Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT – 2 April 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd April 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

    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. Cohen: Will the Prime Minister confirm that a typical person made redundant has to face a 20 per cent. pay cut in order to find a new job? As more than 10 million people have experienced unemployment under the present Government, that is an awful lot of pay cuts and job insecurity. Will the Prime Minister publish the truth in his manifesto–that Conservatives make things worse for working men and women?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the extent to which unemployment has fallen in this country–faster than in any comparable European country. It is down by more than a quarter on its peak some time ago. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that in western Europe we all operate in the same economic climate. More people are getting back into work, more people are in work and there is a lower level of unemployment in this country than in any comparable European country.

    Sir Jim Spicer: Did my right hon. Friend by any chance see “On the Record” on Sunday, when education was discussed and we were treated to the sight of a Liberal councillor from Kingston who spoke out very strongly against any selective education, but who sends her daughter to a grammar school? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the true working of a Lib-Lab pact?

    The Prime Minister: At the risk of causing enormous offence to an important television programme, I confess to the House that I did not watch “On the Record” on Sunday or the Sunday before, and I suspect that I shall not watch it next Sunday. I notice nods of agreement from the Opposition. We seem to have a cross-party consensus on that point. Nevertheless, I can certainly appreciate what my hon. Friend says, and I doubt that that is an isolated incident.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall, in the days when he was flatly against a referendum on Europe, saying that referendums were introduced only to cover up divisions in the Cabinet and none such existed in his Cabinet? Are not those divisions precisely the reason why he is in favour of a referendum today?

    The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should say that when he has just announced a referendum to sort out internal difficulties in his party about his policy. I have said that I will contemplate a referendum on a particular issue of policy that has never occurred before. The right hon. Gentleman intends to ballot all his party members about Labour policy–which is a novel proposition: I am not entirely sure how one can ballot people about something that does not exist.

    Mr. Blair: I suspect that I shall have rather more support for my referendum than the Cabinet will give the right hon. Gentleman’s. Why cannot the Prime Minister answer now the question that he was able to answer a few months ago? Has the Chancellor changed his mind–a nod or a shake of the head will do? We have paralysis in the Government–even the big man of the Cabinet cannot get his way. Is not the decision being taken only because the Government are weak, divided and are being pushed around by their factions?

    The Prime Minister: That was well prepared, but the right hon. Gentleman was too shy to mention that he has changed his policies on Europe, defence, the trade unions and on almost everything else. As for divisions, I have in my hand a paper entitled “Europe Isn’t Working”. It is produced by 50 Labour Members and it opposes every aspect of European policy that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

    As to a single currency, the deputy leader of the Labour party–whom we miss today–says, “Yes, we are against a single currency.” The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)–who is also not here–says that he, personally, is in favour of a single currency. Labour Members of the European Parliament are in favour of a single currency within the time limits and constraints, and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) says that it is irresponsible. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to dance in the midst of those divisions while pretending that there are none. The reality is that his party is as split as it can be on that issue.

    Mr. Blair: I have a suggestion for the Prime Minister: why does he not put his Government out of their misery and give the country a referendum on a matter that it really wants to decide–his Government or ours?

    The Prime Minister: In order to be kind and generous to the right hon. Gentleman, I am giving him time to find some policies so that he has some basis–other than negative campaigning–upon which to conduct an election.

    Mr. Marlow: While our masters in Brussels are deciding how to dispose of the British beef industry, will my right hon. Friend suggest to them that, if they are to slaughter perfectly healthy cattle, the beef would be better used as food aid rather than being incinerated? If people were faced with a one in three chance of dying of starvation or a one in 100 million chance of contracting Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, surely they would eat the beef.

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend intimates, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in Luxembourg today trying to restore public confidence to the beef markets across Europe. He is making good progress and he will keep negotiating until a package of measures is agreed. It is no longer certain whether that will occur today: there is a long way to go in the negotiations and I anticipate that they will continue for many hours yet.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that, as we speak, jobs are being lost and small farms and small firms are going to the wall because of delay and indecision on BSE? Does he acknowledge that he could take some steps without waiting for Brussels? I shall suggest three: first, launch a British standard for quality British beef; secondly, launch a public information campaign to correct misrepresentation and mis-information, which is still widespread and damaging; and, thirdly, get together with the banks and put together a credit guarantee scheme to help small firms and farmers until compensation arrives. I beg the Prime Minister to act now, when he can, rather than stand there wringing his hands and waiting for Brussels to open the door.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s last sentence beggars belief, given his party’s policy on the European Union, but I agree with him about the need to do whatever we can to help the beef industry. Nine or 10 measures have been taken already; a number are currently under consideration and more are under discussion in Brussels. The Agriculture Council is considering and discussing the possibility of extending the scope of intervention to deal with short-term confidence problems. That would clearly be of great benefit to many British farmers. We are also considering a package of measures to deal with BSE. We are discussing its funding and a number of other confidence-building measures for the market. The right hon. Gentleman knows that although there are certain things that we can do in Britain, the fundamental decision needs to be a cross-European one, as he himself told the House the other day.

    Mr. Robathan: My right hon. Friend will know of the concern of some Conservative Members about recent developments in defence. Therefore, will he study carefully reports of a recent conference which considered defence issues, found a potential peace dividend of some £18 billion and, yet again, voted for unilateral nuclear disarmament? When he discusses the resolutions of the recent Transport and General Workers Union conference, will he recall that that union sponsors not only the shadow Chancellor, but the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure what proportion of the Labour party’s income comes from the Transport and General Workers Union, but it is clearly substantial. If accurately reported, its proposition on cutting defence would effectively leave Britain with no defence at all. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been planning a defence review. I had not anticipated that it would be quite so draconian, but as half their policy is determined by trade unions, we cannot be certain that that will not prove to be the case if it is the policy of the Transport and General Workers Union.

     

    Q2. Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

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

    Miss Hoey: The Prime Minister issued an invitation at the weekend via the national newspapers for a debate with the Leader of the Opposition on national television. Now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has accepted that invitation, would the Prime Minister like to name the day?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady says the nicest things. I enjoy my tussles with the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesdays and Thursdays and on other occasions. I was as surprised as the hon. Lady was to read what was reported over the weekend. I recall very well, as a young untried candidate, trying exactly the same trick with an experienced Labour Member of Parliament. I recall that he said to me at the time, “Go and sort out your policies first. Then I shall consider these stupid PR stunts.”

     

    Q3. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

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

    Mr. Brown: Notwithstanding the exchanges between the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), is not the answer for the Prime Minister to give the people of the country on the issue of beef, in Easter week, when Grimsby and Cleethorpes holds the biggest fish market of the year, the message that people should consume Grimsby fish? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Frank Flear, who is behind the new fish docks in Grimsby and Cleethorpes that the Government supported with massive investment, and urge the people of Britain this week to consume Grimsby and Cleethorpes fish?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to invite the nation to eat Grimsby fish, and fish from elsewhere in the British Isles. I hope that, having had their fish, people will spare some time to eat some beef too.

     

    Q4. Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

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

    Mr. McAllion: Is the Prime Minister aware that, at the recent national poverty hearings in London, one single mother, registered disabled and dependent on income support, described how she had been forced to place her son in the care of her local authority, because underfunding prevented that authority from meeting his special educational needs in any way except through its residential budget? How does he explain to that family, and to the families of the one in three of today’s children born into the same oppressive poverty, the contemptible and odious Tory slogan that “life is better under the Conservatives”? For the poor, it most certainly is not; and for that, the right hon. Gentleman and the party behind him are directly responsible.

