Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 June 1996

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    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.

     

    Berlin Bombing 1986

    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister what changes have taken place in respect of Government policy relating to responsibility for the bombing of United States soldiers in 1986 in Berlin; what measures were taken to secure further information relating to Libyan involvement; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: None. The investigation of the 5 April 1986 bombing in Berlin is a matter for the German authorities.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the refusal of the United States Government to provide to the German prosecution authorities communication intercepts which the US authorities stated provide proof of the Libyan involvement in the Berlin Bombing in 1986; if he will raise the issue as being of community competence; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: No. This is a matter for the United States authorities.

  • PMQT – 18 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th June 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Berry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

    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. Berry: Is the Prime Minister aware that he spoke for the whole nation on Friday when he said that he had had “a bellyful” of the Tory party?

    The Prime Minister: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that his quotation is inaccurate, but it could certainly be applied to questions such as that.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more and more people in Germany wish that their economy was run like ours–with low inflation, steady economic growth, flexible labour markets and falling unemployment? Will he take an early opportunity to invite the leaders of the German opposition parties to Britain so that they can see what can be achieved with Conservative policies?

    Mr. Faulds: More, more.

    The Prime Minister: I am glad to see that it evokes such approval on the Opposition Benches.

    It is certainly true that we have at the moment the most competitive economy in western Europe, that we are in a very good position on inflation, and that unemployment is a good deal lower–and we are at the top of the growth league. That, as my hon. Friend says, is an enviable position, and I know that it is envied by many of my European partners.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the appalling outrage of Saturday in Manchester and send our thanks to the emergency services and our sympathy to the victims? Is this not a moment of truth for Sinn Fein? Does it not show the wisdom of demanding a ceasefire before Sinn Fein participates in any talks? Does not the responsibility now lie squarely on it if it is to play any part in the future progress of peace?

    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. Saturday’s bomb in Manchester was a callous and inhuman act. It is a miracle that many more people were not injured and that many people were not killed. What is so startling is the total indifference of the people who left that bomb to what could well have happened to many people who have no connection whatever with the disputes in Ireland or the disputes that the IRA may have with the British Government or others.

    The right hon. Gentleman is right. The time has come for Sinn Fein to make up its mind. Either it will be a democratic organisation taking part in democratic politics or it will stay side by side as the reverse side of the coin to the IRA, with intermingled membership, in which case it has no part in democratic politics whatever. I believe that, when the right hon. Gentleman says that the moment of truth is here, it is for Mr. Adams and his colleagues, and everybody wishes to hear precisely what their views are–and let us have no more of the measly nonsense that we have had from them in recent years.

    Mr. Blair: I join with that entirely.

    Does the Prime Minister also agree that there has been progress in Northern Ireland? The British and Irish Governments are agreed on the way forward; all nationalist parties in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, apart from Sinn Fein, are agreed on peaceful means to achieve their ends; and the United States and others abroad may have been given a telling lesson on the realities of the IRA. Is not the only course now open to Sinn Fein to ensure that the IRA ceases its violence? If it cannot–or will not–the process should proceed with the democratic parties, and an agreement should be reached and put to a ballot of the people.

    The Prime Minister: It is entirely right that the talks must continue. We have no intention of allowing the search for a political settlement for Northern Ireland to be derailed by the activities of the IRA and Sinn Fein. I hope that all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will continue to demonstrate the leadership and courage necessary to make rapid progress, and to show the IRA that it cannot stop the process with bombs in Manchester, London or anywhere else.

    If the IRA and Sinn Fein wish to have any future interest in this process, they will clearly need to declare an unequivocal ceasefire. They will need to declare it immediately. They will also have to show that that ceasefire is credible and lasting, and is not just a tactical device to enable them to enter the talks until such time as it is convenient for them to leave. It is now up to them to demonstrate their credibility; it is not up to us or anyone else. They must demonstrate their credibility–but the talks will continue.

    Mrs. Roe: In the light of falls in unemployment, interest rates and inflation, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is now one of the most competitive economies in Europe? Does he accept, however, that much more still needs to be done to raise standards in our schools? Although things are improving, far too many children still leave school without the basic skills.

    The Prime Minister: Both the premise of my hon. Friend’s question and her substantive point are important. She knows that the British economy is in very sound shape; we intend to keep it so. As for education and basic standards, the Government have introduced a programme of reforms that is more comprehensive than any that we have seen at any stage in the past, designed to raise standards in schools, build on the national curriculum and ensure regular inspection and the publication of performance information.

    We have made substantial progress in recent years in raising standards, but there is no doubt that there is a great deal more that we wish to do to ensure that the quality of education for all our children is the equal of the quality of education anywhere else in the world. That is our intention, and we will continue to pursue it, despite the failures of so many Labour-controlled education authorities whose records have held back many children in inner London and elsewhere. [Hon. Members: “Seventeen years.”] It is no good hon. Members below the Gangway muttering in this fashion, when it is their party, in control in local government, that could act now to improve education, but does not.

     

    Q2. Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Livingstone: Given the funds that the Government have made available to the Russian Government and organisations in Russia in recent years to help to establish democracy, has the Prime Minister had time to read today’s statement by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe expressing the CSCE’s regret and concern at the extensive bias in the coverage of the presidential election? Will the right hon. Gentleman now use his contacts with President Yeltsin to point out to him the value of the British precedent of television and radio providing equal time for candidates, to legitimise this final stage of the Russian election?

    The Prime Minister: I have not yet seen the particular statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In view of what he says, I shall certainly consider it, but the very fact of the Russian presidential elections, and the way in which they have been carried, out would have seemed inconceivable just a few years ago. It is a welcome sign that Russia is settling into the normal pattern of democracy, and we must give great credit to President Yeltsin for that. I hope that the second round will be conducted well and that there will be a clear-cut and satisfactory result.

    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the control of business rates under the Government has been of immense benefit to businesses, large and small, throughout Britain and, therefore, to jobs? Will he ask the relevant Government Departments to analyse the consequences for jobs and for prosperity of taking off these controls and handing decisions back to loony Labour councils, as is advocated by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider any mechanism that tries to restrain on-costs on British business. It is clear that the fact that British business as a whole pays less over and above wages in on-costs is one of the principal reasons why are more citizens are in work in Britain than in any other country of similar size throughout western Europe.

