The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

    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.

     

    Council of Ministers

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister how many directives have been passed through the Council of Ministers in each of last five years.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 14 February 1996]: The Commission’s most up-to-date figures for the number of Council directives in the last five years are:

    1991: 68

    1992: 93

    1993: 66

    1994: 49

    1995: 31

     

    Ghazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will call for a further report into the case of Ghazanfer Ali who is detained in prison in Mirpur city in Azad Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I understand that Mr. Ali, a Pakistani national, has now been formally charged with murder and the illegal possession of arms and that he is making regular appearances in court. The next hearing are scheduled for 24 and 29 February. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will continue to monitor his case on humanitarian grounds.

  • PMQT – 15 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

    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.

    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Prime Minister tell the House how long it took him to read the Scott report?

    The Prime Minister: I am a very rapid reader.

    Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the destruction of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords is but a short distance from the destruction of the hereditary monarchy?

    The Prime Minister: I am surprised at the hostility of the Labour party to the hereditary principle, for this reason: when the Government were defeated in a vote last week, we were defeated by the votes of hereditary peers. As it happens, one of the Labour frontbench remarked to the House, “the people have spoken”.

    Mr. Blair: In retrospect, does the Prime Minister believe that the Scott report would have been better handled if it had been released in the way in which Sir Richard Scott requested? Does he have any regrets about the extraordinary disparity of treatment given, on the one hand, to Ministers and the Conservative machine and, on the other, to Members of Parliament, Opposition spokesmen and civil servants–a disparity about to be exemplified by the shambles at 3.30 pm?

    The Prime Minister: Nothing has been given to the Conservative machine–the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark. Sir Richard wrote–I think to you, Madam Speaker–on 31 January to say:

    “Subject to the imposition of strict conditions on access (which Mr. Cook is prepared to observe), I view his request sympathetically.”

    We permitted access at 12 o’clock. I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman disagree. The arrangements are exactly those offered to the shadow Home Secretary when we published the Learmont report. We even offered him sandwiches. Not only did he not describe the arrangements as “outrageous and insulting” but, when he made his statement, he said:

    “I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in arranging for me to see the report earlier than is usual.”–[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 33.]

    I look forward to similar thanks from the shadow Foreign Secretary later.

    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend believe that British Telecom’s doubling of the amount that is spent on building the information super-highway by people other than BT is the Government’s competition policy in action, or does he believe that it would be better to sign a sweetheart deal just with BT to have the information super-highway built more quickly?

    The Prime Minister: The information super-highway has been in the process of being built for some years. The sweetheart deal that was entered into–apparently by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)–seems to have come badly unstuck since its initial publicity.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Hoon: Will the Prime Minister tell the House how many of his Ministers who had early access to the Scott report have since been confined in a secure room, have had their mobile phones confiscated, have had all their messages brought to them by civil servants and have been escorted throughout by officials who are present for their convenience and security?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman heard what I said to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield a few moments ago. The hon. Gentleman is overacting outrageously on this issue. I shall tell the House why Labour Members are behaving in this fashion. The right hon. Gentleman did not want to sign a form promising secrecy and decided to attack the Government for asking him to do so. He then discovered that the requirement to sign the form was not that of the Government but that of Sir Richard Scott and that all Ministers, including me, have signed it. To save face, the Opposition went into sulks and denounced the whole arrangement.

    Mr. Brooke: Does my right hon. Friend share the following view expressed in today’s The Times:

    “Kenneth Clarke, the Chancellor, was yesterday presented with a golden economic scenario of low inflation and falling unemployment.”?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with the comment. That economic scenario has resulted from the sustained policies that the Government have followed for some time. We now have the lowest sustained level of inflation for 50 years, which today has fallen to below 3 per cent; the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years; the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years; more foreign investment than any other nation in Europe; and we export more per person than Japan and the United States.

    The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), in his usual heckling form, talked about taxes. Let him tell us about the new taxes that the Labour party plans: the windfall tax, the tartan tax, the training tax and the social chapter tax on jobs. The right hon. Gentleman should realise that the Labour party is the taxing party– it is in opposition now and that is where it will stay.

     

    Q3. Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. McFall: Why has it been necessary for the Government to prepare a shorthand version of the Scott report for distribution to Conservative Members and to the media? Would it not have been preferable to allow people to make up their own minds, based on Sir Richard Scott’s key conclusions and not on the Government’s version of events?

    The Prime Minister: That is rich coming from the hon. Gentleman. Most Labour Members made up their minds about this issue three years ago–long before Sir Richard started his report. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall read to him a large selection of quotations from Labour frontbenchers that show that they had made up their minds before Sir Richard Scott started his investigation.

    I set up the inquiry so that we could find out precisely what happened and so that the matter could be investigated independently and publicly. It was investigated under the conditions that Sir Richard Scott wanted. I was determined that the report be published and debated by the House, as it has been. The hon. Gentleman will see the outcome shortly.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that more than 7,000 head teachers are members of the Secondary Heads Association? Is he aware that that association has described Labour’s education policy as naive? Is it not typical of the Opposition’s arrogance that they have now said that those 7,000 hard-working headteachers should go to the bottom of the class for not doing their homework?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend characteristically understates what was said by the secondary heads. What they actually said was:

    “The document is an uncomfortable combination of the naive and the messianic”,

    that they find

    “little evidence in the document of thought in detail or research”

    and that they regret

    “the absence of recognition of valuable initiatives already in place”–

    put in place by this Government.

