The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the CBI/RIIA/COSAT Invesment Conference on South Africa – 10 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the CBI/RIIA/COSAT Investment Conference in South Africa, held on 10th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My visit to South Africa nearly two years ago was unforgettable : unforgettable for the reconciliation and hope which I encountered in all whom I met; unforgettable for the knowledge that South Africa had just crossed the threshold of a new beginning.

    I had the chance to meet young South Africans in the township of Alexandria. They face immense challenges – the challenges of getting educated, finding a job, making a living. But their enthusiasm and hope in their future was obvious.

    No British Prime Minister had visited South Africa for 34 years. When I addressed the National Assembly, I spoke of a fellowship for the future between Britain and South Africa.

    Since then, we have been putting that fellowship into practice in practical ways:

    – by increasing development cooperation, working with South Africa in education, health, agriculture, local governments and in helping South Africans to set up and run small business. Under the Soweto Skills Initiative captains of industry agreed to train young South African entrepreneurs from Soweto township in business skills.

    We are also making progress:

    – by increasing cooperation in science, in technology, in engineering;
    – by helping with integrating South Africa’s armed forces;
    – and – particularly relevant for this audience – by working together to promote trade and investment.

    And with some success.

    Trade between us has leapt. British exports rose 25 per cent in 1994 and a further 30 per cent in 1995.

    South Africa has a substantial investment in Britain. And Britain is the biggest foreign investor in South Africa.

    I am very keen that British business should continue to lead the way.

    It is important they do so, because investment from overseas will be one of the keys to South Africa’s future prosperity. Investment flows will dwarf any government-to-government assistance.

    South Africa can look to Britain as a channel for investment, through the City of London, with all the unique facilities that the City has to offer.

    And South Africa can also look to Britain as a friend in Europe, arguing for the widest possible access for South African products to the EU market, under the EU/South Africa free trade agreement now being negotiated.

    When I visited South Africa in 1994, I said that, “South Africa is open for business and we look forward to doing business with you”.

    That business is being done. And I have every confidence you will go on doing it.

    – A British company is by far South Africa’s largest foreign employer.
    – Nine of the top twenty foreign employers in South Africa, are British.

    Today, South Africa is an important political and economic force.

    Politically, her transition has been an inspiration around the world.

    Economically, she has the potential not only to attain the growth rate she needs, but also to lead the way to greater growth throughout Southern Africa.

    A great deal of the credit for bringing about the successful transformation of South Africa lies with our guest today.

    A man who has overseen and in many ways made possible South Africa’s transition to democracy.

    A man who, it can truly be said, needs no introduction.

    He needed no introduction yesterday for the thousands who lined the Mall and packed the stands on Horseguards Parade to welcome him at the start of his State Visit – a larger crowd than for any State visitor I can remember.

    And he needs no further introduction today.

    Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Nelson Mandela, President of the Republic of South Africa.

  • Mr Mandela’s Speech at Luncheon – 9 July 1996

    Below is the text of Nelson Mandela’s speech at a luncheon in London held in his honour on 9th July 1996.

    PRESIDENT MANDELA:

    Mr. Prime Minister;

    My Lords;

    Ladies and Gentlemen.

    Thank you for your kind words of welcome and support. My delegation and I have been moved by the warm welcome we have had. We are greatly encouraged by the evident desire on the part of the British public that South Africa should succeed in her endeavours.

    When you visited South Africa you said that you had come to re-awaken an old friendship and to signal a new fellowship between our two countries, a fellowship for the future. Your visit, Mr. Prime Minister, and the highly successful visit by Her Majesty did indeed achieve these goals, beyond our wildest expectations. Visits between our two countries are at an all-time high, cooperation is increasing and awareness of each other’s interests is growing.

    South Africa today is in a constructive mood. Our new democratic institutions have taken firm root and won the respect of all sectors of our society. The new constitution adopted by our elected representatives widens the frontiers of our freedoms, and gives South Africa democratic government based on the universal norm of majority rule.

    In the past two years, despite the absence of legitimate local authorities, we have been able to make a start in improving social services. The lives of millions have been changed through better health care, water supply, electrification and education, amongst others. Constructive and focused development assistance from Britain made a significant contribution to this progress.

    The completion of our first democratic local government elections not only puts in place a critical element of democracy, but provides an indispensable instrument of development and opens the way for faster delivery of services.

    The peaceful manner in which the elections in KwaZulu/Natal were conducted should give confidence to all those with an interest in South Africa’s future. That was a joint achievement of the province’s people, political parties, and our security forces; and we are confident that the constructive relationship forged in political contest will endure in democratic local governance.

    Underpinning all the progress we have so far made is a powerful impetus towards national unity and reconciliation. We have achieved consensus of the broadest kind around the programme being defined by government for the reconstruction and development of our country.
    In particular, our recently announced strategies to combat crime and to effect growth, job creation and redistribution, have established a framework within which all major social sectors will be working in partnership. Building on the work of the last two years, it will move us beyond the present constraints.

    As we implement our programme and move towards our goals, our partnership with Britain will play a critical role.

    We are pleased to note the rate at which economic links with Britain have been growing, and appreciate the British Government’s active promotion of trade with South Africa.

    Britain furthermore remains South Africa’s main source of tourism – I am told that the current rate of 37 departures from Heathrow to South Africa every week will increase to more than 40 by the end of the year.

    The importance to us of our economic relationship with Britain is reflected in the fact that I am accompanied by one of the largest business delegations that has ever left our shores. This morning’s conference provided them with an invaluable opportunity to engage with Britain’s business community. They will also be keenly using other occasions to promote expanded economic activity between our countries. For, in the final analysis, the success of our macroeconomic framework relies on rapidly increasing investments.

    We also appreciate the British Government’s willingness to assist South Africa in obtaining the best possible agreement with the European Union, in order to promote development in South Africa and underpin the durability of the new democratic order.

    Investment that boosts our productive capacity, introduces new skills, and increases exports is critical to the reconstruction and development of our country. Conversely, the potential for growth in South Africa creates immense opportunities for profitable British engagement with our country, in a relationship of mutual benefit.