     

    Q3. Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Welsh: Did the Prime Minister see last night’s “Panorama” programme, which catalogued 10 years of evasion and incompetence by the Government on the BSE issue? What does he have to say to Scotland’s hill farmers, now awaiting being dragged into the general economic catastrophe created by the Government, while he postures to no effect in Europe?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I did not waste my time watching “Panorama” last night–[Interruption.] I have much more productive things to do with my time than waste it watching nonsense from “Panorama”. We have taken account of the scientific advice that we have had throughout this affair, and that is what we will continue to do in the interests of British agriculture and of the British beef consumer.

     

    Q4. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recall the exchanges that he and I had in the House last October, when I raised the question of closed circuit television for security purposes in our towns and cities? Is he aware that the initiative that he announced last year is one of the most practical ways of dealing with crime and of introducing crime prevention measures? Although he may not be able to confirm to me today whether my constituency of Cleethorpes is to benefit from the forthcoming announcement, will he guarantee that he will have a word with our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and advise him that we in Cleethorpes are very supportive of that initiative?

    The Prime Minister: Bringing closed circuit television to all corners of the United Kingdom is a practical effort to create a safer Britain in future. We are investing around £50 million, and our target is to fund 10,000 new cameras in the next three years. I am pleased to hear from my hon. Friend about the Cleethorpes bid. Knowing my hon. Friend, I would have been surprised if there had not been a Cleethorpes bid, but he is right–I cannot confirm to him today whether it has been successful, but I hope that announcements will be made before too long.

    Mr. Litherland: The Prime Minister will understand that there are no words to describe the loathing that Manchester people have for the perpetrators of the crime against our city last Saturday, but it has happened and we must now begin to rebuild Manchester. Mancunians are resilient people, but they require help. Will the Prime Minister today give the assurance to the House that the Government will offer every support, including financial aid, for the restoration of businesses, buildings, jobs and homes in Manchester? Sympathy will not pay the bills.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has commented on three matters of importance. I entirely share his initial remarks about Manchester, and I have no doubt about the courage and determination of the people of that city in recovering from last week’s incident. Individuals injured by the bomb are eligible to apply for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Government-backed terrorism insurance scheme will ensure that participating insurers can meet claims by companies that purchased full terrorism cover. Businesses that have not done so are likely to receive limited reimbursement and should contact their insurance companies.

    The financial implications for local authorities are not yet clear. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider carefully any application for assistance by an authority affected by the incident, and he will certainly do so. In Manchester in the past–and I am sure that this will be so in future–an effective partnership between the Government, the private sector and the city council has delivered remarkable regeneration in many parts of the city. That partnership provides an excellent basis for rebuilding, and we look forward to working with the people concerned.

     

    Q5. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to a great man now gone, the late Sir Fitzroy Maclean? Was there not much to admire in that soldier, diplomat, Conservative Member of Parliament and patriot, who had an enviable ability for getting out of tight corners?

    The Prime Minister: Sir Fitzroy Maclean was a remarkable man with many qualities to admire–from being a founder of the Special Air Services to a Minister of the Crown at this Dispatch Box. In all his many roles, Sir Fitzroy made a remarkable contribution. He also played a crucial role in work with Tito’s partisans in the second world war. People will think of Sir Fitzroy Maclean as a man who lived life to the full. From what I know of him, I believe that he would regard that as a satisfactory epitaph.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 June 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th June 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Mr. Jovan Zebic

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister (1) on what dates Ministers met Mr. Jovan Zebic in their official capacity since 1990;

    (2) on what dates Ministers met Mr. Zoran Tanic in their official capacity since 1990.

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

     

    Sir James Kirkham

    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister when he last met Sir James Kirkham; and if he will outline the matters discussed.

    The Prime Minister: I have never heard of Sir James Kirkham. The hon. Member may be referring to Sir Graham Kirkham, whom I last met on Sunday 9 June at the Oval cricket ground and at a dinner at Downing Street. We discussed raising funds for good causes, in particular Mencap, in whose interests the cricket was played and the dinner given.

     

    Conservative Party (Donations)

    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) of 21 May, Official Report, column 96, what reports he received in 1991 and 1992 alleging donations to the Conservative party from sources linked to Bosnian Serbs.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to my answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on 21 May, Official report, column 96.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Manchester Bomb – 15 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s account, from his book, John Major – The Autobiography, relating to the Manchester bombings.


    JOHN MAJOR:

    Confounding the sceptics, we were able to hold elections in 30 May [1996]. Having wavered over a boycott, Sinn Fein not only took part, but recorded its best-ever result, with over 15 per cent of the vote (against 24 per cent for Trimble’s UUP [Ulster Unionist Party], 21 per cent for Hume’s SDLP [Social Democratic and Labour Party] and nearly 19 per cent for Paisley’s DUP [Democratic Unionist Party]). Pundits were divided over whether Sinn Fein’s vote was an endorsement of the IRA’s bombing campaign or an encouragement for them to call another ceasefire and join the negotiating forum. The IRA gave their answer when they demolished the centre of Manchester with a massive bomb on 15th June [1996], only days after the opening of the all-party talks under George Mitchell’s chairmanship. They were evidently not applying for admission. John Bruton hardened his stance, and demanded an unconditional and irrevocable ceasefire before they could enter.

    The Manchester bomb, deliberately placed in a crowded city centre, injured two hundred people and provoked deep revulsion. It confirmed that the IRA was stuck in a groove. Even more depressing in its political message was a reversion to wider sectarianism during the July-August marching season, despite the talks. As in 1995, Drumcree was against the flashpoint. To avoid clashes, the Chief Constable of the RUC Hugh Annesley routed an Orange Order march away from the Catholic Garvaghy Road. This decision provoked a risk of even greater violence, and had to be reversed. The reversal then triggered riots, and heightened tension between the two communities over several weeks.

  • Mr Major’s Statement Following Manchester Bomb – 15 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on 15th June 1996 following the bomb explosion in Manchester.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    This was a dreadful act. I condemn utterly those responsible. My first thoughts are with the injured and their families.

    This explosion looks like the work of the IRA. It is the work of a few fanatics and, as John Bruton has already made clear, causes absolute revulsion in Ireland, as it does here. This callous act of terrorism while the Queen was reviewing the colour of the Irish Guards is an insult to both nations.

