The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Tribute to John Smith – 12 May 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s Commons statement made in tribute to John Smith, the Leader of the Opposition, who had died that morning, 12th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

    When I heard the tragic news of John Smith this morning, I thought it right that the House should meet this afternoon to pay tribute to a distinguished parliamentarian and then adjourn. I do not believe that there would have been the stomach for any other business in the House today.

    I know that the whole House would wish me first to express my deep and warm sympathy for Mrs. Smith and for John Smith’s family, his wife and his daughters. In the House, we have lost a formidable senior Member of very rare ability.

    To the Labour party also, I offer my deep sympathy. After some serious hammer blows that they have faced among their colleagues in recent months, they have lost a leader and, I know, for many of them a deep and close friend of many years’ standing. But above all, Elizabeth Smith, Sarah, Jane and Catherine have lost a husband, a father and a part of their lives which can never be replaced. John Smith was one of the outstanding parliamentarians of modern politics. He was skilled in the procedures of this House, skilled in upholding its traditions, a fair-minded but, I can say as well as any Member in the House, tough fighter for what he believed in and, above all, he was outstanding in parliamentary debate. As one would expect of a barrister and Queen’s counsel, he was always master of his brief, however complex and however detailed it might be. But beyond being master of his brief, on good days–and for him there were many good days–his speeches could shape and move the will of the House in the way that few Members are able to do.

    Over recent years, both as Prime Minister and as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I had the pleasure and the privilege of facing John Smith across this Dispatch Box. I learned on those occasions to acknowledge the skill and the wit with which he mastered his arguments. He had that rare ability to switch with speed from irony to sarcasm to invective and to fact, and sometimes, in the heat of parliamentary debate, to half fact, on every occasion knowing exactly how and when to move from one mood to the other for maximum parliamentary and political effect. Those are formidable skills, they are rare skills and, even for those against whom those skills were deployed, it is hard to bear that we will never see or hear those skills in this House again.

    He had no malice. There were things that he cared for passionately. He lived for them; he fought for them; he cared for them. But he carried his fight fairly, without malice, without nastiness. The bruises that existed soon faded after a dispute with John Smith. In our parliamentary democracy, it is the fate of party leaders to dispute, to scorn, to disagree. We have an adversarial system of politics–the best in the world, I believe, but adversarial. So it was in the nature of my political relationship with John Smith that we frequently clashed in public and in the House, yet afterwards, in private, we met often and amiably–again, no bruises.

    Inevitably, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have to conduct business in private and on confidential matters. Whenever we did, I always found him courteous, fair minded and constructive, but also tough for what he was seeking and what he believed in. We would share a drink– sometimes tea, sometimes not tea–and our discussions on those occasions ranged far beyond the formal business that we were transacting. To the despair of my private office and, I suspect, sometimes of his, the meetings extended far beyond the time that was immediately scheduled for them.

    Under our constitution, the role of the Leader of the Opposition is unique. It is a vital role–not in government, but vital to the determination of the way in which we conduct our affairs and to the protection of people who oppose the Government on a range of issues. The Leader of the Opposition is in the anteroom of power, yet not in the seat of power itself. In that position–perhaps for a short time, perhaps for a long time–he must maintain his party’s hunger for government and never let that appetite diminish. He must remain confident and never let the years of waiting sour or embitter him or the nature of public life. He must keep alive hope and ambition and must keep sharp the cutting edge of his own party’s beliefs. If I may judge him from this side of the House, it seemed to me that John Smith trod that path for his party and its supporters in the country with skill and assurance that few have matched.

    Political differences are not the be-all and end-all of relationships for Members of the House. When I think of John Smith, I think of an opponent, not an enemy; and when I remember him, I shall do so with respect and affection. When I think of his premature death, I shall think of the waste that it has brought to our public life–the waste of a remarkable political talent; the waste of a high and honourable ambition to lead our country; the waste of a man in public life who, in all his actions, retained a human touch; and, in some ways above all, the waste of the tranquillity and happiness that his past endeavours would have so richly deserved in the years to come.

