The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Huntingdon – 15 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Huntingdon, held on Friday 15th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the extra jobs for Rover meant that the recovery was here to stay].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the announcement by BMW Rover is very good news indeed. What we have seen over recent months is a whole group of international investors beating their way to Britain in order to invest large sums of money. They can see the good prospects for this country and I am delighted about the investment. It’s very good news for Britain and excellent news for the Midlands.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the Working Time Directive].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, one of the reasons companies are coming here is because we are a very competitive nation. That is what is creating the new jobs: that is one of the reasons, no doubt, that many of the large investors are coming here. And measures like the Working Time Directive, not just this measure which is a bad measure in its own right, but other measures that would follow it, would damage that competitiveness and reduce the chance of such investments in the future. So I believe they are very damaging.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the sleaze in the Liberal Democrats was any different from the Premier Club].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I don’t know what the details are of the allegations against the Liberal Democrats. I haven’t seen the details yet. But I understand it’s a question of ‘cash for contracts’. Well, I don’t know the facts of that, but I just believe that’s a matter to be examined. The Liberal Democrats have said repeatedly when these matters have arisen that they should be thoroughly examined. I hope that on this occasion they will do that. Perhaps it should go to the Nolan Committee.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about paying for access to politicians].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well the Labour Party ask for a large amount of money to have dinner with Mr Blair. The question, as far as I understand it, is whether the contracts actually follow the meeting. I think that is the point at issue, not the question of meeting politicians.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Zaire].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, it covers some of the points that Michael Portillo was making yesterday. There are several difficult components to this. Firstly and clearly, you need to have secure control of Goma and Bukavu, which is certainly true. But beyond that there are an unknown number of refugees in many parts of Zaire, spread out widely across Western Zaire. So the point that we British have been making all along is we need plans, not just to cope with the main centres, but how we can cope with those refugees that are mobile. We don’t know where all of them are yet. This is part of the problem.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the rules of engagement].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The rules of engagement will be clarified very soon, and British troops intrinsically have the right to defend themselves and will certainly do so. No-one is going to take any risk whatsoever with the lives of British troops. They will have whatever rules of engagement that are necessary.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked when the first deployment would be].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, we have a group examining the situation out there, and we are still in further discussions with the Americans, the Canadians and others about precisely what the full scale of deployment will be. Not just the British deployment, but other people’s as well. So I hope it can be done very speedily. There isn’t a great deal of time, and speed in many ways is of the essence. So we will not delay: the faster it can be done the better.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 November 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Meacher: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to section 4 of the Government’s response to the fourth recommendation contained in the second report of the Public Service Committee on ministerial accountability and responsibility, HC 67, Session 1996-97, if he will make it Government policy to answer parliamentary questions relating to events taking place more than 30 years ago.

    The Prime Minister: To the extent that such questions are admissible under the rules of the House–“Erskine May”, 21st edition, page 294–Ministers will seek to answer them, as any other question, in accordance with “Questions of Procedures for Ministers”.

     

    Engagements

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

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

  • PMQT – 14 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 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.

    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the drop of more than 40,000 in the latest monthly unemployment count–which, I understand, is the largest monthly decrease for two years–illustrates yet again the success of the Government’s policies in promoting job creation? Does he agree that if United Kingdom employers had additional costs inflicted on them by the EU, that would put in jeopardy the downward trend in unemployment in our country, which has been going on for three years and stands in stark contrast with many other EU countries?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right, both about the welcome trend in unemployment and about the fact that unemployment is falling here in a way that cannot be seen anywhere else in the continent of Europe. That is not unrelated to the fact that we have avoided the burdens on business that so many of our partners have accepted. Of course, those burdens would have been accepted by the Opposition.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that today’s inflation rise, together with the sharp rise in long-term interest rates, should set the warning lights flashing? How does he square that with the promise that he made just a few months ago that he would meet his inflation target by the end of this year?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I know that the retail prices index figures are complex, but I think that he has failed to understand the impact of this morning’s figures. I will explain to him what has happened, and he can then explain it to his Back Benchers. The figures are calculated year on year, and there was a quite exceptional one-month fall last October. That means that the 12-month year-on-year figure looks artificially high. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that that will correct itself over the months ahead and that we expect to meet our target.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that we have ever heard a more ridiculous excuse for a rise in inflation figures. If the inflation figures were so good, why did interest rates have to go up? They went up because of the worry about inflation. Have we not heard it all before? We heard it all before the previous election and we heard it all before 1987, when the Government said that an economic miracle was under way. Will the Prime Minister answer these specific questions? On interest rates and inflation, will he confirm that Britain is now 11th out of 15 in Europe? Do any of our main competitors outside Europe have as high interest rates or inflation as Britain?

