 1727, and facing a 67 per cent. increase in their bills to pay for a 60 per cent. increase in profits and a 30 per cent. increase in the top wage increases of management, the public cannot water their own blooming gardens? Does not that amount to one privatisation cock-up too far?

    The Prime Minister : On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, as I have said before, I would expect the shareholders and the regulator to question carefully any salary or payment that proved to be excessive. As for the general question of water privatisation, I think that even the hon. Gentleman will concede that, after years of under investment, there is now a substantial investment to deal with environmental matters, of precisely the sort that Opposition Members have asked for for years.

     

    Q6. Dr. Liam Fox : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

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

    Dr. Fox : How much of the fall in Britain’s unemployment and the rise in Britain’s competitiveness does my right hon. Friend attribute to the Government’s supply side reforms, especially labour law reform? Does he think that there is any case for dismantling our labour law reforms and trade union reforms, as suggested by Labour leadership candidates?

    The Prime Minister : It is difficult to quantify precisely how much, but I have no doubt that they have had a significant effect. Equally, there is no doubt that a peaceful workplace is a prosperous one. I certainly assure my hon. Friend that, unlike Opposition Members, I have no plans to sweep the board clean and start again.

     

    Q7. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.

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

    Mr. Canavan : On the question of VAT which was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), may I ask the Prime Minister to give us a straight answer to a straight question : will he name one thing, just one thing, on which he will never ever impose VAT?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should look at what I have said in the past when I have made it perfectly clear that I can see no circumstances ever when food would be subject to VAT, and I repeatedly set out the answers to the other points, on the many occasions that I quoted for the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to read them.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 July 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Electricity and Water Companies

    Mr Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of ministerial exhortation on the pay and other benefits of directors of electricity and water companies in 1994.

    The Prime Minister : I have made it clear on many occasions that directors should follow the lead that the Government have set for pay in the public sector.

    However, remuneration of directors is a matter for the judgment of companies and their shareholders, within the framework of established company law, and reflecting affordability and individual and corporate performance.

     

    Nuclear Proliferation

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Chingford of 11 July, Official Report, column 674, which are the other countries involved in nuclear proliferation to which he referred in his answer.

    The Prime Minister : Both Iraq and North Korea are countries of nuclear proliferation concern. Both states have breached their obligations under the International Atomic Energy Authority full scope safeguards agreements. We are also concerned by reports that Iran may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and we continue to emphasise the importance we attach to all states party abiding by their obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We also take very seriously reports that India, Israel and Pakistan may possess nuclear weapons. We urge these countries to allay suspicions about their nuclear programmes by acceding to the NPT as non-nuclear weapons states.

     

    G7 Summit

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to the Exchequer of the G7 summit in Naples.

    The Prime Minister : It is not possible to give the cost of this meeting at present. A figure will, however, be available in due course.

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) of 11 July, Official Report, column 376, if he will set out the reasons why he will not make it his policy that all Government Departments provide substantive replies to questions rather than referring them to the Library.

    The Prime Minister : It has long been the practice that right hon. and hon. Members should be directed to the original source of information which is detailed or long.

     

    Gordon McNally

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has held with Gordon McNally relating to Government procurement.

    The Prime Minister : None.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 July 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Mr. Gordon McNally

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 7 July, Official Report, column 274, (1) on what three dates he attended functions at which Mr. Gordon McNally was present; at what location he attended functions at which Mr. Gordon McNally was present; and for what purpose and in what circumstances the functions were held at which both he and Mr. Gordon McNally were present;

    (2) in what official circumstances he has been photographed in a group with Mr. Gordon McNally.

    The Prime Minister : The three large functions which I attended, at which Mr. McNally also attended, were on 29 September 1992, 13 November 1992 and 23 March 1993. Photographs are often taken at such events and may have been taken on each occasion.

     

    Data Protection

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has sought the views of the Data Protection Registrar in relation to the possible introduction of a national identity number; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : We have no plans to introduce a national identity number. The question of a national identity card scheme is kept under review. If we decided to introduce such a scheme there would be a full consultation exercise.

     

    Ex-service People

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 July, Official Report, column 377, if it is his intention at present or at any time in the future to implement the resolution of the House of 1 July on welfare of ex-service people.

    The Prime Minister : We have no such plans at present.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Albert Reynolds – 15 July 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, held on Friday 15th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Let me just say a few words about our discussions this afternoon:

    When the Taoiseach and I first met when he first became Taoiseach in 1992, we agreed to have regular meetings and more formal biannual bilaterals. In practice, we have met very frequently during that period.

    When we met at Corfu a few weeks ago, we set in train a significant amount of work designed to complete a framework document; a lot of that work has been continuing. We took the opportunity of this unexpected summit today to meet and review that work. A substantial amount of progress has been made but there is self-evidently still some more work to do. We have commissioned some more work and we have decided that we will regroup again more formally in the early autumn – I can’t be precise as to the date at the moment – in order to carry that work forward so I would expect us to meet again in the early autumn and then again, of course, formally towards the end of the year.

