Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 29 March 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from the Government of Malta about luggage alleged to have left Luqa airport for the Rhein-Main airport in December 1988, destined to destroy Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister : As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate made clear in issuing warrants for the arrest of the two Libyans suspected of the Lockerbie bombing, the investigation concluded that the bomb which caused Pan Am 103 to explode over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988 was placed on board a flight from Luqa airport to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to flight PA 103. I have received no representations from the Maltese Government on this matter.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

     

    Bosnia

    Sir Nicholas Bonsor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Bosnia.

    The Prime Minister : I visited central Bosnia and Sarajevo on 18 March. In central Bosnia I met British and other United Nations soldiers and civilian aid experts. I was impressed, as always, by their courage and professional dedication. UNPROFOR’s achievements on the ground have helped to transform the situation in Bosnia and the prospects for a settlement.

    In Sarajevo I met Bosnian Vice-President Ganic and General Rose. I announced a further £12 million of United Kingdom aid for Bosnia : £5 million to help rebuild Sarajevo, and £7 million to support the work of UN agencies throughout Bosnia. With the £2 million announced by my right hon. and noble Friend, Baroness Chalker, to support the Tuzla airlift, this brings total United Kingdom humanitarian aid to former Yugoslavia to £171.5 million.

  • PMQT – 29 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mr. Byers : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the work force at the Swan Hunter shipyards on Tyneside, who, despite the fact that the company is in receivership, have continued to produce a high- quality product on time for the Ministry of Defence with the receiver close to securing a new owner, but with work running out? Will the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, consider steps that the Government can take to safeguard the future of shipbuilding on the Tyne and thereby retain 1,000 highly-skilled manufacturing jobs?

    The Prime Minister : I support what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the workers at Swan Hunter. As he will know, officials are continuing to support the receiver’s efforts to sell Swan Hunter as a going concern.

    I know that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) have been active on its behalf. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has told the company that foreign ownership would not preclude Swan Hunter from bidding for MOD work. As the hon. Gentleman will know, all MOD work is bid for on a competitive basis.

    Mr. Trotter : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the bid from France is successful, the new owners intend to use Swan Hunter to obtain substantial additional export orders for Britain and that the continuation of Swan Hunter in those circumstances would be good not only for the Royal Navy–by maintaining competition–but for Britain–by obtaining additional exports–and for Tyneside–by retaining an excellent work force?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it would be the collective wish of the House that Swan Hunter should continue its work in the future. I very much hope that it will be possible for a buyer to come in, so that Swan Hunter may be able to continue.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Foreign Secretary, who told the House yesterday that the blocking minority in the enlarged Community would be 27?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, I shall make a statement on that matter in just a few moments. When there is dissent between 22 and 27, there will not be automatic– [Interruption.] Between 22 and 27, there will not be automatic agreement, and I shall set out the circumstances then in a few moments.

    Mr. John Smith : I am aware that we shall have the opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman more detailed questions, but I asked him about what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday in the House. Is not it the case that, if no agreement is reached in the Community, the blocking minority is 27? That is a fact, is it not?

    The Prime Minister : If no agreement is reached in the Community, the blocking minority at the moment would move to 37. That is the point at issue. After agreement is reached, if agreement is reached and everything proceeds satisfactorily in the next 24 hours, the position would be that, if any country was part of a blocking minority that did not reach 27, but was over 22, that is 23 to 26, it would not automatically be 27. There would be a considerable delay and much further discussion.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the clear point this : that after the delay has expired, the blocking minority will be 27? Yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands– [Hon. Members :– “Oh!”] I am afraid that he misunderstands, as the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) did yesterday. There is no time limit.

    Miss Emma Nicholson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that enlargement of the European Community is in Britain’s best interests and that the four strong and stalwart possible new members will not be put off by the knowledge that to fight hard for national interests is still possible when one is at the heart of Europe?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, we have been the foremost proponents of enlargement of the Community, because we should like a larger and more loosely knit Community. I very much hope that all the four applicant nations will win their referendums and become members of the Community from 1 January next year.

    Mr. Ashdown : May I put the question to the Prime Minister a different way? I disagreed with him at the time, but does he recall saying last week that the principle to which he would wish firmly to adhere was that the Governments representing 30 per cent. of Europe’s population should have an unqualified right of veto over the rest? Will he now confirm that that principle has been abandoned?

    The Prime Minister : No, the right hon. Gentleman is misquoting what I said last week–but he is absolutely right that I am concerned about the legitimacy of Community decisions as an ever-larger part of the Community can be overridden under qualified majority voting. That is precisely why we have reached the safeguards in the past 24 hours and precisely why we have now obtained an absolute assurance that both the thresholds and the voting weights will be reconsidered and redetermined in 1996.

    Mr. Devlin : Will my right hon. Friend take time during his busy day to send a message of sympathy to the staff, pupils and parents at Hall Garth school in Middlesbrough, which a considerable number of my constituents attend and which was the scene of the awful tragedy yesterday? Will he also send a message of commendation to the teaching staff for their prompt and effective action in dealing with the madman who broke into the classroom?

    The Prime Minister : Not only would I be happy to do that, but I think that the message would have the unqualified support of every right hon. and hon. Member. I believe that all hon. Members would wish to send their deepest sympathy to Nikki’s family and to the school. The event was horrendous–the sort of random act of madness that it is almost impossible to guard against–and for the families and pupils involved it leaves a legacy of horror that will take a long time to wash away. I congratulate the teachers and others for the way in which they behaved yesterday. Clearly, we shall have to see whether any further guidance can be given to schools in view of that tragic incident.

     

    Q2. Mr. Dunnachie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mr. Dunnachie : Does the Prime Minister realise that by ignoring the wishes of the people of Strathclyde, who overwhelmingly rejected the idea of water quangos, he is going against his own citizens charter ?

    The Prime Minister : I answered two questions on that subject last week and the hon. Gentleman will know that I do not agree with the way in which Strathclyde set up its referendum. It was not possible to retain the previous methods of controlling water authorities and we have chosen the method that we believe is most apt for the future.

     

    Q3. Lady Olga Maitland : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Lady Olga Maitland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that council tax increases in Liberal-controlled counties are well above the rate of inflation? Indeed, in Somerset the rate of increase is twice the rate of inflation, in Dorset it is three times the rate of inflation and in Hampshire it is five times the rate of inflation.

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of that in the case of Hampshire and in the case of Richmond in London, and I suspect that if we were to examine the situation we should find a very high level of council tax under Liberal authorities everywhere. It is clear that if people want a lower level of council tax, they ought to vote Conservative.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hanson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mr. Hanson : Is the Prime Minister aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has now admitted that the average family tax rise from April will be £9 to £10–double what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it will be, and more in line with Labour party predictions? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whom he now believes–the Chancellor or his Chief Secretary?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was talking about the average wage earner; my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was showing what the impact on the average family would be. They are both correct.

    Mr. John Marshall : May I, as the chairman of the all-party friends of the Northern line group, welcome today’s announcement about new trains for the Northern line? Is not this good news for 400,000 Londoners who travel daily on that route? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be particularly welcome in the London borough of Barnet?