    Mr. Prime Minister;

    The British Government’s support for democracy and development in South Africa is invaluable. Co-operation and assistance with regard to economic, development and military matters have brought South Africa significant and substantial benefits. The discussions we held today will strengthen these relations, and deepen our co-operation as members of the Commonwealth.

    My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    I now kindly request you to raise your glasses to British/South African friendship – a fellowship for the future!

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    St. Andrew’s Hospital, Bromley by Bow

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit St. Andrew’s hospital, Bromley by Bow.

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

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 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.

  • PMQT – 9 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

    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. Anderson: Does the Prime Minister agree that one part of the historic greatness of President Mandela is that he is prepared to forgive and forget the collusion of the Tory Government at the time of apartheid because he knew that, in his struggle against an evil system, he had the overwhelming support of the British people?

    The Prime Minister: President Mandela is a very welcome guest to the United Kingdom as President of the Republic of South Africa and I look forward to my talks with him tomorrow. I enjoyed my visit to South Africa and our discussions then, and I have no doubt that the President will be given a warm and friendly reception in this country by everyone he meets.

    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that the headmaster of the London Oratory school in Fulham–a school well known for its ability to attract the brightest pupils from all over London–recently said that, if Labour won the election, he would consider taking his school private? What advice does the Prime Minister have for parents of children at the school, apart from the obvious advice to vote Conservative?

    The Prime Minister: All parents at every school will be concerned about the quality of education in their school, and I am sure that that also applies to the London Oratory.

    Mr. Blair: Given the Chancellor’s admission today that there will be an extra £12 billion of borrowing this year and next–double last year’s forecast–what is the Prime Minister’s explanation for the appalling state of the public’s finances?

    The Prime Minister: I find the right hon. Gentleman’s question astonishing. If he had read the economic forecasts this morning, he would have read of better economic prospects in this country than in any country across the European Union, and better economic prospects than we have known for many years. Those prospects could not have been obtained other than by following the policies that we have followed in recent years.

    Mr. Blair: When the Prime Minister reads out his list of statistics, perhaps he will also confirm that Britain has a higher inflation rate than many of its main competitors–it has higher interest rates than France, Germany, the United States or Japan–and that it is the only country anywhere in the European Union, apart from Spain, to be running a trade deficit, despite the 20 per cent. devaluation of the pound. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he promised that he would cut public sector debt, but that it has doubled under his stewardship of the public finances, and that we now spend £25 billion a year servicing that debt–more than on law and order and more than on defence?

    The Prime Minister: I think that everyone in the House will wonder why, on every conceivable occasion, the right hon. Gentleman wants to run down the country’s performance. I shall tell him what is happening: we have the lowest levels of inflation for 50 years–an achievement never remotely matched by any Labour Government–the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, four years of falling unemployment and growing employment, and the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years. Furthermore, the debt ratio is lower than it was in 1979–unlike in France, Germany and every other G7 country. That is the impact of the Government’s policies since 1979, and it is unmatched by anything that the Labour party ever remotely achieved in office.

    Mr. Blair: Madam Speaker, he does not deny a single fact that was put to him: that his forecasts have been wrong or that job creation and employment growth over the past 10 years have been lower in Britain than in any of the 10 main world economies. No Government–Labour or Conservative–have ever had £120 billion in North sea oil and squandered it or sold off every asset that the public owned and blown the money. Is it not true that, having promised that he would cut tax, he raised it; and having promised that he would cut borrowing, he raised it? Is not the lesson that, just as the Tories are untrustworthy and incompetent over tax, they are untrustworthy and incompetent over the state of the nation’s finances?

    The Prime Minister: I note–as will people here and abroad–the way in which, on every conceivable occasion, the Leader of the Opposition tries to sell this country short. I remind him that the economy is in the fifth successive year of sustainable growth. Since the last election, we have enjoyed the strongest recovery of any major European country.

    As for forecasts, the right hon. Gentleman sits next to the shadow Chancellor: the man who cannot say whether interest rates are too high or too low, or whether inflation is too high or too low, and who famously predicted in 1992 that unemployment would go up month after month after month. Since that time, unemployment has fallen month after month after month. The right hon. Gentleman should stop living in a world of his own and see that this country is leading Europe economically and regaining its place among the strong economic and industrial nations of the world.

    Sir Irvine Patnick: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, in Sheffield yesterday a Yorkshire and Humberside regional assembly was set up. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of councils is to look after local interests and not to set up offices in Brussels or create regional assemblies?

    The Prime Minister: I see no justification for regional assemblies and more bureaucracy. That may be the policy of the Labour party, but it is neither the wish of the electorate nor the policy of the Government.

    Mr. Ashdown: The day after it appears that ethnic cleansing has come once again to Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister emphasise to all he sees that those who wish to widen conflict only serve the purposes of the IRA and help those who wish to revert to violence rather than peace?

    The Prime Minister: I hope that the whole House will join me in condemning the scenes of violence that we have observed across Northern Ireland in the past couple of days. They are indefensible. The search for peace in Northern Ireland will not be assisted by such behaviour, but it could well be put back. In my judgment, that is emphatically not the wish of the people of Northern Ireland. At the moment, we need dialogue to ensure that we can move forward from the present situation, which is doing nothing but causing misery, hardship and damage. We need that dialogue speedily so that a resolution can be reached without delay.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the police, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Benefits Agency in Lancaster on a combined operation which has netted tens of thousands, if not millions, of pounds in fraudulent benefit claims? Those people are now saving the taxpayer huge sums that can be devoted to proper causes.

    The Prime Minister: I willingly congratulate those involved in that development. Perhaps I might add the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who has put in place the most comprehensive anti-fraud devices in the social security system that we have had at any stage.

     

    Q2. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. McKelvey: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why this country is up to its neck in debt? The national debt is £320 billion and the public sector borrowing requirement is £30 million, yet the same team can turn the Tory party debt of £17 million two years ago into a £20 million profit this year. Where did they get the money, and will they publish their accounts?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman talks about the same team. Since I became Prime Minister, the national debt has averaged 44 per cent. of gross domestic product. Under the previous Labour Government, it was 62 per cent. of GDP.