    PRIME MINISTER ALBERT REYNOLDS:

    I agree with my colleague on that. We set out a lot of work the last time we met and a lot of that work has been completed; we have achieved quite considerable progress. We have set another programme of work today, we would like to make progress again and as soon as we have the work completed we will have a summit in early autumn. We didn’t need a summit next week because we had the opportunity to complete what we would have done next week this week anyway so the unexpected summit called for Brussels today afforded us the opportunity to do our work that normally we would have had to meet next week to do.

    QUESTION:

    To what extent is the Irish constitutional claim to the North a sticking point?

    PRIME MINISTER ALBERT REYNOLDS:

    We are in very sensitive, complex areas on both sides here. What we are trying to achieve is a new beginning not just a patch job, not just something to put a bit of sticking plaster on. We are trying to find a new beginning, a way to stop the violence on both sides and that is not achievable as quickly as some people might think but we have made very considerable progress and both of us are confident that we will achieve enough progress to hold a summit in the early autumn.

    QUESTION:

    Is that the stumbling block as far as you are concerned, Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    There are a number of things that are still yet undetermined. If I look at where we are now and contemplate whether two years ago I would have imagined we would have reached the present circumstances, frankly I would not. The progress has been steady, perhaps sometimes unspectacular but it has been steady and it is continuing; that is still the case.

    There are some more things to be determined. They are very sensitive issues, very complex issues, very deep-rooted problems. We are examining them one by one and as we solve them we move on to the next one. I would rather take that gently and get it right than rush it and get it wrong. There is a very great deal at stake.

    QUESTION:

    But are you both prepared to give ground, you, Prime Minister, on the Government of Ireland Act for example and you, Taoiseach, on the constitutional claim?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I think we will negotiate in private about things like that.

    PRIME MINISTER ALBERT REYNOLDS:

    We said in our Downing Street Declaration of December 15 that we would approach a balanced constitutionalist agreement and that is what we are engaged in.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you about the summit in general that you are coming to? Can you tell us whether you believe that Jacques Santer is a much better choice than Jean-Luc Dehaene would have been?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes I do. We will have the summit very shortly and I very much hope we will be able to reach a conclusion. I do believe that Jacques Santer would be acceptable to the heads of most governments, all governments I hope; from our point of view, he has a number of very positive virtues and I look forward to the discussion in a few moments.

    QUESTION:

    Some people say that he is not very exciting. Do you think that matters?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I think what matters is how competently and efficiently the new President is going to run the commission and take into account the interests of all the member nation states across the European Union.

    I have worked with Jacques Santer on the European Council for a number of years, I know his virtues, I know his capacity to carry matters forward and carry them forward in a balanced way. I think that is what is necessary.

    QUESTION:

    Since you met at Corfu, there has been a development in relation to the repatriation of prisoners. Are there any other such initiatives planned by you and sought by you?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    We are discussing a whole range of matters, some of them directly related to the talks we had this afternoon and other matters related to the security situation. I have said before and am happy to say again with the Taoiseach beside me that the degree of cooperation over security matters has improved beyond all measure over recent years and I think that is something that is welcome both sides of the border so there are matters like that under discussion, yes.

    QUESTION:

    Any new initiatives sought by you, Taoiseach?

    PRIME MINISTER ALBERT REYNOLDS:

    Not specific in that manner although we do continue every time we have a meeting to look at ways and means of improving the atmosphere between the two communities and creating an environment from which we hope that violence will be taken out at some stage sooner rather than later as far as both of us are concerned but the specifics of such we always keep to ourselves.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Brussels – 15 July 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Brussels on Friday 15th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have, as you know, very little time. We are all due back at dinner where we have more discussions in just a few moments but let me say a word or two about our pre-dinner deliberations.

    It has taken us a little longer than we originally expected to make a decision on a Commission President but the most important part of that was to make sure that when the decision was made it was the right decision. I believe that that has now been achieved and I warmly congratulate Jacques Santer on his nomination. That now of course goes to the European Parliament and I hope they will speedily and unanimously endorse it.

    Let me just say a word, if I may, about the other candidates whose names have been put forward over the last few weeks but who have not been selected to be President.

    A number of people have contributed in many ways to this debate, a number of highly respected European figures have permitted their names to go forward. The whole matter has, I believe, been conducted in a dignified and a friendly spirit in these discussions and that certainly was the tone of the discussions we have had this afternoon.

    I think Jacques Santer is a wise choice for the next few years. He is well known to all of us, he has served on the European Council for ten years; he brings a wide degree of experience to the job as Prime Minister for some years, experience in finance matters, experience in foreign affairs. He has twice held the Presidency of the Council in 1985 and 1991 but on each of those occasions he made a substantial personal contribution to two of the most significant legislative acts that the Community has produced – the Single European Act in the mid-1980s and of course the Maastricht Treaty with its pillared structure in the early 1990s – and of course the importance of the pillared structure allowing matters to be decided by consensus was of very great importance in ensuring that that treaty came to be, so I think in Mr. Santer we have a President who is well able to reconcile conflicting views around the European table. I think that is very important indeed.

    There will be many difficult decisions to be taken in the future. He is committed to free trade, committed to the economics of the free market, a strong supporter of subsidiarity and a very strong supporter also of enlarging the Community and that is going to be a very important theme of the next few years. He comes from a country proud of its national identity and I have always regarded him as a healing force and not a divisive force and I think that will be very welcome with the difficult decisions that will need to be taken over the years that lie ahead. In brief, I think he is the right man in the right place at the right time and I wish him every success in the difficult and demanding job that he will be undertaking.