    The Prime Minister : That does depend on successful bids from the private sector. What has happened today is that the Government have given permission for London Underground to hold a competition for the provision of privately financed rolling stock for the Northern line. We shall be looking to the private sector to take on some of the risks of ownership, but I am confident that the use of that competition will pave the way for greater use of private finance in the future.

     

    Q5. Mr. Keen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mr. Keen : I congratulate the Prime Minister, not just because it is his birthday but because some of my constituents are impressed by the quality of the answers that he gives. However, people often point out to me –I have to agree–that many of the right hon. Gentleman’s answers are unconnected with the questions. I think that that has to do with the random access file from which he reads. Would not the random nature of the question-and-answer session be reduced if the right hon. Gentleman were to read all the answers first and then we were to ask questions?

    The Prime Minister : Yes.

    Mr. John Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to join me in congratulating the management and work force of Slingsby Aviation in Kirkbymoorside on securing the contract to supply more than 100 training aircraft to the United States air force? The factory is being visited today by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Does not that order prove that small firms in Britain can compete in the toughest market anywhere in the world?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware until now of that contract, but I am very happy to congratulate Slingsby. It is certainly the case that a large number of both small and medium-sized firms are now exporting a high proportion of their turnover. That reflects both their efficiency and the fact that the British economy is now acutely competitive.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Roche : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mrs. Roche : Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor, who has described national insurance as “not a tax”, or with his former Chancellor, who thought that it was?

    The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Lady is being very selective in her quote. The reality is as my right hon. and learned Friend has stated.

     

    Q7. Mr. Haselhurst : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mr. Haselhurst : Does my right hon. Friend accept that a traditional feature of life in British towns is their main post office? Is he aware of the consternation created in places such as Saffron Walden when the post office is threatened with having its services franchised out to a side-street newsagent? Will he undertake to review Government policy towards the Post Office with those concerns in mind?

    The Prime Minister : I agree that post offices should remain very much a part of life in our towns and villages. That is why the Government are committed to maintaining a network of post offices across the country. What is important is the quality of service that customers receive, and that is what the Government want to see improved in Saffron Walden, as elsewhere. I will certainly reflect on the points made by my hon. Friend.

     

    Q8. Mr. Rooker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mr. Rooker : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), whose constituents last week, for the first time ever, welcomed the election of a Labour councillor?

    The Prime Minister : Given the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in Birmingham, if the electors did elect a Labour councillor, it certainly cannot be on the back of the record of the Labour Birmingham council.

    Mr. Burns : Will my right hon. Friend please have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to see whether it is possible, before the Easter recess, to have a statement on the road-building programme in the hope that he will announce the abandonment of the hated proposed M12 from the M25 to Chelmsford, which no one in south and mid-Essex wishes?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard the plea from my hon. Friend; I will ensure that it is drawn to his attention.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Central Council – 26 March 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to Conservative Central Council, held at Plymouth Pavilions in Plymouth on Saturday 26th March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The First Three Years

    Someone once wrote of me that, when faced with a problem, I would take a piece of paper – draw a line down the middle – on one side I’d list the problems and on the other the objectives.

    That’s true. It’s an old habit.

    The other day I was looking for a note I wrote on the day I became Prime Minister. On the left hand side, under “problems”, I had written:

    Inflation

    Interest rates

    Unemployment

    November 1990. Inflation was almost 11 per cent. Interest rates were stuck at 14 per cent. And unemployment was rising fast.

    That day – three and a half years ago – they were our biggest problems.

    Today?

    Unemployment: down by 220,000 in just over a year. That’s a city about the size of Plymouth back in work.

    Interest rates are at their lowest for over 20 years.

    Inflation has been under three per cent for over a year – we haven’t seen that for a quarter of a century.

    Taken together, our present economic position offers tremendous opportunities for the years ahead.

    If I’d said in 1990 that we’d achieve those objectives so comprehensively in just three years, people would have said that I simply didn’t understand the extent of Britain’s problems.

    ‘He’s new,’ they’d have said, ‘he’ll soon grow out of it.’

    But I haven’t grown out of it. Britain has.

    And now exports are up, retail sales are up, productivity is up. Our economy is presently growing faster than any other leading European country – and that is expected to continue. So it’s time to start writing Britain up – and stop writing Britain off.

    No-one else will get that message across. We must do it. So we must junk the jargon and put our case across in straightforward terms that everyone can understand.

    Changing lives: schools

    Take grant-maintained schools. You’ve all read the Central Office literature.

    It’s very good literature. It gives all the information you need. It tells you we now have nearly 900 GM schools. But it doesn’t make the policy live. Doesn’t tell people what being grant-maintained really means.

    These are local schools, funded by government. Voted for by local parents, run by local people – for local children.

    And there are now over half a million children in them.

    ‘Trust the people’ is an old Conservative maxim. And that is exactly what we’re doing. Shifting power from Whitehall and from Town Hall – and back to local communities.

    Our opponents seem uncomfortable with people having more choice. They don’t trust them with it. Where we decentralise they demoralise.

    Well, I know who I admire. Not the Labour and Liberal education authorities who’ve tried to stand in the way of these local schools. But the Governors, parents and teachers who, in the teeth of sometimes bitter opposition, have had the courage and the vision to create them.

    Changing lives: hospitals

    And just look at this, a Liberal leaflet dealing with another policy where we are taking power from the centre and giving it to the people – health.

    Do any of you remember the Kincardine by-election? I do.

    The local hospital wanted to become self-governing within the NHS. But the Liberals wanted people to think the hospital was leaving the Health Service.

    So they said the Trust was a dangerous first step towards privatisation. Simply untrue.

    People were worried. And they voted Liberal in the by-election. But the Trust went ahead. And what happened? Well, I’ll tell you what didn’t happen – privatisation didn’t happen.

    And I tell you what else didn’t happen. Something that’s owed to people in that part of Scotland and to that hospital – an apology from the Liberal Party.

    Since then that self-governing hospital – freed from Health Service bureaucracy – has treated a record number of patients.

    Waiting times and lists are down. And it has new services it never had before.

    And, at the General Election, the seat came back home to the Conservatives.

    But, what happened in Kincardine has happened right across the Health Service.

    Since the reforms we are now treating 1,000,000 more patients a year than we did before. One million more. Don’t just glide over that. Behind every one of that million lies a personal story of care given and hope revived.

    So don’t worry about partisan criticism. It is in the nature of politics at the moment. It will pass. And time will root out the truth.

    And the truth is that a Labour Government may have set up the Health Service. But it’s Conservative Governments that have built it up.

    Changing lives: public service

    We are sweeping out the cobwebs of the public sector. Sometimes what we find is uncomfortable. But we’re right to expose poor service – so we can improve it.

    That is the aim of the Citizen’s Charter. It’s a ten-year programme to transform the quality of public services.

    That’s why every one of the 24,000 schools in the land is being inspected in just four years. Under the old system it would have taken 200 years to inspect just the primary schools. Now reports are sent out on every child. Exam results – and truancy tables – are published for all to see.

    Every hospital in the land is setting times for appointments. We have reduced the time people wait for hip, knee and eye operations. Three out of every four people are now treated within three months.

    And those in genuine need of key benefits have seen the time taken to deal with their claims cut by a third.

    These are real changes improving real lives.

    I belong to the school of thought that believes that people should get as good a service in the public sector as if they’d gone to the private sector and paid cash on the nail. And we are determined they will.

