The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Parliamentary Private Secretaries

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister, if he will publish the current list of parliamentary private secretaries and the Ministers to whom each is attached.

    The Prime Minister: A comprehensive list is as follows:

    Parliamentary private secretaries (as at 5 February 1996)

    Minister Secretary

    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    Minister for Agriculture Mr. D. Hogg) Mr. G. Clifton-Brown

    Minister of State (Mr. T. Baldry) Mr. N. Evans

    Defence

    Secretary of State (Mr. M. Portillo) Mr. D. Amess

    Ministers of State (Mr. N. Soames and Mr. J. Arbuthnot) Mr. N. Hawkins

    Cabinet Office

    Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. M. Heseltine) and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. R. Freeman) Mr. S. Coe

    Education and Employment

    Secretary of State (Mrs. G. Shephard) Mr. A. Coombs

    Ministers of State (Mr. E. Forth and Lord Henley) Mr. J. Whittingdale

    Environment

    Secretary of State (Mr. J. Gummer) Mr. D. French

    Ministers of State (Mr. D. Curry, Lord Ferrers, Robert Jones) Mr. M. Banks

    Foreign Office

    Secretary of State (Mr. M. Rifkind) Mr. H. Bellingham

    Ministers of State (Mr. D. Davis, Mr. J. Hanley, Sir N. Bonsor) Mr. P. Atkinson

    Health

    Secretary of State (Mr. S. Dorrell) Mr. D. Faber

    Minister of State (Mr. G. Malone) Mr. N. Waterson

    Home Office

    Secretary of State (Mr. M. Howard) Mr. D. Lidington

    Ministers of State (Mr. D. Maclean, Baroness Blatch Mr. D. Evennett

    Minister of State (Miss A. Widdecombe) Dr. R. Spink

    Law Officers Department

    Attorney-General (Sir N. Lyell) and Solicitor-General (Sir D. Spencer) Mr. E. Garnier

    Minister without Portfolio (Mr. B. Mawhinney) Mr. A. Duncan

    National Heritage

    Secretary of State (Mrs. V. Bottomley) Mr. P. Ainsworth

    Minister of State (Mr. I. Sproat) Mr. A. Robathan

    Northern Ireland Office

    Secretary of State (Sir P. Mayhew) Mr. J. Cran

    Ministers of State (Sir J. Wheeler and Mr. M. Ancram) Mr. H. Elletson

    Prime Minister Mr. J. Ward

    The Lord McColl

    Privy Council Office

    Lord President and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. T. Newton) Mr. J. Couchman

    Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords (The Viscount Cranborne) Mr. J. Sykes

    Scottish Office

    Secretary of State (Mr. M. Forsyth) The Hon. B. Jenkin

    Social Security

    Secretary of State (Mr. P. Lilley) Mr. P. Merchant

    Ministers of State (Lord MacKay and Mr. A. Burt) Mr. D. Congdon

    Trade and Industry

    President of the Board (Mr. I. Lang) Mr. S. Coombs

    Minister of State (Mr. T. Eggar) Mr. P. Luff

    Ministers of State (Lord Fraser, Mr. A. Nelson) Mr. T. Devlin

    Transport

    Secretary of State (Sir G. Young) Dr. C. Goodson-Wicks

    Minister of State (Mr. J. Watts) Mr. T. Dicks

    Treasury

    Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. K. Clarke) Mr. P. Butler

    Chief Secretary (Mr. W. Waldergrave) Mr. M. Robinson

    Welsh Office

    Secretary of State (Mr. W. Hague) Ms J. Lait

     

    Nolan Committee

    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will refer to the Nolan Committee the issue of the financial links of people who are being considered for appointment as ambassadors.

    The Prime Minister: There is no need to do so. This is already covered by the terms of reference.

     

    Local Authorities (Equity Portfolios)

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February Official Report, column 1121, on the purchase by local authorities of shares in privatised companies, what duties are owed by councils and their advisers to council tax payers which constrain their ability to build very unbalanced portfolios, with special reference excluding certain classes of equities.

    The Prime Minister: Local authorities are free to invest their funds how they choose, subject to their general duty of prudence and other matters set out in professional guidance issued by the accounting bodies. Where authorities place their general funds in investments which are not approved under regulations, receipts from the disposal of those investments are treated as capital receipts. Local authorities’ use of capital receipts is controlled through the capital finance system.

     

    Libya (Sanctions)

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 January, Official Report, column 46, what factors led to Her Majesty’s Government being unable to estimate the cost to British trade of sanctions against Libya; and if he will make it his policy to implement structures to allow such estimates to be made in situations where sanctions are imposed in the future.