    We have learnt over the months that Labour’s education spokesman has a tough job. Teachers openly criticise his policy and shadow Cabinet Members openly contradict it–but now that they know what makes a good school, I am sure that they will be able to improve their education policy.

    Mr. Radice: In April 1994, the Prime Minister wrote to me to say that, if Ministers fail to give accurate and truthful information to the House of Commons, they should relinquish their positions. Is that still the case?

    The Prime Minister: I have said before that, if I judge Ministers to have knowingly misled the House, they cannot stay. That remains my position.

     

    Q5. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend join me in rejecting the insulting suggestion made last night by the Leader of the Opposition–that when old-age pensioners want a treat, they should steal it? Is he aware that shoplifting costs every household in the country £90 a year? Does he agree that the idea that shoplifters from certain groups should not be prosecuted is yet another example of Labour saying one thing and wanting to do quite another?

    The Prime Minister: Shoplifting is certainly a serious crime. It causes a great deal of loss for small and large shopkeepers. If the right hon. Member for Sedgefield did indeed describe it as my hon. Friend suggests he did, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw those remarks. They certainly cannot reflect his settled consideration.

     

    Q6. Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Hill: As the Prime Minister has had a full eight days to read the Scott report, and as I have only eight minutes, would he care to advise me which of the 1,800 pages I should find the most interesting?

    The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that, in addition to examining the report so that I and others can be answerable to this House, there have been some other things to do. The hon. Gentleman has 11 days now to consider the report. I hope that he will contribute to the debate in the House then–on the basis of fact, not of sneers, smears and innuendo of the sort that we have heard for three years.

     

    Q7. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we have the most encouraging set of economic indicators that this country has had in modern history? Will he further accept, although he knows that I have had concerns in the past about aspects of the health service reforms, that the private health sector is now so popular and so instrumental in playing a role in the health service that my socialist opponent at the next election works for it?

    The Prime Minister: I am truly shocked at that example of how Labour does not always do what it says. I hope that we will not find it in other elements of the Labour party.

     

    Q8. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Prentice: Did Lord Justice Scott not make it quite clear that all hon. Members should receive his report at the same time? Is it not almost a contempt of court that backbenchers such as me have no time at all to absorb his important report and that we will find it impossible to quiz the President of the Board of Trade intelligently on its conclusions?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should really come off this silly line that he and his hon. Friends–[Interruption.]–this silly line that he and his hon. Friends are concerting. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is having hysteria, would be better advised to look at the precedent, to see what happened to the shadow Home Secretary, and to see what he said a few days later.

    Hon. Members have tried every trick to prejudice the reception of the Scott report. I suggest that they would be very wise to wait for just a few minutes to see what is in the Scott report. They can then deal with the reality of it on the basis of knowledge, and not on the basis of the smears that they have been putting around for the past three years.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 February 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Deregulation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his written answer of 6 November, Official Report, column 546, if he will place in the Library copies of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal; and which of these had been repealed by 1 December 1995.

    The Prime Minister: The 1,000 regulations due for repeal or amendment are identified individually by the responsible Departments and no comprehensive central list is held. However, we achieved our target of repealing or amending over 500 regulations by the end of last year. Examples included the simplification of the food temperature control regulations which will save business about £40 million a year with no diminution in food safety; removal of restrictions on Sunday trading and allowing shops to stay open later in the evenings if they so wish; and reform of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 which will result in savings to charities of up to £450 million a year by giving them greater investment flexibility. New measures are under consideration.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Robin Cook: To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1 January 1995 (a) he and (b) officials in the Cabinet Office have had contact with Lord Howe concerning his correspondence with the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 12 February 1996]: Lord Howe, like other witnesses to the Scott inquiry, has had contacts with officials in the Cabinet Office from time to time. I have had no such contacts with him.

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made for civil servants whose actions are discussed by Lord Justice Scott to receive copies of his report before its official publication on 15 February.

    The Prime Minister: Pursuant to my answer of Tuesday 13 February, Official Report, columns 506-7, it has subsequently been agreed with the inquiry that all individuals who, from earlier drafts submitted to them, have reason to believe they may be criticised in the report should have access to those sections of the report relevant to them shortly before publication, but only in controlled circumstances.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Departmental Publications

    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister which of his Department’s administrative manuals and internal guidance are now made public; and which remain private.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 12 February 1996.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what was the final date on which (a) a Minister and (b) a civil servant delivered information to Lord Justice Scott for his inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: The Government have been in correspondence with Sir Richard Scott’s team throughout the period of the inquiry. The Cabinet Office was last asked to provide documents and information to the inquiry on 22 January.

    Mr. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made for civil servants whose actions are discussed by Lord Justice Scott to receive copies of his report before its official publications on 15 February.

    The Prime Minister: The Government are in discussion with the inquiry about this.

    Mr. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister how many pages of evidence were provided by his office to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: My office and the Cabinet Office have provided 6,197 pages of evidence to the Scott inquiry. This figure does not include correspondence between my office or the Cabinet Office and the inquiry or evidence supplied to the inquiry by individual witnesses.

    Mr. Robin Cook: To ask the Prime Minister if he (a) has discussed and (b) has authorised his Ministers to discuss media presentation of the Scott inquiry report with (i) newspaper proprietors, (ii) newspaper editors and (iii) governors of the BBC.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 February 1996]: The arrangements agreed by the Government with Sir Richard Scott do not permit anyone outside Government to have access to the report before publication, nor to have the contents of the report disclosed to them. I have made it clear that those arrangements must be adhered to. The only exception at present agreed is that the spokesmen of the leading Opposition parties should have access to the report some hours before publication in accordance with the precedents for weighty reports of this nature. The preparation of the Government’s response to the report has been and will be conducted in accordance with those arrangements. Any changes would be made only after consultation with Sir Richard Scott.

