Category: 1995

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Comments on the Nolan Report – 19 May 1995

    Below is the summary of John Major’s doorstep comments, made on the 19th May 1995 in Huntingdon, on the Nolan Report.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    – Set up Nolan committee because people are interested in ensuring high standards of conduct in public life

    – Asked Nolan to report to us. Government has said it accepts the broad thrust of the proposals. They are complex and far reaching and many could materially affect the working on the House of Commons.

    – Need to give proper consideration to this report. Have to look at it as a whole. It’s very important and must be got right.

    – Accepted the broad thrust and had debate – all within a week of report being published.

    – All too easy to say implement all the recommendations. That would be silly, partisan and purely for party political reasons. Need to exercise mature good judgement.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

     

    China

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if the President of the Board of Trade has been asked to raise the issue of human rights on his visit to China.

    The Prime Minister: The President of the Board of Trade has been briefed on all aspects of our bilateral relationship, and more generally on conditions in China, including human rights.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl, the letter from the Bundesministerium der Justif to Ms Lisa Mosey, concerning explosive material and baggage handling at Frankfurt, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the reply of 14 March 1995, Official Report, column 498.

  • PMQT – 18 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

    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. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the reduction in unemployment announced yesterday? Is he aware that it is the 24th reduction in the monthly rate to be announced since the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said that unemployment would rise month after month after month? How does Britain’s unemployment rate compare with those in France and Spain, the Governments of which have adopted the policies recommended by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to welcome the fall in unemployment and, of course, the growth in employment, particularly in manufacturing. Unemployment has now fallen by well over 600,000 since 1992 and by nearly 19,000 in the past month–the 20th successive monthly fall. As my hon. Friend intimated, the unemployment rate is substantially higher in Spain and France. In France it is around 12.75 per cent. and in Spain around 20 per cent. It is no accident that they have policies like the minimum wage, the social chapter and other policies that damage employment.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has indicated that he accepts the broad thrust of Nolan. Does he accept the recommendation that Members of Parliament with consultancies should disclose the agreement under which they are paid and how much they are paid?

    The Prime Minister: I established the Nolan committee because I am determined to see higher standards in public life. I believe that that is important. It is important not only that we ensure high standards but that the people of this country see for themselves that this House adopts high standards.

    On the specific point which the right hon. Gentleman puts to me, we must wait to see what the House has to say about that. That is the purpose of the debate this afternoon. We wish to hear the views of the House and take those into account before we reach final decisions on those matters.

    On matters related to the Government, we made it clear that we broadly accept those recommendations, and my right hon. Friends will elaborate on that this afternoon.

    Mr. Blair: What is the Prime Minister’s own view about that recommendation?

    The Prime Minister: The Government will have to table motions on the Order Paper. Not least as a courtesy to the House, we should listen to the views of the House.

    Mr. Blair: Of course. But is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the debate may lead him to overrule the independent recommendation of his own committee? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say whether he supports the disclosure of payments to Members of Parliament, and as he is refusing point blank to allow the committee to investigate payments to political parties, may I tell him that his support for Nolan will ring more than a little hollow?

    The Prime Minister: As far as political parties are concerned, I repeat the point that I made earlier this week. When the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party meet those points set out by the Select Committee on Members’ Interests, a Committee of the House, then, perhaps, they might be in a position to lecture other people on political parties.

    As for matters relating to Back-Bench Members, I repeat the point that I made a moment ago. It is right to listen to the views of the House before reaching a conclusion on the House. If, after such a brief period of Front-Bench authority, the right hon. Gentleman is so arrogant that he no longer wishes to hear the views of the House, he will live to regret that.

    Mr. Cash: Given my right hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for consultation with regard to Government policies and given that the European Commission and Mr. Santer have just published the Commission’s White Paper regarding the future of Europe in so far as it affects the intergovernmental conference, can my right hon. Friend give an absolute assurance to the House that in good time and as soon as possible–before the summer recess– we can have a White Paper on European policy as it affects the United Kingdom in relation to that intergovernmental conference?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear to the House on a number of occasions that we are now examining in detail, in Cabinet sub-committees, the British position as to how we will approach the intergovernmental conference. When we have concluded that detailed consideration, it will, of course, be a matter for discussion in the House. That was the case before the Maastricht treaty and it will be the case before the next intergovernmental conference.

     

    Q2. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Winnick: In view of the latest developments on sleaze in the House, is it not now clear that the recommendations of the Nolan committee are the very minimum that need to be put into effect as quickly as possible in aid of the reputation of the House of Commons? Does the Prime Minister accept–perhaps he does not–that Members of Parliament are not elected to be hired as paid lobbyists or consultants and that it is about time the practice was put to an end?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, the House will have the opportunity to debate the Nolan committee this afternoon. As I said to the House a few moments ago, and as I have said on previous occasions, I set up the Nolan committee because I am determined that the House not only has the highest standards, but is seen to have those standards. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the highest standards in politics as a whole, I hope that he will also support the suggestion that the Nolan committee should subsequently look at the position in local government. I hope that he will support that. Since the Opposition are so keen on openness in local government, perhaps the leader of the Labour party will hold in public those inquiries into Labour party activities that he is now holding in private.

     

    Q3. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a minimum wage, whatever the level, would destroy jobs? Does he have any intention of proposing such a policy, not setting a level before the next election and wanting to pass the buck to a union-packed quango, as the Labour party proposes?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I can confirm that a minimum wage would destroy jobs. The House has that on the excellent authority of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who said on one memorable occasion, “Any silly fool knows that.” There is no doubt about it, so of course I can confirm that. For the Labour party these days, a quango a day keeps policy away, because it has announced three so far this week. [Interruption.] Yes, a new quango on Monday, a new quango on Tuesday and a new quango on Wednesday. We await today’s developments with some interest.

     

    Q4. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Jones: Given that the Prime Minister’s objection to publicising the source of Tory party income is that he would not like to expose anonymous donors, what is to stop him publishing the list of non-anonymous donors and also the list of donations and their amounts?

    The Prime Minister: I sometimes wonder whether some Opposition Members understand the importance of privacy in any way on any occasion. In a free and open society, people have the right to donate anonymously if they wish. What is potentially corrupt is when donations buy favours or determine policy. That emphatically does not happen in my party. It emphatically does happen in the Labour party as a part of its constitution.

     

    Q5. Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Sir John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my Devon constituency area, unemployment has dropped by more than 20 per cent. since 1992, that crime figures have decreased by 10 per cent. this year and last year, that a new hospital costing more than £50 million is nearing completion and that hospital waiting lists have been reduced to a maximum of nine months? Does not all that, combined with the growing economy, show that Conservative policies are working well in the west country?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend refers again to the minimum wage, with good reason. There is no doubt that the minimum wage costs jobs. I now see that the Labour party proposes to keep the minimum wage, but not set the level of the minimum wage until after the general election. That will be devolved to someone else.

    The House might recall the deputy leader of the Labour party saying– [Interruption.] I do not know why they laugh at the deputy leader of the Labour party. We are rather fond of him. He said:

    “Some party colleagues have advocated a minimum wage without having the courage of their convictions to state an amount that would make the original commitment meaningful”.

    I wonder who the right hon. Gentleman might have had in mind.