    The Prime Minister: I begin to suspect that the right hon. Gentleman truly does not understand; he is not being perverse–he genuinely does not understand. I will explain the position to him gently and easily. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor raised interest rates to prevent inflation from rising, not as a result of existing inflation. To hear lectures on inflation from the right hon. Gentleman, when the lowest inflation achieved by his party in government was 7.5 per cent. and millions remember when it was 27 per cent., and when the inflation figure today is a statistical aberration because of a dramatic fall last year, only illustrates the fact that the Labour party is totally incapable not only of running the economy but even of understanding it.

    Mr. Blair rose–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: The House will have noticed that the Prime Minister did not dispute that we were 11th out of 15 for interest rates and inflation. If he disputes it, let him come to the Dispatch Box and say that the figure is wrong. The House will listen to him when he rises to his feet and tells us that 11th out of 15 is wrong. The simple fact, as on every other matter, is that when he said that he would cut taxes, he raised them, when he said–[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like this because it is the truth. [Hon. Members: “More.”] They want more, so let us give them more–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This barracking must stop. Other hon. Members have questions on the Order Paper and I want to call them.

    Mr. Blair: Let the Prime Minister dispute any of the following facts. He said before the general election that he would cut tax, and he raised it. Does he dispute that? He said that he would eliminate public borrowing, and he doubled public sector debt. Does he dispute that? He said that he would lick inflation, and it has risen. Does he dispute that? If he does not dispute any of those facts, or the fact that we are 11th out of 15 for interest rates and inflation, why should anyone believe a word that he says on the economy?

    The Prime Minister: I had fondly suspected today that the right hon. Gentleman might have broken with tradition and mentioned the fall in unemployment, which his party is supposed to care about–[Hon. Members: “Answer.”] I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that the October inflation figures were the fourth best that we have known in October since the war. It is ridiculous for him to talk to us about taxation and to proceed as he did today, when the deputy leader of his party has said that Labour

    “shouldn’t follow the Government down the road of cutting the basic rate of tax”

    and that under Labour there would certainly be higher tax. I see hon. Members nodding in agreement. The right hon. Gentleman criticises us about tax while his party advocates higher tax. He cannot stomach the fact that the British economy is in better shape than any Labour Government have ever achieved and that he could not match the condition that it is in. He will do everything that he can to pursue grievance politics and damage the British economy in his own interest.

     

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

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

    Mr. Booth: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that at the European intergovernmental conference he will block any proposal further to erode our right of veto? Is he fully aware that signing the social chapter is not only expensive in itself but would render Britain powerless to avoid becoming uncompetitive as Europe introduces more and more imposts? The Labour party will never understand that, which is one of the reasons why we shall win the next general election.

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly and willingly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The social chapter is a pipeline bulging with potential new burdens on business, all of which would cost jobs in the United Kingdom. As an illustration of the damage that a Labour Government would undoubtedly do, perhaps at some stage today the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would like to condemn the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Durham, who called on the Commission to take action against the United Kingdom including

    “seeking unlimited fines against the UK Government”.

    I want to know whether that is Labour policy or whether the right hon. Gentleman will disown him.

    Mr. Ashdown: Did the Prime Minister see the warning from Coopers and Lybrand yesterday that if we continue as we have so far the Government will be technically bankrupt by the end of next year? [Interruption.] That is what it said. The Prime Minister obviously has not read it. Let me put it to him like this: if a council had done what the Government have done and doubled its debt in six years, doubled the level of borrowing to which it had said that it would adhere two years ago and then, to win an election next year, cut its taxes to make things worse, would he regard that as responsible?

    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman said about the nation being bankrupt is just bizarre–it is just off the wall. If this is a bankrupt nation, why are all those overseas nations and overseas investors, both in Europe and beyond, investing in what he says is a bankrupt nation? I suggest that he looks at what is going on in Britain and stops taking advice from his economic advisers, who clearly know nothing about everything.