    The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman is honest enough to say that he thinks that his party should put up taxes–I think that he knows that it will. He at least has had the candour to say that in public; it is his idea of the future. He is quite wrong about poverty. In fact, the vast majority of people are better off. Average incomes have risen by more than a third, even after allowing for inflation. The average income of all family types has risen. Pensioner average incomes since the Government came to power are up by about 50 per cent. after inflation. Average incomes of the unemployed and others not in work have also risen. That would not have happened but for the policies, both economic and social, that we have followed.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 April 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st April 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Government Policy (South-West)

    Mr. Coe: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of arrangements for co-ordinating Government policy towards the south-west.

    The Prime Minister: The Government office for the south-west already plays a valuable role in ensuring close dialogue between Government and the people, businesses and local representative bodies of the south-west. But this is the largest English region, and it has distinct identities and needs. In recognition of this, I have asked the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to act as a central co-ordinator of Government policy towards the south-west. Working with colleagues in the relevant Government Departments, my hon. Friend will take a close interest in the broad issues affecting the whole of the south-west, but will focus particularly on the concerns and interests of the peninsular counties of Devon and Cornwall.

     

    Ministerial Responsibility

    Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about ministerial responsibility for volunteering, the voluntary sector and charity matters.

    The Prime Minister: In consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, I have decided that ministerial responsibility for:

    Government co-ordination of policy on the voluntary sector including volunteering, charity matters, including sponsorship of the charity commission grants to voluntary sector infra-structure bodies, sponsorship of the National Lottery Charities Board, the Community Development Foundation and the Volunteering Partnership, should be transferred as soon as the necessary financial and other arrangements can be made from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I have concluded that these matters will fit more appropriately within the framework of the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who already has responsibility for other lottery distributors.

     

    No. 10 Downing Street (Receptions)

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister who hosted the reception held at No. 10 Downing Street on (a) 7 November 1994 and (b) Monday 6 November 1995.

    The Prime Minister: My wife hosted a reception on 7 November 1994. There was no reception on 6 November 1995.

     

    EU Legislation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister how many pieces of existing Community legislation have been repealed or amended in each of the past three years.

    The Prime Minister: This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Much new Council and Commission legislation supersedes, repeals or amends existing legislation.

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers have hosted non-official party receptions of functions in No. 10 Downing Street since July 1993.

    The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has hosted three receptions since July 1993.

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the functions for industrialists held at No. 10 Downing Street which were attended by the chairman of the Conservation party since November 1990.

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

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he will bring forward to the international community to address health problems among the population of Iraq.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 29 March 1996]: United Nations Security Council resolution 986 is designed to bring much-needed relief to the people of Iraq by permitting the sale of oil to purchase more humanitarian supplies. Iraq has so far refused to implement the resolution. We, and a number of other countries, already give substantial support to humanitarian projects in Iraq, many of which specifically address health needs. Food and medical supplies are not subject to United Nations sanction.

     

    Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

    Mr. Bermingham: To ask the Minister if he will make it his policy to compensate fully any person who has contracted CJD from beef since 1989.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 29 March 1996]: Any claim for compensation would be considered within the framework of the Government’s legal obligations.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Turin European Council – 1 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on the Turin European Council, made on 1st April 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Turin on 29 March which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    The purpose of the meeting was to launch the intergovernmental conference aimed at preparing the European Union for the next phase of enlargement. The Council conclusions, which I have placed in the Library, set out the main areas of the IGC’s agenda. We have ensured that the conclusions do not prejudice the actual negotiations in any way, nor do they contain an exhaustive list of the issues for negotiation. We shall pursue our objectives for the development of Europe as a partnership of nations, as set out in the Government’s recent White Paper.

    The negotiations themselves will now begin. They may well last for a year or perhaps longer. Foreign Ministers will meet every month. Their personal representatives will meet every week. I outlined to the European Council the Government’s approach to the intergovernmental conference. I made it clear that our vision of Europe is built around the bedrock of the nation state. I also set out some of the areas where the United Kingdom will be putting forward proposals, and those where we have strong views.

    For example, I underlined the need for the principle of subsidiarity to be enshrined in the treaty; the value of a greater role for national Parliaments; our desire to see Europe’s common foreign and security policy work better while preserving its basis of unanimity; the need for further progress in co-operation in justice and home affairs without undermining its essential intergovernmental character; our opposition to any further extension of qualified majority voting; and our insistence on reforms for the working of the European Court of Justice.

    I also made plain to the European Council my particular concern about the recent opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice on the working time directive and its implications for the intergovernmental conference. I said that I was not prepared to see the social chapter opt-out undermined as a result of an expansive and unreasonable interpretation of the health and safety article of the treaty. I made it clear that I would be looking in the intergovernmental conference for changes to that article to reflect our earlier understanding of its limited scope.

    The European Council also held a brief discussion on employment and competitiveness. This subject will rightly be high on the agenda of its meeting in Florence in June and I set out the Government’s views.

    Europe has to be globally competitive. Jobs are not created by Governments–and still fewer are created by the European Union. Jobs come from the decisions of businesses in the marketplace. Job creation needs less regulation, not more; and there must be lower financial and other burdens on business, not extra impositions arising from ill-conceived European directives. There is increasing understanding of these realities among some of our European partners. I was encouraged by the discussion, but I will continue to resist strongly any suggestion that the treaty be amended to cover employment issues. Action in those areas is overwhelmingly for individual countries, not for the European Union collectively.

    All the Heads of State and Government in Turin were acutely conscious of the Europe wide crisis in the beef market. This is, and was treated as, an entirely separate issue from the intergovernmental conference agenda. There was no question in anyone’s mind of trading help in one area against co-operation in another. I told my colleagues of the impact in this country of the ban on British beef decided in Brussels last week–particularly as it was taken on the basis of considerations other than the scientific advice.

    I suggested to my colleagues that three things were now needed. First, the conditions should be created as speedily as possible to allow the ban on British beef exports to be lifted. Secondly, the specific problems of the United Kingdom beef market had to be addressed. I looked to the Union for sympathetic and speedy support for the measures necessary to return confidence and stability to the market. Thirdly, it should be recognised that this was a European, not just a British, problem.

    The response of my European colleagues was, without exception, one of support. There was universal agreement that this was a Europewide problem and that a European solution was required. All Heads of State and Government who spoke expressed readiness to see the European Union bear a share of the financial burden and recalled the European Union help in the swine fever epidemic a few years ago. This was a welcome response, in tone as well as in substance, but we still have some way to go.

    Negotiations continue with the Commission on the measures needed to restore confidence. My right hon and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture is in Luxembourg today to take this forward and to attend a meeting of European Ministers of Agriculture, which is now under way.

    I emphasised to my European colleagues that, with the measures we have taken, British beef is–on any normal definition of the term–safe. No one disputed this. Everyone recognised that the present crisis came not from a real health risk but from unnecessary hysteria across Europe.

    At Turin the intergovernmental conference was launched with an agenda that enables us to pursue our objectives in a non-prejudicial climate. I was able to make clear to my European colleagues our strong views on certain key issues, including what is needed to tackle unemployment across Europe as well as in Britain. We achieved a notable measure of understanding and support over the beef crisis that we and our European partners face together. The need now is to turn this support into action, particularly the lifting of the export ban on British beef and beef products. That is our immediate objective. It is important and we are pursuing it urgently.

  • Mr Major’s Conservative Central Council Speech – 30 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to Conservative Central Council on Saturday 30th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Within a year or so we’ll fight a general election.

    At stake will be not just who forms the government, but what that means.

    In the Tory years, the quality of life has changed immeasurably for the better and now it’s moving up again.

    We are poised for a step change in prosperity.

    The world knows it and says it. The Opposition knows it – but denies it. Because Conservative success means Labour failure. But I can live with that. And so, I think, can you.

    We must tell people about the opportunities ahead.

    Tell them what’s at risk.

    Never mind the opinion polls. Bucking the trend is the story of my life.