    When we had finished reaching agreement on the Presidency, we had a useful discussion on a number of other subjects and that discussion will continue over dinner this evening. Douglas Hurd gave the Council a detailed account of his visit with the French Foreign Minister to the former Yugoslavia. At the end of that discussion, very strong support was expressed by the Council for the plan set out by the Contact Group. We believe that it is absolutely essential to do everything to secure its acceptance and avert the threat of an intensified war in former Yugoslavia. It may be the Foreign Secretary will wish to add a word or two about that.

    The French Prime Minister also raised the question of emergency aid for Rwanda. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to describe the problems there as truly horrifying. The French are playing a leading part to bring about an improvement and they deserve our support. The United Kingdom has made a very substantial contribution to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and in other ways and we will continue to do so, so we supported the proposal from the French Prime Minister for further assistance to Rwanda and that will be discussed in further detail at the Foreign Affairs Council in the next day or so.

    That is as far as we have got with our subjects in this European Council thus far, the dinner conversation, as I say, lies ahead us but if you have any questions I will happily take them but first I will ask the Foreign Secretary perhaps to say a word or two more about Yugoslavia.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    I don’t think I need add much. I gave the Council an account of Alain Juppe and my travels and our talks to President Tudjman, with Izetbegovic and the Sarajevo Government and with the Bosnian Serbs and President Milosevic in Belgrade.

    We rammed home the strong arguments in favour of accepting the Contact Group’s plan but I told the Council that I came away with a rather sombre impression particularly from our discussions with the Bosnian Serbs. There is a very real danger of a drift back into war with all the consequences for the Bosnian people and for everyone indeed who is making an effort there so I left them with that feeling. It does mean, as the Prime Minister said, that anyone who has any influence over the situation has got to bestir themselves between now and the end of the month to maximise and improve to the utmost the chances of this plan being accepted.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what do you think you have achieved by vetoing Mr. Dehaene in Corfu? Haven’t you wound up today with a candidate very much in Mr. Dehaene’s line of thinking?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have never had anything personally to say against Jean-Luc Dehaene, as you know, but there are quite distinct differences in policy between those that Mr. Santer holds to and those that attract the support of Mr. Dehaene. Mr. Santer is a very strong believer in free trade not protection; he is a very strong decentraliser, he believes in federalism in the sense of decentralisation; he is a strong supporter of subsidiarity which is going to be an important theme of the next few years. He has shown by his record in a number of ways that that is the case. He was, as I indicated a moment ago, the author of the pillared approach that enabled agreement to be reached by consensus and not centrally-determined through the Commission; he was the President of the Council when it reached its final decisions on the Single European Act and crucially in that the Single Market, all of which are vitally important to us. I don’t think there is any doubt that he is a strong believer in nation states and I think there is another point perhaps that many other people have not yet spotted and that is the fact that for his own reasons he has been a longstanding opponent of harmonisation of taxes. All those are very distinct policy points of some importance to us.

    The other point I would make is in the nature of the man himself. He is, I think, a reconciler and a healer. We are soon going to have sixteen nation states sitting round the table, not twelve, and very possibly within five years will be moving towards twenty. It is very important that the views of all of those nation states are fully taken into account and reconciled; I believe he will be very good at doing that. It is quite a formidable list of reasons for supporting him and I am very pleased at the outcome we reached this afternoon.

    QUESTION:

    I wondered whether in view of what you just said, Prime Minister, you are therefore surprised to hear that Mr. Santer just now has denied that there are any political differences between himself and Mr. Dehaene. I quote: “I certainly do not believe the time has come to pause in the process of further European integration and in a deeper political union” and he repeated himself as federalist in that sense. Does that entirely square with what you have just been saying?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Would you have expected him to say: “Well I have got a long list of differences with my old friend Jean-Luc!”? You know very well in terms of the European debate that he isn’t going to say that.

    I have set out a whole series of practical indications of his record of what he stands for. You will have seen, I am sure, the interview he gave in the Luxembourg press just a couple of days ago and he set out very clearly his views in terms of decentralisation; he made it perfectly clear there that he was a federalist in the sense of being a decentraliser, not a centraliser and I think if you read his interview you can take it from his own words, not mine, that he matches the list of attributes that I have just suggested to those present he has.

    QUESTION:

    Does that mean that you too now, Prime Minister, are a federaliser in the sense of a decentraliser?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am a decentraliser, that is certainly the case. I don’t think I would attribute any other words of yours to that. I am certainly a decentraliser, I certainly believe that the nation state is an important part of the European Union, so do other nations, and it will remain so.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if the views of Mr. Dehaene and Mr. Santer are so different and if one must look through his policy record to prove that, why do you think it was that Mr. Santer backed Mr. Dehaene so enthusiastically in the first round debate on the President’s job?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Were you present at the Christian Democrat meeting beforehand?

    ANSWER:

    No.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nor was I. I suggest you ask someone who was present at the private meeting for the answer to that question.

    MURRAY RICHIE (GLASGOW HERALD):

    If you are such a convinced decentraliser as you say and you agree with subsidiarity, why don’t you practise it in Scotland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Scotland is part of a single United Kingdom, I am not going to join in the sort of decentralisation the Scottish Nationalists want in Scotland which has as its ultimate aim not decentralisation but the eventual removal of Scotland from the United Kingdom.

