The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 25 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 25th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was pleased about the progress at Stormont, but how would he stop slow progress in the future].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I do welcome it very much, I think we are now making progress. What we now need to do is to move from the talks about talks, the talks about procedure to talks about the items which should be on the agenda and then to get on to the talks about substance and to do it speedily and I hope we can use the momentum created by the enormous disappointment – almost despair – felt by so many people after Drumcree to give some real momentum to these talks. That I think is the best way to restore confidence across Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Loyalist paramilitaries were being treated differently to Sinn Fein].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is quite a difference between the Loyalists at the moment and Sinn Fein. The Loyalists have a ceasefire, they have held to that ceasefire, they are engaging constructively in the talks, they have accepted the six Mitchell principles. None of those things apply to Sinn Fein and the IRA; they are in the middle of a campaign, we have seen a campaign, they are not engaged constructively in the talks and they haven’t accepted the Mitchell principles. I wish they would. I would like to see Sinn Fein/IRA call a ceasefire, it is what I believe every sensible person in Northern Ireland would like to hear from them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would let Sinn Fein join the talks].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I propose that they should get themselves into the talks. That is what I have set the talks up for. For a very long time Sinn Fein and others have said: “We need to sit in round-table talks with the other political parties!” You know, I know, everyone watching this interview knows that has been their cry for very many years.

    I have delivered an opportunity for them to do so. We have set up these talks, we have set up a forum in which they can take part. That opportunity to sit down face-to-face with the other politicians they have wanted to meet for a long time is there and the only reason they haven’t taken it is because they don’t have a ceasefire and they haven’t adopted the Mitchell principles and it is in their hands to do so.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if mob rule was ruling Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, mob rule isn’t going to rule and it mustn’t be allowed to rule. The events of Drumcree were a disgrace and so were the events that followed it and on both sides the behaviour frankly in many cases was appalling, let there be no doubt whatsoever about that and I hope everyone has learned the lesson of Drumcree.

    Nobody gained from Drumcree. I hope the Orange Order or anybody else don’t think they gained anything from Drumcree. Everybody lost including the peace process in Northern Ireland. What we now have to do is to prevent a recurrence of that sort of event and use that event to push some real momentum into the talks in the months and weeks ahead and that is what we intend to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the marches situation was now out of control].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, of course it isn’t out of control and there is a great deal of work going on at local level between community leaders and others to make sure that the Apprentice Boys march does not cause trouble and I think it is very important that it doesn’t and Northern Ireland will feel very badly let down if anybody gets out of hand in the Apprentice Boys march.

    Freedom of marching and assembly is a traditional part of the United Kingdom tradition, it has been that way for a long time but it needs to be exercised responsibly and with restraint. The right to march should be a right to march for something not a march that is seen as an affront by other people and I hope those people organising that march or indeed any march realise that while they have a right to peacefully march, they do not have a right to cause disturbance and affront to other people in Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he wanted Northern Ireland to be governed in the future].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to see a peaceful Northern Ireland governed certainly with its own proper local government structure. We have had three generations of Irish politicians who have never had any responsibility at all except to advance views but never any responsibility to take decisions. That is a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland and I would like to see that corrected. Beyond that, it is a decision for the people of Northern Ireland but I would imagine they would still be part of the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Michelle Smith’s performance in the Olympics].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a superb performance, a magnificent performance. I don’t think anybody expected Michelle to win three gold medals and there may of course yet be a fourth in the butterfly so I very much hope there is. My warmest congratulations. I hope that everyone on the island of Ireland is cheering her, she deserves the support, she is getting a lot of cheers from over here.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Publicity

    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister how many staff are assumed in his Department’s budget to be employed (i) full time and (ii) part time, (a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996-97.

    The Prime Minister: Ten people are employed in press, media, information and publicity.

    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister how many staff were employed full time or part time (a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995-96, (ii) 1994-95 and (iii) 1993-94.

    The Prime Minister: Ten people were employed, on a full-time basis, to work in information publicity press and media, in each of the years 1995-96, 1994-95 and 1993-94.

    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1994-95 and (c) 1993-94.

    The Prime Minister: The cost for staff employed in the No. 10 press office for each year since 1993-94 is as follows:

    1993-94: £450,000

    1994-95: £450,000

    1995-96: £480,000

    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister what is the cost budgeted for staff employed full time or part time to provide information and publicity in 1996-97.

    The Prime Minister: The expenditure on staff in the No. 10 press office in 1995-96 was £480,00. The outturn expenditure in 1996-97 will be published after the end of the financial year.

    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister what is the cost assumed in the budget of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and the media in 1996-97.

