The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT – 15 June 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th June 1995. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently in Canada attending the G7 conference.

    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the release of the remaining members of the Welch Fusiliers and of the RAF flight lieutenant by the Bosnian Serbs shows clearly that the Government’s robust response to the taking of the hostages was the right one? Does he further agree that we now have an opportunity to reassess how our diplomatic and military efforts in Bosnia can best be taken forward?

    Mr. Newton: The whole House will want to join in my hon. Friend’s welcome of the release of nearly all of the remaining hostages, including the British ones, and it is essential in our view that the other 26 are released immediately. My hon. Friend was right to say that the Government’s policy has been vindicated. Indeed, by standing firm, the whole international community has shown that it will not submit to blackmail and terrorism of that kind. I share the view implicit in my hon. Friend’s remarks that it is vital that we redouble our efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the Leader of the House think that it is really wise for the Prime Minister to be out of the country at this time?

    Mr. Newton: At a time when it is widely acknowledged throughout the international community that this country’s economic performance in growth, increasing investment, improving our trade performance, keeping inflation down and reducing unemployment makes it a world leader in that respect, it is quite right that my right hon. Friend should be sharing our experience with our partners in the G7.

    Mr. Prescott: With Baroness Thatcher making it clear that the Prime Minister is not up to the job, the President of the Board of Trade professing loyalty while preparing to take over the Prime Minister’s job and the Chancellor attacking his Tory critics as right-wing xenophobes, is not it obvious that the Tory party is in a state of civil war and, like the Prime Minister, is clearly unfit to govern this country?

    Mr. Newton: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that–against the background of the account of our successful economic policies which I have just given–he will believe anything. He might also explain why his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took the risk of letting him ask questions from the Dispatch Box today.

    [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

     

    Q2. Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s trade union reforms reintroduced democracy into the Labour movement? Will he therefore ask the committee considering the Nolan report whether the 165 Members of the parliamentary Labour party who are sponsored by trade unions will resign if the long-overdue reform of the trade union block vote does not go ahead? In particular, if the Transport and General Workers Union gives that reform the order of the sharp elbow, will the Leader of the Opposition sever all his links with that union?

    Mr. Newton: I am not quite in a position to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks because the committee to which he refers has not yet met and, therefore, has not made a decision about who should be its chairman. In one way or another, however, I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s request is drawn to the committee’s attention. No doubt the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will draw the second half of my hon. Friend’s question to the attention of his right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition.

    Mr. Ashdown: Is not it absolutely clear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement last night that, when it comes to a policy on inflation, the Government’s policy is very clear–a target is a target, but only so long as it does not get in the way of a tax cut?

    Mr. Newton: What is clear from my right hon. and learned Friend’s speech last night is that the Government’s commitment to low inflation remains absolutely unshakeable and clear and that the commitment to low inflation is part of a range of policies, which I have already described and which will make it possible for us to consider tax cuts in due course when it is appropriate and responsible to do so.

     

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

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Heald: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this week’s further fall in unemployment, which is down for the 21st month in a row and down 500,000 in the past two years? Does he agree that it is not coincidence, but the result of the Government’s policies and that if we had a guaranteed minimum wage as the Labour party suggests–it is no good the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) looking glum as he has admitted this–there would be a shake-out of jobs and any silly fool knows that? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of Britain, that policy must be reversed?

    Mr. Newton: Although it is sometimes difficult to glean from the observations of the Opposition, I imagine that the whole House will welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen by 350,000 in the past year and, indeed, that employment has grown by more than 170,000 in the year to March. I see the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) giggling in some way– it is especially ironic that, not so long ago, he forecast that unemployment would go on rising month in and month out. No doubt he will be reassessing his forecasting methods. At the same time, he might reassess policies such as the social chapter and the minimum wage, which would certainly push things in the other direction.

    Mr. Madden: May I ask the Leader of the House a question, of which I gave the Prime Minister notice on Tuesday; will he comment on the tragic events in Bradford at the weekend? In condemning without reservation those who commit serious criminal damage, does the Leader of the House share my deep concern about the large number of very young people who are so deeply angry, disaffected and alienated, not only in Bradford but in many other inner cities throughout the country? Will he support an independent public inquiry to establish what happened in Bradford– [Interruption.] If the House–

    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point as I have other questioners to call.

    Mr. Madden: But this is a serious matter to the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman support an independent public inquiry, which can identify the causes of the serious public disorder that took place in Bradford at the weekend and draw attention to the action that can be taken by all public agencies, including the Government, to bring back hope to young people, their parents and local communities?

    Mr. Newton: First, I am grateful, as everyone in the House will be, for the hon. Gentleman’s initial acknowledgement that, whatever arguments he or anyone else cares to adduce, we all agree that there can be no excuse for the kind of behaviour that we saw in Bradford at the weekend.

    So far as the inquiries are concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Police Complaints Authority is supervising the investigation of a number of complaints made against the police during the weekend. That authority is independent and will do a thorough job. The work will be undertaken by officers from another force–

    Mr. Madden indicated assent.

    Mr. Newton: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that. I think that that is the appropriate action to take.

    As for the rest of what the hon. Gentleman said, I am glad to know that discussions are now taking place between the police and members of the Asian community in Bradford. That is the way to explore other problems.

     

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

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hendry: Has my right hon. Friend ever seen a shred of evidence that suggests that people in this country want more government rather than less? Is he aware that my constituents in High Peak would be horrified at the prospect of another tier of regional government based perhaps 100 miles away in Leicestershire? Is not it time for those people who advocate such a policy to admit that what they are really saying is that we should have more bureaucracy, more waste, more remoteness and more taxes?

    Mr. Newton: Labour’s plans for regional government would certainly end up simply sucking responsibility away from many existing councils that are closer to the people whom they represent. As one of Labour’s think tanks made clear yesterday, English regions would be “essentially artificial constructs”, which is true of more or less the whole of Labour’s policy in that area.

    Mr. Macdonald: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing anger, not just in Britain but on the continent, about the plan to dump the Brent Spar oil platform at sea, at a spot not more than 150 miles from my constituency? Is not it a disgrace that Shell should have tried to hide the true costs of recycling the oil platform on land? Is not it time that the Government intervened to halt the tow of the Brent Spar and allow a proper examination of the true benefits of recycling on land, which would be better for the environment and for jobs?

    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are following the principle of disposal on a case-by-case basis. In the Government’s view, the deep-sea disposal of Brent Spar is consistent with the UK’s international commitment, and all necessary approvals and consents have been obtained. It is also the Government’s view that it is the best practicable environmental option available.

     

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

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend draw the Prime Minister’s attention to last week’s report by the Social Security Select Committee into the growth of social security, which vindicates the Government’s view that the continuing growth of social security spending is a cause for concern? Is it not time that we tackled that problem? Is not the test of the Opposition whether they start to support those reforms, otherwise they betray the fact that they have no commitment to dealing with the growth of public expenditure?

    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter. The increase in social security expenditure in its various forms, under various pressures including demographic trends, is a matter of concern throughout the western world and perhaps beyond. Against that background, it has been absolutely right for my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the social security system to ensure that the bill is constrained while at the same time meeting proper priorities. That is what he seeks to do and it deserves the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister whether, while considering what to do about the damage that his Government have caused to home owners with negative equity, he will consider the misery caused by the removal of mortgage interest relief to those who are unemployed and the damage caused to those who need social housing by the £600 million of cuts to housing associations?

    Mr. Newton: I shall always draw the hon. Lady’s questions to the attention of my right hon. Friends. However, she might have referred to the fact that negative equity and repossessions are sharply down since the 1991 -92 peak, and that average mortgage payments have fallen by £130 a month since October 1990. On the hon. Lady’s first point, a survey has shown that two thirds of lenders intend to buy block protection in the area to which she referred, and the majority of those, including the Skipton building society, to which my right hon. Friend referred last week, intend to make no charge.

    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the county of Gloucestershire, under the profligate Lib-Lab pact local government, the schoolchildren are being cruelly misused? Is he aware that, as a result of the historic overspending in Gloucestershire, the county council has decided to cut spending on education? Is he further aware that some of us are tired of being a whipping boy for Lib-Lab extravagance, and that it is time that we considered lifting the cap on local authority expenditure?

    Mr. Newton: I see that it has been reported in some parts of the press that the Leader of the Opposition has managed to persuade the Labour councillors of Mid-Glamorgan to reduce their demands for increased allowances from the exorbitant to the extortionate. I hope that he might now use his influence with some other Labour local authorities to persuade them to pursue sensible and proper policies.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister how many written parliamentary questions were tabled for answer by his Department in each of the past five years; how many of these were not answered because the information (a) could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, (b) was not held centrally and (c) was not normally disclosed; how many of these could now be answered due to computerisation, more effective and efficient operational systems or more open government; and if he will list each question along with the name and constituency of the right hon. or hon. Member who originally tabled it.