    The Prime Minister: It is not possible to distinguish which elements in the overall fall in British exports to Libya over the past five years are attributable to the UN sanctions and which other factors such as the decline of the Libyan economy and lower oil prices.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 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.

  • PMQT – 6 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 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. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the considerable strength of the economy throughout the country, including Scotland, is based in large measure on reduced burdens on business? During his busy day yesterday, did he have the opportunity to–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Waterson: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to read reports in Scottish newspapers that two different spokesmen had said diametrically different things about whether extra public spending would be required to carry out Labour’s plans for Scotland?

    The Prime Minister: I am not remotely surprised to hear that Opposition Members say different things about their devolution policy. They have not yet thought through that policy; it is full of holes and full of damage. We said from the outset that a Scottish Assembly would require increased taxation and increased public expenditure. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has, I think, referred to that as utter rubbish. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has confirmed that that is indeed the case and that taxes will go up–a tartan tax of £6 per week initially, but undoubtedly more later. Another instance of Labour saying one thing and doing another.

    Mr. Blair: When customer complaints to British Gas have doubled and the company has been forced to split into two today because of huge losses on gas contracts, does the Prime Minister think that the leaving package of the chief executive–a £4 million pension fund, an annual income of £250,000 a year and £120,000 in consultancy fees–is justified?

    The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, the company has split into two to increase competition, which I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have liked. As for the package that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, that, in the private sector, is a matter for the shareholders. As those shareholders include the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes it up with the union. If the shareholders are unhappy with the arrangements, no doubt they will pursue the matter. If he does not know how to get the RMT on his side, he can ask the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is sponsored by it.

    Mr. Blair: Do we take it from that answer that the Prime Minister recognises no responsibility at all on the part of Government? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: Two years ago the Prime Minister told us that he found those excesses distasteful, and they have grown since then. He then told us to wait for the Greenbury committee, and the excesses continued to grow. We have had Greenbury and nothing has happened. When will the Prime Minister act in the public interest to make those privatised utilities serve the public and not a small group at the top?

    The Prime Minister: A moment ago, I explained to the right hon. Gentleman that he and one of his hon. Friends were saying different things. We have it again here. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the Government should not attempt to sit in the boardroom in a metaphysical sense. One of his hon. Friends said:

    “We believe that people should be rewarded for a performance, whether in the form of salary or the granting of share options”.

    That person, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)–a shadow Treasury spokesman–continued:

    “It is not for me to spell out the benchmarks of success”.

    The right hon. Gentleman is once again playing the politics of envy. [Interruption.] Let me be a moment. He loathes privatisation, he loathes private ownership and all that he has had to say about private ownership and a new Labour party is exposed every time that he takes that line.

    Mr. Blair: With all due respect to the Prime Minister, can he not see the difference between people operating within a highly competitive market and the privatised utilities operating monopoly services? Can there be any more telling expression of Conservative values than the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday condoning late payment to small companies while today condoning the excesses in the privatised utilities? One group of hard-working people is told to wait for its money and the other group is given by the Government a licence to print it.

    The Prime Minister: Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman the benefits of privatisation for millions of people who happen to be consumers. Gas prices have fallen by more than 20 per cent. since privatisation. Potential new suppliers are offering price reductions of 15 to 20 per cent. in the south-west. Personally, I believe that we need

    “the enterprise of the market and the rigours of competition”.

    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that, because that is the Labour party’s new clause IV, which he pushed through last year. As ever, Labour’s constitution says one thing and Labour Members do another.

    Mr. Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the exceptional courage of 21-year-old Fleur Lombard who came from the High Peak and who lost her life at the weekend in the course of her work as a firefighter? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is great scope for a scheme of rewards to recognise the contributions made by young people in all walks of life, whether they have shown great courage–as in Fleur’s case–or they have made a contribution to others and to society? Will he consider whether such a scheme could be backed by the Government?

    The Prime Minister: I will of course consider the matter. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our sympathy to the family of Fleur and those of the other firefighters who have lost their lives in service. There is no doubt that such incidents underline the selfless bravery of the fire service. On this occasion, a young lady lost her life while seeking to save the lives of other people. I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister think that it is right to delay payment on other people’s bills and to use their money to gain interest for oneself? Having done that, does he think it wise to then boast about it?

    The Prime Minister: Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman–

    Mr. Skinner: Can’t pay, won’t pay.

    The Prime Minister: That reminds me of what the trade unions say about their control over the Labour party.