    The Prime Minister: The expenditure on staff in the No. 10 press office in 1995-96 was £480,000. The outturn expenditure in 1996-97 will be published after the end of the financial year.

    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister what is his Department’s budget in 1996-97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media.

    The Prime Minister: My office does not use consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media.

     

    Honours Awards (Health Service)

    Ms Harman: To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of honours awarded in each of the last five years were awarded to people working in the health service.

    The Prime Minister: The percentages are as follows:

    Year | Percentage

    ———————–

    1992 | 7.1

    1993 | 6.1

    1994 | 6.5

    1995 | 6.1

    1996 | 6.1

     

    Independent Tribunal Service

    Sir Terence Higgins: To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department is responsible for the operation of the independent tribunal service.

    The Prime Minister: The independent tribunal service is an independent statutory body, sponsored by the Department of Social Security. The President is responsible for its operation. He and its full and part-time chairmen are appointed by the Lord Chancellor’s Department.

     

    Ministers’ Pay

    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers (a) will be and (b) will not be accepting the pay increases recommended by the senior salaries review body and approved by the House.

    Sir Raymond Powell: To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers (a) will be and (b) will not be accepting the pay increases recommended by the senior salaries review body and approved by the House.

    The Prime Minister: These are private matters for the individuals concerned.

     

    European Movement

    Mr. Neil Hamilton: To ask the Prime Minister what financial assistance the Government made to the European Movement in 1985; and what plans he has to offer financial assistance in future years.

    The Prime Minister: I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

     

    Government Statistics

    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make it his policy to require Ministers within his Government to read and initial answers to parliamentary questions which relate directly to the work of their Departments when those answers are prepared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer following his assumption of responsibility for the preparation of Government statistics; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) what specific steps he has taken to ensure that individual Ministers within his Government are made aware of each of the answers being given to parliamentary questions relating directly to the work of their Department in those cases where the answers to those questions are given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer following his assumption of responsibility for the preparation of Government statistics; what steps he is taking to ensure that those Ministers are required to record their awareness of such questions on each occasion upon which they arise; and if he will make a statement;

    (3) what public policy objectives are served by having the Chancellor of the Exchequer respond to written parliamentary questions dealing with abortion statistics;

    (4) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the handling by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Government statistics relating to the work of other Government Departments is consistent with the enhancement of the constitutional role of the House in scrutinising the actions of the Executive;

    (5) what consultation he had with right hon. and hon. Members prior to the decision that questions in respect of certain Government statistics were to be handled in future by the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than by the Minister to whose actions and policies they refer.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 July 1996]: The arrangements for answering parliamentary questions relating to the work of the Office for National Statistics have been reviewed, the aim being to enhance the accountability of Ministers to Parliament for the policies for which they are responsible and to emphasise that the statistics themselves are the responsibility of the director of the ONS, thereby improving public confidence in them.

    With effect from the start of the 1996-97 Session the following procedures will apply:

    all oral questions, and written questions which have some policy aspect, will be answered by the relevant Minister in whichever Department has responsibility for the subject concerned;

    written questions simply seeking statistics that are the responsibility of the director of the ONS, will be delegated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the director of the ONS for answer, which will also be printed in the Official Report; and the director of the ONS will routinely copy his answers to whichever Ministers he considers may have an interest.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Sport (II) – 24 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on sport, made during an interview held on Wednesday 24th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it was the case that little had been achieved in sport over the previous year].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. A great deal has happened since then both in schools and beyond schools and what we shall be able to do today after a great deal of work in the last year, is to actually launch the prospectus for the British Academy of Sport and that will be backed by around £100 million of lottery funding and the purpose of that is to provide an academy that will provide the best training, best coaching, best sports medicine and best sports science for elite sportsmen and women including I should say elite disabled sportsmen. This is something I believe we have needed in this country for many years and never had before.

    What I will be saying this morning is that we would like bids in to build and prepare this academy by October. I want an announcement in January and I want this radical change to British sport put in hand as soon as possible.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if sport in school was more important than funding the elite].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Absolutely I would and I mentioned the British Academy of Sport because that is at the pinnacle, but if we really wish to spread both a love of sport and a participation in sport, we need to develop excellence at school level and I will have a good deal to say about that this morning.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was a problem in that half of schools didn’t provide two hours of PE and sport a week].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is what we are seeking to change. One of the things we will be doing – I will come specifically to schools in a moment – will be creating a new category of specialist colleges for sport who will be able to select some of their pupils by sporting ability and there will be specific funding both from the private sector and for specialist colleges which will enable schools to become specialist colleges.

    As far as sport in school is concerned, we are trying firstly to ensure that there is a minimum – a minimum I emphasise – of two hours sport a week but that of course isn’t sufficient and in addition to that we have started to build up much better links between schools and sporting clubs so that school facilities and club facilities can be mutually used outside school hours.