    The Prime Minister: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Public Appointments

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the appointments which he is specifically required and/or able to make by virtue of his office; and if he will list those appointments which arise during the next 12 months; and if he will list the name, age, expected time commitment, place of residence, current or previous occupation and salary, honorarium, allowance or payment for each post; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: A list of the appointments to public bodies which I am able to make as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury is available in the Library of the House. It is not possible to know all those appointments which will arise in the next 12 months. The details requested for each post are not available.

     

    Director General of Gas Supply

    Dr. Spink: To ask the Prime Minister what action he intends to take to resist excessive pay demands from those who serve the public; and if he will make a statement on the recent pay claim from the Director General of Ofgas.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 13 June, Official Report, columns 451-52.

     

    Government Property

    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister how many houses and flats are owned by Government departments; and how many of these are currently empty.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 13 June 1995]: Up-to-date information is being calculated and will be published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in due course.

     

    Scott Report

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers, former Ministers or civil servants have sought independent legal advice in assisting their response to draft extracts from Sir Richard Scott’s report; in each case from whom the advice has been sought; and what limit has been placed on payment for such advice from public funds.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 13 June 1995]: Sir Richard Scott has requested that all those in receipt of extracts from his draft report should hold this material in confidence. The Government are not aware of the identity of all the recipients and, in accordance with the vice-chancellor’s request, would not consider it right to disclose the identity of those recipients of whom it is aware.

    Apart from legal advice from departmental lawyers, legal services have been provided to witnesses to the inquiry by the Treasury Solicitor’s department and by external lawyers. In each case their costs are subject to the approval of the legal advisers to the Departments who are responsible for payment.

  • PMQT – 13 June 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what the Government’s attitude is towards reports that socialist-controlled Essex county council is expecting parents to pay the costs of the transport of their children to grammar schools? Does that not show that, despite the warm words about choice and opportunity, Labour and the alliance in action are as malicious and vindictive as ever? So much for hung councils–so much for new Labour.

    The Prime Minister: The vote by the Lib-Lab pact to deprive grammar school children of free bus passes seems to me to be mean-spirited and petty, and it does damage to the notion that the Labour party stands for choice and opportunity. It seems to show the true face of Labour in local government, and gives a warning that many people would be wise to take on board. Perhaps the leader of the Labour party will ask his local government colleagues to think again on this matter, as he has on other issues.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister still say–as he did three months ago–that it would be folly to close our options on joining a single currency, including in the next Parliament?

    The Prime Minister: I set out the Government’s position perfectly clearly before the House on 1 March. I made it clear that we had an opt- out, and that we would decide whether to join when the time for the decision came. We would then decide whether to exercise our opt-out. Nothing has changed.

    Mr. Blair: Nothing has changed? Does that include in the next Parliament–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when the matter will come for a decision? He cannot. I just said perfectly clearly that when the matter comes for a decision– [Interruption.] It is perfectly clear–even for the right hon. Gentleman. When the matter comes for a decision, we will decide whether to exercise that opt-out.

    Mr. Blair: Does that include in the next Parliament? Baroness Thatcher got it wrong. The Prime Minister is not the yes, yes man–he is the don’t know, don’t know man. When will he learn to give the lead on this issue, because it is too important to be the plaything either of the rival ambitions in the Cabinet or of the warring factions in his party, of whom increasingly he is the prisoner and not the master?

    The Prime Minister: I have been observing the faces of some of the members of the Labour safeguards committee, who do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s view on any aspect of his European policy. As for giving a lead, it was I who negotiated the choice that this country and no other country in Europe has, to make the decision that is right and in the interests of this country–whenever the matter may come up, as I have told the right hon. Gentleman twice.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Evans: I am proud to be Welsh and I am also an unashamed, Union Jack-waving Brit. Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1235, signed by 75 hon. Members, which shows that the vast majority of people oppose bureaucratic assemblies, and that half the people who say that they will vote for the rabble opposite oppose devolution? Will my right hon. Friend continue his policies to protect and keep this kingdom united, and not sell out the vital interests of this country to sectional and divisive interests, as the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats would do?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Opposition proposals that we have seen on devolution are ill thought out and incomplete. On all the substantial questions, after many years of talking about their policy, the Opposition have made no decision on how to deal with the main questions that arise. If they know the answers, they are keeping quiet and, if they do not, it is about time they produced them, before seeking to inflict such a disastrous policy on the United Kingdom.

     

    Q3. Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Miss Hoey: The Prime Minister will know that I have been a strong supporter of the national lottery from the beginning, but does he realise that there is now growing concern about the way in which it operates, especially the huge profits that Camelot is making? Will he set up a small independent inquiry to examine those profits– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will be heard.

    Miss Hoey: Will the Prime Minister set up a small independent– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I am hearing some remarks that are rather derogatory and, I might say, very personal. Miss Hoey has the Floor.

    Miss Hoey: Perhaps the hon. Member concerned would like to repeat those remarks outside.

    Will the Prime Minister agree to set up a small independent inquiry to examine the profits of the national lottery, the fund distribution and the prize distribution? In particular, can such an inquiry consider ways of allowing some revenue funding, so that in my constituency, for example, school sports facilities can stay open during the summer and take children off the streets?

    The Prime Minister: There were several different parts to the hon. Lady’s question. I welcome the support that she has given to the national lottery from the outset, but I do not find any real need for an independent inquiry. The profits are governed by the legislation that the House passed, and the lottery has so far raised well over £600 million for good causes. I should like to consider the distribution between capital and revenue at some time, but it would not be right to do so until we have had rather more experience of the lottery. Although many people are concerned about the size of the prizes when the lottery has been rolled over and there are very large sums indeed, I must tell the House that, whenever that has happened, contributions have risen dramatically, and with them the available funds to be distributed to the five good causes–arts, sport, charities, the millennium fund and heritage- -so I do not think it right to revisit that question at present.

     

    Q4. Mr. Streeter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Streeter: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent disturbing reports of fraud and corruption in Hackney council? As independent inquiries appear to be the flavour of the afternoon, is it not now time to set up an independent and open inquiry into the growing number of cases of alleged malpractice and corruption in Labour councils all over the country?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the flavour of the afternoon and also about the fact that there seem to be a number of cases where there are difficulties within Labour local authorities. There has been no suggestion from the Labour party of any inquiry, except one by the party behind closed doors. I know that Lord Nolan may be considering investigating local government generally. Personally, I hope that is where he will turn his attentions next, and I hope that the official Opposition will give him their support when he does so.

     

    Q5. Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Ms Eagle: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity this afternoon to reject unequivocally the malicious criticisms made of his record on television last night by Baroness Thatcher, or will he be setting up a committee of inquiry to establish the facts before he decides to take any action?

    The Prime Minister: I worked with my right hon. and noble Friend for many years and I wish her well with her new book. I did not see the broadcast to which the hon. Lady refers, but, if there are misconceptions in it, no doubt in some years to come I shall correct them in my memoirs.

    Sir Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to study the evidence in the Nolan committee report that, over the past 30 years, average real incomes in Britain rose by 80 per cent.? In the meantime, the pay of Members of Parliament is only back where it was 30 years ago, and it has been below that level throughout the intervening period, while ministerial pay has gone down by 60 per cent. In view of that, will my right hon. Friend refer to the Nolan committee urgently the question of Members’ and Ministers’ pay?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend quotes some extremely telling statistics which are known to many hon. Members. I am not sure whether that is directly a matter for Lord Nolan; however, I shall myself take note of what my right hon. Friend says.

     

    Q6. Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Pickthall: Does the Prime Minister recall agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that it is the business of Government to help to reduce inequality? In that context, what is his response to recent reports that some Oxford colleges are warning young people not to bother applying unless their parents are rich enough to fund them? What can he do to prevent Oxbridge again becoming a preserve of the rich? How does he justify Oxbridge colleges getting £2,000 per student in extra top-up tuition fees?

    The Prime Minister: I do not accept the position set out by the hon. Gentleman in the case of Oxbridge or more generally. The reality for all people on low incomes across the country is that the average income of all family types has risen over recent years. Pensioner incomes have increased by more than 50 per cent. and average incomes have risen for those who are unemployed and others not in work. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Opposition Front Benchers to disagree, but if they cared to study some of the independent research, they would see that it shows that the least well-off have shared in the increase in prosperity. The Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that the standard of living measured by expenditure for the lowest tenth has increased by 14 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned poverty, he might be aware that the bottom income decile– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister will be heard in the House. I will have order.

