The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Corfu (II) – 24 June 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Corfu on Friday 24th June 1994.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, are you prepared, if necessary, to use the British veto today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to discuss what I am going to do in the meeting at all, there are a lot of discussions to be had, they have not yet been had, I am not going to make any comment at all on that until after the meeting.

    QUESTION:

    If it had to be postponed to a special summit, how serious would that be do you think?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The right thing is to get the right candidate and to make sure there is a consensus for the right candidate, that has always been the case and if it is has to be deferred it would have to be deferred, but clearly it would be desirable to reach an agreement.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you about your talks with Mr Reynolds, I know the Irish side would like to begin detailed talks about a new framework for Ireland, do you think you can start detailed talks today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been discussing the framework in some detail with the Irish for some time and the Taoiseach and I have had the opportunity of discussing detailed [indistinct] on other occasions, how much detail we will get into this afternoon I am not sure, but we are perfectly prepared for discussions on detail at any time.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Corfu (I) – 24 June 1994

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Corfu on Friday 24th June 1994.

    QUESTION:

    How significant is today for the future of Europe, do you think?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are two very important agreements to be signed today, firstly the Accession Agreement for the EFTA countries to join the Community, that is something we have wished to see for a long time. The Community isn’t complete as twelve, sixteen is more complete with twenty later even more complete and of course the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia is a remarkable step forward; it will help open the European market to Russian exports and the Russian market to European exports and European investment so I think that is a very welcome development.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think you are going to be able to reach agreement on Jacques Delors’s successor tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know yet. I haven’t had a chance to discuss the matter with others. Everyone would like to reach agreement if they can but as yet I don’t think anyone really knows.

    QUESTION:

    And the right person for the job?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We’ve always said that Leon Brittan is the best person for the job. That is not say anything against the other candidates. We think he is the best candidate but I’ll have nothing to say about that until we have finished our discussions.

  • Mr Major’s Corfu Arrival Doorstep – 23 June 1994

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s arrival doorstep in Corfu, made on Thursday 23rd June 1994.

    QUESTION (Libby Weiner, ITN):

    Prime Minister, could you say how important you think it is that the issue of the Presidency is resolved here at Corfu?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is important to get the right result, but whether that will be here or not I am not sure, everyone would hope so.

    QUESTION:

    And what is wrong with Mr Dehaene?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we had better wait and see what happens in the discussions, I have nothing more to say about that until we have had them.

  • PMQT – 23 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd June 1994. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Quentin Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

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

    This morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This afternoon, he is travelling to Corfu for the European Council. I understand that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is also in Corfu attending some kind of fringe meeting.

    Mr. Davies : On the eve of the Corfu summit, does my right hon. Friend agree that Great Britain is leading the way in Europe in deregulation, privatisation, competitivity and growth, and, above all, the vital task of bringing down unemployment but that the Labour party would reverse all those things in very short order?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Those issues are very much at the top of the Corfu agenda as a result of the British Government’s efforts to advance those causes in Europe over a long period of time. I am glad to say that the forthcoming German presidency will be pursuing the British objectives of competitiveness and deregulation in its policies towards Europe.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown : Given that more than a million of our fellow citizens are on national health service waiting lists, can it really be the Secretary of State for Health’s vision for the future to get rid of 50,000 hospital beds?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the effect of the Government’s reforms on the health service has been greatly to increase the number of people treated and that NHS hospitals now treat 121 patients for every 100 treated before. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health drew attention to the possible continuation of those trends in future years, building on advances in treatment to treat yet more people.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown : The Leader of the House has not really answered the question. Would it not be better to get rid of the waiting lists rather than getting rid of the hospital beds? Are not the cuts being driven by the Government’s failure properly to manage public finances?

    Mr. Newton : The changes are being driven by the Government’s determination to get more patients treated more effectively with shorter waiting times, and the policies are succeeding ; if there is a failure, it is the failure of the Opposition to recognise the success of those policies.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown : That will not do. We have had massive tax increases under the Conservatives since the last general election and the British people now face massive cuts in services. Why is it that in Tory Britain we have to pay a lot more to get a lot less?