    They say that unless they maintain that control, they will not pay for the Labour party, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for reminding me of that.

    On the substantive question, the Government–not least my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, when he was President of the Board of Trade–have done a great deal to encourage prompt payment. My right hon. Friend encouraged the establishment of the CBI’s prompt payment code. We required Government payments to comply with the code and we improved procedures in the small claims courts. We are making companies disclose their payments rapidly. Those are the practical measures that we are taking.

    Mr. William Powell: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the remarks of the Prime Minister of Belgium, delivered at Davos at the weekend, to the effect that, if the single currency does not proceed in 1999, the single market will collapse? Is it not the case that Belgium has not the slightest chance of meeting the Maastricht criteria as its general Government gross debt is more than twice the threshold level set down in the Maastricht treaty? Does my right hon. Friend believe that there is a secret agenda to proceed with the single currency despite the treaty of Maastricht? Do not Mr. Dehaene’s remarks vindicate my right hon. Friend’s decision to veto Mr. Dehaene as President of the European Commission?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly do not believe that the single market would be at risk if the single currency did not proceed in 1999 or at any other time in the future. I do not think that anyone can seriously dispute that, at the moment, there are uncertainties about the timetable. No one can say with absolute certainty which countries might qualify for stage 3 if it goes ahead in 1999. What is relevant is that we must address the key issues about how stage 3 would work, and I have raised that point at successive European Councils. Were it to proceed without the right economic background, there is no doubt that it would be a disaster, not just for the countries taking part, but for all the countries of the European Union.

     

    Q2. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Dowd: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his condemnation of late payment as a serious threat to the very survival of many small firms, or does he side with the Deputy Prime Minister, who advocates becoming skilful at keeping creditors away? Is not that latter approach a kick in the teeth for millions of honest small businesses? Which one does the Prime Minister support? May we have a straight answer?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have been dozing, because a few moments ago I set out a range of measures that the Government have introduced to encourage prompt payment, some of them initiated by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

    Mr. Booth: As last week we all heard the German Chancellor say that integration would be a matter of war and peace in the 21st century, will the Prime Minister tell Herr Kohl that integration and federation forced on countries and peoples that are free, against their will, often result in civil war? Where is Yugoslavia now? Will my right hon. Friend tell Chancellor Kohl that this country takes it ill when we hear loose talk of war from Germany?

    The Prime Minister: The whole House recognises the importance of examining very carefully what criteria there might be for any countries that decide to move ahead to stage 3. We need to look at what has been achieved in the European Union over the past 30 years or so and to ensure that that is not imperilled by moves to other advanced changes for which the European Union is not yet ready. That needs to be a pragmatic debate on whether the economic circumstances are right for movement and on what the implications would be, both in the short term and in the long term, for the countries that might be in a single currency and for those that might not be.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing feeling that the country is being run for and by a narrow magic circle of privileged people? In that regard, will he tell the House how it is that former Eton toff Darius Guppy can negotiate his sentence and negotiate his way out of prison–a prison that he likened to his school, Eton? How is it that top rail managers can fail to pay rail ticket fares yet not suffer any penalty? How is it that Cedric Brown can have a massive windfall pay-off? Is it not a case of, “It’s the rich what gets the pleasure and the poor what gets the blame”?

    The Prime Minister: That was an exceedingly well worked pay-off line by the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that the build-up merited it. This is the first time in my life that I have been told that I am part of a magic circle, and I do not think that I like it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Prime Minister’s Question Time

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since 9 June 1995 when answers given at Prime Minister’s Question Time were subsequently corrected or otherwise qualified.

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

     

    Crime Rates

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 30 January, Official Report, column 773, if he will set out the basis of his statement that crime is falling for the first time in 40 years.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 1 February 1996, Official Report, columns 1120-21.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 February 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Positive about Disabled People Symbol

    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list for his Department and each of the agencies for which he is responsible if it uses the Employment Service’s positive about disabled people symbol for (a) external recruitment and (b) internal recruitment and promotion.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 1 February.

     

    Honours (Public Nominations)

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons have been (a) created knight or dame and (b) elevated to the peerage following nomination by members of the public since April 1992.

    The Prime Minister: It is not normal practice to reveal the sources of nomination for particular levels of award. Overall, nearly a third of awards have been supported by members of the public. The bulk of the remainder are recommended from a variety of official sources, for example health and education authorities.

     

    Jewellery

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister what items of jewellery given to previous Prime Ministers are kept on the official inventory at 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister: Gifts received by Ministers in their official capacity are dealt with in accordance with the procedures set out in “Questions of Procedures for Ministers”. The details are not made public.

