The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1995

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Huntingdon – 7 July 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview, held in Huntingdon on Friday 7th July 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there were still divisions in the Conservative Party]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the prospects are now very bright. We have sorted out many of the problems that were there. I think there is a huge determination in the Party to unite. What must worry the Labour Party is a united Conservative Party. And that worries the Labour Party because it means the battle will resume on policies and not on the trivia that has dominated political debate for the past 2 years. And once we get into the question of policy, I believe Labour’s policies are ruinous for this country.

    People have no real wish to go towards socialism. They do not want the policies the Labour Party advocate. And now we are back on the policy debate, I think you will see a very rapid change in the fortunes of the Conservative Party.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do think Tony talks nonsense from time to time. If you actually look at the Labour Party’s European policy for example, the Labour Party have more dissenters on European policy than the Conservative Party.

    Tony Blair knows that very well. They have kept it very quiet. They have hidden it. They have managed to spend most of their time attacking the Conservative Party with soundbites. But the reality is that there is no unity in the Labour Party on that particular policy or many others. What Tony Blair is concerned about is that we will concentrate on policies such as education, where he would wish to deny choice. On health, where he would wish to reverse all our reforms and presumably stop a huge number of people being treated each year. On defence, where he would like to have another defence review; and no doubt cut defence in Europe where he is committed to a wholly federal European and we are not.

    Now there are very sharp differences on real interests to the British nation and what I have said right the way through this leadership campaign, and will say again, is that the British nation deserves a debate upon those issues and not the political claptrap about the Conservative Party from the Labour Party and from others that it has had over the past two or three years.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the Euro sceptics in the Conservative Party]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Our European policy is now absolutely clear. I have spelt it out without a shred of doubt. That is my policy. That is the policy of the Cabinet. The policy of the Party. And it is certainly the policy that businesses wish to follow.

    There are differences on Europe in all the parties. If anybody thinks Tony Blair’s party is united on Europe, then I suggest they go and talk to some members of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

    Across the broad strands of policy there is now unity.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a great issue and it has always been a great issue. You can find just as many Labour members taking part in similar rallies. They are sitting back at the moment because they do not believe it is necessary to do so. This is one of the great issues of British politics. People will express their views on it. But the majority view is quite clear. I have expressed it and the Party have endorsed it.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have got a very good Cabinet now. A Cabinet that stretches across all strands of opinion in the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party is not a faction. The Conservative Party is a national party that embraces people of all sorts of background; of all sorts of interests who share the broad Conservative philosophy. That is the sort of Conservative Party I joined. That is the sort of Conservative Party I grew up in. And it is the sort of Conservative Party I lead.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the Luton riots]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have asked for a report on what happened in Luton during the last couple of nights. I do not yet have it and I would like to reserve comment until I have it.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Westminster – 7 July 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, held at a presentation meeting for the party leader, held at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in Westminster, London, on Thursday 7th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s been a memorable fortnight.

    Challenges, walkouts, unprecedented rows.

    All at Wimbledon!

    And while that has been happening the Conservative Party has resolved its internal problems and prepared itself for unity.

    Mr Chairman, I have been a member of our party for all my adult lifetime.

    I was proud to work for it at constituency level.

    To be a Conservative Councillor.

    To be a Conservative Member of Parliament.

    To be a Minister in a Conservative Government.

    And to be Leader of our Party.

    So I feel greatly honoured to have been chosen again by my colleagues to lead it – and to have been given the greatest number of votes in a serious contest of any leader in its history.

    I intend to use those votes to fulfil the mandate I was given at the last election.

    And then, Mr Chairman, I intend to renew it at the next General Election.

    I wish to thank all those who helped my victory this week happen.

    Robert Cranborne and his team, who appeared from every part of our Party in Parliament and beyond, and who mounted such a superb campaign.

    They volunteered their time and energy to assist – and they did it magnificently.

    But, above all, the literally hundreds and hundreds of constituency associations and the thousands and thousands of party members who made their support of me so clear and decisive.

    Frankly, I preferred their correspondence to some people’s editorials.

    So, I am grateful to all those who supported me. But let me say this to those who did not.

    I am not a factional politician. The Government will continue to include and represent all parts of our Party.

    Conservatism is a broad river, fed by many streams. No part of our Party has a monopoly of wisdom.

    We are and we will remain a national party, with a message and an appeal to the broad masses of the British people.

    I believe that today the Conservative Party can face the future with renewed confidence.

    We’ve had a healthy debate – and cleared the air.

    And we’ve removed once and for all the distraction which had prevented for so long any opportunity of getting our real policies across to the public.

    As a result, our party can now be more united, more determined and more effective than at any time since the General Election.