    What I would like to provide is a ladder of sporting opportunity for young people of all abilities, not just the elite, from the moment they get into school, through school into a club life after school and develop for the first time a proper link between school sport and club sport. I think it has been undervalued in our national life. Sport I think is good in its own right, it provides people with a love for life and I am very keen to see it take its proper place in our national life.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how schools could afford PE teachers and also about the 2,600 school playing fields currently under threat].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am glad you raised those points because we have strengthened the safeguards on sports grounds and playing fields so that they stay as sports grounds and playing fields.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the 2,600 playing fields would be sold].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, they won’t be sold I think in most cases. There may be one or two odd cases where there is such an absurd surplus of sports fields that they will, but generally the sports councils will become a statutory consultee and they will need to be persuaded that it should be sold and they won’t easily be persuaded so they should stay in schools.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about cuts to sports council funding].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The sports councils are getting a lot more money because what has happened with the lottery of course and one of the purposes for it. I agree with your point about money for sport and indeed for the arts over recent years, but they were never going to get the money they needed when they had to compete against the rest of the education system, pensions, social security, defence and other matters and that was really the reason for the lottery.

    The lottery will now provide, when it is in full flood, around £300 million a year for sport, £300 million for the arts, £300 million for heritage, for charities and for the millennium fund.

    Contemplate what we could have done if we had had £300 million a year for sport over the last ten years. It would have revolutionised sport. Well that is what we will have over the next ten years and a good deal of that will go to schools.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Sport (I) – 24 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on sport, made during an interview held on Wednesday 24th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he was planning a sports academy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the British nation is a sports loving nation. It likes to see its athletes win, delighted at the silver medal overnight, it would like to see a lot more medals from the Olympic Games. Absolute delight across the country when Tim Henman did so well, when the Test Team win, when the Rugby Team win, with that marvellous soccer win we had against the Dutch just a few weeks ago. It lifts the whole nation, we love sport. I would like our sport to be as good, if not better than any other nation in the world. And the purpose of the British Academy of Sport is to provide elite training, coaching, research into sporting injuries at a level better than you can find anywhere else. And I hope that by developing that excellence at the top it will filter down with the other changes we are making to improve both the quality and the quantity of sport at all levels in this country.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why it had taken so long to get to this point].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We didn’t have the lottery. Sports and the arts have always lost out in government over the last 30 years, whomsoever has been in government, to social security, pensions, defence and matters of that sort. So I invented the lottery to provide a guaranteed amount of money for sport, to improve sport, and the arts for that matter, and other issues. So as a result of that we now can look forward to having something like 300 million pounds a year for as far ahead as we can see devoted to sport. That is going to revolutionise sport and it has only happened because I invented, and this government passed, the British lottery. So we now have an opportunity to develop sport in the way we are seeking to do. And one of the developments will be the British Academy, but only one, it is much wider than that of course.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he could get youngsters into sport given that school playing fields had been sold, and how that talent could be developed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is a very important part of the sporting strategy, and that is what we are dealing with at the moment. Firstly, as far as selling off playing fields is concerned, that is going to stop because we have made the Sports Council a statutory consultee, they will not permit sports fields to be sold unless there is such a surplus of sporting facilities at a school that it is just unnecessary. So you can expect to see the end of sports fields being sold off, and I am very pleased about that. We have also done a deal with British Coal that will preserve a lot of sporting opportunities, mainly in the north, that otherwise might have gone. That also will be announced this morning.

    Of course a good deal of the lottery money will go into sport in schools. Many schools have already applied for lottery money – for cricket nets, for sports halls, for football pitches – and they have been awarded grants and we will be helping them to do that. We are also seeking to increase the amount of sport that is played in schools, develop better links between schools and clubs so that facilities can be used outside school hours and there is better training, that is good for the clubs and I think it is good for the schools, and develop a ladder of opportunity in sport from the very youngest people right up, if they are good enough, to the British Academy of Sport. I think we are going to see sport revolutionised as a result of these changes and I am delighted about it.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference on Sport – 24 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference on sport, held in London on Wednesday 24th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly thank you all for being here today and say how pleased I am to see you. I must say the Downing Street lawn over the years has seen many events, but I don’t think any have been quite as enjoyable as seeing the youngsters play there this morning. And I hope when I have finished speaking for a few moments that you will go straight back to your game, because it is much better to be playing sport than listening to speeches, even in Downing Street.

    I will be quite brief. I want firstly to thank you all for being here. And also just to say a few words about sport and what is happening and what we propose to happen in the future.