     

    Departmental Expenditure

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants 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 estimate the savings accruing to his Department from the use of consultants in each of these years.

    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 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 1 February Official Report, column 911.

     

    Departmental Property

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department and his Department’s agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties 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 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 1 February Official Report, column 912.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 February 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Antigua and Barbuda

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the authorities of (a) Antigua and (b) Barbuda to prohibit the right of public access to beaches on these islands.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 9 January, Official Report, column 16, to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) if he will place in the Library the evidence which he claims supports the charges against two accused Libyans in respect of the destruction of Pan Am 103 in 1988.

    The Prime Minister: No. Details of the evidence cannot be released as this would prejudice the outcome of a trial.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 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.

     

    St. David’s Day

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlie his Department’s decision not to declare St. David’s day a bank holiday in Wales.

    The Prime Minister: Successive Governments have kept the pattern of bank holidays in the United Kingdom under review. The introduction of any additional bank holiday must take account of the potential costs and disruption to industry. To declare St. David’s day a bank holiday in Wales would create cost and disruption to businesses both in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

     

    Mitchell Report

    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister when a copy of his statement on the Mitchell report was communicated to the Irish Taoiseach; at what time it was (a) sent and (b) received; and what response he received from the Irish Government before to his statement to the House on 24 January.

    The Prime Minister: A copy of the text of my statement was faxed to the Taoiseach’s office at about 2 o’clock on 24 January. No response from the Irish Government reached me before I made my statement to the House.

     

    Departmental Costs

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to (a) his Department,(b) his Department’s agencies and (c) his Department’s non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979-80, (ii) 1989-90, (iii) 1991-92, (iv) 1993-94, (v) 1994-95, (vi) 1995-96 and (vii) 1996-97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c).

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 January 1996]: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  • PMQT – 1 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 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.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming another successful year for the Manor House private hospital, which is funded by the Transport and General Workers Union and other unions to provide private health care for their members? In view of the Labour party’s long-term opposition to private health care, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a classic case of the Labour movement saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a fascinating point. I think that he mentioned the Transport and General Workers Union. It sponsors many prominent hon. Members, so they will certainly be familiar with its activities. I was not aware of the case my hon. Friend raises, but if it is true it certainly calls into question the deep and apparently sincere hostility of so many Opposition Members to the private sector of medicine that they have set out for so many years. It is surprising that they seem keen to use the private sector, but are keen to condemn it.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps I could ask the Prime Minister about the national health service. Can he confirm the figures of the Consultants Association and the Audit Commission that show that, under his Prime Ministership, within the past five years, the costs of administration have doubled? Given today’s news about the pay awards to top administrators, does not the Prime Minister think that the Secretary of State for Health should say clearly to the trust boards that, in future, the average pay rises for managers should be very similar to those for doctors and nurses?

    The Prime Minister: I cannot confirm the detailed figures that have been released–I have no reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about them, but I cannot immediately confirm them. The right hon. Gentleman should take great care before he returns to his old line of attacking management in the national health service and its costs.

    Mr. Skinner: Why?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks why. I shall give him several reasons. First, because that is precisely what the Socialist Health Association told him not to do. Secondly,

    “I don’t think it’s really in question any more that the NHS has been under-managed in the past”.

    [Hon. Members: “Undermanaged?] I am sorry that Opposition Members scoff–those are not my words but those of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) when she was Labour’s health spokesman. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”]

    Of course one would wish to ensure a fair division of pay among all people in the health service. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the present Government, under my Prime Ministership, gave the nurses a pay review body, whose recommendations we have always honoured.

    Mr. Blair: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the Secretary of State to do as I ask? [Interruption.] “No,” say Conservative Members, but I was quoting the words of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] Instead of the Prime Minister saying things that are in his folder and my putting things to him, will he answer the basic question? Why have administrative costs increased by more than £1 billion a year in the past five years–when the number of nurses is falling, when patients are on trolleys and when there is a shortage of acute beds? The question that the Prime Minister must answer is, why is the national health service safe in the hands of a Government who place administrators before nurses?

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is mistaken on almost every point that he puts to me, but let me deal directly with his point about management costs. It is fair to raise the important issue of management costs. If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about management costs, and I am sure that he is sincere in what he says about them–[Hon. Members: “Oh.”]–can he explain why he does not support the 8 per cent. cut of administrative costs next year that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health proposes? The right hon. Gentleman does not support that. Can he explain why he voted against the abolition of regional health authorities, which saved a whole tier of management?