    Let me end where I began. In the weeks that lie immediately ahead, John’s family will need all their courage. Let us show by what we say and do today that, while we cannot bear for them their pain, we can offer them the comfort of shared respect and shared grief.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty’s Government are making to the report by Willem C. Smit and Dr. Jean Pierre Revel for the regional office in Amman of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, a copy of which has been sent to him, on their assessment mission to Iraq from 11 January to 11 February covering the health and nutritional status of the Iraqi people, the extent of the increase in the cost of a food basket between 1990 and 1993 and the extent of marasmus, kwashiorkor and other water-borne diseases.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 10 May 1994] : I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 25 April, Official Report, column 31. The appeal by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies was to a large extent based on the Smit/Revel report. The British Red Cross is clarifying one or two issues, following which a final decision on a possible contribution from the Government will be taken.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    ANZAC Day

    Mr. Cummings : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) of 28 April, Official Report, column 244, if he will consider the banning of traffic in Whitehall during the period of time taken on ANZAC day for the laying of wreaths and the silent tribute.

    The Prime Minister : Under the terms of the sessional orders, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is required, during the Session of Parliament, to keep the streets leading to and from the Houses of Parliament free and open. Any proposal to amend the sessional orders would be a matter for this House and another place.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

    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 (Consultants)

    Mr. Milburn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which the Cabinet Office has been engaged since 1980.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 May 1994] : The Cabinet Office has undertaken no privatisation since 1980 and consequently has incurred no expenditure on consultants in connection with it.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister what have been the costs incurred by his office in (a) providing legal advice to witnesses appearing before the Scott inquiry, (b) drawing up evidence to be submitted to the Scott inquiry, (c) officials and legal advisers attending the Scott inquiry and (d) any other related costs.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 May 1994] : The costs under (a) to (c) are unquantifiable. No legal or other help was provided from outside the Government. The costs therefore consisted in the time of myself and Sir Robin Butler, who appeared as witnesses, and of the officials who gave support as part of their normal duties. Under (d), the cost of the Cabinet Office liaison unit since December 1992, including the cost of supplying documents from 10 Downing street and the Cabinet Office to the inquiry, has been approximately £230,000.

  • PMQT – 10 May 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Colin Shepherd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

    Mr. Shepherd : During the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that over the past year, industrial output in the United Kingdom rose– [Hon. Members :– “Oh.”] Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that industrial output in this country rose by 3.7 per cent.– [Interruption.] –while in Germany, Japan, France and Italy industrial output fell? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is but one of a large number of good news stories abounding in this country at this time that deserve wider currency? Will my right hon. Friend confirm– [Interruption.] Will he confirm that it is still permissible to publish good news in this country?

    The Prime Minister : As far as I could hear my hon. Friend over a fairly turbulent House, I believe that he was referring to the good news about the economy that has been evident over recent weeks. Good news is certainly allowed, but I fear that it may often be masked by less important matters these days. The fact is that the British economy is growing, has been growing for some time and is expected to continue to grow. Thankfully, unemployment is falling and is expected to continue to fall.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the cry for a referendum on Europe further and compelling evidence that the Prime Minister’s Cabinet and party are hopelessly divided? Is not it astonishing that battle is permitted to rage even within the Treasury? Does the Prime Minister support his Chancellor or his Chief Secretary?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and as I have made clear to the House on many occasions, I am sceptical about referendums. I made that clear during the Maastricht debate, and I have not changed my mind. There is not even a specific agenda for the intergovernmental conference yet. I do not believe that the question of a referendum arises now, and it certainly does not need to be decided now. It is not yet possible to say what the outcome of the conference will be, and I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not intend to come back to the House with a package that the House would find unacceptable.

    Mr. John Smith : On the question of referendums, does the Prime Minister recall saying something to the House on 6 May last year? His exact words were :

    “We are a parliamentary democracy, and I am not in favour of referendums.”- -[ Official Report , 6 May 1993 ; Vol. 224, c. 284.] Today he expressed scepticism. Is the movement from opposition to scepticism because he is running in front of the anti-Europeans?

    The Prime Minister : If he had listened carefully, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have also heard me say a moment or so ago that I have not changed my mind. As to a single European currency, as I have said before, decisions on that are a long way off. That will not be determined in 1996. No one expects that this Parliament is going to be asked to decide on a single European currency. That would be a matter for a future Parliament, in circumstances that no one can predict. It was my negotiating at Maastricht that made it clear that this Department would have the right to decide on that matter at a future date. Even if I wish to, I could not bind a future Parliament on its decisions.

    Mr. John Smith : If that answer by the Prime Minister is to be construed as ruling out a referendum in the future, can we be assured that every member of his Government will be asked to support it or will be asked to resign?