    So let me tell you a little about our message – not in abstract generalities but in concrete examples.

    For months we have been looking at ways to take forward a radical Conservative agenda not just to the General Election but into the next millennium.

    This afternoon Gillian Shephard announced the introduction of vouchers to provide free nursery education places for all 4 year olds.

    Vouchers are a very Conservative idea.

    They put choice and power in the hands not of town hall bureaucrats, but of parents.

    They will spread opportunity not just to those who have parents who can afford to pay for nursery education, but to every parent of every 4 year-old in the land.

    And they enable there to be widespread provision not just in the state sector, but in the private and voluntary sectors too.

    Labour of course opposed this idea, just as they have opposed each and every education reform we have introduced.

    They opposed the National Curriculum – and now they say they were wrong.

    They opposed league tables – and now they say they were wrong.

    And they opposed tests – and now they say they were wrong.

    So just wait a few years. Today they oppose nursery vouchers.

    In three or four years’ time, Labour will be claiming that nursery vouchers were their idea all along.

    Our reforms of education took another big step forward yesterday with the merger of the Education and Employment Departments.

    As we approach the 21st century, we can no longer assume that people can stop learning at 16, 18 or even 21.

    The new merged Department reflects our understanding that if you are undertrained and underskilled you are more likely to be unemployed.

    We want people in work. So they need skills. And we took a major step forward yesterday in delivering my ambition for Britain to have the best qualified workforce in Europe by merging the Education and Employment departments.

    That is a vital part of building up skills for everyone. Of course, Labour opposed this change too. They gave us a typical 1930s cloth cap reaction.

    “You can’t care about the unemployed”, they said, “if you abolish the Employment Department”.

    What rot. It’s because we care for them that we’ve done it.

    Labour may see the unemployed as a special group who must be set aside from the rest of us and treated differently.

    I don’t. I see them as people – people who must be helped, encouraged and trained so that they can get a job as fast as possible.

    Under this Government unemployment has fallen by 600,000 in the last two years – further and faster than anywhere else in Western Europe.

    That is the best way to show that you care about the unemployed.

    You don’t do that by saddling this country with the burdens of the Social Chapter.

    And you don’t do it by imposing the job-destroying idiocies of a minimum wage.

    You do it, as we have done, by reducing the burden of regulation.

    By setting enterprise free.

    And, when it is in the British national interest to do so, by saying one short word to Brussels – No.

    Behind the day-to-day headlines Conservative policies are transforming Britain for the better. We need to carry those further – to develop and deepen those policies.

    Each month 41,000 new businesses start up. I want to entrench and expand that.

    Small businesses are the engines of growth for future wealth and employment.

    So we will hold a major series of conferences, starting this autumn, to listen to their needs and to [indistinct].

    And I am already convinced that when we can afford it, we should set our sights on the capital and inheritance taxes which act as a drag on enterprise. My aim is to see those taxes reduced, and if possible, abolished altogether. I make no promises when we can do that – but I do set it as an objective.

    Each week 3,500 homes are bought, 200 of them council homes.

    I want to see that accelerate – so that we have 1.5 million new home-owners over the next ten years.

    And, following our white Paper last week, we will introduce legislation to extend the Right To Buy still further to many Housing Association tenants. And we will help expand private investment in homes for rent too.

    As Conservatives, we spend huge sums on those in need. We never begrudge that. But we are determined to root out fraud and to encourage those who can provide for themselves to do so.

    Because no government which is serious about creating a platform of small government and low taxation can afford to ignore the challenges of the welfare budget.

    Peter Lilley has launched the biggest anti-fraud drive in the history of the social security system. And we have gone a long way to encourage self-provision in pensions.

    Now we need to go further – and we’re looking at proposals to make it easier for those who are wage-earners today to save and buy insurance to help provide care for themselves when they are tomorrow’s pensioners.

    Mr Chairman, this Party embarked on a path of radical reform in 1979.

    Unlike our opponents, we have not changed our principles or our values.

    This is still the only Party in Britain which believes in free enterprise, low taxes, individual liberty and responsibility, and a strong and proud nation.

    We now have a fresh team to take the fight to the enemy.

    Fighting hasn’t been easy over the last couple of years.

    Well, that will change.

    For we can now set out the very clear contrast between the two parties.

    Labour call for a Defence Review – but they mean deep new defence cuts. The country does not want that – and, Mr Chairman, I believe that our superb armed forces have earned the right to have a period of stability.

    Labour would deny choice in education for parents – with the exception, I suppose, of those Labour MPs who have exercised choice themselves and chosen to send their children to Grant Maintained Schools.

    Labour would reverse our health reforms – undermining the better patient care which Trust Hospitals are delivering, and taking away from GP fundholders their new freedoms.

