The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1995

  • PMQT – 23 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Border Controls

    Q1. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the issue of the declaration attached to the Single Act on border controls.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I see no need to do so. I do not regard our frontier controls as something to bargain over. I will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain them. I will, of course, look at what needs to be done if the circumstances make it necessary or desirable.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his recent statement that he will take whatever steps are necessary to retain our border controls, in the face of what appears to me to be an obsession in Europe with getting rid of them. Will he consider the possibility of, at the 1996 IGC, seeking to resolve a legislative inadequacy created by a previous Administration by having the declaration changed into a treaty clause, which would stand firm in our courts and in the European Court?

    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend and I agree that any change to our frontier controls is unacceptable. Our European partners know that that is the position. If, at some stage, they were to come under risk, and if it became necessary to seek a treaty amendment, of course I would do so.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 March.

    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.

    Mr. Mitchell: In the course of the right hon. Gentleman’s day, will he take time to consider whether the economic recovery that Mr. George Soros and others forced on him is still proceeding to his satisfaction, or has it been so badly clobbered by unnecessary interest rate and tax increases that the best is already over?

    The Prime Minister: No, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the economic recovery, which is proceeding more effectively in this country than in any other European nation. He will rejoice with me at the 4 per cent. growth last year; the anticipated growth of more than 3 per cent. for this year and for next year; the fact that exports are running at record levels; the fact that employment is rising and unemployment is falling; and, above all, that we have now become one of the most competitive nations in industrial matters in the world. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome all that and I am grateful to him for letting me draw attention to it.

    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive support in the United Kingdom for the reintroduction of corporal punishment for mindless violence– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This House must come to order right away.

    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend encourage our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to look very carefully at what people in the United Kingdom are now demanding as punishment?

    The Prime Minister: I think that many measures could be taken to deal with crime, especially juvenile crime. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have heard what my hon. Friend has said, and that my hon. Friend will give strong support to his measures.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, according to the Government’s own parliamentary answers, the costs of rail privatisation just for British Rail, the Department of Transport and the new regulatory bodies, leaving aside all the other costs, are estimated at more than £300 million?

    The Prime Minister: I saw the right hon. Gentleman this morning and his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) publishing their report on rail privatisation.

    Mr. Donohoe: It is excellent.

    The Prime Minister: That is not quite how I would have described it. As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) inquires, I would have described it as one of the shoddiest pieces of work that I have seen for a long time. The figures that are shown in that report are pure fantasy. They include a whole range of operational costs for the railways, not in preparation for privatisation but to provide a modern railway service across this country, which is what we seek to do.

    Mr. Blair: I asked the Prime Minister a specific factual question. Is it true– [Interruption.] Let us just get the facts. Is it true, according to the parliamentary answers that have been given, that the costs just for those bodies, leaving aside other matters, is more than £300 million? Will he confirm that British Rail has estimated that it will spend an extra £100 million in the next two years directly as a result of privatisation–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that, or with dealing with one aspect of privatisation. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Hon. Members: Who was it?

    Madam Speaker: George Foulkes. This is such a waste of time during 15 precious minutes.

    The Prime Minister: The reality is that the true costs of privatisation are but one fraction of those claimed by the Labour party. They are a fraction of the costs of the industry, and a very small price to pay for a modern railway serving the nation in the way we wish to see it served.

    Mr. Blair: People will notice that the Prime Minister has not disputed the figures that have been put. Will he confirm that when we add to those figures the metropolitan railway grant, recognised by the Department of Transport as costing £200 million this year and £200 million next year, and when we take even a fraction of the redundancy cost, the cost is more than £1 billion? Let us have a detailed refutation. Would not it be better if that £1,000 million were spent not on a privatisation that nobody wants but on delivering the modern railway network that the nation needs?

    The Prime Minister: No, I have to repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that the figures that he quotes, which were used earlier this morning by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, are fantasy figures–they are not real figures. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman some real figures. Investment will be sustained at around £1 billion, of which £250 million will come from the private sector. He cannot lecture us about private railways. He cannot begin to tell us what his own policy is or whether he would renationalise or not: he can tell us now if he wishes. The Labour party is more interested in appeasing the rail unions than in building for the 20th century an efficient railway that serves the needs of passengers and that does not serve the needs of Labour’s friends in the rail unions.

    Mr. Jessel: In view of the tremendous success of the Queen’s visit to South Africa and of her impressive arrival in HMS Britannia, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain should continue to have a royal yacht?

    The Prime Minister: It certainly has been a remarkably successful visit thus far to South Africa and I have every expectation that it will continue to be a successful visit. The question of the royal yacht is under consideration.

    Mr. Ashdown: In the context of European immigration, will the Prime Minister confirm that he is aware of the seriousness of the deteriorating situation in Algeria and the implications that it has for Europe as a whole? Given Britain’s residual interests in Algeria and Europe’s failures in Bosnia, is not it an issue that should be tackled on the basis of the closest co-ordination among the European countries in which Britain plays a full and constructive role?

    The Prime Minister: I agree that this is an important matter. I think that it illustrates the kind of areas where the common foreign and security policy can exercise more influence than any country individually.

    Mr. Molyneaux: As loyalist paramilitary bodies only yesterday undertook to dismantle their terrorist apparatus, is it still the Government’s policy that the same must apply to the IRA before it can be admitted to any further talks or discussions on any other issues?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, the same conditions apply to Sinn Fein in terms of exploratory talks with a Minister, which is the matter under consideration at the present time. It will need to make the same commitments before entering into exploratory talks with my hon. Friend the Minister of State as were made by the Progressive Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party. That is the case.

    On the secondary matter of entering the political talks, which is often confused–but not, I know, by the right hon. Gentleman–that is some way down the road after the discussions on modalities have been agreed and after there has been substantial progress on decommissioning itself. That is some way away.