    A year or so ago we launched the initiative to improve the level of sporting opportunities both at a national level, at a club level, and most crucially of all, at a school and local level. And I wanted to report to you some of the things that have been happening in that year and to illustrate the fact that that wasn’t a one-off development, that we are determined that these plans to improve sport at all levels get carried through and with the resources to make our plans, and our hopes, and our aspirations become a reality.

    Let me tell you some of what has been happening in the last year. I spoke a year or so ago of my dream of having a National Academy of Excellence, a British Academy of Sport. Let me tell you this morning that we have made a great deal of progress with that, the resources are now available for it and I anticipate that we will get tenders for a British Academy of Sport by around October, with a decision made about the site probably in January of next year.

    The purpose of this Academy, and we envisage a single central academy with perhaps up to 100 acres of land, will be to provide for the sporting elite, including the disabled sporting elite and participants in the paralympics, some of the best sporting equipment, coaching, training, scientific research, that you will find anywhere in the world. We have that at Lilleshall for football but we don’t have it for all other sports and I hope that we are going to be able to develop that.

    What I would like to see is the very best in British sport become the very best anywhere in the world, not just because we like winning, though I freely confess to you I do like to see our sports teams winning, but because I think the success of our national sporting teams, and our national sporting heroes in individual competitions like athletics, gives a lift both to the complete sport itself and to the whole country. We are a sports-loving nation and I believe that we have under-valued sport and its place in our national life for too long. That was largely done because sport has to compete for its money against social security, pensions, defence and all sorts of other areas.

    It was precisely because it would never get the resources that it needed that I decided to develop a national lottery. That will provide a continuing flow of money, in addition – in addition – to the money that comes from the government to develop sport, and the arts and other parts of our national life that are important to so many people.

    The lottery has been a stunning success and it is going to provide for as far ahead as we can see something in the region of 300 million pounds every year for sport. I just invite all those present, sports administrators and others, to contemplate what we could have done with British sport at national, club and school level, if we had had 300 million a year for each year over the last 10 years. We didn’t, but we have now, and we have to think on the grand scale of what we can achieve in the years that lie immediately ahead. The British Academy of Sport will be at the pinnacle of what is going to be there.

    But sport to me is a good deal more than just ensuring that our national teams, and our national competitors, are the best and have the best. I wish that to be so, but it is much more than that. Sport exists at club level, at village level and crucially at school level. And if we want to produce future great sporting champions either as teams or individuals, we are going to have to build from the bottom upwards, produce that love of sport and that opportunity for sport in youngsters like these here today and millions more like them in the future.

    So I would like to say a word or two about sport in schools. We set a minimum target last year of at least 2 hours sport in school and we are making progress towards that, though it is not yet universally achieved, but it will be. But that of course is still inadequate for what I wish to see available for young people and available in schools. I wish to build on that and l wish to build on that in several ways. Firstly by better links between schools and clubs. I don’t by clubs mean the Surreys, the Middlesex, the Arsenal and the Wasps, I mean smaller local clubs as well as that so that school sporting facilities and club sporting facilities are more available both to the club players, and to the school players and there is an inextricable link between the two, to begin to provide a ladder of sporting choice and opportunity from the very young years upwards. I want to see those school facilities used outside school. And the lottery is available to provide sporting facilities for schools as well. In the last year or so something like 20 million pounds has been provided for schools through the lottery to provide sports pitches, cricket nets, sport halls, football pitches, athletics equipment and all sorts of things that otherwise would not have been available to schools.

    We propose also to institute a new system that will offer a special sportsmark, a special acknowledgment for schools that actually specialise in making sure that a proper sporting provision is available for their youngsters. And in my judgment, sport is as much an important part of school life as is mathematics, the other sciences and the arts as well. We need to develop that love at a very young age.

    We propose also to seek some specialist educational institutions that specialise in sport, and a large number of the pupils going into those would be people with some sporting ability.

    We propose to have university scholarships, on which some money has already been spent and more will be spent, to provide more opportunity to make sure that university and further education sport develops. So at each level we wish to see the development of sport.

    One other area I might just briefly mention is the question of the availability of sporting pitches. For some years people have been concerned at the loss to schools and educational establishments of their sporting pitches. Well we have taken action that will effectively stop that. There may be one or two areas where there is such a surplus of sporting equipment that it is appropriate to sell it. But mostly that isn’t the case and the best way to stop that is to do what we have done, and that is to give the Sports Council a statutory right to object if educational establishments wish to sell off sporting fields. I believe that will stop it in its tracks and make sure that schools retain the open space and opportunity to have the team sports which need outside facilities as well as the inside gymnasium facilities that are available.