    Sinn Fein have been clamouring to attend the Northern Ireland peace talks which began last week. If they are really serious about wanting peace, they must condemn this act and demand an unequivocal IRA ceasefire now.

    We shall spare no effort to bring those responsible to justice.

  • John Major’s Speech to the 1996 Welsh Conservative Party Conference – 14 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Welsh Conservative Party Conference in Porthcawl on Friday 14th June 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Britain Transformed

    People will ask you ‘What have the Tories ever done for me?’

    It’s an honest question – bluntly put – and deserves an honest answer, equally straightforward.

    So spell it out for them.

    Remind the questioner there’s been a revolution in education. In 1979 one in eight young people went on to higher education. Today it’s almost one in three. A third of all families can look with pride to their child’s achievement. A third of our young people enter the world of work armed with a better education.

    ‘Well’, they may say “So there’s education. But what else have the Tories ever done for me?”

    Under the last Labour government, if you needed an operation, you had a one in five chance of waiting over two years. Today, only a handful of people are waiting that long.

    ‘Fine – there’s education, health. Fair enough. Anything else?’

    Inflation. There’s another certainty. If we’d kept inflation at the level we’d inherited and followed Labour’s policies, today a loaf of bread would cost £1.25 and a pint of milk 70p. About double today’s prices.

    ‘All right. I give you that. But what else have the Tories ever done for me?’

    Well, there’s tax. If we still had the tax system we inherited from Labour, the average earner would be paying £17 more a week- £17 a week – in tax. How about that?’

    “Mmmmm. Education, health, inflation, tax. Is that all the Tories have ever done for me?’

    Look, don’t have to tell you ladies and gentlemen, they’re tough on the doorstep. So come right back at them.

    There’s the unions. In 1979, we lost twenty nine and a half million days to strikes. Twenty nine and a half million. The dustmen, the council workers, the car workers all proving Labour doesn’t work. Since then, the number of days lost to strikes has hit the lowest since records began.

    ‘Yes, well’ they may say. ‘Apart from education, health, inflation, tax, strikes. That’s all very well, but what have the Tories ever done me?’

    Take a deep breath, and broaden the picture.

    Under Labour, loss-making nationalised industries cost the taxpayer £50 million a week.

    Today, privatised industries contribute £50 million a week in tax. £50 million a week – enough to pay for 11,500 hip replacements, 1 new hospital a month and 5 new schools.

    What’s more, electricity bills are down £18. Gas bills – excluding VAT – down over £90. Phone bills still falling – down £44 in the last three years. Privatisation works.

    ‘So there’s education, health, inflation, tax, strikes, household bills. But what have the Tories ever done for me?

    Jobs. Under Labour, unemployment rose by 122 per cent. 2.500 people became unemployed every week. This week, unemployment fell again – down by 800,000 since its peak. We’ve more of our people in work than any major country in Europe.

    ‘Sure, sure. That’s all very well. But how else have the Tories helped me?’

    There’s mortgages. Average monthly mortgage payments are around £170 lower than they were 6 years ago. At less than 7%, they’re at a 30 year low. The average rate under Labour was 11 per cent.

    ‘So that’s it, is it?’

    No. Here in Wales. William has been working to improve the environment. Intending to designate the Menai Straits as a nature reserve. Aiming for 50 of Wales’ beaches to be of the highest, blue flag, quality. Helping to protect Wales’ coast. So there’s health. Education. Inflation. Tax. Strikes. Bills. Jobs. Mortgages. The environment. How about that for a success story?

    ‘Yes … but why didn’t you tell me about all that in the first place?’

    Madam Chairman, that’s what life under the Tories has brought about: it’s quite a story. The story of a Britain transformed.

    Which part of our United Kingdom do you think has recorded over 1,500 new inward investment projects, worth billions, during the last thirteen years?

    Where has unemployment fallen by almost 26,000 over the last three years?

    Where has self-employment risen by almost 30 per cent since ‘79?

    Where have days lost from industrial action fallen to less than 1% of those lost in 1979?

    Here in Wales. That’s the kind of change Conservatism brings in its wake. Change for the better. And it doesn’t stop there.

    Look at Caerphilly. Once overshadowed by Cardiff and Newport, today a thriving major retail and commercial centre in its own right.

    Or the new Severn Crossing. Built with private finance as a vote of confidence for the growing South Wales economy.

    Or the new Ford plant I visited this morning, a £340 million investment bringing almost 500 new jobs to Bridgend.

    One success after another under a Conservative Government. To borrow a phrase you may have seen about town: ‘Yes, it worked’,

    Life is better. And if people want a change, they need to be clear what they’re changing from, and what they’re changing to.

    The Next Election

    At the moment too many people are sleepwalking into the next election – which is precisely what Labour want them to do. It’s the whole point of their strategy. They want to drug people into thinking that voting Labour is risk free. They don’t warn people to realise that if they vote Labour, Britain will never be the same again.

    Madam Chairman, that’s not my idea of politics. Britain is the oldest democracy in the world. I’ve always believed that if you give the people the facts, and treat them like adults, then you can trust them to make their own minds up.

    Our job is to set out our case. To make people think before they vote. And to leave them in no doubt what the consequences would be for Britain if they decide to cast aside everything we’ve achieved and take a massive step into the dark.

    Because the next election is a watershed election. Many of the changes Labour want to slip past us are irreversible.

    Three over-arching issues will lift this election out of the run of the mill. Issues that will decide the kind of country we live in.

    First, there’s the United Kingdom itself. You might think it’s right to give Scotland its own Parliament and Wales an assembly. Or you might think that’s a rotten idea, as I do. But whatever you think, once you go down that route, it’s difficult to turn back. The change might be irreversible. It would be no use saying ‘No one told me that would happen’. It would be too late. The Union would be gone.

    Then there’s Europe. You might think that Britain’s destiny lies in being drawn ever deeper into a federal Europe. Or you might, like me, believe we should resist that tooth and nail. Because once you’ve given powers to Europe it’s all but impossible to get them back. No use saying ‘Oh I didn’t think that would happen’. It would have happened.

    Finally, there’s the economy. You can eve an argument about whether you have more state control, as Labour believe, or less, as you and I think we should. Whether or not you agree, don’t doubt what’s at stake. You’d be throwing away the strongest economy in Europe – I repeat the strongest major economy in Europe. No point in complaining ‘Oh, I didn’t think that would happen’ when taxes, strikes, inflation all start going up – as they always do under Labour. By then it would be too late.