    As far as devolvement of authority is concerned, you will know, working for the “Glasgow Herald”, of the immense devolvement of authority that has now gone to Scotland and to the Scottish Secretary of State and the changes that are currently being agreed to extend that even further in the United Kingdom.

    JUDITH DAWSON (SKY TV):

    You said that Leon Brittan is the right man for the job and you did repeat that quite a number of times before and during the Corfu summit so would you agree that Jacques Santer is a compromise, has to be a compromise for you and for the other European leaders and has what happened to Mr. Tim Devlin caused you very much grief?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made perfectly clear that our first choice for President of the Commission was Leon Brittan and I don’t resile from that now. I think Leon Brittan in every way would have made an excellent President of the Commission for the next few years. None of that detracts from the fact that I think Jacques Santer is an excellent candidate who has attracted support right the way across the Heads of Government and I hope will attract the support of the European Parliament in the next few days so I think he will do an excellent job.

    As far as Mr. Devlin is concerned, the Chief Whip has dealt with that matter and I believe he has dealt with it properly.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    And, of course, there is one other point to add perhaps: that Jacques Santer was chosen as the result of a period of very intensive consultation of everybody by the Presidency and that was not so before Corfu.

    JUDITH DAWSON:

    Do you think that should have happened the first time round?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    Of course.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We not only think that now, we said that at the time loudly and clearly.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, now you have secured a candidate for the Commission who is clearly extremely satisfactory to Britain, do you consider that after the Corfu veto and in the talks that followed, you have put one over on Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it isn’t a question of putting one over on any other members of the European Council, that is not remotely the way I see it. I thought it was right to take whatever action was necessary to get a President of the Commission whom I believe was right for Europe in the next few years and right for the United Kingdom in the next few years. That was the purpose of exercising the veto at Corfu and the only purpose.

    DON McINTYRE:

    Can I ask you whether, as David Howell said on the radio this morning, the really desirable thing about Jacques Santer from your point is that he will be very low-profile and that is really why you want him?

    May I ask the Foreign Secretary what on Bosnia he has in mind when he says that anybody who has any influence on the Serbs should use it in the desperately short time there is as they seem to be immune to all influence including that of the Russians?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think possibly Jacques Santer will be lower-profile than his predecessor. I don’t think it is the height of the profile that is really the relevant factor but the direction in which the profile is moving and as I indicated to everyone a few moments ago, I think the direction in which he will take the Community will be very amenable to the majority of member states including us.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    On the Bosnian point, you never can tell in life when a particular argument or piece of persuasion or pressure is just going to tip the balance in favour of what you want done so there are all kinds of pressures, the Russians you mentioned. I was actually thinking of President Milosovic. I believe there are ways in which he could exert himself should he so choose which would really be effective in bringing the Bosnian Serbs to their senses. Whether he will do that or not I don’t know. It is in his interests to do, we urged him to do so, I hope he will do so.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, we have heard your comparison of Mr. Santer with Mr. Dehaene. How does he compare in your view to Jacques Delors? Is he better suited in your view to being the next President of the Commission than Delors was, more to your taste?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I got the underlying message! I think he will be very suitable for the next few years but I don’t think anyone should underestimate the contribution that Jacques Delors has made to the European Union over the last few years. He and I haven’t always agreed, there is no particular secret about that, but my respect for his abilities is very great.

    QUESTION (WALL STREET JOURNAL):

    Diplomats of some member states in Brussels have expressed fears that Jacques Santer is perhaps someone from a small country that doesn’t have the clout that M. Delors or M. Dehaene perhaps have and will find it hard to lay down the law in certain areas that are quite important to the UK I believe such as the internal market, insurance, where there isn’t much progress in enforcing laws. Are you worried that a weak Commission in this sense would undermine the UK’s interests?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I don’t accept the premise, if I may say so, at the outset. I think there has been some black propaganda of that sort about from Heaven knows where. I think from what I have seen of Jacques Santer is that he will press his case and his beliefs quite hard where that is necessary, certainly that is my judgement of the man.

    As far as the laws are concerned in the Community, the laws are there to be obeyed in the Community and I have no doubt the Commission collectively will ensure that they are. That was something we pressed for very strongly in the Maastricht Treaty. It was a matter of concern to us prior to Maastricht that we did have a number of laws across the Community and we were not satisfied that every member state was fully implementing them. There are now mechanisms to make sure that they do and I am sure they will be enforced.

    SHIRLEY DODD:

    Prime Minister, do you think you will be able to live easily with the fact that M. Santer is a strong supporter of the Social Dimension of the Union and of a single currency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are two things that often get run together: one is the Social Dimension of the Community and the other is the specific Social Chapter.

    As far as the Social Dimension of the Community is concerned, we have no difficulty with that. Indeed, if you were to ask the Commission which country has implemented more Social Dimension measures than any other, you would find it was the United Kingdom.

    As far as the Social Chapter is concerned, it is not a matter of relevance to us whether any President of the Commission supports it or not because we are not a party to the Social protocol, it doesn’t affect us, so whether they support it or not is not relevant to the United Kingdom but on the Social Dimension which is a separate matter, we support the Social Dimension, we have implemented the Social Dimension and I would anticipate will continue to do so.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 July 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

    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.