    I am also delighted that with the cooperation of British Coal we have managed to preserve a very large number of sporting establishments, sporting sites that otherwise might have disappeared out of sport, particularly in the north of England, some 200 sites that will, as a result of the negotiations, be protected for sport and be available for sporting endeavour for the future.

    So these are just a small sample of the developments and changes that we have seen in the last year. For those of you from the press, many more of the things that have happened are set out in the very detailed literature that is available for you this morning and I hope you look at it.

    But the message I just want to convey is this. The determination to improve sporting opportunities is not a one year determination, it is a continuing determination by government to work with the Sports Council. We now have a UK Sports Council and the Chairman is with us here today, and I am delighted to see that, so we can properly develop at all levels, from the very top, from the excellence at the top to the people who may be no good at sport but just happen to love it, right down at the bottom. That the facilities for enjoying sport, for watching sport, for taking part in sport are increasingly available in this country.

    I believe this is an initiative that is long overdue. It is, I freely confess to you, an initiative that is very close to my heart. The best days of my life at school were certainly the days where we had some form of cricket, or rugby, or soccer or athletics. And if I say to these youngsters, anyone who tells you that school-days are the best days of your life, needs their [indistinct], except of course with the sporting provision that I hope increasingly will be available.

    So I would like to express my thanks to the people here. There is a changing attitude in schools. I remember going, a couple of years ago – rather longer actually – to a school to watch their sports day. What I saw shocked me in the culture that I saw there. A teacher said to me, well of course we have sports because it is good to make the children fit, but we don’t want competition, we don’t want people coming first and people coming last because that is damaging. So this is really a sort of anti-competitive day. We would like all the children to feel they have won and had a prize. And while the teacher was saying that to me, over in the corner the kids were organising races to see who won and who lost. And that is actually what sport is about, to see if you can win, to enjoy playing, but to see if you can win, if you can improve your standard and if you can have the enormous amount of enjoyment from sport that millions of other people have had in the past either from playing it or by watching it, then you will have quite literally a love for life that will never leave you. And our plans are to instil that opportunity to learn to love and play sport in schools, in clubs, in professional sport, in amateur sport and in excellence at the top of our sporting pyramid. That ladder of opportunity is being put in place.

    I would like just finally to thank the many sports administrators and national sporting stars who are here today to indicate their love of the games, their determination to see sport play its proper part in national life and also to give me the opportunity to thank so many of them for the way in which the sports stars have so often provided a role model that other people can aim to emulate and the administrators have striven to put in place a proper series of sporting facilities for the future. That is a communal aim. Thank you for being here to enable me to reiterate it again this morning.

    We have made a lot of progress in the last year and I am very grateful to Iain Sproat and Virginia Bottomley for all they have done to help bring that about. But what we have done is still the beginning. Fasten your mind on 300 million pounds plus every year, this year, next year, the year after that and for as far ahead as we can see, and begin to contemplate what we can build in this country for sporting opportunities for those who are the best, those who are quite good and those who just love to take part in whatever sport it is that fascinates them. That is what we are building and thank you for being here this morning to be a part of that development. Thank you very much indeed.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Sheffield City Council

    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 16 April, Official Report, column 509, and the letter of 17 April regarding remarks about Sheffield city council, when the hon. Member can expect a full reply.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 16 April, Official Report, column 509.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

    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.

     

    Intelligence and Security Committee

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if hon. Members may appear before the Intelligence and Security Committee.

    The Prime Minister: Yes. It is for the committee to decide whom it invites to give evidence.

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister what is the total amount spent so far arising from the Intelligence and Security Committee being established.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Direct administrative and staff costs–excluding accommodation–were £207,054 from December 1994 to the end of June 1996.

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister how many officials work for the Intelligence and Security Committee; and what are their grades.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Four. One grade 7, one senior executive officer, one higher executive officer (development) and a personal secretary.

  • PMQT – 23 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lichfield

    Q1. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister what analysis he has made of the effect of the Government’s social and economic policies on the people of Lichfield; and if he will make statement.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Lichfield has benefited fully from Government policies which have given the United Kingdom a stronger recovery than any comparable European country, the longest run of low inflation for 50 years and the lowest mortgage rates for a generation. Unemployment in Lichfield has fallen by 40 per cent. in the past three years.

    Mr. Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that businesses in Lichfield are experiencing real problems due to the postal strike? Has he been deafened, as I have, by the absolute silence from Opposition Front-Bench Members, who have refused to condemn the postal strike? Might that be because the Communications Workers Union has contributed some £250,000 to Labour party coffers?