    Britain’s success, our Union, our nation – that’s what Labour threaten. Between now and the next election I’m going to set out the difference, the major difference, if I may say so, between us and Labour – and I’m going to say it and say it and say it until everyone understands all that is at stake.

    The Choice

    On the day they go to the polls, people will think of a number of things. High on their lists will be which party will make me and my family better off?

    The Conservative answer is simple. We believe in rewarding hard work. Encouraging people to set up their own business, to save and invest for the future.

    We want to give people the chance to spend more of their money as they wish.

    So as soon as we can safely do so, our instinct is to cut taxes. They’re still too high.

    Britain will never be able to compete in tomorrow’s world if we’re lumbered with high taxes, cramping enterprise and investment. That’s what you’d get under Labour.

    But to cut taxes we need to keep spending under control. We’re doing just that. For the first time in its history, spending on the welfare state will grow slower than the economy. Of course we’ll always help those in genuine need. But let spending spiral out of control, and we can wave goodbye to a strong economy.

    Now look at Labour, they’re addicted to the spending state.

    Look at what they’re planning.

    First, anyone earning as much as Clare Short could be taxed more. Care has a bee in her bonnet. She thinks they’re doing too well. So it’s bad news for them.

    It’s also bad news for anyone living in Scotland. They’d be clobbered by Labour’s Tartan Tax.

    Bad news for any middle class parent with a child staying on at school. They run the risk of losing their child benefit. Labour’s Teenage Tax.

    Bad news for anyone who owns shares in a privatised utility. Labour’s Windfall Tax.

    And heaven help anyone who uses a company car or drives to an out of town shopping centre. They’d run straight into Labour’s Shopping Tax.

    Oh, they’re high on tax in the Labour Party. So to keep your money, make your choice: lower taxes under the Conservatives, higher taxes under Labour.

    As for jobs, we’ve the lowest unemployment of any major European economy.

    Why? Because of our policies.

    Look how much it costs to employ someone across Europe. I don’t mean wages. I mean extra costs over and above wages.

    For every £100 an employer spends on wages, he’d have to pay an extra £32 in Germany. An extra £34 in Spain. An extra £41 in France. An extra £44 in Italy.

    But here in Britain, the cost is just £18. That’s why we’re competitive. It costs less in overheads to employ people here than in other European countries.

    That’s why we’ve attracted more foreign investment than any other country in Europe.

    And that’s why I won’t sign the Social Chapter or have a minimum wage.

    But Labour would. They say they’re after full employment – what they’d get is more unemployment. The minimum wage would price job-seekers out of the market. The Social Chapter would price Britain out of the market.

    So once again, the choice is clear. Policies to create jobs under the Conservatives. Policies to destroy jobs under Labour.

    Of course, the only way Britain will remain competitive is if our children learn the skills of the future. Education is vital.

    Conservative Britain has come a long way. Schools are no longer a secret garden. Just look at our record. A national curriculum, tests, performance tables, regular inspection. Choice for parents – every parent – even Labour politicians. That’s all right. We’re broad minded. And more young people going on to higher education than ever before.

    That’s the Conservative record on education and I’m proud of it.

    And here’s the future under the next Conservative Government.

    More choice.

    More grant-maintained schools.

    Tougher teacher training.

    More selective schools – including grammar schools.

    More Assisted Places.

    More results published.

    Every child is different. Every parent deserves choice. Opening doors for everyone. That’s Conservative policy.

    Labour’s idea of education is a scorched earth policy. First they enjoy it, then they destroy it.

    Some Labour politicians went to private school. But do they support them? Not a bit of it. They’d deny others the chance they had by abolishing assisted places.

    Some of them went to grammar schools. So now they’d like to abolish them.

    Some of them make the most of choice. They send their children to grammar or grant- maintained schools. They’d be abolished too – once the children have left.

    Labour standards are double standards. And their motto: ‘do what I say, not what I do’.

    When it suits them Labour mouth platitudes about teaching children the basics. But when it came to the crunch, oh, that’s different. Where were they when we had to fight to introduce the national curriculum, tests, and league tables and the rest? Who opposed us at elections, in Parliament and in councils up and down the country?

    You’re right – Labour. My motto is: ‘watch what they do, not what they say’.

    So it’s clear. More choice, higher standards, more freedom under the Conservatives. Less choice, more control, more restriction under Labour.

    The Nation

    A strong economy. A skilled workforce. A nation that’s winning in markets around the world. That’s how we’ll become the Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    But, just when we’re enjoying economic success, nothing would be more disastrous than Labour’s plans to carve up Britain. It would be an act of constitutional vandalism.

    Our nation’s prosperity and future depends on unity. Once broken up, it would be difficult – probably impossible – to put it together. And that’s the second reason why the next election is all important.

    I don’t say this for party political reasons. Nothing would improve the partisan, political fortunes of the Conservative Party than to see Scotland and Wales with Labour and Nationalist MPs going their own way. But we don’t want that.

    For one thing, we want Scotland and Wales electing more Conservative MPs. But irrespective of how they vote, we believe the people of Scotland and Wales want to remain part of the United Kingdom.

    Our United Kingdom has been moulded over the centuries, battered by the tide of history. Yes, it has changed. And it is changing. But necessary change, not change for change’s sake.

    Yet Labour’s plans are just that.

    When was the last time you heard someone looking for a job saying ‘What we really need is an assembly. Then I’d get a job?’

    Or parents concerned about their children’s education. Are they thinking ‘An assembly! That’s what my child needs to get through school’?

    And how many pensioners have you heard muttering ‘Welsh assembly. Welsh assembly – that’s what we need to fight crime on the streets’?

    Madam Chairman, a Welsh assembly is as pointless as a blunt pencil.

    Worse still, Labour’s plans are an humiliating, patronising slap in the face for Wales.

    Labour’s lust for power has forced them to promise Scotland a tax-raising Parliament. Why? Because the only way Labour can hope to compete against the Scottish Nationalists is to propose barmy plans for their own party political advantage. That’s why Labour want a Scottish Parliament. It’s their bid for Scottish votes.

    As a result, Scotland would become widely over-represented at Westminster. The only way Labour could attempt to redress the balance is by lumbering England and Wales with totally irrelevant assemblies.