    The Prime Minister: I know that the Opposition do not like their misconceptions corrected, but they are going to have them corrected none the less. The bottom income decile has experienced improvement in income, improvement in consumer durables and improvement of living standards, year after year.

     

    Q7. Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Bottomley: As my right hon. Friend was not able to watch television last night, may I tell him that one of the subjects covered in an interview with his predecessor was housing? May I suggest to him that people trying to get on to the housing ladder benefit by having low housing prices, relatively low interest rates and the opportunity to join in the property-owning democracy, and will he continue policies directed to that end?

    The Prime Minister: There has been, as my hon. Friend will know, a dramatic increase in home ownership in the past few years, and there was a further increase again last year. As the House should know–although perhaps not everyone will wish to acknowledge it–mortgage payments are about £130 a month lower than they were in October 1990. Perhaps more pertinently, as a proportion of average income they are now at their lowest for a decade. I think that shows very clearly the prospects for increasing home ownership in future.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will undertake an investigation into the leaking of sections of the Scott inquiry report; and if he will publish the terms of reference of the investigation; how it will be conducted; and by whom.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 12 June, Official Report, column 374.

     

    Engagements

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

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June 1995.

    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 Written Answers – 12 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Competitiveness

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister whether the proposals put forward by the President of the Board of Trade of intervention by Her Majesty’s Government to improve the non-price competitiveness of British industry at home and overseas are intended to restore the balance between price and non-price competitiveness; and if he will publish his assessment of the likely cost of such intervention on (a) output and (b) employment in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997.

    The Prime Minister: The measures brought forward in the Government’s recent White Paper on competitiveness are designed to improve the overall competitiveness of United Kingdom business and so help raise output and employment.

     

    Bosnia

    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his speech on 31 May, Official Report, column 1001, how many Ukrainian United Nations peacekeeping soldiers were taken hostage by the Bosnian Government forces on 28 May; how long they were held; when and where they were released; what sanctions or threats were made against the Bosnian Government to secure their release; and on how many other occasions since 1992 UN forces have been taken hostage by the Bosnian Government side.

    The Prime Minister: We understand that six Ukrainian UN personnel were detained by Bosnian Government forces in Gorazde on 28 May. They were released later the same day and returned to their camp. We are not aware of any other occasion when the Bosnian Government took UN peacekeepers hostage.

    We condemn unreservedly all acts of hostage taking by all parties. The Serbs must release the hostages that they hold immediately and unconditionally co-operate with the UN in carrying out its mandate.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister on what dates he received extracts for comment from Sir Richard Scott’s draft report; on what date comments were submitted to Sir Richard; and what requests have been made by his Department for an extension of the period within which comments should have been made.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers have received a draft, or draft extract, of Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry report into the sale of arms to Iraq affair.

    The Prime Minister: The Government do not disclose details of correspondence between the inquiry and individual witnesses. In the case of draft extracts in particular, the inquiry has asked that these be treated in the strictest confidence.

    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the criteria for determining whether the legal costs arising from the Scott inquiry of (a) Ministers, (b) ex-Ministers and (c) senior civil servants, should be covered by the Government; and if he will list all possible costs incurred or committed; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Legal advice is available to witnesses to Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry in each of the three categories listed where it is requested by the individual concerned and where their departmental legal adviser or the Treasury solicitor’s department agrees that the request for the provision of such advice is reasonable. The total cost to public funds of providing legal services to witnesses to date is approximately £568,000. This figure includes the costs of legal services provided by the Treasury solicitor’s department and by external lawyers. Some legal advice has also been provided by departmental lawyers as part of their normal duties. The cost of this advice is not quantifiable.

    Mr. Bermingham: To ask the Prime Minister(1) which civil servants, Government advisers or ministerial advisers, past or present, have sought legal advice from solicitors or barristers in respect of draft conclusions reached by the Scott inquiry; what is the estimated cost of such legal expenses to public funds; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) which Ministers, past or present, have sought legal advice from solicitors or barristers in respect of draft conclusions reached by the Scott inquiry; what is the estimate cost of such legal expenses to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answers 9 June 1995]: Details of the costs of legal advice to witnesses to the Scott inquiry are not held centrally nor is the cost of advice in respect of draft conclusions identified separately from the cost of other advice. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It would not right to identify the nature of the advice given to particular individuals. This is a matter of confidence between them and their legal advisers.

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to establish an inquiry into the leak to the BBC of a provisional draft of the report by Mr. Justice Scott.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 9 June 1995]: Extracts of the draft report were sent by Sir Richard Scott to a number of people, some of whom are outside Government. Inquiries have been undertaken to establish whether there is any prima facie evidence that there has been an unauthorised disclosure of the information concerned from within Government. On the basis of these inquiries, there is no reason to suppose that the leak came from within Government.

     

    Intergovernmental Conference

    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to include the future of British fishing stocks in the agenda for the intergovernmental conference in 1996; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Intergovernmental conferences deal with treaty change rather than adjustment of the content of individual policies. We will of course continue to work for improvements in the operation of the appropriate fora.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Chirac – 10 June 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Jacques Chirac, held in Paris on Saturday 10th June 1995.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me first of all to thank the British foreign and defence journalists who are present here today following our conversations and I would like also to begin by saying it is very pleasant to have such conversations among friends.

    I will not surprise you in saying that our conversations were very cordial and allowed us to raise a certain number of issues. First of all regarding the Cannes Summit preparations and a number of European issues, in particular the preparation to the run-up of the Intergovernmental Conference in 1996. It is true to say that we have a number of approaches and views in common, in particular with respect to the role of the Council and that also of the association of Parliament in contributing to the work being done in Europe. So on those issues we have common approaches and common ground.

    [small section inaudible] and indeed the recent initiatives have been taken in common and, as you know, were approved yesterday by the Fifteen. We request the immediate release and freeing of hostages; we want considerable diplomatic efforts to be deployed and in particular with respect to the appointment of a mediator, Mr Carl Bildt; and in particular also the setting up of the Rapid Reaction Force which will allow for additional support to be given to the peace-keepers in the field. As you know, the Rapid Reaction Force will be made up primarily of British and French troops, to which will be added a Dutch contingent and possibly contingents from two or three other countries.

    With respect to transatlantic relations we were thinking along the same lines, namely the strengthening of Euro-American relations with respect of course for the identities of both sides.

    Regarding bilateral matters, there are no major difficulties there, we both want to strengthen our cooperation in a variety of different fields, in particular the military field.

    With respect to future meetings we have decided that we will meet on 29 July, probably in France, on the occasion of a visit that the Prime Minister will be paying to France at that time. And on 30 October next we will hold the next Franco-British Summit, which will be convened in London, and preceded by a dinner and some evening entertainment on the evening prior to the 30th.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Jacques, thank you very much. The President has set out much of the detail of our discussions this morning and I will simply say that I share the views that he has expressed.

    We have had some two hours of talks and my expectation that they would be very wide-ranging and very worthwhile have not been disappointed, they were an excellent exchange.

    Let me turn particularly to the area of Bosnia where we both have a very great concern about present events. Throughout the last three years, Britain and France together have assumed the lion’s share of UNPROFOR’s burden in Bosnia. In Bosnia British troops serve under French command, French Marines and French Legionnaires serve under the British command, and that is the true reality of European defence cooperation. And I would like to pay my one tribute to the 39 French troops who have lost in Bosnia over the last 3 years. We admire what they have done very much and I very much respect also the very brave action of French troops on the bridge at Sarajevo.

    Let me remind you once again precisely why British and French troops are in Bosnia. We are there for humanitarian reasons, we are there to save lives and feed the starving. We are also there for strategic reasons. I believe it is a vital role for British and French troops to help contain a conflict which, if it is not contained, has the potential to ignite the whole of the Balkans.

    That is why, for so long as British troops can carry out their duties without undue risk to their lives, I shall want to see them continue to play their role in UNPROFOR. But let me add also, if the warring parties make it impossible for the United Nations to carry out their mandate, then of course we would have to consider withdrawal. But that is not, emphatically not, our wish.

    Let me make it very plain. If it became necessary for the United Nations Protection Forces to leave, and I repeat I very much hope that will not be the case, but if it were to happen then I think everyone in Bosnia, Serb Croat or Muslim, would suffer as a result of their withdrawal.