    We have provided the resources for more medical staff and for the treatment of 1.5 million extra patients. A few years ago, it was impossible to check properly how resources were used because there was no proper management in the national health service. As the right hon. Member for Derby, South said, that had to be put right. We have put it right. Now that we have put it right, the right hon. Gentleman criticises it.

    Mr. Blair: Let us debate at least on the basis of facts. Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that the extra costs are more than £1 billion a year? If they are, instead of spending that money on bureaucrats, administrators, company cars and pen-pushers, why does he not spend it on nurses, doctors, patients and beds?

    The Prime Minister: The money is being spent on patients. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be able to grasp that point. To spend it on patients, it is necessary to do what we have been doing–put resources into medical care and manage them so that money is available for medical care. Until the right hon. Gentleman understands that, he will continue to ask me questions that are, literally, senseless. I suggest that he examines the matter again with the right hon. Member for Derby, South, who understood those matters when she was Labour’s health spokesman, but who obviously disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman–which may well be why she has almost disappeared from public view in recent months.

     

    Q2. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Jenkin: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that boot camps are for the punishment of young offenders, humanely but firmly? May I urge my right hon. Friend to make use of the military corrective training centre at Colchester garrison and ignore the blandishments and objections of Liberal Democrat and Labour Colchester councillors, who once again demonstrate that the Opposition parties are the villain’s friend?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I shall certainly examine his suggestion. We hear much from the Opposition parties about their approach to crime, and in some cases about how tough it is. We do not see it at a national level and, if my hon. Friend is correct–I have no reason to doubt that he is–those parties clearly take the same inadequate approach at local level as we have seen them take at national level.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Hain: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House on Tuesday that the British economy is now the best in the western world, when in fact seven European countries are growing faster? Does he also recall telling the House that crime in Britain is falling for the first time for 40 years, when in fact crime fell in 1977 and 1978, under Labour? Was he deliberately misleading the House or just reverting to his old, routine incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right on crime figures, but I understated what I might have said to the House. The fall is not the first for 40 years–the hon. Gentleman is right about that–but the largest fall in crime since records began 100 years ago. It was achieved against the opposition of the hon. Gentleman and many other Opposition Members to almost every measure that we have brought forward in recent years.

    The hon. Gentleman referred also to the economy. I said that we have the best performing economy in western Europe, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should look at exactly what I said. The facts are that we have the lowest level of inflation for 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest unemployment of any major European country and the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years. We are number one in Europe for foreign investment and we export more per person than Japan or the United States. Which European country can match that record?

     

    Q4. Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that privatised companies are a very attractive proposition to investors? Is he aware of a pamphlet issued recently by a Labour Member of the European Parliament that shows that nearly £1 billion has been invested in privatised companies by Labour local authorities, including Southwark, Lewisham and Islington? Is not that yet another example of Labour hypocrisy? They opposed privatisation, but now they profit from it.

    The Prime Minister: I have seen the brochure and I commend it to hon. Members. It was written by a Labour Member of the European Parliament and has a foreword by the leader of the Labour Members of the European Parliament. Its case is set out as my hon. Friend claims. I am delighted to welcome Islington, Lewisham and Southwark to the stockbroker belt, but it strikes me as odd that the Opposition opposed privatisation, they fight privatisation in the House, they go on television to attack privatisation, they attack the management of privatisation, and yet they buy shares in privatised companies and enjoy profits from them. As usual, they are saying one thing and doing another.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hardy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Hardy: How does the Prime Minister think the British people will recall his widely publicised promises in the 1992 general election campaign to cut taxes year after year, given that he then increased them by more than at any other time in British history? Is not that the most glaring example of saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that taxes are now going back on a downward trend. He might like to hear some examples of saying one thing and doing another. The Opposition are claiming that they will not put taxes up; but what did the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) say some time ago?

    “Well, I would say is this: that if the Chancellor, to raise money to do things, did raise the tax level on the top rate from 40 to 50 per cent., we would not oppose it”.

    That is not what the Leader of the Opposition says. Of course, the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is temporarily absent–[Hon. Members: “Where is he?”] I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman is–he has decided to heckle someone else this afternoon. He said, however, that Labour

    “should not follow the Government down the road of reducing the basic rate of tax”.

    How does that square with the promises made by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about taxation?

     

    Q6. Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme provides an excellent opportunity for thousands of children? Is it not another example of hypocrisy and double standards that the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition health spokesman have benefited from the excellent facilities in private education, yet wish to do away with the scheme?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. The assisted places scheme is another policy that increases choice and opportunity, particularly for people on modest incomes. That is why we are committed to doubling the scheme.

