The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 December 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    European Council (Scrutiny Reserve)

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each (a) occasion when and (b) matter upon which Her Majesty’s Government have entered a scrutiny reserve at European Council meetings in the current parliament.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 28 November 1996]: The outcomes of European Council meetings are issued as conclusions of the presidency alone. The question of scrutiny reserves does not therefore arise.

    In cases where the European Council reaches political agreement on draft legislative texts, it would be open to any Head of State Government to alert colleagues if these had not yet cleared parliamentary scrutiny. There is no central register, however, of the occasion on which this may have occurred.

    Different arrangements apply for Council of Ministers’ meetings.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 29 November 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    European Council Meeting

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals on (a) monetary union and (b) the environment he intends to table for discussion at the European Council in Dublin on 13-14 December; and if he will place copies of such United Kingdom submissions in the Library before the Council.

    The Prime Minister: None.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 28 November 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 28th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the Government had published their position on Northern Ireland at this stage].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were asked to publish this originally some time ago, there has been a lot of discussion about what it should be. Earlier this week Mr Adams pre-emptively gave his views, so I think not to have published now would have just caused great uncertainty in Northern Ireland. People would have just said: “well if the British Government are asked to publish what their position is, what is the delay? Are there secret negotiations? Is there bargaining?”, and we have seen the sort of turmoil that that misinformation has caused in the past. So the moment there was the interview by Gerry Adams it was necessary to publish speedily.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what would be a credible ceasefire].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we were cheated last time, weren’t we? When the ceasefire was declared we were told by the IRA and by Sinn Fein that this was for good, that it wasn’t going to go back to violence. But it did. And not only did it go back to violence, we now know that within days of declaring the ceasefire they were actually putting many tons of explosives in the London garage that we subsequently found. Now that won’t do. That was a fake ceasefire. They didn’t just mislead the British government, they misled Ireland, north and south, and the rest of the world as well. Well I don’t think that is any good in the future. So what we are saying about an unequivocal ceasefire is that when they declare it, we will need to be satisfied that this time they genuinely mean it and it is not a fake. And we will judge that in two ways: firstly, by what they say at the time of the ceasefire, we will require them to say that this is for good, for lasting.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it needed to be a written statement].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They will make a statement presumably, I am not going to be pedantic about how they do it, but we want them to commit themselves to the fact that this is real. And secondly, we will judge what happens on the ground, we will judge what they do as well as what they say. And by that I mean we will judge whether they are still conducting surveillance, whether they are still targeting, whether they are still purchasing arms. We will judge those things. We will judge whether there are paramilitary beatings. If those things continue then it is a fake ceasefire and we will state it as such. If those things cease then we will be able to accept – as I hope it will be – that this is a genuine ceasefire. And when we can be satisfied that it is a genuine ceasefire, then the door opens for Sinn Fein to enter the talks.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked for a timescale].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t want to put a timescale on it because I think a timescale would be supremely unhelpful. What matters is not the artificial passage of time but the certainty that what they have said is actually being carried out on the ground. Now I don’t know how long that will take, but I am not looking for artificial delay, I am not looking for a piece of string stretched from here to forever, I am looking for the certainty that what they have said is genuine. And when we can be satisfied that it is genuine then we can open the door to talks.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether it would be one or two months].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to put a time to it, either short or long. I don’t think we can put a time to it. But I will make a judgement as soon as we think we credibly can.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 November 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

    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.

     

    Ministerial Statements

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the circumstances in which it is acceptable for Ministers to make a statement which they know to be untrue on the Floor of the House; and what changes have been made to that list since March 1994.

    The Prime Minister: There has been no change in the position as I stated it in 1994. It is clearly of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the House. If they knowingly fail to do this, they should relinquish their positions, except in the quite exceptional circumstances, of which a devaluation or time of war or other danger to national security have been quoted as examples.

     

    Employment Contracts

    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister how many (a) full-time jobs, (b) part-time jobs, (c) full time jobs which are on (i) renewable and (ii) unrenewable fixed-term contracts, (d) part-time jobs which are on (i) renewable and (ii) unrenewable fixed-term contracts, (e) temporary jobs and (f) jobs classified as casual there have been in (1) his Department and (2) executive agencies of his Department for each year since 1992.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 November 1996]: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 27 November, by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General.

  • PMQT – 28 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

    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. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concerted campaign by Labour-controlled authorities against compulsory competitive tendering? Is he further aware that my local authority, South Ayrshire, favours direct labour organisations against the interests of small local contracting companies that have provided excellent services at low cost for a number of years? Does he agree that the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland highlighted that wasteful practice led to his being awarded the title of Parliamentarian of the Year?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the wasteful behaviour of a large number of Labour-controlled local authorities. Before the Opposition complain about council tax levels, they should put their own house in order. If they did, they would be able to hold down council tax.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, according to the Red Book, the overall tax burden next year will be higher than it is this year?