    Britain and France are now cooperating very closely indeed, the cooperation is on a daily basis at political level, at military level, at diplomatic level and at other official levels. And we have three immediate tasks. Let me set out all of them;

    – the first of them is to use the reinforcements which both our countries are sending to help UNPROFOR do its job more effectively. And I announced yesterday that the 5,000 troops of our Airmobile Brigade have now been given orders to deploy. They will take effect as soon as some logistical problems with the United Nations are concluded;

    – secondly, let me make it clear that they are not going there as an aggressive force to make war, they are going there to keep the peace. But British troops have always responded robustly if they are attacked and they have responded robustly to provocation. They will continue to do that. The second task is to make clear to the Bosnian Serbs that they need to release all of the hostages unconditionally and they do their cause no good whatsoever by hanging on to them;

    – and the third task of course is to stay focused on the overriding objective and that must remain a negotiated settlement.

    Let me just briefly indicate the other areas that we discussed. We had a very worthwhile exchange on the forthcoming European summit at Cannes. We discussed a range of matters – unemployment, subsidiarity, deregulation, competitiveness and the launch of the Study Group. There were no difficulties of any significance between us in those issues.

    The one area of difference that the President mentioned is an area we are examining and I hope and expect we will reach an agreement before Cannes. We have shared objectives on aid flows and different mechanisms to meet them but we will reach an accommodation about that I hope.

    We found ourselves in agreement on the objectives for the G7 summit at Halifax and similarly we found ourselves in agreement on a range of matters related to transatlantic relationships.

    So let me just say, before we invite your questions, how much I have enjoyed this visit and how much I appreciate the hospitality that has been given. It has been a very good occasion for Britain, a very good occasion for France and I think rather a good occasion for Europe as well.

    QUESTION:

    I have two questions. You talked about the convergence of British and French views with respect to the 1996 conference, but I would like to know whether there are no divergences here. In particular I am thinking of the issue of qualified majority voting on the Council of Ministers? My second question has to do with the issue of transatlantic relations, I would like to know what you feel about the proposal made, in particular by Sir Leon Brittan, with respect to a transatlantic free trade zone?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Taking your question on voting and the qualified majority system, these are matters that have to do with how to implement the decisions that will be taken at the IGC and I think it is too soon for us to consider them here. In fact we did not talk about such matters, it will be up to our experts to give consideration to these issues. However, having said that I do not expect there to be any difficulties, in fact I would go so far as to say that we will be in agreement on that.

    On your question with respect to the free trade zone mooted by Sir Leon Brittan, anything we feel that can facilitate trade is necessarily positive, is necessary to be supported. France of course is paying great attention to the proper establishment, the getting going of the World Trade Organisation before any free trade measures are taken along the lines of those suggested. That being said on the general principle, there is certainly no objection and no disagreement.

    QUESTION:

    I wonder if I could ask President Chirac, and perhaps a special request for a response in English if that would be all right? Did the two of you agree that the judgement is that the Rapid Response Force is now the last chance for keeping the UNPROFOR troops on the ground in Bosnia? And secondly, what sort of representations will you be planning to make to President Clinton?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think anyone is in the business of saying the Rapid Reaction Corps is the last chance, that is not the purpose of the Rapid Reaction Corps, the Rapid Reaction Corps is there to facilitate the work that goes on, to protect the troops that are there to enable them to carry out the work that they are doing. It is not there to wage an aggressive war. It is there to protect people, to respond where appropriate and to try and ensure the work that goes on. So, far from being the last chance, it is intended to ensure that the present work continues for some time. The solution to the problems of Bosnia is not going to be found on a battlefield, the solution is going to be found in a political settlement and a search for a political settlement will go on.

    The advent of a Rapid Reaction Corps and the reinforcement of the United Nations troops is a very important event indeed, in keeping the work that is going on on the ground in Bosnia in being and ensuring that it continues. But I don’t think either of us would see that as a last chance at all. We will continue to seek for both the diminution of fighting, the maximum amount of humanitarian aid, the maximum amount of protection for our troops and we will continue to push very hard for a sensible pragmatic political outcome to this dispute.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    We share the same point of view on these matters. The issue of the objectives and aims that have motivated the establishment of this Rapid Reaction Force is something we totally agree on. I note furthermore that neither President Clinton nor President Yeltsin have expressed any reservations about this initiative. You see there was a situation that simply could not last, The UNPROFOR troops have been deployed throughout the territory and they are stretched very thin with relatively limited military means at their disposal and we have seen the emergence and rise of a certain number of phenomena, aggressive phenomena and situations in which these troops have had to face humiliation and that is something we could not accept. The Rapid Reaction Force is a means of ensuring that our troops never again find themselves in a situation whereby they are humiliated. They can fight, they may unfortunately be injured or even sadly killed, but one thing they will never have to face again is humiliation.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Prime Minister, in the light of your discussions this morning and what we have heard from both of you, do you feel that you have a new ally in Paris, particularly on European Union affairs, and that perhaps Britain is not as alone on those affairs as it was in the past.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Paul, if I didn’t know better I would think you were being mischievous. I have always found in my relationship with the French government and with the President of France that both sides to the discussions speak their mind plainly and clearly. We are concerned about the way Europe develops and we are concerned about the individual interests of Britain and France in Europe. I think that was the case with President Mitterrand, I think it is the case now with President Chirac, I have found our discussions this morning very amiable. There are many areas of very great agreement, some of them have been very evident I think in the discussions we have had this morning and in the questions indeed that you have asked this morning. There may be areas at some stage in the future where there are divergent views, as there are between any two countries you care to name in the European Union. But I do think that the relationship between Britain and France is a very ancient relationship. On the really important matters we tend to be on the same side more often than not. I think that is going to remain the case, I cannot promise you we will agree on every issue and neither can President Chirac.

    I can say the relationship is very good and where we differ it will be on matters of political substance, it will not be a matter that will bite deeply and damagingly into the British/French relationship.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I would like to add one thing in respect to the construction of Europe. I believe that the construction of Europe, in other words the strengthening, the permanent constant strengthening of the links between European countries, is a sine qua non for the future existence of Europe. Franco-German relations are therefore necessary for the construction of Europe but not in themselves sufficient. We cannot possibly build Europe without Britain. It is therefore essential that we understand the specific problems that Britain faces. And I believe that France can play an important role in finding the necessary impetus and synergy which is necessary to the building of Europe between all European partners and of course in particular France, Germany and Britain.

    QUESTION (James Robbins, BBC):

    President, in the discussions at Cannes on technical preparations for a single currency, should the matter of a name for the single currency be discussed, should a name be decided at a fairly early stage so that European citizens have an idea of what this thing would be called. What would be your preferred choice? The Prime Minister told the House of Commons in London this week that arguably circumstances might never arise in which it would be right for Britain to join the single currency, was that a disappointment to you?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    On the first point I would say that we are not on the agenda of the Cannes Summit intending to discuss the name of the single currency. And on your second question, I know and I understand the British analysis and view of the single currency. And there is at least one point on which John Major and myself agree. In other words, the consequences of a single currency, the impact of a single currency which would bring together perhaps 5 or 6 or even 7 Community country members, on the economic situation and status of the Union as a whole, in other words the Union as made up of member states that would not have a single currency, have been insufficiently thought about and insufficiently studied. And therefore it is necessary to examine the situation very objectively and as speedily as possible. I for one of course am in favour of France respecting and upholding the commitments it made under Maastricht and France will of course make all necessary efforts to meet these commitments and indeed meet the terms set for the launching of a single European currency under the Maastricht Treaty and under the provisions of the treaty, in other words by 1st January 1999.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me add just a point about this because this is a matter that the President and I discussed at some length this morning. The unspoken presupposition in much of the early thinking about a single currency was that everybody would be able to join at the same time. But of course the European Union is changing and it is expanding and there are new members coming in, so it is no longer a practical proposition to assume that every member of the European Union would be able to enter a single currency, if it wished to, at the same time. And as the President said, one has to look at these realities and see what they might mean. They raise very important questions, not just for monetary union itself but for other aspects of working of the European Union as a whole. And I personally find it a breath of fresh air that these important matters are finally coming to the fore and will be examined, and I look forward to the examination.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministerial Salaries

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister what is his current annual salary; and what is the salary of the Lord Chancellor.

    The Prime Minister: In relation to my ministerial salary, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1994, SI 1994/3206, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. In addition, I have a reduced parliamentary salary entitlement of £24,985. The Lord Chancellor’s salary entitlement is currently £126,138.

     

    Inland Revenue Training Centre

    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Prime Minister what was the purpose of his visit to the Inland Revenue training centre, Lincoln on 1 June; what facilities he used; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have never visited the Inland Revenue training centre at Lincoln.

     

    Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill

    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 May, Official Report, column 681, to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), how many (a) letters and (b) cards he has received regarding parliamentary time for the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Eastleigh, on 25 May, Official Report, column 681.