    The Prime Minister : I have just set out the position clearly for the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have made it entirely clear to him that it would not be appropriate to make a commitment now about a future Parliament’s decision. Even if I wished to, I could not bind a future Parliament. My personal decision on referendums has been made entirely clear on other occasions and again today. I reiterate that I have not changed my mind.

     

    Q2. Mr. Trotter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

    Mr. Trotter : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a fact that if we were to have a Labour Government, we would inevitably have higher taxation and weaker defences, and that our policy on Europe would be destroyed by socialism? Is not that a message that all of us on the Government Benches should be constantly conveying?

    The Prime Minister : I am glad to say that a Labour Government would be a very improbable premise. Even last Thursday, which appears to have buoyed them, they secured a lower share of the vote than we secured in the last general election. My hon. Friend is entirely right. A Labour Government would mean substantial defence cuts, higher expenditure and higher taxation, and would also mean signing up as part of a federal European state. That is no future for this country and will not be accepted by the people of this country at the next general election.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that his answer on the question of a referendum will serve only to confirm his reputation as the maybe man? How can the British people be asked to vote on the question of Europe by a Government who are so divided on that issue and a Prime Minister whose answer on the key questions cannot get further than “perhaps”? Will he now tell us whether his answer is supposed to construe the meaning that he is opposed to a referendum, under any circumstances, as a result of which there might be a substantial change in Britain’s relation with Brussels–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is at his own game as a veritable opportunist for all seasons. I made perfectly clear a few moments ago what is my personal position on referendums. I also made it clear that, in 1996, I am not going to bring back anything remotely likely to be unacceptable to the House and I made it clear that on a far future date, the decision on a single European currency must be made by this House. I cannot bind the House and I do not intend to try to bind the House at this distance in time.

    Sir Terence Higgins : Is not it the case that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of a Government who introduced a referendum–an alien concept, inconsistent with our system of representative parliamentary democracy? Is not it absurd for those who argue that the authority of this House is being usurped by Brussels to advocate the use of a device that would undermine the authority of the House?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend points to something with which the House has become familiar–the selective memory of the Leader of the Opposition about what he has stood for in the past. The points made by my right hon. Friend are undeniable and I agree with them.

     

    Q3. Mr. Wicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

    Mr. Wicks : Has the Prime Minister been told that since his campaign visit to Croydon, the wise people of Croydon threw out the Tory council after more than 100 years and elected a majority Labour council for the first time ever?

    We thank him for that visit. Whom does he blame for the Croydon Tory disaster : the local Conservatives or his own Government?

    The Prime Minister : Let me mention that I visited Westminster and Wandsworth as well. I congratulate the new Croydon councillors on their success in the elections and I sympathise with the Croydon electors who will have higher bills to pay and a less efficient administration.

     

    Q4. Mr. Deva : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

    Mr. Deva : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom attracted the highest level of foreign investment of any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1991 and 1992? Would the Labour party’s proposed increases in business taxes, enunciated in the European socialist manifesto, add encouragement to that vote of confidence in Britain?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right. We have built up a position over many years as a favoured country for inward investment. That is apparent in Scotland, the north-east, the north-west, Wales and many other places. There is no doubt that that position would fall away if we followed the policies advocated by Opposition Front-Bench Members. A social chapter would inhibit inward investment, as would the 35-hour week, a minimum wage and plans to harmonise taxes upwards, all of which the Leader of the Opposition has signed up to in the socialist European manifesto. That manifesto is binding on the Labour party as, I hope, the Labour party will make clear to every elector in the forthcoming European elections.

     

    Q5. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

    Mr. Connarty : Does the Prime Minister accept that there are hundreds of thousands of pensioners who are now genuinely concerned that, should they fall ill, their pensions and savings will be used to pay for care that they thought they had paid for through their taxes? Will he take on the bloodsuckers in the Treasury and in the Department of Social Security who are threatening the last vestige of compassion in the national health service?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are increasing resources in the national health service and increasing the provision of assistance to people in the national health service. Indeed, the national health service is the one service in Government that is guaranteed a real- terms increase, year on year, as we examine the relative proportions of public expenditure. There is no doubt about the growth, both for the elderly and for other people, in the national health service, and that growth will continue.

    Mr. Lester : I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend’s wise words on the subject of a referendum. Will he reflect on the fact that when the Labour party had a referendum to provide party unity, that not only created the Social Democrat party but kept it in opposition for 14 years?

    The Prime Minister : So far; there are more years of opposition to come.