    The Prime Minister: The strikes last week were completely unjustified, and I hope that future plans for industrial action will be called off before more damage is done. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the sponsored silence by Opposition Members continues on this matter. [Interruption.] The deputy leader does not have a sponsored silence this afternoon, nor did he last week when he apparently told his leader to backtrack on what he had said in public–which is no doubt what the right hon. Gentleman was doing when he met the unions yesterday.

    Mr. Brian David Jenkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm for the 20,000 residents of Lichfield district who live in my constituency that, under the Tory Government, crime has risen by 147 per cent., education funding from central Government is the lowest in any shire district in England and residential mental health care is being closed for lack of funds? Moreover, when those 20,000 people were given the opportunity to vote in the recent South-East Staffordshire by-election they overwhelmingly turned to new Labour: new life for Britain.

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman make that devastating attack on the spending policies of the shadow Chancellor, who has made it perfectly clear that it is not his policy to spend any more money than the present Government. The hon. Gentleman had better discuss his own difficulties with his own Front-Bench spokesmen. As for crime, it is falling throughout the country and has been falling for some time–the first time that that has happened for a long period. No doubt it might have been easier to achieve that if we had occasionally had the support of Opposition parties for the measures that we adopted.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

    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.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent call by the chief executive of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority for the teaching of modern British history to be reinstated for GCSE? Does he further agree that any open-minded student will come to the conclusion that over the years socialism has done this country a great disservice, and that history would be likely to repeat itself should new Labour ever get the chance to implement new dangers?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that young people should have the opportunity to study the history of this country, and I hope that the examination boards will be aware of the popular concern among many parents on that subject. Whether students study British history or world history, I think that they will see that policies of high regulation, high spending and high taxes have consistently failed, and that, when people are asked to make a choice between a party that believes in low taxes and one that believes in high taxes, they will choose low taxes yet again at the 1997 election.

    Mr. Blair: With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I think that people will remember that they were supposed to have chosen low taxes at the last election, but then got the largest peacetime taxes in history. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the following question with an unequivocal yes? Does he agree with his Chancellor’s recent statement that he can see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament?

    The Prime Minister: We have made the position on a single currency entirely clear. I shall make a judgment on what is in this country’s national interests, which means that we shall need to know the circumstances of the time, and precisely what a single currency would mean for this country. We need to be engaged in the debate right until its conclusion, whether or not we enter. If we did not enter, a single currency would still have an effect on this country, so it is still important that Britain’s voice be heard in the negotiations until they are concluded.

    Mr. Blair: Why could the Prime Minister not simply answer yes to my question? After all, I am only asking him to agree with his own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does not his response show precisely the paralysis of policy? Let me offer him another chance. Can he, like his Chancellor, see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House whether he agrees with the argumentation in the pamphlet that I have here–a pamphlet produced by Labour Members of Parliament which led to Labour Members squabbling in public this morning and denouncing the shadow Chancellor. I have told the right hon. Gentleman what the Government’s position is. We have set it out in a White Paper. That is the position, and it has not changed.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister asked me whether I agreed with the pamphlet. The answer is no, I do not agree with it. Now let us have a clear answer from him. What sort of situation are we in when a Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot keep his own Ministers, and the Prime Minister’s closest political friends are saying that his party cannot row together or work together? Why should the country put up with another nine months of drift and decay? After six years of that type of weak leadership, are not people entitled to say that enough is enough, and that the only reshuffle that matters will be one that reshuffles the Government out of office and gives the country a fresh start?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may be prepared to commit himself to decisions without the facts that would affect this country. If he will not commit himself to a decision, he had better make up his mind whether he is in favour. He won’t because he can’t, because his party is split from top to bottom on the issue. The reality is that we shall consider the facts–not the prejudices, but the realities–and make a decision on what is right for this country.

    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this Michaelmas the Treasury will be receiving around £1.5 billion from the sale of the armed forces married quarters estate? What excuse is there for the Chancellor to delay the essential announcement on the procurement orders which we all expected before the House rose for the summer recess? He cannot have it both ways. First, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that we have the best armed forces in the world? Secondly, does he agree with our Secretary of State for Defence that they should also be the best equipped?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of the armed forces. I also invite him to agree that we have provided the resources to ensure that our armed forces have the best equipment. He will recall the announcement a week or so ago and the £500 million committed. We are evaluating our assessment of the bids for the various pieces of equipment now due for replacement. When that evaluation is completed, but not before, suitable announcements will be made.

    Mr. Ashdown: Let me put it to the Prime Minister another way. At the end of a Parliament which began with the farce of devaluation and ended with the fiasco of BSE, which has seen Tory Members leave their party and Tory Ministers desert their Government, and which has gone from cash for questions to cash for dinners in Downing street, is it not time for the Prime Minister to lead his exhausted and divided party out of power to fight their civil wars somewhere else?