    Looking forward

    These are some of the things that have been achieved in the last three years. It’s time to lift our heads above the parapet and say so.

    We have to look to the future. So let us travel forward for a moment.

    And then look back from – let us say – spring 1997. I pick that date at random, of course.

    By then we will have had 48 months of steady economic growth. More new companies up and running. More people back in work. More families better off.

    Why? Because we’ve got the fundamentals of the economy right today.

    In 1997 we’ll see British industry manufacturing more. Selling more. Exporting more. Proving that British firms can make at home and sell abroad.

    Why? Because British companies are now more competitive than anywhere else in Europe. And they’ll stay that way, so long as we keep the Social Chapter at bay.

    We’ll see more people owning their own homes. More people living in decent housing, not anonymous tower blocks.

    Why? Because we’ll press ahead with the Right to Buy and private renting, and we’re going back to housing on a human scale.

    We’ll see more children in nursery education. New apprenticeships. And more young people going on to colleges and universities.

    Why? Because we’re not just interested in raising standards in the schools. We want better education for all – for life and through life.

    We’ll see more being spent on the arts, on charity, on sport. And we’ll see more people taking part in them.

    Why? Because we’ll have a national lottery, raising billions of pounds for good causes and the national heritage.

    And I also hope we’ll see more team sport back in our schools. I have no time for those Left-wing ideologues who oppose competitive sport.

    Put children together and what do you see. They run. They jump. They fight. They compete. It is their natural instinct. We don’t help them by hiding that away from them. Life can be tough. They need to know victory and defeat. And the sooner they learn it, the better equipped they will be for life.

    These are some of the things there’ll be more of three years from now.

    But also let me tell you what there’ll be less of.

    There will be fewer people committing Social Security fraud – because we are bringing in modern technology to beat the cheats.

    I know the British instinct. We’re always ready to help someone in genuine need. But there’s a counterpoint to that – and it’s a real sense of anger against people who cheat the system and take advantage of others, often poorer than themselves except in those qualities of decency and honesty that make this country what it is.

    There’ll be fewer squatters on private property. The Criminal Justice Bill means trespassers really will be prosecuted, and not before time.

    There’ll be fewer young criminals on the loose creating mayhem. There’ll be secure homes for them and safer streets for the public.

    There’ll be fewer offenders getting away with just a caution. There should be fewer people committing offences while out on bail, because if they do, they can be certain that the courts can come down on them hard.

    And especially down here in the West Country, decent hard-working people are fed up with people invading their property and destroying their crops. In future, if these New Age travellers drive in, the police will have powers to drive them out.

    So much of what I’ve described is just plain commonsense, building on old principles. Marking out a clear line between right and wrong.That’s what I mean by going back to basics. And I’m certain of this. Britain needs more of those basics, not less. And I don’t think there’s anyone here today who wouldn’t agree with that.

    Many of you here are facing local elections in the weeks ahead – some against Labour, some against the Liberals.

    But whoever your opponent is, the first thing to do is to take pride in your own record.

    Ever since the birth of the modern Conservative Party our local councillors have been one of our greatest strengths.

    Last month at our Local Government Conference in London we set out the policies on which we’ll be standing.

    Higher standards in schools. More say for the public. A tough line on crime.

    And above all, keeping the Council Tax low. Here’s one figure to take out with you and say day after day after day. Conservative councils cost you £131 less than Labour ones. £131. Knock that home.

    Wherever you go tell them. Conservative councils cost you less. Labour councils just cost you.

    Let me just say a word or two about the sheer incompetence of some of those Labour councils.

    Last year John Smith spoke of his concern about growing cynicism in politics. About the need for standards of integrity and honour. And about politics being a moral activity.

    Let me break with the adversarial nature of British politics. I agree with Mr Smith about that. But Mr Smith, you must be consistent.

    It’s not possible to talk about standards of integrity and honour if senior members of the Labour Party condemn people before an enquiry has reported.

    You can’t have standards of integrity and honour if they make false allegations and never retract. If they charge impartial public servants with political bias.

    By all means let’s maintain those high standards. But let us do it right across the board. And let that include Labour councils.

    Let Mr Smith condemn councils like Lambeth.

    I wonder if any of you saw the report about how much it cost to get two gas fires fitted in Lambeth? In the real world it costs £500. But what did it say it cost in Lambeth?

    £2000?

    £5000?

    £25,000?

    No. In Lambeth, it said that two gas fires cost the taxpayer £71,000. That’s 140 times the usual price. It’s scarcely believable – but I fear it’s true.

    And let’s not stop there.

    Take Derbyshire. Where did the Chairman of the Finance Committee have his office? In his prison cell.

    He’d been jailed for fraud. But he still went on getting his allowances and running the council’s finances. Nothing seems to be barred in the modern Labour Party.

    Local elections: Liberals

    I don’t want to waste much time on Liberal councils, though come to think of it waste would be a good place to start.

    But here in Plymouth, just a stone’s throw from Devonport, let’s take a cool sceptical look about Liberal claims for the West Country. Down here they said that Devonport should get the Trident contract. Up in Scotland they said Rosyth should get it.

    When it came to the crunch, they backed Rosyth. When put to the test the Liberals put Devonport last. That tells you everything you need to know about Liberal concern for the West country.

    At council level Liberal and Labour work together. The only time they compete is about who can charge the taxpayer more.

    Liberal councils are asking £67 extra on average on your Council Tax bill. Liberal Richmond has had the biggest rise in London – almost four times the rate of inflation.

    Liberal-led Hampshire has had the biggest rise in the Shires – more than five times the rate of inflation.

    If you want high standards of service and good value for money in local government, Conservative councils win hands down.

    Let everyone remember that on May 5th.

    European elections

    In the last week of the General Election, when we were way behind in the polls, I spoke out about the Union between Britain and Scotland.

    Some people thought I’d gone mad.

    But it was the right thing to do.

    Many of you will remember the long, bruising debates about Maastricht. It was not easy to get it through.

    But it was the right thing to do.

    Now, we are engaged in difficult negotiations with our partners in Europe. We are under furious assault from some quarters on both sides of the channel.

    But preserving British interests is the right thing to do.

    These negotiations are difficult. Points at issue are important and complex.

    But they are not insoluble. It is quite possible to get an agreement that secures our interests without damaging the concerns of our partners. That is what negotiation in Europe is about.

    I hope we can succeed, because enlargement of the Community is an important prize.

    Unfortunately as so often happens with the European debate, the complexities of the issue have been lost.

    It is cheap and easy to say that our position has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with Party management.

    But it is untrue.

    And isn’t it absurd that whenever the British Government takes a stand upon a legitimate interest we are parodied as being anti-European?

    No one thinks that of the French, the Germans or the Spanish when they take a stand in their interests. Nor should they, because every country in Europe fights its own corner very hard.

    Frankly, those people who comment in this way should just grow up and learn what the European debate is really about.

    We fight hard for our vision of Europe because we want Europe to succeed. Being a good European doesn’t mean you sign up to every dot and comma that our partners propose.

    It does mean we use our own judgement about the long-term interests of the Community. Because our national interests, our economic interests, our jobs, our livelihoods are engaged in Europe as never before.