    I come to Wales as an Englishman. A Conservative Prime Minister. But Prime Minister of a United Kingdom.

    Labour Prime Ministers – one of them even sitting for a Welsh seat – have governed the United Kingdom without holding a majority of seats in England. But they never said they had no mandate to rule England. They never said England should go its own way.

    But now Labour are singing a different tune. My duty is to point out the dangers of following Labour down the route they’d take us.

    Wales will choose.

    If the Welsh people want a focus for division, then a good way of doing so is to vote for a Welsh assembly. If they think an inspiring way to greet the Millennium is to have more politicians, chattering away in an assembly, then by all means they can vote for one.

    If, unlike Mr Blair, they can guarantee that an assembly won’t demand powers to spend other people’s money, they can vote for one.

    If they know why a Scottish Parliament should be elected by PR, but a Welsh Assembly by first past the post, they should telephone Mr Blair- because he hasn’t the foggiest.

    I have only one vote. I know how I’ll be using it. To protect and defend the United Kingdom from policies that would hurt and never work.

    But Labour’s madness knows no bounds. It spreads to the third great issue – Europe.

    Labour believe that our future lies in a sort of superstate. Let me remind you, Labour would undermine the veto. Jeopardize our rebate. Sign up to the Social Chapter. Give more powers to the European Parliament.

    No wonder Mr Blair says he’d never be isolated in Europe. Armed with a blank cheque, he’d agree to what is wholly against our nation’s interests. With his set of policies, he’d have little choice.

    Some people might like his idea of being part of a European superstate. If so, they can vote Labour. That’s their prerogative.

    Others – like all of us here – have a very different vision. It’s a vision of a Europe of nation states, linked by traditions of freedom and democracy and a single market, trading together but preserving their own identity.

    I don’t want to see our nation swept aside. Our Parliament at Westminster must remain the focus for British democracy – not Brussels.

    Yes, of course we must remain a part of the European Union. We can’t afford to be outside the world’s largest single market. We created that single market. It remains in our national interest to be part of it. The Union has made co-operation, not conflict, the habit between the nations of Western Europe.

    But we need to persuade our partners that the way forward is by building a partnership of nation states. A partnership that respects the cultures and traditions of European countries.

    We will argue for the Europe we want. And if we disagree, and think Europe is going in the wrong direction, we’ll simply say politely but firmly – ‘no, that’s not for us’.

    Europe must be flexible enough to allow us to do that. As more countries join, we can’t hope to fit into some universal blueprint. Nation states can’t be expected to march in institutional step.

    Flexibility, patience and understanding are essential. So I say again, if Europe goes federalist. Britain will not follow.

    Peroration

    Madam Chairman, no party has the right to point the British people towards the polling booth anaesthetised by warm words, hollow generalities, and a vague wish for change.

    We Conservatives inherited a Britain on the rocks.

    We’ve spent seventeen years rescuing this country from that inheritance and turning it round.

    Turning the tide of progressive thought in schools takes years.

    Reversing liberal approaches to crime takes years.

    Curbing the powers of the unions takes years.

    Getting inflation down to all time lows takes years.

    Building a Europe of nation states takes years.

    But on Britain’s doorsteps pointing to what we’ve achieved is only half the picture.

    We need to alert people to the choice they will have to make. When they go into the polling booth and pick up that stubby little pencil, what they’re voting for will be nothing less than the future of Britain.

    Say to the people before they vote ‘If you want a fragmented country, a weaker Britain, the end to our economic strength and that’s what you vote for, then fair enough, that’s democracy. You have that right’.

    But don’t leave them on the doorstep under the illusion that they’re voting for something else. Don’t let them be conned by that sort of thing: it’s a false prospectus.

    These issues are too great, too important to be brushed aside. If Labour had their way, the face of Britain would be changed for good. Forever. And irredeemably for the worse.

    We Conservatives can’t afford to let that happen – and we won’t. Which is why New Labour, Old Labour, any old Labour, are trying to pull the political wool over people’s eyes.

  • Mr Major’s Statement Following Meeting with Romano Prodi – 13 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep statement in London following a meeting with Romano Prodi, the Italian Prime Minister, on 13th June 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good Morning. Let me just say a very few words about our discussions this morning. I was very pleased to welcome the Prime Minister here this morning, to congratulate him upon his recent election win and the formation of his government, and to thank him for the constructive role the Italian Presidency have been taking over recent weeks over the difficult problem of resolving the crisis over beef. The Presidency have been extremely helpful and we have had a very useful discussion about that this morning.

    Our discussions centred really in three areas: bilateral relations, which are excellent; the agenda for the European Union meeting at Florence in a few days time that I much look forward to attending; and how to resolve the present difficulties over beef. On each of those areas we had extremely constructive and worthwhile discussions and I am very encouraged by them. The Prime Minister may want to say a word or two and then we will take just a very few questions.

    MR PRODI:

    I think that you have already given the clear picture of what we have told in our discussions. I want only to add that the discussion has been very constructive, deep, without of course conclusion because this is a process of discussion, but I think it has been very helpful for preparing the Foreign Ministers meeting of next Monday and the Florence Conference at the end of next week.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Can I ask you both what prospect you now see of a settlement in the beef crisis before the opening of the Florence settlement, and whether that peace can be achieved without the agreement for Britain to kill another 20,000 cows?

    MR PRODI:

    I can talk in terms of probabilities, I tell you that this morning we have pointed the questions in a very clear and precise way, you know you approach the moment in which you see not, you don’ t see the solution done but you see which can be the solution. And so I think we have made good progress.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are making progress but we are not there yet.

    QUESTION:

    Does the information coining out today that Britain continued to export, or double its exports of contaminated foodstuffs to the rest of Europe after the ban in this country, does that complicate getting a settlement before Florence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No problems at all with that and we have had no difficult discussions about that whatever this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that the firm action which was taken against Bill Cash and the Referendum Party yesterday will send a useful signal to Europe in this context?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That was an internal question and it was dealt with internally.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    Mr Prodi, what would you hope to achieve at Florence apart from this question of beef? What were you hoping to do there?

    MR PRODI:

    We shall tackle the institutional programme. But we shall give the agenda for the intergovernmental conference and we shall not take a decision, because you know that is a project that is starting now and the directional work will be changing the institutional framework the programme of internal policy and foreign policy and the science. And in Florence we shall tackle deep the problem of unemployment and the different strategies to tackle unemployment in Europe.