    Mr. Newton : The Government have consistently put additional resources in real terms into Britain’s national health service. The result of those increased resources is an improving service treating more and more patients more effectively with shorter waiting times.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown : Can my right hon. Friend recall whether at any time in the past 15 years any Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has condemned any public sector strike?

    Madam Speaker : Order. I gave a little homily only a few days ago, but I think I shall have to ask the Whips to hold weekend seminars to instruct Members on what Question Time is all about : it is to seek information on Government policies and to press for action.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown : Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether any public sector strike which would damage this country, and which has been condemned by the Government, has also been condemned by the Opposition? If not, should not the British public remember that at the next general election?

    Mr. Newton : On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I can perhaps offer that the Whips will run a seminar on Corfu for the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in the hope of getting from her the answer that we have conspicuously failed to get in the House.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pickthall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Pickthall : Does the Leader of the House share the general pleasure that justice has been done in the case of Professor Tim Brighouse, who is to receive substantial damages from the Secretary of State for Education? Will he assure the House that not one penny of the damages or the costs will come from the taxpayer? Before his right hon. Friend leaves office shortly, will he urge him to apologise to all the other people involved in education whom he has gratuitously insulted over the past couple of years?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend has straightforwardly apologised and agreed reparation for the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In my judgment, at least, the matter should be left there. It does not in any way affect my right hon. Friend’s ability to advance the Government’s very successful education policy.

     

    Q3. Mr. Thurnham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Thurnham : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the Government’s most successful policies is the right to buy, which has enabled more than 1.5 million former tenants to enjoy the benefits of owner-occupation? Is he further aware that over the past five years a further 250,000 homes have been privately let? Would it not be an excellent long-term investment if the Prime Minister exercised the right to buy No. 10 Downing Street?

    Mr. Newton : I certainly share my hon. Friend’s view that the right to buy has been a hugely successful policy over more than a decade now, together with the Government’s successful policies to increase the amount of rented accommodation, and to tackle the problem of rough sleepers in London. As for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I do not know about the right to buy, but I am sure that he will exercise his right to extend the lease.

     

    Q4. Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay : Will the Lord President draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the problem–indeed, the scandal–of court cheats who have been instructed by judges to compensate the victims of their crimes, but who refuse to pay? Is he aware that about two thirds of victims who have had awards of compensation made in their favour against the criminal are not receiving a penny? Is it not time that the Government ceased to be mealy mouthed about the problem and took action to ensure that the victims get compensation and the courts pursue the criminal?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the general steps that the Government are taking to improve the detection of crime and the enforcement of the law. However, he made a slightly separate and very serious point, to which I shall respond appropriately. The right course is for me to invite the Home Secretary to examine the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and to consider what response might be made.

     

    Q5. Mr. Clappison : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Clappison : On the subject of the pursuit of the criminal, is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a reduction of 16 per cent. in residential burglaries in the Metropolitan police area? Should not the good work of the police be supported by the courts handing down stiff prison sentences to house burglars? Is that not the message that we should be sending out, rather than arguing about whether prison works as the Opposition home affairs team do?

    Mr. Newton : I whole-heartedly endorse the thoughts of my hon. Friend in terms of what needs to be done to continue and strengthen the fight against crime, not least burglaries. Happily, there are beginning to be some encouraging signs that the increase in crime is not irreversible. Alongside other things, there have been some welcome cases of a drop in the number of insurance claims–another sign of police success in the fight against crime.

     

    Q6. Dr. Lynne Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Dr. Jones : Talking about fringe meetings, will the Lord President now answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and give the House a categorical assurance that not one penny of taxpayers’ money will go to bail out the Secretary of State for Education, although Labour Members believe in the redistribution of wealth and would have no objection to the Cabinet having a whip round for their no doubt soon to be ex-colleague?

    Mr. Newton : I have already commented on that and made it clear that it was a private matter.