     

    Intelligence Service

    Sir John Hunt : To ask the Prime Minister if he will indicate the extent to which following the passing of the Intelligence Services Act, the Government are prepared to make available to the House information on the activities of the security and intelligence agencies.

    The Prime Minister : This Government have taken a series of significant steps in its policy of greater accountability and openness, wherever possible, in security and intelligence matters. All three security and intelligence agencies are avowed and have now been put on a statutory basis. The figure for the aggregate expenditure of the agencies is published annually. In addition, the expenditure, administration and policy of all three agencies will be subject to scrutiny by a committee of Parliamentarians–the Intelligence and Security Committee.

    It is important to draw a line between proper accountability for the agencies and the continued need for secrecy regarding operational matters. Successive Governments have refused to provide information on the operations of the security and intelligence agencies, including matters which will fall within the scrutiny of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Comment on these matters, either by what is or is not said, could have a bearing on the effectiveness of the agencies, and the safety of their staff and those who co-operate with them. I made clear to the House on 6 May 1992– Official Report, column 65, that the Government will maintain this policy.

     

    Ex-service People (Welfare)

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister if he will be meeting representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss the approval by the House on 1 July of the resolution on the welfare of ex-service people; and what representations he has had from the Legion in regard to a meeting.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 13 July 1994] : We welcome continuing close contact with the Royal British Legion and other service organisations. A request for a meeting has been received from the Royal British Legion and is being considered at present.

  • PMQT – 14 July 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay : What instructions has the Prime Minister issued this week in connection with combating the appalling level of air pollution throughout the Thames valley and in every other urban area of the United Kingdom? Can we be assured that it is Government policy that the polluters will pay and be prosecuted, rather than merely be given a ticking off and a prohibition notice? Now is the time for action to combat air pollution.

    The Prime Minister : Of course, it was a Conservative Government who established the first ever environment Department as long ago as 1970, and we take environmental matters very seriously. On air pollution, we have already agreed tight emission standards for new cars and lorries and we intend that they be rigidly enforced. We have taken the lead over the rest of Europe by introducing integrated pollution policies and we are determined to ensure that those are kept. We made it clear earlier this year in discussion documents that making the air cleaner is an important part of our policy and, where necessary, we will take action.

    Mr. Marlow : Is a single European currency a commercial convenience, or does it mean single European interest rates, a single European economy, harmonised and high levels of European taxation and, effectively, a single European state? And, if it is the latter, could my right hon. Friend tell the House that he is most unlikely ever to put it before the British people? It would give a great deal of simple pleasure to a lot of simple people if he could say so.

    The Prime Minister : I am always prepared to give some simple pleasure to my hon. Friend. As I have told the House on many occasions, a single currency would not be a practicable proposal, unless one had a proper and equally performing series of economies right across the area that would be governed by that currency. Without that, there would be the very practical difficulty that one would get large-scale structural unemployment and a massive demand for funds transferred from one part of the European Union to another. It is for that very practical reason that I do not believe that we are within many years of being able to consider a single currency.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is the Prime Minister yet able to tell us whether, in the context of the presidency of the European Commission, there are any candidates who do not support the social chapter?

    The Prime Minister : I can tell the right hon. Lady that, since we are not partners to the protocol, it does not matter from our point of view whether they are in favour or not.

    Mrs. Beckett : But the meeting is tomorrow. Is the Prime Minister telling us that, having used the veto–so he said–to permit extensive consultations, he does not know whether any of the candidates are against the social chapter?

    The Prime Minister : I sometimes think that the right hon. Lady prepares her second and third questions before listening to the first answer. The second question bore no relationship to the answer which I just gave her, which I shall repeat. Since we are not partners to the protocol that governs that aspect of European policy, it does not matter to this country whether the new president does or does not support that.

    Mrs. Beckett : The Prime Minister, as he will be well aware, has twice run away from answering the question. Is he reluctant to answer it because he knows that, in a triumph of personal diplomacy, he vetoed the appointment of one Conservative Prime Minister from a Benelux country who supports the social chapter, and will now support the candidacy of a Conservative Prime Minister from a Benelux country who supports the social chapter?

    The Prime Minister : Oh dear, oh dear. I fear that the right hon. Lady has shown the House too clearly that she does not have a scintilla of understanding of the European policies of each of the candidates whose name has been put forward for the presidency of the European Commission. There is a substantial difference between those policies that I vetoed last week and those that are followed by any of the candidates who remain in the ring at the moment.

    The decision will be made on Friday and the right hon. Lady might then understand the distinction between the policies of a European Commission president whom I would not accept and those of a European Commission president whom I can accept.

    Mr. Batiste : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the impending statement from the Secretary of State for Defence will be keenly awaited by many people who work in the defence contracting industry in Leeds and in many other parts of the country? Can he confirm that “Front Line First” means enhancing the capabilities of our front-line troops by giving them the best available equipment to do the many jobs with which they are faced?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend will be making a detailed statement about the matter in a few minutes and, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not anticipate that statement in detail. “Front Line First” was established to ensure precisely that we direct the resources available to the front line to maximise the fighting capacity and the cutting edge of the British armed forces.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Hain rose

    Mr. Richards : Liar. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. [Interruption.] Just a moment. Let me establish who made the remark.