    Mr. Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week marks the first anniversary of the death of my constituent, Leah Betts, who died as a result of taking a single Ecstasy tablet? Will he join me in paying tribute to Leah’s parents, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that other young people learn the lesson of Leah’s death? Will he confirm that the Government will give every support to the Bill to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), which will ensure that night clubs whose managers do not take proper action to stop drug trading will be swiftly and permanently closed?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I met Mr. and Mrs. Betts some time ago and I think that the whole country remembers the tragedy that they had to endure and the courage with which they endured it. I certainly undertake to do all that I can to curb the menace of drugs and I will look most carefully at the private Member’s Bill that is to be introduced. If it is at all possible to give full support to that Bill, as I anticipate that it will be, then we shall certainly do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Pike: The Prime Minister will accept that there is still a major crisis over bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Does he accept that there has been enough dithering over the introduction of the selective cull scheme that was agreed at Florence? Will he give us a date for implementation of the scheme and say when we shall start to see an end to the problem?

    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here yesterday or, indeed, when I answered those questions from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield. Since the hon. Gentleman is asking precisely the same question, I am tempted to refer him to the answer I gave some time ago. The reality is that we are pursuing with the Commission proposals for relaxing the ban on the United Kingdom and the export restrictions on animals from certified herds and on those that are qualified under the beef assurance scheme. Those discussions are going on at the moment.

     

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

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

    Mr. Robathan: The whole House will welcome the Government’s decision in principle to support international action to prevent humanitarian catastrophe in central Africa. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if British troops are sent to Zaire they will go with carefully considered and clear objectives, very precise instructions and a properly determined chain of command?

    The Prime Minister: I suspect that I speak for the whole House in expressing extreme concern at the situation in eastern Zaire. I believe that everyone is acutely conscious of the refugees’ plight and of the literally hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people who will undoubtedly face death in the next few weeks unless urgent action is taken.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be making a statement in a few moments. I believe that if western Governments have the capacity to help, there is a strong moral obligation upon us to help. We have considered very carefully how we can best provide that help and in principle we are prepared to provide troops for a multinational force.

    I have to say to the House, however, that the situation on the ground is complex and difficult, the terrain is tough, there is inadequate infrastructure and at this stage there is no clear ceasefire. So before sending British troops, or deciding upon the precise numbers, we need to be absolutely clear about what they are being asked to do in detail and the conditions in which they will operate. We also need to look very carefully at the particular circumstances that they will face. A reconnaissance team will be travelling to the region today to do that, and I hope that we shall be able to reach a firm decision before too long as to what troops are to go.

     

    Q5. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I enter a last-minute plea that the Prime Minister reconsider his decision about a free vote for Conservative Members of Parliament next week on the banning of guns? Why cannot those hon. Members be allowed to exercise their own consciences and decide for themselves how to vote on an issue that the public regard as extremely important?

    The Prime Minister: We ought not to forget precisely what the legislation is about: the controls that we place on legally held firearms and the right of law-abiding citizens to use them responsibly. That seems to be a matter on which it is right for the Government to take a decision, as the House expected before the Cullen report was presented to it, and we have done so. Firearms legislation has not traditionally been considered on a free vote in the House and we are not inviting the House to do so on this occasion.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Health Service – 13 November 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the health service, made during an interview held in London on Wednesday 13th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what plans he had for the Health Service].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is a strategy paper to look at the Health Service, not just tomorrow, not the day-to-day decisions on takes, but to actually look at the strategy for the Health Service 5 years, 10 years, 15 years ahead. And there are areas in it where we will now consult further on management training, on the use of new information technology, that is an area of particular interest and other areas as well. But what it seeks to do is to re-state the commitment to the Health Service, make the point that the resources are going to continue to be available, as necessary, and make the point also that the resources that are needed are affordable within a growing economy. The Health Service is going to develop, we wish it to develop well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be privatisation].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no question of privatisation in the Health Service, there never has been. If we were going to privatise the Health Service we would have done it in the last 17 years, we patently aren’t. The Health Service is going to have private capital coming into it in addition to the public commitment, that has been happening for years with things like the Private Finance Initiative. But the National Health Service is the National Health Service and it is not going to be privatised.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he agreed with Labour’s view that large sums of money was wasted on administration in the Health Service].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They do talk such nonsense, don’t they? If they are really concerned about 100 million pounds, why did they oppose the abolition of the regional health authorities, which you might well say were administrators, and would save 100 million pounds? We have proposals to save three times that amount at the moment actually going through the National Health Service.