     

    Q7. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert : Should we not pause to pay tribute to the astonishing turn of events that has brought the former Soviet Socialist Republic of Russia into a partnership for peace with NATO? Is there not a lesson to be drawn to the effect that our national security must be defended at all times by resolute and resourceful defence and that the best guarantee of that is a Conservative Government?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The agreement signed in Brussels yesterday is an important step forward and symbolises, if further symbolisation were needed, the changes that have been going on in the former Soviet Union and sets a new framework for peaceful co- operation between Russia and NATO. Russia is the 21st nation to sign the partnership for peace agreement. I agree with my hon. Friend that it illustrates the rewards that have come from the resolute stance that the Government have adopted.

    Mr. Loyden : Will the Leader of the House remind the Prime Minister that the letter regarding MV Derbyshire that I sent to him about three weeks ago has not yet been answered? Does he agree that there is widespread concern in the House about the continuing absence of a Government response to questions and early-day motions on that matter? Will he convey to the Prime Minister the urgent need for a decision to be made so that the work now started can continue and, one hopes, result in a final exposition of the reasons why the MV Derbyshire sank?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman is probably aware of the position. As I said in business questions last week, I well understand the concern of those involved. The chief inspector of marine accidents is to request findings and results of the search from the International Transport Federation. On examination of that material, the chief inspector will advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport whether there is justification for reopening the investigation. That measured way is the right way in which to proceed.

     

    Q8. Mr. Brazier : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Brazier : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at a time when our regular armed forces are facing yet another round of reductions, many of us are deeply concerned that we may also be looking at a further substantial cut in the Territorial Army? Is it not true that the last two major conflicts in which we have been involved–the Falklands and the Gulf–both came from nowhere and both happened at short notice and without any warning? Surely the most cost-effective way of maintaining a reserve for the unexpected at a low level of cost is by maintaining strong, well-equipped and well-trained volunteer reserve forces.

    Mr. Newton : The Government whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the need for increased use of the reserves and share the importance that he attaches to them. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has instituted a pilot scheme, under which he is addressing the possibility of bringing the reserve forces legislation up to date. On the wider issue, I can only repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend and others have said on a number of occasions : that the purpose of the exercise on which the Government are engaged is generally to ensure the maximum emphasis on our front-line forces, and the capabilities about which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is concerned, and to ensure that we do not spend unnecessary amounts on support services at the expense of those front-line forces.

    Mr. Tony Banks : Referring back to those soon to be ex-colleagues, does the Lord President believe that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) will still be leader of the Conservative party at Christmas and that he himself will still be in the Cabinet?

    Mr. Newton : I have already referred to my expectation that my right hon. Friend will renew his lease, as I put it, on No.10 Downing street. On the other matters, I am always confident of my right hon. Friend’s judgment.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    State Property

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by date and item for the last 48 months when an item from the state property inventories maintained at No. 10 Downing Street was discovered to have been missing; whether each item found to be missing was discovered by the Cabinet Office internal auditors or by one of his officials responsible for making periodic checks of the inventory; and if he will list those items that have now been traced, and where they were discovered.

    The Prime Minister : As far as I am aware, no item from the state property inventories has been discovered missing within the stated period.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Developing Nations

    Q8. Mr. Luff : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the assistance that his Government provide to developing nations.

    The Prime Minister : With the sixth largest aid programme, we make a substantial contribution to the international effort to promote sustainable economic and social development in developing countries.

     

    MI6 (Cleaners)

    Ms Harman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about cleaners working at MI6.

    The Prime Minister : The contract which has been let for office cleaning services at the new security intelligence service headquarters at Vauxhall cross provides for a more flexible service at a substantial saving to public funds.

    I regret that staff have had to be made redundant, but the procedures followed were fair and complied fully with the requirements of both domestic and European employment legislation. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations do not apply in this case.

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what criteria are used to assess how many special advisers are attached to each Government Department; what are the criteria of evaluation which are applied when determining appropriate grades and salaries; how these posts are advertised; what interviewing and staff selection procedures are applied in choosing the most suitable candidate for each post; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Special adviser appointments are made personally by Ministers, subject to my approval. There is normally a limit of one political adviser for each Cabinet Minister. There is no formal limit on the numbers of expert special advisers, which are subject to need. Salaries are negotiated individually in relation to the special adviser’s previous earnings, and are confidential. Selection procedures are a matter for the appointing Minister.