    Hon. Members : Stand up.

    Madam Speaker : Order. I understand that it was Mr. Rod Richards. Is that the case?

    Mr. Richards indicated assent .

    Madam Speaker : In that case, I require the hon. Gentleman to stand up and immediately apologise.

    Mr. Richards : I withdraw my remark, Madam Speaker.

    Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman must apologise to me as the Speaker of the House for those words.

    Mr. Richards : Madam Speaker, I apologise to you.

    Mr. Faulds : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

    Madam Speaker : Order. I call Mr. Hain.

    Mr. Hain : Will the Prime Minister establish an inquiry– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must now come to order. The matter is over and done with.

    Mr. Hain : Will the Prime Minister establish an inquiry into the way a member of his Cabinet, Lord Wakeham, and other leading Conservatives were in 1988 taken off selected Lloyd’s syndicates which later suffered three years of catastrophic losses? Were they the beneficiaries of insider information while millions of pounds of losses were dumped on ordinary Lloyd’s investors?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman has any information whatever to suggest impropriety, he should bring that information forward. Given the inferences that clearly underlie his question, under the privilege of Parliament most people would not regard it as the right way to raise that matter.

    Mr. Mans : Has any member of my right hon. Friend’s Cabinet in the past advocated the abolition of nuclear weapons while at the same time suggesting that they should be retained, or suggested that we should withdraw completely from the European Community while advocating a federal Europe with Britain inside it? Have not all three contenders for the Labour leadership done all of those?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to that question is clearly, no. Had they done so, they would certainly not be members of my Cabinet.

     

    Q3. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what official engagements he has already fixed in the London borough of Southwark for the rest of the current year.

    The Prime Minister : I have no engagement planned at this stage.

    Mr. Hughes : In that case, will the Prime Minister accept a short engagement to cross the river and explain to the people of Southwark, a borough with one of the highest levels of deprivation and unemployment in Britain, whether it is the Government’s policy to narrow the gap between the richest and the poorest in Britain and increase public services before thinking of cutting taxes? If so, when?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman looks at the available public assistance given to people in hardship, both to those in work on very low incomes and those out of work, he will see that there has been a significant improvement in recent years in the resources available to deal with those problems. He will know of the significant resources put particularly into inner-city areas of deprivation like Southwark over a large number of years. What does need to be done, and it requires the assistance of local authorities and others if we are to get to the root of the problem, is to ensure that those boroughs are also prepared to co-operate with bringing private capital into the area so that a joint approach of public and private capital can maximise the improvement for people who live in poor circumstances.

     

    Q4. Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Wareing : Since the Tory Government came to power in 1979, this country has lost a considerable proportion of its manufacturing base, yet, alone among European Union Governments, this Government have benefited to the tune of £124 billion worth of North sea oil revenue. We can guess what the Germans and French would have done with that. What did the Tory Government do with it?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, be prepared to acknowledge in private that employment in manufacturing industry has been on a downward trend since the 1960s, whomsoever have been in Government. It has now stabilised. The manufacturing base at the moment is broadening, not narrowing. We now have the best economic circumstances, not just for exports but for growth and manufacturing, that we have had for the past 20 or 25 years. That is readily understood by everyone beyond the confines of the Labour party.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ian Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Bruce : It is common ground in the House that the civil service is full of people of ability, honesty and integrity. Yet we would all agree –indeed, civil servants would agree–that the high cost of government and grandiose waste in building projects, for instance, are not what we are looking for. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper published yesterday, “Continuity and Change”, shows that we also need improvement and cost reductions?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. We can take pride in the performance of the British civil service over many years. That is evident not only in this country but by the fact that a number of other countries have copied the British civil service system. It has high standards of integrity, and we are determined to maintain that integrity and impartiality while improving the service delivered through the civil service to the people of this country, who pay for it, and to us.

    Mrs. Mahon : The Prime Minister will be aware that at the moment, no national health service patients can be placed in private health care systems or homes against their wishes if they or their relatives will incur a personal charge for that move. Will the Prime Minister give the House a guarantee that people will retain the right to free NHS care?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give the hon. Lady that guarantee : the right to national health service care free at the point of delivery is an integral part of the Government’s policy, and will remain so.

     

    Q6. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Oppenheim : Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to study the recent report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which shows that during the 1980s, Britain’s manufacturing productivity growth out-performed that of Germany, whereas the period when we were most out-performed by Germany was between 1974 and 1979? Does not that illustrate that the time when this country was in danger of slipping into a second rate, low productivity, low wage, skivvy economy, with Mickey Mouse jobs, was not under the present Government, but rather in the heroic days of Labour’s industrial strategy?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has unearthed some interesting facts, which Opposition Members would do well to study. He is entirely right. The key to lasting prosperity and lasting jobs is to get the underlying economic conditions right, and then to keep them right. That is what we have done, and is what we propose to continue to do.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 July 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Mr. Gordon McNally

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister on what occasion prior to November 1991 he was present at functions where Mr. Gordon McNally was present.

    The Prime Minister : None, so far as I am aware.