    Here we have a service that spends 35 billion pounds a year. It is necessary to make sure that the resources are directed to the right sort of area, that is what it is about.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the highest paid staff in the National Health Service were administrators and not doctors].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I doubt as much as you though Adam, so things are not too bad. I very much doubt that that stands up to careful examination. If you look at what is actually happening in the Health Service you are seeing a growing demand and a growing supply of health care. Now what is absolutely essential in a service of that size is that we direct the resources to where the medical need is. That can’t be done without adequate and secure management and that is what the proper management techniques are about. And I think if you look at them, if you take primary health for example, look at the fund-holders, there is an example of giving proper local management down to doctors. I think in a few months about 58 per cent of the public will be actually covered by general practitioners who are fund-holders. Now that was wildly attacked by the Labour Party some years ago, until very recently in fact, as being a waste of money and the wrong way ahead. As usual, they were wrong, we were right and they are now having to come off their policy because it is producing a better Health Service for people at the most direct level in primary health care.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview – 13 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview on Wednesday 13th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he thought unemployment would fall]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Unemployment has been falling steadily now for about three years, the monthly falls are erratic, last month was a very large fall, this month is a very large fall. Can’t guarantee falls of that sort every month, but that the trend is going down and is going to continue to go down over the months ahead, I don’t think it [indistinct].

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he thought that the Working Time Directive would ruin it all?]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it would damage it, course it would, if you put more costs upon unemployment then you are going to damage that capacity to employ people. The real damage with the Working Time Directive and the other Directives that would come the same way if we didn’t oppose them now, is that they would put particular burdens upon the small and medium size firms who are creating decent jobs. Let us be clear where these jobs come from, it is not the ICIs and EECs pushing the bulk [indistinct] of employment it is the small medium size firms, those are the ones that will suffer particularly with extra burdens on business.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he thought 2 million unemployment was too high, given how unacceptable that would have been in 1979]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well you can trust that you can put the worst interpretation on things, in Germany there are 4 million unemployed and it is rising, it went up 40,000 this month. In France there are over 3 million unemployed, there is not another nation in Europe given the economic scene that has been right across the world, in the last few years, that has got unemployment down to the level it has been. Our unemployment is not just below the rest of Europe it is considerably below the rest of Europe. Where theirs are stuck, our unemployment levels are falling, and not just in some areas, right across the country as a whole, and a particular dent in long-term unemployment. That is very good news indeed, and it has been going on for three years.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the state of the economy would be good news for the election prospects in the months ahead]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we have been concerned to get people back to work for 3 years, this is what policies are about. This is why we are trying to create the right sort of environment in which there is growth in the economy which we now have. Faster growth anywhere in Europe, and that growth in the economy is producing more jobs.

    Firstly because of the climate and secondly because it is more competitive to established businesses in this country than anywhere else nearby. And thirdly because we have fewer burdens on business and they are more likely to employ people rather than find a way of avoiding employing people and putting money into sometimes costly and ineffective capital expenditure. Now all that is very good news for a Government that wants people back at work, that is what we wish to see.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the Working Time Directive]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think that many people in the Trade Union movement, I don’t know whether this applies to Mr Monks and Mr Bickerstaff, but I think many people in the Trade Union movement see Europe as a way of returning many of the outmoded practices that we have managed to get rid of in the last 17 years. Now that is not an attractive prospect for the British workers, and I think it is the British workers and British competitiveness that we have to look at.

  • Government Statement of European Court of Justice Ruling – 12 November 1996

    Below is the text of the statement issued by 10 Downing Street on 12th November 1996 on the ruling by the European Court of Justice.

    STATEMENT ON ARTICLE 118A OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY:

    My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Government also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.

    However, in its judgement today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118a is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a.

    That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.

    The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118a cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom’s expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.

    I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are being undermined.

    Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118a which properly belong under the other Member States’ Agreement on Social Policy.