     

    European Union

    Q3. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the Union’s relations with those west European states which decided not to join the Union.

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

    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the remaining three nations outside the EU have very low unemployment–around 4 per cent. compared with the tragic and growing unemployment of around 20 million within the European Union, largely as a result of lunatic Brussels policies–will the Prime Minister, who has, happily, excluded Britain from some of the Euro-mess to the advantage of the nation and its people, ask the European Union at the intergovernmental conference to have another think about the future, especially in view of the nightmare of unemployment being created within the European Union which no one seems to want to talk about?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about unemployment across the European Union, which is more than 18 million. There is no doubt that the primary responsibility of Governments across Europe is to try to create the conditions in which unemployment can fall and new jobs can be created. As my hon. Friend knows, I have always argued that the way in which to reduce unemployment in Europe is through the supply-side policies we have followed in this country, which are aimed at increasing the ability of companies to compete and to create new jobs.

    Figures that will be published later today will show comprehensively that Britain is continuing to attract record inward investment. I very much welcome that, and it has helped to create many jobs. As my hon. Friend says, it would be utterly wrong to attempt to impose any kind of European social model, adding extra costs to employers and, as a direct result of that, condemning more people in Europe to remain unemployed. That is the wrong way in which to get people back to work.

    Several hon. Members rose–

    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a closed question. I call Mr. Stott.

    Mr. Stott: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he believes that one of Her Majesty’s loyal chief constables had the right–

    Madam Speaker: Order. I warned the hon. Gentleman, who should have read the Order Paper, that this was a closed question.

    Mr. Spearing: Norway was one of the countries that recently chose not to join the European Union. Is the Prime Minister aware that most of the top politicians, financiers and industrialists said that there would be dire consequences for Norway if it did not join? Does he agree that most of the indicators have shown that, far from being disadvantageous, it has been in Norway’s interest not to join? In view of that fact, what credit can we give most of the top politicians, financiers and industrialists in this country who are urging us to join economic and monetary union?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is comparing two separate things: first, whether Norway should join the European Union and, secondly, a particular subsequent development that may or may not take place in the European Union. If he sought the views of those in the United Kingdom who trade with Europe, he would find that surveys of leading business men have consistently shown that more than 90 per cent. favour membership of the European Union and do not see the European Union simply as a trading area. Each country must make its own judgments. Norway made its judgment, and we must respect that judgment, but it would be intolerable for the United Kingdom to be outside the European Union, in practice affected by its legislation but unable to have any say in framing it.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend will know of the importance of defence manufacturing in the north-west. Does he agree that–as thousands of employees in the industry await the contract for the replacement of maritime reconnaissance aircraft, among others–if we took the road to ruin and cut defence expenditure by £4.5 billion, as suggested by the Labour party, our action would devastate the industry in the north-west and cost thousands of skilled manufacturing jobs? Is this not yet another example of new Labour, new danger?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his case very persuasively. Another £4.5 billion off defence–which is what the shadow Chancellor would like–would indeed have dramatic effects on the capacity of the armed forces to undertake their role. As for contracts, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, a decision will be announced as soon as we have completed our assessment of the bids for the replacement of various pieces of equipment that are now due for replacement. I hope that we shall be able to make announcements before too long, but a wide range of factors remain to be considered.

     

    Q5. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Michie: Will the Prime Minister join me–along with, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)–in sending heartfelt concern to the families of those who were injured during the dreadful attack on the Wolverhampton school? Will he assure the House that he will do everything possible to give our children the protection that they richly deserve?

    The Prime Minister: The whole House will have been appalled by the incident at St. Luke’s school, and I have no doubt that everyone in the House and beyond will wish to send sympathy to the victims of that attack and hopes for their speedy recovery. The hon. Gentleman’s sentiments will be shared not only by the Government but by everyone in the House, and I shall ensure that they are carried into effect.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Transsexuals

    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Prime Minister which department and which Minister has been assigned overall responsibility for parliamentary issues concerning transsexuals; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 24 June 1996, Official Report, column 14. No Minister or Department has been assigned overall responsibility for parliamentary issues concerning transsexuals. Where, as in this case, issues may touch on the responsibilities of a number of Departments, Ministers and officials in the different Departments work closely together to ensure effective co-ordination.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Hafez Dalkamoni

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 13 May, Official Report, column 362, about the release of Hafez Dalkamoni, in what circumstances the release by one country of a prisoner who is a national of another country is not solely a matter for the authority of the detaining country; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), on 17 January 1996, Official Report, column 590, other than that Mr. Dalkamoni was released on 27 June and deported to Syria.

     

    Constitution (Referendum)

    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister what legislative provisions are currently in force which would enable a referendum on the constitution to be held in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: None. Powers previously taken in 1975 and in 1978 to hold referendums have been repealed.

     

    G7 Summit, Lyons

    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals to move the world economy closer to ecological sustainability he made to the Group of Seven summit in Lyons.

    The Prime Minister: The subject of ecological sustainability was not discussed at Lyon. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), on 2 July, Official Report, columns 425-27.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 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.

     

    Ministers

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the average length of time served by (a) Secretaries of State, (b) Ministers of State and (c) Under-Secretaries in each Government Department since he became Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister: This is a matter of public record.

     

    Parliamentary Pay and Allowances

    Mr. Dover: To ask the Prime Minister when the Government plan to publish the report by the Senior Salaries Review Body on parliamentary pay and allowances.

    The Prime Minister: The Government have now considered report No. 38 from the Senior Salaries Review Body on parliamentary pay and allowances. The Government are grateful to the review body for undertaking this complex remit so promptly. The report is being published today–as Command Paper 3330–and copies are available from the Vote Office.

    Following representations made during the Government’s consultations with other parties on the report, the Government will table motions to allow the House to consider whether it wishes to implement the recommendations of the report in full.