    Labour have no economic policy targets for the level of tax, or for monetary policy. Ken Clarke wrote to Gordon Brown about all this – and has not received a reply. Why not?

    Tell us, Mr Brown. Can’t you read – or can’t you decide? Perhaps the new Department of Education and Employment has found its first client!

    And Labour’s badly thought-out devolution plans would threaten the very survival of the United Kingdom – just as their commitment to a federal Europe would undermine our sovereignty and destroy our independence.

    Mr Chairman, Labour offer us some very juicy targets.

    All of us. So let’s take aim at them. From every Minister in Whitehall to those on the real front line – the canvassers slogging up flights of steps in blocks of flats.

    Let’s have some fun ourselves.

    Switch the focus to Labour’s divisions. And wipe the smug smile off the face of the modern Labour Party.

    Mr Chairman, the Conservative Party, united, is the most powerful and effective political force in Europe.

    We have come through our time of trial – now we will be stronger and more united.

    We have the opportunity over the next two years to build on the strongest economic position our country has seen for decades.

    We have the chance to continue to roll back the state, to widen choice and opportunity for all and to bolster our country’s unity and standing in the world.

    We can now both explain our record and improve on it still further.

    The next General Election campaign beckons.

    The next Government will inherit the strongest economy this country has seen for very many years.

    We worked for it.

    We built it up.

    And I want us to inherit it. It’s in our hands.

    The choice is very clear.

    And last Tuesday we made it.

  • Mr Major’s Sixth Cabinet – 6 July 1995

    Below is Mr Major’s sixth cabinet, announced on 6th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER – John Major
    DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER – Michael Heseltine
    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER – Kenneth Clarke
    FOREIGN SECRETARY – Malcolm Rifkind
    HOME SECRETARY – Michael Howard
    LORD CHANCELLOR – Lord Mackay of Clashfern
    SCOTLAND – Michael Forsyth
    WALES – William Hague
    NORTHERN IRELAND – Patrick Mayhew
    LEADER OF THE COMMONS – Tony Newton
    LEADER OF THE LORDS – Lord Cranborne
    TRADE AND INDUSTRY – Ian Lang
    DEFENCE – Michael Portillo
    HEALTH – Stephen Dorrell
    SOCIAL SECURITY – Peter Lilley
    ENVIRONMENT – John Gummer
    TRANSPORT – George Young
    EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT – Gillian Shephard
    AGRICULTURE – Douglas Hogg
    NATIONAL HERITAGE – Virginia Bottomley
    DUCHY OF LANCASTER – Roger Freeman
    CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY – William Waldegrave
    MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO – Brian Mawhinney

  • PMQT – 6 July 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McGrady: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 July.

    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 have further meetings later today.

    Mr. McGrady: After the Prime Minister’s success in his little local difficulty, congratulations would normally be in order, if it were not for the very great disadvantage caused to the communities of Northern Ireland by the introduction of the Clegg factor and the damage that it has done to the peace process. However, in the aftermath of that, could I ask the Prime Minister now to devote himself wholly to the pursuit of the cause of peace in Ireland, in view of the increasingly volatile situation there? Will he consider the appointment of an independent international arbitrator or negotiator to break the current logjam, rather than rely on his Northern Ireland ministerial colleagues, who have many departmental and other ministerial duties to attend to? There is a precedent for that in the inter-party talks.

    The Prime Minister: I am looking at ways of breaking the logjam, but I do not think that it would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I were to discuss those this afternoon. I remain as committed to proceeding with the peace process in Northern Ireland as I have been since the moment I walked into Downing Street. A great deal of progress has been made. It is crucially important that that progress is sustained. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and all hon. Members from Northern Ireland, will join me in that search. I know that it is what they wish for and I am absolutely certain that it is what their constituents most wish to see.

    Mr. Redwood: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his win? May I assure him that, like him, I wish to see a Conservative election victory? Would he agree with me that some of the ideas and policies that I set out in the past two weeks could make an important contribution to that victory?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his words. I hope that he will agree with me that we had a fair contest last week. I am grateful both for the way in which he has spoken this afternoon and for the way in which he conceded the result of the election. Let me say to my right hon. Friend that there is a great deal that the Government will be doing in the months ahead which I know that he will wish to support enthusiastically. I will welcome his support, as will all my colleagues.

    Mr. Blair: I offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister on his re-election with, I suspect, rather more sincerity than the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and, of course, I also congratulate him on his new deputy.

    Last year, the Prime Minister gave what he called a cast-iron commitment to nursery education for all four-year-olds. Is that still the case?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. I think that he congratulates me in the same spirit that Mr. Neil Kinnock did on one occasion. I am equally grateful and I look forward to the same result at the subsequent general election.