     

    Higher Education Institutions

    Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each occasion on which he has visited (a) a British university, and (b) another institution of higher education in each of the last five years; and what was the purpose of the visit in each case.

    The Prime Minister: I have visited a range of education establishments and discussed a variety of issues over the past five years.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.

    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.

     

    Munitions Dumping

    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department has responsibility for responding to accidents caused by the dumping of munitions in the Beaufort’s dyke area.

    The Prime Minister: The response to any particular incident would, in the first instance, be a matter for the relevant emergency services. Any associated departmental responsibility would be determined by the circumstances of the particular incident.

  • PMQT – 13 February 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.

    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. Turner: Will the Prime Minister accept from me that the national health service is holding together at this moment only because of the dedication and good will of its professional staff? In Wolverhampton, beds and wards have been closed, staff have been made redundant, and accident and emergency services have been closed dozens and dozens of times in recent months. May I assure the Prime Minister that the good people of Wolverhampton do not regard the health service as safe in his hands?

    The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman chooses this day of all days to make that old charge. As was announced yesterday, the number of patients facing waiting times in excess of one year has fallen yet again. There are now only 20,000 people waiting more than 12 months. Five years ago, the figure was 187,000. People are getting treated quicker, better and more comprehensively at all levels in the health service than ever before. It is about time that Opposition Members–I do not mean only the hon. Gentleman–realised the tremendous advances made in the health service by doctors, nurses and administrators in the treatment of people from one end of this country to the other.

    Sir Giles Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware, from The Mail on Sunday, that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) was persuaded to vote against the new clause IV relationship on the ground that it was only a change of words?

    Hon. Members: Oh.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask the Prime Minister a question on a matter for which he has responsibility.

    Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the change in words with which the hon. Member for Dundee, East disagreed was typical–[Hon. Members: “Order.”] Does my right hon. Friend agree that a change in words often disguises a change in meaning?

    The Prime Minister: I do not regard the hon. Member for Dundee, East as the only voice of the Labour party, but I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct: we are increasingly learning that we get a different Labour policy depending on which Labour Member writes it.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister agree to the request that has been made by Members of Parliament on both sides of the House–and now, very strongly, by Sir Richard Scott–that the Scott report be published at 2.30pm rather than 3.30pm on Thursday? Members of Parliament will then have an opportunity to study the report before commenting on it.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the way in which the Government, or our predecessors, have conducted business in the House. The proposed arrangements are in line with the usual practice of publishing a report and making it available to hon. Members at the same time. The Government have arranged for there to be a debate, in Government time, 10 days after the publication of the report. Hon. Members will therefore have time to absorb and to understand the report and will be able to speak to it with knowledge rather than with ignorance–which is what Labour Members have done for the past three years. There will be a full and open debate on the report.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has relied on precedent. I suggest that a report containing 1,800 pages and of this complexity is almost without precedent. Ministers having a report for eight days before anyone else is also without precedent. The campaign to discredit the judge who conducted the inquiry–before the report has been published–is also without precedent. Will the Prime Minister reconsider the request? The refusal to allow Members of Parliament this facility, on the day that the report is published, effectively disables them and prevents them from holding the Executive to account and discharging their duty both to Parliament and to the country.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken, and he knows that. The Government will answer questions about the Scott report on the day that it is published, and we will debate it when all hon. Members have had time to study it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a campaign to discredit the report before it is published. That campaign has come from the the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party. Without a single scruple, time and time again, the Labour party has made it clear what it believes will be the outcome of a report that has only just been concluded. If anyone has prejudged the report, it is not the Government but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues–and the right hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case.

    Mr. Blair: Does not what the Prime Minister has just said–in a ridiculous attempt to blame Opposition Members–underline why we should have the Scott report early, so that people can comment on it? In the interests of proper parliamentary democracy, will not the Prime Minister reconsider hon. Members’ request, especially as it is backed by the inquiry judge?

    The Prime Minister: As for the Government having had the report, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the House will expect my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to be at the Dispatch Box to answer questions, quite properly, put by the House when the report is published. That is why the Government have the report in advance. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that has been the position under both Conservative and Labour Governments for as far back as he may care to remember. He is trying to twist public opinion before the report is published, just as his hon. Friends have done for the past three years. The report will soon be published, and Labour Members will have to consider the issue on the basis of fact.

    Dr. Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the privatised utilities are such a good investment that, while slagging off British Gas and Yorkshire Water, a group of Labour councils in West Yorkshire–notably Leeds, led by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett)–were investing £170 million of their pensioners’ money in those companies? Is that not a classic case of saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the unions on making a successful investment. I live in hope that the day will yet come when the Opposition recognise that, if they talk about the virtues of the market, they ought to support private ownership, not attack it on every conceivable occasion as they have been doing.

    Mr. Ashdown: Leaving aside for a moment the interests of the House, will the Prime Minister at least consider the interests of his civil servants? How can it be right that Ministers, who can defend themselves in public, have eight days in which to read this 1,800-page report and prepare their defences, while civil servants who are criticised may not get even six hours?