    The Government themselves, however, are clear that the recommended increases for Members’ and Ministers’ pay are too high and that the motions to give effect to these should not be passed in current circumstances. They will therefore oppose the motions and will table motions to bring into effect an increase in the salary of a Back-Bench Member from £34,085 to £35,108, that is by 3 per cent., with effect from 1 July 1996, and for similar increases in the pay of Ministers and other office holders. The Government will also table motions to implement the report’s recommendation that further increases should take effect from 1 April each year and should be linked to movements in senior civil service pay bands.

  • PMQT – 4 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, in the next two or three days, Members of Parliament and Ministers will be voting to set a new and increased national minimum wage for Members of Parliament and Ministers? If it is good enough for them, why can we not have a national minimum wage for everyone else? If those increases go beyond the pay barrier, will the Government give a guarantee that workers, including nurses and others, and pensioners will all receive the same?

    The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman carried every Opposition Member with him with that particular remark.

    The point about a minimum wage, of course, is the impact that it would have on the capacity to employ people. That is the point that we have repeatedly made. That is one of the reasons why unemployment is falling in this country, whereas it is rising in other countries. We intend to continue to see a downward trend in unemployment, which is why we do not favour the policies that the hon. Gentleman advocates.

    As for the report that will be published this afternoon, let me say first to the hon. Gentleman that it is worth remembering precisely why the review was set up. It was for two reasons essentially: first, it was necessary to devise a new formula for determining Members’ pay as the old one had broken down and, secondly, 300 Members of the House, of whom 200 were Labour Members, had called for such a review–not the hon. Gentleman, I concede that–in a motion before the House.

    Following the consultation that I have had with leaders of other political parties, it is clear that they do not wish to express a view and that they believe that it is a matter for the House as a whole to decide. The Cabinet decided this morning to offer the House an opportunity to vote for the recommendations as they stood, but the Government will be recommending and also voting for restraint.

    Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence exports earn this country billions of pounds every year and guarantee thousands of jobs in Lancashire and elsewhere? Is it not, therefore, an absolute disgrace that Labour Members now oppose the sale of British defence equipment to Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and, some of them, even to the world’s largest democracy, India? Does not that show that workers in the defence industry face a real danger from the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: Defence is a very important industry in this country and one that plays a very important part in our economy, both in export earnings and, of course, in job provision in many parts of the country–the north-west, the west country and many parts of the home counties as well–so it is extremely important. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the policies of the Labour party. It is also right for the House to note that the further defence review promised by the Labour party promises to cut sufficient from the funds to ensure that there would be no money at all for the Royal Navy.

    Mr. Blair: Are this morning’s newspaper reports correct that the selective slaughter scheme for beef is now to amount to 120,000 cows, which is a higher figure than previously thought, and that an additional £100 million, £200 million or possibly more will have to be paid in compensation on top of the £2 billion that the Prime Minister has already mentioned? Are those reports correct?

    The Prime Minister: It is not possible to be entirely clear precisely how many animals will be slaughtered. What is clear is what was set out in the 30-months-plus scheme, with which I think the right hon. Gentleman is familiar. Beyond that, we are asked from time to time to make estimates of precisely what the figures are, and an estimate of about 120,000 is the best that we can make–that figure has been around for some considerable time. The cost is the cost that we have set out on previous occasions.

    Mr. Blair: I think it is clear that the number is to be greater than originally anticipated. When the Prime Minister made his statement to the House earlier, he suggested that the reports of additional slaughter schemes were incorrect. Will he confirm whether, as a result of the Florence summit and the statement from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last night, the 1989 to 1990 cohort is to be included in the selective slaughter scheme, which will increase the number of cows involved? Last night, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food apparently said that it would take six to nine months for the scheme to be implemented. Does the Prime Minister still hold to November of this year as the date by which the ban will be completely lifted?

    The Prime Minister: Yes; on the information we have, we still hold to the dates that we set out, but, as I said at the time, those dates depend on our meeting the requirements, which I previously set before the House and which we believe we can meet in the time scale that I set out. Long before I went to Florence, there was a lot of discussion about the 1989 to 1990 cohort involving both my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture and me. There is a distinction between the compulsory slaughter and the voluntary scheme that exists for the 1989 to 1990 cohort–it has to be voluntary, because there is no means of determining precisely which animals would qualify for it.

    Mr. Blair: With due respect to the Prime Minister, the Agriculture Minister had said that the 1989 to 1990 cohort was not to be included and it is now clear that it is. The Agriculture Minister now says that the lifting of the ban may or may not take place at the end of the year. As more details emerge, is it not clear that the costs will be greater, the number of cattle slaughtered will be higher and the time scale will be longer–those prices are all to be paid by the British people?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have lost sight of the two fundamental reasons why the policy is necessary. The first is to ensure public health–a point that has not crossed his lips at any stage of the questions that he has bothered to ask me on the subject. The second reason is to ensure that the British beef industry will be able to recover and recapture the markets around the world for prime British beef. That is the point at stake: the livelihoods of 650,000 people. It would be helpful if, for once, instead of the pedantry that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, he acknowledged, first, the need to deal with the matter in the interests of the beef industry and, secondly, the need to deal with it in the interests of public health.

    Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will never introduce a policy which, as the price of a sell-out to Scottish nationalism, would bring in the compulsory dismemberment of England into regions? That latter policy would be purely to justify the continued presence of Scottish Members of Parliament in the House. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that such a policy would set in trend a series of developments that would be bad for the cohesion of England, bad for Scotland and bad for a Union that has served our people so well?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend speaks for millions of people in every part of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The dangers that arise from the Opposition’s policies are self-evident and many people are beginning to see them. [Interruption.] Why are the significant questions not answered? If Scotland has its own Parliament, why should there be continued over-representation of Scottish Members in the House? What about the position of hon. Members who represent Scotland? If they determine some issues in a Scottish Parliament, by what logic or equity should they vote for those matters as far as they affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland? If the Labour party has no interest in introducing new taxes, as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) says, why is he having a referendum to try to approve them in Scotland?