    Mr. John Evans: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of acknowledging that what has fallen in this country is the number of unemployed benefit claimants, that the number of people in this country who are without a job remains as great as ever, and that it is impossible to compare unemployment statistics in Britain, France, Spain or any other European country, because they use entirely different methods of counting?

    The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman would not like the Government to have any credit for anything, even the fall in unemployment, but the fact is that not only has unemployment fallen more dramatically in this country than in any other country in western Europe–far more dramatically than any Opposition Member proposed when the Opposition were talking about unemployment increasing to 5 million–but the number in work has increased.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q6. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Cirencester and Tewkesbury.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If my right hon. Friend were to visit my constituency, he would discover that a large majority of people would prefer a Europe of nation states rather than a European super-state. Will he therefore undertake, at the intergovernmental conference next year, to resist vigorously giving up our opt-outs and the restriction of our veto, which both the President of the European Commission and the Labour party would like to give up?

    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is for national Governments, not the European Commission, to take decisions on Europe’s future at the intergovernmental conference. We will certainly maintain the national veto and we will certainly not accept any attempt to end the opt-outs that I negotiated in the Maastricht treaty.

    I look to see the European Union succeed, but on the basis of close co- operation between independent sovereign states. I do not believe that, in the long term, the European Union could or would succeed on any other basis. I believe that the proposition for a substantial amount of further centralisation in Europe would do great damage to Europe. It would split it asunder and it should be resisted.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Hughes: In this 50th anniversary year of VE day and VJ day and in view of the widespread support across the House, will the Prime Minister meet soon with a deputation from the Royal British Legion to hear the case as to how, at very little cost to the public purse, the four remaining injustices for war widows or service people may be corrected this year? War widows and service people often lose housing benefit or council tax; they may be ineligible for legal aid to pursue claims for injury; they may be unable to hold on to their pensions if they remarry following the death of their spouses who were killed in active service in the past 20 years; and, if they marry someone subsequent to that person’s war service, they cannot inherit their spouse’s pension.

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the extent to which we have taken care over the years to ensure that war widows and others who faced particular difficulty during the war are treated fairly. In 1979, the Conservative Government corrected many of the anomalies that the previous Government had left untouched for a very long time. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of those four points, I shall examine them.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the name, former occupation and supervising Minister of each special adviser currently employed from any Government funding source; and if he will list the salary range of such advisers as of 5 May; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: There are 36 special advisers currently employed by Government Departments; details of their names, former occupations, and Ministers are as follows. For information on the salary range of special advisers I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 28 February 1995, Official Report, columns 484-85 .

    The following is the information:

    Name |Former occupation |Minister

    —————————————————————————————————————————————-

    1. Adams |Personal Assistant to the Right Hon. John Gummer |Secretary of State for the Environment
    2. Barnes |Management Consultant, Boston Consulting Group |Secretary of State for Social Security
    3. Bercow |Director, Rowland Sallingbury Casey |Chief Secretary
    4. Blackwell |Partner, McKinsey and Co. Consultants |Prime Minister
    5. Blunt |Public Affairs Consultant, PI Political |Secretary of State for Defence

    Miss A. Broom |Freelance Political Consultant |Secretary of State for Employment

    1. Burke* |Director, Green Alliance |Secretary of State for Environment
    2. Caine |Desk Officer, Conservative Research Department |Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
    3. Collins |Communications Director, Conservative Central Office |Prime Minister

    Dr. E. Cottrell |Assistant Director, Conservative Research Department |Secretary of State for Education

    Dr. W. Eltis* |Director General, National and Economic Development Office |President of the Board of Trade

    Miss C. Fairbairn |Strategy Consultant, McKinsey and Co. Consultants |Prime Minister

    1. Fraser |Assistant Director, Conservative Research Department |Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
    2. Hockley |Economic Adviser, Air Transport Users Council, and Freelance Adviser |Secretary of State for Health

    Miss S. Hole |Secretary to Lord Rothschild |Chief Whip

    1. Izatt |Research Assistant to Mr. Raymond Robertson MP |Secretary of State for Scotland
    2. Kemp* |Owner of ODP Nexus Ltd. |President of the Board of Trade
    3. Maclay |Economic Researcher, Pieda plc |Secretary of State for Scotland
    4. Maclay |Associate Editor, “The European” |Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
    5. Marsh |Writer and Researcher on Environment and Local Government, Conservative Central Office |Secretary of State for Health

    Ms S. McEwean |Account Executive Namara Cowan Ltd. |Lord Privy Seal

    1. McManus |Desk Officer for Wales, Conservative Central Office |Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
    2. Moman |Self Employed Consultant and Writer |Lord President
    3. O’Connor* |Self Employed Architect |Secretary of State for the Environment

    Mrs. K. Ramsay |Desk Officer, Conservative Central Office Research Department |Prime Minister

    1. Rock |Assistant Director Conservative Central Office |Home Secretary
    2. Ruffley |Solicitor, Clifford Chance |Chancellor of the Exchequer
    3. Rutley |Business Development Director, Pepsi Cola |Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
    4. Simmonds |Researcher, BBC Political Research Unit |Secretary of State for Transport
    5. Soskin |Chief Executive of Asquith Courts Schools Ltd. |Prime Minister

    Lady Strathnaver |Adviser to Right Hon. Michael Heseltine MP |President of the Board of Trade

    1. True |Director, Public Policy Unit |Prime Minister

    Miss A. Warburton |Private Secretary |Prime Minister

    Miss R. Whetstone |Head of Political Section, Conservative Central Office |Home Secretary

    1. Williams |Governing Body of Rugby School, also Freelance Journalist and Writer |Secretary of State for Wales
    2. Williams |Company Secretary, Williams Lea Group |Prime Minister

    Note:

    Special advisers fall into two categories, political and those with specialised expertise relevant to their appropriate Secretary of State. The latter are indicated by an asterisk.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 May 1995.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

    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.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the United Nations the letter of 20 February from the Bundesminsterium der Justig to Mrs. Lisa Mosey of Glossop, relating to the Lockerbie bombing, a copy of which has been sent to him.

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Review Bodies

    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the current membership of the School Teachers Review Body and the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration.

    The Prime Minister: The current membership, with effect from 1 April 1995, is as follows:

    Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration

    Mr. Brandon Gough (Chairman)

    Ms Christina Boyden

    Miss Sally Field

    Dr. Elizabeth Nelson

    Mr. David Penton

    Mr. Michael Innes

    Mr. John Bennigsen

    Mrs. Beryl Brewer

    School Teachers Review Body

    Mr. John Gardiner (Chairman)

    Mrs. Brigita Amey

    Mrs. Gill Rostron

    Mrs. Anna Vinton

    Mr. Michael Harding

    Mrs. Julia Cuthbertson

    Mr. Phillip Halsey CB LVO

    Mrs. Elizabeth Drummond

    Sir Alan Cox CBE

     

    Lady Cobham

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister how many quangos Lady Cobham has been appointed to; and if he will list them; and what salary is paid to her in respect of each appointment.