    Over half of all our exports go there. To a huge single market right on our doorstep that Conservative Britain helped to create.

    Thousands of British companies, large and small, trade with Europe and provide huge numbers of jobs. And it is in the homes that their workers go back to at the end of the day that Britain’s interests in Europe are felt.

    And there is one other priceless legacy of our partnership in Europe. And that has been a Europe free of war.

    Fifty years ago a huge armada of ships and men gathered on the South coast to liberate the Continent. To end a war which had ravaged Europe. In June we will remember those veterans and thank them.

    Because of them, we have had an unparalleled prize. Fifty years of peace in Western Europe. Do you know when Europe last enjoyed 50 years of uninterrupted peace? If I tell you that the Cabinet then had names like Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius, you get the idea. 1800 years.

    Today, our interests lie in being part of a Europe that sustains that peace. And keeps peace elsewhere.

    A week ago I was in Bosnia on the borders of the European Union.

    I visited Gorniy Vakuf, Vitez, Bugojno and Sarajevo and saw British troops helping deliver a new peace.

    In Gorniy Vakuf we saw villagers return to their shattered homes, carrying furniture on handcarts and children returning to play on the streets for the first time for months.

    In Sarajevo we saw a city return to life after months of nightmare and British troops dominating the trouble spots.

    Aid convoys often now travel unmolested and unescorted as troops corral weapons, man checkpoints, and keep former combatants apart.

    I’ve seen the British Army operate in many parts of the world. But I can say to you with perfect conviction that I have never been prouder of the British Army than I was last week.

    This was Britain in the heart of Europe.

    So we are firmly a part of Europe and let us conduct the debate on that basis. The decision in June is about how we shape that Europe. It is not Europe right or wrong. It is Europe Right or Left.

    And the distinction between those positions is very sharp. The policies of the Labour and Liberal Parties in this country on Europe are startlingly similar.

    Between them they would impose a minimum wage. A 35 hour week. They would renegotiate our rebate. Double Community spending. And if that is not enough, they would surrender our national veto.

    And what does that mean? It means we would no longer control our foreign policy. Our defence policy. Our planning controls and much else besides.

    What kind of manifesto is that? I’ll tell you. It’s one we should publicise – North, South, East and West. There aren’t just differences between us and the other parties – there’s a yawning gulf.

    People tell me they are confused as to where John Smith stands on Europe. So let me help you.

    In 1971 Labour opposed Europe, but John Smith voted for it.

    The following year, although he still said he was for it, he voted against. And he was against Europe through most of the 1980s.

    In 1992, John Smith became Labour Leader. Labour was now officially in favour of Europe, but Mr Smith told his Party to abstain.

    But now it’s 1994. And whatever Europe wants is good enough for him. He has abdicated independent judgement.

    So I hope you now understand where John Smith stands on Europe. And if you do, will you write it down on a postcard and send it to him. I’m sure he’ll be extremely grateful.

    If you know any Conservatives who are saying: ‘These elections don’t matter’, or ‘I don’t see why I should help’, just tell them, too.

    They do matter. And – if they care about Britain – they should help. For if they sit at home, others won’t. And people who believe – passionately – that we should be submerged in a different kind of European state will be out there day in, day out, knocking on doors, distributing leaflets.

    If in the next couple of months you look out of your window and you see people with red or orange rosettes going up and down your street campaigning, just remember this.

    They too, have a view about Europe. But it’s not your view, it’s not mine. And it’s not the view of the people of this country.

    We have a vision – one that’s right for this country and right for Europe. And we will pursue that vision best with the help of more Conservative MEPs back in the European Parliament.

    Peroration

    I wasn’t born a Conservative. I became one. By choice and by conviction.

    I don’t believe a great country is built by Government or planned from the centre.

    Governments can open doors, remove obstacles, point the way.

    But it’s people down the ages who have made our country what it is. Millions of people who never make the headlines – working together to better themselves and make a better future for their children.

    I believe that the people who made Britain – if only they have the confidence – can help to make Europe too.

    We’re an old Party. Were an old country. We have values and experience that make us equal to any challenge.

    In our Party we don’t walk away from difficulties. We go out there to meet them, solve them and turn them into success. That’s what we’ve always done. And that’s what we will do again.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 March 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Appointments

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of (a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

    The Prime Minister : Sixty-nine appointments were made to bodies under Cabinet Office auspices. One was Asian (1.4 per cent). None was black. Information on the ethnic origin of individuals is provided on a confidential basis. Names cannot therefore be given.

     

    D-day Celebrations

    Mr. Mandelson : To ask the Prime Minister what public relations advisers have been retained formally or informally by the Government to assist in the promotion of the D-day celebrations.

    The Prime Minister : Lowe Bell Communications has been appointed by the Department of National Heritage to help organise its programme of civilian events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-day landings.

     

    European Union (Voting)

    Mr. Jim Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 22 March, to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), Official Report, column 134, which two European Union member states are being particularly difficult in opposing the United Kingdom’s position on qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers after enlargement of the Union.

    The Prime Minister : Belgium and the Netherlands have been particularly insistent that the United Kingdom must give way on the issue of qualified majority voting.

     

    Nursery Education

    Dame Peggy Fenner : To ask the Prime Minister what his aims are for nursery education in the United Kingdom and the role he sees for the various organisations and agencies concerned.

    The Prime Minister : More than 90 per cent. of three and four-year- olds already receive nursery education or other pre-school provision in the public or private sector.

    The Government’s policy is to promote diversity, choice, quality and cost-effectiveness. Our long-term ambition is availability for all those who want it, and we are exploring possible ways of extending opportunities for the under-fives as resources allow. I regret that in my oral answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in the House on Tuesday 22 March, Official Report, column 132, I inadvertently referred to universal nursery education provided in Westminster, when I had instead intended to refer to Wandsworth and its policy of offering nursery class places to all pupils during the year before they reach compulsory school age. This contrasts with the Isle of Wight which provides a negligible number of maintained nursery school and class places.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 March 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Education Standards, Barnet

    Q10. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the London borough of Barnet to discuss education standards.

    The Prime Minister : I have no immediate plans to do so, but I am aware of the improved GCSE results in all the secondary schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

     

    Seals

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 February, Official Report, column 414, how the embassy in Moscow raises the issue of seal pup slaughter in Russia; and what action will be taken to raise the matter of the killing of seals on the shores of the Caspian sea.

    The Prime Minister : The embassy in Moscow continues to raise the subject of public concern over seal hunting with the Russians during meetings with appropriate officials. The issue was most recently discussed with the chairman of the sub-committee on science in the Russian Parliament. The embassy is also seeking an early opportunity to raise the subject of hunting in the Caspian sea with officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 8 March, Official Report, column 148, what discussions Her Majesty’s Government have had with water pump and water filter manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies about supplies of medicines and equipment to authorities in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

    The Prime Minister : None. Our substantial aid to Iraq is organised through the United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations, not through manufacturers directly.

     

    Mr. Justice Wood

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from (a) individual judges and (b) the judge’s representative body about the Lord Chancellor’s relationship with Mr. Justice Wood, prior to the latter’s retirement as president of the employment appeals tribunal; and what action he will take.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Security and Intelligence Agencies

    Sir Peter Hordern : To ask the Prime Minister what provision is being sought in the 1994-95 supply estimates for the security and intelligence agencies.