    The Prime Minister: Let me explain what has been agreed, so that I can remove the misunderstanding from the right hon. Gentleman’s mind. At present, the report has been made available only to Ministers or civil servants who need to see it in order to help to prepare the Government’s response to questions in the House–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and listen to the answers.

    The Prime Minister: That is the fact of the matter. Other Ministers and former Ministers and civil servants have not had access to the report. That is how the matter has been dealt with; it is an entirely proper way to deal with the report–we have dealt with it entirely properly.

    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no plans to introduce a parliament in Edinburgh? It would leave Westminster Scottish Members with very little to do, because most of their business would be devolved; so they would become part-time, and should probably be paid part-time. They would also avoid paying the tartan tax, because they would be based in London.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. The advocates of a Scottish Parliament among the Labour party who live in London would not themselves have to pay the extra tax that would be levied on everyone else living in Scotland. I can certainly confirm that we have no plans for such an assembly, or for such a tartan tax, or to allow Scottish Members to vote on matters in Scotland on which English Members cannot vote, and then to permit Scottish Members to come to the House and vote on similar matters for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that, were anyone to introduce such plans, that would be the most blatant gerrymandering of the constitution that we have ever seen.

     

    Royal Docks

    Q2. Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit the royal docks.

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

    Mr. Spearing: When the Prime Minister does visit the royal docks, will he also visit the adjacent Silvertown fire station, whose crews joined their colleagues in Millwall on the Isle of Dogs at the tragic incident on Friday? Does he know that crews at both stations, not to mention the inhabitants of Docklands, face the prospect of having the two appliances at each station reduced to one? Does he recall that his name appeared at the top of a successful motion at 10 o’clock last night, calling on local authorities to exercise their freedoms responsibly? If he were charged with denying them those freedoms, because of the policies of the Government towards the public services, what would he say?

    The Prime Minister: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we require councils to exercise their freedoms and opportunities responsibly, but there must also be fallback powers for when that does not happen:

    “we believe there must be fall-back powers to enable central government, in extreme circumstances, to protect council tax and business rate payers”.

    Mr. Spearing indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: I was quoting a Labour policy document, so I am sorry to see that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with it.

    When looking at the royal docks area, the hon. Gentleman might also like to look at the dramatic improvements there: the 5,000 new homes and the 2 million sq ft of commercial property. The whole area has been revolutionised by policies that we have followed but many of his colleagues have opposed.

     

    Economic Indicators (Lichfield)

    Q3. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister what recent analysis he has made of economic indicators and their effect on Lichfield; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Lichfield has benefited fully from the Government’s policies, which have given this country the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years and the longest period of low inflation for 50 years. Unemployment in my hon. Friend’s constituency has now fallen by some 40 per cent. from its peak.

    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lichfield is not only a beautiful cathedral town but a centre for light industry? Is he further aware that people in Lichfield will be heartened by the report in The Times today which showed that the average net take-home pay of production workers in France, Italy and Germany is now less than that in the United Kingdom? Is that not because we have consistently refused to enter into an agreement on the social chapter? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under a Labour Government, workers would suffer, because the Labour party’s idea of negotiating in Europe is rather like the Trustee Savings bank–it is the party that likes to say yes?

    The Prime Minister: They certainly were very startling figures to set out what net take-home pay will purchase, which was the basis on which they were done. That stands in stark contrast to the claims of a sweatshop economy about which we so often hear from the Labour party. It is no coincidence that those figures were achieved. Business is attracted by flexible working practice and low cost–precisely the benefits that would be wrecked by the social chapter as it is and by the social chapter as it would be if any Government were to sign up to it in this country. This Government will not.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 February 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will ask Lord Justice Scott to disclose the names of journalists to be briefed and the dates of briefings in relation to the forthcoming report and the progress of the inquiry.

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

     

    Rail Privatisation (Directorships)

    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister what guidance he is giving retiring members or former members of his Administration or hon. Members in respect of their accepting directorships in privatised rail companies.

    The Prime Minister: From the start of the current session of Parliament, Ministers who leave office will be expected to ask the independent advisory committee on business appointments about any appointment outside Government which they wish to take up within two years.

     

    Senior Salaries Review Body

    Mr. Chris Davies: To ask the Prime Minister what is the average of the pay increases recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body in the past year.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) on 8 February, Official Report, columns 294-96.

  • John Major’s Commons Statement on the Northern Ireland Peace Process – 12 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Northern Ireland Peace Process.The statement was made in the House of Commons on 12th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the bomb explosion in the South Quay area of London last Friday, the declared end to the IRA ceasefire and the implications for security and the peace process in Northern Ireland.

    There is no doubt that the evil act in London was the work of the IRA. It has all the hallmarks of its operations, with the callous sacrifice of innocent lives. The bomb followed shortly after an IRA statement, given to the Irish broadcasting organisation on the evening of 9 February, that the complete cessation of hostilities ordered in August 1994 was now at an end. The IRA admitted its responsibility for the bomb on 10 February.

    The facts of the incident are briefly these. Around 5.45 pm last Friday, warning calls were made that a large bomb had been placed at South Quay station, Marsh Wall, in London. Local police arrived at the scene shortly after 6 o’clock, and anti-terrorist branch officers shortly after that.

    At around 6.30 pm a suspect vehicle, a Ford flat-backed lorry, was identified, and the immediate area was cleared. While the area was being evacuated, the vehicle exploded, causing extensive damage to buildings in the area, and a large number of casualties. Two people were killed and 43 injured, two of them critically. Three police officers were among the casualties. I know that the House will join me in extending our deepest sympathy to all the innocent victims and their families. It is little short of a miracle that the casualty list was not much longer.