    I am sending copies of this letter to Heads of State or Government of European Union Member States.

    To : His Excellency Monsieur Jacques Santer

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview at Launch of Gas-Powered Cars – 12 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview whilst at a launch of gas-powered cars on 12th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the European Court of Justice ruling about the Working Time Directive]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a very depressing ruling that we have had from the Court this morning. Europe for a very long time has been losing jobs and losing competitiveness compared to the rest of the world, compared to South East Asia, compared to the United States, compared to Japan. And I think the most important thing for the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, is to make sure they are competitive to make sure their economies are fit and healthy and to make sure they are creating jobs. This ruling does nothing to help any of that. In the United Kingdom we now have a very bouncy, very competitive economy. We can see growth rising, we can see unemployment falling. I would like to see unemployment fall by a very great deal yet, it is still far too high. I want to see it fall very fast, nothing in this ruling will help that happen.

    I find it extraordinary that the EU cannot see the damage that legislation like this has done in the past, will do with this piece of legislation, and, perhaps most importantly of all, will do with further legislation like this that we have already been promised. So I believe it is a bad piece of legislation. I don’t accept that it is appropriate for the United Kingdom. We shall go to the IGC and we shall insist on reversing this legislation at the IGC and taking further measures there also to make sure that there can be no repeat of similar legislation in the future.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had a realistic chance of defeating this at the Inter-Governmental Conference]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    People asked me that question when I said I wasn’t going to accept the Social Chapter at Maastricht, but I didn’t accept the Social Chapter at Maastricht and our partners accepted that that was going to be the case. This is just as important, it isn’t just the question of this particular ruling, let me make that clear. This is a bad piece of legislation but it isn’t just that. It is the question that if we were to accept this piece of legislation, there would be a raft of similar legislation following it and I think the European Commissioner has already made that clear. There comes a time in those circumstances where you just have to say “No”, that this is not in the interests of the United Kingdom economy. It is not a question of being against good employment practice. I am very much in favour of good employment practice, but I want an economy in which we can create jobs not in which we put up barriers that prevent the creation of jobs. I would like British people back in work, not debarred from work because of the raft of legislation that makes it too expensive or too difficult to employ them. That is the point of issue, that is why we oppose this directive, that is why we are going to have it changed at the IGC and that is why we propose to have the Treaty changed so that this legislation is reversed and that no similar legislation can subsequently be imposed upon the United Kingdom.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 November 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Anglo-French Summit

    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list (a) the members of his Office who attended the Anglo-French summit in Bordeaux and (b) the positions they hold.

    The Prime Minister: I was accompanied to the Anglo-French summit by three officials and four support staff.

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

     

    Burma

    Mr. Parry: To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations Her Majesty’s Government have made to the Government of Burma regarding abuses of human rights; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: We have recently issued several statements about violations of human rights in Burma, and did so again yesterday.

    In addition, our ambassador in Rangoon has expressed our grave concern at recent events in Burma on several occasions.

    The EU presidency and troika Foreign Ministers also raised these concerns at meetings with the Burmese Foreign Minister on 22 July and 26 September.

     

    Land Mines

    Mr. Parry: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from UNICEF concerning land mines in (a) Cambodia and (b) Thailand; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, none.

    Mr. Parry: To ask the Prime Minister what assistance (a) Her Majesty’s Government and (b) non-governmental organisations have given to (a) Cambodia, (b) Laos and (c) Thailand in respect of the clearance of land mines; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Since 1 April 1993, the British Government have committed over £5.1 million for humanitarian mine clearance activities in Cambodia, £543,000 in Laos and £5,000 in Thailand, concentrating on specific clearance projects addressing urgent humanitarian needs. Some of these projects are managed by British non-governmental organisations.

    We do not have details of all non-governmental organisations’ commitments to mine clearance in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.

  • PMQT – 12 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    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. Janner: Why is the Prime Minister so determined that people who work in this country should have no statutory minimum holiday rights, while also having no statutory maximum working hours, meaning that they can be forced to work more than 48 hours a week contrary to their wishes? Is not that an unjust, unreasonable and typically Tory policy, going against even their own alleged policy of supporting family rights?

    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. and learned Gentleman crisply; Britain wants good jobs, not worthless directives.