    The Prime Minister: According to the information available to the public appointments unit, Lady Cobham currently holds four ministerial appointments to public bodies as follows:

    Body |Post |Salary

    —————————————————————–

    London Docklands development corporation |Member |£6,830

    Museum and Galleries Commission |Member |Unpaid

    Victoria and Albert museum |Trustee|Unpaid

    Historic Palaces advisory group |Member |Unpaid

     

    Hong Kong

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister what is his latest assessment of the potential to maintain and develop trade links with Hong Kong in future years; what action is being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to encourage inward investment from and outward investment to Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Hong Kong is our 12th largest market and I expect trading links to continue at this level well into the future. The Department of Trade and Industry maintains a strong promotional programme to encourage British business to take full advantage of the opportunities Hong Kong offers. British investment in Hong Kong, which is very substantial, continues to grow. The Department of Trade and Industry’s Invest in Britain Bureau has recently established an office in Hong Kong to encourage greater flows of investment from the Asia Pacific, including Hong Kong.

     

    Former Prime Ministers

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister what (a) allowances and (b) facilities are currently available to former Prime Ministers who serve in (i) either or (ii) neither House of Parliament.

    The Prime Minister: In addition to the normal allowances for which they are eligible as members of either House of Parliament, former Prime Ministers receive a financial allowance to help meet the continuing additional office costs which they are liable to incur because of their special positions in public life. This allowance is payable in respect of actual office and secretarial expenses incurred in connection with public duties arising from their previous tenure of the office of Prime Minister, up to an amount equal to that of the parliamentary office costs allowance. The allowance is not payable to a former Prime Minister occupying the position of Leader of the Opposition and therefore in receipt of Short money.

    Other facilities available to all former Prime Ministers are: physical protection, as necessary; the use of an official car; access to the official papers of their Administration. Briefing and help from local posts may also be provided in connection with overseas visits.

     

    Public Bodies

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister which non-departmental bodies within the responsibility of his Department are subject to scrutiny by (a) the ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by the citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 15 May 1995]: None.

  • PMQT – 16 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

    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. Griffiths: As the vast majority of the British public want to see the accounts of political parties open to maximum public scrutiny, will the Prime Minister join Labour in calling for the Nolan committee to examine all aspects of party political funding? Or what has he got to hide?

    The Prime Minister: As the whole House knows, within the past 18 months the Home Affairs Select Committee conducted a full inquiry into these matters. Subsequent to that inquiry, the Conservative party has implemented in full the code of practice drawn up by the Committee. The Labour party has refused to do so.

    Mr. Lamont: Will the Prime Minister take an early opportunity to point out to the public that almost every country in Europe has had to put up taxes to deal with the effect on deficits of the recession? Will he also point out that, even after recent tax increases, the tax burden in this country in the 1990s will be lower than it was in the 1980s, just as it was lower in the 1980s than in the 1970s, including deficits? Will my right hon. Friend also point out that, thanks to Conservative Governments, this country has by a long way one of the lowest tax burdens in Europe?

    The Prime Minister rose — [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend is entirely right– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    The Prime Minister: I commend to hon. Members opposite the excellent speech that my right hon. Friend made on this matter on Friday last week. As a result of the recovery, and despite the tax changes that we were compelled by the recession to make, households will actually be about £250 a year better off on average after tax and inflation this year.

    Mr. Blair: Given the latest pay and perks scandal in the utilities at the weekend and today’s massive rise in electricity profits, does the Prime Minister recognise that the utilities have degenerated into an unseemly racket and that the sooner he orders a thorough overhaul of their system of regulation the better? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have no more barracking from sedentary positions by individual Back Benchers. They will be named the next time.

    The Prime Minister: Everyone wishes to see consumers protected. That is precisely why we have regulators to control prices and why, when necessary, the regulators have acted to control prices. Utility prices have fallen during the period of privatisation.

    Although I have not yet had the opportunity to consider in detail the proposals of the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have to say that artificial plans to control profits smack very much of old Labour, not new Labour. The determination of what the Opposition call “reasonable profits” seems to me to be impossible. Who determines their level? Who says what is reasonable? What happens when profits bounce back after a period in which there have been losses? Do they apply just to the utilities or to other industries? These are the sort of questions that we would have asked of the Labour party in the 1970s; now we discover that we must ask them of the Labour party in the 1990s as well.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm the following? Electricity prices in real terms for domestic households have risen since privatisation, as the House of Commons Library confirmed this morning; water charges have risen by more than 40 per cent. since privatisation; gas complaints are up by 150 per cent. in the past year– [Interruption.] He can cap rail fares only by promising an open-ended subsidy from the taxpayer to privatised operators. Why does he always stick up for the excess profits and the managers who make themselves into millionaires rather than the hard-pressed consumer, who is forced to use such monopoly services and is fed up with the way they are being run?

    The Prime Minister: That was very well prepared, but almost entirely inaccurate. The reality is that the nationalised industries once cost the taxpayer £50 million a week and the privatised industries now yield £50 million a week. The average price of domestic electricity to households has fallen by 8.5 per cent. in real terms over the past two years; the price of gas has fallen by more than 20 per cent. in real terms since privatisation; BT’s main prices have fallen by more than 35 per cent. in real terms since privatisation; Britain’s water is now among the cleanest in Europe– [Interruption.] When those industries were all nationalised, prices went up year after year after year. The Opposition would like to control and regulate from the centre; they are determined to go back to when prices went up and not down year after year after year.

    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday’s vote by the police, which showed that they do not wish routinely to carry arms? Does he feel, like me, that the best way in which to protect the police from those who carry arms is to increase the sentences that we can inflict on such people, and will he consider bringing back the death penalty for the murder of police officers?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly very strongly support the decision not to carry firearms taken by the police in their ballot yesterday. That is wholly in tradition with policing in this country. I believe that it is the right decision and I warmly congratulate the police on having reached it. In recent years, we have increased the penalties for a large number of offences. I shall not retail them all at this moment, but I will willingly set them out in a parliamentary answer if my hon. Friend wishes me to do so. As my hon. Friend knows, I personally do not favour the return of capital punishment.

    Mr. Ashdown: If the Conservative party has put its house in order on the question of funding, why will the Prime Minister not allow Lord Nolan to look into it? Does not the question of funding of all political parties go to the heart of the public’s concern about trust in our political system? Does the Prime Minister not realise that, while he got high marks for establishing the Nolan committee, he will get no marks if he now seeks to turn what he told us was to be the public’s bloodhound into the Prime Minister’s poodle?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone who has studied the membership of the Nolan committee or knows any of its members would remotely recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s description of it. As he knows, there are only two ways of funding political parties in a free democracy. One is by subscription or donation freely given, and it is right in an open society that donors, if they wish, should preserve anonymity. [Interruption.] The other way is to fund political parties out of taxpayers’ money. I do not favour that way and I hope that we shall not go in that direction. What is wrong about funding of political parties is when the funding of a party actually buys influence over its policy. [Interruption.] That is what is happening with the Opposition, where trade unions have 70 per cent. of the votes in Labour policy-making bodies, and even the proposal for dramatic reform would only diminish that to 50 per cent.

    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been signed there remains a serious threat of proliferation, and that the possession of a nuclear weapon is a measure of deterrence against those who would possess nuclear devices? Does he not find it absurd that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen say that they would hold Trident but would never use it? Does he think that that would deter anybody?

    The Prime Minister: I suppose that there is a logical case for saying that one would scrap Trident–although I passionately disagree with that case, as I believe that Trident is necessary as a deterrent–but it is absolutely intellectually unsustainable to say that one would have Trident as a deterrent, but to tell those whom it is there to deter that one would never use it. If that is their position, the Opposition might as well take the money and pour it down the nearest drain.