     

    Coastguard Service

    Ms Walley : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has held about the Department of Transport’s proposed efficiency savings for the Coastguard Service; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have had no such discussions. However, as I stated on 7 July 1994, Official Report, column 446, in response to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has discussed with the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency the proposals he put forward in response to my right hon. Friend’s target, that the Department as a whole should achieve a 20 per cent. efficiency gain. My right hon. Friend has not yet taken any decisions on these proposals.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

    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.

     

    Privatisation

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

    The Prime Minister : None of the organisations, agencies or other bodies under my departmental responsibility have been privatised since 1990. Plans for privatisation involving my departments will be considered on their merits as part of a prior options exercise and the results will be announced as appropriate.

     

    Ukraine

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of 20 June, Official Report, column 11, if he will make a statement on discussions at the G7 summit in relation to nuclear technical assistance to the Government of the Ukraine.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to my statement on the Group of Seven summit in Naples on 11 July 1994, Official Report, columns 667-69.

     

    Former Members of Parliament

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the former hon. Members who were defeated in the last two general elections who have since become members of quangos and other organisations to which the Government nominates ; and if he will state the organisation to which the former hon. Members were nominated, the duties undertaken and the salary.

    The Prime Minister : This information is not held centrally.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Mrs. Roche : To ask the Prime Minister how many overseas visits have been made in 1994 by Ministers; during how many of them Ministers participated in fund-raising activities for the Conservative party; who were those Ministers; and in which countries those activities took place.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 July 1994] : As far as I am aware, Ministers made 287 overseas visits in their official capacity between 1 January and 30 June 1994. None of those was undertaken for purposes of fundraising for the Conservative party. No central record is kept of any occasions on which Ministers may have attended fundraising events which were incidental to their visit.

  • PMQT – 12 July 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th July 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. MacShane : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

    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. MacShane : Can the Prime Minister name one candidate for the presidency of the European Union who does not support the social charter aspects of the European Union?

    The Prime Minister : Well, I do not know–no one yet knows–who all the candidates will be.

     

    Q2. Mr. Burns : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

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

    Mr. Burns : Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key plank of Government policy is to widen choice and opportunity as much as possible to all? Does my right hon. Friend think that widening choice and opportunity would be enhanced by extending VAT to private health care and education and is he surprised that that suggestion is being mooted by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

    Hon. Members : Where is he?

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : The whole purpose of the Government’s education policy is to extend choice and opportunity as widely as possible. I cannot speak for the policies of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)–and nor, it would appear, can he this afternoon. It is certainly the case that the Labour party is opposed to the assisted places scheme, city technology colleges, A-levels–and, I had thought until a few moments ago, grant- maintained schools, which I understand a number of prominent members of the Labour party now seem to favour for their own families.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does the Prime Minister accept what every national newspaper is saying this morning about the effects on ordinary British families of water privatisation–that it is a swindle, licensed theft and legalised robbery?

    The Prime Minister : Would the right hon. Lady renationalise?

    Mrs. Beckett : I think that the Prime Minister has forgotten why we are here. These are questions asked of the Prime Minister, not by the Prime Minister.

    Does not the Prime Minister realise that what makes British people even more angry is that the only thing that is rising faster than their water bills is the pay of water bosses? How can he defend the fact that that chairman of North West Water received £47,000 a year before privatisation and now receives £338,000 for doing exactly the same job? Is not that a disgrace at a time when water bills are rocketing?

    The Prime Minister : I suppose that the assumption must be that the right hon. Lady does not know whether she would renationalise or not. On the substantive part of her question, as she knows, Parliament has provided for an independent regulator whose responsibility it is and who is statutorily required to protect customers’ interests while ensuring that they can finance their obligations. She may care already to acknowledge the change in the quality of bathing water and other European Community standards that have been brought about since privatisation and that were not apparent under any Government prior to privatisation.

    Mrs. Beckett : I notice that the Prime Minister did not take the opportunity to condemn that pay rise. I hope that he realises that it is those double standards that are bringing his Government into disrepute. Is not it now the case that when people turn on the tap, when they turn on the light–in fact, every time they turn around–under this rip-off Government they are hit with higher taxes and higher charges, and that people are paying more to get less?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the right hon. Lady could explain why British Telecom’s prices are down 30 per cent. since privatisation, why the prices of telephones are down 60 per cent., and why the price of gas is down 21 per cent. It is absolutely clear that the right hon. Lady will protect anything that is in public ownership and attack anything that is in private ownership.

    On the pay of water company directors, I have made it clear in the past that they should follow the lead that the Government have set for pay in the public sector and elsewhere, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will make it clear whether she would renationalise those privatised industries and see the prices go back up again, as they used to under nationalisation.

    Mr. David Shaw : Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in 1989, 11 bandsmen died in the IRA bombing at the Royal Marines establishment in Deal ? Will he recall also that that established a very strong relationship with the people of the town of Deal, who appealed for the music school to be kept in Deal? It was such that 12,500 people signed a petition, which I handed in to the House last Thursday. Will my right hon. Friend take note, therefore, of the strength of feeling that exists between the townspeople of Deal, the Royal Marines school of music and those people who work in it, and will he also recognise that unemployment in Deal is higher than unemployment in the area surrounding Rosyth?