     

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

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

    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a huge contrast between yesterday’s excellent news of British Aerospace’s success in winning the large Hawk order from Australia, which will guarantee British jobs, and the dismay felt by many British businesses at today’s news of the adverse European ruling on the 48-hour week? Will he reassure British business that he will do all that he can to resist that Euro-measure, which will undermine the competitive edge of British business and is an adverse decision by a political court?

    The Prime Minister: Australia’s selection of British Aerospace to supply Hawks is the latest illustration of the keen competitiveness of British industry generally and the British aerospace industry in particular.

    I think that not only will today’s European Court of Justice ruling damage the prospects of job creation, should it not be reversed; it has disappointed British business men, as they have made clear repeatedly this morning at the Confederation of British Industry. The position is unacceptable. We cannot agree that our competitiveness should be undermined in this way. Were we to do so, it would clearly be the thin end of the wedge–to judge from what the European Commissioner has said this morning. I have made it clear to the President of the Commission that I shall insist on changes at the intergovernmental conference to ensure that the social protocol will never again be undermined by the presentation of social measures, falsely, under the guise of health and safety.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister now answer the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)? Quite apart from Europe, why is he so opposed to a law that says that people are perfectly free to work more than 48 hours a week, but cannot be compelled to, and gives them minimum holiday entitlements? Is he going to fight the next election on the basis of, “vote Tory for no right to a holiday”?

    The Prime Minister: Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman is in danger of missing the point. Unemployment is falling as we become more competitive. The directive could reverse that trend and similar directives could push unemployment up, instead of it continuing to fall. I am not prepared to accept that. I want jobs, not directives. I want Britain to continue to create jobs and unemployment to continue to fall. I do not want to place more burdens on business so that unemployment either remains stuck at a very high level or rises from that very high level as it has in other European countries. Competitiveness will create jobs. I want people to be in work. Presumably, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to keep them out of work.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us of a successful company in Britain that does not give its work force a holiday.

    Hon. Members: Exactly.

    Madam Speaker: Order. Stop shouting and barracking, for goodness’ sake. I want to hear the questions and the answers.

    Mr. Blair: If the directive is so dreadful, why did the Minister not vote against it when he had the chance to do so? May we be clear about the Government’s position at the intergovernmental conference? Will the Prime Minister confirm that his position is this: all member states must agree at the outset of the conference that no progress will be made on any change proposed by any country in respect of any issue until the directive is reversed? Is that his position?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman’s first point was correct, why do we need the directive? He made precisely the Government’s point. Such directives pile burdens on business and they are bound to undermine our economic success. Their damage to the fruits of our economic success will affect the extra resources that we are providing to the health service, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will set out in a White Paper tomorrow. They will damage the provision of opportunity for all four-year-olds to have nursery education, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will set out tomorrow. I am not prepared to allow the product of years of good, sound economic management to be undermined by regulation from Brussels. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman precisely what the position is at the intergovernmental conference: it is exactly the same as it was on the social chapter at Maastricht. I shall not accept what has been determined by the court today and, at the end of the intergovernmental conference, I shall demand that change or there will be no end to the intergovernmental conference.

    Mr. Blair: So it will be at the end of the intergovernmental conference–which will, conveniently, be after the election. We can hear escape routes being planned already. Is it not back to beef when, five months on, the Government have not even got the gelatine ban lifted? It is the same old pattern. They seize on an issue, they talk tough, they alienate everybody and then they cave in. May I suggest that the law that gives people the right to a minimum holiday is not the issue upon which to launch beef war mark 2?

    The Prime Minister: Saving British jobs is the issue upon which to draw the line. The right hon. Gentleman may be prepared to live in an area of high unemployment. Unemployment in Britain is falling–I want it to come down much further–but prescriptive directives from Brussels will stop that. We shall seek treaty change, without which there will be no conclusion to the intergovernmental conference. I shall not accept the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about the directive without understanding its impact on British companies. I have written today to the President of the Commission to make clear that we are tabling our proposals for a change in the treaty, and we shall expect that change to be agreed.