    The Prime Minister : The 1994-95 supply estimate for class XIX, vote 2 “Cabinet Office : security and intelligence services”, published today, fulfils the commitment I gave on 24 November 1993, Official Report, column 52, to bring together the aggregate expenditure of the security and intelligence services into a single vote.

    Total provision sought for 1994-95 is £881.486 million, around 8 per cent. below forecast outturn for 1993-94. Provision for these services is planned to decline by around a further 5 per cent. in cash terms by 1996-97.

  • PMQT – 24 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dame Jill Knight : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

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

    Dame Jill Knight : Does my right hon. Friend agree that qualified majority voting in the European Union should be considered strictly on its merits? Is not it right to argue robustly for a more democratic system and to fight our corner, instead of throwing away Britain’s hand as the Opposition parties certainly would?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are strongly committed to enlargement of the Community and also to the long- term success of the European Union, but, to be successful, the countries of the Community must be responsive to the individuals and peoples in that Community.

    As I told the House on Tuesday, I believe that we are right to argue vigorously for principles that are important both for Britain and for Europe’s future, and that is what we are doing. We need a balanced decision that safeguards the rights of minorities. When we entered the Community, representatives of 30 per cent. of its population could be voted down : now the figure is 40 per cent. An automatic and unqualified extension to 27 would perpetuate that trend, and I believe that it should be checked now. In 1996, we need a proper, wholesale reform of the system.

    Mr. John Smith : On that subject– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I call the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) to order.

    Mr. John Smith : On that subject, can the Prime Minister explain why there is such confusion–as revealed in the press this morning–over the Government’s policy on Europe? Is not it because the Prime Minister one day seeks to appease the anti-European faction in his party and on the succeeding day seeks to reassure the pro-European faction? Why is he, as usual, trying to face both ways?

    The Prime Minister : If anyone had the faintest idea where the right hon. and learned Gentleman stands on this issue, he might be entitled to ask that–perhaps he will tell us.

    It is absurd to suggest that arguing for better decision making in Europe, which is what I seek, is anything other than the right way to approach the negotiations. It is right to stand up for the principles that we think are correct. It is not thought anti-European when the Italians argue their case on milk quotas or when the French hold up the enlargement of the number of seats in the European Parliament for their interests. We are arguing for points of principle that we consider of importance, and we will continue to do so.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister realise that it cannot be responsible to put at risk the enlargement of the European Community by a damaging dispute, which is at most about four votes out of 90? Why does the Prime Minister not realise that he is putting at risk the accession of four countries that are friends of Britain and are net contributors to the budget?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the British Government were foremost in creating the opportunities for those countries to enter the Community and we are strong supporters of their entry. That does not mean that we must concede each and every aspect of the allied negotiations to ensure enlargement. I said on Tuesday, and I repeat now, that there is time to resolve qualified majority voting without any delay to enlargement. In Brussels, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary described several possible avenues to a solution. So long as the political will is there, on the part of others as well as of the United Kingdom, the matter can be settled within a matter of days.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the truth of this whole affair that the right hon. Gentleman is more concerned to protect himself and his position from attacks within his own party than to fight for Britain’s real and lasting interests in the European Union?

    The Prime Minister : That is unworthy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If that had been remotely true, I should not have stuck, as I did, to the importance of carrying the Maastricht treaty through the House despite the twists and turns of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has demonstrated yet again that the moment something from Europe, whatever it may be, is put to him, he concedes. He has conceded the ending of our national veto, a minimum wage costing £20 billion, a 35-hour week costing £20 billion and every big spending plan to come out of Brussels. Europe cannot afford that, and Britain could not afford the sort of policies that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would accept.

    Sir Malcolm Thornton : In view of my right hon. Friend’s recent and very welcome statement in favour of sport in schools, may I commend to him a report called “A Charter for Sport in Schools”, which was launched this morning and which links sport firmly into the state of the health of the nation? May I also draw to my right hon. Friend’s attention the fact that, for the first time, this links together national sporting bodies, teacher associations and the medical profession? Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to give the report all possible support?

    Mr. Skinner : You can hit that one for six.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his advice.

    I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of sport in schools, not least because not only is it a natural part of growing up for most youngsters but it instils a love of sport in people which they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

     

    Q2. Ms Corston : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

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

    Ms Corston : On both 10 November 1992 and 4 February 1993, the Prime Minister told the House that claiming public interest immunity was a ministerial obligation which could not be waived. In view of today’s statement by the Attorney-General that Ministers have a discretion whether to claim such immunity, will the Prime Minister now retract his statements?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Lady may have been misled by some lunch-time news reports, supplemented by comments by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Let me read to the House what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in his opening statement to the inquiry this morning. I quote : “Where documents or information fall into a class that has been recognised by the courts as attracting public interest immunity, the relevant Minister is under a duty to make a claim.”

    Mr. Mans : Given that unemployment is falling faster in this country than in any other European Union nation, is not the main lesson that other member nations can learn from us that deregulation of the market and the reduction of social costs encourage investment and create extra jobs?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that that can be seen, not just in the position between the United Kingdom and other European nations but in the position between Europe as a whole and Japan, the United States or the Pacific basin. There is absolutely no doubt that a deregulated economy is likely to create more jobs and that an economy that does not pile too many social costs on employers is likely to have a higher proportion of its work force in proper work.

     

    Q3. Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

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

    Mr. Jones : Does the Prime Minister know that in my constituency the production of the corporate jet aircraft is in danger of being transferred, lock, stock and barrel, to an American production line? More than 900 highly skilled and valuable jobs to Wales in my constituency are at risk. What intervention will he make and what guarantee can he give? May I show him a model of the aircraft to remind him that it is the best of its kind in the world? If he believes in British manufacturing, what will he do to help the workers in my constituency?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the specific question that he raises this afternoon. I appreciate his efforts to keep those jobs in his constituency. I share that concern and so do the Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has pledged the full support of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will shortly be visiting the parent company in the United States. In recent years, Wales has made tremendous achievements in attracting jobs. In the past decade, it has secured more than 11,000 inward investment projects guaranteeing 110,000 jobs. It is an excellent haven for inward investment and jobs and we will do all that we can to help retain those.

    Mrs. Angela Knight : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ultimate guarantee of Britain’s national interest and sovereignty is the national veto, which the Liberal and Labour parties would abandon in their desire to allow Brussels to rule us?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I agree that the national veto, which is, of course, a separate matter from qualified majority voting, which we have been discussing, is an important matter. It has been conceded by the leader of the Liberal Democratic party and the Leader of the Opposition. He shakes his head, but he still has not read the socialist manifesto that he signed up to without reading and to which he is bound.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Ray Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

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

    Mrs. Michie : On reflection, is the Prime Minister still not prepared to listen to the 1 million people who voted no to the Government’s proposals for Scotland’s water? Does he accept that the folk of Strathclyde sent a clear, dignified, civilised and democratic message not worthy of an abusive response and that his own Tory councillors in Scotland now advise that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland should take back the proposals and think again? If the Prime Minister wants his party to survive in Scotland, he should think again.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady will, I think, understand that neither the referendum nor the opinion poll was particularly relevant because neither suggested any alternative structure for the industry. The status quo is obviously not an option, because Strathclyde will not exist as a local authority. There is, therefore, a need for an alternative and it is clearly nonsense to think that each of the new single-tier local authorities could be a separate individual water authority. For that reason, I said that the referendum was an expensive stunt and I still believe it to have been so.