     

    Q6. Mr. Mudie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

    Mr. Mudie : Why, only two weeks after expressing support for the aims of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, did the Prime Minister allow the cynical, Government-inspired sabotage of the Bill last Friday?

    The Prime Minister : No one could have accepted a Bill, as drafted, with a cost compliance calculated at £17 billion and a yearly on-cost of £1 billion. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People made clear in the debate on Friday, we intend within the next six months to consult on proposals to eliminate unjustified discrimination in employment, access to goods and services, financial services and access to buildings. We also intend to consult on the establishment of a new advisory body on disability. Those consultations will take account of the views of everyone with an interest in disability. At the end of that process, we shall consider assisting in the drafting of practical and workable legislation that will help the disabled.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery : Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the great problems facing not only this country but the rest of the world is the increase in drugs and the terrible effect that that has on crime? Can he give an assurance that the Government and the police will give top priority to tackling the drug barons and their vile trade?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The sum total of expenditure to tackle the drugs menace exceeds something like £500 million a year. We are seeking, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord President, to bring together all the action that exists across Government so that we can most effectively target the drugs programme. We are also consulting our European partners–notably Germany–to see what can be done at the European level to assist in preventing drugs from coming to this country in the first place.

     

    Q7. Mr. George Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

    Mr. Howarth : As the leader of the most unpopular Government this century and with a divided shambles of a party beside and behind him, does the Prime Minister think that it would be better to clear the air and have a general election now?

    The Prime Minister : At the last election, we received the highest number of votes that any party has ever received in a general election, and we received a five-year mandate to carry out our policies. I intend to exercise that five-year mandate. Then the hon. Gentleman will get his election and then if he personally is re-elected, he can continue to sit where he sits now.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 18 April, Official Report, column 365, for what reason no records of correspondence received by his office prior to April 1989 any longer exist.

    The Prime Minister : It is not cost-effective to retain full records of all correspondence received by my office. However, from April 1989 onwards brief records of selected correspondence–and from 1992 brief records of all correspondence–have been entered on a computer database.

     

    Internet

    Mr. David Shaw : To ask the Prime Minister what plans his Department has (a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

    The Prime Minister : My office’s press releases are accessible, through the Central Office of Information, to users of the Internet via Data-Star Dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/Nexis. They are also available to subscribers to FT Profile, Reuters Textline, POLIS and through the Central Office of Information’s fax retrieval service.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Friendly Governments

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty’s Government introduced the practice of not commenting on the policies of other friendly Governments; and if he will list those Governments Her Majesty’s Government regard as friendly.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 31 March, Official Report, column 908.

     

    Health Service Visits

    Ms Primarolo : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each hospital, general practitioner practice or other national health service site (a) he has visited since 1 April and (b) which he plans to visit before 9 June.

    The Prime Minister : I have made one visit, to Basildon hospital on Tuesday 5 April. No other visits are planned before 9 June.

     

    Civil Servants (Business Appointments)

    Mr. Milburn : To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since 1986 through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment (a) as an independent consultant, (b) in a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 3 May 1994] : The information for the areas covered by the Cabinet Office and the Office of Public Service and Science votes is set out in the table.

    ————————

    1986 |2|-|-|2|1|1|1

    1987 |3|-|-|3|3|3|-

    1988 |6|-|-|6|6|-|6

    1989 |3|1|-|2|1|3|-

    1990 |5|-|1|4|3|4|1

    1991 |7|-|1|6|5|7|-

    <1>1992 |2|1|1|-|-|2|-

    1993 |5|2|2|1|-|5|-

    <1> In 1992 the Cabinet Office took on responsibility for the science functions of the former DES and the Treasury businesses (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; Central Office of Information; Chessington Computer Centre; and the CCTA.

     

    Pakistan

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the Prime Minister of Pakistan to discuss matters of interest to Pakistan and the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 May 1994] : I hope to meet the Prime Minister of Pakistan again later this year.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 6 May 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held in London on Friday 6th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought it might be useful before I departed for the Channel Tunnel opening today to say just a word or two to you about last night’s elections.

    There is no point whatever in whingeing when you have had a set-back and I certainly do not do that. Last night was a poor result and it is very clear that many of our natural supporters decided on this occasion that they would stay at home. What I would like to do first is to congratulate those Councillors who won seats last night, whatever party they may represent. They have important responsibilities on local councils and I look forward to working with them in discharging those responsibilities.