     

    Q3. Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Luff: In the light of the demolition by the Confederation of British Industry of the case for a so-called windfall tax on the privatised utilities, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure the House that he will not make it his policy to impose such a tax? Does he agree that the effect of such a tax on the prices of shares held by trade unions and other pension funds would, in fact, be a tax on pensioners–to say nothing about the disastrous effects on consumers through higher prices?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is of course right. A windfall tax would hit consumers; it would hit shareholders; it would hit employees. It is a tax not on utilities but on jobs, pensions and people’s utility bills. The shadow Chancellor either cannot or still will not tell the House which privatised companies would pay, how much they would pay and how he would stop investment and customers being hit. If he wants professional advice as to what such a tax might mean, perhaps he might go home and seek it. He ought to tell the House exactly what he proposes. His silence means that the only thing that we know for sure is that Labour would put up taxes and is keeping quiet about just how much the increase would be.

     

    Q4. Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.

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

    Sir David Steel: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman back to the negotiations that took place over the European directive? If he looks at Hansard, he will find that, on 7 July 1992, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment boasted to the House that

    “the United Kingdom secured all its key objectives, in particular the right for employees to work for more than 48 hours a week if they choose to do so.”–[Official Report, 7 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 175.]

    In a word, she said, “We have won.” Was she not right? If they won, why are they going to war over something that they did not even vote against?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend did get significant exclusions–that is true–but the directive is damaging. We made it clear from the outset that we would seek a change in the European Court and that we would then seek to have the directive’s impact reversed. The right hon. Gentleman should realise two things. First, this is a damaging directive. Secondly, if we were to accept this directive under that treaty head, it would be but the first of many others, as was implicitly made clear by the European Commissioner this morning. I am concerned to ensure that we protect our jobs and our competitiveness. All over Europe–[Interruption.] Hon. Members do not like it. There are 18 million unemployed people across Europe. Elsewhere in Europe, they are staying unemployed; here, they are getting back into work. That is why we will not accept such legislation.

    Mr. Lamont: Surely the real issue is not whether what the Leader of the Opposition says is right or wrong or whether the working time directive is right or wrong, but whether the matter ought to be decided in Brussels or by the elected Government of this country. What is the point in holding elections if the elected Government cannot carry out the policies on which they were elected?

    The Prime Minister: I have no objection at all to businesses and their employees reaching whatever agreement they wish on working hours. That is entirely right in a properly functioning competitive economy. Like my right hon. Friend, what I object to in principle is working conditions being dictated from Brussels when they should be determined here, in this House. Other European countries can accept that if they wish, but they cannot then complain if businesses relocate from the rest of Europe to here as a result–like the 1,200 that Le Figaro reported last week have relocated from France to here. As Le Figaro said:

    “Why stay in France if conditions for entrepreneurs are better in Britain?”

    I do not want that said of Britain. That is why we are determined to keep the right measures to create jobs for our citizens in the future.

     

    Q5. Mr. Rooney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Rooney: Will the Prime Minister tell the House why he favours a free vote on caning but not on gun control?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman thinks the question of gun control is appropriate for a free vote, I do not agree with him. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] The Government considered the Cullen report, we made a judgment on the right way to implement it and we propose to stand by that judgment, lay it before the House of Commons and invite it to support us.

     

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

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

    Mr. Alexander: May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the by-election result on Thursday to Newark and Sherwood district council? The Conservative candidate, Mr. Bryan Richardson, took the seat from Labour with a swing of 5.8 per cent. May I put it to my right hon. Friend that results such as that are far more typical of support in the country than the public opinion polls, and that if we continue with sensible policies my right hon. Friend is on course for a record fifth Conservative victory?

    The Prime Minister: I congratulate Mr. Richardson on his win, although I am assured by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend, the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), that we have taken seats with even larger swings elsewhere in Nottinghamshire in the past two or three weeks. What we are seeing, if I may put it this way, is Conservatives coming home.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 November 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Information Technology Projects

    Ms Church: To ask the Prime Minister how many information technology projects have been undertaken since 1992 and are planned for the coming year, in cost bands of £1,000,000.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 7 November 1996]: For these purposes, my Office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General today.

     

    State Opening (Costs)

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost to the Government of the state opening of Parliament.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 7 November 1996]: Some £40,000 has been set aside between the two Houses for the state opening of Parliament and £1,600 has been allocated for the printing of the Queen’s Speech. This does not include any additional cost of police and military staff who took part in the ceremony, which are not separately costed.