     

    European Court —

    Q5. Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the extent to which European Court decisions are extending the powers of the European Union.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend raises a serious point. It is important that the Court does not extend its powers beyond those established in the treaty. We expect it to use its jurisdiction responsibly and impartially to uphold the rule of law in the Community. We need it to ensure that all member states play by the rules.

    Sir Teddy Taylor : I appreciate that answer very much. Is not it worrying that the Commission is regularly using the Court as a means of stretching and extending EC powers, as we have seen recently on social legislation? Will my right hon. Friend find out from the Commission why on earth it announced last night that it will take action against us under the broadcasting directive, with particular reference to our national licensing system for overseas satellite stations? Should not we have less action and more unity of purpose to try to solve problems, instead of these foolish legal actions?

    The Prime Minister : I gather that there is a complex interaction in what is happening. The Commission has announced that it is taking us to the European Court of Justice over the implementation of the broadcasting directive. The point at issue is that the Commission wants licensing to be organised in one way, while we think that it is best done in another. We have defended our position robustly since the opening of infraction proceedings and will continue to do so. I do not believe that the Commission is seeking to spread its activities through the actions of the Court in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, and it would certainly need to operate within the treaty rights that it has been given.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 March 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Consultants

    Mr. Milburn : To ask the Prime Minister how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

    The Prime Minister : There has been no expenditure by my office on contracts with consultants in the last five years.

     

    Security

    Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy on the security of Government information and other assets.

    The Prime Minister : In recent years, the nature of the threats to Government security has changed. While some of the traditional threats to national security may have somewhat reduced, others have not. The security of Government is also increasingly threatened by, for example, theft, copying and electronic surveillance, as well as by terrorism.

    To ensure that their approach to security reflects current threats, the Government have recently completed a review of their arrangements for the management of protective security in Departments and agencies. This has recommended a new protective marking system for documents which will help identify more precisely those which need protecting, enabling them to be protected more effectively according to their value. The new system will also be more closely related to the code of practice on Government information announced in the Government’s White Paper on openness.

    In addition, the review has concluded that existing security measures should be examined closely to ensure they are necessary in relation to today’s threats; that commercially available security equipment should be more widely used; and that personnel vetting enquiries should be streamlined particularly in routine cases. Overall, the aim is to give Departments and agencies, and management units within them, greater responsibility for assessing the nature of the risks they face and for making decisions, within a framework of common standards of protection, about the security measures they need to put in place. Substantial cost savings will result.

    The first stage of the implementation of the proposals of this review will be the introduction of a new protective marking system with effect from 4 April 1994 alongside the code of practice on access to Government information. The new definitions, which will allow fewer Government documents to be classified, particularly at the higher levels, are set out. The other elements of the new approach to protective security will be put in place in due course. The four categories of protective marking : Definitions The markings to be allocated to any asset, including information, will be determined primarily by reference to the practical consequences that are likely to result from the compromise of that asset or information. The levels in the new protective marking system are defined as follows :

    TOP SECRET : the compromise of this information or material would be likely : to threaten directly the internal stability of the United Kingdom or friendly countries; to lead directly to widespread loss of life; to cause exceptionally grave damage to the effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces or to the continuing effectiveness of extremely valuable security or intelligence operations; to cause exceptionally grave damage to relations with friendly governments; to cause severe long-term damage to the United Kingdom economy.

    SECRET : the compromise of this information or material would be likely : to raise international tension; to damage seriously relations with friendly governments; to threaten life directly, or seriously prejudice public order, or individual security or liberty; to cause serious damage to the operational effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces or the continuing effectiveness of highly valuable security or intelligence operations; to cause substantial material damage to national finances or economic and commercial interests.

    CONFIDENTIAL : the compromise of this information or material would be likely : materially to damage diplomatic relations (ie cause formal protest or other sanction); to prejudice individual security or liberty; to cause damage to the operational effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces or the effectiveness of valuable security or intelligence operations; to work substantially against national finances or economic and commercial interests; substantially to undermine the financial viability of major organisations; to impede the investigation or facilitate the commission of serious crime; to impede seriously the development or operation of major government policies; to shut down or otherwise substantially disrupt significant national operations.

    RESTRICTED : the compromise of this information or material would be likely : to affect diplomatic relations adversely; to cause substantial distress to individuals; to make it more difficult to maintain the operational effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces; to cause financial loss or loss of earning potential to or facilitate improper gain or advantage for individuals or companies; to prejudice the investigation or facilitate the commission of crime; to breach proper undertakings to maintain the confidence of information provided by third parties; to impede the effective development or operation of government policies; to breach statutory restrictions on disclosure of information; to disadvantage government in commercial or policy negotiations with others; to undermine the proper management of the public sector and its operations.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of Tuesday 8 March, Official Report, column 148, if he has now considered, following his meeting of 3 March with the hon. Member for Linlithgow, the provision of water filtering and water pumping equipment to Iraq; and what action he has taken to respond to the list of pharmaceuticals required in the valleys of the Euphrates and the Tigris for infants with diseases related to malnutrition in the summer.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 March 1994] : I have now written to the hon. Member following our recent meeting.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 March 1994

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Punjab

    Mr. Spellar : To ask the Prime Minister whether he raised the question of human rights in the Punjab with the Indian Prime Minister during his recent visit.

    The Prime Minister : I discussed human rights in India with Mr. Narasimha Rao. The main focus of our discussion on human rights was, however, Kashmir.

     

    Chief of Defence Staff

    Mr. Mullin : To ask the Prime Minister on what date he was first informed that the position of Sir Peter Harding as Chief of the Defence Staff might be compromised.

    The Prime Minister : I was first informed of the circumstances which led up to the resignation of Sir Peter Harding on Saturday 12 March.

     

    Bosnia

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if, during his visit to Bosnia he sought to establish whether British-manufactured or designed shells, and British-licensed guns, have been used offensively against Bosnian civilians and British service men in Bosnia.

    The Prime Minister : We have no evidence of British-made or British-designed weapons or ammunition being used offensively in Bosnia.

    We understand that a formerly British-owned 1942 40mm Bofors gun has been surrendered under the ceasefire arrangements in central Bosnia.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

     

    Second World War Commemorations

    Sir Jim Spicer : To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to invite German representation at the events commemorating the end of the second world war.

    The Prime Minister : The commemoration in Britain on 7 May 1995 of the end of the second world war will be the occasion to celebrate the 50 years of peace and reconciliation we have enjoyed since 1945. During that time we have developed extremely close relations with our allies and partners in Germany. We very much hope Germany will play a full part and be represented at a high level in the 1995 commemorations, for which planning is now in hand.

    The focus of the 1995 commemorations will be :

    a service in St. Paul’s;

    a parade in central London; and

    a lunch or dinner for the Heads of State or Government who attend.

    In addition we hope to arrange a variety of events throughout the country designed to build on the theme of reconciliation.