    The Labour party is opposed to the scheme–or at least that is what I thought until the Labour leader gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) an assisted place in the shadow Cabinet.

    Mr. Alfred Morris: When does the Prime Minister expect to be able to respond to the motion on Members’ and Ministers’ pay that stands in my name and in those of 300 other right hon. and hon. Members? Meanwhile is there any comment he can offer the House on the subject today?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there needs to be a new mechanism for determining Members’ pay for the future, as the existing link to civil service pay grades disappears following civil service restructuring. That has been the case for some time. We have been considering how to take the matter forward. Of course we shall take account of the views expressed by the House in the early-day motion standing in the right hon. Gentleman’s name. We have not concluded our consideration and consultations. As soon as we have, we shall bring our conclusions to the House.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 31 January 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st January 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Absenteeism

    Mr Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in his Department for each of the years (a) 1979-80, (b) 1989-90, (c) 1991-92, (d) 1993-94, (e) 1994-95 and (f) 1995-96.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 January 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on Tuesday 30 January.

     

    Departmental Expenditure

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of his Department’s expenditure on newspapers and magazines in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95 and (c) 1995-96, to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available.

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

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on administration 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 1990]: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 30 January, by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service. Figures for 1979-80 are not available on a comparable basis.

     

    Nuclear Testing (India)

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister what action he is taking in respect of the Indian Government’s plans to resume nuclear testing; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The Indian Minister for External Affairs confirmed in Delhi on 19 December that India was not planning to conduct a nuclear test. We have welcomed this assurance.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview Following Meeting with Shimon Peres – 31 January 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep statement in London following a meeting with Shimon Peres, the Israeli Prime Minister, on Wednesday 31st January 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just firstly say what a very welcome guest the Prime Minister is here this afternoon. We have met on many occasions in recent years and I am delighted that we were able to have a fairly wide ranging discussion this afternoon.

    Amongst the matters we talked about, I think there are two that I would particularly wish to mention before I invite the Prime Minister to say a few words. The first is to extend my unqualified congratulations at the success of the way in which the Palestinian elections took place and the way in which they turned out. I think the way in which that has been handled, and the courageous decisions that were taken over the last year or so, are material to the success of those elections and I believe the Prime Minister deserves every congratulation for the way in which he has handled that.

    The second thing I would just wish to say is a word about the bilateral relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and Israel. I cannot remember a time when the bilateral relationships were as close over a whole range of issues as they are at the present time. And I think the great deal of the credit for that goes to Prime Minister Rabin and Prime Minister Peres. We have had the opportunity of talking and meeting on many occasions in recent years and some of the old issues, where we rubbed up uneasily against one another, have been put very firmly behind us in the bilateral relationship and I am delighted to have the opportunity of saying that to you this afternoon.

    The Prime Minister will wish to say a few words. Finally, I simply wish to say that I very much look forward to the dinner at which we are both speaking tomorrow evening and I will have the pleasure of introducing the principal guest – the Prime Minister – as indeed I do now.

    MR PERES:

    Thank you. Well I wanted to thank the Prime Minister for really enabling us to enjoy an extremely well and close relationship between Great Britain and Israel, particularly after the visit of the Prime Minister to our country. It was enriched economically, it was extended to many other fields of mutual interest and I really agree with the Prime Minister that they are at their very best.

    I think that Great Britain has contributed greatly to the peace process by encouraging the parties to go ahead, by supporting the Palestinians in building their own autonomy and their own administration, which we favour very much. I share his view that the elections serve as the crown for a revolutionary approach to one of the most complicated issues of our time and today became a new reality.

    I have had the opportunity to inform the Prime Minister that we are continuing our peace efforts now with the Syrians and the Lebanese, we are very [indistinct] and we intend to go ahead.

    QUESTION:

    Is there any British and European initiative to speed up the process, especially the talks, between Israel and the Syrians because it looks like the Americans have not achieved much so far? Mr Peres, we have heard today that Syria has expressed some reservation and a note of pessimism about the talks in Maryland which will finish tonight. Are you optimistic that the talks will resume in Israel?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are happy to play whatever role we can to facilitate the talks, but we cannot reach agreements there. The best that we can do is to encourage the parties to talk and to take whatever action we may that will ensure that those talks, when they take place, are successful. That we are happy to do. But beyond being a facilitator, there is nothing that I can say to you today about that. Whatever we are asked to do, and can credibly do, you have my assurance that we will do and we will advise our European partners to join us in that. But I think the principal responsibility is going to lie in the direct negotiations between President Assad and the Prime Minister, that is where the decisions will be taken.