    I should like to pay tribute to the efforts of the emergency services. Despite being hampered by a fractured gas main at the scene, they responded magnificently and they richly deserve all our thanks.

    I must say to the House that this may not be the last such atrocity. More may follow, both here on the mainland and in Northern Ireland, if the IRA ceasefire is not renewed. We will do all that we can to prevent that and to catch those responsible. The protection of the public will remain our first priority.

    In Great Britain, security has immediately returned to pre-ceasefire levels. In Northern Ireland itself, we had been careful from the very first moment of the ceasefire to take no irreversible steps to downgrade our security capability. All necessary measures to cope with the present situation are now in place. The Royal Ulster Constabulary is on full alert. We have sought to make an appropriate and proportionate response to the increased threat without disrupting daily life more than absolutely necessary.

    The IRA has brought the 17-month-old ceasefire to an end. There is no shred of an excuse for this return to violence, least of all now, when all-party negotiations were clearly in sight. After the August 1994 ceasefire declaration, we called repeatedly on the IRA to make it clear that it was permanent, despite criticism by some for doubting the good faith of the IRA. We did doubt its good faith and the IRA did not say that it was a permanent ceasefire. None the less, after a prudent period, in order to move the process forward we were prepared to act on the working assumption that the ceasefire would last.

    In the months that followed, we reduced the more visible and inconvenient aspects of security. We took soldiers off the streets and opened all the border crossing points. We did everything possible to create new jobs in Northern Ireland through renewed inward investment, and we helped to produce a remarkable economic upsurge. We talked to Sinn Fein leaders at official and at ministerial level. We constantly sought to move the peace process forward towards the all-party negotiations that everyone knows are necessary.

    No one took more risks for peace than the Government over the past two years, but we never lost sight of the fact that the IRA commitment had not been made for good. No responsible Government could have done otherwise. That was why we and many others saw a start to the decommissioning of illegal arms as a way of creating confidence in Sinn Fein’s acceptance of democratic peaceful methods, and showing that the violence had really ended. But all the time that Sinn Fein was calling for all-party talks, we knew that the IRA continued to train and plan for terrorist attacks. Punishment beatings and killings continued, as the House well knows. It remained ready to resume full-scale terrorism at any time. We could never be confident that its behaviour was that of an organisation that had decided to renounce violence for ever. The IRA peace was not a true peace.

    I regret to say that the events of last Friday showed that our caution about the IRA was only too justified. The timing of the return to violence may have been surprising: the fact that violence could resume was not. We must now continue the search for permanent peace and a comprehensive political settlement in Northern Ireland. Let there be no doubt that the Government’s commitment to that is as strong as ever, and will remain as strong as ever.

    We will work for peace with all the democratic political parties and with the Irish Government. But a huge question mark now hangs over the position of one of the parties–over Sinn Fein. Its leaders have spoken often of their commitment to peace and peaceful methods, but they have always ducked and weaved when they have been questioned about the IRA and its methods. After the events of last Friday, their ambiguity stands out starkly. The test for eligibility to take part in all-party negotiations was set by the British and Irish Governments in paragraph 10 of the Downing Street declaration. They should be democratically mandated parties, which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process.

    Sinn Fein’s leaders claim that they did not know about the bomb at South Quay and the IRA’s ceasefire statement, but they have refused either to condemn or to dissociate themselves from either. Sinn Fein must decide whether it is a front for the IRA or a democratic political party that is committed to the ballot and not the bullet. Meanwhile, one thing is clear: in the absence of a genuine end to this renewed violence, meetings between British Ministers and Sinn Fein are not acceptable and cannot take place.

    That is also the position of the Irish Government. They have made it clear to Sinn Fein that their attitude and willingness to meet at political level will be determined by whether the IRA ceasefire is restored. We and the Irish Government are at one on this: the ball is in the court of Sinn Fein and the IRA, if indeed that distinction means anything. It is for them to show through their words and actions whether they have a part to play in the peace process. I am not in the business of slamming doors, but the British and Irish peoples need to know where Sinn Fein stands.

    The people of a democracy are not passive spectators to events. They have the right to make their views clear on these issues, and the people of Northern Ireland, from both communities, have consistently done so. The popular will for peace has never been clearer or more coherently expressed than in recent months. The peace process will go on. I commend all those who have had the courage and the sense, in the face of this latest atrocity, to work to prevent a wider return to violence.

    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have met all the parties in the past two weeks. That process will be intensified with the parties that have not, for the present, disqualified themselves. The aim is, as it has always been, to establish the necessary confidence to enable negotiations between all the parties to begin. I want everyone to be absolutely clear on that point. The objective of all our actions and policies, before and since the ceasefire, has been to get to a position in which all the constitutional and democratic parties can get around the table together. Everything else is a means to that essential end.

    On 24 January, I told the House that, if the paramilitaries would not start decommissioning their illegal arms, one alternative way forward was through elections, to give the electoral mandates and confidence that could lead straight, and straight away, to negotiations. As proposed by the Mitchell report, decommissioning could go ahead in parallel with those negotiations. The proposal has been consistently misrepresented by Sinn Fein, and it has been misunderstood more widely. I repeat now that its purpose is to lead directly and speedily to negotiations between all the parties that are committed to peaceful and democratic methods, and it is aimed at reaching a comprehensive political settlement.