    So, it’s time to stop underselling what we’ve done, what we stand for, and time to start selling what we care about and what we’re going to do.

    Mr Chairman, as you know we have been holding hundreds of meetings up and down the country. It has been the biggest consultation exercise the party has ever had.

    It’s shown our gut instincts haven’t changed: we still back the traditional values that brought us into the Party in the first place.

    But we’ve always been able to move with the times.

    So, we’ve been turning our beliefs into practical political action.

    Enterprise

    Now to business. First, some facts.

    We’re enjoying the longest period of low inflation for nearly 50 years.

    The lowest mortgage rates for 30 years.

    Fewer days lost to strikes since records began.

    More of our people in jobs, more investment.

    And the lowest tax burden of any major European economy.

    And yet it is fact, fact, fact. When – in all the long history of our country – could any Government have said as much?

    This is the result of a government getting the important things right. It didn’t happen by magic. That’s the prize tough decisions have won for us.

    Britain can be proud of what Britain is achieving. But we must go on. We must build on what we’ve done and make Britain the unrivalled Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    There can be no future for high taxing, high spending governments. That’s a nightmare from the past. A socialist vision – let it go. We don’t want it back.

    Our aim is to get taxes down.

    And not only income tax. I want to cut and, when possible, abolish inheritance tax. Labour wince when I say that.

    But I can’t defend a tax that stops children inheriting what their parents have worked to earn and save.

    It’s a tax on the family. And helping the family is what we’re about.

    So I don’t want our children to see the fruits of their parent’s life time work disappear forever into the Government’s coffers. I just believe it’s wrong.

    Taxes should come from a growing economy. And a growing economy comes from competition – the drive of the market.

    Competition works.

    The state once ran industries into the ground, often. But look at them now.

    Telephones – now amongst the cheapest in Europe.

    Electricity – where prices have fallen and are set to fall further.

    Gas – where prices have fallen by 20% and are set to fall further still.

    This hasn’t happened in the water industry – yet. But it will. And I’ll tell you why.

    Because we’re going to introduce competition into the water industry. It’s worked wonders in gas, phones and electricity. And it should do the same for water.

    How Labour hate all this. They know none of it would have happened if they’d been in power. They mouth the words of the market – but they don’t believe a syllable.

    They loathe the thought of the private ownership of British Rail.

    They can’t stomach the fact that enterprise and competition will improve the service and bring down the price.

    They’re positively mortified that new private investment will build in a new railway system for a new millennium.

    They’d rather defend a public sector monopoly that’s become a music hall joke.

    Perhaps you think I’m being unfair.

    But am I?

    These are the same people who said that privatising British Airways would turn it into the pantomime horse of capitalism.

    Well, some pantomime. Some horse.

    British Airways is now one of the most successful airlines in the world.

    Don’t ask me. Just ask the champagne socialists. Would they rather travel on British Airways or good old state run Aeroflot?

    Privatisation has given millions of people the chance to own shares. There are now more shareholders than trade unionists. And there are many Trade Unionists who are shareholders.

    Take the rail union, RMT.

    They own shares in privatised companies. They want the profits of the market. But that doesn’t stop them attacking the privatisation of British Rail.

    Don’t do as I do. Do as I say. That’s the theme that runs right through the Labour movement.

    Once Labour promised common ownership. Now they call it stakeholding. But – as usual – it’s common deception.

    We mean ownership by individuals for themselves and their families. They don’t.

    We want to make the capital owning democracy a living reality. They don’t.

    They want people’s wealth. We want wealth for the people.

    More ownership.

    More people owning a share of the company they work for.

    Let’s be clear. I’m not just talking about directors or managers on the executive floor. I’m talking about staff on the factory floor and at the supermarket checkout. They can be owners too.

    In the last Budget, Ken Clarke made it even more attractive for employees to own shares in their company. Now it’s up to industry to spread employee share ownership.

    Here’s a challenge for them. Let’s have the majority of workers in Britain’s large companies holding shares in those companies by the end of this decade.

    That will be an important part of making Britain an enterprise culture to its core.

    We must make change work for us. That’s what enterprise is about.

    Twenty years ago, pocket calculators were an oddity. Portable phones were hardly heard of. The information superhighway was somewhere off the M6. A lap top was something you sat on, not worked on.

    We’re having to learn a whole new vocabulary.

    New technology is going to affect all our lives.

    We’ll be able to work or shop from home, to send messages to anyone, anywhere, any time. These opportunities are on our doorstep, but for many people it’s still difficult to imagine. We need to open the Nation’s mind to the opportunities ahead.

    So we’re getting together with industry on a project for the millennium. To let as many people as possible try out computers – in schools, libraries and shops in the high street. These skills will equip us for the new century. They offer tremendous and exciting opportunities. We need to know about them.

    We’re not just creating jobs and prosperity, this year and next year. We’re out to build the enterprise and skills to secure jobs and prosperity that lasts.

    Opportunity

    I tell you who does love these new things: children.

    Tomorrow’s their world. But they won’t stand a chance of making the most of it unless we deliver world class education.

    Education is the door to opportunity.

    Every parent wants the best for their children. Especially parents in the Shadow Cabinet.

    There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s every parent’s right.

    But there’s the little matter of other people’s children too.

    We believe it’s right to offer them the best as well.

    We do. Labour don’t. And that’s the difference.

    Labour can’t decide its policy on education.

    For GM schools, against GM schools: for selection, against selection.

    Every time they settle the line, some Labour frontbencher breaks it.

    While they divide, we deliver.

    Under the Conservatives, education has changed a lot.

    Year by year, we’ve been clawing back from the worst excesses of the comprehensive system. Choice is expanding. Standards are rising.

    The National Curriculum, tests, performance tables, regular inspection, a whole range of schools.

    All this is new.

    But there’s more to be done.

    Gillian Shephard has put standards and discipline firmly back on the agenda – and she’ll have more to say about them soon.

    Teachers deserve our support on this and I promise you, they’ll get it.

    Every parent is concerned about those crucial years at the start of schooling. So we’re turning nursery education over time from a nice dream to a reality for every four year old whose parents want it.

    But that’s not all. We have ambitions to ensure that by the time children are seven, they can master the basic skills that underpin all learning.

    Teaching children basic skills is just the bare minimum. Children need to use today’s technology with confidence. They can access a huge library of information in seconds. The computer can be their personal tutor to help them learn arithmetic or a foreign language.

    So we’re working on training teachers and staff, putting the latest kit in our schools and linking schools up to the new world of information.

    Britain already has a head start.

    We’re now developing substantial and practical plans to build on that progress. To engage industry and private finance in our ambitions to transform technology in schools for the next century. Giving our nation’s children the skills they’ll need for our nation’s future.

    Not just pipe dreams – we’re delivering practical action.

    The education system we’re building reflects a simple truth every child is different. And every child is special.

    Let me turn to a controversial matter.

    I believe choice and selection does have a place in education. And so do you.

    Not the old 11 plus – that’s gone – but more selection in schools. And if parents want them, that could mean more schools like the old grammar schools.

    It’s time to say goodbye to the political correctness of the levellers-down. We’re going to give all schools more control over their own affairs.

    Earlier this week, Gillian Shephard set out our aim: to give all schools as much power as possible to take their decisions about as much as possible of their budgets.

    More of the money delivered straight into the hands of teachers and governors, bypassing bureaucracy.

    We want to free our schools from the straitjacket of uniformity.

    Freedom to demand the best from our brightest pupils.

    Freedom to help the weaker pupil.

    Freedom to give opportunity to every pupil.

    Conservatism instinctively knows that freedom works.

    Mr Chairman, there’s another point: there’s no place for intellectual snobbery in the classroom.

    Practical skills must be respected.

    We’re planning a single clear national framework of qualifications with common certificates that all children can aim for. And with that will come new opportunities to combine academic work with learning at work. New modem apprenticeships are a success. We intend to open that opportunity to more and more of our young people.