     

    Q2. Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Griffiths: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there are now an extra 500,000 people, notably those on low incomes, paying tax, principally because of the cuts in the married person’s allowance last month, and that, after 16 years of Tory government, there are a record 26.2 million people paying income tax? Is the message not clear: “Tory Governments damage your wallet”?

    The Prime Minister: First I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, if we had retained the Labour tax regime, there would have been an extra 1 million people in tax today. As for his specific questions, there are two substantive reasons why more people are paying tax this year. One is wage drift upwards. The second is the number of people who were unemployed but who are now in work and paying taxes. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that drop in unemployment.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Jenkin: Further to the notice that I have given my right hon. Friend, as we approach the 1996 intergovernmental conference in Europe, and more particularly as we approach the ‘reflections’ group meeting in the summer, will he undertake to publish the Government’s contribution to that group? Is it not essential that the IGC should address not stories about square strawberries and straight bananas, but the real public anxieties about growing European Union power–anxieties which the Leader of the Opposition apparently does not share, as he would give away the veto? Like one of his predecessors, the right hon. Gentleman may be fit to become a European Commissioner one day, but he is unfit to lead this nation.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of the matter that he proposed to raise. I certainly agree that the European Union needs to be more responsive to the views of its people, with less interference and less red tape. We shall enter the IGC with a positive agenda, providing for more intergovernmental co-operation in a Europe of nation states, including co-operation in foreign policy, in defence and in the international battle against crime.

    I believe that the European Union, both at the IGC and beyond, should give more consideration to Europe’s place in the world rather than to the internal politics of the nations currently within it. We shall also press for more subsidiarity, more action against fraud and mismanagement, and a strengthened role for national parliaments. We shall not surrender our veto or our opt-outs from the social chapter and the single currency. I will consider my hon. Friend’s request that we should publish our paper.

     

    Q4. Mr. Wicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Wicks: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement of his Health Minister, Baroness Cumberlege, speaking to the Royal College of Nursing, that

    “community care clearly isn’t working”

    and, if so, what does he intend to do about it?

    The Prime Minister: I understand from my hon. and noble Friend–who is more familiar with the quotation than I am–that the hon. Gentleman has quoted the remark out of context.

     

    Q5. Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a tax-raising legislative assembly in Edinburgh which fails to address the West Lothian question and the number of Members from Scotland in this House is bound to be unworkable and will be merely a stepping stone to separation?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be unworkable because some questions about it are unanswered and unanswerable. No one has yet explained why Scottish Members should be able to vote on English matters while English Members would not be able to vote on Scottish matters. There is silence from the Opposition on that. No one has yet explained why people who live in Scotland should pay more tax simply for the pleasure of being in Scotland. Again, there is silence from the Opposition. If the Opposition were serious about the constitution of Scotland, they would long ago have been able to answer a range of questions on the matter. Yet they still cannot answer them. Their policy is bad for Scotland, bad for the economy and bad for the United Kingdom.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Government Announcements

    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister what is the Cabinet Committee on policy co-ordination and presentation in supervising Government announcements, irrespective of department; and how a distinction is made between the objective presentation and timing of these announcements and their use for party political benefits.

    The Prime Minister: I published the terms of reference of the ministerial committee on the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy on 21 March 1995 Official Report, column 112. The committee’s terms of reference make it clear that the committee’s role is to consider the co-ordination and presentation of Government, as distinct from party, policy. It is therefore subject to the published conventions relating to Government publicity.

     

    No. 10 Downing Street

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister what steps he takes to ensure that the address No. 10 Downing Street is not used in connection with private business activities.

    The Prime Minister: I know of no reason to believe that the No. 10 Downing Street address has been improperly used.

     

    Churchill Papers

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the state papers donated to Churchill College, Cambridge, in each case giving the date the item was donated.

    The Prime Minister: The Churchill archive comprises many thousand documents. It would be disproportionately costly to list the state papers in the archive individually.

    The papers relating to Sir Winston Churchill’s ministerial and prime ministerial appointments, claimed by the Crown as state papers, were transferred to Churchill College on the same day as the agreement to purchase the non-state papers was concluded. The effective date of transfer was 26 April 1995.

     

    Ministerial Meetings

    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the current President of the European Commission.

    The Prime Minister: I last saw Mr. Santer in Paris on 8 May, and will see him for substantive talks about when he comes to London on 17 May.

     

    Official Gifts

    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister who is responsible for maintaining the official inventory of gifts given to the office of the Prime Minister and kept at No. 10; and what additions have been made to the list since 1979.

    The Prime Minister: The inventory is maintained by staff within No. 10 in accordance with the rules in “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” and is subject to the normal audit procedures. The details of gifts received are not made public.

    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister what official gifts have been received by officials travelling with him abroad during the last 12 months.

    The Prime Minister: Gifts received by officials are dealt with in accordance with the official rules. The details are not made public.

    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister how much has been donated to charity arising from the sale of official gifts given to Prime Ministers since 1979.

    The Prime Minister: I have made it a practice to donate to charity all the proceeds from sales of gifts which I have retained under the guidelines set out in “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”.

    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total value of gifts to Prime Ministers since 1979 sold from the official inventory.

    The Prime Minister: Sales from the inventory have been carried out in accordance with “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”. It is not the practice to publish details.

    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister what record is kept official gifts given to business representatives travelling with him on official visits abroad.

    The Prime Minister: No gifts are given by the British Government. Gifts by foreign Governments are a matter for them.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will acquire for the video library of No. 10 Downing Street the video of Alan Francovitch’s film. “The Maltese Double Cross”.

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

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister for what reason Her Majesty’s Government declined to allow Chief Superintendent Gilchrist of Dumfries and Galloway police to interview Mr. O’Neill and Mr. Tuzcu, baggage handlers at the Rhein-Main airport in Frankfurt, when they were brought to the United Kingdom in connection with the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister: Her Majesty’s Government did not and would not interfere in decisions regarding the conduct of the Lockerbie investigation.

     

    Gibraltar

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions Gibraltar’s status within the European Union has been raised formally in the Heads of Government Council of Ministers since he became Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister: I do not recall any such occasion.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions Gibraltar’s status (a) within the European Union and (b) with Spain has been raised by him since he became Prime Minister at his meetings with the Prime Minister of Spain.

    The Prime Minister: I last discussed Gibraltar in detail with the Prime Minister of Spain in May 1991. I have met him since on a number of occasions, but have not discussed the points mentioned by the hon. Member.

     

    Royal British Legion

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister when he last met representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss the establishment of a ministry of veterans affairs; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have not personally met representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss a ministry of veterans affairs but my noble Friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Henley did so on my behalf on 23 November 1994. My view remains that such a Ministry would add an extra layer of bureaucracy without necessarily resulting in a better service for ex-service men and women. The Government’s continuing commitment is to improve standards for every citizen.

     

    Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the application of the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to Scotland, by comparison to how they apply in England; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 apply equally to all parts of the United Kingdom.

     

    Departmental Seminars

    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister whether departmental seminars have been organised under the auspices of the Cabinet Office with the aim of taking the presentational initiative away from the Government’s critics.

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    No. 10 Policy Unit

    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister whether the No. 10 policy unit and its head, Norman Blackwell, have any party political responsibilities; and what rules exist on the subject.