    An elected body would have to be broadly acceptable and it would be strictly time limited. I am not proposing–as I have made clear on many occasions–an assembly with legislative and administrative powers. Any suggestion of a return to old-style Stormont rule is manifest nonsense on the basis of the proposals that we have put forward. The proposed elections are a door to full negotiations, and I continue to believe that they provide the most promising available opening. We will pursue that proposal and seek to persuade all concerned that it is indeed a way forward and not a means of delaying progress.

    Our ideas are still being discussed with the parties. I should like to reassure the House that there are ways forward to negotiations with all the parties, which could include Sinn Fein–but only, of course, if there is an unequivocal return to the ceasefire. Others, including the Irish Government, have ideas, too. Our minds are not closed, and neither, I know, are theirs. I have talked to the Taoiseach twice since the bombing, and we plan to meet soon in London to discuss all the possibilities. I intend to find a way through to the negotiations, with all those who are committed to democracy.

    The peace process in Northern Ireland has received a serious setback from the men of violence, but the process is not over–not by any means. We have seen the benefits of what has been achieved since the ceasefire: the freedom to live and to work normally; the freedom to enjoy life; increased prosperity and new jobs; and new hope for the future of the people of both communities in Northern Ireland. Those benefits must not lightly be thrown away.

    This Government will not be deterred by terrorism. The people of Northern Ireland have tasted peace–a peace that has changed their lives. I have told the House before that I will leave no stone unturned in the search for peace. That is true today, and it will remain true in the future. The people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deserve no less than that.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 February 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Pay Review Bodies

    Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reports and recommendations of the pay review bodies.

    The Prime Minister: The 1996 reports of the five pay review bodies have been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. The Government are grateful to the chairmen and members of the review bodies for the time and care that they have put into the preparation of the reports.

    The Government are concerned that pay settlements for these groups should be consistent with the approach to public sector pay. Under this approach, increases should be offset by efficiencies and other economies to help to deliver improved efficiency across the public sector. Specifically, the cost of pay settlements should be accommodated within the resources allocated to programmes. The Government have had to consider the recommendations of the pay review bodies against that background to determine the appropriate response.

    The main pay recommendations are as follows.

    The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has recommended a range of increases in daily rates of 3.2 to 3.8 per cent., plus an increase of 0.5 per cent. in the X factor reflecting the special demands of service life. This gives an average increase of 3.8 per cent. with effect from 1 April. Separately, following a quinquennial review of the value of armed forces pensions, it has recommended a 1 per cent. increase in pay to reflect reduced pension differentials with the private sector, with a further 1 per cent. increase next year.

    The Doctors and Dentists Review Body has recommended general increases of 3.8 per cent. for doctors and 4.3 per cent. for dentists. It has specifically recommended higher increases for junior hospital doctors of 5.3 per cent. for registrars and 6.8 per cent. for house officers, although the latter figure would be partly offset by a reduction in the rate for additional duty hours.

    The review body for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine has recommended that pay for these groups should once again be determined locally. The review body also recommended a 2 per cent. increase in the national scales which underpin local negotiations.

    The School Teachers Review Body has recommended a 3.75 per cent. increase in teachers’ pay, and other changes in pay structures.

    The Senior Salaries Review Body has recommended:

    1. values for the pay ranges for the senior civil service in the pay structure set out in January 1995 in the White Paper, “Taking Forward Continuity and Change”. Under these arrangements, Departments will determine individual salaries within the ranges and will be able to reward the best performers, with a framework in which the overall pay bill is expected to fall by some 7 per cent. next year as staff numbers are reduced;
    2. increases for senior military officers in the range 3.9 to 5.6 per cent. averaging 4.6 per cent. consistent with the AFPRB recommendations;
    3. increases of 3.9 per cent. for the judiciary.

    This is a complex set of recommendations covering a number of different issues that have been addressed in detail by the review bodies in preparing their reports. The Government have said that they will normally accept review body recommendations, and do not intend to reject them on this occasion. Nevertheless, if this year’s recommendations were implemented as they stand, from the due date, they would represent a marked step up in the level of pay settlements in the public sector, compared with settlements over the past year, and a significant charge on public expenditure programmes.

    Accordingly, the Government intend to stage their introduction and propose that in most cases the settlements to be paid with effect from 1 April should be 1 percentage point less than the review body recommendations, the balance to be paid later this year on 1 December. This meets the requirements on affordability and the approach to public sector pay, while retaining the pattern of increases recommended by the review bodies.

    Staging arrangements will also extend to the awards that Departments will determine for the senior civil service within the framework set by the SSRB recommendations.

    The Government have, however, decided that it would not be appropriate to apply this general arrangement to the recommendations for nurses and other staff covered by the NPRB.

    The following table summarises the main pay recommendations of the review bodies.

    Main pay recommendations Pay bill costs

    percentage £ million percentage

    AFPRB–Armed forces 3.7-4.3(4) 211 3.8

    DDRB–Doctors and dentists 3.8-6.8 245 4.4

    NPRB–Nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions Allied to medicine (5) — —

    STRB–School teachers 3.75 421 3.8

    SSRB Senior salaries

    Senior civil service (6) — —

    Senior military 3.9-5.6 1 4.6

    Judiciary 3.9 6 3.9

    (4) Includes ½ per cent. increase in the X factor which reflects the special demands of military compared with civilian life. AFPRB has also recommended an additional 1 per cent. on pay as part of a staged pensions-related adjustment.