     

    Q3. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 March.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister will know that the rules of the House prevent me from raising aspects of the trading activities of Lord Archer, his friend, and I do not intend to do so. However, in the light of the fact that the prosecuting authorities have repeatedly failed successfully to prosecute people who have committed the offence of insider dealing–we know who we are talking about–is not it time that there was a full review of the law? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the country that that review will be undertaken?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm that Lord Archer is my friend, has been my friend and will remain my friend in the future. On the hon. Gentleman’s substantive point, the questions of prosecution are for the prosecuting authorities. If my right hon. Friends the Law Officers feel that something is going amiss, they will approach me and the necessary action will be taken.

     

    Q4. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 March.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wholly wrong for Labour councils such as mine in Merton to use council writing paper to write to Labour governors urging them to carry out a misconceived and misleading campaign against education budgets? Is not it about time that education authorities stopped alarming parents with political propaganda and got on with the job of providing the best possible education for our children?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, and neither is this an isolated incident in Merton.

    On the substantive question of education funding, I see no reason why every council should not be able, with good maintenance and good management, to look after the standards of the education service within the funds available. Before people accept many of the claims being made by the education authorities, I hope that they will look to see whether those education authorities have sought to make savings elsewhere before directing savings to teachers in the classroom.

    Mr. Clapham: Is the Prime Minister aware that some observers of the sale of British Coal’s non-operational property estimate that it will raise more than £100 million? Will he assure the House that that money will be used for two major purposes: first to help to clean up residual pollution in mining communities, such as mine water pollution, and, secondly, to widen the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, which the Government introduced in 1974 to make available payments for men awarded disabled assessments for chronic bronchitis and emphysema, thereby ending the illogical discrimination between sufferers of two diseases which are caused by the same dust?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises two important points that are worthy of consideration. I do not agree with him that the proceeds of that sale should be necessarily allocated specifically to those purposes, but the two purposes to which he refers are well worth examining.

     

    Q5. Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 March.

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

    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which was widely welcomed by the police and which deals with joyriders, tearaways and bail bandits, was fought tooth and nail by the Opposition and the then shadow Home Secretary, who is now the Leader of the Opposition? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is by their deeds, not their words, that we shall judge them?

    The Prime Minister: I share the view that we should judge right hon. and hon. Opposition Members by the way in which they vote and act, rather than by what they say. I share with them the wish to prevent more crime, yet they opposed all our changes on bail. They say that they want to ensure that the guilty are convicted, yet they opposed our changes to the right of silence. There are a range of areas where they have talked tough on crime, but when it has come to being in this House and being in the right Lobby to provide the right laws to bat against crime, we have found them in the wrong Lobby and not the right one.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Objectives

    Mr. Forman: To ask the Prime Minister how many of their objectives of April 1992 the Government have now achieved; and how many remain.

    The Prime Minister: Since April 1992, the Government’s policies have laid the foundations for sustained economic growth. Underlying inflation is down to its lowest for a generation, interest rates are among the lowest in the EC, unemployment is down by over 600,000 since its peak, exports are at record levels, and we are attracting more investment from Japan and America than Germany and France combined.

    We have also pressed ahead with our reforms to raise standards in our schools, fight crime, improve the quality of care in the national health service and, with the Citizen’s Charter, make the public services more accountable to the taxpayers they serve. Our commitment to continuing improvement in standards in education has been achieved by the national curriculum, extension of objective testing of pupils, inspection of primary as well as secondary schools, continuation of publication of school results, and launch of the Teacher Training Agency. Parental choice has been enhanced by the further expansion of the grant-maintained schools and specialist colleges. The national health service is now treating 1 million more patients a year than since before our reforms began; our determination to ensure it is properly funded is borne out by the fact that, for every £1 spent on the service in 1979, over £5 will be spent in 1995-96. Against the backdrop of the largest fall in recorded crime for 40 years, we have introduced a range of measures designed to tilt the balance back in favour of the victims of crime, and ensure that crime does not pay, but criminals do.

    The Government have made significant progress towards achieving a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The ceasefire has now lasted for almost seven months, giving a new basis on which we can take the peace process forward. There has also been considerable success in winning the argument in Europe–especially in our attempts to make the community more open, outward-looking and decentralised.

    The Government’s objectives for the future remain as stated in the Gracious Speech on 16 November 1994, Official Report, columns 4-6.

     

    Publications

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure on (a) all forms of publicity and (b) all publications and pamphlets produced for his Department and for all the agencies and public bodies for which his Department is responsible for each year since 1979, including the budgeted figure for 1995-96, (i) including and (ii) excluding privatisation-related expenditures and expressed in 1994 prices; and if he will supply information for the period from 1 April 1993 to 1 March 1995 showing (1) the nature and (2) the purpose of each publicity campaign and of each publication involving the expenditure of more than £50,000.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 March 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 21 March.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 22 March 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made on 22nd March 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about whether he was concerned about the General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, but the General Election is two years away. Two years before the last General Election we needed pretty much the same swing to win that we need today, and we obtained that. I am not saying I disregard public opinion in the opinion polls, of course that would be silly. What I am saying is that it is very easy to over-react to it. We live in a much more volatile political atmosphere in this country, and indeed in most of the Western democracies, than we have ever known before.

    Let me give you two illustrations of that, not from the United Kingdom, just to show the point that it is not just a phenomenon here. It is only a few weeks ago in the French Presidential election, that M. Balladur was leading M. Chirac by huge amounts, the latest opinion polls have it shown the other way around in a matter of a handful of weeks. And if you go to the United States, for example, a few weeks after being elected President the Democrats lost Texas, one of their safest seats. If you go to New Zealand, the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, was further behind in opinion polls than the British government are here and he won the election. So I just make the point that we live in an age where people express their concerns and frustrations in opinion polling and by-elections, and view matters in a different way when they have to make a genuine choice about who is to be the government.