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister what was his estimated annual cost in 1992-93 for work by his Office in preparation for Prime Minister’s Question Time.

    The Prime Minister : It is not feasible to separate fully the costs involved.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister how many written questions were answered by his Office in each of the last three years; and what was the average cost per question.

    The Prime Minister : Since I became Prime Minister I have answered more than 2,500 written questions. It is not feasible to separate fully the costs involved.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 19 May, Official Report, column 956, what is his estimate of the timing of the ending of the criminal investigation over Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister : The timing of the end of the criminal investigation would be a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, but the investigation will naturally remain open while the arrest warrants for those accused of the bombing remain in force.

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made of the validity of the alleged claim made in a trial in Beirut concerning the assassination of a Jordanian diplomat by Youssef Chaabane that he blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister : We remain in contact with the Lebanese authorities on this matter. Our present understanding is that Chaabane mentioned the destruction of Pan Am 103 only in claiming that, in the face of interrogation to which he had been subjected on other charges, he would have been willing to confess to anything, even the Lockerbie bombing.

     

    Job Seeker’s Allowance

    Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister, if further details are available about the job seeker’s allowance announced in the Budget statement of 30 November by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    The Prime Minister : Full details of the Government’s proposals for job seeker’s allowance will be set out in a White Paper to be presented jointly by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Social Security in the autumn. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, the new allowance will be introduced in April 1996. Job seeker’s allowance will be delivered from jobcentres of the Employment Service of the Employment Department.

    Employment Service staff will be responsible for advice and help on getting back to work and for the application of labour market tests such as availability for work. Financial aspects of the benefit, including calculation and payment, will be the responsibility of staff of the Benefits Agency of the Department of Social Security, located so far as possible in the same offices.

    These arrangements will provide a comprehensive approach to getting unemployed people back to work including a full range of advice on employment and training and on the range of benefits available to those in work. This will be a significant step towards one-stop delivery of services to people seeking work.

  • PMQT – 21 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Robathan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mr. Robathan : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the real concern throughout the country caused by the continuing reduction in our defence capabilities, as illustrated yesterday by the leak about the defence costs study? Can he reassure his hon. Friends that he will never allow the growth of expenditure on social security to undermine our national security?

    The Prime Minister : I can reassure my hon. Friend that the “Front Line First” programme will do nothing to reduce the fighting effectiveness of our armed forces or our ability to undertake defence commitments. I assure him that our commitment to effective front-line forces remains undiminished. The purpose of the “Front Line First” study is to ensure that money spent on defence administration and support is kept to a minimum. That is a sensible aim, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will join me in achieving it.

    Mrs. Beckett : Will the Prime Minister confirm that a member of his staff attended a crucial meeting of the Railtrack board last weekend?

    The Prime Minister : A member of my policy unit attended a meeting in Whitehall, at the invitation of the Department of Transport, in order to inform me. The negotiations are between Railtrack and the unions. As the right hon. Lady raises the question, perhaps she will now take the opportunity, at the third time of asking, to condemn the strike.

    Mrs. Beckett rose

    Hon. Members : Answer.

    Mrs. Beckett rose — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House will come to order.

    Mrs. Beckett : I think that we can take that answer as a yes, so we now know that the Department of Transport interfered in the negotiations, although it said that it had not, and that the Prime Minister’s office meddled in the negotiations, although it said that it would not. Does not it stand out a mile that the dispute would not be happening if the negotiations had not been sabotaged by the Government?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady is being ludicrous. The policy unit attends meetings throughout Whitehall, with a watching brief. It takes no part in negotiations that, as the chairman of Railtrack has made clear, are between him and the unions. However much the right hon. Lady tries, she cannot hide the fact that she will not condemn a strike that puts hundreds of thousands of commuters at risk, when hundreds of thousands of other public service workers have settled for pay increases, far below 3 per cent., which can be afforded. As ever, she is the strikers’ friend.