    The Prime Minister: No, I do not confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. For some time, the right hon. Gentleman has been desperate to cover up the fact that living standards are rising. The Opposition have produced the most spurious attacks on tax in the past few weeks. They claim that there have been 22 new taxes over the past five years, but I can identify 25 tax reductions in the past couple of years. The right hon. Gentleman takes no account of rising incomes and people moving into higher tax brackets, so he is painting a misleading picture. We have the lowest rate of basic tax for 60 years. It was 33p and it is now 23p.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister wants to take credit for the fact that people’s earnings have increased, but they have earned that money, not the Government. Is it not curious that the Conservative party no longer wants to talk about tax? Will the Prime Minister return to the central question that I asked him? Is it or is it not right, according to his own Red Book, that the overall burden of taxation next year will be higher than it is this year? As one of his hon. Friends said, the answer can only be yes or no. Which is it?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to what I just said, he would have had his answer. The right hon. Gentleman does not take into account the fact that more people are working and incomes are rising. Had the Labour party presented a Budget earlier this week, taxes would have increased quite dramatically. On the one hand he accuses us of cutting expenditure and on the other hand he accuses us of putting up taxes. We have kept direct tax down and we have increased expenditure on health, the police and other important services.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps, on the third occasion, the Prime Minister will now answer the question. Because of all the taxes in the Budget–the insurance tax, the airport tax, the council tax, the fuel tax, the abolition of profit-related pay–according to his figures, the tax burden is to rise next year. It will rise not just next year but, according to the Government’s plans, the year after, the year after that and the year after that, to a level higher than under the last Labour Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister will now answer the question: is it true that the tax burden is to rise next year? If it is, is not the reputation of the Tories as a low tax party now dead and buried?

    The Prime Minister: The more people work, the more they earn. That is the point that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand. If he thinks that taxes are too high, which ones would he cut? What support has he given us in cutting taxes? If he thinks that tax is too high, will he indicate that he will not proceed with the windfall tax, or a tartan tax, or a health tax or a teenage tax? How will he pay for the £30 billion-worth of promises that he has made? The plain fact of the matter is, however he huffs and puffs, people know that dogs bark, cats miaow and the Labour party puts up taxes.

    Mr. Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the French lorry drivers dispute is now causing serious traffic chaos and economic hardship in Kent, particularly around the channel ports of Ramsgate and Dover? Now that the strike is going on, it may have a much wider impact on the country. Will my right hon. Friend make strong diplomatic representations to the French Government to extract a firm commitment that full and fair compensation will be paid to British lorry drivers whose livelihoods have been affected by the mindless militancy of their French counterparts?

    The Prime Minister: I am horrified by the consequences of the dispute for British drivers and companies. Claims for compensation must be met by the French authorities. We have made that point to them. I hope that, very soon this afternoon, the leader of the Labour party will make clear his condemnation of one of his own Members of the European Parliament, who has today described the striking French lorry drivers as “a shining beacon”.

    Mr. Prescott: What sort of Government is there in France?

    The Prime Minister: The deputy leader of the Labour party asks what the Government in France are. What are the strikers and why are they being supported by Labour Members of the European Parliament? Will the deputy leader of the Labour party go down and talk to British lorry drivers and tell then that he thinks that the strikers are a shining example?

    Mr. Prescott: It is a Tory Government in France.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is the strikers’ friend now, as he always has been.

    Mr. Ashdown: I wonder why the Prime Minister and the Government do not realise why people are so fed up with all this lying about tax. Is not the central question this: does the Prime Minister really believe that the British people are so stupid that they could be tempted to vote Conservative again because he has cut their income tax by 1p, when his own figures show that he has forced their council tax up by between £40 and £60 a year?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about council tax, he might look at the council tax levied by local authorities under Liberal Democrat control. He might realise by how much their council taxes have gone up. He might remind the British public again that he is committed to increasing the standard rate of income tax. I hope that he will make that entirely clear. He is calling for more money to be given to Liberal Democrat councillors, who are

    “politically inexperienced and potentially a liability”.

    That is not what I think; it is what his party’s internal document says about its councillors.

    Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not his policy to barter or bargain for the restoration of an IRA ceasefire, which should never have been broken, and that Sinn Fein’s self-exclusion from the talks remains absolute, unless or until there is an unequivocal restatement of the ceasefire and the Provisionals establish over a period of time a commitment to exclusively peaceful means?