    The Prime Minister: I think that in his litany the right hon. Gentleman misses some facts of importance to the British people. He cannot recall an occasion in his political lifetime when the British economy has been in such good shape, when inflation has been so low, when unemployment has been falling so well, when growth has been at the top of the European league and investment is coming into this country as it is coming into no other country in Europe. That is happening because of the policies of this Government–policies that his tiny party has objected to throughout this Parliament.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: As next Sunday, 28 July, happens to be the 25th anniversary of my resignation from the then Government over their decision to join the EEC, does the Prime Minister accept that there is growing contempt among the voters for people in all parties who pretend that there are any easy answers to the difficult and complex problems of the European Community? Will he think seriously over the summer recess about the possibility of seeking the advice of the voters of Britain as to which way they wish to proceed on Europe? Would not the best answer to the Opposition be to remind them that the country belongs to the people, not to the political parties?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt from the Opposition’s European policies precisely what they would surrender in the European debate. However they try to hide it, the veto would go and qualified majority voting would increase. They signed up to the socialist manifesto, and the Leader of the Opposition cannot wriggle away from it now. In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, of course we shall consider what is in the interests of the United Kingdom. I do that and I shall continue to do that.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

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

    Mr. Hain: Will the Prime Minister rule out any bid from Mr. John Beckwith for the £1.5 billion sale of defence homes and the £750 million sale of benefit offices, in view of his role in organising Premier Club dinners where business men pay £100,000 to bend the Prime Minister’s ear? Is there not a clear conflict of interest between being premier of Great Britain and the right hon. Gentleman’s position as patron of the Premier Club?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all the facts. I saw the story that interested and misled him. No one can buy access to Ministers. [Interruption.] No one is promised favours. [Interruption.] There is one exception in public life: it is possible to buy access to Labour party policy through the trade unions; it is possible to buy votes; it was possible to summon the leader of the Labour party to explain his remarks about the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers last week; it is possible to change Labour party policy, but not ours. As regards Mr. Beckwith, any bid is independently assessed before being approved.

     

    Q4. Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

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

    Mr. Baker: Will my right hon. Friend condemn from the Dispatch Box the politically motivated strikes by London underground drivers and postal workers? Will he confirm that he has no plans to introduce legislation to give trade unions increased powers or to increase the powers of strikers, which is precisely what is on offer from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. The deputy leader of the Labour party talks about £100,000. Perhaps he will remind the country how much the union that sponsors him pays to the Labour party year after year. Perhaps he will explain that that is why he will not condemn a totally unjustified strike. Perhaps he will explain that not one of the candidates in the shadow Cabinet elections will condemn the strike. If they were standing for election to a Trappist monastery, they could not have been more silent than they have been on the subject of the strike. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) knows that the Labour party’s relationship with the trade unions is a disgrace to British democracy: they rule, and the Labour party follows.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Internet

    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to ensure that major publications from his Department are accompanied by a simultaneous electronic release of the text on the Internet.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes, my Office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 18 July, Official Report, column 621.

     

    Fraud

    Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Prime Minister what inquiries to detect fraud by cross-checking his Department’s payroll with details of those claiming benefit he has undertaken; when these exercises took place; and how many staff were (a) suspended, (b) dismissed and (c) prosecuted as a result.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 July 1996]: None, but where the Benefits Agency had reasonable grounds for suspicion that an individual might be involved in benefit fraud the Cabinet Office would respond to its inquiries. Employees found guilty of fraud or dishonesty are liable to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

     