    So I am not complacent, I am not ignoring it, but I am not going to get myself over-fussed about mid-term opinion polls.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Consultants

    Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the consultancy to which he referred in his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), Official Report, column 140, on 7 March as having achieved savings of tens of millions of pounds; and what were the savings and consultancy fees involved.

    The Prime Minister: The example related to a Welsh Office roads project. On one particular five year project the final certificate for the main contract was substantially greater than the original tender price because of the effects of inflation and unforeseen conditions encountered during construction. A consultant quantity surveying firm was employed in assisting departmental staff to consider the appropriate price for the overall contract. This work cost around £50,000, but the advice helped to inform the negotiations with the contractor, which led to a settlement £80 million less than the contractor’s claim.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

    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 hold discussions with the United States Government about the action of the CIA in arresting Juval Aviv, former agent of the Israeli intelligence service, and on Mr. Aviv’s report of September 1989 for Pan Am.

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

     

    Teachers and Administrators

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to oral answer of 16 March, Official Report, column 1021, concerning the ratio of teachers to administrators or other staff within the ambit of local education authorities, what are the statistical bases and arithmetical calculations on which his statement was based.

    The Prime Minister: Figures collected by the Local Government Management Board show that in June 1994 local education authorities in England employed 376,665 full-time equivalent teachers and lecturers and 316,244 full-time equivalent other manual and non-manual staff involved in education, making a ration of around 2.5 non-teaching staff to every three teachers.

     

    Ministerial Committees

    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Prime Minister what new Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet have been established since the updated list of membership and terms of reference of Cabinet Committees and Sub-Committees was published on 22 November 1994.

    The Prime Minister: I have established a new Ministerial Committee to consider the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy. A copy of the terms of reference and membership is in the Library of the House. The details are as follows:

    MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE COORDINATION AND PRESENTATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY (EDCP)

    Composition

    Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Chairman)

    Lord President of the Council

    Lord Privy Seal

    Minister without Portfolio

    Other Ministers will be invited to attend when necessary. Terms of reference

    “To consider the coordination and presentation of Government policy”.

     

    Civil Servants

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what was the total number of civil servants employed by (a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his department’s responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department’s responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (i) full-time equivalents, (ii) overtime, (iii) casuals and (iv) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service jobs due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for his department of its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditure in 1994 prices.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 March 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 20 March.

  • PMQT – 21 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

    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 meeting later today.

    Mr. Hill: In his busy day, has the Prime Minister noticed that his plea for peace within the ranks has failed and that the Chancellor and Lord Tebbit are at each other’s throats again over Europe? How does he feel now that it is apparent that all sides of his party share the same view as the rest of the country–that he has no authority and is not up to the job?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about differing views in Europe, I suggest that he has a look around the Benches beside him. If he seriously thinks that the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), agrees with the Leader of the Opposition, or that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), he is living in a fantasy world.

    Mr. Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most calls for more funding are really calls for higher taxation and that most calls for greater economic well-being are really calls for higher inflation? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, undertake to continue his policy of keeping a firm grip both on inflation and public expenditure and not to do what the Opposition always seem tempted to do–cheaply to buy people’s votes with their own money?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the necessity of holding down public expenditure, and equally right to point out that it is simply economically illiterate to object to taxation levels and at the same time to call for higher expenditure, as the Opposition so frequently do.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Education Secretary, who said this morning– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair rose —[ Interruption. ]

    Madam Speaker: Order; otherwise I shall have to name a Member on the Conservative Back Benches.

    Mr. Blair rose —[ Interruption. ]

    Madam Speaker: It is Jacques Arnold.

    Mr. Blair: I apologise to my hon. Friend’s dog.

    Does the Prime Minister agree with his Education Secretary who this morning admitted that in funding the teachers’ pay award some schools and authorities would face “considerable problems”?

    The Prime Minister: Of course we recognised from the outset that this year’s settlement is tough in education. We have never made any secret of that fact. We have made it clear that local authorities must choose their priorities. We believe that teachers in the classroom are a priority and should be a first priority among education authorities.

    Mr. Blair: But what does the Prime Minister say to schools and authorities that, as the Secretary of State for Education admits, do not have the reserves and balances to fund the award? If it is proven to the Prime Minister’s satisfaction that such schools and authorities exist–for example, in Tory Buckinghamshire–will he take action and intervene?

    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what I would say to such authorities. If any local authority is thinking of cutting the number of teachers in the classroom, I would ask it what savings it had made in non-teaching aspects of education. I would ask if it has two administrators for every three teachers, as happens across the country. I would ask what administrative savings it had made. If the answer is none, I would ask, “Why have you made no savings, and why are you singling out teachers in the classroom?”

    Mr. Blair: Is not the Prime Minister aware that five out of the six authorities with the lowest administration costs are Labour–and that all are facing cuts? The right hon. Gentleman talks about non-statutory funding. His Secretary of State for Education said what that means–nursery education, youth work and school transport. Is that an option? Why does not the Prime Minister listen to the voices of parents, governors and teachers, who speak for Britain when they say that if we fail to provide properly for our schools, we are not just letting down our children but betraying our country’s future?

    The Prime Minister: We have provided more adequately for education and for choice in education than the right hon. Gentleman would ever contemplate. If he wants to know what the priorities are, I suggest that he addresses authorities–most of which are run by Labour–about the 1 million surplus school places, which cost £250 million a year, about making use of the estimated £700 million in unspent balances held by schools and about cutting bureaucracy at county hall, where they have failed to take account of the responsibilities of schools and where for every three teachers there are two support staff. Those are the questions that the right hon. Gentleman should address to education authorities. If he thinks that there are no savings to be made, I suggest that he refers to the Audit Commission report, which made it clear that better management of pay bills would save £500 million–5 per cent. of the whole pay bill.