    The Prime Minister: There has been a great deal of rumour and disinformation on this issue in recent weeks. The Government have had a number of exchanges with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and others about the possibility of a new IRA ceasefire. We have made it absolutely clear throughout those exchanges that IRA-Sinn Fein should give up violence once and for all and commit itself to exclusively peaceful means. We have also made it clear that we cannot and we will not change our policy to bargain for a ceasefire. In order that that should be absolutely clear, we are publishing today a statement of our policy, which we sent to the hon. Member for Foyle last weekend. A copy is being placed in the Library together with a short explanatory statement.

    The talks that have been carrying on for some time are likely to break for Christmas soon and to resume later in January. When Sinn Fein could join the talks depends on its own actions–[Hon. Members: “This is a statement.”]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Listen to the answer to the question. These are crucial issues that concern our country.

    The Prime Minister: I must tell hon. Members that this a matter of great interest to people not just in Northern Ireland but everywhere.

    When Sinn Fein could join the talks depends on its own actions. We need to see an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire, we need to be able to make a credible judgment that it is lasting, and we need to know that Sinn Fein will sign up to the Mitchell principles. Those matters are in Sinn Fein’s hands. We are not seeking delay; we wish to see inclusive talks involving all parties as soon as possible, but if Sinn Fein continues to exclude itself, the talks must and will go on without it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

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

    Mr. Martlew: Does the Prime Minister sanction the Tory party campaign on “Honest John”? If so, does he agree that it is designed to deceive the public over tax? When are posters going to go up saying that the Prime Minister promised not to increase VAT, a promise that he broke; and that he promised not to increase taxation year in, year out–another promise that he broke? Is not the reality that nobody believes “Honest John”?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to our posters that indicate that we now have lower income tax, higher living standards and lower unemployment, and that that has come about directly as a result of policies that we have followed over the past few years as the Government. I am glad that he draws attention to those advertisements. I hope that everybody will see them.

     

    Q3. Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

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

    Sir Irvine Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that Sheffield city councillors have increased their council allowance by 200 per cent., that Sheffield city council spends £350 per pupil on education administration, whereas other metropolitan authorities spend only £250, and that Labour Members of Parliament get free accommodation from Sheffield city council? Is he also aware that Silverdale school in my constituency, which is in need of urgent repair, has been informed that there is no money for such repairs? Does not that show how Labour runs Sheffield city council and how it would run the country?

    The Prime Minister: The more Opposition Members barracked my hon. Friend, the more it was clear that he had hit a bull’s-eye by pointing out the way the Labour party behaves in local government. He mentioned Sheffield. Certainly it is one of the councils that have failed to collect millions of pounds of council tax.

    Mr. Prescott: What about Westminster?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman mentions Westminster–but he neglects to mention Southwark, Leeds, Newham, Camden, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Lambeth, all of them Labour councils over many years or dominant Labour under no overall control. What is it they say about Labour?

    “New Labour in local government offers excellence and efficiency.”

    Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

     

    Q4. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

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

    Mr. Barnes: As a matter of statistical integrity, will the Prime Minister confirm what he sought to avoid in answering my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition–that page 88 of the Red Book, which deals with total taxation and national insurance contributions, shows that there is an increase year by year over the next five years in the amount that will be paid out as a percentage of gross domestic product? Will he be honest?

    The Prime Minister: As I said to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield and other hon. Members earlier, that is the impact of more people working and being paid more, and of fiscal drag. Those are the facts that the hon. Gentleman does not understand. The reality is that people have more net income in their hands than they have had at any time in the past, and living standards are rising. However he tries to muffle reality, he cannot hide from that fact.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 November 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Investors in People

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister which Departments (a) have already met the Investors in People standard and (b) are aiming to meet it.

    The Prime Minister: All Departments are meeting, or aiming to meet, the Investors in People standard. The White Paper “Development and Training for Civil Servants: A Framework for Action”, Command Paper 3321, issued in July 1996 announced the target that
    “by the year 2000, all civil servants will be employed in organisations recognised as Investors in People”.

    As at 31 March this year, 58 Departments and agencies, or parts of them, had achieved the standard. These accounted for 12 per cent. of civil servants. This compared with 5 per cent. of the national work force employed in recognised organisations at that time. Figures for the position at the end of September will be available shortly.

  • Government Statement on Northern Ireland – 27 November 1996

    Below is the text of the Government Statement on Northern Ireland, issued by 10 Downing Street on 27th November 1996.

    GOVERNMENT STATEMENT ON NORTHERN IRELAND:

    The Government wishes to set out the facts about recent contacts with John Hume and explain its position on the possibility of a new IRA ceasefire.