    MR PERES:

    I think in the right [indistinct] the two of them were successful meetings. A great deal of progress was done. The agenda is a very rich and complicated one, but I am rather satisfied with the results of the meetings and I do not see any reason to become pessimistic. But one of the main things is the optimism which is necessary for the negotiations.

  • PMQT – 30 January 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th January 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    United Nations Secretary-General

    Q1. Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had on the election of a successor to Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations, when he last met (a) President Chirac and (b) Chancellor Kohl.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): None.

    Dr. Godman: In addition to a new Secretary-General, is there not a need for a deputy Secretary-General, as advocated by Sir David Hannay, to take charge of administration and finance, thereby allowing the new Secretary-General to re-examine most carefully such serious matters as Lockerbie and Libyan sanctions? At the very least, do we not need a public debate on those appointments and on reform of the United Nations?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree about the need to reform the United Nations. I raised that at the last meeting of the G7, where there was general agreement about it. In terms of internal reform, I can see some justification for a deputy Secretary-General, and I can certainly see some for a proper reform of the United Nations. By reform, I mean not just a reform of procedures but the abolition of many United Nations bodies that no longer serve a useful purpose.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of my constituents strongly support the Government’s measures to give the Attorney-General power to appeal against unduly lenient sentences? Is not the fact that the Labour party voted against that yet another example of hypocrisy?

    The Prime Minister: It is a matter of record that the Labour party voted against that measure, but it has voted against many other law-and-order measures over recent months, such as the right to silence. We increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children from two years to 10–Labour opposed that. We increased the maximum penalty for carrying a gun in crime–Labour opposed us. The reality is that it may sometimes use tough words on crime, but when it comes to actions it is very soft.

    Mr. Blair: Conservative Members should remember that under their party crime has doubled.

    Does the Prime Minister share and understand the sense of anger of the British people at the behaviour of the privatised water companies? Given the figures released today showing that the cost of delivering water to customers has risen by almost £300 million and that although water companies’ profits rose to a record level last year their investment fell, is not it high time that they were properly regulated in the public interest?

    The Prime Minister: With reference to his earlier remarks, the right hon. Gentleman might also remember that under this Government crime is falling for the first time in 40 years. [Interruption.] Statistics show that quite clearly, across a whole range of crime, and that is something that no previous Government have been able to say.

    When he refers to the privatised water industry, the right hon. Gentleman would do well to remember, too, that “Governments cannot run companies”. [Interruption.] I am interested to hear that the Opposition disagree with that, because I was quoting the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

    Mr. Blair: Yes, but Governments can regulate those companies, and this Government are not regulating them. Will the Prime Minister confirm that over the past few years investment has been falling, that prices to customers have risen by more than 40 per cent., that 500,000 gallons of water are now being leaked every minute of every day and that customer complaints have doubled? Those are the facts about the water industry under this Government. Why do the Prime Minister, his Cabinet and his other colleagues defend each and every action of the water companies, rather than standing up for the customers who are being fleeced by them?

    The Prime Minister: About £15 billion has been invested in the water industry since privatisation, £1 billion more than originally planned. That is because over several decades in the public sector there were not sufficient resources for investment in the water industry or in other public utilities. Of course, there is investment in them now, not least by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers as a shareholder. That union sponsors the deputy leader of the Labour party; it is one of the stakeholders in the Labour party, and also one of the shareholders in the water industry and in most of the other privatised industries. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. We have very little time. Keep quiet.

    Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend will have seen the lead stories in today’s editions of the Financial Times and The Times. Will he confirm that universities are, in law, private bodies, that their financial relations with their students are a matter for them to determine and that the Government have no intention of nationalising the universities?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly see no need for universities to introduce top-up fees. They certainly complain about how they have been treated by the Government. Between 1989-90 and 1994-95, university funding rose by 23 per cent. over and above inflation. I hope that the vice-chancellors will recall that when they consider their future policy.

    Mr. Ashdown: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his claim last night that the Conservative party is the only party interested in law and order with the fact that although he promised at the general election to increase the number of police officers on the streets by 1,000, the latest figures show that the number has fallen by 1,000? Is that what he means by saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman looks more carefully at what is happening in law and order. If he does he will see that right across the range, for the first time in 40 years, crime is falling. He will also see the resources there for an extra 5,000 police officers–

    Mr. Ashdown indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman’s living in some Disneyland of his own and waving his hands about; those are the facts. It is the Conservative party that has toughened the law and order position time and again, and his party, and the Labour party, have been in the Opposition Lobby whenever we have sought to do that.