  • PMQT – 13 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th June 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

    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. Arnold: Is it not increasingly clear that the Government’s firm and resolute management of the British economy has created the best performing economy in Europe? Would it not be a crying tragedy if that were thrown away by tying up British industry in red tape and by transferring our monetary policy–and, indeed, our gold reserves–to Frankfurt, which is what would follow a Labour Government’s subscription to the social chapter and a single currency?

    The Prime Minister: The economy is doing very well. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s analysis of the impact of the Labour party’s alternative policies. In the past few days, we have had two separate illustrations of how well the economy is doing: first, the excellent news about jobs; secondly, the excellent news about inflation. We are now in the fifth year of steady growth, and that is what will deliver continuing prosperity.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm the following? Is it true that two of his Back Benchers gave the Government an ultimatum on Monday that, unless they received firm assurances that the accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital would be replaced by a full emergency unit, they would withdraw support from the Government; secondly, that the ultimatum was to expire last night; thirdly, that they then met the Health Secretary; and, fourthly, that they now say that they have been given those assurances and have withdrawn the ultimatum? Is that substantially true? If it is, is it not a disreputable way in which to run a Government?

    The Prime Minister: No, it is not substantially true, and I have to say that there is no possibility of the Government responding to approaches of that sort from any hon. Member. We do not respond to such activities and we will not respond to such activities. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is reassured.

    Mr. Blair: No, Madam Speaker, I am not reassured. Which of the facts that I have just listed does the right hon. Gentleman dispute? We know that the ultimatum was given. That is a matter of record. We know that the ultimatum was withdrawn, and the two Conservative Members concerned say that they have been given the assurance that the full emergency unit will now be given. What are we to make of this? Was it one of life’s happy coincidences?

    I would like to ask the Prime Minister, specifically, were those Conservative Members given the assurance that they say they were given by the Secretary of State for Health–that the accident and emergency department would be replaced with full emergency cover, details to be announced later? Were they given that assurance by the Secretary of State for Health or not?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is distorting and misunderstanding, and I shall try to explain it to him. A lot of people have made representations about Edgware–local medical people, local churches, my hon. Friends and many others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has listened carefully, but he has made it clear that we will not retain the accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital. We will not retain it, and it is the gravamen of the charge that that is what he was asked to do. The policy that we are following is the policy that we have been pursuing for some time.

    Mr. Mackinlay: Closing hospitals.

    The Prime Minister: Not closing hospitals; providing better facilities–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) must come to order.

    The Prime Minister: –for hospitals in London and elsewhere; facilities utterly run down when the Government took power in 1979.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has not answered the question about whether such an assurance has been given. [Interruption.] He has not answered it. When he gets to his feet again, let him say, yes or no, whether such an assurance was given. [Interruption.] Have Conservative Members any idea of the anger that people feel at the way in which decisions are taken when such closures are happening all round the country? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), along with other hon. Members, must come to order. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) must also come to order.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: What about the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)?

    Madam Speaker: Order. I have just called the hon. Member for Thurrock to order.

    Mr. Blair: I think that most people know that the way to save the health service is not to have Back-Bench Tory Members of Parliament pressuring a weak Government, but the election of a Government committed to the NHS.

    I repeat: will the Prime Minister answer that question? Is he aware of the contempt that people feel for a Government whose policies now seem to be determined solely by the imprint of the last person who sat on him? Will not they conclude that this is a Government with no thought for the national interest and no purpose but survival?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s cheap insults do not provide arguments or enlightenment. I answered the question earlier. The problem for the right hon. Gentleman is that he did not get the answer that he wanted.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced as long ago as last December that he was discussing the nature of the casualty service. He has not given an assurance to retain the accident and emergency department at Edgware and the right hon. Gentleman knows that.

    The Government’s spending on the national health service is at a record level–£116 million every day, £5 million every hour, £81,000 every minute. That is a commitment of which to be proud, and it will be retained by this Government in this Parliament–and in the next.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mrs. Peacock: In view of the disturbing and increasing number of child abuse cases, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will do all within his power to get to the root of the problem, thereby to prevent such tragedies from happening in future?

    The Prime Minister: I can give that assurance. I am personally horrified by some of the events that have been reported. Children in residential care are self-evidently among the most vulnerable members of our society. We discussed the matter this morning at some length. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Health have been considering what action to take, and we agreed their proposals this morning in Cabinet. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is finalising arrangements for an inquiry to address what happened in north Wales, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is to invite Sir William Utting to assess whether the safeguards now in place, which have been much tightened in recent years, are adequate to protect children and are being properly enforced. My right hon. Friends will set out their detailed proposals, the terms of reference, the name of the judge and other matters in a full statement to the House early next week. I feel that the House would wish to know the direction in which the Government propose to take this matter.

    Mr. Ashdown: That answer, at least, will be very welcome.

    In what way is what the hon. Members for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) and for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) tried to do any different from what the Euro-rebels have been allowed to do–get the Prime Minister in an armlock and get their way? Surely they should not be criticised for trying that, but the Prime Minister should be for encouraging it. Is not it perfectly clear that we have a Government whose party has been suborned by a foreign millionaire, whose decisions are daily subjected to blackmail by any passing Back Bencher, whose Prime Minister is now cooking up a fudge to cover a surrender for a European policy that has failed, and that it is an Administration that has no further purpose except to ensure, by whatever means and at whatever cost, their own limping and miserable survival?

    The Prime Minister: It would be a lengthy business to refute all the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman just uttered. I shall use just one illustration. If the Referendum Bill was designed solely as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, why did one of his hon. Friends vote for it–[Hon. Members: “Two!”] Two. That is a dangerous split in a party of that size.

    The tactic, by anyone, of threatening to withhold support generally in response to a specific demand will not work. It is not acceptable. It has not worked, and it will not work now or at any stage in future. No Minister would respond to such an approach.

    Sir John Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to support what he said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition? Will he confirm that the agreement that the Secretary of State for Health made between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) was not the retention of an accident and emergency department in its fullest extent, but an alternative that the Secretary of State has been discussing with us for the past six months with regard to a casualty unit, which instead of having nurses would have qualified doctors 24 hours a day, and that when patients were in a stable condition they might have to be moved?

    The Prime Minister rose–

    Hon. Members: More.