     

    Q2. Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Does the Prime Minister fully realise how much the Labour party in Scotland looks forward to his visit? Will he today, or at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Dumfries tomorrow, answer my question, which his deputy dodged last Thursday? Why is it all right to offer Northern Ireland devolution, with a Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Cabinet and no reduction in the number of Members of Parliament at Westminster, while denying the same to the people of Scotland? How does he justify treating the two countries so differently?

    The Prime Minister: How does the hon. Gentleman justify tax raising in Scotland and not in Wales? That is the distinction to which the hon. Gentleman must bend his mind. If he cares to read the speech that I made a week ago–I shall send him a copy–he will see in detail a series of reasons why there is a clear distinction between Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The hon. Gentleman had better bend his mind to his own policy: why a tax-raising power in Scotland but a non-tax-raising assembly in Wales? What has he got against the Scots, and why not not he trust the Welsh?

     

    Q3. Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm his commitment to the assisted places scheme and to doubling it? Does he agree that, if the scheme were abolished, those children would still have to be educated in the state system, thus producing a small net saving? Does not that simple piece of arithmetic demolish the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer’s policy to abolish the scheme and spend the money in the primary sector?

    The Prime Minister: I fear that some of the figures issued by the shadow Chancellor this morning are shown to be wholly wrong, even on cursory examination. It was already clear before today that the windfall tax is unravelling before the Opposition’s eyes, and it certainly could not pay for the new pledges that they make. Sadly, the shadow Chancellor seems to have got his sums wrong. He has inflated the amount that he hopes to raise by forgetting to include the cost of sending the children who were in assisted places schemes back to the state sector. It can be seen simply from a cursory glance at the Opposition’s new plans that the sums do not add up. The new Labour party’s policies mean new taxes: taxes in Scotland; taxes on people with children aged between 16 and 18 who would lose child benefit; taxes for living in London; and taxes on jobs, with the social chapter and a minimum wage. That is what is offered by the Labour party. No wonder we talk of new dangers.

    Mr. Hoon: The Prime Minister has rightly condemned those who oppose the rule of law and those who fail to follow the courts’ decisions. Will he unequivocally condemn Governments who refuse to implement, or threaten to refuse to implement, the European Court of Justice’s decisions?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government implement the regulations. Where we think they are wrong–in some cases we do–we shall raise the matter at the intergovernmental conference to change the underlying European Community law. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so keen on ensuring that the law is obeyed. I hope that, in the interests of providing good, strong law enforcement, he will now apologise for the number of occasions on which he and his colleagues voted against law enforcement measures introduced by the Government.

     

    Q4. Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my Lincolnshire constituency, those who work in the seaside resorts and on the land are in the habit of working far more than 48 hours a week during the summer, although often less in the winter? If the Brussels Commission is to impose its directive limiting the number of working hours to 48 hours a week with effect from 23 November, will that not seriously reduce the standard of living of many of my constituents? If the European Court of Justice seeks to overturn that part of the social chapter from which we have opted out, will my right hon. Friend take steps to reassert it?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has neatly picked up the point to which I alluded in response to the previous question, which was asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). I share my hon. Friend’s concern on behalf of his constituents.

    The European Court has not yet given its final judgment on our challenge to the working time directive–although the Advocate General’s opinion was not encouraging. If we lose in that judgment, we shall seek treaty change at the intergovernmental conference to ensure that the social protocol is not undermined by presenting social measures in the guise of health and safety.

    I reached an agreement on ensuring that we were not covered by that at Maastricht, and I intend that that agreement shall be kept. Our colleagues in Europe need not expect that we will reach further agreements at the next intergovernmental conference unless, at that conference, they are prepared to restore the agreement that I reached at Maastricht. It specifically deals with the matter referred to by my hon. Friend.

    Mr. Salmond: The Prime Minister is coming to Dumfries tomorrow to speak at the Burns supper and to celebrate the bicentennial of Scotland’s national bard. Is he aware that the lines that he has twice quoted in the House from “The Dumfries Volunteers” were written when Burns was under investigation by the Government of one of his predecessors for sedition as a radical and a Scottish nationalist? Will the Prime Minister demonstrate his knowledge of all things Scottish–stretching from stones to poems–and remind the House of the first two lines of Burns’ most famous poem “Tam o’Shanter”?

    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of regaling the House with poetry. I enjoyed listening to “Tam o’Shanter” last time I attended a Burns supper–and, with a bit of luck, I will hear it again tomorrow night. Rabbie Burns had a varied political career during his lifetime. As the hon. Gentleman would know, Burns’ political career was varied as to where he gave his affections–and they were not affections that the hon. Gentleman would follow.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Election Campaign – 3 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the election campaign, made during an interview in London held on Wednesday 3rd July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he had launched the “New Labour, New Danger” campaign].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are two halves to the approach. Firstly of course is the positive half of what is actually happening in the economy and what we are doing – the educations reforms, the change and growth in the economy; and secondly there are the risks that we see to that approach. So it has been very tough to bring about, we have worked very hard to put the country in what at the moment is a better economic shape than it has been for a very long time.

    The Labour Party are beginning to come into focus. They have changed many of their policies, they have changed much of their oratory and some of their ideas and they are now coming into focus, one can now begin to see what they stand for and what they will really do. And we perceive many dangers in that, constitutional dangers with their Scottish policy, dangers to the economy with some of their taxation and other policies. And what we propose to do is to have a twin-track strategy: firstly of course the positive elements of what we are seeking to do ourselves for the good of the country; and secondly, to point out what we think are the disadvantages in Labour’s approach.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that had the danger of focusing on Labour].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think people are going to see what is happening in terms of the good news. It is pretty noticeable when your mortgage comes down, and it has come down; it is pretty noticeable when your taxes come down, and they have come down; it is pretty noticeable when you get more information about your child at school and a greater series of opportunities and choices for your children. I think people will see that. What hasn’t been so clear in the welter of warm words and warm ideals that we have had from Labour over recent years is precisely what they would do, and what that would mean. And we do intend to focus upon that because I think there is a very wide gulf between some of the aspirations they set out and some of the realities that I believe would follow from their policies.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked where the Labour dangers were].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I will give you several illustrations, if I may? Firstly of course, their Scottish policy on devolution. I understand why they wish to do that and I have no doubt that it is a well meaning policy. But the dangers of actually down the sort of devolutionary route that they propose, with a tax gathering parliament in Scotland, I believe are very profound for the future of the United Kingdom. I believe it will, over a measurably short period of years, set up disputes between England and Scotland that would be very damaging and very difficult to cope with. A complex issue, but I would like to elaborate upon it. Equally, the question of a special tartan tax in Scotland so that people in Scotland pay higher tax than people in England, Wales or Northern Ireland would have a devastating effect on inward investment in Scotland where taxes are higher and they would have to pay more to their workforce. They will go elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Very damaging for Scotland.