    May I also express my thanks to those Conservative Councillors, many of them who have served the local community for a long time, who last night were defeated in their bid to be re-elected to their own local authority. I think it is the case that they were defeated because of a national feeling and not because of a local feeling against their performance. What we must now do is work to ensure their return to office at the first possible occasion.

    The Conservative Party that I care about is a good deal bigger than any election set-back. We must now pick ourselves up and fight back and that is precisely what I intend to do and I invite every Conservative to join me in that fight. I do not believe in present circumstances that the Party will forgive anyone who stands on the sidelines or utters a discordant note. Frankly we cannot afford that luxury, we have important elections immediately in front of us for the European Parliament and we must now turn all our efforts to winning those elections.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister, in case there should be any misunderstanding, can you confirm that you will stay as leader and that you will fight any challenge that may come along?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can confirm that.

    QUESTION:

    And you know this morning that [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I know this morning, I can confirm that. The Conservative Party have a mechanism for a challenge to the leadership of that party, that mechanism can quite properly be used by Members of Parliament. If anybody choose to engage in that fight they will find me standing there waiting for them.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are a range of issues. I think the bruises from the recession are very deep and I think people have not forgiven us for that. The economy now, I believe, is moving into a more buoyant phase that we have seen for many years, most people in business recognise that but it certainly has not rippled through to people in the High Street and in their own homes yet. I think that certainly was a very important factor. And frankly I think natural Conservative Party supporters are distressed when they see discordancy in the party.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I regard public office not as a matter of personal pride ambition, I regard public office as a responsibility and a duty. At the last general election 14.5 million votes were cast for the Conservative Party with me as its leaders to see this country through the next few years, that is an important responsibility. We have set in place many of the policies that are now showing signs of bringing us out of recession and back to growth, I wish to see those policies through.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are wholly wrong about that. The economy is moving I think more speedily than many people imagine and I believe that that will become increasingly apparent in the weeks and months ahead.

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman):

    [Indistinct] if the Euro-elections are as bad as these?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will meet a challenge whenever it comes.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] if so, would it be of a Euro-sceptic party or as a part of Europe party?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have agreed our manifesto, it was agreed yesterday in Cabinet, there was total agreement about the manifesto upon which we will fight the European elections. It is very clear cut, it is a distinctively British Conservative manifesto. I think it will find an echo in every part of this country, it is very, very different from the sort of manifesto that the Labour and Liberal parties will contest the election on. I relish that election campaign, there are issues of great national importance to be decided, I believe we have the right policies for that campaign and I believe we will do well in it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Convention on Human Rights

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to incorporate the European convention on human rights into British law.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Mobile Telephones and Pagers

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister how many (a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

    The Prime Minister : There are 14 portable telephones, 19 pagers and four car telephones currently in use in No. 10 Downing street. The annual cost of operating the equipment is approximately £12,800. The equipment is made available to those personnel who need to keep in contact with the office for purposes of official duty.

     

    Cyprus

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Turkey on the present United Nations-sponsored talks on Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I discussed the United Nations-sponsored package of confidence-building measures with Mrs. Ciller in the margins of the NATO summit on 10 January. I sent her a message on 6 April urging her to encourage Mr. Denktash to adopt a more constructive approach to the negotiations on the package. The United Nations Secretary-General will shortly submit a report on the talks to the United Nations Security Council.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

    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.

  • PMQT – 5 May 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Lidington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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

    Mr. Lidington : In marking this month the 50th anniversary of R. A. Butler’s Education Act, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government’s commitment to ensuring that every child in this country receives a rigorous, demanding and high-quality education? Will he reaffirm the Government’s commitment to enlarging choice and opportunity for parents and pupils alike?

    The Prime Minister : That Act was certainly a very revolutionary Act of Parliament, and one which has made a great difference to our education system over the years. At that time, eight out of 10 children left school at age 14. Thankfully, today almost one in three children go on to higher education. What we need to do–I hope that this is a view shared by the whole House–is build on that achievement by giving parents more choice, raising standards in schools and creating opportunities for every child to make the most of his or her abilities.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell us why changes in gas pricing are being planned which will put substantial increases on the gas bills of 12 million ordinary people–the very same people who will have to pay 8 per cent. VAT this year and 17.5 per cent. next year? Does not he think that they are paying enough already?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be wise to wait and find out what really happens. I have seen myself the newspaper reports on which he is no doubt basing his remarks. I understand that the gas regulator believes that there is no evidence to back up those claims and that the director of the Gas Consumers Council has said that British Gas was scaremongering.