     

    Honours

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister (1) in each year year since 1990, how many people who were approached said that they would not accept a knighthood or the title Dame if one were offered;

    (2) in each since 1990, how many people who were approached said that they would not accept a peerage if one were offered.

    The Prime Minister: It is not the practice to reveal this information.

     

    Responses to Policy Changes

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister if, as part of his policy of open government, he will require all Ministers, when requesting observations on proposed changes of policy indicated in consultation or similar papers, to ask those responding whether or not they agree to their responses being made public.

    The Prime Minister: It is normal practice for consultation documents to include a statement that responses received may be made public unless respondents request that their comments be treated as confidential.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Paris – 9 June 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Paris on Friday 9th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just, before I take a few questions, say a word or two about this evening’s meeting. It was a very businesslike meeting indeed, we covered a very great deal of ground and I am looking forward very much to the bilateral with President Chirac tomorrow morning. We have a lot to discuss tomorrow but we traipsed a little over some of the ground we will look at in our discussions with colleagues this evening.

    Three principal areas that we discussed this evening: the forthcoming European conference at Cannes and a range of issues that are on the agenda; the European Union/American summit where President Chirac will represent the European Union in a few days time; and the G7 summit at Halifax.

    We spent a long time in the midst of those discussions also looking at the present and future policy on Bosnia, what had happened, the chance of a diplomatic settlement, the role of the International Rapid Reaction Corps and the British Rapid Reaction Corps when it arrives there in due course.

    If I can run through those different items. Insofar as the European/American summit was concerned, there were a range of matters discussed, the possibility of improving trade relations, the European attitude on a number of matters where we have a mutual interest with the Americans, Bosnia of course being the most obvious example. Not a great deal there I think to talk to you about.

    As far as the G7 summit was concerned, we had quite a significant discussion about the prospect of reform of United Nations institutions, clearly something that President Chirac feels strongly about, as indeed do the United Kingdom. A number of other colleagues expressed fairly strong views about that as well and that is clearly going to be an important subject when we get to Halifax.

    Also some discussion about unemployment generally both in relation to Halifax and in relation to the Cannes Summit. Most of our time was spent on various elements of what will be discussed at Cannes. The Commission will table their Green Paper on Economic and Monetary Union. No decisions were taken about that this evening and no decisions are expected to be taken at Cannes. What will happen, I think is a fairly thorough discussion of the Green Paper to set, if I can use the European phrase, an orientation for the Study Group that will continue its work, well we frankly don’t know how long, perhaps up to Christmas, perhaps in time to report at Madrid, perhaps not.

    We discussed the progress we were making towards being able to establish Europol and a range of other issues that are likely to come up in Cannes.

    A number of people stressed in the discussions that we will have at Cannes that whilst of course they were looking at the Green Paper on Economic and Monetary Union, it was important to make sure that the European Union became a good deal more relevant to people right across Europe. In that respect I think it was perhaps the most down to earth and practical discussion of this sort that I have heard amongst European Heads of Government for quite a long time. There was considerable interest about what might be done practically to assure people across Europe that the European Heads of Government were concerned about the levels of unemployment.

    There was quite a discussion about the relative lack of speed with which the Trans-European networks had proceeded and some irritation that not more had happened. I am sure at Cannes a firm impetus to those will almost certainly be given.

    That is a fairly sketchy outline of what was a fairly vivacious two and a half hours and one I very much enjoyed.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, did you commit your government tonight to link all the EMU convergence targets that have been agreed, and whether you think at Cannes there will be discussion about the name of the single currency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the latter point, I am not expecting discussion on the name of the single currency. Most certainly if anyone is planning to raise it at Cannes there was absolutely no mention of it this evening, either directly or implicitly with somebody hinting that might be on the agenda. It certainly was not discussed at all this evening. As far as the convergence criteria was concerned, there was a lot of discussion about the convergence criteria, I think almost everybody mentioned their importance, and indeed it was the British who were instrumental in having the convergence criteria written into the Maastricht Treaty. Nobody this evening re-committed themselves to the Maastricht criteria, we have all committed ourselves to them in the past. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we committed ourselves to them because we think they are sensible economic criteria in any event, quite separate from their necessity if anyone proposes to move forward to Stage III of EMU. But there was no commitment by anyone especially tonight but there was a great deal of discussion about how important they are.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia, have there been sufficient offers of extra troops from other countries to the Rapid Reaction Force, and those offers that there have been, do they mean that Europe as well as Britain is prepared to get in deeper in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There was a great deal of support this evening. This evening was not the occasion for people to offer extra commitment, though the Dutch certainly have and I expect that others will do so. But nobody was in the business of doing that this evening, it was not that sort of discussion. What I should have mentioned to you earlier, and neglected to do so, was that we did agree this evening that Carl Bildt should be appointed as the single negotiator for the European Union. Whether he will represent the whole of the Contact Group is a matter still to be decided, that has not been determined among the Contact Group. It may be that that will be what happens, it would be a perfectly acceptable outcome from my point of view were that to be the case, but that is not agreed yet. But we did agree unanimously, and with some enthusiasm, that Carl Bildt would become the single European Union negotiator in future.

    QUESTION:

    Do you share the same point of view of President Chirac concerning Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have worked very closely over the past few weeks on the question of Bosnia. Britain and France have very large troop contingents either there or going to be there and we have had right from the start. The proposition that Carl Bildt should replace David Owen was very much an Anglo-French proposition. So I think it fair to say that the relationship between France and the United Kingdom on this issue could scarcely have been closer. We will both be offering logistical help to Carl Bildt, both in terms of military advice and other logistical back-up, France will be doing that and so will Britain, and we will continue to work very closely together.

    QUESTION:

    Does that mean that Mr Stoltenberg steps aside?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is not entirely clear yet.

    QUESTION:

    When will you be considering using strength in order to free the hostages in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think anyone is imagining the Rapid Reaction Force are to be used in that fashion. They are there to protect troops and they are there in case they are needed. I think sometimes there is some dispute about how robust they are going to be. Perhaps I should say to you now that the rules of engagement that the troops have been operating on ever since they went there have been pretty robust. If the British troops are attacked the British troops will respond and they will respond vigorously. But they are not there as an aggressive force, they are there to protect people and they are there to protect their own troops. They are not there to make war, they are not there to wage war, they are not there to be aggressive, but when attacked they will certainly robustly respond and that will not be new on the British side, that has been the position right from the outset. I think we have probably had more robust rules of engagement than anybody else from the moment our troops have been there.

    QUESTION:

    The Irish Prime Minister has made representations to you about the possible freeing of Private Lee Clegg, what has been your response to what he said?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not had the opportunity to discuss that. I hope to have the opportunity of seeing the Irish Prime Minister very shortly and I hope certainly, if we have not met before, that we will have the chance of a bilateral at Cannes, but we have not had the chance to discuss that. In any event, there is a proper procedure that is now under consideration as far as Private Clegg is concerned and that procedure must go through its normal procedures, there is nothing more that can be done other than that. It is in course of examination at the moment. In due course a recommendation will go to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and he will then make a decision but that is not something that anyone else can interfere with, it is for him.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Bruton says that he would like the remission procedures to be reviewed with a view to accelerating releases?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it is helpful to anyone to make those sorts of points at the moment, it is not helpful for me to go into those points at the moment and I am not proposing to. I have not had a chance of discussing these matters with John Bruton tonight, when we have discussed them no doubt we will come and talk to you all about them, as we usually do, but not tonight.

    QUESTION:

    Jacques Santer has proposed setting up a working group as a sort of fledgling State Department for the whole of Europe, what is your position on moves towards a common Foreign Office for Europe at this stage?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are certainly not in favour of subsuming the independent pillars in to the central pillar of the European Union, that has certainly been the case, the two inter-governmental pillars we propose should remain intergovernmental, we don’t foresee them being subsumed under central Commission control. That was and is our position and that is most unlikely to change. In terms of making a common foreign policy more effective, well we are very much in favour of making common foreign policy more effective but it has to be on an intergovernmental basis and on no other basis.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the 1995 Welsh Conservative Party Conference – 9 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Welsh Conservative Party Conference, held in Llangollen on Friday 9th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Bosnia

    Mr Chairman, I’d like to turn first to the remaining Royal Welch Fusiliers – and the Royal Air Force military observer – still being held hostage in Bosnia.

    That is where the thoughts of many people in Wales will be until they are safely home.

    Of course, we’re all relieved that so many of their colleagues have now been released unharmed.

    But let us be clear. These are impartial peacekeepers who should never have been seized in the first place.

    To hold just one hostage, just one peacekeeper – let alone dozens – is despicable.

    No reputable army would have contemplated doing it.

    The leaders of the Bosnian Serbs know that they will be held personally responsible if they let any harm befall our men.