    So it is not the motives of the Labour Party I am questioning at all, it is the practical implication of their policies, and that is one illustration. I could willingly offer you others.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether Scotland wanted more autonomy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a great pride in being Scottish, of course, and that is precisely why we have established the Scottish Grand Committee which will have all the opportunities that would exist in a Scottish Parliament except extra taxation on Scotland. For example, on Friday of this week I will be going to speak to the Scottish Grand Committee, that is all the Scottish Members of Parliament, I will be doing so in Scotland. For the first time in 300 years a British Prime Minister will be going to Scotland to be cross-examined in a debate specifically by Scottish Members of Parliament. Now if the Labour Party’s plans for a Scottish Parliament were established, that wouldn’t happen. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would not go there because he would not be elected to the Scottish Parliament, so they would have no chance to cross-examine the Prime Minister.

    Everything else they could do in a Scottish Parliament they can do in the Scottish Grand Committee under the plans that Ian Lang and I have put forward, refined by Michael Forsyth, with the one exception that there would not be the power to levy extra taxation upon the Scottish people, they are a very proud nation race, and always have been. I believe though that the plans that the Labour Party advocate would be bad for Scotland, and of course that also has an implication for the rest of the United Kingdom as well and I must be concerned about that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was going to Scotland because of the increasing feeling there against Westminster].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is also an illustration of what we have done, what the present Government have done. We established the Scottish Grand Committee precisely in order to address these particular problems, and we are doing similarly in Wales as well. Because in both Wales and in Scotland there is this tremendous feeling that Westminster sometimes seems a long way away.

  • John Major’s Commons Statement on the Stone of Destiny – 3 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland. The statement was made on 3rd July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Stone of Destiny.

    The Stone of Destiny is the most ancient symbol of Scottish kingship. It was used in the coronation of Scottish Kings until the end of the 13th century. Exactly 700 years ago, in 1296, King Edward I brought it from Scotland and housed it in Westminster Abbey. It remains–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and hear this statement in good order. There will be hon. Members who will want to be called after the statement. They should listen to it now.

    The Prime Minister: The stone remains the property of the Crown. I wish to inform the House that, on the advice of Her Majesty’s Ministers, the Queen has agreed that the stone should be returned to Scotland. The stone will, of course, be taken to Westminster Abbey to play its traditional role in the coronation ceremonies of future sovereigns of the United Kingdom.

    The Stone of Destiny holds a special place in the hearts of Scots. On this the 700th anniversary of its removal from Scotland, it is appropriate to return it to its historic homeland. I am sure that the House would wish to be assured that the stone will be placed in an appropriate setting in Scotland. The Government will be consulting Scottish and Church opinion about that. The stone might be displayed in Edinburgh castle alongside the Honours of Scotland, Europe’s oldest crown jewels. Alternatively, it might be appropriate to place it in St. Margaret’s Chapel inside the castle or in St. Giles’s cathedral. There may be other options.

    Once those consultations have been completed, the necessary arrangements will be made and the stone will be installed with due dignity in Scotland.

    Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield): I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. I am sure that it will be warmly received by people in Scotland.

    We know that the Stone of Destiny holds a special place in Scottish hearts after 700 years. Obviously, it is part of Scottish nationhood and, by coming back here for the coronation of our Kings and Queens, as it will, it will no doubt also be a symbol of Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom. The return of the stone, therefore, is a welcome recognition of how we can celebrate the unity of the United Kingdom while being distinct and proud nations with differing traditions, histories and cultures. It is a sentiment on which we wish to build in the future–and I hope that we shall not have to wait another 700 years to do so.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the decision. I am glad that he treated the matter with the seriousness that it deserves rather than with the levity displayed by so many of his hon. Friends over a matter that will be regarded as one of great importance in Scotland.

    Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside): My right hon. Friend will be aware that Scone is in my constituency. The ancient capital of Scotland would be proud to have the stone back and I hope that, when consideration is given to its location, its roots will be remembered.

    The Prime Minister: I have mentioned the areas to which the stone might most obviously be returned, but, in consultation, other propositions might be put forward.

    Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): May I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to secure the return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland? I hope that he is under no illusion and that he recognises that it is the settled view of the majority of people in Scotland that they want not just the symbol, but the substance–the substance of the return of democratic control over our internal affairs in Scotland. May I tell the Prime Minister, before he comes north on Friday, that I hope that he will not continue to insult us by suggesting that, although other countries can organise decentralised government–most recently in Spain since the death of Franco–we are somehow incapable of doing the same in the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister: First, I am grateful for the welcome that the right hon. Gentleman has given to the decision. On his second point, the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal for a parliament within the United Kingdom, as the leader of the Labour party says, would mean that Her Majesty’s Ministers who are not Scottish would not be able to appear in that assembly. On Friday, I shall be appearing in the Scottish Grand Committee as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, open to debate and able to be questioned by Scottish Members in Scotland. That would not be appropriate under the plans supported by the right hon. Gentleman.

    Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries): Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement is of supreme importance to the Scots? The return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland will be unanimously and warmly welcomed by Scots and will highlight the close unity, tradition and good will between our two nations. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there will be an imaginative and effective ceremony for the return of the stone to Scotland, which I hope will be placed in Edinburgh castle?