    Mrs. Beckett : What is completely clear is that no one wants this strike– [Interruption.] –except, perhaps, Conservative Members– least of all rail staff and commuters. Is not it crystal clear that it is happening only because the Government interfered? Yet again, the Prime Minister has caused what he now condemns. Yet again, the Government are saying one thing and doing another. Is not that why nobody can believe a word they say?

    The Prime Minister : This has happened because there is an 11 per cent. wage demand which, by implication, the right hon. Lady would accept. Even now, her condemnation is limply to say that nobody wants this strike; she will not condemn it. She would, presumably, end it by meeting the demand. She backs that extra spending. I remind her that last week, she criticised tax increases. A week later, she calls for more public spending. How would she pay for the settlement–by raising taxes, by increasing public expenditure? The hypocrisy in this case rests with the Opposition. The right hon. Lady still will not condemn the strike. To quote her, that is twice she has refused to answer on condemning the strike. Will she now condemn it, yes or no?

     

    Q2. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mrs. Gillan : Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 40 per cent. of those recently arrested as part of Operation Bumblebee were on bail? Does not that underline how wise our Government are in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down.

    Mrs. Gillan : It will not have escaped the House that the Opposition find law and order so funny. How wise the Government were to crack down on bail bandits in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. As three out of five burglaries are committed by people who are under 21, perhaps the Opposition would care to explain why they oppose policies against juvenile offenders so consistently. Is not that proof that the Labour party is Fagin’s friend?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend has shown with the figures she has used, there is no doubt that far too many people have been abusing the right to bail. Once the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill becomes law, a person who is charged with a serious offence committed on bail will lose the right to bail. That is entirely right. If that person is then convicted, the court can reflect the fact that the offence was committed while the person was on bail. Operation Bumblebee has been a huge success. It has shown that by targeting crime, one can bring it down. What is equally encouraging is that the last quarter’s crime figures show crime down by 9 per cent.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does not the atrocity in Loughinisland over the weekend prove that when it comes to evil, there is nothing to chose between the murderers on one side of the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland and the murderers on the other? I remind the Prime Minister, once again, that the gunmen thrive when a political vacuum exists. Will he confirm that he understands the importance, when he meets the Irish Prime Minister in Corfu on Friday, of regaining, again, the initiative for peace through political progress in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that the murder of six people in Loughinisland on Saturday evening was a vicious and depraved act of brutality. Whether it is so-called Loyalists murdering Catholics or the IRA murdering Loyalists, it is equally indefensible by any possible measure. The right hon. Gentleman is right to stress the need for political movement and political settlement. I am in constant contact both with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I will certainly discuss the matter further with the Taoiseach when we meet over the weekend.

    Mr. Hicks : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the inherent reticence and tolerance of the people of Devon and Cornwall is becoming increasingly exasperated by the inability or refusal of the Government to do anything to alleviate the growing water charges in the area? Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was 12 months ago that he personally said that he would look at this situation? When can we expect some positive news on that front?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will be aware that it is for the Director General of the Office of Water Services to determine– [Interruption.] Opposition Members would do well to wait. It is for the Director General of Ofwat to determine the new price limits and he is in the process of doing so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has published advice on quality matters. That will assist the director general in setting new price limits. We are looking, as I have said, to see what can be done with requirements made under European Community directives to reduce the impact in the west country. We have already found and announced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) should have known, ways in which to hold down the cost of some of the directives. Other ways are still being examined.

     

    Q3. Mr. Nigel Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : Why does the Prime Minister permit water disconnections in England and Wales, but not in Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : Is the hon. Gentleman asking for water disconnections in Scotland?

     

    Q4. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mr. Townsend : Does my right hon. Friend agree that since “Options for Change” was prepared, the world has become more turbulent and less certain? Bearing in mind the fact that the French, who have roughly similar international defence commitments, have recently agreed to up their defence budget, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to look at the planned defence cut of £1 billion in 1996?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, in cash, the French spend broadly the same as we do, although, of course, they have a conscript army in France as compared with the professional Army that we have in the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, through the “Front Line First” defence costs study, we aim to maximise the proportion of defence resources allocated to the front line. I believe that that is the right way in which to determine our defence expenditure, unlike the Opposition, who scream “cuts”, but would halve defence expenditure and would, no doubt, if they had the opportunity, also scrap our nuclear capacity.