    Welfare

    Mr. Chairman, fate does not equip everyone with the same gifts or the same good fortune. We are a generous hearted nation. We’re more than willing to help those who genuinely need it.

    I believe we must encourage the successful so that we can protect those who need help.

    To do that, we must build a welfare system we can afford: one that reflects Conservative values – self-sufficiency. Responsibility. Independence.

    That means doing three things.

    First, cracking down on fraud and abuse. On Monday, Peter Lilley will launch another step in our campaign – an area by area focus to put the spotlight on benefit cheats. We’re going to protect the taxpayer and close down the welfare rackets.

    Second, we’re going to direct money to those who genuinely need it to help them back on their feet.

    People out of work and looking for a job deserve help. They’ll get it.

    The long term unemployed need special help. They too will get it. We’re piloting schemes to help get them back to work. But after that, if they refuse to accept work on offer, their benefit will be reduced. I believe that’s fair and right.

    Third, we must help people secure independence for themselves and their families.

    More people are living longer. We need to help families support relatives who can no longer be cared for at home. Our Party feels strongly about this.

    So, next month we’ll set out our proposals to deal with this challenge – to help protect the family home and lifetime’s savings.

    Our starting point is the classic Conservative theme of partnership.

    Very simply, if people take out insurance to help pay for their care, the state will reward their contribution by safeguarding more of their assets when that insurance runs out.

    And we’re looking at ideas to help people in the near future, not just in the far distance. There is no perfect solution to this. But our ideas are fresh and far- reaching.

    Responsibility will be rewarded. Prudence will be recognised. And the elderly will have the chance to protect the savings they’ve worked for all their lives.

    Public services

    Mr. Chairman, the usual dismal voices say Britain won’t be able to afford high quality public services in the future. I think that’s nonsense.

    We taxpayers pay for public services. We pay with taxes compulsorily taken from our income. I’ll tell you what I think.

    We taxpayers have a right to expect the best as if we’re paying cash on the nail. In fact, we’ve done better; we’ve paid in advance. And when we deal with the public sector, we shouldn’t be shunted from file to file.

    To make sure they’re not, we’re breaking down the large bureaucracies.

    Wherever possible, less bureaucracy at the centre, more choice at the grassroots.

    In this, we are the polar opposite to Labour.

    They’re wedded to control by anyone except the people. Bureaucracy, not taxpayers. Trade unions, not consumers. Politicians, not people. Labour don’t trust people. Unless they’re people in authority – lots of them – calling the shots.

    I’m not prepared to let public services remain an outcrop of socialist planning, a kind of prescriptive service, oblivious to the needs and wishes of the people who pay for it.

    So, let’s have an end to the faceless institutions, the bureaucratic assault courses, the unanswered telephones, all run from the top down. Instead, services should be run on a human scale. Decisions taken close to those they affect. And that’s what we’re building. The benefits are already clear.

    In self-governing schools – schools run by teachers, governors and parents.

    And in our hospitals – where team work has cut waiting lists. Are our reforms working? Yes – indeed they are.

    One example: since our reforms began, the number of people waiting more than a year for an operation has fallen by 90%. Thousands of people, old and young, are enjoying a better quality of life because they have been treated better and earlier.

    Let no one doubt our commitment to our National Health Service. Our commitment is there – in concrete, bricks and mortar.

    Labour founded the NHS. They’re proud of it. But built it up. Every week, since 1979, we’ve seen a new capital scheme worth a million pounds.

    And we should be proud of that.

    And we should also be proud that, thanks to our reforms, GPs now have greater power and freedom to serve more and more of their patients’ needs.

    We’re going to build on that. We want to give Britain’s 30,000 GPs the freedom to provide, in the communities they serve, the treatments that people need.

    In the summer, we’ll set out some of the next steps down this road – including opportunities for GPs to offer a range of hospital treatments in their surgeries.

    Our aim now is a far reaching one: it is to allow GPs’ practices to become the cottage hospitals of the 21st century. To ensure we offer better health care, closer to people, than any other nation can provide.

    Law and Order

    Mr Chairman, in building Our Nation’s Future we must also take forward our natural Conservative instincts for a society based on law and order.

    For decades rising crime and lawlessness seemed unstoppable.

    There was a culture that tried to excuse crime.

    But crime is caused not by society, by poverty, by circumstances. It’s caused by criminals kicking the door in for personal gain.

    For every crime there is a victim. A victim for whom the fear, loss, outrage and intrusion far outweigh the financial consequences.

    Let me take one illustration of many.

    Burglary.

    I had a flat burgled many years ago. Not much was taken because there wasn’t much to take.

    But it was vandalised.

    I was young. Fit. But I never felt quite the same in that flat again.

    How much worse for people whose family home has been ransacked.

    Whose possessions have been rifled through, whose security and safety shattered – quite apart from financial loss.

    I have no hesitation in seeking tougher punishment for such a crime. And especially for the criminal who burgles again and again – the serial thief.

    Let me tell the Conference: I am absolutely behind Michael Howard’s proposals to secure longer sentences for those who commit crimes like this time and again. And we will introduce laws to that effect.

    I believe it’s a fair punishment. Let me tell you why. I believe it will deter.

    But more important still, if we know somebody is likely to go out and commit more crimes, we owe it to the public to put them out of harm’s way.

    That’s the surest way to continue cutting the crime rate. And that’s exactly what we’ll do.

    But we need to put equal emphasis on order – or perhaps civility. On a society where the decent common courtesies are expected and observed.

    We should not have to tolerate loutish behaviour. People’s rights to quiet and privacy should be respected. Simple obvious rules – on the roads, in the parks, on public transport – should be followed.

    To some, these things may seem unimportant compared with major crimes. But they cause many people distress in their daily lives.

    So, as we build and extend the role of schemes like neighbourhood watch, we’ll put order as well as law back where it belongs – in our communities.

    So when people say to me, is it cost effective to have policemen on the beat, to have special constables patrolling our neighbourhoods, my answer is unequivocally yes. That’s how we’ll give people reassurance. That’s how we’ll nip crime in the bud.

    That’s what you want. That’s what we’ll deliver.

    The Nation

    Mr Chairman, amidst a sea of change, a united nation brings security. We need that security now more than ever.

    Our nation’s history is one of change. But sensible, careful change, never change for change’s sake.

    Scotland and England united are the cement that binds the United Kingdom together. Scotland is vital to the Union. The Union is vital to Scotland. And the whole United Kingdom would suffer if that Union were damaged.

    For me, this issue dwarfs the daily political debates.

    Some cynics ask: why do I care about the Union? After all, they say, why should I care about devolution? With Scotland out of the Union, there’s more likely to be entrenched Conservative majorities at Westminster for ever and a day.

    That may be true, but they’re forgetting the overall interest of the United Kingdom.

    I reject the narrow selfishness of a little England or a little Scotland. I believe that Scotland and England – and Wales and Northern Ireland – have all benefited from the historic constitutional settlement which created our United Kingdom. A unity Labour plans put at risk.

    So Scotland faces a choice.

    It can share in that success – lead it even – and be at the heart of the Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    Or it can cut itself off. Saddle itself with higher taxes. Destroy jobs with the Social Chapter and minimum wage – carrots held out by Labour that would become sticks across industries’ backs.

    And it would watch, helplessly, as investors get out their pocket calculators and their airflight timetables and go away.

    The scheme for a tax-raising Scottish parliament is separatism by instalments. The Scottish Nationalists have already acclaimed it as the fast track to independence and they’re right.

    Could there honourably be devolution without fewer Scottish members at Westminster? No, there could not. Without such a cut, Scotland would become the most over-represented part of the United Kingdom. There’s a word for that – an old word: gerrymandering.