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said is that the matter has been discussed with him–and, I have to say, with a large number of other groups. It has been under consideration for many months, as my right hon. Friend has made clear on a number of occasions. The demands that it is said were made were not met by the Government and would not be met by them, either in this instance or in any instance in the future. I hope that that is entirely clear to the leader of the Labour party and everyone else.

     

    Q3. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. MacShane: Does the Prime Minister recall that, on Tuesday, he saw no problem with the financing of the anti-European campaign of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) by Sir James Goldsmith, but yesterday–Wednesday–he and the Chief Whip ordered the hon. Member for Stafford to confess the error of his ways and stop taking the money? What caused the Prime Minister to change his mind?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman should see exactly what was said. It was clearly unacceptable for my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to accept funds from the principal figure behind a list of candidates likely to stand against the Conservative party in the general election. My hon. Friend has made it clear that he will not receive any funding from that source, and I congratulate him on his decision.

    Mr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, last month, the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body met in the village of Adair in County Limerick, and that I was accompanied throughout the visit by a Garda officer, Gerry McCabe? Is he aware that, last week, in that same beautiful village, that outstanding officer was gunned down by an IRA gang? Will he join me in sending our deepest sympathy to the widow and family of Gerry McCabe, and to Commissioner Culligan and all his colleagues in the Garda Siochana?

    Does this not underline the fact that violence is an evil that threatens everyone throughout the island of Ireland and throughout these islands? Should not we reaffirm our support for all who are now bravely seeking to resolve difficult issues by democratic and peaceful means?

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House will wish to echo my right hon. Friend’s words about Mr. McCabe and his brutal murder. That murder, and the murder of another Garda officer–which, I understand, Sinn Fein has yet again refused to condemn–only demonstrates even more clearly precisely why Sinn Fein cannot join in the talks that are currently taking place until such time as there is a clear-cut and unequivocal ceasefire, and we can be confident that it is going to be maintained. That is the British Government’s position and the Irish Government’s position, and it will not change.

  • PMQT – 11 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th June 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

    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. Mullin: Has the Prime Minister heard today’s admission by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that Sir James Goldsmith is helping to fund his faction within the Conservative party? Does it strike the Prime Minister as odd that a foreign-based millionaire–[Hon. Members: “Billionaire.”] Does it strike him as odd that a foreign-based billionaire who has set up his own political party and is running candidates against official Conservative candidates is also funding his own fifth column within the Conservative party? Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans to do anything about this extraordinary situation?

    The Prime Minister: I had not seen that statement by Sir James Goldsmith, but of course Sir James is a man of independent mind. Sir James is of course entirely free, if he wishes, to field his own candidates at a general election–I suppose that anyone with £20 million to spend can afford to do that–but he is not going to change our policy.

    Mr. Dykes: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his plans to put some backbone into some of our colleagues who seem to be irrationally obsessed with Sir James Goldsmith, and very scared about him as well? That, presumably, is why my right hon. Friend authorised the attendance of four members of the Government at last night’s bizarre proceedings.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may himself think that he requires authorisation to attend particular meetings, but I assure him that all my hon. Friends will use their own independent judgment about the meetings they attend, and about the judgments they take from those meetings.

    Mr. Blair: It may seem indelicate to intrude on private grief, but may I ask the Prime Minister what we are to make of the political party in government when a former Cabinet Minister hosts a reception for a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and his campaign manager, to advocate withdrawal from the European Union–in the presence of Ministers–to the leader of a different political party altogether, whose objective is to remove Conservative Members of Parliament at the general election?

    The Prime Minister: I must say that the right hon. Gentleman has a very selective memory. He entered the House on a programme of leaving the European Union.

    Mr. Blair: The problem is that the right hon. Gentleman’s political party is now moving towards advocating that programme. [Interruption.] It is. Let us put it to the test. Will the Prime Minister now join me in saying that the real agenda of many of those who will support the Referendum Bill today is to push Britain to the point of withdrawal from Europe? Will he join me unequivocally in saying that the views of those people who will make that case today are wrong?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can invent his own policies: he should not invent policies for my party. I have made it clear in speech after speech and in the recent White Paper that this country’s role lies within the European Union, fighting for the sort of European Union that is amenable to this country. That remains the position. We intend to try to provide, within the European Union, a set of circumstances that is right for this country. That does not mean that we accept every element of policy that our European partners propose, and it does not mean that we would never be isolated, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. It does not mean that we would give up the veto, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. We are there to fight for British interests, not to follow the policy that the right hon. Gentleman would follow and surrender British interests.

    Mr. Blair: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman stand at that Dispatch Box as Prime Minister and say that the views of those people are wrong? If he carries on running from them, they will carry on chasing him and the losers will be Britain, our jobs, our industry and our influence. When will the Prime Minister finally stand up and take a lead?

    The Prime Minister: I have told the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is putting views in the mouths of my hon. Friends that are not theirs, and my hon. Friends have made that clear time after time. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to sort out problems on Europe, he might make it clear that he disagrees with those 50 of his Back Benchers who have issued their own manifesto disagreeing with every element of the leader of the Labour party’s policy on Europe. Perhaps he will make it clear that he disagrees with them. Our policy is to be within Europe, fighting for British interests, disagreeing with our European partners when we must, and agreeing with them when it is in the interests of this country.

    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement by the National Lottery Charities Board of £150 million of grants today, mostly to help young people? Does that not show that the House was right to make the charities board one of the recipients of national lottery funding and is that not the true image of the lottery in this country?

    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome many of the awards that have been made today. They cover a wide range, including money for Childline, the British Red Cross, an ex-service men’s association and the Samaritans. They will all have widespread support across the country. Having studied the list of all the awards made today, a small number of the awards do not in my judgment reflect the way in which Parliament and the public expected the lottery money to be spent. That is true of a minority of awards. The freedom to make those awards was given to the individual boards by the House and they have responsibility for the awards that they make. Overwhelmingly, they exercise that responsibility well. From time to time, they make awards that are ill founded and ill judged.

     

    Q2. Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Jones: I have given the right hon. Gentleman previous notice of my question. Will he revoke his policy on market testing as it affects military units such as the 1,800-strong RAF Sealand in my constituency, where large-scale redundancies are feared? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no level playing field when predator contractors compete against the in-house bid in RAF Sealand, such as GEC and Brown and Root?