    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that regional assemblies for England would be confusing, expensive and divisive? Does he accept that people in Hertfordshire do not want to be governed from Norwich? When he exposed that policy, the Labour party fell into confusion and chaos. Will he say today that we are not going to do it?

    The Prime Minister: There certainly seems to be some confusion on the Opposition Benches about regional assemblies. Almost every statement about them that can be made has been made. As Labour examines its policy, it realises that it is the total nonsense that I pointed out some time ago.

    Mr. Prescott indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; clearly he does not understand that his party’s policy is nonsense. When Labour examines its policies for Scottish and Welsh assemblies in further depth, it will find precisely the same.

     

    Q2. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

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

    Mr. McKelvey: Has the Prime Minister no sense of shame at having dithered over obscene fat cat salaries, alienating low-paid workers in the health service, including nurses and midwives? Is not the right hon. Gentleman setting the scene for a summer of discontent throughout the NHS?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have funded the health service better than any previous Government. That is clearly shown by the number of people treated in the national health service, the wider range of services and the better treatment that is available.

     

    Q3. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the fact that this is national science, engineering and technology week, has my right hon. Friend had time today to read the encouraging report from engineering employers, which states that economic recovery is developing in a way that will increase national prosperity in the longer term? Is not that a tribute to Government economic policies, and is not this the right time for young people to go for a career in engineering?

    The Prime Minister: I agree about that, and about the need to encourage more young people into engineering and more people into learning skills of that sort. That is why we established the non-vocational qualifications some time ago. In engineering and manufacturing generally exports are growing and employment is increasing; that has not happened in manufacturing generally for many years.

     

    Q4. Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

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

    Mr. Alton: I welcome the Government’s decision to provide £1 million for the clearing of anti-personnel mines in Cambodia. Is the Prime Minister aware, however, that there are 100 million anti-personnel mines strewn around the world, and that there have been 1 million casualties and fatalities, especially among children? Does he agree that the time is ripe for an international moratorium that would bring within its scope the area- denial mines that are still shipped out of this country? Will he not agree with the terms of the early-day motion, now supported by more than 100 hon. Members of all parties, urging the Government to give a moral lead?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the fact that he wished to raise a detailed question about land mines. We have neither produced nor exported anti-personnel mines for some years, and we have contributed generously to the demining programme. In July we announced an indefinite moratorium on exports from the United Kingdom of mines without a self-destruct mechanism. We shall be hoping to use the review in September of the UN weaponry convention to strengthen the protocol on the use of land mines and to ensure that its provisions gain universal support.

    Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend support a measure to make it a statutory requirement that all local authorities declare in their published budgets what is and what is not a statutory requirement and a statutory area of expenditure?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend suggests an ingenious method of ensuring that local authorities’ priorities are met. I shall invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to examine it.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

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

    Mrs. Prentice: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Home Secretary who is right about the feelgood factor?

    The Prime Minister: The people who have most felt the feelgood factor thus far are the 600,000 people who are no longer on the unemployment register, as a result of the fall in unemployment. In terms of economic management, we are seeking to make sure that we come out of the recession of two years ago in a way that avoids laying the seeds of future difficulties, which were sown on many other occasions since the Second World War. Hence we have had to take long-term, difficult decisions; as a result we now have the best prospects of rising living standards, year after year, that we have had for many years. That will produce a very good feelgood factor.

    Mr. Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members share the qualms about land mines expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), but that none of us will accept the fact that Liberal Democrat county councillors are not funding education as they can–particularly in East Sussex, where they resisted and voted against a Conservative amendment to the budget that would have provided the necessary funds for education in the county?

    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the example to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention, but the rather cavalier use of taxpayers’ money by Liberal Democrat authorities is no new phenomenon.

     

    Q6. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not true, from what we have seen and heard, that there is no policy area apart from Northern Ireland about which the people of this country believe anything that you, Prime Minister, have to say? In education, the parents and teachers are against you. In health, the midwives have been moved to militancy. Is not the best thing that could happen to this Government who cannot agree among themselves that you should resign and that we should have an immediate election?

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing the House and the Prime Minister correctly. Would he like to try again? He has another minute.

    Mr. Sutcliffe: I apologise, Madam Speaker, if I have not spoken in the language of the House, but I am expressing what I think the majority of British people feel.

    The Prime Minister: Had the hon. Gentleman been in the House longer, he would have heard remarks like that put to me before the last general election.

    Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend publish all the evidence, some of it garnered in response to hostile questions from Opposition Members, which shows beyond any doubt whatever that a reduction in the top rate of income tax has increased the proportion of tax paid as a total from the top 10 per cent., and that any proposal to increase the top rate of income tax will produce a shortfall in revenue which can then be obtained only from middle-income earners?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend sets out a matter that has been well understood for many years. I will certainly invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to lay that information out in the House of Commons Library. It might be very instructive for the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is giggling on the Front Bench because he does not understand it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Tam Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Sir Charles Powell about the western response to the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Terrorist Organisations (Disarming)

    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister when a Minister first intimated publicly that the Government’s position on disarming terrorist organisations had changed to allow Ministers to discuss the possibility and modality of disarming.

    The Prime Minister: The Government’s line regarding dialogue with Sinn Fein and the decommissioning issue has been consistent throughout. It is important not to confuse the issues of ministerial participation in exploratory dialogue and Sinn Fein participation in inclusive talks.

    We have always made it clear that, in judging the right time for ministerial involvement, we have to be clear that Sinn Fein is willing to address all necessary issues and that progress has been made in having serious and substantive exploration of them. Ministers need to be clear that, if and when they take part, constructive discussion, particularly in achieving substantial progress on the decommissioning of arms, would be facilitated and accelerated by their joining the dialogue.

    But, as a matter of principle and political reality, Sinn Fein cannot be admitted into an inclusive political talks process until substantial progress has been made on the decommissioning of weapons. This is exactly the point my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made in Belfast on 14 December last year.