    Mr. Hume has suggested to the Prime Minister over the last few months that a new IRA ceasefire, which would in his view this time become permanent, is available if the Government clarifies its position on various issues, including the nature of the Belfast talks, decommissioning and possible future confidence-building measures.

    The Prime Minister has consistently made clear the Government’s position that we would welcome a new ceasefire but that we are sceptical about how credible it would be. The Prime Minister has also said from the start that there could be no question of changing our policy, or negotiating with Sinn Fein, to achieve a new ceasefire, which should be declared without further prevarication. However, he has added that he was prepared to re-state existing policy if that would help.

    The Prime Minister accordingly gave Mr. Hume in July the terms of a possible re-statement. Mr. Hume subsequently suggested different forms of words which did not, however, properly reflect the Government’s position. The Prime Minister sent Mr. Hume a further text on 23 November. This text included our views, in the light of continuing IRA attacks, notably on the Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn, on the terms and process of entry to apply after any restored IRA ceasefire.

    This British Government text is attached. It describes a position which we believe to be fair, balanced and reasonable.

    If Sinn Fein want to join the talks, it is for the IRA to declare a restoration of their ceasefire in terms which are convincingly unequivocal, indicate the intention that this ceasefire should be lasting, and reflect commitment to exclusively peaceful means. The fulfilment of paragraph 8 of Command Paper 3232 is directly relevant to this (“parties … which … establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process”). If this was followed by the absence of paramilitary activity, including such confidence-building factors as no targeting, surveillance and weapons preparation, the way would be open for the Secretary of State to invite Sinn Fein to participate in the negotiations on an equal basis with other parties, in accordance with the legislation setting up the talks.

    The talks are likely to break for Christmas soon and to resume in January at a date yet to be agreed. The statement attached does not determine how early Sinn Fein can join the talks after a ceasefire. That depends on the words and deeds of the IRA and Sinn Fein. We need to see an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire and to make a credible judgement that it is lasting. We need to know that Sinn Fein will sign up to the Mitchell principles. The Government is not erecting new hurdles or seeking delay. We wish to see inclusive talks involving all parties as soon as possible.

    But if Sinn Fein continue to exclude themselves from the talks, the talks must of course go on without them.

    BRITISH GOVERNMENT POLICY ON THE NORTHERN IRELAND TALKS

    This Government has made clear its approach to the search for peace in Northern Ireland on many occasions. But we continue to be asked about this or that aspect, particularly about the multi-party negotiations which started on 10 June in Belfast. There has been continued speculation about a new IRA ceasefire, despite the no-warning attack on Thiepval barracks, Lisburn and various arms finds, including the huge find in London. This has renewed questions about what effect this would have on the negotiations, and our approach to these negotiations. It may therefore be helpful to spell out our position again.

    The purpose of the negotiations is to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands. The negotiations have one overriding aim: to reach an overall political settlement, achieved through agreement and founded on consent.

    They will therefore address all the issues relevant to a settlement. Inclusive in nature, they involve both the British and Irish Governments and all the relevant political parties with the necessary democratic mandate and commitment to exclusively peaceful methods.

    It is important to emphasise that all parties are treated equally in the negotiations, in accordance with the scale of their democratic mandate and the need for sufficient consensus. But no one party can prevent the negotiations continuing by withdrawing from them. No party has an undemocratic advantage. Both Governments intend that the outcome of these negotiations will be submitted for democratic ratification through referendums, North and South.

    The prospects for success in these negotiations will obviously be much greater if they take place in a peaceful environment. The loyalist ceasefire has made an important contribution. It made it possible for the loyalist parties to join the negotiations. They are now playing their part in shaping Northern Ireland’s future, as I have acknowledged by meeting their leaders.

    The British and Irish Governments agree that, beyond the unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire, these negotiations are without preconditions. But in the light of the breaking of the ceasefire and the events since then, assurances are obviously needed that any new ceasefire would be intended to be genuinely unequivocal, i.e., lasting and not simply a tactical device. Consistent with this, the process set out below would follow the declaration by the IRA of an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire with the stated purpose of the conflict being permanently ended.

    The successful conclusion of this process would depend on whether words, actions and all the circumstances were consistent with a lasting ceasefire. For example, how far the declaration of a new ceasefire was convincingly unequivocal and intended to be lasting would be an important indicator. Whether or not any paramilitary activity, including surveillance, targeting and weapons preparation, continued would also be directly relevant. Developments which were inconsistent with an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire or Sinn Fein’s commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence would affect consideration adversely. Sufficient time would have to be taken to ensure the requirements of paragraphs 8 and 9 of Command Paper 3232 were accordingly met before Sinn Fein were invited to participate in negotiations.