    They should release them unharmed.

    Release them unconditionally.

    And release them immediately.

    Mr Chairman, I spoke this morning to the Commander of the First Royal Welch Fusiliers in Gorazde, Colonel Jonathan Riley.

    Let me tell you about the vital work the Fusiliers are doing.

    One company of the Fusiliers is at Bugojno – a base in Central Bosnia I visited last year.

    There British soldiers helped to establish a ceasefire between the Muslims and the Croats 15 months ago.

    The Fusiliers are making that ceasefire work.

    They and their colleagues are patrolling 140 miles of the old battle lines.

    They are helping former enemies to live together, work together, and rebuild their lives – in peace.

    Just a few months ago people there were killing each other in their thousands.

    Today, thanks to British and other United Nations soldiers, across a large area fields are being planted and children are playing safely and happily.

    In Gorazde, where three companies of the Fusiliers are stationed, there are about 45 thousand people.

    United Nations agencies have been supplying them with food and medicine.

    But Gorazde is now under heavy bombardment. Serb artillery is ranged against a large force of Bosnian government infantry.

    But the Welch Fusiliers are facing these difficulties with great determination and are in good spirits, as Colonel Riley told me.

    Let me give you just one example of the work the Fusiliers have done.

    On 23rd May, a little over a fortnight ago, two of the Fusiliers’ armoured cars were escorting an aid convoy.

    They came under heavy fire from the Bosnian Serb army. They fired back in self defence – as is their right.

    Their vehicles were hit, but they came away without casualties.

    On its way back, the patrol stopped to help a heavily pregnant Bosnian woman – and the Royal Welch Fusiliers delivered her baby and took mother and child to safety.

    Mr Chairman, life in Gorazde for the Royal Welch Fusiliers is arduous, uncomfortable and at times dangerous.

    But they have done a superb job.

    And I believe we should be very proud of them.

    I want the UN forces in Bosnia to be able to go on doing their job, so long as they are not facing unacceptable risks.

    We have a clear duty to save lives and prevent mass slaughter in our own continent.

    Yet there is an even stronger reason for us to have our troops there.

    There are war memorials across Wales and throughout the United Kingdom bearing the names of the millions who died in World Wars which began in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.

    In the years before 1914, and again in the 1930s, Britain paid a heavy price for the mistaken view that events hundreds of miles away had no importance to us.

    By the time we learned that we could not turn our back on the fate of fellow Europeans, it was too late.

    So the British troops who are in Bosnia today are upholding a vital national interest – the preservation of stability in Europe.

    But while they are there they must have all the protection we can give them in discharging their duties.

    That is why the Government has decided to send reinforcements to Bosnia.

    It was a hard decision.

    But I am sure that it was also the right decision.

    One thousand men – an armoured engineer squadron and two artillery batteries – are already on their way.

    And I can confirm today that, as soon as details are finalised with the United Nations, over 5,000 men of the 24th Air Mobile Brigade will be deployed to Bosnia.

    They will form half of a new UN Rapid Reaction Force at the disposal of General Rupert Smith and his fellow commanders.

    They will provide additional protection for UN forces – and our British troops – so that they can defend themselves. And so that they can respond more robustly if they are attacked.

    But I must make this clear: British troops are not there to fight a war.

    It is possible the warring parties might make their job impossible.

    And, if they do, we might be forced to withdraw those troops. I don’t want that to happen, but it could.

    That would have dire consequences for everyone in Bosnia and grave risks for the whole region.

    Mr Chairman, that is why we should give our total backing to our forces.

    We ask much of our young soldiers.

    They are performing magnificently.

    And they should know that this Government will do whatever is necessary to provide them with the protection they need and the security they deserve.

    The Nation

    Mr Chairman, the Conservative Party has always had a strong vision of the right future for our country.

    Throughout the last twenty years we have set the agenda for Britain.

    The Right to Buy.

    Trade union reform,

    The free market.

    Strong defences.

    Membership of Europe.

    Tests in schools.

    Punishing not rewarding crime.

    Time and time again it has been policies which have been vindicated by events.

    And yet, all the time, our opponents have fought our ideas ferociously, and then been forced belatedly – and half-heartedly – to accept them.

    We have been successful in determining the terms of debate in this country because:-

    – our fundamental convictions haven’t changed;

    – our instincts and values have always been close to those of the British people;

    – and we have always put the national interest first.

    Many of the details of our agenda over the last 15 years are nearing completion.

    Now we are ready once again to move the terms of the political debate forward.

    While our opponents modernise themselves – up to a point – by catching up with our agenda of the 1980s, we will be moving ahead to shape the agenda of the 21st century.

    Let me remind you of the five key themes which we will pursue in building a stronger nation.

    They can be summarised by saying that we will work for:

    – A Nation of Enterprise and Prosperity;

    – A Nation of Opportunity and Ownership;

    – A Nation of Law and Order;

    – A Nation of First Class Public Services;

    – A Sovereign Nation.

    It is on the fifth of those themes – a sovereign nation – that I wish to concentrate today.

    Wales – the economy transformed

    A strong nation needs first and foremost to have a strong economy.

    Here in Wales the economy has been transformed by Conservative reforms.

    Wales is now more competitive.

    – There are 16 per cent more businesses in Wales today than in 1980. Self-employment is up by 40 per cent.

    – Wales has secured nearly £7 billion of inward investment in the last decade – creating or securing over 120,000 jobs.

    – With only 5 per cent of the UK’s population, Wales consistently attracts between 10 and 20 per cent of the UK’s investment from overseas.

    The fruits of this new prosperity may not be obvious to opposition politicians with their gift for competitive whingeing.

    But they’re clear for people with eyes to see – and clear right around Wales.

    – Home ownership has soared from 59 per cent in 1979 to 72 per cent – higher than anywhere else in the UK.

    – For the first time in decades unemployment in Wales is down to the UK average – and it’s falling steadily.

    – Ownership of consumer durables has soared. Half of households in Wales now own a microwave. 69 per cent – more than two thirds – have a video. And 72 per cent – nearly three quarters – have a car.

    Mr Chairman, what created this unparalleled prosperity?

    It wasn’t socialism.

    It wasn’t Liberalism or nationalism.

    It was Conservatism.

    And it is only Conservatism that will preserve that prosperity – and expand it.

    Wales has changed. It’s no longer famous as the home of dying trades, outdated technologies and clapped-out union attitudes.

    Today it has tomorrow’s industries, not yesterday’s problems.

    Now Wales exports televisions, computers, and compact disc players.

    It is a major tourist destination. And a growing financial centre.

    That is the strong and secure future for Wales under the Conservatives.

    Europe and the Social Chapter

    But our opponents have a very different approach.

    Even though Labour copy our rhetoric daily, there remain many differences between their policies and ours.

    But one difference is fundamental.

    At heart Labour believes that Britain should steadily progress down the road which leads to a federal European superstate.

    The piecemeal erosion of our sovereignty.

    The step by step construction of a United States of Europe.

    Mr Chairman, that is not the right way for a successful Europe.

    It’s not what I believe the people of Europe want. Or the people of the UK. Or the Party.

    And it is not what this Government will ever accept.

    We believe in an effective Single Market with rules fairly applied to all.

    A Europe which strengthens its competitiveness instead of undermining it.

    A Europe built around the free co-operation of sovereign nation-states.

    A Europe which, as it enlarges, recognises that it must be more flexible and cannot become too rigid.

    We will not ride on an escalator that takes us where we do not want to go.

    We will battle for the right sort of Europe – and Britain’s interest in it – in all circumstances and at all times.

    That is why, so long as I am Prime Minister, our opt-outs and our right to say no will not be negotiable.

    Labour’s misguided approach to Europe is summed up by their devotion to the Social Chapter.

    Of course, these days they are happy to use the language of markets, competitiveness, and of success.

    They don’t understand it, but they use it.

    But they talk more loudly and enthusiastically about their commitments to the Social Chapter and the minimum wage.

    Those policies are the ball and chain which Labour would put round the ankle of British business – and thereby cripple our chances of winning in the world’s markets.

    Mr Chairman, I fought to keep Britain out of the Social Chapter.

    I did so at Maastricht even though I was outnumbered on this issue by eleven to one.

    Monsieur Delors lamented that by doing so I had made Britain a “paradise” for foreign investment.

    What has happened since has justified his judgement – and mine.

    For the Social Chapter is not a fixed menu of measures.

    It’s a mechanism which would allow Brussels to foist an endless stream of directives on British business. And just look at some of what we have avoided in the last two years alone, thanks to our opt-out.

    The Works Council Directive.

    The Parental Leave Directive.