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list for the last 12 months how many parliamentary questions he has referred to the Cabinet Office for answer; and what percentage of parliamentary questions to him this represents.

    The Prime Minister : In the past 12 months approximately 3 per cent. of my written parliamentary questions were referred to the Cabinet Office for answer.

     

    Council of Europe

    Sir Russell Johnston : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has replied to the letter from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Catherine Lalumiere, concerning participation in the Council of Europe’s campaign against racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and intolerance; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : As far as I am aware I have not received such a letter, but I understand that Mrs. Lalumiere has written to the Lord Chancellor who will be replying shortly.

  • PMQT – 22 March 1994

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    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. Connarty : Has anyone brought to the attention of the Prime Minister the 71.5 per cent. return in the Electoral Reform Society ballot on water services carried out for Strathclyde? Does he agree with the 1,194,667 people who voted against the Government’s proposals for quangoing the water services in Scotland? Does he agree that this is a crushing humiliation, or could it be possible that the Prime Minister will see it as an opportunity to show that we have a listening Government and do the democratic thing and abandon his proposal immediately?

    The Prime Minister : Since Strathclyde wilfully misrepresented the Government’s proposals, I see nothing surprising in the result. The Opposition have continued to link the proposals with privatisation, even though it is perfectly clear that we are setting up public water authorities. They persist in scaremongering about disconnections, although we have no proposals to legalise disconnecting domestic water supplies for non-payment of bills.

    The question that the hon. Gentleman should have asked is how Strathclyde will explain to its council taxpayers the waste of £750,000.

    Mr. Brandreth : Will my right hon. Friend consider adding to his list of engagements [Interruption.]

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

    Mr. Brandreth : Will my right hon. Friend consider adding to his list of engagements a visit to the uniquely beautiful city of Chester, where he will find inward investment at record levels, and unemployment 6 per cent. lower than a year ago and 26 per cent. lower than six years ago? Does he agree that, in terms of inward investment to the European Community, the United Kingdom in general, and the city of Chester in particular, are now leading the way?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly pleased to hear of the particular inward investment to Chester. There has been a dramatic amount of inward investment into every part of the United Kingdom over the last few years–Wales and Scotland have certainly received a great degree of inward investment. That is very largely connected with the fact that we have a very flexible economy and a very effective business tax system, we do not have too many social on-costs, and investment here is welcome.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister think it right that those who can afford to pay fuel bills in advance can avoid paying the new VAT charges on gas and electricity ?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it has long been the case that customers for a wide range of services can pay for them in advance. [Interruption.] There is nothing unusual about that. It has happened before every Budget that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can remember since he entered the House.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister does not even begin to understand the problem here. Does he not understand that it is deeply unfair that those who are better off can avoid a tax obligation which millions of others have to shoulder because they do not have the money to exploit the loophole that the Government have permitted?

    The Prime Minister : It is not a loophole, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says ; it is a position that has applied for very many years. As far as people who are less well off are concerned, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have provided help for them worth £2.5 billion over three years–more to pensioners, more to disabled people and more to single parents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention that all those people will get the money before the bills arrive. That is a prepayment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgot to mention.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that in those replies he has revealed the Tory attitude to tax in a nutshell– loopholes for the better off, and everyone else has to pay in full?

    The Prime Minister : What has been revealed is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is up to his old tricks yet again, telling other people how to spend their own money. It boils down to the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a meddler in everything–in private sector pay, in company decisions and in how people pay their own bills. What he does not mention is the fact that electricity companies, for example, have announced next year’s prices and all of them have frozen the price or cut it. When did that ever happen under Labour Administrations?

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday the Department of the Environment issued a section 13 notice, under the Local Government Act 1988, against the Lancashire county council for utterly failing efficiently to run its ground maintenance services under direct labour? Is that not one more reason why the citizens of Lancashire wish the Lancashire county council to be abolished?

    The Prime Minister : It is certainly a deeply inefficient council, but that is something it shares with Sheffield and many other Labour-run authorities.

    Mr. Ashdown : Are not the policies of the Government and of the Labour party towards the provision of nursery education for all now revealed to be exactly the same–that it will not happen until resources allow? Bearing in mind that it was the Prime Minister’s predecessor, when she was Education Secretary nearly a quarter of a century ago, who first formulated that policy, will the Prime Minister tell us when he thinks that that promise might be delivered–this year, next year, sometime or never?

    The Prime Minister : That was extremely well rehearsed, but, as the hon. Lady mentioned a second ago, if the right hon. Gentleman went to the Isle of Wight he would find no nursery education there, whereas if he went to Tory Westminster he would find universal nursery education.

    Mr. Bill Walker : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under every Labour Government since the war, before every Budget there was massive spending in the shops to avoid the tax increases that always followed Labour Chancellors’ statements, especially during the period of purchase tax when that tax went up to 33 per cent?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. There has always been prepurchase of goods before Budgets, especially Labour Budgets, for precisely that reason, but the Opposition have been out of government so long that they have lost touch not only with government but with reality.

     

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

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

    Mr. Winnick : Is the Prime Minister at all surprised at the way in which the President of the Board of Trade is now constantly being talked up as his successor as leader? Should not the Prime Minister watch his back very carefully when the President of the Board of Trade says that he has no leadership ambition left? If the Prime Minister believes that, he will believe anything.

    The Prime Minister : What the hon. Gentleman points out is the enormous wealth of talent behind me supporting me.

    Mr.Wilkinson : In view of the latest terrorist outrages at Heathrow airport and, more recently, the shooting down of an Army Lynx helicopter at Crossmaglen, is not my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) right to say that the Downing street declaration has run its course? Is it not time to give primacy to the defeat of IRA terrorism, because political progress depends on progress on the security front?

    The Prime Minister : Two things run in parallel : first, the Downing street declaration; and, secondly, the continuing efforts to defeat terrorism and engage in the talks process. Security co-operation has improved and continues to improve. The welcome recent successes on both sides of the border are evidence of the intensive efforts by the security forces in both jurisdictions to combat terrorism. Both Governments are committed to close co-operation, which is currently at an all-time high. I assure my hon. Friend that we propose to build on that security co-operation in both the short and the long term. There should be room nowhere in the United Kingdom for terrorism, and we are determined to maintain our battle against it.

     

    Q3. Mr. Eric Clarke : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

    Mr. Clarke : Is the Prime Minister aware that the Easter egg that he is giving to the British people is a tax rise equivalent to two weeks’ wages for every wage earner in the country?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have conceded before, it has been necessary to increase taxes. I invite him also to condemn the large and unjustifiable council tax increases imposed by Labour councils.

     

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

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

    Mr. Thurnham : Does my hon. Friend agree that many people with disabilities make excellent employees? Will he ensure that the public sector plays its full part in employing the disabled and thus leads all other employers by example?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The civil service is steadily increasing the number of registered disabled people whom it employs. I am delighted that, as a proportion of its work force, it now employs slightly more than the percentage of registered disabled people in the work force as a whole. A number of Departments and agencies do significantly better than that. I share my hon. Friend’s desire to see progress made, but it is encouraging that the public sector is now doing better than the private sector.