    The Prime Minister: The members of the policy unit are either career civil servants or employed as special advisers, and are subject to the general rules applicable to those groups. They have no party political responsibilities at national level. The rules on political activities for special advisers are set out in the model appointment letter for special advisers, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. I refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 24 April 1995, Official Report, column 373 .

    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister what functional relationship exists between the Cabinet committee on policy co-ordination and presentation and the No. 10 policy unit; and how this is discharged.

    The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister’s policy unit contributes to the work of the Cabinet committee on policy co-ordination and presentation as appropriate. The head of the policy unit attends meetings of this and other Cabinet committees as required.

     

    World War Two

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement on 25 April, Official Report, column 667, if he will list the 18 hon. Members who saw active service in world war two; and if he will also list those who served in the Merchant Navy during the war.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 May]: The figure to which I referred on 25 April derived from information provided by the House of Commons authorities. I understand that they now believe that at least 20 hon. Members saw active service in world war two, including those who served in the Merchant Navy. It is a matter for hon. Members whether they wish to make their war record known.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1995 Scottish Conservative Conference – 12 May 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association Annual Conference at the Royal Concert Hall in Glasgow on Friday 12th May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me turn first to those Conservative councillors who lost their seats in Scotland last month and in England and Wales last week.

    From my time as a councillor, I know how bitter defeat feels. I know the disappointment when a good local record is swept aside by national politics.

    So let me say to them: you served local people ably and well. You served local democracy well. Your defeats were none of your doing. And I am proud of what you achieved.

    There are two things we can do after such a defeat. We can grumble and be disillusioned.

    Or we can fight back.

    We can work to make sure that the councils our opponents won this spring come back to us at the first opportunity.

    So we will keep an eagle eye on them.

    We shall set up a “Council Watch” to see how they keep their promises. To see how they spend your money. To see how they put your council tax up.

    We must put disappointment aside. Go out into local communities. Work. Work. Work. Begin now to prepare for the next elections. And when they come we will take back those councils, each and every one of them.

    Politics is in a strange mood at the moment.

    Curiously this is partly because we have won the battle of ideas and forced Labour to deny some of their ancient prejudices.

    We’ve won the battle for an enterprise economy.

    For individual choice. For consumer power.

    We’ve defeated the old socialist ideas of state control and public ownership.

    Of course, Labour still hanker for them in private. But in public they’ve been forced to claim that they disown all the values they once believed in.

    All gone. The Socialist cupboard, we are told, is bare after the most comprehensive philosophical wipe out in British political history.

    Well, I am a bit suspicious about that. Some changes, yes.

    But if Labour could shed so easily the values they held for so long, how deep is their commitment to values they’ve lifted from us likely to be?

    I’ll tell you. As deep as electoral convenience needs it to be. Labour know that the electorate wants Tory values. So they have an extraordinary election cry.

    “We were wrong all the time. The Conservatives were right. But trust us to behave ourselves in future. Oh, and by the way, please don’t ask us about policies.”

    We’re very generous hearted, we British, We always forgive sinners who repent and Labour is benefiting from that at the moment. But we’re also discriminating and I think people will ask “if they were wrong before, why should we believe they’ll be right in future?”

    It’s a good question – and we’ll go on asking it.

    The extraordinary thing about our Party is that, after 16 years in government, it is still fizzing with ideas.

    In this week alone we have announced measures to:

    – cut electricity bills

    – make our Post Office more competitive

    – and crack down on drugs

    And before, the Commons rises for the summer we will:

    – publish a Housing While Paper

    – launch a major new national volunteering programme

    – invite the first private Sector bids to run British Rail services

    – announce a fares policy to help commuters

    – publish a second Competitiveness White Paper

    – consult widely on ID Cards

    – and announce a bold expansion of nursery education.

    We already have a range of ideas which will keep us moving forward for years.

    But it is right for us now to discuss with you, the bedrock of our Party, what you want to see in the next Manifesto.

    A Manifesto grown from our grassroots, as we build the next phase of Conservatism.

    I came from the grassroots of the Party.

    I know the wealth of talent and experience our supporters have to offer.

    So I will be the first leader in our Party’s history to give every member in every constituency an historic opportunity.

    An invitation to help shape the policies of the future.

    I have already set up Policy Groups on more than 30 policy areas, chaired by senior Ministers, and including representatives of all parts of the Party. Their first reports will reach me by the end of June.

    Now it is right to unveil the next stage of this unprecedented exercise in consultation.

    From this summer to next spring there will be a series of discussions across the party and across the country.

    Each discussion will be around the Five Themes set out last month:

    – how to secure economic prosperity

    – how to improve further opportunity and choice for everyone

    – how to improve decent, commonsense values in law and order

    – how to deliver first-class public services

    – And how to build pride in the nation.

    These discussions will be detailed and genuine. They will take place on an agenda which will be shaped by the work of the relevant Policy Groups.

    I want Conservatives up and down the country to take part in this.

    CPC groups – as ever – will form the core of policy discussion at constituency level. But we intend to involve as many party members as possible.

    These discussions will be followed by Conferences here in Scotland, Wales and across England, where we can bring these ideas together.

    The developing agenda – not detailed Manifesto points – will begin to be unveiled at next year’s Central Council Meeting in Harrogate.

    I will play an active role in leading this process, together with all my colleagues.

    The Conservative Party has always listened to the people.

    That is why we were the first party to support the Right to Buy.

    The first to introduce Trade Union democracy. The first to give parents the right to know about their children’s schools.

    So we will begin this massive consultation exercise within our party, and then will broaden it to engage and enthuse the public as a whole.

    So I am going to go out and about. To meet you, to talk to you and to listen to you.

    To build a People’s Policy to bridge the gap between the doorsteps of Britain and the Corridors of Power.

    I’m going to share with you the hopes I have for this country of ours. The problems we face. The opportunities we have. I’m going to talk about the long-term as well as the short-term.

    And when we’ve reached a policy conclusion, I’m going to ask the nation for a majority sufficient to put it into operation.

    I believe that the commonsense of Conservatives up and down the land is the best guarantee that we will enter the 21st century with the right policies for our nation’s future.

    Let me turn to two or three of the five themes. First, policies to spread economic prosperity and security.

    People feel secure when:

    – their jobs are secure

    – their living standards grow steadily year after year

    – and they can be confident that their children will have a better future. I know of no-one who doesn’t want that.

    But it doesn’t happen by magic.

    If we’re really determined to build security and prosperity for all – as I am – then we must continue to build an enterprise economy. And to get that we must take the tough decisions to create it.

    Sometimes they’ll be unpopular. Because it means resisting the clamour of every interest group for higher spending.

    It means clamping down on inflation, however loud the protests. And it means cutting state borrowing, whatever the moans.

    We’ve been doing that. And it is the right thing to do – and to do what is right, however, difficult, is not a bad creed for politics.

    And, as a result, we can now look forward to the best and most prolonged period of economic recovery for decades.

    This is no ordinary recovery. What we may be seeing – provided we can carry it fully through – is the reawakening of Britain as a growing economic power.

    And before our critics scoff let me give them some examples.

    When we came to office, Scotland was the home of dying industries, poor productivity and mass trade union power. Frankly, it was an economic mess.

    Today Scotland is in the forefront of new technologies. Scotland makes more than a third of all the personal computers manufactured across Europe and over half of all Europe’s cash machines.