    Mr. John Smith : If the Prime Minister is so confident about that, can he specifically deny that pensioners on a basic rate pension will face a 21 per cent. increase in their gas bills? Can he give them that guarantee today?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is yet again

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : We want a guarantee.

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will wait. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is yet again taking a story and attempting to erect a scare to frighten vulnerable people. He knows very well that the Department of Trade and Industry and the gas regulator will be issuing a consultative document shortly.

    I suggest that, before he peddles more scares, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have the grace to wait for that document. I also remind the House that British Gas tariff prices were reduced from July 1992, reduced further from October 1992 and have fallen by more than 4 per cent. in cash terms and 6.5 per cent. in real terms in the past year.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister recognise that the Gas Consumers Council has not only complained ; it has pointed out that the consultative document was agreed last month but is being delayed because of today’s elections? Does not the Prime Minister understand that delaying bad news until after elections is the sort of behaviour that is bringing the Conservative party into the disrepute for which it will suffer at the polls today?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is earning himself a deserved reputation for smears that will do him and his party no good. What is proposed in due course is a consultative document that will be published shortly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be wise to wait until he reads that consultative document; he would be wise not to misrepresent it and he would be wise to remind everybody how real prices in gas have fallen as a result of measures taken in the past.

    Mr. Wilshire : Does my right hon. Friend share my contempt for those who seek to make £1 million from the sale of secretly taken photographs, irrespective of whether the victim is a member of the royal family or an individual private citizen? What steps can the Government take to stop people in Britain profiting from such despicable behaviour?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will speak for millions of people in this country in the remarks that he has made. I will reflect on the second half of his question.

     

    Q2. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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

    Mr. Janner : Does the Prime Minister accept the view of senior defence chiefs that, as a result of cuts in the defence budget, Britain could no longer mount an operation even on the scale of our part in the Gulf war? Is not it a grotesque betrayal of this country that his party, which has so long and so wrongly accused the Labour party of stripping Britain of its defences, has now done just that?

    The Prime Minister : For years, the hon. and learned Gentleman’s party and Front-Bench spokesmen have sought to strip Britain of its nuclear weapons, dismantle a large part of its armed forces and cut down substantial expenditure on the armed forces. The one party in Parliament that consistently ensures this country’s capacity to defend itself is this party–and this Government. That has been the case in the past, it is the case now and it will remain the case in future, however much the hon. and learned Gentleman tries to distort reality.

    Mr. Ashby : Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a solution to the sale of photographs of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales for £1 million : we could swiftly introduce a privacy Bill and ensure that there is no public interest defence available in that Bill?

    The Prime Minister : I note carefully my hon. Friend’s suggestion.

     

    Q3. Mr. Heppell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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

    Mr. Heppell : In view of the latest Home Office estimates suggesting that it will cost £475 million to issue identity cards in Britain, with ongoing costs of £50 million to £100 million each year, is the Prime Minister now prepared to abandon his scheme and put some of that money into my constituency, which is sixteenth in the whole of Great Britain in terms of unemployment? Would not the money be better spent on the regeneration of the city of Nottingham?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that unemployment has fallen 27 per cent. in his constituency.

    Mr. Heppell : No.

    The Prime Minister : I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. It has fallen in his constituency, but in the constituency of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who may not mention unemployment, it has dropped 27 per cent. On the question raised by the hon. Gentleman, I made it clear the other day that we are examining the question of identity cards, and I think that if the hon. Gentleman were to go to his constituency and ask his constituents, he would find a very high level of support for the principle of identity cards provided that we are able to overcome the practical difficulties in introducing them.

    Mr. Hendry : Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to look at this week’s figures which show a dramatic reduction in the number of home repossessions and which come on top of figures showing that the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has fallen by two thirds in the past two years, and that the number of people sleeping rough on the streets of London is also down by two thirds ? Does not that show that the Government’s policies to tackle homelessness are clearly working?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, the figures are certainly very encouraging. There is no doubt that the number of repossessions has been falling for some time, and fortunately shows signs of continuing to fall. Moreover, the housing market seems to be picking up, and new construction orders are on the increase.