    And could it possibly be right that Scottish MPs at Westminster should be able to vote on purely English matters, while English MPs would have no say over matters devolved to a Scottish Parliament?

    My answer to that is simple.

    ‘I don’t believe that we could for ever maintain a situation in which Scots and Welsh Members vote on, say, English education and pay beds while the English cannot vote on Scottish and Welsh equivalents’. You won’t ever guess who said that. Robin Cook. That’s what Robin Cook thinks. The first good sense he’s ever spoken.

    Then there’s Labour’s Tartan Tax. Why should people in Scotland pay more tax than in England? What does the Labour Party have against the Scots?

    Labour have the cheek to suggest that they might even cut taxes. What an untruth to set before the nation! For how long do they think English MPs will vote 30% more money to Scotland so that a Scottish Assembly can use it to cut taxes north of Berwick? The proposition is ludicrous.

    Mr Chairman, my commitment to the Union is total. It’s not just a political commitment. It’s emotional as well. I admit it. And I’m not ashamed of that.

    I feel, with every fibre of my being, that the result of this folly would be the dismemberment of the United Kingdom.

    That would be the burial of our history, the interment of a great good. It would deprive future generations of a sane, flexible, tolerant system. It would weaken England, weaken Scotland and would begin the destruction of a kingdom whose very reason for being is to be united.

    People who support a tax-raising Scottish parliament are sowing dragon’s teeth. These proposals will lead – implacably and irrevocably – to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is not speculation, it is fact. I do not say “may” or “might”; I say “will”.

    Scotland and the Scots are central to the British identity. We are that close.

    Let us work and live together, as one nation, as we have been for centuries. If we do anything else, we shall grow smaller – all of us – separately.

    PERORATION

    Mr Chairman, I’ve set out some of our plans. There is much more yet to come.

    Ahead of our United Kingdom lies tremendous – and exciting – opportunities.

    The opportunity for more people to realise their ambitions and their hopes and their dreams.

    A better life for their family. Their own home. Their own savings. A secure job. A good education for their children.

    I became a Conservative because I was brought up to be proud of our country. Our traditions, our heritage.

    I still am.

    And so are the vast majority of the British people.

    Our hopes are their hopes.

    That’s why we’ve trounced Labour four times in a row.

    And that’s why we’ll do it again.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on British Beef (II) – 29 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on British beef, made in Turin on Friday 29th March 1996.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked when he thought the beef ban would be lifted].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think one can determine precisely when that will be. Clearly the swifter that can be done, the better, and we will certainly endeavour to ensure that it is done very speedily. But the first thing to do is to continue and conclude the discussions with the Commission about the proposals that now need to be taken. That discussion has gone rather well today so far, it will continue over the weekend. There will need to be an Agricultural Council Meeting I am sure on Monday. And then of course the Standing Veterinary Committee will have to meet to decide whether to recommend the lifting of the ban. I very much hope they will because until the ban is lifted it has a malign effect not only on the British beef industry, but in world markets it has a malign effect on the whole of the European beef industry as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if they would ultimately be forced to take the package of measures already rejected by the Treasury].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it wasn’t vetoed by the Treasury, that is wholly wrong. I saw those stories, that is utterly and totally wrong. The Treasury vetoed nothing. What we did earlier in the week was follow the advice of the scientists, which was clear, and was that that sort of measure was not scientifically justified. What has happened subsequently of course is that this matter has moved, alas, because of collective hysteria, beyond science. Science said we should do what the government announced a week or so ago, but because of the hysteria that has developed the problem is now not just the safety of British beef and adhering to science, but how to restore confidence in the beef industry amongst the consumer. And that is the matter now under investigation.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked with hindsight should he have been aware of the hysteria].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Hindsight is a very valuable thing to have. By definition, it is not available at the time. And nobody could know how the hysteria would develop, how the matter would be reported, how people would react. And I think if we had taken that sort of action, which is very expensive action, at the outset, I suspect that people have put different sorts of questions to us. They would have said, “Why have you decided to go ahead with these sort of measures, against the advice of the scientists?”. And then they would have said, “What do you know that we don’t? Is there something hidden here?”, and the danger was, if we had gone beyond the scientific advice, that we might actually have created precisely the sort of problem that was subsequently created in any event by the hysteria I referred to. So there is a real difficulty in dealing with the public reaction to health scares, and the only secure basis upon which to stand is the scientific advice, and that of course is what we did.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it was right to blame other European leaders].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I spread the blame for the hysteria in a number of areas, but I don’t think it is at all productive to go back over that now. The reality is that the hysteria arose, and because the hysteria arose the problems exist in the beef industry not just here, but across Europe as well. So if Europe contributed, Europe also has the problems to face as a result of that. But that is not a productive way to look at it. What we now have to do is to say what can be done to restore confidence in British beef, and in European beef, and that is what is under active discussion at the moment.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on British Beef (I) – 29 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on British beef, made in Turin on Friday 29th March 1996.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was pleased with how the European leaders were dealing with the beef problem].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it has been a very good meeting today. Several points I think are especially relevant. Firstly they have recognised that this is a European problem, it is not just a British problem, it is a problem that affects the British beef industry and increasingly is affecting the beef industry right across Europe. My colleagues in Europe have recognised that. Secondly, they have recognised that it is appropriate for Europe to make a financial contribution to restoring confidence in the beef industry, and that really is what needs to be done – restore confidence. The beef is safe but we have to restore the confidence of the consumer so that they believe again that it is safe.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if and when he wanted the beef ban lifted].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We certainly need that. That is one of the things we are discussing with the Commission. We are discussing the plans we have for resurrecting confidence with the Commission. I hope when we have reached a conclusion on that we can put it perhaps, perhaps, to an Agricultural Committee meeting on Monday. And I hope at that stage we can begin to consider lifting the ban. That will be a decision by the Standing Veterinary Committee but I hope that they can look at that matter speedily and I hope they will reach a positive decision. If they don’t of course, the problem is not just for Britain but for the rest of Europe as well and I think that point needs to be understood everywhere.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was trading in other areas to get concessions on the beef ban].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, there was no trading, no trading at all. These are two quite discrete and separate items. The first – confidence in the beef industry in the United Kingdom and across Europe; and secondly the development of the agenda of the intergovernmental conference. And Britain’s position on the intergovernmental conference is a position of principle, it is not open to negotiation, it is not open to be chipped away by deals over the beef crisis. Cynics may think so but I assure you that is not going to happen. And perhaps as an illustration of the fact that that is the case, at precisely the same meeting we had been discussing beef, I had been making it clear to our European partners that I believe the health and safety article had been misused and that we will add that to the number of things that will need to be changed in the intergovernmental conference.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Turin – 29 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference, held in Turin on Friday 29th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I should first apologise for the absence of the Foreign Secretary, but he has gone to the start proper of the intergovernmental conference.

    The discussions that we have had today have really been the tale of two topics: firstly, the intergovernmental conference, the agenda and the way in which it will develop; and secondly the current problems that exist as far as beef is concerned. Let me take those two issues separately and tell you what has been happening and the view that the United Kingdom government has taken.

    I will start, if I may, with the intergovernmental conference. I am very pleased at the outcome of the discussions that we have had today, and in particular the fact that we have agreed a non-prejudicial agenda that gives Britain a free hand to pursue her objectives of developing Europe as a partnership of nations.

    I think it is clear that the mandate that has been set is one that is satisfactory to all nations and will enable us to pursue the objectives set out in the white paper that we published just a few days ago.

    If I can pick out some of the elements from the agenda. Quite a lot of support, notably from Germany, on the subject of subsidiarity. We need also to look at the role of national parliaments, the working of the European Court of Justice and the re-weighting of qualified majority voting. I made it clear again this morning that Britain sees no case whatsoever for any extension of qualified majority voting. I very much welcome an agenda that sets these discussions in the IGC in the context of the challenges the European Union faces.