    Scotland is attracting inward investment from companies in Germany, Japan, the United States and across the globe.

    They are attracted here by the enterprise culture built by the Tories, the corporate tax structures, designed by the Tories, and our lack of the Social Chapter insisted on by the Tories.

    Since 1980 Scotland has seen self-employment increase by two-thirds.

    For the first time in decades, the United Kingdom is increasing its market share of exports.

    And we are now paying our way in the world.

    For years we looked enviously at the industrial competitiveness of Japan. So we attracted their investment. Now Japanese companies based in Britain are exporting their products from here back to Japan.

    And now, just think about this. Today, when you put visible and invisible trade together, the UK is in surplus with Japan.

    How many of us ever thought we would see that happen again? That transformation is remarkable.

    And it’s been achieved by implementing the Conservative agenda of reducing burdens on business. Cutting back the power of shop stewards.

    Getting Whitehall off the backs of our companies. Lowering corporate taxes. Resisting unnecessary regulations from Brussels.

    And above all, by setting free the talent and skill of individuals right across this country. No serious observer can doubt these changes.

    And yet the country had better be warned: every aspect of this transformation would be reversed in one term of Labour government.

    We were told that by changing Clause IV Labour showed they were reformed: they no longer believed in nationalisation. At last, they were a modern party.

    But what have they spent the last fourteen days doing?

    Pledging themselves to reverse rail privatisation – even though it will produce lower rail fares.

    Promising to end compulsory competitive tendering – even though it has saved council taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds.

    Threatening new controls on privatised companies – even though their increased efficiency has produced a much better deal for consumers.

    And trying to block the privatisation of the nuclear industry – even though it will cut electricity bills right across the country.

    What this shows is that there is still a yawning credibility gap between what Labour says and what Labour does.

    Do real Labour honestly worry about the profitability of our companies at ward meetings in Govan and Monklands?

    Do they agonise about the “insecurities” of the middle classes in Constituency Labour Parties in Tayside?

    Do delegates at Labour Conferences rack their brains to propose new policies to help private enterprise?

    Of course not. You only have to ask the questions to know the answer.

    If they were really serious they’d stop supporting the Social Chapter.

    They’d drop their ideas to force employers to recognise trade unions.

    They’d abandon their commitment to a minimum wage.

    They won’t, of course. Because their commitment to the market is skin-deep. Were they to be in government, their Party would resurrect the calls for Socialism.

    Daily our warnings are being proved right.

    We always said the minimum wage would be damaging to jobs. And this week has proved it

    First the CBI made it clear that they believe that any minimum wage would destroy jobs, drive away investment and cripple our companies.

    And now we learn of a huge row within the Shadow Cabinet.

    John Prescott attacked Gordon Brown’s figures on the minimum wage.

    Gordon Brown attacked John Prescott. So in the end, decisive New Labour could only agree not to publish a figure at all.

    Let me help them out of their dilemma. A minimum wage would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and hurt most those who are most vulnerable.

    And that is why we believe it is wrong.

    This little cameo creeping out from behind the mask shows how utterly unfit for office Labour still are.

    They have ideas aplenty on how to make companies less competitive but none on how to help them win.

    That is why, next time as last time, the economy will be an area where we will win – and win well.

    I want to say a word or two about crime.

    We’ve always stood for decent commonsense values and for strong law and order.

    We’ve always stood by the police.

    Our first thought has always been for the victim.

    And we’ve always believed in tough action against crime, And we’ve backed up our views with votes in the House of Commons.

    The battle against crime is constant. It’s never easy. It has to be fought consistently over years.

    Tougher penalties. New crime prevention measures. More powers for the police. That’s what we have been doing.

    The statistics show that crime in Scotland is falling. Good – but not good enough.

    So we have introduced measures which will have a significant effect on the fight against criminality.

    We are introducing a national DNA database to harness the advances of science against the criminal.

    This may prove to be the biggest breakthrough in the detection of crime since the invention of fingerprinting.

    From now on, those who break the law had better know that the best techniques of modern technology will be used to track them down.

    Just one drop of blood or tissue or hair at a crime scene could be enough to identify and catch a criminal.

    We have set up a national fingerprint register.

    And in the next few weeks a national database of criminal records will go live to provide a valuable new weapon against convicted and persistent criminals.

    From now on, if someone is arrested in Glasgow the police will be able to know immediately whether they have also been committing crimes in London.

    And our new Criminal Justice Bill in Scotland will give the courts and the police a wider range of powers than ever before to catch, charge and convict criminals.

    All these changes are designed to make our country safer and put more thugs behind bars.

    But we have fought this battle alone without Opposition support. Where have Labour been as we have waged this war?

    When we strengthened police powers to stop and search criminals, were Labour tough on criminals? No, they voted against.

    When we gave the police new powers to deal with riots, were Labour tough on rioters? No, they voted against.

    When we ensured that all prisoners serve at least half their sentences in prison, were Labour tough on prisoners? No, they voted against.

    And when we passed laws to fight terrorists who bomb and maim the innocent, were Labour tough on terrorists?

    Hazard a guess.

    No, they voted against.

    But most revealing of all, how did Mr Blair describe Michael Howard’s 27 measures to fight crime?

    Measures to crack down on young offenders. Measures to tackle bail bandits. Measures to stop professional crooks running rings round the courts. Measures called for by the police for years.

    Mr Blair called them “gimmicks”. Gimmicks.

    Well, I don’t call them gimmicks.

    The view I take of crime is quite straightforward. We are engaged in a war against the criminal.

    In that cause we should put the rights of the public first and the rights of criminals second.

    Most people are perfectly able to distinguish right from wrong.

    If people break the law, they should not be excused.

    They should not be pampered.

    They should be punished.

    That is what that people of this country expect. That is what this Party expects.

    That is what I believe.

    And that is what our policies will deliver.

    Let me just say a few words about policy on Europe. Britain’s future depends on us getting that right.

    The European Community gives our companies the biggest home market in the world.

    It has brought peace to countries which had fought for centuries.

    And it can increase the influence and prosperity of all the countries within it. It has many virtues.

    So I want Europe to succeed.

    But not at any price.

    And not at the expense of the nation-state.

    I am keen to co-operate with our European partners. But I will not deliver Britain to a federalist future.

    At Maastricht I negotiated long and hard for two key opt-outs against total opposition from our partners.

    Both were vital for our national interests. I secured them.

    I removed Britain from the Social Chapter – making this country a haven for foreign investment, and giving our companies a crucial edge over their competitors.

    And I reserved for us the absolute right to take our own decision, in our own time, about whether we join a single currency or whether we stand aside.

    There has been some speculation in recent days about what will happen to those opt-outs at the next Inter-Governmental Conference.

    So let me tell you.

    Those opt-outs will stay. They are permanent.

    And they are not negotiable.

    In any discussion about Europe’s future, I will always consider Britain’s interests before I decide,

    That is what this country expects. And that is what this party will deliver. Pride in the Nation is a phrase with a particular meaning here in Scotland.

    We have a deep instinct as Conservatives. We care passionately about the nations of the United Kingdom. Our feelings are emotional as well as intellectual.

    There is no other political party in the world whose history is so deeply bound up with the identity of one particular country.

    You couldn’t translate the Conservative and Unionist Party to any other country. Yet for 300 years, it has given voice to the people of a United Kingdom.