    This is all part of the much brighter economic picture that is becoming clearer as day succeeds day.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hanson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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

    Mr. Hanson : I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has the right answer this time.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to its chief executive, the Child Support Agency is now collecting less than the DSS did last year? Is he further aware that, on top of the fact that the CSA is chasing millions of the wrong people and causing misery to many more, and the fact that it has cost £146 million to set up, it is time for a review of the agency so that it can start to chase the right people who are paying nothing at all?

    The Prime Minister : If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he might care to check his figures before asking any future questions. The agency is bringing in a significant new system from scratch. That system has broad support right across the House and beyond it. It is in its first year–the first of a series of years in which the strategy will be examined. I do not think that it can be compared simplistically with past figures. We are seeking to bring in a new system that is right in principle. I have made it clear before, and I reiterate now, that, if there are any wrinkles, we will keep them under examination and correct them.

    Mr. King : Is my right hon. Friend aware–further to his answer to a question about whether we could fight the Gulf war now on our present defence programme–that if we followed the policy of the Labour party, which proposes a £6 billion cut in our defences, it would be impossible to provide our forces with the equipment that they need? With the new order for Challenger tanks, with the Warrior, and with the European fighter aircraft, the answer to the question about the Gulf war is surely a definite yes : we would be well equipped for any such future campaign.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend speaks with the authority of a former Secretary of State for Defence, and I entirely agree with what he had to say. A great many extra resources have been put into providing the best, most modern equipment for our armed forces.

    Mr. Tony Banks : No, they have not.

    The Prime Minister : A great deal of expenditure has been put into providing the best equipment for the armed forces. If the hon. Gentleman does not think so, perhaps he will go and ask Vickers and some other companies what they think they are producing.

     

    Q5. Mr. Eastham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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

    Mr. Eastham : In 1988, the Government decided that they would allow pensioners claiming rebates to have £3,000 in savings. Since then, the figure has never been index-linked, and in relative values it would now be worth £3,960. When will the Government review it?

    The Prime Minister : The figure is reviewed from time to time. I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it has not been changed since 1981. It is reviewed on each occasion on which we look at the uprating of pensions and other social security benefits.

    Mr. Sykes : I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the grim tragedy that overwhelmed my constituency in the early hours of this morning, when a 33-year-old mother and her baby were killed in a fire at a DSS hostel in Scarborough. In March, the Government announced that they would consider a licensing scheme for such hostels. In view of this distressing incident, will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State to proceed with that scheme as a matter of urgency?

    The Prime Minister : I was very concerned to hear about the tragic loss of life and the appalling injuries in the fire. We are, as my hon. Friend intimates, investigating the feasibility of introducing a licensing system to control such establishments. There are of course wide-ranging powers for local authorities to enforce fire safety standards in such hostels, and a full inquiry by the fire brigade into the cause of the blaze has already begun. I will of course look carefully at my hon. Friend’s request.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Bridget Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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

    Mrs. Prentice : Can the Prime Minister tell us why his Government are failing to collect the £240 million a year in national insurance contributions due from employers, as outlined in today’s Financial Times? Is not this another example of the waste and inefficiency of the Government that the right hon. Gentleman leads? Why does not he do something to ensure that that money is collected, instead of slapping massive tax increases on ordinary families?

    The Prime Minister : The Inland Revenue certainly tries to collect all the tax that is available. That has always been the case. If tax is due, everything is done to ensure that it is paid. I hope that the hon. Lady will address her strictures also to the large number of Labour authorities that do not collect rents or council taxes and have run up quite shocking debts–not on one or two isolated occasions, but on a very large number of occasions.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Like Westminster.

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman who has shouted “Like Westminster” wants to know which local authorities have rent arrears, I shall tell him : Hackney, run by Labour; Southwark, run by Labour. One could extend the list. Seven out of the top 10 authorities on it are run by Labour. They do not collect rents or council taxes and are just plain inefficient.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Libya

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the UN about sanctions against Libya.

    The Prime Minister : Ministers and officials are in regular contact on the question of the Lockerbie bombing and sanctions against Libya, both with the United Nations secretariat and other members of the Security Council. I last discussed this matter with the United Nations Secretary-General during his visit to London in July 1992.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

    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.

     

    Sir Tim Bell

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister if the contract to Sir Tim Bell to advise on the celebrations and commemorations of the D-day landings was awarded by means of a competitive tender.

    The Prime Minister : Yes.

     

    Public Bodies

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister what changes there have been since 28 November 1991 in the definition of executive duties carried out by chairmen or vice-chairmen of a political party which would disqualify that person from holding a similar role or office in any public body; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : None.