    I confirm that, on a phased basis, I look for the introduction of nursery education for all four-year-olds and my right hon. Friend will announce this afternoon our plans and the phasing.

    Madam Speaker: Mr. Peter Luff.

    Mr. Blair rose —

    Madam Speaker: I am sorry. Mr. Blair.

    Mr. Blair: I know, Madam Speaker, that rather a lot has been going on on the Government Benches recently, so it is perfectly understandable.

    If that is the Prime Minister’s commitment, and we know that 90 per cent. of four-year-olds get pre-school education at present–indeed, the majority of those get it free in the public sector now–can he guarantee to make good his commitment, first, that he will provide the extra places that are necessary but, secondly, that nobody who now gets and qualifies for free public sector education will be forced to go private and top up the voucher?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find the answers to his questions very satisfactory and that he will find them very speedily. It is perfectly clear from events a moment or so ago that not only is the right hon. Gentleman following most of our policies but it would seem that he may actually have joined the Conservative Benches.

    Mr. Blair: It is Labour local authorities that have provided nursery education.

    Never mind the Prime Minister telling us to wait for his right hon. Friend- -this is his idea; his scheme. Can he give those guarantees or not? If not, many people will think that this is a con trick, not a genuine scheme for nursery education. Would not it at least be better to consider whether we could not obtain better value for money spending these hundreds of millions of pounds improving present provision for four-year-olds and bringing within the system three-year-olds who are shut out of the Prime Minister’s scheme altogether?

    The Prime Minister: No, the right hon. Gentleman will see that what we are proposing this afternoon will meet the points that he has in mind and meet them better than he could. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of choice in education since he exercises it. We said that we would deliver pre-school education for all four-year-old children and this afternoon he will see that we will meet that policy. The parents of all four-year-olds will be given a voucher for pre-school education in the state, private or voluntary sectors, and we will put that purchasing power where it belongs. I had thought that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of exercising rights of choice. We will see this afternoon whether that is true.

    Madam Speaker: Now we will have Mr. Peter Luff.

    Mr. Luff: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Everything comes to he who waits.

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that a policy of withdrawal from the European Union, or a policy of immediate acquiescence in every idea that emerges from the Commission, no matter how damaging to the nation’s interests, would both be acts of political and economic folly? Does it surprise my right hon. Friend in the slightest that the Leader of the Opposition has espoused both such policies?

    The Prime Minister: I shall spare the Leader of the Opposition the quotes that I have used often enough in the House to indicate his changing view on Europe, from espousing withdrawal behind closed doors in 1983, to announcing subsequently that he had changed his mind, and then to wholehearted support for everything that happens in Europe without any reference to the British national interest. It is fudge, mudge and split the difference on every aspect of that policy. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the difference between competitiveness and the social chapter and between national interest and a national veto. He will learn if he stays as Leader of the Opposition–if he stays as Leader of the Opposition. I doubt that he will because after the election I look forward to addressing his successor while I stand here as Prime Minister.

    Mr. Ashdown: Why does the Prime Minister not realise that vouchers that only partly fund pre-school education are bound to be of more value to those who can pay the difference than to the poor whose children need help most? Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman put the whole nation first, he would put universal access to high-quality pre-school education for all before Conservative tax cuts at the next election.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman really ought not to be so silly. We are placing a substantial sum in the hands of parents so that they can make a choice of nursery school education for their children. Now we know the Liberal party’s position: no choice at all for parents. I do not know what happened to the Liberal party’s old philosophy, but gone it completely has. If people want choice–if they want universal nursery education–they will get it from the Government, and from no one else.

    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appropriate tenure of a Conservative Prime Minister is not four and a half years involving one general election victory, but at least 11 years involving at least three general election victories?

    The Prime Minister: There is certainly an honourable precedent to that effect, and I shall seek to follow it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 July.

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

    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister welcome the strong support that Lord Justice Taylor gave Sir Richard Scott at the distinguished Lord Mayor’s dinner last night? Will he, too, give his strong support to Sir Richard?

    The Prime Minister: I gave Sir Richard my support when I appointed him to head the inquiry.

    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware not only that the courageous decisions that he has made in the past week were wholly and absolutely justified, but that his Government are faced with the most inexperienced and fatuous Opposition whom I have seen in all the 31 years for which I have been in Parliament? Furthermore, I do not want a job.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has been examining Labour Oppositions for many years, and I have no doubt that what he says is entirely right. After the next election, he will have an opportunity to study another Labour Opposition.

     

    Q3. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 July.