     

    Public Holidays

    Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in respect of the entitlement of employees of the NHS to time off on the national holiday planned for 8 May; and if he will make it his policy that the status of the employers within the health service will have no bearing upon employee entitlement to public holidays.

    The Prime Minister: It is the Government’s policy that the national holiday on 8 May will be observed by all national health service employers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, instead of the customary bank holiday on May 1. In recognition of the different traditions regarding bank holidays in Scotland, it will be for NHS employers in Scotland to decide whether or not to give staff a holiday on 8 May.

    Entitlement to bank and public holidays for NHS staff employed on national terms and conditions is governed by an agreement of the General Whitley Council.

     

    Royal Family (Publicity Services)

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what was the expenditure for each year since 1984 in support of the royal family in respect of publicity services; and if he will provide a breakdown between different members of the royal family.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 March 1995]: Expenditure by COI on publicity services for the royal household for each year since 1984-85 is as follows:

    1984-85 £182,000

    1985-86 £172,000

    1986-87 £181,000

    1987-88 £205,000

    1988-89 £183,000

    1989-90 £375,000

    1990-91 £292,000

    1991-92 £318,000

    1992-93 £237,000

    1993-94 £290,000

    Further information is not available in the form requested.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Surrey County Cricket Club – 20 March 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech on Surrey County Cricket Club’s 150th anniversary, made on Monday 20th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Looking at the film I wonder if the members of the Montpelier Club realised what they were starting when they founded Surrey.

    That a hundred and fifty years on untold millions would have watched cricket at the Oval, and from the Oval. That the very name would be synonymous with cricket or that some of the great names of cricket and some of the great events of cricket would be played on a former market garden.

    Tonight reminds me of how lucky I was to have been born south of the Thames, a Surrey supporter. And, as a boy, to have been in the right place at the right time to see the greatest county side in the history of cricket.

    We all have our memories of the Oval. I was about 10 years old when I first visited it. Like most small boys I was a cricket nut. Having reached Cheam Common Primary School’s First Eleven, the progression to Surrey and then the Test Side merely seemed a matter of time. I looked forward to a clean and healthy life of cricket in which – even on the worst of days – I batted like Peter May and bowled like Alec Bedser.

    During school lessons I invented my own cricket games. I once scored 241 not out during biology while David Fletcher, Tom Clark, Peter May and Ken Barrington only scored 10 between them. Fortunately Eric Bedser scored 20 odd not out so we saved the game. I’m glad he’s recovered from those exertions and is here tonight. Eric, you were a real support.

    On the real cricket pitch it was different. Life being the topsy turvy enterprise it is, I discovered I couldn’t – even on the best of days – bat like Alec Bedser or bowl like Peter May.

    And as for the clean healthy life of cricket, I ended up in politics. One can hear the Devil chuckling although there are many similarities between the two. The game is uncertain. The career is chancy. But they both have their own charm. Politics often is about nightmares. Cricket mainly is about dreams.

    Tonight I have fulfilled one of them, I have batted higher in the order than Colin Cowdrey, one of cricket’s greats and one of Surrey’s past friends.

    Cricket has a great history and a great humour. Arthur Mailey, the great Australian bowler, was once staying at a famous country house in the days of country house cricket. His hostess, an aristocratic lady, invited him to play in a game one afternoon. He declined, saying that he was a little stiff from bowling. “Oh” she replied, “so that’s where you are from”.

    It is often the unexpected things you remember. I can close my eyes now and see Stuart Surridge in the slips with this enormous long arms. I used to think as a boy he could pull up his socks while standing upright. I tried the same and was told not to slouch.

    My father had a treasured heirloom – a gold stopwatch. I borrowed it and took it to the Oval to time how long it took the ball to travel from Peter May’s straight drive to the pavilion gates. Peter soon obliged.

    But pressing the stop button, I dropped the watch. It shattered. Bits came out all over. It was not in good shape. Its best days had gone. In fact, as John Cleese might say, it was a dead stop watch.

    I took it home, aged 11, to return the remains to my father, aged 75. As you can see, like Sir Jack Hobbs, my father’s best work was done after the age of 40.

    My father looked at the watch and then he looked at me. Then he said “before you dropped the watch did you find out how long the ball took?” I said, “No”. Then he gave me half a crown – and as he had very little, that was a lot – so I could watch cricket the next day. It was his way of saying it didn’t matter.

    Surrey have always attracted characters. A hundred years ago one such was Albert Craig, the Surrey poet. He used to write verses – doggerel really – and sell it to the crowds. I write it too, when I’ve time to spare. I wrote quite a lot as a Government Whip when I had to sit on the Bench for hours not listening to speeches. They were mostly about Parliamentarians and, if pressed, one day….

    Thinking of this brings clear and fresh to my mind the first poem I ever wrote, aged about 10 or 11, at the Oval:

    Bernard Constable got a duck

    Oh, he said – what rotten luck

    The Bowler’s really got a nerve

    First ball down and did it swerve

    Hit the pitch and off it nips

    Caught again – in the slips

    In my own defence, I remind you I was only 10 and I only wrote when it rained. Fortunately it was sunny most of the time

    Cricket has inspired more literature than any other game. There have been some wonderful writers. Cardus of course, and CLR James, and Jim Swanton, who must have seen more of the great moments of cricket than any man alive, and RC Robertson Glasgow. I read them all.

    Most of you will know the great poem by Coleridge, the Rhyme of The Ancient Mariner. The rest of you will have been educated after 1960. What you may not know is that Robertson Glasgow applied it to cricket:

    It is an Ancient Cricketer

    Who stops me in the street

    He holds his victims with his hands

    Their catches with his feet

    It tells the tale of a team who run into a spot of trouble with a bird on their way to a match – in this case a duck rather than an albatross:

    The duck it is a wondrous fowl

    But at crossing the road not clever

    That duck (or drake) went under the brake

    And had ceased to quack for ever.