    (5) To be determined in local pay negotiations but with a guaranteed 2 per cent. increase in national pay rates.

    (6) Recommendations for the senior civil service affect the pay framework within which Departments will set individual pay rates.

     

    Crime Statistics

    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February, Official Report, column 1120-21, if he will list the years since 1966 when crime fell.

    The Prime Minister: Between June 1993 and June 1995 there were 572,000 fewer crimes recorded than in the preceding two years–the largest fall since records began last century.

    Complete year figures are available up to the end of 1994. Since 1966 recorded crime in England and Wales has fallen in the following years:

    1973, 1978, 1979, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1994.

     

    Nuclear Test Veterans

    Dr. David Clark: To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken to pay compensation to (a) British and (b) Australian nuclear test veterans from the 1950s.

    The Prime Minister: In studies carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board of over 20,000 British nuclear test veterans, the incidence of death and cancer has been less than among the general public in the same age groups, and no higher than among a matched control group These facts do not sustain a case for compensation. The handling of claims in Australia is a matter for the Government of Australia.

     

    Professor al-Masari

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the information (a) made available to the courts about the case of Professor al-Masari and (b) passed to the Government of Dominica about Professor al-Masari; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: No. It is not my normal practice to do so.

  • PMQT – 8 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

    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. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative and Unionist party will always stand four-square behind the Union? Is it not the case that the British constitution has evolved over centuries, but that it could take a matter of months for a meddling, middle-class public school boy to undermine or even destroy it?

    The Prime Minister: We have made some evolutionary changes to the constitution in recent years, and I believe that there is scope for more evolutionary change in the years ahead. I do not believe that large-scale changes that would significantly alter the face of the United Kingdom and the Union as we know it are in the interests of the United Kingdom. Frankly, I believe that many of the plans that have been put forward do not address the difficulties.

    I see no reason why Scotland should be taxed more highly than the rest of the United Kingdom. Neither do I see any reason why Scottish Members should vote on Scottish matters that English Members cannot vote on, and then vote in the House on the same matters as they affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those issues need very careful examination. I hope that they will receive that careful examination, as they clearly have not had it yet.

    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent newspaper article about education by the Labour transport spokesman, which I shall quote–[Interruption.]–which I shall paraphrase. It refers to public schools producing more social cripples than any other form of education devised by man. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that is yet another veiled attack on the Labour leader and some of his Front-Bench colleagues, or is it simply another example of hypocrisy?

    The Prime Minister: I feel as though I am in an air raid shelter on this occasion, speaking as a grammar school boy. My hon. Friend should not be too hard on the hon. Member concerned. I think that Labour Members are required to put their children down for private school these days so that they can remain in the vanguard of Labour education policy.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Scott inquiry was entirely fairly conducted and that no criticism can or should be made of its processes or procedures?

    The Prime Minister: As I said in the House on a previous occasion:

    “I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have confidence that he will do so”–

    and has done so–

    “thoroughly.”

    Mr. Blair: I must press the Prime Minister on that because he will know that, in the past few days, there has been a concerted attempt to rubbish the inquiry. Will he say unequivocally that he accepts that it was entirely fairly conducted?

    The Prime Minister: I just said to the right hon. Gentleman:

    “I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have every confidence that he will do so”–

    and has done so–

    “thoroughly.”

    The right hon. Gentleman is saying that neither he nor anybody else can comment fairly on the Scott report until people have had the opportunity to study it. I agree with that point, but it also applies to the past three years. It applies to the fact that the Opposition have made crude and blatant smears throughout those past three years without having had the evidence of the Scott report before them. If, in his question, the right hon. Gentleman was making it clear that he believes that those were unjustified attacks without any evidence, I would be pleased for him to withdraw them now and make it clear that he will repudiate them.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister is not even prepared to say whether the report is fairly conducted. When he says that we should await the findings of the report, let me remind him that he and his Ministers will have had the report for eight days, that four Government Departments have units working on it and that we are to get it a few hours before publication. I am not asking him to comment on its findings, but on whether it was fairly conducted. He set up the inquiry. He chose Sir Richard Scott. Is he now prepared to state that he is confident that it was fairly conducted? If he does not say that, the final vestiges of respect will be removed from the Government.

    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman had carefully prepared his third soundbite before my first answer, and I am tempted to refer him to the two answers I have just given. I made it clear that

    “I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have confidence that he will do so”–

    and has done so–

    “thoroughly.”–[Official Report, 6 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 15.]

    I have now said that three times. Will the right hon. Gentleman now stop preparing his soundbites in advance and listen to my answers before he prepares his questions?

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Illsley: Why cannot the Prime Minister publish such an important document as the report of the Scott inquiry a few days before the statement on it next week so that the Opposition, and indeed the House, can be properly informed? Is it not disgraceful that a few Conservative Members will have had that report for eight days, but the rest of the House will receive it on the day of the statement?

    The Prime Minister: We plan to follow the precedents for a weighty report of this nature, and to permit Opposition spokesmen to see the report several hours before the statement is made. Of course, the House will also wish to study and comment on the report. That is why we propose to find time in Government time for an early debate on the report a few days after the statement has been made, once the whole House has had the opportunity to study the report and comment on it on the basis of detail, not of innuendo and smear, which has been the nature of the comments thus far from a number of Opposition Members.