    We envisage that the process would involve:

    – meetings with Sinn Fein at various levels to explore with them what assurances could be given and what confidence-building measures established;

    – the British and Irish Governments would invite Sinn Fein to meet them together for the purpose of making an early total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and nonviolence;

    – the two Governments would then propose bilateral and other consultations with all the parties to seek to determine how, if this process were successfully concluded, the negotiations could most constructively be advanced, including the issue of the participants adopting an agreed indicative timeframe for taking stock of their progress;

    – following a successful conclusion of the process set out above, including due time for consideration, the two Governments would expect the independent chairmen to convene a plenary session for all participants, with Sinn Fein invited formally to participate, to consider the outcome of these consultations and the future programme of work.

    From their entry into negotiations onwards, Sinn Fein would, in common with all the other participants, be subject to all the agreed provisions and rules of procedure. These include those governing the contingency where any participant is no longer entitled to participate on the grounds that they have demonstrably dishonoured the principles of democracy and non-violence.

    The range of issues on which an overall agreement will depend means that the negotiations will be on the basis of a comprehensive agenda. This will be adopted by agreement. Each participant will be able to raise any significant issue of concern to them, and to receive a fair hearing for those concerns, without this being subject to the veto of any other party. Any aspect can be raised, including constitutional issues and any other matter which any party considers relevant. No negotiated outcome is either predetermined or excluded in advance or limited by anything other than the need for agreement.

    Among the crucial issues is decommissioning. So the opening plenary is addressing the International Body’s proposals on decommissioning of illegal arms. In their report, the International Body said the parties should consider an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations. We and the Irish Government support this compromise approach. Agreement needs to be reached on how to take it forward, so that the process of decommissioning is not seen as a block to progress in the negotiations, but can be used to build confidence one step at a time during them. So both Governments have already said they will be looking for the commitment of all participants to work constructively during the negotiations to implement all aspects of the International Body’s report.

    It is essential that all participants negotiate in good faith, seriously address all areas of the agreed agenda and make every effort to reach a comprehensive agreement. For their part, the two Governments are committed to ensure that all items on the comprehensive agenda are fully addressed. They will do so themselves with a view to overcoming any obstacles which may arise.

    For our part, we are wholly committed to upholding our responsibility to encourage, facilitate and enable agreement over a period through the negotiations.

    This must be based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions. We want to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement.

    We are also determined to see these negotiations through successfully, as speedily as possible. This is in line with the hopes and aspirations of people in both the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. These have already given momentum to a process which will always have difficulties. We will encourage the adoption by the participants of an agreed indicative timeframe for the conduct of the negotiations and, if it would be helpful, will bring forward proposals for this. We have already proposed that a plenary meeting should be held in December to take stock of progress in the negotiations as a whole. The two Governments will also review progress at regular intervals. I will be meeting the Taoiseach on 9 December and the Secretary of State regularly meets the Tanaiste. Progress will be reviewed again by the end of May 1997, a date set in the legislation.

    Meanwhile we are committed to raising confidence, both through the talks and through a range of other measures alongside them. The International Body’s report itself proposes a process of mutual confidence-building.

    So we will continue to pursue social and economic policies based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equity of treatment and parity of esteem irrespective of political, cultural or religious affiliation or gender. We support, with equal respect, the varied cultural traditions of both communities. We are also committed to developing policing arrangements so that the police service should enjoy the support of the entire community.

    It is worth recalling that, in response to the ceasefires of Autumn 1994 and the changed level of threat, we undertook a series of confidence-building measures.

    These included changed arrangements for release of prisoners in Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995, security force redeployments, a review of emergency legislation and others. If the threat reduces again, the opportunity for further confidence-building measures returns.

    But confidence-building is a two-way street. Support for the use of violence is incompatible with participation in the democratic process. An end to punishment beatings and other paramilitary activities, including surveillance and targeting, would demonstrate real commitment to peaceful methods and help build trust.

    The opportunity for progress has never been greater. The process of peace and reconciliation has received valuable economic support from the United States, the European Union and through the International Fund. The negotiations are widely supported internationally and benefit from independent chairmen from the USA, Canada and Finland. They also have the overwhelming support of the people throughout these islands. They want them to take place in a peaceful environment, free of all violence. That is our aim too.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Spanish Prime Minister – 27 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Jose Maria Aznar, in London on Wednesday 27th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like first to say what a pleasure it is to welcome the Prime Minister here to Downing Street today. He is in no sense a stranger either to me or Downing Street, we have met on a number of occasions when he was Leader of the Opposition and I have been delighted to welcome him here today as Prime Minister.