    The Prime Minister : I recall, as I am sure many hon. Members will recall, that dreadful deed of many years ago, but I cannot anticipate the substance of statements not yet made.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Prime Minister reassure us that he has no intention of doing a U-turn on his policy to favour the lifting of the arms embargo if the peace talks in Bosnia fail? Is not that the single act best calculated to ensure that the position of United Nations troops in Bosnia becomes untenable? Surely, that cannot be what the Government wish to see. Is not it illogical to say to the warring partners in Bosnia, “If you will not make peace, then we will help you to make a bigger and more bloody war?”

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman sets out a policy that is not ours. He knows the strong opposition that we have consistently had to the unilateral raising of the arms embargo. That remains.

     

    Competitiveness

    Q3. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives he is taking to improve the competitiveness of British business.

    The Prime Minister : The Government are determined to build on the world-class industries that the United Kingdom already has. The White Paper “Competitiveness : Helping Business to Win” sets out the most comprehensive agenda ever right across Government to improve the competitiveness of British business.

    Mr. Bates : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he accept that perhaps the greatest contribution to the increased competitiveness of our economy has come from the privatisation of loss- making nationalised industries such as British Steel? Does he accept that today British Steel is the world’s most efficient producer of steel, and will he ensure that that hard-earned and strong reputation in the world will not be blunted by state-subsidised, inefficient European competitors?

    The Prime Minister : We will certainly continue to do all that we can to bring pressure to bear on our European partners to ensure that British industry is not damaged by unfair competition.

    Since British Steel moved from the public to the private sector, it has transformed itself into an efficient, integrated, profitable producer. Exports have doubled in recent years, and British Steel is now one of Britain’s largest exporters.

    Mr. Clelland : Does the Prime Minister recognise that the biggest danger to manufacturing industry in the northern region is the loss of previously privatised industries such as Swan Hunter? What will he do to protect that industry?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman would have noted from the White Paper on competitiveness, the only way in which to protect any industry in this country–or, indeed, any other–is to ensure that it can compete, and is producing something that people wish to buy at the time when they wish to buy it and at a price that they can afford. That is the Government’s policy ; I wish that it had the whole-hearted support of the Opposition.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

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

    Mr. Atkinson : Will my right hon. Friend accept the grateful thanks of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) for last week’s recommendation by the Local Government Commission that the borough of Bournemouth should return to unitary status after 20 years of county council control? Is not that a clear demonstration of Conservative commitment to strong local government, in complete contrast to the unwanted policies of remote regional government favoured by Labour and the Liberal Democrats?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my hon. Friend will make his views known to the commissioners. We certainly wish to put decision making at the lowest possible level, so that it is close to the people who vote and pay local taxes ; unlike other parties in the House, we do not want an extra layer of expensive regional government.

     

    Q5. Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

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

    Mr. Jones : Is the Prime Minister aware that 2,000 Airbus workers in my constituency are desperate for his Government to place orders for the future large aircraft? Bearing in mind the magnificent achievement of the Airbus project, can he tell us when British Airways might buy aircraft of the Airbus marque? Does he agree that aerospace is now the greatest industry in Britain, and that it requires more support and encouragement from his Government?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an indication of the question that he was going to ask on this specific subject.

    As for the future large aircraft, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has received details from British Aerospace, which he is now taking into account in assessing the options for replacement or refurbishment of the present Hercules flight.

    I wholly appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern to protect jobs in his constituency. Commercial decisions must be a matter for British Airways rather than for my right hon. and learned Friend, but the hon. Gentleman will know that Airbus has competed very successfully. It has attracted customers from airlines around the world, most recently winning a very significant order from Singapore Airlines. I have no doubt that the quality of the product means that that success will continue.

     

    Q6. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

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

    Mr. Evennett : I thank my right hon. Friend. During his busy schedule, will he find time to visit my constituency of Erith and Crayford and see at first hand the improving economic situation and, in particular, the improving job situation in Bexley? Furthermore, will he reaffirm his commitment to lower taxation when the time is right–[ Laughter.] Opposition Members laugh because they do not like the truth. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm his commitment to the fact that Conservative Members believe in lower taxation? Opposition Members want to spend more and tax more.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the improving economic circumstances, and about the need to bring unemployment down further. I am delighted that it is falling, although it clearly has a long way further to fall.

    As for taxation, of course Labour Members dislike the prospect of lower taxation : they would like to get their hands on people’s money and spend it. As the former hon. Member for Dagenham said before defecting back to New Zealand,

    “I think the Labour party ought to accept that . . . we” that is, the Labour party

    “will always be likely to have a higher tax burden than our opponents.”

    That is undoubtedly true, and there is no instance in recent years of Labour Members’ voting for a tax reduction.

     

    Q7. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

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

    Mr. Barnes : We have seen the plunder of the water industry and the electricity industry by chief executives and others, who often came from public services. The chairman of the Post Office is now pressing for the privatisation and plunder of his own service. What has happened to standards in public life and to the notion of public service?

    The Prime Minister : The Post Office management has said that it believes that the best way to protect jobs, to continue to improve services and to compete is for the Post Office to have the freedoms of the private sector. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned only with the qualities of envy which activate the Labour party, but the fact is that the private sector provides a better service than the public sector; it is more efficient than the public sector ; and, over years, it is less costly than the public sector.