    I also made it clear this morning that as we look at the future development of Europe, we are going to have to tackle the situation that has arisen under which social measures are effectively brought in by the back door using the health and safety article of the Treaty, Article 118A. If Europe is to develop in a spirit of trust and cooperation, I think we have to act in good faith and it has long been our position that we believe that particular treaty head has not been used in the way it was originally intended. We agreed that health and safety provision in 1985 on the understanding that it would deal with matters of genuine health and safety affecting workers. What we have seen, most recently of course in the opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court on the interpretation of the working directive, we don’t agree with the remarks of the Advocate General, we don’t think that article should be a basis for action on working conditions that go beyond health and safety. That was not our understanding when we signed the article, it wasn’t our understanding when I reached the agreement on the Social Protocol at the Maastricht Treaty.

    So I made it clear this morning that this is a matter that we will have to turn to afresh in the intergovernmental conference. I reached agreements at Maastricht, and we reached agreements on the health and safety article before, that must not be undermined and must be kept in good faith. And I think it will be extremely difficult if we are unable to reach agreement on that in the intergovernmental conference. I indicated this morning that I would be looking in the IGC for changes to Article 118A so that it reflects our earlier understanding of its limited scope. And the reality is that if old agreements are to be re-interpreted, it is difficult to see how we can reach new agreements in good faith. But I think it was overall a very constructive exchange of views this morning.

    Both this morning and over luncheon we spent some time discussing the current problems in the beef industry. I set out this morning, and again over lunch, why some of the actions over the last week perhaps have made the problem worse. But we spent most of the time looking at the problem as it is today and how we actually deal with the problem for the future. We have already taken a number of steps to protect consumers and support the market.

    I should emphasise at the outset that the scientific advice that we have is that beef is safe, safe for us, safe for other people, safe to eat. That is the view of the scientists. But the collective hysteria that we have seen over the last few days has raised a great question-mark in the minds of consumers of beef. And the principal issue that we now have to address is how to restore confidence in the mind of consumers rather than the specific action on health, for I repeat we believe that British beef is safe.

    I think, and said to colleagues, that we need now to do three things. Firstly bring about the conditions in which the ban on British beef exports can be lifted, and lifted speedily. The United Kingdom has been meeting today, the Agriculture Minister has been meeting in Brussels today to try and identify with the Commission a package of measures that would enable the Commission to recommend lifting the ban.

    I would hope, if agreement is to be reached, and some progress has been made today, talks will continue and I anticipate an agriculture meeting on Monday. Providing agreement can be reached I would hope partners would feel able to accept the Commission’s recommendations. And if that is the case, I hope colleagues will give appropriate guidance to their Agriculture Ministers when they meet on Monday. But I emphasise, the talks are proceeding, they are not yet concluded, they are likely to continue over the weekend, it is likely to move into an Agriculture meeting on Monday.

    The second question we must address is the specific problem of the beef market, the beef market across Europe and the beef market in the United Kingdom. There was a universal recognition amongst our European partners today that this is not just a United Kingdom problem. This is a problem for the beef market across Europe. Consumption of beef has dropped in the United Kingdom, it has dropped here in Italy, it has dropped in France, it has dropped in countries right across the European Union. So we all have a collective communal interest in restoring confidence to the beef market, and also restoring the confidence of third markets to European beef as well as British beef. And that was the universal view of the colleagues that I have had discussions with today.

    We have agreed that we need to look at the language of reassurance. I think everyone recognised that panic measures merely breed more panic. The scientific facts speak for themselves. British beef is safe, European beef is safe, and safe for the consumer on any normal definition of that term. And might say, for those people concerned about British beef, the Meat Hygiene Organisation that has responsibility for monitoring that have their own officers, in some cases more than one officer, in each and every slaughterhouse across the United Kingdom. And every slaughtered carcass is examined by someone from the Meat Hygiene Office, and I made that point very clearly to my colleagues this morning.

    The last few days have left quite deep scars of course in the beef industry, quite deep scars in the United Kingdom and problems in other countries as well. Healing them is going to take some time, but I think we have made a good start today and I anticipate that my colleagues will have had something to say about that at their own press conferences.

    In the discussion we had after luncheon, I was extremely reassured by the attitude taken by our European partners. There was support, without any qualification, from across the board amongst our European colleagues, support not just in a general sense but an indication that there would be support where necessary in a financial sense as well for the costs that will be incurred in dealing with this problem.

    There was a recognition that communal action is necessary to restore confidence and I think all colleagues took on board the fact that as soon as we have agreed a package it will be crucial to restore confidence, not just in the United Kingdom, but across Europe, that that confidence is sufficient to lift the ban that was placed on British beef earlier this week.

    So I think we have had some very constructive and worthwhile discussions today. I am grateful to my colleagues for the way in which they entered into those discussions, and I think we have set a good basis for carrying those talks forward over the weekend and into Monday.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister, we understood that Mr. Santer was suggesting that as soon as the Veterinary Committee has looked at and approved your measures then they would be prepared to lift the ban. Is that your understanding, that all they will really need to lift the ban is to be certain that you are taking the sort of measures which are acceptable to the rest of the Community?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is what the President of the Commission would like to see, I think you have interpreted his views correctly but of course, the Scientific Committee is composed of vets from the national countries and they will presumably have to make a recommendation to the Commission for the Commission to lift their ban so I very much hope that can happen speedily but I think we must wait and see what the attitude of the Veterinary Committee is. I believe there would be no justification for keeping the ban once we have reached agreement on a package that is acceptable to our European partners; I very much hope that will prove to be the case.

    QUESTION (John Kampfner, Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, you have criticised the speed with which the ban was imposed and you have spoken of collective hysteria. Do you believe there was any broader political motive in the minds of certain people, certain countries, certain institutions in the speed with which they imposed the ban?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t make that criticism. The reality is that the ban has an impact across Europe as well as here. One of our European partners made the point over lunch that his country had beef in a ship waiting off-shore that they wouldn’t take on-shore – not British beef but beef from another European country – so the reality is that the ban has impacted upon the confidence in beef not just from the United Kingdom but right the way across Europe and I think that point is recognised as a European problem and that is why everyone has a direct interest in dealing with it speedily and comprehensively and showing that Europe has confidence in Europe’s beef so that the rest of the world can have confidence in Europe’s beef as well.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, The Guardian):

    Prime Minister, I wonder whether you were in a position to indicate, in however general terms, to your colleagues the scale of the costs which could be involved in these measures that have been prepared over a number of years and whether in your opinion, roughly speaking, a 50-50 distribution of those costs is the ball park of the discussions that are taking place and whether the whole affair hasn’t led you to think again about the merits of the Common Agricultural Policy bearing in mind only a few weeks ago the Government was saying that the Committee didn’t need so much money for the beef intervention fund.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I don’t think it has changed our general view on other matters and neither is it going to change the negotiating position of the United Kingdom or other countries in the inter-governmental conference. There are quite separate matters: there are questions of policy which are matters of principle between the member states and they will continue as they were before and here we have an emergency that has existed across Europe in other guises in the past; a number of countries – Belgium, Germany – mentioned the earlier problems there had been with swine fever and the extent to which the European Union accepted a communal responsibility and that is what our partners have indicated they will do on this occasion.

    As to the scale of the problem, I don’t propose to put figures to it at this particular meeting. I do have a broad indication of figures, the President of the Commission indicated he did too and chose not to give them at the moment. I think we need to do a little more work upon that so I don’t propose to give you any particular figures.