    The outcome was, I am afraid, inevitable:

    For we had done a hellish thing

    To murder a blooming duck

    And some averred we’d killed the bird

    That brings a batsman luck.

    ‘A pity,’ said they, ‘that bird to slay

    That brings a batsman luck.’

    All sorts of disaster befall the team:

    Then a rocket went up, and the squire ran back

    And skirted around and – well –

    Where a cow had dallied, he staggered, then rallied

    The skidded, then rallied, then – fell.

    Thirteen all out, and there wasn’t a man

    But argued until was hoarse

    That the death of the duck had brought ill-luck

    Except old Matthew, of course.

    The Ancient ceased, and his mouth was dry

    So I eased it off with a tankard

    He’d talked enough, and Hops is the stuff

    For a soul which Cricket has cankered.

    What other game could have had such a poem written about it? None.

    Tonight we are here to celebrate Surrey’s first 150 years – we should enjoy it not least because if he were here the Bearded Wonder would tell us we are statistically unlikely to be here to celebrate their next 150 years.

    But we can look forward to that future and the investment we can make in the future of cricket. Some say “it’s only a game”. I don’t agree. It is a game of course and it must always remain one. But it is also part of the English character.

    It is interwoven in the warp and weft of our way of life. It’s fun and life must be about more than economics and social awareness. I want to know that future generations can look forward to the same enjoyment of the game that we have here tonight.

    That is why I want to put team sports back in schools. Why I want to develop youth cricket and club cricket. Why I have high hopes that cricket’s share of the 300 million pounds a year which will come from the National Lottery will help permanently boost the game. That’s why I left my red boxes to fester in Downing Street this evening: despatched to long off – or at any rate to later on.

    Surrey is an important part of cricket’s history. On this occasion, looking around, I hope there are ghosts present. Some of the greatest of all cricketers have been servants of this Club. Bowlers like George Lohman and Tony Richardson and batsmen like Hayward, Hobbs and Sandham. And I just wonder if Bosser Martin, the great groundsman, might also be hereabouts this evening.

    And there are some whom we would dearly loved to have been here tonight. Peter of course, and Stuart Surridge, Jim Laker, Ken Barrington and Tom Clark. Sadly they are gone. But they will never be gone from the history of cricket or of Surrey. If we close our eyes we can remember them again in their prime.

    The future is bright. The renovation of the Oval is truly remarkable. The Ken Barrington Centre now offers wonderful facilities to youngsters. Next year a second county cricket school will open in Guildford. There may be further centres, perhaps in Kingston, perhaps Croydon, perhaps both.

    Surrey will be giving cricket back to all parts of the county. The youth policy is alive and working and I hope we will find more time and more money for development women’s cricket as well. Never forget it was WG’s mother who taught him and it was our ladies team that won the World Cup at Lords.

    I would like to end by paying a special tribute to Coopers and Lybrand for their generosity in sponsoring this evening. Cricket is a natural game for accountants and Coopers and now responsible for producing ratings of players. These must be pretty accurate because they show Waqar Younis to be the best bowler in the world and Graham Thorpe to be the third best batsman.

    But never mind about third best.

    This is Surrey we’re talking about. The very best. The sight of white flannels and a chocolate cap can move me from despair to contentment.

    So, tonight I want to thank those players who’ve brought such pleasure into my life and I want to make one wish: may it always be so.

  • PMQT – 16 March 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

    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. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence of Labour councillors personally benefiting from fraud, corruption, nepotism and inefficiency is such that people should be informed about it before they vote in the local government elections?

    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that there are many cases of waste, inefficiency and malpractice in Labour councils; increasingly, one has seen that in auditors’ reports. It is right that the auditors should investigate and make those matters public.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm, as a matter of fact, that in a few weeks’ time two new tax rises will be introduced–the cutting of mortgage tax relief and of the married couples allowance–which will add about £250 a year to the average family’s tax bill?

    The Prime Minister: I will certainly confirm the tax changes to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I will also confirm for him that, as a result of the measures taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are now well into the most sustained recovery on the most secure basis that this country has seen for many years, with the economy growing at almost 4 per cent., exports at record levels, the current account in surplus, investment rising and unemployment now having fallen by 600,000–a set of economic circumstances that we have not seen for many years. That is largely due to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend took the right decisions at the right time.

    Mr. Blair: Are not those tax rises, on top of the existing ones, one reason why people feel so angry about this Government? Is not the truth that, with taxes up, mortgages up and living standards falling, all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done is confirm what the vast majority of the British people already knew: that unless you are one of the favoured few at the top, you are worse off under the Tories.

    The Prime Minister: Which taxes would the right hon. Gentleman cut? Which pieces of expenditure has the right hon. Gentleman opposed? How many times has the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) sought extra expenditure of one sort of another? When is he going to understand the most basic economic fact–that he cannot promote expenditure and call for tax reductions and expect to be taken seriously? We have taken the measures necessary for this country’s economy. That is why our economy is more effective, more efficient and more competitive than any other economy in western Europe.

    Mr. Blair: I will tell him what I understand, that– [Hon. Members: — “Oh.”] Since he asked me the question again, let me tell him what is wrong. What is wrong is to fight the election promising to cut taxes then raise them by 7p in the pound.

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about what is right for this country, why does he not for once acknowledge the changes that there have been in this economy? Why does he not for once acknowledge what once he used to say–that his plans for a minimum wage would cost jobs? Why does he not acknowledge what a large number of business men are now telling him across Europe–that his plans for the social chapter would cost jobs? Why does he not acknowledge that this country now has an economy that Labour could never have achieved if it had followed the advice of the shadow Chancellor, who on every conceivable occasion has guessed wrongly about what should happen with this economy?