     

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

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

    Mr. Michie : Is the Prime Minister aware that, next week, on 30 June, a delegation of health workers and friends, supported by Sheffield Members of Parliament, will be protesting about the closure of the Royal Hallamshire hospital accident and emergency unit in Sheffield? As this is a matter of life and death, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will not wash his hands of that issue, but tell the quangos, which his Government have set up, to stop paying high salaries to bureaucrats and to pay for services for the people?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows of the increased resources that have gone into services for the people. I do not have to hand the details of the particular case that he has in mind, but I have no doubt that, now he has raised it, my right hon. Friend will examine it.

    Mr. David Howell : Reverting to the horrific killings in Northern Ireland and bearing in mind that there has been some talk lately of a return to internment, does my right hon. Friend recognise, before considering that drastic solution, that there is an opportunity for a concerted and greatly enhanced security drive and for a strengthening of legal and intelligence resources applied against terrorism? If that is done on both sides of the border–in Dublin, and in Belfast and London–we have a chance of beating the terrorism, without which there will be no political solution.

    The Prime Minister : As my right hon. Friend knows, the power of internment remains on the statute book, but would be used only in very special circumstances. Co-operation on security and intelligence matters has improved dramatically over the past few years. It is a matter of constant discussion between the British Government and the Irish Government so that we can ensure that whatever further improvements can be made will be made and precisely for the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend.

     

    Q6. Mr. Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 June.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Is the Prime Minister aware that Scottish Tories are revolting? [Hon. Members :– “Hear, hear.”] Led by the Scottish Office Minister responsible for industry, they are scared that percentage levels of VAT on domestic fuel will soon be higher than Tory poll ratings in Scotland. Will the Prime Minister now listen to the voices speaking in his direction? Will the message to the Prime Minister from the revolting Tories meet with any success?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure that I see it as the hon. Gentleman does. As he is clearly concerned about the position in Scotland, I remind him that the figures that emerged yesterday in Scotland from Locate in Scotland, the inward investment bureau, show that Scotland attracted more inward investment in the last financial year than at any time since 1981. Ninety-five projects are planned, worth almost £600 million creating 7,700 jobs and safeguarding 3,000 others. That has happened under a Conservative Government in this country improving the quality of opportunity for people in Scotland, whatever gloss the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) may care to put on it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Department of Transport

    Ms Walley : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to abolish the Department of Transport or merge it with another Government Department.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Disability

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers have been given a specific responsibility for disabled people within their respective departmental portfolios.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People has a cross-Government remit for all issues affecting disabled people. The Cabinet Office produces a list of ministerial responsibilities which identifies the responsibilities of all Ministers, including those with specific, designated responsibility for matters affecting disabled people within their departments. The list was updated in May and copies placed in both Libraries. Copies can also be obtained from the Vote Office on request.

     

    Civil Rights (Disabled Persons)

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects ministerial consultation on legislation providing civil rights to the disabled will be complete; and if he will introduce a Government Bill before the summer recess.

    The Prime Minister : In reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on 10 May 1994, Official Report, column 153, I stated that consultation would take place within six months. Preparations are now well advanced on proposals to help disabled people. Consultation will start as soon as possible and is expected to last for three months. No legislation will be introduced in advance of consultation.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

    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.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 13 May to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will make an assessment of the background work and credentials of Mr. Max van der Stoel for making a report on Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : Mr. van der Stoel is the United Nations special rapporteur on Iraq. It is for the chairman of the Commission on Human Rights to appoint special rapporteurs, who must be impartial. Mr. van der Stoel’s international reputation and his wide experience of human rights issues make him an excellent choice as rapporteur on human rights in Iraq.