    As to the division of costs, of course the costs arise in different ways. Some things arise under European Union programmes and in that case part of the cost will be met by the European Union, part of it by the United Kingdom, part of it gets docked out of the United Kingdom rebate, there is a clear-cut and well-established mechanism and there are other areas that are for national cost and some where the European will share the cost. It is not possible at this stage to put a proportion to it.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Prime Minister, do you still believe some of the costs could have been avoided if they hadn’t tried to put the ban on so rapidly and do you think there have been any lessons learned by your European partners about how this was handled?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think our European partners were responding to a collective hysteria that broke out across Europe; they will express their own views. They will have seen the general views expressed for their public in their own countries and they have expressed some views about that; no doubt they will do that in their own particular press conferences and I will leave it for them to make their own points.

    The fundamental point that is clear and is immensely distressing for the beef industry right the way across Europe – never mind just the UK – is that the view of the scientists was, is and remains that beef is safe, by any normal recognition of the expression beef is safe and yet because of the alarmism that spread across Europe, the people who are the consumers of beef lost confidence in the fact that beef is safe. The fact that that happened we can all look back to last week and attribute the blame in different directions but at this moment perhaps it is not particularly productive to do so. We could all look back and do that, so can you; you all know where to place your own version of the blame but the fact that this got out of control has now created a crisis that need not have been anywhere as large as it has become. There was a problem, it was a problem that I think could have been overcome with rational and sound judgement and appropriate measures – it spiralled out of control. I think all of us have lessons to learn about that when look at beef or health scares of any sort in the future whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

    One of the points made by more than one of my colleagues in discussion was that this particular health scare arose over British beef. Tomorrow’s health scare or next year’s health scare might arise in another European country and I hope all of us will learn lessons over how to try and damp down unnecessary hysteria.

    The first point always must be a secure position on public health. Nobody can deny making public matters that relate to public health, that is proper and we did that but I think we must try and see how we can avoid this collective hysteria in future.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, is the slaughter of the elderly animals which you have now decided will not be allowed to go into the food chain under active consideration and be part of the package which is considered by the Agricultural Ministers on Monday?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are looking at a range of issues at the moment in Brussels. Those talks are going on, George, as we speak so I don’t want to give out more information on them but there is a range of issues under discussion including that.

    QUESTION (Sarah Holmes, The Independent):

    Prime Minister, do you hold out any hope that the ban might be lifted as early as Monday or at least early next week?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t tell you the answer to that, I don’t know the answer to that. That will be a matter that will be decided after the agricultural meeting no doubt by the Standing Veterinary Committee who will make their own recommendations; it would certainly be my hope that it would be lifted speedily.

    At this stage, we have several ingredients to deal with before we get there: firstly, we need to reach an agreement with the Commission; secondly, that needs to be acceptable to the member states; thirdly, we need the Agriculture Committee meeting and then we need to see what the Standing Veterinary Committee have to say but I do think it is in the interests of everyone to make sure that we reach a circumstance in which this ban can be lifted speedily because nobody should be under the misapprehension that this ban just ring-fences a problem in British beef – that is not the case. Whilst this ban remains, it is going to be seen by the whole of the world outside Europe as a problem for European beef and I think to that extent everyone has an interest in this problem being solved speedily so whether Monday or not I can’t tell you, as soon as possible I certainly hope so.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Turin – 29 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Turin on Friday 29th March 1996.


    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, Good Morning and Happy Birthday.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much indeed.

    QUESTION:

    Can you tell us how this meeting can best contribute to the resolution of the beef crisis and what lessons do you think that carries for the way in which Europe does its business and the reforms you are going for?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have seen Prime Minister Dini this morning and we have discussed how to handle the matter mechanistically. I will discuss it this morning when we discuss the ICC and of course the two things are quite separate. But we will then have a subsequent discussion over luncheon. So that is how we will deal with it. And I think there is a general recognition that in the interests of all Europe this is a problem that has to be dealt with, it has to be dealt with comprehensively and has to be dealt with in a way that will restore consumer confidence, and that is what we will all be seeking to do.

    QUESTION:

    And the lessons for the future?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that the lessons for the future are that we will continue to do what we have done in the past. There has been no occasion when we have not taken the best scientific and medical advice as to what we will do. The scientists, even today, will say to you that British beef is safe, they do say that. The problem is not truly whether British beef is safe today, the problem is that because of the hysteria that there has been is a crisis of confidence, it is not actually a health crisis but a crisis of confidence in the beef market and it is that problem in particular that we now have to address. Unfortunate, but that is the real world and that is what we must deal with.

    QUESTION:

    Are you not going to feel a bit uncomfortable about asking them in effect to pay out cash to help us out of a problem when we have been so critical about Europe in the past?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that is remotely the situation. We will have to deal with a problem that affects everyone across Europe, it would affect the confidence of people right the way across Europe. That is the way other Heads of Government are seeing it, I have seen some of them already this morning. They have made it clear that that is the way that they see the problem. And I think it is in the interests of all Europe that we solve this problem that has a confidence impact on beef generally right the way across Europe. Beef Consumption has not only dropped in the United Kingdom, it has dropped quite dramatically in many other European Countries. So we all have a common interest in dealing with this problem of confidence, not of health, I emphasise again this is a problem of confidence that stretches right the way across Europe.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to be able to tell them what we plan to do in the UK to relieve this problem and ask for their help for a specific plan?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will be discussing some of those matters. More detailed discussions are actually going on in Brussels at the moment, they are going on today, and I think it is highly likely that there will be a meeting of the Agriculture Council very shortly, perhaps on Monday. I think that is probable. So we will be discussing it this morning, yes, but quite what details we will deal with I am not in a position to tell you at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    Do you regret your very angry response when the European Commission first announced there would be a ban?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t regret that.

    QUESTION:

    You don’t think it makes things more difficult for you now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 March 1996

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministerial Visit (North Tayside)

    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to the North Tayside constituency.

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

    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.

     

    National Health Service

    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the spending per head of population on health provision in (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England in each of the last five years; and what is the projected spending in the current financial year per head of population in each country;

    (2) what percentage of patients in (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England are currently covered by general practitioner fundholders.

    The Prime Minister: The information is as follows:

    Gross total national health service spending per capita

    1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 (estimated outturn)

    Northern Ireland(3) 581 639 678 705 729 768

    Scotland 600 678 740 762 799 849

    Wales 536 612 684 705 732 770

    England 493 556 607 626 657 694

    (3) The figures for Northern Ireland are estimates, due to the fact that Northern Ireland’s health services and personal social services are provided on an integrated basis.

    Percentage of population covered by GP Fundholding Practices (at April 1995)

    Country Percentage population covered

    Northern Ireland 29

    Scotland 23

    Wales 40

    England 41

     

    Intelligence and Security Committee

    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if he has yet received the annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee in accordance with the Intelligence Services Act 1994; and if he will make a statement on the membership of the Committee.

    The Prime Minister: I have received the first annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee and am presenting it to Parliament today. Copies are also being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I am grateful to the Committee for the careful and thorough way in which it has carried out its work. Certain portions of its report contained material which fell within the provisions of section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, and which has accordingly, after consultation with the Committee, been deleted from the published report.

    The House will wish to be aware that, following consultations with the Leader of the Opposition and in accordance with section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act, I have appointed the right hon. Lord Blaker as a member of the Committee to succeed the right hon. Lord Howe of Aberavon who has indicated his wish to step down from the Committee. I am very grateful to Lord Howe for the part he has played in the Committee’s work.

  • PMQT – 28 March 1996

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: Is not the wide welcome for the Government’s endorsement of Sir Ron Dearing’s proposals for the education of 16 to 19-year-olds thoroughly deserved, as they bring together academic study with work-related training and recognise young people’s differing skills and aptitudes for reaching their full potential? Is not that belief in diversity and choice the hallmark of Conservative policy and a striking contrast to anything else on offer?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the desirability of choice and diversity being the key to raising standards in schools. I am sure that that is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will set out more proposals this afternoon to achieve precisely that. That is what we want for all children–our children and everyone else’s as well.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that, to restore confidence in British beef, we should recognise the mistakes of the past and that contaminated meat did pass into the food chain, but that, for the future, we should take all measures that are necessary to make negligible, not just extremely small, any chance–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is disgraceful. The House will come to order.