    Mr. Radice : Which is more important to the Prime Minister–a blocking minority of 23 on qualified majority votes to the Council of Ministers, or an enlargement of the European Union?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman states a choice which, had he ever negotiated in Europe, he would not have stated in that fashion. He is blind to both the short and long-term consequences of change to the qualified majority vote system. We are determined to negotiate in Brussels, and to fight Britain’s corner just as hard as every other nation would fight for itself. We will not be moved by phoney threats to delay enlargement. There is ample time to complete the enlargement process; if there is delay, it will be because certain other member states–two in particular–have taken an inflexible and doctrinaire line. We shall not do what the Labour party do, which is to say yes to everything that comes out of Europe, with no critical examination whatever. The Opposition would sign away our votes, our competitiveness and our money. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is the man who likes to say yes in Europe–Monsieur Oui, the poodle of Brussels.

     

    Inward Investment (Northern Region)

    Q5. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of the social chapter on inward investment in the northern region ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The northern region has an excellent record for attracting inward investment and creating jobs. Since 1985 the Northern Development Corporation has secured 36,000 jobs for the region. By piling on costs to business, the social chapter would destroy jobs in the northern region, as it would across the country.

    Mr. Bates : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the decision by Black and Decker to close its production plant in Limburg in Germany and move to Spennymoor in county Durham because of the excessive level of non-wage labour costs in Germany? Does that not clearly demonstrate that the best way to keep manufacturing jobs in the north-east is to keep Britain out of the social chapter?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree. What is clear when one looks across Europe is that the social on-costs of every country other than the United Kingdom are rendering those countries progressively uncompetitive with Japan, the United States and the Pacific basin. What the social chapter would mean is the loss of jobs in the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the news for the people of Spennymoor. The Durham plant has a very high and very well-deserved reputation for quality. Black and Decker knows that high costs destroy jobs and that, for that reason, Britain is the best place in the European Community in which to do business and in which to invest.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Home Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

    Mr. Home Robertson : As the Prime Minister once dismissed Strathclyde as a monstrosity, I welcome his conversion and the fact that the Government have now decided to keep the Strathclyde passenger transport authority so as to safeguard comprehensive concessionary travel for pensioners in Strathclyde. Why are not pensioners in other parts of Scotland being allowed the same safeguards? I appeal to the Prime Minister to consider that point and to ensure that pensioners in all parts of Scotland, including the east, are given equal rights.

    The Prime Minister : It is extremely unlikely that the hon. Gentleman would appeal to me in any circumstances. The view of Strathclyde that I hold is unaltered, as I indicated earlier with regard to the referendum, which was an expensive stunt. As to the second point, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 March 1994

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Open Government

    Dr. Lynne Jones : To ask the Prime Minister what will be the implications for the operation of the Cabinet Office of the code of practice on open government.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, today.

     

    Ministers (Legal Action)

    Mr. Wilson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each occasion in the past five years when Ministers of the Crown have requested financial assistance in legal actions, on the grounds that these impinged upon their ministerial duties; and how each of these applications was determined.

    The Prime Minister : No central record is kept of such requests.

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him in February.

    The Prime Minister : A considerable number.

     

    Car Industries

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 February, Official Report, column 581, concerning the sale of indigenous car industries, what assessment he has made of the effect of the takeover of Rover on output and employment in the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is aware of the assurances given by BMW to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 31 January. Nothing has happened since then to change our view that the acquisition offers good prospects for Rover and for output and employment in our vehicle industry.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 February, Official Report, column 581, concerning the sale of indigenous car industries, if he will publish the source of his information concerning the intentions of French Government, together with the timetable for the sale.

    The Prime Minister : The French Government have stated publicly on several occasions that they intend to privatise Renault, and the company was one of 21 firms, banks and insurance companies listed in an annex to their privatisation Bill in July 1993. Mr. Longuet, French Minister of Industry and International Trade, has recently indicated to the press that, despite the breakdown of the planned merger of Renault and Volvo, it is still intended to privatise Renault, although this is understood to be unlikely to take place before the presidential elections in May 1995.

     

    Trinidad Terms

    Sir Thomas Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the progress to date on the implementation of the Trinidad terms; if he will raise this matter at the next G7 summit; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : A total of 20 of the poorest and most indebted countries have benefited from Trinidad debt reschedulings by the Paris club. These are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Republic, Guyana, Honduras, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia. Over $5.5 billion of debt has been restructured under the terms and over $2 billion of debt and debt servicing has been reduced.

    We shall continue to work for full Trinidad terms, including increasing the level of debt reduction for the poorest and most indebted countries from 50 to 80 per cent. on a case-by-case basis, and for earlier action on reducing the whole stock of official debt. The summit of G7 Heads of Government later this year will provide such an opportunity.

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in the last five years he has knowingly provided incomplete information to answers to parliamentary questions other than on grounds of disproportionate cost; and on what subjects.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 15 March 1994, Official Report, column 645.

     

    India

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he raised the matter of the proliferation consequences of India’s nuclear capability with his Indian counterpart during his recent visit.

    The Prime Minister : No. The Indian Government are well aware of our concerns about nuclear proliferation in south Asia, which were raised with the Indian Foreign Secretary during Mr. Narasimha Rao’s visit.

     

    Parliamentary Bills

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he would support a measure that would introduce a block on parliamentary Bills in the British Parliament if 27 per cent. of hon. Members opposed them.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Official Gifts

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister what rule applies to Ministers; and who is responsible for registering gifts received by (a) himself and (b) other Ministers.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 March 1994] : Gifts received by Ministers who are Members of the House of Commons have to be registered in the Register of Members’ Interests if they exceed £125 in value and if they relate in any way to membership of the House. Registration is the responsibility of the individual Member. “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” provides separately that all gifts accepted by Ministers in their official capacity should be reported to the permanent secretary of the Department. In addition, it provides that any gift exceeding £125 in value must be surrendered or purchased at its cash value abated by £125. Since such gifts accepted by Ministers in their official capacity must be either purchased or surrendered, there is no interest to register.

     

    Orsett Hospital

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if, on his next visit to Basildon, he will meet officers of the Basildon and Thurrock community health council to discuss the possible closure of Orsett hospital.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 March 1994] : When I next visit Basildon, I look forward to meeting a wide range of people.

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit Orsett hospital, Thurrock in addition to his proposed visit to the maternity unit at Basildon hospital.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 March 1994] : I have no current plans to visit Thurrock.

     

    Serious Crime Criteria

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out in a form which does not jeopardise national security the criteria used by the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service to assess what constitutes a serious crime.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 March 1994] : No. The term “serious crime” is widely understood and, in the context of the Intelligence Services Bill, does not require further definition.

     

    Economic Well-being Criteria

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out in a form which does not jeopardise national security the financial criteria used by the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service to assess matters which relate to the economic well-being of the country.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 March 1994] : The term “economic well being of the United Kingdom” is a well-known provision, used in the Intelligence Services Bill, the Security Service Act 1989 and the European Convention on Human Rights without definition.

    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave two examples of where the Secret Intelligence Service might act in this area in his speech introducing the Intelligence Services Bill on 22 February 1994 Official Report, column 157.

     

    Shoot-to-kill Policy

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards a shoot-to-kill policy arising from terrorism; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 March 1994] : We have no such policy. What is normally implied by a “shoot-to-kill” policy would not be consistent with section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 or section 3 of the Criminal Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1967.