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend said, the Stone of Destiny is an important part of Scotland’s national identity. After 700 years, it is right to recognise the importance of the stone to the Scottish nation and let it return to Scotland and remain there. Of course, we plan to hold a suitable ceremony at the time of its return and we shall be consulting Scottish opinion as to what might be appropriate.

    Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart): Does the Prime Minister understand that those of us who believe in the establishment of a Scottish Parliament in order to ensure a modern democratic state within the United Kingdom and Scotland, do not believe that the return of a feudal, mediaeval symbol of tyranny is any more than a total irrelevance?

    The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman was speaking for many Scots. They will regard what he said as churlish, not least because he is referring to an ancient symbol of Scotland that is well regarded by Scots of all political parties and none. They will be astonished to hear what a Scottish Member of Parliament had to say about one of their most ancient symbols.

    Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people who care about the history of the United Kingdom also care about its symbols, as we care about the symbols in this place? Does he accept that most people will expect the stone to go to St. Margaret’s Chapel in Edinburgh castle, so that it remains within a consecrated building?

    The Prime Minister: St. Margaret’s Chapel is one of the possible prime sites for the stone. It is a matter that will need to be the subject of consultation within Scotland. I have mentioned some of the areas that will be considered as the most obvious sites for the stone when it returns to Scotland.

    Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): Would the right hon. Gentleman accept a criticism and a comment? Is he not wrong in stating that the Crown jewels of Scotland are the oldest in Europe? Is it not a fact that the oldest Crown jewels in Europe that I can recall are the St. Stephen’s crown in Hungary? If I could only remember, there is actually an older Byzantine crown. I think that I am correct in saying that. I am usually correct in most of my utterances. Will he accept my comment that what the ex-leader of the Liberal party said is most important? What we want is not the symbol but the substance of independence in Scotland.

    The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that it is the Labour party’s policy to have independence in Scotland. Perhaps that was just a slip of the tongue. I will accept that as the case if it was. [Interruption.] No, the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) confirms that it is the policy that he and members of his party follow to have independence in Scotland. That point will have been well noted on the Conservative Benches and in many areas of Scotland.

    With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point, I recognise his expertise in these matters. I am certainly advised, as I advised the House, that these are the oldest Crown jewels in Europe. The hon. Gentleman thinks differently. We shall both be able to check. In any event, I look forward to him having the opportunity of going to Scotland to see them in situ.

    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my right hon. Friend ensure the return of the touchstone of the sovereignty and independence of this distinct and proud nation through the return of the primacy and supremacy of British law over that emanating from Brussels?

    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the House letting go of the primacy of British law.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today, but if he had studied his constitutional and political law of Scotland, he would understand that the Stone of Destiny is not the symbol of kingship but the symbol of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, which is enunciated through the declaration of Arbroath. Like others, I argue that, while we welcome the return of this symbol of power, we want the realities of power in Scotland. It may have taken this Parliament some 668 years since the treaty of Northampton to return stolen goods to Scotland, but in actuality the people of Scotland will return to themselves the power of having their own sovereign Parliament very soon.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady also makes no secret of the fact that she wishes to see independence in Scotland. That, of course, would have a profound effect on Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that she is wrong about that. That is one of the distinct political differences between us that will no doubt be debated for some time to come. On the earlier point, I think that, constitutionally, she is wrong.

    Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood): Has my right hon. Friend noted that this important announcement was greeted seriously by the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? It was immediately denounced by a Scottish Labour Member of Parliament and most of the rest of them laughed. Does not that show what an incoherent shambles the Scottish Labour party is in?

    The Prime Minister: One of the advantages of having the House televised is that people in Scotland will have seen precisely how Opposition Back Benchers–not Front Benchers; on this occasion I am pleased to support the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour–behave on a matter of great sensitivity and interest to the people of Scotland.

    Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde): Obviously, the people of Scotland will welcome back the Stone of Destiny, which has been a bone of contention for many years. However, I suggest to the Prime Minister that, for every 1,000th person unemployed in Scotland, he gets a bagpiper, and we take that stone and march from one end of the country to the other with at least 200 unemployed bagpipers who have suffered under this Government. Perhaps that will be the stepping stone to a Labour Government and then a Scottish parliament, one which represents and looks after the interests of the people, not a token artefact; real stones for building houses, that is what our people want.

    The Prime Minister: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman call the Stone of Destiny a token artefact. That is his view of the Stone of Destiny, and that will be well noted in Scotland.

    The hon. Gentleman will know that unemployment has been falling consistently in Scotland primarily because of inward investment into Scotland that would not have taken place but for the Government’s policies. I suggest that when we have that piper, all the people in Scotland who have new jobs–good jobs, permanent jobs, jobs with a proper career–follow that piper, instead of the people who were in jobs that were kept there only by Government subsidy, jobs with no future, which was the position before 1979.

    Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr): Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents will welcome the return of the stone to Scotland? They will also welcome the commitment that the stone will play a part in future coronation services. My right hon. Friend obviously recognises that it is symbolic of Scotland’s part in the Union. Does he agree that there is no chance of him taking steps that will damage the Union, unlike Opposition Members?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend implies, the stone is the property of the Crown and will be returned to the coronation chair to take its place in the ceremony of the crowning of any future sovereign, who would be King of England and, of course, Scotland. To that extent, it symbolises the unity of the United Kingdom, and it is entirely right that the property of Her Majesty the Queen should be placed wherever in Her Majesty’s kingdom is deemed most appropriate.

    Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): Was this gesture prompted by political motives, or will it be seen in future years as the first in a series of generous gestures to countries in and outwith the multinational state of the United Kingdom? Are we likely to see the return of the Elgin marbles, for example?

    The Prime Minister: This gesture was prompted by the 700th anniversary of the stone’s removal from Scotland, and I believe it appropriate for it to return to Scotland for those particular reasons. That is not likely to be followed in totally different circumstances by the return of artefacts such as the Elgin marbles. That is not the case.

    Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both the wisdom and the symbolism of what he has announced today. After we have listened to some of the comments of Labour Back Benchers who have ridiculed this step, is it not worth reminding the House that the stone was forcibly removed from the abbey by Scottish nationalists on Christmas morning 1950? Surely that shows the forceful power that is attached to the symbolism of the stone. Its return now should surely be seen as a sign of unity, not one of dissension and ridicule.

    The Prime Minister: I believe that that is the case and that that is the way in which this will be viewed by most people, especially those who will have been somewhat shocked by the behaviour of some hon. Members this afternoon.

    Several hon. Members rose–

    Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 July 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Group of Seven Summit

    Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the G7 summit at Lyon.

    The Prime Minister: I attended the Lyon summit on 27 to 29 June with my right hon. and learned Friends, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    I have placed in the Library of the House the communique, the chairman’s statement and other statements and documents issued by the summit.

    The summit started with a discussion of economic matters among the G7. In President Yeltsin’s absence, we were joined by the Russian Prime Minister, Mr. Chernomyrdin, for a discussion of wider international issues. After the formal conclusion of the summit, we held a meeting with the United Nations Secretary-General and the heads of the International Monetary Fund, World bank and World Trade Organisation to discuss the role of the international institutions, in particular on development.

    On the first evening we agreed and issued a declaration on terrorism, condemning the appalling attack in Dhahran and other recent terrorist outrages. We pledged ourselves to fight terrorism by all legal means and agreed that the relevant Ministers should meet in Paris in July to discuss further action. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary plans to lead the United Kingdom delegation.

    Discussion of the world economy demonstrated the extent to which the United Kingdom’s economic policy agenda is now shared by all our partners in the G7. Although growth has slowed in some countries since last year, it is picking up again. Unemployment remains higher than many of us would wish, particularly in continental Europe, but we agreed that the way to bring it down was by liberalising labour markets and through other supply side measures. This is reflected in the communique’s endorsement of the conclusions of the G7 meeting in Lille earlier this year to discuss employment issues.

    There was also consensus on the policies necessary to maintain international monetary stability. We endorsed the work done by Finance Ministers. Their report makes it clear that the key to stability is not management or fixing of exchange rates but sound domestic economic policies.

    In Halifax last year we agreed steps to make the international financial institutions more effective. Many have now been taken and we welcomed the enhancement of the IMF’s surveillance capacities and the agreement to increase the resources currently available to it under the general arrangement to borrow.

    We recognised, however, the need to improve the co-operation between regulators of financial markets in the light of growth in the volume and speed of transactions. We agreed to study in more detail UK ideas for “lead regulators” of internationally active financial institutions. Officials will meet soon to discuss detailed proposals and Finance Ministers will report back to the Denver summit. We also agreed to co-operate more closely in combating financial crime.

    We also reviewed progress in reforming the UN. Significant steps had been taken: 1,000 jobs have been cut, with high level posts reduced by 23 per cent.; these were 25 per cent. fewer staff than 10 years ago; and the 1996-97 budget incorporated a 10 per cent. cut in real terms. But much remains to be done and we agreed to review the situation at next year’s summit. In particular, a rationalisation of the UN’s role in development is necessary to avoid duplication and overlap between its various agencies.

    Under President Chirac’s theme of globalisation, and with valuable contributions from the heads of the IMF, World bank and UN, we looked at the problems of poorer countries and how they could best be helped. In particular, we focused on the countries of sub-Saharan Africa.

    We agreed that in the long run no amount of aid would help unless these countries were willing to help themselves. Aid nevertheless has a crucial role to play, as long as it is effective. It must therefore continue to be conditional on sensible adjustment policies and good government. In particular, we agreed that bilateral donors should reinforce the international financial institutions’ efforts to discourage unproductive expenditure by modifying their own aid and export credit policies. Aid should also be targeted at the poorest and focused on basic human needs such as health and education.

    Following up initiatives originally launched by the UK, including ideas floated in 1994 in Valetta, the summit endorsed further steps to offer a number of highly indebted poor countries an exit from their unsustainable debt burdens. The IMF will offer more concessional lending from the enhanced structural adjustment facility, to be funded primarily by optimising the management of the IMF’s own reserves. The World bank has offered to contribute in the order of $2 billion from its own resources to this initiative. We called on bilateral creditors to improve on the existing Naples terms which allow remission of up to 67 per cent. on a country’s debts.

    In discussion of trade, we reaffirmed our desire for further liberalisation on the agenda for the forthcoming meeting of World Trade Organisation Trade Ministers in Singapore, including new tariff initiatives. Many of us made clear to President Clinton our deep concern at recent US legislation of a extraterritorial nature relating to Cuba. Unilateral measures of this kind are a serious threat to an open world training system.

    We discussed a wide range of global and political issues with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. He briefed us on the prospects for the second round of the presidential elections in Russia. We welcomed the progress made on nuclear safety and security at the Moscow summit last April, and urged all countries to examine closely the 40 recommendations on combating transnational organised crime drawn up by our experts following the remit we gave them in Halifax.

    There was considerable discussion of environmental issues. We agreed it was essential to maintain the impetus following from Rio and to play a positive role in the UN General Assembly’s special session on the environment next June.

    In pursuing non-proliferation, we affirmed our undertaking to conclude a comprehensive test ban treaty by the start of the next session of the UN General Assembly. We also called on all states to make every effort to secure a global ban on the proliferation and indiscriminate use of anti-personnel land mines, and welcomed the bans already adopted by some countries, including the UK, on the production, use and export of these weapons.

    A separate declaration was issued on Bosnia and Herzegovina which emphasised that the prime responsibility for implementations of the Dayton agreement lies with the different communities and their leaders, and underlined the importance of the elections due to take place on 14 September. These should take place on time, in free and fair conditions. We also made clear our insistence that Karadzic step down immediately and permanently from all public functions and take no part in governmental decisions. We reaffirmed the importance of all those indicted by the international war crimes tribunal appearing in The Hague for trial. We warned of the costs of non-compliance with Dayton in terms of sanctions and the availability of economic assistance. We also pledged our full support for Carl Bildt, the high representative, and for efforts to accelerate economic reconstruction in order to encourage co-operation and reconciliation between the different communities.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 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.