    Mr. Blair: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

    For the future, we should take whatever measures are necessary to make negligible–not just extremely small–the chance of any specified bovine offal going into any part of the food chain. What are the measures that the Prime Minister is proposing following the Cabinet meeting this morning and will they include the measures proposed by shadow Ministers, which have already won wide-ranging support throughout the industry?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right about the need to take all the necessary public health measures. The reality is that we have always taken the action that was seen to be necessary and the advice that has been offered. In 1989, we took action that went beyond the advice that we had received. I have had an opportunity to look at the proposals that the Opposition made this morning. They are a mixture of motherhood and action that is already being taken, and they largely miss many of the matters that need to be dealt with. [An hon. Member: “What is wrong with them?”]

    If the hon. Lady would like me to run through the eight points and explain why they are irrelevant, I should be happy to do so. I will find them. Here they are.

    The Opposition call for proper enforcement of controls in slaughterhouses, yet they opposed the setting up of the Meat Hygiene Service, which was designed to ensure that they were enforced. They call for a random test of the brains of cattle. That is completely irrelevant, as we have stopped all brain products that could possibly be infected from entering the food chain. They suggest that products are labelled with ingredients; that is already happening. SEAC has already looked at the safety of mechanically recovered meat and we have already taken steps to ensure its safety.

    As for the plans for a quality assurance scheme, of course we wish to ensure the quality of all beef, but there would be no question of labelling some beef as safe and allowing the sale of unsafe beef, which is what they say would mean. Their plan to ban specified bovine offal in cattle under six months overlooks the fact that SEAC specifically considered this proposal and concluded that it was unnecessary, not least because there has never been a single incidence of BSE in cattle that young. The plan for a separate–[Interruption.] The Opposition asked me what was wrong with their plans.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman was asked a question by an hon. Member from a sedentary position. Members must learn to listen and not bawl out from sedentary positions.

    The Prime Minister: The plan for a separate food agency would mean that matters such as this would no longer be represented round the Cabinet table but would be represented in an agency. The chief medical officer already has the support that he has asked for to carry out his duties. The reality is that our examination is much more fundamental than this public relations nonsense from the Labour party. It is considering votes; we are considering the industry and the national interest.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that we have heard anything quite so pathetic as that. Let me take two of those measures–one, random testing, was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman’s own committee. As for the policy in relation to abattoirs, his own scientists have said that the regulations have to be enforced. Will he confirm that, as late as last year, almost half the slaughterhouses were not up to scratch and that, although it is true that there are far fewer today, there has not yet been one completed prosecution? Is that not right?

    Will the Prime Minister please, for once, stop shirking responsibility and instead take it? In particular, will he understand that, unless he can agree proposals now with the food industry, the retailers and the consumer organisations so that we present a united front, we shall never have the Government back in control of events rather than being controlled by them?

    The Prime Minister: What is pathetic is this document. What is also pathetic is this wriggling change of policy after the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Gentleman did everything that they could to extract maximum political advantage, at the cost, potentially, of jobs, and of the national interest, in the beef industry. On his remarks about controls in slaughterhouses, the Meat Hygiene Service has an officer–in some cases more than one officer–in each and every slaughterhouse, and every single carcass is inspected by those hygiene officers–officers whom Opposition Members voted against when we brought the proposals before the House.

    Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend assure his farmers–my farmers and farmers up and down the country–that the Government will do all that they can to avert the disaster facing British industry? In short, will the Government bring forward proposals for a selective slaughter policy to take out of the food chain the meat from cows that will be culled in any case?

    The Prime Minister: What needs to be done to ensure confidence both for the beef industry and for allied industries, in the interests of the farmers as well as public health, and the substantial range of matters that must be examined, are all under consideration at the moment. We must address specifically the question of market confidence: that means convincing our European partners and the beef outlets that beef is safe. The next step in that process will be an announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food later this afternoon.

    However, in the interests of the industry as a whole and of public health, it is important to deal with the matters comprehensively if we are to meet the objective of restoring confidence. Work and discussion on all the matters is going ahead–even as we meet this afternoon–in this country and in Europe. We shall carry out those discussions as speedily as possible. As soon as we are able, we shall bring comprehensive proposals before the House, but it is not in the interests of the industry for us to dribble them out piecemeal: we shall deal with the whole issue because that is the only way to restore the confidence so badly damaged so unnecessarily.

    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister knows very well just how many jobs and how many businesses are now at risk in what is the worst crisis to hit rural Britain for three decades or more. He knows that every delay will add to that list. I therefore assure him that, if he brings forward an urgent plan of action, designed to restore public confidence and to make the British herd BSE-free as soon as possible, based on culling and other measures, we shall support him. We shall also support every action that is designed to persuade our European partners that it is not a problem just for Britain, but a Europe wide problem that requires a Europe wide solution.

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s latter point: it is a Europe wide problem. I shall discuss the matter with our European partners in Turin tomorrow and my right hon. Friends will also discuss the matter with their European counterparts. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: 650,000 people are employed in the industry, which generates about £5 billion each year. That is why we must ensure that the proposal we bring forward is comprehensive and will work. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his offer of support as we do so.

    Mr. Lamont: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be total support for his comments yesterday about the European Union ban on worldwide exports of British beef which he said was unjustifiable, unjust and should be reversed? Does the Prime Minister recognise that we do not wish to be bribed, by accepting the return of some of our own money, into agreeing to something that is fundamentally wrong? Is there not a case for, if not leaving the British seat vacant at the IGC tomorrow, at least saying that there will be no progress until the ruling has been overturned?

    The Prime Minister: On the basis of the scientific advice that we have received, our partners must know that the ban on British beef is totally without justification. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is having urgent discussions to outline the measures that we are taking to ensure safety. I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall reinforce that point vigorously in Turin tomorrow. It is essential that decisions of that sort are taken by member states on the basis of rational judgments and of science, and not on any other basis–as I believe they were on this occasion. I shall certainly make our feelings clear tomorrow.

     

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

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

    Mr. Illsley: What message does the Prime Minister have for his so-called Euro-sceptic friends now that he is not going to Turin to talk tough to the intergovernmental conference but is going cap in hand to beg for compensation for the measures that he knows he must now take to resurrect the British beef industry, which has suffered because of his Government’s total incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have heard what I said a moment or so ago; if he did hear it, he patently did not understand it.

    We have set out our position on the intergovernmental conference, and I shall reinforce that, precisely as we have previously informed the House, in the discussions at the IGC tomorrow, but with one addition. I shall make it clear that the recent ruling on the working time directive is wholly unjustified, that we do not accept it and that we shall be seeking in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that the Commission does not misuse article 118A in future.

     

    Q3. Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March.

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

    Mr. Coombs: When my right hon. Friend goes to Turin, will he take the opportunity to impress on his fellow European leaders the absolute need to reduce business costs? Will he also ensure that there is no way in which the European social chapter–the European tax on jobs–is smuggled into this country by the back door or foisted on the British people by the back door despite our opt-out?

    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, and am happy to reaffirm, I am not prepared to see the social chapter opt-out, negotiated and agreed in good faith at Maastricht with our colleagues, undermined by an improper use of other treaty heads, and I shall demand changes in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that that cannot happen. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”]

    The Labour party may wish to sign up to policies that will make people unemployed–Labour Members are obviously reckless of employment, as they showed earlier this week with their statements on health matters–but we care about putting people back into jobs and we shall not accept any measures that prevent jobs being created.