    I am proud of our Party. Of its history. Of its record. It has built Britain’s influence in the world.

    It has defended our institutions and our freedoms from threats without and within.

    It has worked unceasingly to spread decent values of democracy and push back the darkness of totalitarianism.

    In a rough, tough world, Britain has a high profile – at the UN, in the G7, in NATO and in Europe.

    We have real influence as we approach the 21st century.

    So it would be a disaster if we of all nations imploded into nationalist divisions of our own.

    Labour’s devolution policy is a shambles. With one speech last year, I forced a U-turn on regional assemblies in England. Since then, Ian Lang and I have asked a series of simple but important questions of Labour’s leaders about their ideas.

    Questions like how much would it cost? They don’t know. What would happen to the Scottish Office? Difficult one, that. And what is their answer to the West Lothian Question?

    Mr Blair said that “The answer to the West Lothian Question is the answer that we’ve always given”.

    Unfortunately for him, they’ve never given an answer.

    In that at least it’s consistent with the rest of Labour’s Scottish policy. There are lots of questions, but rather fewer answers.

    Labour’s approach to devolution is as elusive as the Loch Ness Monster but a good deal more dangerous.

    Nessie brings jobs to Scotland. Devolution would drive them away.

    So, why do Labour support devolution? It’s a good question.

    Not because they really care about the constitution of Scotland. If they did care, they would have found answers to these basic questions.

    Not because they think it make Scotland more prosperous, they are tartan taxers. They accept that it would put Scottish taxes up – and they know that the Scottish business community think it would drive away investment.

    No, the simple reason why Labour support devolution is just to lure votes away from the Scottish Nationalists.

    Yes, they are ready to play with the very survival of our United Kingdom for party political advantage.

    It is the most cynical policy of modern times.

    There could be no clearer demonstration of the difference between parties which talk about convictions and values – and those who live them.

    I scorn such cynicism. And I will never take any lectures from people such as these on the importance of principle in politics.

    And what of the Scottish Nationalists themselves?

    At least they have thought their policy through. It would be profoundly bad for Scotland but it is thought through.

    They admit that if you fiddle with the powers of the United Kingdom Parliament you will ultimately destroy the unity of the United Kingdom itself.

    The SNP aren’t Tartan heroes. They should be seen for what they are.

    They are socialists. They are unilateralists. And they are politically extreme.

    Their message is a contradiction of all Scotland really stands for. A denial of its historic role. Inward looking and introverted.

    They thrive on negative resentment, the culture of criticism. They kick traditional institutions just to feel good. It’s a dangerous game to play.

    The SNP’s approach boils down to one phrase. Socialism in one country.

    It has never worked. It can never work. And our task is to make sure that it is never tried.

    Scotland would pay a high price for independence.

    Taxes here would soar and soar again.

    Independence would be an unpriced menu.

    But I do not rest my opposition to independence solely on that.

    For Scottish independence would hurt not only Scotland, but the rest of the United Kingdom as well.

    All of us – Scots, English, Welsh and Northern Irish – would find ourselves citizens of a lesser county, with a smaller voice in the world, and with less chance to influence our future.

    So we are and will remain the Conservative and Unionist Party. We believe in the Union and in Scotland’s place in it.

    I believe the Union is in the lifeblood of our party and our nation. It’s our duty to stand up and defend it. We won’t shirk that duty.

    So long as I have heart and voice I will defend the Union against all who would weaken it.

    In the interests of all our country some causes are bigger than the transitory rancour of politics. And this is one.

    Those who would seek to marginalise Scotland must be defeated. And with the help of those in this hall they will be.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Committee on Standards in Public Life

    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under the chairmanship of Lord Nolan, is being published today as Command Paper 2850. I should like to express my thanks to Lord Nolan and his colleagues for the way in which they have discharged the initial part of the remit which I announced to the House in October. It is welcome that they have reached unanimous recommendations based on open proceedings, and having taken oral and written evidence from a wide cross-section of opinion. The oral evidence they have taken is included in volume II of the report, and written submissions are to be made available at the Public Record Office.

    Lord Nolan has arranged to send a copy of his Committee’s report to every Member of the House.

    I believe it is important to maintain the highest possible standards and confidence in public life. I therefore welcome the work the committee has done.

    I accept the broad thrust of the committee’s recommendations in so far as they are addressed to the Government. We shall give the report the close study it deserves and then make a detailed response. The recommendations which are addressed to this House are, of course, a matter for the House itself to consider, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will arrange an early opportunity for debate.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

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

     

    Pay Review Bodies

    Mr. Coe: To ask the Prime Minister what is the current membership of the public sector pay review bodies.

    The Prime Minister: The current membership, with effect from 1 April 1995, is listed:

    Senior Salaries Review Body

    Sir Michael Perry CBE (Chairman)

    Professor George Bain

    Mr. Gordon Hourston

    Sir Anthony Wilson

    Sir Sydney Lipworth QC

    Mrs. Rosemary Day

    Miss Patricia Mann

    Mrs. Yve Newbold

    Mr. Mark Sheldon

    Mrs. Beverley Bernard

    Armed Forces Pay Review Body

    Mr. Gordon Hourston (Chairman)

    Mr. Michael Bolton

    Mrs. Dorothy Venables

    Mr. John Cox CBE

    Mr. John Crosby

    Air Chief Marshal Sir Roger Palin KCB OBE

    Mr. Guy Neely

    Sir Gavin Laird CBE (from 1 July 1995)

    Review Body on Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine

    Mr. Michael Bett CBE (Chairman)

    Miss Annie Mackie OBE

    Professor Gillian Raab

    Ms Ruth Lea

    Mrs. Sheila Gleig

    Mrs. Anne Dean

    Mr. Lyndon Hadden

    Mr. Gareth Griffiths

    Following his appointment as First Civil Service Commissioner, Mr. Bett has indicated that he will be stepping down as chairman of the review body once a successor has been appointed.

  • PMQT – 11 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

    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. Prentice: Today, with the publication of the Nolan report, will the Prime Minister take full personal responsibility for the tide of sleaze that has engulfed his Government? Will he now admit that it is quite wrong for Ministers to move seamlessly from the Cabinet room to the boardroom, lining their pockets in the process?

    The Prime Minister: I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the report before he comments on it. He will then see what Lord Nolan has to say about the great majority of men and women in British public life, their standards and their ethics, and he may just regret the way in which he and some of his hon. Friends have attempted, time after time, to issue general smears about specific matters.

     

    Q2. Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

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

    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the size and scale of public rejoicing on Monday stoutly reaffirmed the love that the British people have for this country? They were waving Union Jacks, not tatty-looking red roses. Is it not appropriate to remind people that Labour’s devolution policy would split this country more irrevocably and fundamentally than all Hitler’s armies could possibly have done?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend makes clear, last week’s celebrations were a remarkable occasion. They struck a perfect balance between commemoration and celebration, and I think that they brought a great deal of pleasure to the many men and women whom we were honouring for their service during the war so many years ago. I believe that they also showed that the sentiments that unite us as a nation are far stronger than those sometimes presented as though to disunite us. That is very healthy for the nation as a whole: it is an enormous strength for this country–a strength that should not be put at risk by misguided policy.