    Over the last two and a half hours we have had the opportunity of covering a very wide range of subjects. We have had a complete run through the agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference. On many areas we have a firm agreement, on some areas we are close to agreement, on some areas we still have a difference of view. I was particularly able to welcome the Prime Minister’s decision on full participation in NATO. We also spent some time discussing a range of international matters. Spain has played a distinguished role, for example, in Bosnia and we were able to discuss the prospects there. We discussed of course NATO, we look forward to the OSCE Conference and a range of other matters.

    We also discussed a range of matters of bilateral interest. Spain has developed remarkably in recent years and is becoming a growing industrial power within Europe. Our bilateral, industrial, commercial and trading relationship is excellent and is improving. We discussed all this and ways to improve it further.

    We also discussed the on-going discussions that have been carrying on for some time over Gibraltar in the Brussels Process. These will be carried forward with an Officials Meeting within the next few days and the next meeting between our Foreign Ministers in late January. We also discussed other matters of mutual bilateral interest – fishing and related matters.

    All in all it was an extremely friendly discussion, a very worthwhile discussion and I am delighted the Prime Minister was able to join me. We have agreed on greater bilateral coordination of our position in European matters and will both be keen to take that forward.

    So I am delighted both with the nature of the meeting, the conduct of the meeting and the extent of agreement within the meeting and I look forward to seeing the Prime Minister again shortly.

    SPANISH PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you. I am delighted to be here and I can simply say that I agree with the statement of the Prime Minister. This meeting has been held in a spirit of confidence and trust and both of us have agreed that what we want for our countries is to increase the trust-based relationship between the two countries and further it and we have worked very hard towards that goal today to establish this enhanced framework of cooperation and friendship between our two countries which has been very useful to discuss many issues.

    There is wide agreement on many of those issues and it is also a useful framework in order to discuss those issues where some [indistinct] to come about.

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted].

    SPANISH PRIME MINISTER:

    There are lots of people in the world who speak English, many people speak English. I am sure Spanish fishermen too can learn to speak English. But that is all [indistinct].

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, are you close to agreement on quota-hopping?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No we are not. We were not discussing the details of that, that is a matter for the Intergovernmental Conference and we have set out the protocol and that will be discussed at the IGC.

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the position between the European Union and Spain and Cuba, we wholeheartedly support the Spanish position. I don’t think the way the Cubans treated the Spanish Ambassador was a tolerable way to behave. We agree with the common position that the Spanish are seeking and we will give them our support.

    SPANISH PRIME MINISTER:

    [Inaudible].

    QUESTION:

    From the Spanish perspective, it is difficult to understand why quota hopping is not part of the Common Market. I noticed that the Spanish government said the other day in London that there were politics behind the attitude of Britain towards fishing, will you elaborate upon that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a dreadful proposition that politics should be behind governments attitudes, I agree that is disgraceful. I cannot imagine what will happen to international affairs if politics intervene, they will have to start from the beginning again and I just don’t know what we will do. We are concerned about the impact upon the fishing villages of the catch that traditionally went into those fishing villages. For every fish at sea, for every boat at sea, there are a large number of people on shore whose livelihoods depend upon the catch being landed on shore. And of course if the catch is taken and then landed elsewhere there is a great deal of difficulty in that respect, so that is one of the problems that has arisen and these are problems that we will address in the Intergovernmental Conference.

    QUESTION:

    On the same issue of quota hopping, do you think it would be helpful of having a measure which ensured that quota hopping vessels had English speaking crews to enhance understanding?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is rather more, that is an element, but there is a series of things I think that Tony Baldry said and we set out our position in a protocol that we have tabled for the IOC.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    SPANISH PRIME MINISTER:

    [Inaudible].

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    SPANISH PRIME MINISTER:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t really have much to add to that. We have a mature relationship with Spain. When we meet we don’t only discuss the things upon which we are in agreement, we discuss the things upon which we are not yet in agreement, and it was in that spirit that we discussed Gibraltar and quota hopping.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] full agreement for the IGC unless you can get agreement on the issue of quota hopping?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You are assuming we are not going to get an agreement on quota hopping. We have made it clear that we will negotiate very toughly at the IGC on the issues we have set forward. We have certainly made it clear we expect to have agreement on some issues before there is general agreement. Don’t invite me to stir the pot even more. We will fight very hard for our agreement and I expect that we will be able to reach a conclusion.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    SPANISH PRIME MINISTER:

    [Inaudible].