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

    Mr. Flynn: Is the Prime Minister not appalled by the ungrateful treatment being handed out to the constituents of Basildon? Tory Members are reported to be seeking new seats and abandoning their loyal Tory voters in Eltham, Loughborough and, yes, even Basildon. Is the Prime Minister’s advice to all his hon. Friends with majorities of less than 18,000, “Retreat now: abandon your voters, because it is “No change, no chance’”?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall hearing rather arrogant remarks like that before the last general election.

    I seem to recall hearing rather a lot of them. Yet those who behaved in such an arrogant fashion long before the election are still sitting on the Opposition Benches.

    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern felt by so many of our constituents that the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights have a tendency to encroach far too much into areas that are properly within the sovereign authority of this Parliament and that if those institutions are to maintain the respect of the British people, they must exercise more self-restraint in future?

    The Prime Minister: As I indicated to the House when I reported on the Cannes summit a week or so ago, there are areas where the European Court of Justice ought not to tread, and it was on that basis that I refused to allow it to have any jurisdiction whatsoever over the Europol convention, which I agreed with our partners in Europe at the Cannes summit. I believe that because it touches on sensitive matters that are rightly the prerogative of the British courts and no other, and on that point the Government’s policy will remain as it is.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ainger: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 July.

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

    Mr. Ainger: Given the description by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) of the Prime Minister’s leadership style as uncertainty based on indecision, is it the new job of the Deputy Prime Minister now to take the decisions, or has the Prime Minister not decided yet?

    The Prime Minister: In elections– [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman invites me to quote what was said during the Labour leadership election. There is often rough invective during elections. As the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said during the last Labour leadership election:

    “It would have been easier to pull out their teeth than to have received straight answers to my questions.”

    The right hon. Gentleman the present leader

    “enclosed 30 copies of his 20-page leadership election statement, which he said would answer most of my questions. On the most generous assessment, he touched on only ten of the questions”,

    and from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)

    “there was no reply whatsoever.”

  • Mr Major’s Comments after Winning the Conservative Party Leadership Election – 4 July 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments following his victory in the Conservative Party leadership election, made on 4th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Some days ago, when I called the leadership election, I did so in the knowledge that it would very likely be an election that was contested. It was contested and contested by a heavyweight candidate. We have now seen the verdict of the Parliamentary Party, a very clear cut decision, a decision in which I have received the largest share of votes that any Conservative leadership candidate has received in any seriously contested election. I believe that has put to rest any question, and any speculation, about the leadership of the Conservative Party up to and beyond the next General Election.

    I should like to thank all those under Robert Cranborne who worked so hard in my campaign over the last few days and to offer a special vote of thanks to those tens of thousands of silent people in the constituencies up and down the country who made clear their belief, by a truly overwhelming majority, that they believed that the policies we were pursuing were going in the right direction and that they wished me to continue in Downing Street as Prime Minister. I am very grateful to them for the support that they have given me over this period.

    We have had this election. I think it has aired matters of important policy interests for all of us. But the election is now over. The message that I would give to every Conservative, whether he is a Member of Parliament, a party member or someone who simply shares our philosophy and supports us in the country, is that the time for division is over. We have made our choice, it is a clear-cut choice I believe beyond any doubt whatsoever. The responsibility we have, the current responsibility and the historic responsibility as well, is to carry our case to the electorate so they can judge the Conservative Party for what they are, and not what they are sometimes represented as being by people who are not themselves members of the Conservative Party.

    Let me just say one thing in conclusion. This election has been decided by Members of Parliament in Westminster, not commentators outside Westminster with their own particular view. I believe that is the right democratic way to determine these elections.

    I have one final thing to say to you. This matter is now concluded. I shall now return to Downing Street and begin this evening to reconstruct the Government for announcements that you might expect tomorrow.

    Thank you very much.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 July 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July 1995.

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

     

    European Monetary Union

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards the adoption of a single currency outside the rules of the European Union by countries wishing to do so.

    The Prime Minister: The EC treaty now provides the institutional framework for the adoption of a single currency. It would not be legally permissible for any member states to adopt a single currency otherwise than in accordance with this framework if that prevented or fettered the discharge by the Community institutions of their functions in accordance with the treaty.

    The United Kingdom’s protocol, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be committed to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by its Government and Parliament.

     

    Chemical Weapons Convention

    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement on the EU Cannes summit of 28 June, (1) when he plans to bring forward legislation to ratify the chemical weapons convention. (2) on what grounds he signed a statement calling for the chemical weapons convention to enter into force without delay.

    The Prime Minister: The Government remain fully committed to the chemical weapons conventions. Primary legislation is required to implement the convention in the UK and to enable UK ratification. Work is going ahead on the preparation of the necessary legislation. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the coming weeks to publish a bill in draft for consultation with a view to introducing it as soon as parliamentary time permits.