    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give the House a firm undertaking that he will not take advice on law and order from the party that would change the meaning of the Sunday joint?

    The Prime Minister: I happily give my hon. Friend that assurance.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Mr. Davies: To return to education, does the Prime Minister recall that his Government slashed school budgets by £500 million last year, causing great difficulty to school heads? Does he recognise that the Government have slashed the higher education budget by £300 million this year, causing great difficulty to vice-chancellors? Why should our institutions and their students suffer because of the Government’s economic failure?

    The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, the Government’s economic policy is exceeding in a more spectacular fashion than that of any other Government in western Europe. Spending per pupil in the mainstream sector has risen by about 50 per cent. over and above inflation since 1979.

    Mr. Blunkett: The true figure is 4 per cent.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), Labour’s education spokesman, is shouting from a sedentary position. It is a novel relief for him to do so, rather than be undermined by the Labour leader in every single thing that he says about education.

    On higher education, the hon. Gentleman would do better to refer to his party’s policy document, which says that

    “Labour is looking to raise funds from individuals using”–

    [Interruption]

    I apologise for my cold, Madam Speaker, but the reference to Labour’s policy document stands. It reveals that

    “Labour is looking to raise funds from individuals using and directly benefiting from higher education.”

    That is Labour’s own policy document–I hope that it will not deny that policy.

     

    Q4. Mr. Thomason: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that selective schools will remain a part of our education system? Did he hear the Leader of the Opposition yesterday ducking and diving on his party’s schools policies?

    The Prime Minister: Not only yesterday. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman ducks and weaves. The hon. Member for Brightside says that he has no truck with middle-class, left-wing parents who preach one thing and do another. I cannot think who he might have had in mind. The hon. Gentleman tells us to watch his lips–there will be no more selection under a Labour Government. The party’s education spokesman says one thing, while the leader says another. Labour is split on education from top to bottom.

     

    Q5. Mr. Tipping: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Mr. Tipping: How would the Prime Minister describe someone who, before the general election, promised not to extend the scope of VAT, but after the election extended VAT and imposed it on fuel at 8 per cent.? Would he describe that person as a hypocrite or a liar?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look at the economic performance that has been achieved under this Government. If he does so, I defy him to find any western economy that can match the current performance of this economy under this Government.

    Mr. Hawksley: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read of the four children aged 11 in Handsworth in Birmingham, who have been put through the fast-track education system and who have received the praise of the Leader of the Opposition? Is my right hon. Friend aware that all four have won places at a grammar school, and will he reassure the parents of those children that, under this Government, their grammar school places will be safe?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly offer my hon. Friend that assurance. He highlights yet again the shambles of the Opposition’s policy. They say that they support grammar schools, but they oppose selection. They say that they support special treatment for pupils, but they oppose streaming. They say that they support parental choice for the shadow Cabinet, but for no one else.

     

    Q6. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Saudi Arabia to discuss human rights.

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

    Mr. Corbyn: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is time that the British Government put human rights before arms sales, sought an urgent meeting with the Saudi Government on the abuses of human rights there, explained why BBC broadcasts to Saudi Arabia have been censored and explained why the British Government, with their craven attitude towards that autocratic regime, are trying to deport Dr. al-Masari from this country?

    The Prime Minister: We and our European partners regularly discuss human rights with the Saudi Arabian Government and with others. I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman has a rather unusual version of human rights, because it was him who said:

    “We assert the right of all people to follow their own conscientious beliefs even if it involves them in breaking the law.”

  • PMQT Written Answers – 29 January 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th January 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Private Finance Initiative

    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction (a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs;

    (2) how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction (a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 January 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies given on Friday 26 January, by my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Official Report, columns 418-19.

     

    Advertising and Publicity

    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list breaches, by Department and Minister, of conventions on ministerial advertising and publicity since 1992; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: In all cases Government Departments seek to observe the conventions.

    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister when the Cabinet Office last circulated its guidelines to Ministers on central Government conventions on publicity and advertising and what measures it takes to ensure the guidelines are adhered to.

    The Prime Minister: An updated version of the guidance on Government publicity and advertising was circulated by the Cabinet Office to Departments this month and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House. This document makes clear that Departments are responsible for ensuring that the conventions on propriety are observed and that value for money is achieved.

     

    No. 10 Downing Street (Chandelier)

    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received urging him to return a chandelier in No. 10 Downing Street to the former Argyll Motor Works building in Alexandria.

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