    Mr. Blair: People of all political persuasions enjoyed VE day, and I do not think that political capital should be made out of it. Now–is 2.5 per cent. still the Prime Minister’s inflation target?

    The Prime Minister: We set out our inflation target some time ago. It is between 1 and 4 per cent., and in the lower half of that range by the end of this Parliament. It remains the same.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister then disagree with the Bank of England, which says that he will not meet that target?

    The Prime Minister: The Bank of England has made it perfectly clear that it supports the policy that we are carrying out. If the right hon. Gentleman had read the speech by the Governor this morning–I will quote it to him if he wishes, for clearly he has not–he would have seen that the Governor makes very clear the importance of maintaining a strong control of inflation, saying that in recent years we have been very successful in that.

    I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the nearest that the last Labour Government got to low inflation was 8.4 per cent. on rigged figures over one quarter. We have had inflation below 3 per cent. for more than a year.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that the Government are in any position to talk of rigged figures–no, indeed. The Bank of England clearly does not agree that the Prime Minister will meet his target. How does a public rift between the Government and the Bank of England do anything other than damage the credibility of the economy? Does not the fact that rises in interest rates are even being contemplated at the moment, when for millions of people they have barely moved out of recession, show the fundamental weakness of the economy that the Government have never addressed?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the Governor of the Bank of England thinks that it is a weak economy, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he reads the Governor’s speech. The reality is that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are playing both sides of the same policy. They criticise when interest rates go up and they criticise when interest rates do not go up. They simply do not know what they wish to do, except, whatever happens, to criticise it and to make short-term party political capital out of it; they do not give a fig for the long-term health of the British economy.

    Mr. Churchill: Is it not clear that the French people– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard in the House.

    Mr. Churchill: Is it not clear that the French people have no greater love of socialism than the British? Will my right hon. Friend neglect no opportunity to expose the fact that, behind the innocent cherubic face that the Labour party seeks to present to the world, is a party which, every time it has been in government, has wrecked the economy, destroyed business confidence and boosted taxes to very high levels on ordinary working people?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about that. There is one matter in which Labour Governments have always been consistent: unemployment has always gone up, interest rates have gone up, taxes have gone up and prospects have gone down.

     

    Q3. Mr. Simpson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

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

    Mr. Simpson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, under the regulations governing the national lottery, the fingers crossed symbol is the property of the Secretary of State for National Heritage? Does he appreciate that it has come to represent the symbol of his party in that it is all that remains of his strategy for winning local government elections, his guarantee of emergency care beds for the people of London and his own prospects of leading the Conservative party towards its next electoral catastrophe?

    The Prime Minister: During the past four years we have taken decisions that are in the long-term economic and social interests of Britain. Many of them have been difficult and unpopular, but as a result we have inflation lower than we have seen for a long time, unemployment falling faster than anywhere else in Europe, investment showing that British industry is growing and exports which show that in eight or nine months out of the past 14 we broke new records. When did the Labour party ever preside over an economic circumstance remotely like that?

    Mr. Thurnham: When my right hon. Friend next meets Mr. Chirac, will he congratulate him on his presidential victory and remind him how much better it is to be outside the social charter, especially now that unemployment in France is 50 per cent. higher than in this country?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the problems of the social chapter. There is no doubt that right across the rest of the European Union the social chapter costs jobs. Here it does not cost jobs, because we are not part of it. I can reaffirm to the House that neither in the short term nor in the long term will we become part of it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

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

    Mr. Beith: Is the Prime Minister aware of the announcement within the last hour that the Asea Brown Boveri train building works at York is to close with the loss of 700 jobs? Does he recognise that that is a demonstration of the dreadful chaos of rail privatisation and that investment in the railway industry is grinding to a halt as a result? What chance is there that our rail system will have investment and that trains will be built in this country at all?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I know of the job losses at ABB, and I very much regret them. But privatisation is no more responsible for those job losses than it is for an outbreak of measles. The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong to blame privatisation. It was the Government’s private finance initiative which gave ABB the opportunity to bid for contracts such as the Northern line, the Heathrow express rail link and the Jubilee line extension. Unfortunately, ABB did not win any of those contracts, and that is the problem.

    Sir Michael Neubert: As unemployment has come down by 632,000 since the last general election, is continuing to come down by an average of 1,000 per day and is below the European Union average, would it not be absolute folly to reverse that progress by adopting a national minimum wage? If such a policy is to be offered to the British people, do they not have an unchallengeable entitlement to know the level at which it will be set and how many hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost as a result?

    The Prime Minister: There seems to be some dispute among Opposition Members about whether they should proceed with the minimum wage and what its level would be. Certainly, despite their clarity that they wish to have a minimum wage, they are less clear about the level at which they would set it, and I find that rather odd. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is keen enough to tell us that he would enter a single currency in many years’ time, which is a major decision, yet he cannot tell us, even perhaps two years ahead, were he to win the election, what he would do on a relatively minor decision such as the level of the minimum wage.

    The reality is that the Opposition know that a minimum wage would cost jobs and they know that if we knew its level we would be able to calculate that loss. On any reasonable assumption, more than 750,000 people would lose their jobs as a result of Labour dogma.

     

    Q5. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

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

    Mr. Flynn: Is the Prime Minister not shocked by the news that the number of children who were hit and killed by road vehicles increased last year by a staggering 28 per cent.? Is he aware that that was mainly because the fronts of some vehicles are designed for appearance and not safety, with the addition of rigid bull bars which concentrate and multiply the force of accidents at the level of a child’s head? Does he agree with his Ministers that those bars are useless, macho fashion accessories, and will he move swiftly today to avoid future tragedies by banning these deadly bully bars from all public roads?

    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the statistics that the hon. Gentleman mentions or the reason that he ascribes to them. However, in view of what he says I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to examine the matter and, having done so, provide me with his advice. If the hon. Gentleman’s statistics are right, it is of course regrettable. I am glad to say that, overall, the position on road accidents is improving, and I hope that that will continue.

    Mr. Hendry: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the positive reaction in my constituency and throughout the country to yesterday’s White Paper, “Tackling Drugs Together”, which contains the most comprehensive anti-drugs strategy of any Government? Does he agree that the key message to young people should be that all drugs are wrong? Does he also agree that any move by the House to legalise even soft drugs should be rejected because it would fundamentally undermine that message?

    The Prime Minister: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend on the question of drugs, and I take the view that the legalisation even of soft drugs would be a very substantial mistake, not least because soft drugs are so often the route towards people seeking to experiment with harder drugs. It is very unwise for people to experiment with any drugs and we have no intention of legalising them. The proposals that we set out yesterday on tackling drugs have been very widely welcomed. Many experts have commented not only on the comprehensive nature of our proposals, but on the fact that no country in western Europe now has such a comprehensive plan in hand to deal with the desperate problem of drugs.

     

    Q6. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay: Who is to blame for, and what is the cause of, all the negative equity that is blighting hundreds of thousands of households and families? What will be the consequences for the economy and for business if negative equity continues to grow, and what does the Prime Minister intend to do about it?

    The Prime Minister: Fortunately, the amount of negative equity is now half the level it was at its peak and it continues to fall. Clearly, while there is negative equity, it is acting as a drag on the housing market. The more the economy grows, the more unemployment falls, and the more confidence begins to return, the sooner we shall begin to see the complete elimination of negative equity. When that occurs, it will be a very welcome development.