  • PMQT – 16 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Clappison : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Clappison : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months this country lost the lowest ever number of days to strikes? Is it not sad that that record is being spoilt by a trade union which, in pursuit of an 11 per cent. pay claim, yesterday inflicted hardship and inconvenience on thousands of travellers and commuters, including many of my constituents in Hertfordshire? Is it not conspicuous that that is not being condemned in any quarter by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : Overall, our industrial relations record is extremely good, and the number of days lost in strikes is lower than it has been for more than 100 years. We now lose fewer days to strikes than Germany, France or the United States per head of population. As for yesterday’s strike, the disruption that was caused to millions of people was inexcusable. Most of the public sector has settled on increases around the rate of inflation. The dispute is over a bid for an 11 per cent. increase before negotiations have even begun about productivity. It is unacceptable, it cannot be right and it should be condemned by every Member of the House.

    Mrs. Beckett : Can the Prime Minister confirm that when yesterday his Chancellor ruled out tax cuts he was admitting what the Prime Minister refused to admit on Tuesday–that a second round of tax increases will go ahead next year and will cost a typical British family £800 a year more in tax?

    The Prime Minister : I suppose that there must be some occasion on which the right hon. Lady will address the current issue of the strike and not wriggle away from it. If she is so concerned about tax, perhaps she will now withdraw all the public expenditure promises that she and her colleagues have made, and which inevitably would lead to higher taxation in future. If she will not withdraw those public expenditure promises, will she please indicate how they will be paid for and by what amount tax will rise?

    Mrs. Beckett : That is twice in one week that the Prime Minister has refused to answer the question. Let us try again. Taxes will go up next year, won’t they? Just say yes.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady knows the contents of the Budget and knows also that she is wriggling and hiding behind promises that she cannot substantiate. Our tax position is clear and open and people know what it is. We have set out a position that is right for this country and which has brought this country back to better economic circumstances than it has known for many years. That is an honest and straightforward position, unlike the position of the right hon. Lady who makes promises of increased expenditure with no indication whatever as to whether she will borrow to meet them and put up interest rates, or tax to meet them, or break those promises.

    Mrs. Beckett : But does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor that those tax increases, and the threat of interest rate increases, are a direct result of the Government’s economic failure and their track record of boom and bust? Whom does he think the Chancellor was condemning–Lord Lawson as Mr. Boom, or the Prime Minister himself as Mr. Bust?

    The Prime Minister : That was very well rehearsed, but it will not win the right hon. Lady very many votes. As for interest rates, I wonder if the right hon. Lady can remember a time when interest rates under a Labour Government were as low as they have been under this Government for the past 15 months. I wonder if she can remember a time when inflation was as low as it is under this Government now. I wonder if she can remember a time when our growth rate was twice as high as that of our European competitors. The answer is that she cannot–and, under any Labour Government, that would never be so.

    Mr. Butler : Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Labour party has voted against every single tax reduction that has been introduced, over many years, by Conservative Governments, and has voted against every tax increase? Does he consider that to be consistency or stupidity?

    Madam Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the Executive that is responsible to the House, and the Executive that must answer questions, not the Opposition. That is the basis on which our democracy is built.

    Mr. Butler : I apologise, Madam Speaker. It was because I was so surprised to be called.

    Would my right hon. Friend consider such conduct on the part of his party to be consistent or stupid, had it taken place?

    The Prime Minister : The Opposition’s position is certainly consistently stupid, and stupidly consistent.

     

    Q2. Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the people are often much more sensible than politicians? If so, has he reflected that last week–not only in Essex, but in a continuous, uninterrupted line from Dover to Oban–his policies were rejected and Labour’s were endorsed? Does he not recognise that he is increasingly seen as the captain of the Titanic–carrying on regardless, blaming the iceberg and determined to rearrange the deckchairs while he puts people’s lives at risk with his own reckless policies?

    The Prime Minister : Well, that was quite an effort. There are certainly occasions on which the public are much more sensible than politicians. They were much more sensible than Opposition politicians in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, and they will be more sensible than Opposition politicians again at a later date in 1996 or 1997.