    Will the Prime Minister give consideration to making my part of the world a market-testing-free zone on the basis that, if something is working, one should not fix it? Why put profit before the national interest? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the Falklands and Gulf wars, RAF Sealand gave magnificent service to Britain? That is all that it wants to continue to do.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the matter that he wished to raise. The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in his support for RAF Sealand and has raised it with a number of my hon. Friends in the past. Our intention is to ensure that the armed forces get the highest possible quality of support at the best value for money for the defence budget. An announcement on the winning contractor is expected towards the end of the year. I am not proposing to revoke our present policy in any way–it is the right policy–but I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the in-house bid will be evaluated against precisely the same criteria as the two external bids and that the judgment will be made on value for money.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I join the Leader of the Opposition in putting to my right hon. Friend some things that are wrong. Would it not be wrong to oppose the Family Law Bill, which has provisions on domestic violence? As to that measure’s marriage elements, is it not right to get rid of quickie divorces? Ought we not to tidy away the problems of first marriages before letting people get on to second marriages, and would it not be wrong to oppose the Bill because of that as well?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his purpose in asking that question entirely clear. I hope that we shall see some leadership on those issues from individuals who might, for spurious reasons, object to a Bill that I believe is in the interests of the people of this country.

     

    Q3. Mr. Davidson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Davidson: Does the Prime Minister accept that drug dealing and money laundering are major difficulties in this country? Is he aware that a Scottish newspaper reported at the weekend that a journalist had approached a major Scottish organisation and offered it money as a donation, and was advised how that money could be laundered? Is that not a particular cause of concern for all of us? Is it not of particular concern for the Prime Minister, when the organisation involved was the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party?

    The Prime Minister: This Government have taken more action against drug dealing and money laundering than any previous Government, and we continue to do so. I doubt that the hon. Gentleman’s allegation has any foundation, but if he is prepared to give me details, of course I will have it examined–so that it can be repudiated.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the recent fall in unemployment, which is a sign of good economic management? Will he join me in congratulating Layeezee Beds in Batley, which recently recruited 60 new members to its work force because of demand for that company’s products?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that good news from my hon. Friend’s constituency, which is reflected in many constituencies throughout the country. The economy is in better condition than at any time for a generation, which is why we were able to reduce interest rates yet again last week–simply because we have been successful in keeping inflation under control. Our policies are working, inflation is falling, unemployment is falling, growth is beginning to accelerate and this country has better economic circumstances than for many years past–and they are better than in many of our competitor countries on the continent.

    Mr. Benn: How can the Prime Minister justify disfranchising 116,000 voters in the election that he called in Northern Ireland when they voted for Sinn Fein, which is committed to the six Mitchell principles? When there was a ceasefire nearly two years ago, no all-party talks were called for 18 months. Had other Governments followed that principle, there would have been no peace process in the middle east or settlement in southern Africa.

    The Prime Minister: Sinn Fein disfranchised itself. It had every opportunity to take part in the talks. Had there been an unconditional ceasefire by the IRA, Sinn Fein could have been a part of the talks process, as I had hoped it would be. Its representatives cannot sit down in a talks process with a bomb on the table and a gun under the table and the threat that, if they do not get their own way in negotiations, they will revert to type and the habits of the past 20 or 30 years. Sinn Fein’s exclusion from the talks is its fault. That is the position of this Government, the Irish Government and the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, and that situation will not change. It is in Sinn Fein’s hands. A ceasefire and the end of violence, which should have occurred anyhow, quite apart from the talks, and the way would be open for Sinn Fein to join the discussions.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 June 1996

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Union (Non-co-operation)

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy not to relax the policy of non-co-operation with the EU and its institutions until the EU world-wide ban on exports of British beef has been lifted.

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear in my statement of 21 May, Official Report, columns 99-101, that progress would not be possible in the intergovernmental conference or elsewhere until we had agreement on the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives–which we have now achieved–and a clear framework for the lifting of the wider ban.

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the membership of the group set up to oversee the policy of non-co-operation with the EU; how often it is planned that it should meet; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 7 June 1996]: A committee meets regularly under my chairmanship to oversee the policy of non-co-operation. Members of the Committee include the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Agriculture. Other Ministers are invited as appropriate.

    I welcome the decision taken by the Commission on 5 June to lift the ban on beef derivatives with effect from 10 June. We now need early progress on agreement on a framework to lift the wider ban.

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which the United Kingdom has not co-operated with the European Union nations since he made his oral statement on 21 May, Official Report, columns 99-101; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 7 June 1996]: I made it clear in my statement of 21 May, Official Report, columns 99-101, that we would not be able to agree decisions requiring unanimity until the ban on beef derivatives was lifted and we have an agreement on a framework for the lifting of the wider ban.

    I welcome the decision taken by the Commission on 5 June to lift the ban on beef derivatives with effect from 10 June. We now need early progress on agreement on a framework to lift the wider ban.

    Since my statement on 21 May we have withheld agreement on over 60 measures at various EC meetings.

     

    Health Risks (Tobacco and Beef)

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the health risk to Germans from (a) smoking tobacco and (b) eating British beef; and if he will instruct the United Kingdom representative to raise that issue at the European Court of Justice as evidence of discrimination against the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister: No. 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 11 June.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

    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.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) of 17 May, Official Report, column 720, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of co-ordination between Government Departments in respect of the issuing of public interest immunity certificates in relation to the Lockerbie case; and what factors underlay their issue.

    The Prime Minister: I understand that the interested Government Departments consulted with each other in connection with the signing of public interest immunity certificates by their respective Ministers. Public interest immunity was claimed in these certificates where the relevant Minister considered that it would be injurious to the public interest for particular matters to be the subject of evidence.

     

    Mr. T. T. Tsui

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister on what dates in August 1991 he met in his official capacity Mr. T. T. Tsui at 10 Downing Street; how many civil servants were present at the meeting; and what subjects were discussed.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 10 June 1996]: So far as I am aware, none.

     

    Uniformed Services (Compensation)

    Mr. Marlow: To ask the Prime Minister if he will review the circumstances in which damages or compensation are payable to (a) the police and (b) other uniformed services.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 7 June 1996]: No. Where someone claims negligence, it is for the courts to decide whether damages are payable, taking into account all relevant circumstances, which will sometimes include the applicant’s occupation.