     

    Q2. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate those parents who have set up an organisation called PASS to defend the right of parents to send their children to grant-maintained schools? Will he arrange for an application form to be sent to the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister: I fancy that the right hon. Gentleman does not need one, but his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who speaks on education from the Labour Front Bench most certainly does, for he would still destroy the chances for parents to send their children to grant-maintained schools, even though the vast majority of hon. Members in this House, including the right hon. Gentleman, know that that choice should be available to every parent.

    Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister’s comments on waste and inefficiency, how does he justify an increase over the past four years of 36 per cent. in the amount of public money spent on Government entertainment? What would he have to say to a council which was forced to sack teachers and which responded by raising by more than a third the money that it spent on its own entertainment?

    The Prime Minister: I think what I would say to any council which was contemplating that sort of action concerning teachers would be: how many administrators in education is it looking at, why are there two administrators for every three teachers in education and why do county councils like the right hon. Gentleman’s seek to look at teachers before they look at other areas of savings?

    Mr. Faber: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity in the past couple of days to discuss Anglo-Belgian relationships with his counterpart the Prime Minister of Belgium, and in particular what must have been a disappointing visit for him to west London on Tuesday night? At what is undoubtedly a difficult time for British football, would my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Chelsea football club on a stunning victory on Tuesday night, its fans on the good-natured manner in which the game was watched, and the Metropolitan police especially on the firm but sensitive way in which the game was policed?

    Madam Speaker: I should just inform the hon. Gentleman before the Prime Minister attempts to answer that question that, nice as it may seem, the Prime Minister has nothing whatsoever to do with the success of Chelsea football club.

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to pass credit for the success to the players. May I simply say that I am delighted at how well they did?

     

    Q3. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Mullin: Did the Prime Minister read this morning’s comment by Lord McAlpine that a spell in opposition would be a good thing for the Tory party, and does he agree that this is one of the rare occasions on which the interests of the Tory party and of the nation coincide?

    The Prime Minister: I did see the comments in the New Statesman and Society . I understand that Lord McAlpine is promoting his book, which is a work of fiction.

     

    Q4. Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend share the pleasure of my constituents in Basildon at the first visit to this country of a President from the Philippines, Fidel Ramos? Will he tell the House whether any trade agreements have been reached as a result of the visit? Finally, will my right hon. Friend do all in his power to assist and encourage the President to try to alleviate the plight of street children and to take forward the social reform programme?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, I am delighted to welcome President Ramos to the United Kingdom. He will find a very warm welcome here and would clearly find one in Basildon also, were he able to visit it. I am not sure whether the President is here long enough to do so on this occasion, but when I meet him later on this afternoon I will be happy to pass on the invitation. I understand that it has been a successful trade visit and a number of contracts have been signed with substantial British companies.

    I know that President Ramos is achieving a great deal with his social reform programme and I know that the whole House would welcome all that can be done to help street children, both in the Philippines and elsewhere.

     

    Terrorism

    Q5. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty’s Government have received from Sir Colin Figures and Sir Peter Marychurch concerning knowledge of an impending attack on airlines at Frankfurt airport in December 1988; and what response he has sent.

    The Prime Minister: We have received no such representations.

    Mr. Dalyell: In that case, could Sir Colin and Sir Peter be invited to shed light on the very specific jictels–Joint Intelligence Committee telegrams–giving clear information about the downing of an aircraft in October, November and December 1988? Could they shed light on the agreement reached by western intelligence with terrorist elements in the middle east about the downing of just one airliner, rather than 10 or 12, in what was described by Mohtashemi as “the rain of blood”, and also on what they know of statements by United States agencies about Major Charles McKee not being able to return to the United States alive?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that detailed question so that I might examine the matter before responding.

    As he knows, the Lockerbie investigation is the largest criminal investigation ever undertaken in this country. I have to reiterate to the House that the Lord Advocate has discovered credible evidence against two people only, and they remain the only two accused. If concrete new evidence were brought forward, it would of course be fully investigated. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman, of which he was kind enough to give me prior notice–that western intelligence agencies would enter into a deal with terrorist groups to allow the destruction of an aircraft–is utterly and completely unfounded. It did not happen and the hon. Gentleman can be assured upon that point.

     

    Engagements

    Madam Speaker: The next question is from Mr. Skinner.

    Mr. Skinner: Question 5.

    Hon. Members: Question 6.

    Mr. Skinner: All right; Question 6.

     

    Q6. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Skinner: Has the Prime Minister seen the reports today that if the Tory party loses more than 1,000 seats in the local government elections in May, which it undoubtedly will, senior Tory Members of Parliament are going to kick him out like a dog in the night? Last year, the Prime Minister said that he had got three bastards in the Cabinet: I do not think that he can count.

    The Prime Minister: As for counting, I shall answer the hon. Gentleman’s Question 5 and Question 6 at the same time.

    The substantive part of the hon. Gentleman’s question might well have been asked of me last year, the year before last, and the year before that. It almost certainly was, and it will very probably be asked of me next year, the year after and the year after that.

    Sir Graham Bright: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in this morning’s newspapers suggesting that he is considering plans to change how state education is funded? Will he confirm to the House that that is not so?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I did see the report to which my hon. Friend refers and I can tell the House categorically that it is absolutely without foundation. I do not know whether it is incompetence or malice, but it is certainly inaccurate.

     

    Q7. Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister seen today’s statement by the rail regulator that decisions on sleepers and Motorail are a matter not for British Rail but for the Government? Will he therefore confirm today that there will be a full and formal consultation before any decisions are taken on those vital services?

    The Prime Minister: I assume that the hon. Gentleman refers to the Fort William sleeper. Representations on that can be made during consultation on the ScotRail public service requirement. In the meanwhile, British Rail will retain the assets.

    Madam Speaker: As we started late, I can allow one more question.