  • PMQT – 26 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Wray: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

    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. Wray: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government took £7.2 billion in tobacco duties last year? Is he also aware that the Health Education Authority says that tobacco costs the health service £680 million and 110,000 deaths annually? I know that the Government are against litigation by the Department of Health, but does the Prime Minister agree that a further ban on tobacco advertising is needed?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have shown the dangers of tobacco in many advertising campaigns and also, of course, on every packet of cigarettes. That is an appropriate way to indicate the dangers–together, of course, with the disincentive of the taxation on tobacco.

    Sir Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the cash flow crisis that is affecting so many lorry drivers, many of whom come from small firms or are self-employed? Their problems are due entirely to the failure of the French Government to keep their highways clear. As a practical measure, will he consider asking the banks to be patient with those firms? Will he also do everything that he can to the French Government to ensure that they act responsibly?

    The Prime Minister: I am concerned about the consequences for British drivers and companies of the dispute, which is, of course, in France and has nothing to do with them or their customers. We have indicated to the French Government that we expect compensation claims for loss of earnings or for damage to perishable stock to be met. I hope that they respond to that plea. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already written to his French opposite number calling for an end to the dispute and making the point about necessary compensation. I shall not hesitate to raise the matter elsewhere if necessary.

    Mr. Blair: Given that the Prime Minister fought the last general election on the specific pledge that he would cut taxes every year, will he now at least apologise for the fact that, whatever the Chancellor does today, after 22 Conservative tax rises, the average British family will pay more in tax at the time of the next election than it did at the last, and that his promise was broken?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is confused. As he will know, we now have the lowest basic rate of income tax for 50 years. Even before today’s Budget, the average family will be £700 better off this year, after tax and inflation, than it was at the general election. If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about transparency in tax matters and tax promises, perhaps he will publish his own tax plans, which his deputy leader said it would be stupid to do.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps, then, the Prime Minister would answer an even simpler question, as he could not answer that one: does he recall promising before the election that he would not raise national insurance contributions, and then raising them after the election? Does he recall that–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows the reductions that we have made in tax. Whatever he may seek to do, he cannot deny that taxes are lower today than they have been in the past, that they are lower than they would be under any Labour Government, and that, if he were to begin to meet the spending pledges that he made at his party conference and then sought to deny, taxation in the United Kingdom would rise and rise again were he ever to have any responsibility for the Exchequer.

    Mr. Blair: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer the first two questions, perhaps he will answer this one: does he recall going into the last election saying that he would not put VAT on fuel and power and then doing just that? Will he answer–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss value added tax, perhaps he will tell us why he can make promises on VAT, but he cannot tell us about the windfall tax, the tartan tax, the London tax, the teenage tax, his spending promises, his taxation promises or anything that is relevant to the management of the economy.

    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that, in the most welcome statement yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in respect of one of the regulations that he would be most reluctant to contemplate using the veto? Bearing in mind that the Dublin summit will be a European Council meeting and not a meeting of the Council of Ministers and that the scrutiny reserved will be applied to the Economic and Finance Council meeting, does my right hon. Friend agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his reluctance to veto one of those regulations?

    The Prime Minister: Presumably my hon. Friend is referring to recital 13. If he would care to look at what was said yesterday, he will see that my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that he would reiterate to the meeting of Finance Ministers that there was no legal basis on which countries not participating in the single currency could have sanctions imposed on them. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that he would seek the best possible language to ensure that that understanding was copper-bottomed.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pearson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Pearson: Will the Prime Minister confirm that cutting VAT on domestic fuel and power will help every household in Dudley and nationally, while scrapping inheritance tax and capital gains tax will benefit, at most, 3 per cent. of the population? Why does the Prime Minister persist in supporting policies that favour the few instead of the many?

    The Prime Minister: The policies that we have followed have produced the best economic circumstances for generations, and that will help the many and encourage domestic investment, inward investment, job creation and growth–all of which are happening in Britain in a way that the hon. Gentleman cannot demonstrate as happening in any other European country.

     

    Q3. Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Colvin: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report by the International Labour Organisation that was published today? It shows that, in every other country, unemployment is rising, while in Britain, exceptionally, it is falling? Is that not further evidence of the merits of the Government’s economic policy that has made Britain such a success? Was not Baroness Thatcher quite right last week when she said in a speech, “Don’t let Labour ruin it”?

    The Prime Minister: When the news is improving, unemployment is falling and the economy is growing, as it is at the moment, there is very little for the Opposition to say: they hate good news, because they know that it is extremely bad news for them. They did not help to bring about the strongest economy of any western European country, which is what we have; they did not help to get more people in work, which is what we have done through the labour reforms that we have produced; they did not help to make this the No. 1 country for inward investment anywhere in western Europe; and they did not help to create the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years. My hon. Friend is right, as was my right hon. and noble Friend last week–Labour is still not fit to govern and I doubt that it will be in a position to do so.