    The Part Time Work Directive.

    They might sound harmless.

    But they’re not. Together they would blunt the competitive edge of British businesses.

    Just those three directives alone would cost our companies almost £2 billion a year.

    But don’t just look at the statistics.

    Listen to what foreign companies say. And do.

    Companies like Black and Decker. They’ve switched their factories from Germany to Britain.

    Companies like Daimler Benz. Their Chairman has warned that his company may do the same unless the German government sorts out the problem of rising social costs.

    Companies like Nikko, a large Japanese bank. Their Deputy Chairman has said that firms invest in Britain because of our lower employment costs.

    Companies like Sabena, the national airline of Belgium. They say that they cannot compete with British airlines because

    Belgian social costs are almost three times higher than in Britain.

    So, Mr Chairman, when some suggest that we should surrender the huge competitive advantage which we have gained by staying outside the Social Chapter, my answer is simple.

    That opt-out was hard-won.

    And it is not negotiable.

    And while the opt-out stays in the UK, foreign investment will stay in Wales.

    That’s a Conservative promise that no other party can match.

    But what is Labour’s reaction to this enormous competitive advantage which Britain has gained from sixteen years of Conservative government?

    Do they queue up to praise it?

    Do they promise to build on it?

    Do they even to undertake to protect it?

    No, of course not.

    Labour’s pledge is to do everything they can to eliminate that competitive advantage as fast as possible.

    The Labour leader has said that one of the first acts of a Labour Government would be to sign up to the Social Chapter. That would be a huge and wholly unnecessary blow to British business and British jobs.

    And Mr Chairman, when it really matters, I don’t believe that the British public will vote for a party which is offering them the fastest sell-out since the Christmas sales.

    The Minimum Wage

    Then there is Labour’s commitment to a minimum wage.

    Of course the idea sounds attractive. Who would not want to help people on low incomes.

    But it is a delusion.

    The only way to make people better off is to strengthen the economy, raise skill levels and cut costs.

    That is what we have been doing.

    It is the reason why Britain has seen unemployment fall further and faster in the last two years than anywhere else in Europe.

    It is down by 650,000 since 1992.

    And it is still falling by around 600 a day.

    Falling unemployment is the most effective anti-poverty measure of all.

    And taking measures that destroy jobs is the fastest route to impoverishing a nation.

    Yet that is precisely what a minimum wage does.

    And it would be the low income jobs which the low-skilled, the part-time and the young depend on – either as the first rung on the ladder or as a useful supplement to the family income which would be lost.

    Mr Chairman, we must continue to tell people the truth about the Minimum Wage.

    We must not let them by seduced by its friendly sounding name.

    Under its sugar coating lies the bitter reality that it will cost people their jobs.

    Labour and Devolution

    But, Mr Chairman, of all Labour’s ideas the one which would cause most damage to Wales – and to the United Kingdom – is their plan to tamper with our nation’s constitution.

    Those who want to rip it up should realise that it is not some patchwork quilt that can be stitched together in a different way.

    It’s not a mix’n’match assembly kit.

    It is the product of generations.

    A union that has weathered trial and tribulations because we realise that, united, we are stronger, divided we are weaker.

    No wonder then that we have learned today that a clear majority of the British people – and even most Labour supporters – believe that Labour’s devolution plans would weaken the United Kingdom.

    They are right to think that.

    For Labour’s plans would potentially set each part of the United Kingdom against the others.

    That is why the last time this poison pill was offered, the Welsh people rejected devolution overwhelmingly.

    And that is why they would be wise to do so again.

    Frankly, Labour’s plans for a Welsh assembly are an insult to Wales.

    They carry no conviction.

    They are the left-overs of their plans for Scotland.

    There would be a Parliament at Westminster, a Parliament in Edinburgh, but only an assembly in Wales.

    Now, I think a Parliament in Edinburgh is a mistake.

    But Labour don’t.

    So, if it is right for Scotland, why isn’t it right for Wales?

    Why are Labour taking Wales for granted when it has so often been loyal to them? Let me tell you.

    Labour want a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh for their own party political reasons.

    They are afraid of the Scottish Nationalists.

    But a Scottish Parliament, with wide powers including the power to raise more taxes, ought to mean fewer Scottish MPs at Westminster.

    That would mean fewer Labour MPs.

    So to justify keeping Labour’s over-representation at Westminster they have cooked up the idea of a Welsh Assembly and Regional Assemblies around England.

    It’s a blatantly self-interested partisan policy to benefit the Labour Party.

    So the people of Wales would have foisted upon them a whole new layer of bureaucracy, and a whole new class of politicians, just so that Labour can protect their narrow party political interest in Scotland.

    It is a shameful spectacle – and Labour deserve to be punished for it by the electorate.

    In England, Labour’s desperate attempt to find a rational policy has produced a lurch from one policy to another. One day they support regional assemblies everywhere.

    Another day they want regional assemblies to be phased in, in some places.

    Because on yet another day they say regional assemblies would never appear in regions where they were not wanted.

    In Scotland, there is no answer to the big questions.

    Why should Scottish MPs be allowed to vote at Westminster on matters affecting England and Wales, when English and Welsh MPs would not be allowed to vote the same matters affecting Scotland?

    How can that be defended? No answer.

    What is the justification for the Tartan tax – forcing Scottish people to pay more tax than the English and Welsh just because they live North of the border?

    No answer.

    And what happens when a Scottish Prime Minister answerable to a Scottish Parliament finds himself in conflict with a United Kingdom Prime Minister answerable to a United Kingdom Parliament?

    You’ve guessed it – no answer.

    In Wales, as Neil Kinnock said, “Rightly or wrongly, the people will see the Assembly as a body which, in order to justify its forlorn existence, will have to take power from whatever tier of government it can get it’

    So the assembly would try to grab the powers of Welsh councils.

    That’s Labour’s new meaning of devolution.

    Not devolution down to the people, but p to the bureaucrats.

    Labour say their Welsh assembly wouldn’t be allowed to raise taxes.

    But have any of us ever met a socialist elected at any level who doesn’t want to spend more of the public’s money?

    So how long would it be before this Assembly started to demand the power to do so?

    These ideas would produce a decade of constitutional upheaval and muddle.

    But the damage would not stop there.

    The Assembly would become the focus of resentment against Westminster and a recipe for conflict with the rest of the United Kingdom.

    The Nationalists at least have logic on their side.

    They are profoundly wrong, but at least their arguments are logical.

    As for Labour, they have abandoned even the pretence of rationality in their schemes.

    The Mad Hatter could have dreamed them up.

    In their eagerness to tamper with the historical constitution of our Houses of Parliament, to divide up the United Kingdom internally, and to cast aside many of the veto powers protecting our sovereignty in Europe, Labour would inflict great damage on this nation.

    Mr Chairman, we must fight with all our strengths to stop the nation sleepwalking to such a disaster.

    That is our historic task.

    And you have my pledge to put the maintenance of our United Kingdom – and of the place of Wales within it – at the very centre of our campaign for the next Election.

    The Liberals

    Mr Chairman, a few days ago Mr Paddy Ashdown announced that the Liberals were dropping the pretence of being neutral between the Conservative and Labour parties.

    He said that the Liberals would never do a deal with us. Mr Chairman, I have news for Mr Ashdown.

    We’ve always known that he would be happy to prop up a Labour government.

    That’s no surprise at all.

    Mr Ashdown would no doubt be happy to be Minister for Morris Dancing in a Blair Cabinet.

    In fact, I’m sure he’d do that very well.

    But the Leader of the Liberal Democrats announcing the death of Liberalism as an independent political force is of some significance.

    Liberalism has in the past been a powerful force in the history of Wales.

    Whatever our quarrels with the Liberals, we should acknowledge that in parts of Wales they have fought socialism as vigorously as us.

    So I suspect that there will be some Liberals who cannot stomach being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Labour Party.

    They now know from the lips of their own Leader that there is now only one political party in this country which is committed to fighting the divisive, illiberal force of socialism and state control.

    Us.

    So those Liberals who still support the ancient Liberal virtues of individual liberty, of limiting the state, and of ever wider opportunity are welcome to join us.

    For only the Conservative Party now stands for those values.

    And we are open to anyone who shares them.

    Peroration

    Mr Chairman, I’ve no time for fainthearts in this Party.

    At the next election we will defeat Labour and their fellow travellers just as decisively as we have at the last four.

    We will be able to point to clear evidence of rising prosperity, as our decisions bear fruit.

    We will have a detailed agenda of policies to shape a stronger Britain in the new millennium.

    And we will have the knowledge that we and we alone will defend our nation’s interests abroad and our national unity at home.

    That is a strong platform.

    It is the right platform.