     

    Q8. Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the two Conservative- controlled district councils in my constituency–Forest Heath and St. Edmundsbury–plan no increase in council tax this year? Is he aware that the only reason why my constituents will pay more council tax this year is because of Lib-Lab controlled Suffolk county council, despite it having used up some £16 million of reserves so carefully built up by the last Conservative administration?

    The Prime Minister: Lab councils are a very expensive luxury indeed and I am not surprised to hear what my hon. Friend has to say. Last year, Conservative councils cost around £131 less at band C than Labour councils, and this year the difference looks as though it may be even greater – probably as much as £160 less. I hope that the electorate will bear that in mind in May.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Jordan – 15 March 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech made on Wednesday 15th March 1995, at the presentation of Scholarships at the Hashemiyya Palace in Jordan.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good morning. Can I firstly say how delighted I am to be here in Jordan and I am extremely grateful to His Majesty The King for his hospitality and for the warmth of our reception last evening, we were very touched by it and it is a great pleasure to be here.

    We had the opportunity last evening of some very lengthy and some very productive talks with His Majesty that I much appreciated, and it gave me the opportunity to say in Jordan what I have had the opportunity if saying to His Majesty in the United Kingdom, and that is how much we admire the way in which he has seized the opportunity for peace in the Middle East, and the way in which he had reached an accommodation with Israel. And I think in doing to Jordan has made a commitment to a better and safer future for its people, and made a very substantial commitment to the safety and future of people far beyond Jordan, right across the Middle East.

    I was very happy last evening to reaffirm to His Majesty, Britain’s support for Jordan and for the course that he has taken. The friendship of course between our two countries is very old, very close and a friendship that we very much value. It is forced by many things, by countless links of personal esteem and affection. We understand each other. When Britain talks to Jordan, it does not have to talk in code, it does not have to talk marking its words with caution, it can say freely exactly and precisely what it means because it is a discussion amongst friends, we understand each other and we trust each other. And perhaps in this year, this anniversary year of the end of the Second World War, it gives us great pride to record Jordan’s staunch friendship and assistance to Britain throughout that conflict.

    Let me say that, for our part, we stand ready to help wherever we can with Jordan. I am delighted that we were able to play a role in re-scheduling debts and writing off some debts altogether, and we will continue to give consistent support in the efforts of Jordan to reduce its indebtedness and improve the future of its economy. We will also seek to maintain our programme of aid both bilaterally and through the European Union. And we do this for a number of reasons, not just because Jordan is an old and dear friend, but also because of what Jordan stands for – a country committed to democracy; a country that is meeting the challenges of development with very great skill and with very great courage; a country committed to tolerance and to moderation; and a country that understands as well as any country the importance of achieving real and lasting peace and stability in the region. And I am delighted to have had the opportunity of discussing these matters with His Majesty last evening, and I look forward to further discussions with the Prime Minister later on this morning.

    Let me now, if I may, turn to the particular purpose and circumstances of this occasion. Every year Britain is delighted to have the opportunity of awarding some 60 scholarships to a number of Jordanian men and women, giving them an opportunity to study in Britain in a great variety of fields. For the first time this year we are delighted that three young musicians will be going with scholarships from the Purcell Anniversary Fund, recently set up by the British Embassy under the patronage of Her Majesty the Queen. As we as the musicians we have a sample of three other successful candidates, and I think rather than introduce them myself, I will invite the Ambassador, Peter Hinchcliffe, to introduce the scholars to you all.

    [Presentation made at this point]

    I would like, if I may, to add my congratulations to everyone who has received an award and to say that I hope they enjoy their stay in the United Kingdom, I am sure they will and they will find a very warm and a very friendly reception when they get there.

    Can I just say another word or two and make a further presentation. Britain’s aid programme has funded what has turned out to be a hugely successful Hydro-geological study in the south of Jordan. The Kardesi [phonetic] project has produced information on a major underground water resources, a very welcome resources indeed, and it is now a resource which can be developed. I am delighted to learn that it will be completed within a few months, and I congratulate the Water Authority and the British consultants, Scott, Wilson, Kirkpatrick, on their achievements in this.

    Your Excellency, the Minister of Water and Irrigation, I am delighted to see you here this morning and it gives me very great pleasure to present to your government, through you, on this occasion the drilling equipment and the stores of the project to the value of some 3 million pounds. I would also like to hand over to your government two specialist vehicles which we can see parked immediately adjacent to us, one carries a pump testing unit and the other a geo-physical logger. I am not entirely certain what a geo-physical logger is but I am told that it is absolutely essential for this particular work and I hope it is able to play a satisfactory role. I very much hope that this small gift will play a part in the important work to develop Jordan’s water resources, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to being here to present it in person.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Gaza Visit – 14 March 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on his March 1995 Gaza visit, made in his auto-biography, page 520.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Not to go to the UN ‘Social Summit’ in Copenhagen in March 1995 was one of my easiest decisions. The Foreign Office pleaded with me to change my mind, as did the Danes. I was told that sixty or seventy other leaders would be at this jamboree, including all the Europeans (though not President Clinton). If I didn’t drop in to deliver the British speech, I was assured, it would look as if we didn’t care about world poverty; and our relations with the host nation, Denmark, would suffer.

    Instead I fulfilled a long-standing commitment to go to Israel, Jordan and Palestine. I cemented strong personal relationships with Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein of Jordan, and was the first Western leader to visit Yasser Arafat in Gaza, in the newly-established Palestinian entity. I was able to give some modest help to the faltering Middle East peace process by brokering an agreement between Rabin and Arafat for monitors from the European Union to oversee the elections in Gaza. I like to think that I also did some practical good for world poverty, both by announcing a new aid package for impoverished Gaza and by encouraging my travelling party of senior British businessmen to think of investing and purchasing in Jordan and Palestine. Because of the Arab boycott of Israel they had never previously been able to fly from Israel to Jordan, and many of them had concentrated on the more profitable Israeli market.