    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House of Lords provides a useful and important advisory service for this country at very little cost? It has no power to overrule or frustrate the will of the House of Commons. Has my right hon. Friend heard of the old phrase, “If it ain’t broke, don’t mend it”?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that this House should treat constitutional reform of any sort with care and consideration, and examine what the outcome of that reform might be before being committed to it. I do not believe that the reforms proposed to the House of Lords are relevant to the problems and opportunities facing this country over the next five to 10 years. It seems to me that the reform in question is irrelevant–and intended to be a spiteful, thoughtless irrelevance.

     

    Campbell Soups

    Q3. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit a Campbell Soups exhibition stand at a United Kingdom food trade fair.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister will be aware of the call for an international boycott of Campbell Soups and Fray Bentos products, arising out of the appalling decision by the company to close down the highly profitable Homepride plant in my constituency–having purchased it for £58.6 million only 11 weeks earlier. Are not the real stakeholders in Homepride not the greedy shareholders in America who do not give a damn about the people of Maryport, but the work force who have invested their lives in making that company a success and who are now being put on the scrap heap? Will the Prime Minister join the 341 Members of Parliament–a majority of this House–who have called on the company to reverse its decision?

    The Prime Minister: I realise the extent of the disappointment that must be felt at Maryport over the decision. I understand that Campbell’s has offered employees jobs at one of its five other plants–although, self-evidently, that will not be appropriate for many employees. I also understand the depth of the hon. Gentleman’s concern for his constituents, but I hope that he and everyone else will bear in mind the fact that Campbell’s has been in the United Kingdom for over 30 years. It employs more than 2,000 people here and has shown its commitment to the United Kingdom by investing more than £100 million here in the past 12 months. I would not wish to threaten and damage those investments, or the jobs that are safeguarded and are being created as a result of those investments.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Chidgey: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Social Security Secretary, who has described today’s proposed cuts of £1 billion in the social security budget as devastating?

    The Prime Minister: That is in no sense what my right hon. Friend has said about the outcome of the public expenditure round. The whole House will recall that, in recent weeks, I have been criticised by the Opposition for administrative costs being too high. Here we have a practical illustration of the Government seeking to cut administrative costs, in the interests of the taxpayer, to preserve the resources available for benefits–yet on that point the Opposition criticise me as well.

    The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind: does he criticise the Government for not cutting administrative costs or for making administrative savings? Even though he is a Liberal Democrat, he cannot have it both ways.

    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy to maintain that one is committed to the elimination of state subsidy and then to do the reverse? Do not the recent decisions by the Transport Commissioner show that the Labour party–whether old Labour or new Labour, in Westminster or in Brussels–is committed to state subsidy and to Spanish practices?

    The Prime Minister: The whole House will know of our concern about the Iberia decision. It is certainly not in the interests of the air travellers of Europe, and we have made that known to Commissioner Kinnock and to others.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Hoon: In a statement to the House about the setting up of the Scott inquiry, the Attorney-General stated that matters of form and procedure were a question for the learned judge. Why will not the Prime Minister condemn unequivocally those, such as Lord Howe, who have sought to impugn the integrity of the learned judge and to attack the contents of his report before publication?

    The Prime Minister: On attacks on the contents of the report, if anyone has predetermined what the contents of the report might be, it is the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and not my noble Friend Lord Howe.

    On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I refer him to what I said on 13 January 1994 at column 332.

    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of Lord Palmerston, who said that to be born British is like winning the lottery of life? Will my right hon. Friend now go further and say that to be born or to live in Milton Keynes is like winning the national lottery, and join me in welcoming the grant of £19 million to build what will undoubtedly be the best theatre outside London?

    The Prime Minister: There may be some challenges about the scheme being the best theatre, but I know that my hon. Friend is proud of the scheme and I congratulate him on it.

    As for being proud of being British, I just hope that we do not reach the situation where to live in Scotland is to lose the lottery of taxation because it has to face extra taxation and a tartan tax.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the criminal incidents since 1985, other than the blowing up of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, for which Her Majesty’s Government attribute responsibility to Libya.

    The Prime Minister: We believe that Libya was responsible for the murder of a number of Libyan dissidents, mainly in the late 1980s, including some in Europe, but none in Britain.

    We also believe that Libya may have been involved in other criminal incidents outside the UK, including the bombing of a UTA flight in September 1989. It would not be appropriate to provide further detail.

     

    Departmental Expenditure

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years (a) 1979-80, (b) 1989-90, (c) 1991-92, (d) 1993-94, (e) 1994-95 and (f) 1995-96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996-97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 January 1996]: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by (a) his Department, (b) his Department’s agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979-80, (ii) 1989-90, (iii) 1991-92, (iv) 1993-94, (v) 1994-95, (vi) 1995-96 and (vii) 1996-97.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 30 January 1996]: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department’s agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for (a) 1979-80, (b) 1989-90, (c) 1991-92, (d) 1993-94, (e) 1994-95, (f) 1995-96 and (g) 1996-97.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 30 January 1996]: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

    Mr. Robin Cook: To ask the Prime Minister which Minister (a) took the decision which set the terms of reference for the Scott inquiry, (b) took the decision to appoint Sir Richard Scott to head the inquiry and (c) took the decision to establish the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer Tuesday 6 February 1996]: The Government set up the inquiry, as I set out in my parliamentary answer on 16 November 1992, Official Report, column 74-75.

    Mr. Cook: To ask the Prime Minister if he will act upon recommendations made in Sir Richard Scott’s forthcoming report.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 February 1996]: The Government will consider carefully any recommendations made by Sir Richard Scott.