    Mr. Butcher : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the administration of law in this country now protects the civil liberties of yobs, bullies, violent criminals and drug barons so effectively that the civil liberties of the law-abiding majority are endangered ? The Conservative party never wanted that, the people never wanted it and the Cabinet never wanted it. If the legal structure is being undermined, should we not find out who the termites are before introducing further criminal justice legislation?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is necessary to look at the interests of the majority of the people in the country. I share my hon. Friend’s view : our present criminal justice legislation was formulated with that very much in mind, as were some of the ideas that I have outlined to the House on other occasions.

     

    Q3. Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Flynn : Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in support of his campaign for a more civilised Question Time, which I hope is still continuing, and in the hope of a rational reply, 24 hours ago I sent him the following supplementary question : because of his own personal responsibility and his Government’s responsibility for introducing and promoting personal pensions, will he now give, in clear and simple language, a guarantee that the millions of people who opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and occupational schemes and who have been subjected to bad advice will have all their losses made up and their full pension rights restored?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may not be quite aware of the present situation. The regulator has made it clear that he will use his powers to ensure that anyone who was mis-sold a pension will have a remedy. There is no need for investors in personal pensions to be too concerned ; the hon. Gentleman should have understood that. Within the next few weeks, the Securities and Investments Board is due to publish a full report setting out the terms of redress which should be applied to investors who have been disadvantaged by that advice. They would be wise to wait for that report and not listen to the hon. Gentleman’s scaremongering.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that before the national health service reforms there was no such thing as equality of health treatment in this country and it depended entirely on where one lived? If one lived in Lancaster, one received good treatment, but if one lived in parts of the rest of the country, one did not. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following the reforms, best practice is spreading throughout the land?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that that is the case. The health reforms are spreading best practice in every part of the United Kingdom and removing many of the anomalies that existed previously. That, and the increased resources available to the national health service, are intended to ensure that we have the best possible national health service for our nation that we can possibly afford.

     

    Q4. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Ms Eagle : Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government are currently spending £121,800 a year of taxpayers’ money on the salary of the chairman of Railtrack, who works only a three-day week? Is that value for money?

    The Prime Minister : If he turns Railtrack into the efficient organisation that customers who use trains wish to see, yes.

     

    Q5. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Duncan : Will the Prime Minister convey to the local government commission my constituents’ overwhelming gratitude for recommending the return of the ancient and valiant little county of Rutland? Will he hop across from Huntingdonshire and hang a horseshoe in Oakham castle to celebrate that sensible and popular decision?

    The Prime Minister : I know from my own experience how strong my hon. Friend’s campaign for the return of Rutland has been and I congratulate him on the outcome. He mentioned other counties. I am familiar with one near to Rutland, which I hope will also return. I believe that questionnaires are to be sent to every household, which means that local people will be able to express their views on the matter and on what they wish the outcome to be. That is the right way to proceed.

     

    Q6. Mr. Keith Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Hill : If the Cabinet is so bad that it needs a drastic reshuffle, as he promised on Monday, should not the Prime Minister take his fair share of the blame and reshuffle himself as well?

    The Prime Minister : In the interests of helping the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him, first, that whereas on Tuesday he told the House that unemployment was up in his constituency, today I can tell the House after yesterday’s figures that it is down–and I hope that he is grateful. The words that he metaphorically put in inverted commas–“drastic reshuffle”–have not crossed my lips.

    Mr. Lamont : May I urge the Prime Minister at the forthcoming summit in Corfu to reject firmly the candidature of the Belgian Prime Minister for the presidency of the Commission? Even if Britain did not have an excellent candidate with a brilliant negotiating track record, is it not true that Mr. Dehaene is a federalist of the old-fashioned type and that no Belgian candidate would resist the ever-increasing demands of the Brussels bureaucracy?

    The Prime Minister : At the moment there are only two declared candidates for the post–Sir Leon Brittan, whom we back strongly, and Dr. Ruud Lubbers. Both are highly respected in the European Community and are well known to all the member states. I have made no secret of my belief that Leon Brittan is the right candidate to be President of the Commission and he will have our strong support at Corfu. At this stage, I am not prepared to declare a position on any other candidate or possible candidate.