    And it is a winning platform.

  • PMQT – 8 June 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Legg: Following last week’s launch of the European Commission’s blueprint for the introduction of a single currency, will my right hon. Friend confirm that during the lifetime of this Parliament he will not make any commitments, or support any proposals, for the United Kingdom to subscribe to a timetable for joining the single currency?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that. I do not believe that the question of joining a single currency will in practice arise for some time, and I confirm my hon. Friend’s proposition. Arguably, the circumstances may not ever be right, and it is for that reason that I have preserved the House’s right to make its own decision as and when the practical time for a decision may arise. Even if that time does arise, we should need to consider not only the economic conditions but the political and constitutional implications.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister accept that, as a result of the withdrawal of mortgage help for those who become unemployed, the vast majority of home owners–particularly new home owners–will have to take out mortgage insurance? What is his estimate of the cost of that policy to a home owner with an average mortgage?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, any responsible Government must review the size of the social security budget– now running at well over £80 million of taxpayers’ money. As for the cost, the right hon. Gentleman may have seen–as I have–the news that the Skipton building society proposes to introduce cover for all its borrowers without increasing premiums.

    I believe that lenders should recognise their obligation to protect home owners, and I hope that others will do the same.

    Mr. Blair: I assume that the Prime Minister is holding that out as an example of what is going to happen. Does he say that there will be any additional cost? If so, what is his estimate?

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that my first reply clearly flummoxed the right hon. Gentleman. I was holding out what is being done by the Skipton building society as an example of best practice, and I very much hope that other people will have to pay–

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Who is paying?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shouts, “Who is paying?” Despite what the Labour party has to say about holding down public expenditure, both he and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition seem keen that the taxpayer should pay on every occasion.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has failed to deal with the fact that the vast majority of home owners will have to pay more for his policy. If he cannot give us an estimate of the cost, what does he say to this morning’s reports that the insurance claims of many people who have cover are not even met? Would it not be sensible to reconsider a policy that is, in effect, a tax on every home owner, will mean more repossessions and will depress an already depressed housing market?

    The Prime Minister: One would hardly imagine, to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, that, as far as housing is concerned, a Labour study group, for example, threatened to abolish mortgage interest relief totally.

    On the particular point about insurance, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has made clear, we wish to have a high-quality, comprehensive system of mortgage insurance to minimise the danger of home owners losing their home through misfortune. In terms of best practice, I have already said what the cost might be. I hope that other people will look towards that best practice. My right hon. Friend has been working with the Association of British Insurers to develop guidelines for the best practice of mortgage protection insurance and many new, quality products are emerging. That is very much the reason why I welcome initiatives like that from Skipton.

     

    Q2. Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June.

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

    Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one living in Herefordshire now need wait more than nine months for hospital in-patient treatment, and that that significant progress, along with much else, has come about during the first year of the operation of the Hereford hospitals national health service trust? Is that not a good example of the success of health service reforms, and does he agree that it would be crazy to reverse those changes, especially along the lines of the proposals espoused this week by the Labour party?

    Mr. Mackinlay: Assume that the answer is yes and let us get on with it.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that the answer is yes, but I very much doubt that he will ever be here to give the answer, either yes or no. I am pleased to hear of the success of my hon. Friend’s local hospital trust. I recall that it was not all that long ago that the Opposition Front-Bench team was saying that every hospital trust was going to be privatised after the next election, and here is a hospital trust in the national health service performing as my hon. Friend has just set out. He is right about the Opposition’s plans on the health service. They are now sharpening up a threat to the health service, not least by abolishing fundholding, which covers more than 40 per cent. of general practitioner patients up and down the country.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.

    The Prime Minister: “Hear, hear,” says the hon. Gentleman. What will he say to the patients of those fundholders when the extra facilities provided by fundholding are lost? He may say, “Hear, hear.” He does not like it. He does not like the extra facilities. If he wishes to damage GP care, that is the way to do it, and that, he acknowledges, is his party’s policy.

    Mr. Sheldon: In the week of the funeral of Lord Wilson, will the Prime Minister consider one of the most important aspects of Lord Wilson’s premiership: his concern about manufacturing production, after the decline of which he called for the need to reinstate Britain as the workshop of the world? In his period, levels of investment in manufacturing were very large and much greater than they have been in the years of this Administration. In the light of today’s decline in the index of industrial production, will the Prime Minister start to accord to manufacturing industry investment the sort of priority that Lord Wilson had?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, not only has there been in the past year or so a substantial improvement in the quantum of manufacturing and in manufacturing investment; there has also been, for the first time, I think, since before Lord Wilson became Prime Minister in 1964, a growth in the number of people with full-time jobs in manufacturing industry. When one considers our export figures and breaks them down, one sees the extent to which manufacturing industry–the management and work force in manufacturing industry–have begun to improve and sell their product with greater skill, both at home and abroad, so I share the right hon. Gentleman’s aspirations for manufacturing and I believe that they are coming about.

     

    Q3. Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June.

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

    Mr. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the recently renegotiated Anglo-United States air services agreement? In that regard, can he confirm that he will use the national veto if necessary on any attempt by the European Union to usurp our country’s right to negotiate with other countries both the destinations for British airlines and the frequency of services, because the EU has shown itself to be manifestly incompetent in curbing the gross subsidies to state carriers on the part of some of our continental partners?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, that has always been negotiated as a national matter and we believe that that is the right way to deal with it. Our concern is to secure the maximum benefits for United Kingdom passengers through increased choice and lower prices. We believe that negotiation by national Governments is the most appropriate way to achieve that. It is precisely in that way that we reached agreement this week with the United States on a further deal to liberalise our air services.

    Mr. Hardy: The Prime Minister will be aware that, during the past few days, many of his colleagues have been trumpeting achievements on employment, suggesting that it is lower in Britain than in most other European countries. Does he accept that examination of the statistics shows that that is eyewash? Does he also accept that many jobs in Britain are filled by people who are paid wages that no one else in Europe would accept?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on any of his propositions. Not only is our employment pretty much the lowest in Europe, with the exception of Holland among the larger nations, on any basis that one cares to calculate, but the number of people in employment is growing. For example, if I look at the constituencies of hon. Members whose names are down to ask questions today I see that, from the peak, unemployment in Warwickshire, North is down 40 per cent. [Interruption.] I promise that the hon. Gentleman is not asking a planted question. Unemployment in Southampton, Itchen is down 25 per cent. and it is down 30 per cent. in Denton and Reddish and 24 per cent. in Sedgefield.

     

    Q4. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June.

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

    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour councillors in Mid Glamorgan recently gave themselves an allowance increase of 388 per cent.? Does he agree that that is an incredibly selfish and greedy example of how Labour councils work? They whinge about other people’s pay increases but, given the first opportunity, they have their snouts firmly in the trough, they put themselves first and stuff everyone they are supposed to represent.

    The Prime Minister: I did indeed see those reports in the morning press and I would say to those councils and others that they also have a duty to remember that they are spending local taxpayers’ money. If that is an example of new Labour in action, it seems to have no advantages whatsoever over old Labour.

     

    Q5. Mr. Mike O’Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 June.

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

    Mr. O’Brien: The House of Commons Library has told me that, since 1979, unemployment is up more than 100 per cent. in north Warwickshire. If the Prime Minister and his Government come forward with pre-election tax cuts, will those not be bought at the price of underfunding schools and the police? In my county of Warwickshire, we are losing 172 teachers and more than 50 police officers. Are not undermining the police and damaging the educational opportunities of children in Warwickshire too high a price to pay for this Prime Minister who is seeking to save his political neck and that of this discredited Government?

    The Prime Minister: I take it that that was–implicitly–a condemnation of the 388 per cent. increase in Labour councillors’ allowances in Mid Glamorgan.

    Mr. Prescott: What about the Warwickshire 100 per cent. unemployment?

    The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, if the deputy leader of the Labour party would care to stop shouting– [Interruption.] The Labour party cannot have it both ways. Labour Members cannot criticise us week after week after week over alleged tax increases and then say that they would oppose tax reductions as well. They had better make up their mind whether they are in favour of high tax, low tax, no tax, or just taking every opportunity that they can on any issue to say whatever happens to be appropriate on the day for a cheap, short-term headline.

    As for education and other matters, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O’Brien) will have seen right the way through the period in office of this Government an increase in resources spent on the health service–a dramatic increase in the health service, another £1.3 billion this year, a huge increase in 1979 in real terms over and above inflation year after year after year after year. In education, it does not matter whether one looks at primary, secondary or further education. That is why in 1979 one in eight of our young adults were getting into university and these days it is pretty nearly one in three as a result of the changes that we have made and the increased resources that we have made available.