    Next Steps Review

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to publish the next steps review; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 July 1996]: The review will be published in the autumn so as to provide an input into ministerial discussions and subsequent decisions on public expenditure and resource allocation. The 1996 publication will continue the development of the review, providing trend data and other measures common across agencies and will also report on progress towards developing benchmarking or organisational performance.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy – 18 July 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 18th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if this year’s spending round would be a tough one].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, it is. It is always tough to keep spending down. It is very easy to increase spending but it is tough to keep it down, but we need to keep it down. The borrowing requirement is still too large and it is necessary to keep borrowing under control. That is partly why we have got such relatively low interest rates. I would like to keep them low so that mortgages remain low. So yes, it will be tough but I think a fair round.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he would achieve those aims].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will do it as we always do. We have to discuss bilaterally what our priorities are and we have to put our money where our priorities are, where we can make savings we can and we should because the money we have isn’t our money, it is the taxpayers’ money and we have an obligation firstly to take as little of it as necessary and secondly to spend it wisely and that is what the spending round will be about.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the spending cuts would hurt].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will have to see what the outcome of it is. I can’t judge precisely what the outcome will be and precisely where the savings will come. We have made savings over a number of years but our public expenditure is still too high a proportion of our total national take. We would like to get it down, we would like to get it down to 40 per cent of GDP and then, if we can, lower so it is necessary to restrain expenditure and there is no getting away from the fundamental reality that if expenditure rises too high than you are in danger of creating inflation, you are in danger of higher interest rates and you have the certainty over time of higher taxes and nobody in the country wishes to see that, so we must pick our priorities and put our money where our heart is to deliver the priorities that are right for this country.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was caught between Conservative MPs wanting tax cuts and the country not being able to afford them].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have said all along that if it is appropriate to have tax cuts, if the economy is in a shape for tax cuts, then we will deliver them, we will deliver them because we believe that people can spend their own money better on their own behalf and on behalf of their own families than any government can spend it for them, so if it is possible to cut taxes we will cut taxes but we won’t be imprudent, we won’t cut taxes and put the economy at risk. We will cut them if we are certain it is right to do so.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Tony Blair’s comment that the economy was in a bad way as every household was paying 1,000 pounds a year to service the country’s debt].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I must say I think it is rather ripe of the Labour Party to say that. I doubt that anyone watching this programme can ever think of a time when they supported us in cutting back expenditure. Their habit is always to cry, “Let’s have some more expenditure!”. They have opposed almost every expenditure reduction that we have proposed in recent years and I dare say when we cut back spending again they will oppose it and when expenditure rose in the early 1990s because of the recession what were the Labour Party saying to us? They were saying we hadn’t put up spending high enough, so it is frankly a little two-faced to run that argument.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would protect the vulnerable].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Throughout the years we have sought to save on public expenditure, we have sought to ensure that we do so whilst protecting the position of those who are most vulnerable and that is one of the reasons we get so much criticism for the size of the social security budget. We do so because we look at the people who are vulnerable and we have to make a judgement about whether it is right to make savings in that area. Sometimes there are areas in social security where we can make savings, others we can’t, it is a value judgement on each occasion.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Central Bank

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what consultations the Governor of the Bank of England held with him in drawing up the Maastricht proposals for a European central bank; and if he consented to those proposals.

    The Prime Minister: The predecessor of the existing Governor of the Bank of England was a member of a committee which compiled the so-called Delors report on economic and monetary union, published in April 1989. Although influenced by this report, the plans for economic and monetary union set out in the EC treaty as amended at Maastricht were the result of negotiations between member states’ Governments and were ratified according to national constitutional requirements. In particular, protocol No. 11 to the EC treaty requires Parliament and the Government to give consent to the United Kingdom’s participation in the third stage of economic an monetary union, on the terms contained in the treaty, before the United Kingdom would be able to take part. The Government have stated that they will seek to participate in the third stage only if they believe that it would be in the national interest to do so, on the basis of a full assessment of the implications for the United Kingdom at the appropriate time.

     

    Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what steps he will take in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that decisions of the EU, the European system of central banks and the European Court of Justice concerning monetary and exchange rate policy are not binding on the United Kingdom;

    (2) if he will ensure at the intergovernmental conference that no restriction, with special reference to the role of the Bank of England and EU institutions, is placed directly or indirectly on the power of the United Kingdom Government to determine monetary and exchange rate policy.

    The Prime Minister: Protocol No. 11 to the EC treaty on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland states that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. Paragraph 4 of the protocol states that the United Kingdom would

    “retain its powers in the field of monetary policy according to national law” were it to notify the Council of Ministers that it did not intend to move to the third stage. Paragraphs 5 and 8 of the protocol list those articles from the treaty and the statute of the European system of central banks from which the United Kingdom would be specifically excluded in these circumstances.

    As the Government’s White Paper on the intergovernmental conference, “A Partnership of Nations”, made clear, it is not expected that economic and monetary union will be discussed at the IGC. The Government have no reason to challenge that expectation, and will not be seeking to change the treaty arrangements relating to the United Kingdom.

     

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up an inquiry to examine (a) the reasons for the spread of BSE, (b) the use of animal material in feedstuffs, (c) the effectiveness of the measures taken to deal with the situation since 1986 and (d) the quality of the advice available to the Government on this matter.

    The Prime Minister: No. These are essentially technical scientific issues which have been considered many times by the Government’s own committee of independent scientific advisers, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. I have every confidence in the quality of the advice from SEAC.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

     

    Burma

    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the Burmese Government about the death of James Leo Nichols, a United Kingdom citizen; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 July 1996]: Together with our EU partners, we issued a statement on 5 July calling for a full and satisfactory explanation from the Burmese authorities of the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death on 22 June of Mr. Nichols, who was a Burmese citizen. The statement also called for an investigation into Mr. Nichols’ death by the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Burma.