     

    Q4. Mr. Heppell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Heppell: In view of the Prime Minister’s completely unsatisfactory response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask him again why he promised tax cuts before the last election and subsequently broke that promise?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may recall the urgings of his Front Benchers and our determination to protect people during the recession. I make no apology for the fact that we sought to protect people during the recession; I make no apology for the fact that, by doing so, we have delivered the best economic circumstances that he can ever remember. If he wants transparency in tax matters, I challenge him to publish his own party’s tax plans, about which the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said it would be stupid to let the public hear.

    Mr. Couchman: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Surrey (Sir M. Grylls) about the lorry drivers’ strike in France, has my right hon. Friend contacted the European Traffic Commissioner? If so, did he find him conscious of the plight of British drivers, or was the European Commissioner too busy studying leaked documents from the Treasury?

    The Prime Minister: I have not contacted the European Commissioner, but I understand that he has made representations to the French expressing concern about the drivers’ welfare.

     

    Jobseeker’s Allowance

    Q5. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit a jobcentre to discuss the operation of the jobseeker’s allowance.

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

    Mr. Corbyn: The Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself for not being prepared to go along to a jobcentre to discuss the introduction of the jobseeker’s allowance, which is having a very serious effect on many people, especially because of the parallel introduction of incapacity benefit; many disabled people who have to face an all work test will lose their benefits altogether and will have to try to get unemployment benefit through the jobseeker’s allowance. When the Prime Minister visits a jobcentre, will he consider that point and what he intends to do for the 220,000 disabled people who next year will apply under the jobseeker’s allowance for unemployment benefit, but will probably lose it and end up destitute as a result?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, and I think that he knows he is doing so. The purpose of the jobseeker’s allowance, as he should know, is to help people to plan the most effective route back into work. It creates a better framework of advice and support for the jobseeker and ensures that claimants better understand that benefit is dependent on the activities that they undertake to look for work. I believe that that principle is well understood and well supported across the country.

    The jobseeker’s allowance is also, of course, underpinned by the jobseeker’s agreement, which sets out what each jobseeker agrees to do to find work. That is infinitely preferable to the old system of unemployment benefit and income support, which was confusing and in many ways unfair.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall in the House of Commons next week to highlight the tremendous achievements of our engineering and manufacturing industry in this country? Does he agree that engineering offers attractive career prospects for our young people and will he pay tribute to those who are working to promote the achievements of the engineering industry through the Year of Engineering Success campaign next year?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to hear about the exhibition that my hon. Friend mentions. I certainly agree with his sentiments; they were a key aspect of the competitiveness White Paper a short while ago and the reason we launched the action for engineering programme, to increase engineering’s contribution to the national economy. There are now about 150,000 more people employed in manufacturing than three years ago. That reverses a long-term trend and is very welcome. In addition, some 40,000 to 50,000 people are on modern apprenticeship schemes. I agree entirely that engineering is an important part of the British economy.

     

    Q7. Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Prime Minister noticed the change in emphasis between the hard man and soft man of IRA-Sinn Fein? Martin McGuinness is now promising to move heaven and earth–I know that he has tried to move earth in the past, but I do not believe that he has any influence in heaven–and Mitchell McLaughlin is now threatening lethal consequences, if the Prime Minister does not come up with terms. Will the Prime Minister speak on behalf of the nation and say that we are not prepared to bow to the threats of terrorists?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows and as the House wholly accepts, IRA terrorism is utterly unacceptable for any purpose, at any time, in any place. It is also completely counter-productive if there is any suggestion that terrorism will bring Sinn Fein to the negotiating table. It emphatically will not bring it to the negotiating table. If I may quote what the Taoiseach said recently–with which I entirely agree–

    “If Republicans are committed to peace, as they say they are, let them call a ceasefire now and make it a credible one”.

  • Mr Major’s Memoirs Relating to the 1996 Budget Statement – 26 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s memoirs (John Major – The Autobiography, ISBN 0006530745, page 689) where he refers to the 1996 Budget, which was held on the 26th November 1996.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    The economy remained our last, best hope, and the Chancellor was determined to take no risks with it. Interest rates fell gently in the first half of 1996, but edged back up a little in October to 6 per cent. The November budget tightened the fiscal stance by £1.75 billion, to minimise the risk of further interest-rate rises. It forecast further healthy growth, and cut the basic rate of income tax by a further penny to 23p, funded largely by indirect tax hikes. The budget disappointed those on our backbenches who were hoping for a pre-election bonanza, but it reinforced the healthy state of the economy. ‘Good economics is good politics’ remained the Chancellor’s mantra.