     

    No. 10 Downing Street

    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister, if he will state the rules governing the making of announcements relating to party business in, or using the facilities of No. 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 30 June 1995]: Ministers under this and previous Administrations have been allowed–at their own or party expense–to make use of No. 10 Downing Street for party business, except for certain purposes during general elections.

  • PMQT – 4 July 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

    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.

    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the decision of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen to strike? Does he agree that that decision will bring misery and frustration to millions of passengers? Is he, like me, astonished that the general secretary of ASLEF has not offered one word of apology to the travelling public?

    The Prime Minister: I am surprised at that and I regret it. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I shall have a little order from the Front Benches below the Gangway–on both sides. There will be one exchange at a time.

    The Prime Minister: I totally condemn the decision to seek a strike, which is likely to cause chaos and confusion for hundreds of thousands of passengers. I do not believe that there is any justification whatsoever for the strike. I condemn it and I very much hope that the leader of the Labour party will condemn it as well and make it clear that he, like me, will put the interests of passengers before militancy.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister share the anger and disgust of South West Water consumers– [Interruption.] Tory Members may find the subject boring, but while they continue to tear themselves apart we shall speak up for the people of this country on the issues that concern them. What is more, it is not 329 Conservative Members of Parliament who should decide the Prime Minister and Government of this country; it is the British people at the ballot box.

    Does the Prime Minister share consumers’ disgust that the managing director has received a 45 per cent. pay increase while water bills have risen by 70 per cent. since privatisation? Is it not high time that the regulator was given the power to curb such abuse?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my view has been that many customers of water companies will be concerned about the reported pay increases of directors, and I share their concern. I think that, like me, many people would have no objection to pay rises that are linked to company performance, but if they cannot be linked to company performance I think that they will rightly be condemned by many people up and down the country. I propose to watch the pay increases carefully, and when we have received the Greenbury report on executive pay and remuneration we will be able to decide whether any action is necessary.

    Mr. Blair: Instead of watching it, why does the Prime Minister not act to put a stop to the abuses now?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows, for I have told him before–he is clearly a slow learner on this point–that we will wait and see what the committee examining the matter reports. When we have the facts in front of us, we will be in a position to take a decision: I prefer facts before decisions.

     

    Q2. Mr. Streeter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of the House last night to extend the assisted places scheme for another year? What does he make of a party that voted yet again to deny the opportunities created by that scheme to hundreds and thousands of children throughout the country?

    The Prime Minister: I am unsurprised at the way in which the Labour party casts its votes. Labour Members may talk about opportunity but, time after time, they vote against extending opportunity, such as the assisted places scheme. I am in favour of that scheme because I want people to enjoy opportunities that earlier generations did not have. We act on issues–the Labour party talks about them but does nothing.

     

    Q3. Mr. Stevenson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Stevenson: Does the Prime Minister agree that today 329 Tory Members of Parliament will probably be taking the most important political decision of their lives and that it will affect every man, woman and child in the country? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the sense of outrage felt throughout the length and breadth of the land that such a decision will be taken anonymously and in complete secrecy?

    The Prime Minister: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman–echoing the thoughts of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) a few moments ago–that I recall Labour calling for a general election in 1985 and losing one in 1987. I recall Labour asking for a general election in 1990, and it lost in 1992. Labour may call for a general election in 1995 but it will lose it in 1997.

     

    Q4. Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the City of Chester– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. We need order in the House.

    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my percipient constituents welcome low inflation and sustained growth, relish rising inward investment and falling unemployment and require a Government who represent Britain’s interests at the heart of Europe–rejoicing in the literal decimation of new proposals from Brussels in the past five years? What does my right hon. Friend reckon has brought us in the direction of those happy phenomena?

    The Prime Minister: I welcome the advantages that have been brought to the people of Chester by this Government. I acknowledge that they will want to see such advantages in future, and I look forward to ensuring that they do.

     

    Q5. Ms Jowell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

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

    Ms Jowell: Will the Prime Minister apologise to the thousands of blood donors whose gift of blood was wasted last week, and to the patients whose operations were cancelled because the Government’s agent, the National Blood Authority, bought cheaper blood bags? Is not that another example of what the people of this country have come to expect from the Government, who know the price of everything but the value of nothing?

    The Prime Minister: One of the values of this Government’s health reforms is that well over 1 million extra patients are being treated every year. One of the other values of this Government is capital expenditure worth more than £1 million every single week since 1979. One of the other advantages of this Government is more and better treatment in every aspect of the health service. One of the other values is the greatest improvement in primary health care since the health service was established in 1948. It is about time that the hon. Lady took her head out of the sand and saw what is really happening to improve the health service.

     

    Q6. Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in negotiating our Maastricht opt-outs he proved that he is closer to the feelings of his people than any other leader in Europe? Is not the true test of leadership in Europe to trust the people to think and act for themselves? Is that not how he led us to victory in 1992 and how he will lead us to victory again at the next election?

    The Prime Minister: I did then as I do now, and as I will do in the future, and that is to take the decisions that I believe are in our country’s national interest and defend those decisions both abroad and here at home. It was for that reason that I set out and obtained the opt-outs. It was for that reason that I retained them. I believe that that is the right way for us to proceed.

    Dr. Hendron: The Prime Minister is probably aware that once again my constituency of Belfast, West was in flames yesterday evening. I am sure that he is aware that Mrs. Briege Gadd, the head of the life sentence review board, has resigned. In that regard, and in regard especially to the release of Lee Clegg yesterday, does the Prime Minister accept that the Northern Ireland Office has sacrificed the stability of the peace process for short-term political gains? Furthermore– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Member must be heard.

    Dr. Hendron: Furthermore, my constituents justifiably believe that there is one law for soldiers and another law for Irish prisoners.

    The Prime Minister: I must say to the hon. Gentleman, who has played a significant part in stilling the difficulties of Northern Ireland over recent years, that I believe that he is wrong to make that judgement. I hope that he will reflect again on what he said. The decision to release Private Clegg was a judicial matter, which was decided by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on its merits–that is both the decision itself and the timing. The decision was made by my right hon. and learned Friend and subsequently I was informed of it. It was a judicial matter and it must remain a judicial matter.

    As for the difficulties faced by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents yesterday, I think that he will know, as I know, and as the RUC is equally clear, that there was a high degree of orchestration in yesterday’s violent events in Northern Ireland. Prominent members of Sinn Fein were present at a number of those events. They are far from the only violent demonstrations organised by Sinn Fein in recent months. I think that everyone in Northern Ireland is aware of that fact.

    If I may say one other thing about Private Clegg in the light of what has been said, I say to the House and the country as a whole that it is patently absurd to equate Private Clegg’s case with deliberate acts of murder by paramilitaries– [Interruption.] The Lord Chief Justice, at Private Clegg’s appeal, stressed that when he, Private Clegg, commenced the patrol

    “he had no intention of unlawfully killing or wounding anyone.”

    One other further point may be of some comfort to many people in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I apologise for the length of my answer, but I think that this is a matter of importance for the peace of the streets in Northern Ireland. Of other cases recently considered by the life sentence review body alongside that of Private Clegg, five other prisoners were recommended for release on life licence. Four of those involved terrorist offences and they concerned both loyalists and republicans. All those cases, including Private Clegg’s, were reviewed on their merits. Private Clegg’s case was only one of a number that were considered.

    Mr. Matthew Banks: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the healthy scepticism that exists, especially on the Government Benches, about a single European currency. He is also aware that many of us would like to see a referendum on the matter, if it is appropriate, in future. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that to say no, never now to a single European currency would weaken Britain’s negotiating position with our EU partners for very many years to come?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I had observed over the past couple of years that there is the occasional case of scepticism about European policy–that has been evident. But I believe, as my hon. Friend said, that in the event that a British Cabinet decided to enter the single currency, it would be wise at that stage to consider whether or not to have a referendum. But to determine that matter at this stage would be premature.

     

    Q7. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Hughes: When the Prime Minister was previously elected, he set as one of his objectives the creation of a nation at ease with itself. If he is re-elected this afternoon, in a society and a country where the gap between the rich and the poor has become wider, not narrower, how will he show some commitment to that cause, so that under his premiership Britain is a country of social justice and greater equality, rather than one of greater social injustice and inequality?

    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the premise upon which the hon. Gentleman frames his question. The greatest destroyer of ease of mind in Britain is inflation. Inflation is now at a lower level and under more secure lock and key than at any time for the past quarter of a century. That is not just a matter of concern to people with savings; it is a matter of concern, above all, to the people about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned–the people who, at the end of the week, wonder whether they can pay their bills and are grateful that the prices have not gone up. To protect them, we must keep inflation down. I have, I am proud of that and I intend to keep it down.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 July 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Housing (Young People)

    Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received recently expressing concern about the housing conditions of young people.

    The Prime Minister: I have received a number of letters on this subject.

     

    Brent Spar

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library copies of the briefings he has received on the options for the final disposal of the Brent Spar platform.

    The Prime Minister: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to release ministerial briefing material.

     

    Information Technology

    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister what consideration has been given to the implications of merging the Department of Social Security and Inland Revenue data; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: There are no plans to merge Department of Social Security and Inland Revenue data, but as part of the Government deregulation initiatives both the DSS and the Inland Revenue are required to review their respective information technology strategies.

     

    Ministerial Posts and Pay

    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister what have been the changes since 1979 of (a) the number of Ministers, (b) the cost of ministerial salaries and (c) the number of parliamentary private secretaries and other unpaid posts.

    The Prime Minister: On the basis of the definition of Ministers within schedule 1 of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, and including the Lord Chancellor, (a) the number of Ministers on 9 May 1979 was 107 and is currently 108; (b) in cash terms, on 9 May 1979 the cost of ministerial salaries was £1,356,188 and the current cost is £3,598,084; (c) comparable information for this date is not available.

    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement on 28 June 1995, Official Report, columns 893-909, on the outcome of the Cannes summit if all the reductions in Britain’s contribution to the European development fund will be retained in the overseas development budget and used for bilateral aid to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

    The Prime Minister: Our contribution to the eighth European development fund will be spent over some five years from the year 2000. Final years for the aid budget in these years will be determined during the annual public expenditure survey in the light of all relevant factors.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Single Currency – 2 July 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the single currency, made in an interview on 2nd July 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would state his policy on the single currency].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I don’t think it’s wise to say no now and I’ve set out the reason for that on many occasions, I’ll happily do so again. I negotiated the opt-out, the decision, the opportunity for this country to say no at a later date with every intention of ensuring that we influence the debate right up to the last moment. I have very great reservations about the economic practicality of a single currency, certainly on the time scale that people propose. I’ve said that repeatedly.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that was still the case with the proposed 1999 date].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’ve said that repeatedly, yes, I’ve said for years I didn’t think 1997 was practicable. I’ve been proved right. I’m very dubious about 1999, it is possible that a small number of countries may be able to go ahead, but I very much doubt that it will be more than a small number of countries. But what I think would be folly would be for the United Kingdom, one of the great European powers, to exclude itself from this debate, the most important economic debate that Europe has had for 50 years by saying at this stage that we’re going to take no further part in the debate, we are deciding now what the outcome will be.

    Now I think that debate needs British pragmatism and British involvement and I think we should involve ourselves very fully in it, not just for us but to put forward the practical economic arguments that we have in our interests and in the interests of the rest of Europe, not just the big nations, but the little nations. I don’t wish to see the European Union become a directorate of the big nations over the little ones, I’ve been keen to widen it and we are widening it and I think we should involve ourselves in this debate. And what I frankly don’t understand is why so many people are fearful of this? We have every opportunity of saying no when this debate is concluded if we think entering a single currency is not in the British interest, or if we think the economics aren’t right, or if we’re worried about the constitutional implications. That option is absolutely there, yes or no at a later stage. Why should we throw away our influence in Europe on this issue and in doing so on a number of other issues as well by saying no at this stage, I don’t think that’s in the British national interest.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Leadership Election – 30 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Conservative leadership election, made on 30th June 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how many votes would be needed to end sniping from the sidelines].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to speculate on that. I will tell you quite clearly why I called the election. Over the past few months, all the things we are trying to do, all the things that matter, all the things that are going to restore confidence to this country, all the things that are going to enable policy to move ahead, all the things that will expose the deficiency in our opponents’ policies, were absolutely drowned out by this cacophony. Day, after day, after day, whatever happened, drowned out, nothing getting through, no real debate on policy for the 14 million people who elected me to Downing Street, no real debate for all the people who took part in the last election.

    That is no way to discuss a democracy. Democracy ought to be about policy, it ought to be about ideas, and I just wasn’t prepared to let that go on month, after month, after month, after month, with a relatively small number of people muttering behind their hands, causing a great deal of difficulty, exciting Fleet Street no end and squeezing out all the real news that mattered domestically and internationally, I just wasn’t prepared to let that go on. It is not remotely in the interests of the country, it is not remotely in the interests of the Conservative Party and I had had it up to the ears and beyond, so I think it was time to sort it out. And the only way to sort it out was to do precisely what I had done, to take the issue head on, to say to people here is a choice, you had better make it, and once you make it you had better make it clear cut, and when you have made it clear cut we will get on with the things that really matter and stop this nonsense, and that is exactly what I propose to do when this election is over.

    So there should be no doubt about why I did it, I did it with the perfectly clear expectation that there might be a challenge and in the certain knowledge that we would have a few days in which this matter would no doubt grip everybody’s interests in the way it has, but that once it is over, in early July, we have the matter behind us and we can get back to real politics, and that is what I wanted to do and I think it was in the national interest to do it.