The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the South – 25 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the South, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 25th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why nobody believed the economy was doing well].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you only have to look around and if you say why does nobody believe me, go and try and find a restaurant in London and see if you can get in, have a look at how many people are taking flights to go abroad on holiday, have a look at how many people will actually be buying new cars in August. There is the tangible proof. Have a look at the unemployment figures, they are pretty tangible proof as well. They are now coming down for the fourth successive year. I don’t think you or anybody else can name me another European country in which that is happening. So the reality is that the economy is beginning to perform excellently, there is yet another report out in the last few days making that point absolutely clearly.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why people felt insecure].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe that people have had a sense of insecurity through the recession. And daily of course people point insecure matters at them. If you will forgive me making this point, you put the points to me negatively, you don’t say to me that the British economy is doing better than any other economy in Europe. Yet that is true, you know it is true, I know it is true. Yet it is the negative aspect that so often makes the news. I believe what people will continue to see is the reality of what has happened – unemployment continuing to fall, inflation well below 3 percent, staying below 3 percent, going to go below 2.5 percent; our growth as high as anyone in Europe last year, this year and going to be as high next year; massive inward investment. These things are beginning to come together in a way we have not seen for 30 or 40 years and I don’t believe that the reality of what is occurring in our economy can be hidden for very much longer. It is becoming apparent to people.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the Government wasn’t trusted].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You make that assertion, I don’t know upon what basis you make that assertion.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was told that it was true].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That may be your personal view, you are perfectly entitled to your personal view but that is the assertion that you make.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if taxes had risen].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you actually look at the tax burden you will find it has actually fallen since 1992. That is a reality of life and you need to look at that. Many people who are paying more taxes are paying more taxes because they are in a higher income bracket – that is why their taxes are higher. Those people who move into a 40 percent tax bracket pay more income tax, that is the progressive system we have always had. And so one ought not to distort that in terms of the general position. We are in favour of reducing taxes. In order to reduce taxes you need to hold down expenditure. I look for the support from people for holding down expenditure so we can continue to reduce taxes, not just direct taxes but also inheritance taxes on people’s property and other taxes that affect people.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if voters in the region would back the Conservative Party in a General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the big idea that people wish to see for themselves and their family is the security of their employment, improving the education system for their children with better choice than ever before. I take the view that education is an absolutely key issue for this reason. In our country there are millions of children. They are all original, they are all diverse, they all have their own interests. We ought not to squeeze them in a regimented education system. We want an education system that is diverse so that it can cater with the diversity of our children. That is why I would like grant-maintained schools, that is why I favour more selection, that is why I favour some grammar schools, some schools that concentrate on perhaps the sciences, or English, or even sport. Not the return of the 11-Plus, as our critics so dishonestly allege, but an increasing diversity so that the education system that we have matches the demands of the children in this country. Very important. You might call that a big idea. No-one has attempted that for some years. We are doing it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the single currency].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have got to make a decision on what is right for this country. There are an awful lot of people who want to cut off that decision because they are running their own agenda. They want to say now, in advance of knowing the facts, in advance of being able to influence the debate, that we will do either one thing or the other. I have a particular responsibility as Prime Minister, to represent what is right for this country. Uniquely I have negotiated a position where the United Kingdom can say ‘No’ if others go ahead, and other countries cannot necessarily do that if they meet the criteria. Now it would be folly to throw that unique advantage away.

    A single currency, if it proceeds, is going to affect our country, whether or not we are in it. I ask you a simple question – should the British government have a voice in those decisions or should it throw that voice away? I think, since we are one of the most powerful nations in Europe, we should have a voice in that decision, and that is what I intend to have. And those people who are inviting me to throw away that voice, that influence in a decision that will affect us whether we are in the single currency or not, are wasting their time. They may continue to try and follow their own agenda but they are wasting their time. Our job is to influence all of Europe and you cannot do that if you stand by and let other people run the debate.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about devolution for the Isle of Wight].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You will be unsurprised to know that I don’t think it is a very good idea. I gather the Liberal Democrats are running this idea, I don’t know, very possibly within the Isle of Wight they will then propose devolution for a particular Parish Council, I can’t imagine. No nonsense seems to me to be too silly for them. I don’t think the people of the Isle of Wight will take that as a very serious proposition, I think they are much too sensible to have much to do with that sort of Liberal Democrat idea.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on East Anglia – 25 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on East Anglia, made during an interview in London held on Thursday 25th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why people still felt insecure about the economy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I know there are people who are concerned but if you actually look at what is happening in terms of employment you see that we are the only country in Western Europe that has had unemployment falling for four successive years and that is certainly true of course in my own region, in the Eastern Region, where there is the occasional black spot but across the region it is down to 6 per cent, the lowest in the United Kingdom and a massive growth also of small businesses and self-employment.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about those local people who didn’t feel secure in that way].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wonder whether that is as true as you say. If it is, I wonder why it is increasingly difficult to get into a restaurant in the Eastern Region, if that is the case I wonder why so many people – I think probably up to half a million people across the country, not just in the Eastern Region – will be driving in new registration cars in August. That suggests a return of confidence and self-confidence and a range of other things: the changing spending pattern in the shops, yet again today we have seen a major building society reduce its mortgage rate now the lowest for 30 years so a lot is happening that is beginning, I think, to restore confidence to people.

    We have been through a recession that was very difficult, so have the rest of Western Europe. The rest of Western Europe has not recovered as we have. We now have growth higher than them, we have inflation going down towards 2.5 per cent and will fall – that hasn’t happened elsewhere but it is happening here.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the 500 people who lost jobs in Northamptonshire and the nearly 700 in Peterborough the week before].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wonder how many people in the same period have obtained employment in East Anglia because always, even in the midst of the most raging boom, there are companies that succeed and companies that fail. The overall balance at the moment is that companies are succeeding and that unemployment is falling and we have seen that very definitely in East Anglia. If you have a company that loses 500 jobs, that is a single package, you can see it very easily, but all over East Anglia companies are employing an extra 5, 10, 15, 50 extra people and yet that isn’t so evident and it doesn’t get so much publicity and so much reporting but that is what is happening and that is why the overall level of unemployment is, I am glad to say, continuing to fall.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked that although it was accepted the economy was improving, would it be that got the credit for improving it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Then you must help them, mustn’t you? Instead of perhaps asking the negative questions, we could look at it the positive way round. One could easily say: “Why is it that the United Kingdom is doing better than any other nation in Western Europe?” One could easily ask that question and the answer is because of the policies we have followed that are not policies followed by other countries across the European Union: we don’t have a social chapter, we don’t have a minimum wage, we do have a relatively low tax structure compared to the rest of Europe, we do have open markets to encourage inward investment and as a result of those policies and a number of others our economy is outperforming others. We are the most competitive economy in Western Europe and why is that? Because we have taken difficult decisions, painful decisions, sometimes very unpopular decisions but they are beginning to work.

    You are about to talk of the feel-good factor, I could sense it coming! I think people can see increasingly the fact that life is getting better for them and for other people and whereas they said two or three years ago: “Well, I don’t like that decision, that is very unpopular!” – and we were very unpopular for doing it – they are now beginning to see that those decisions are paying off, that they have changed the economic and industrial climate and I believe they have.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked that although people might accept the feel-good factor the indications are that they are not necessarily giving the Government the credit].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But which indications are they?

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was told it was research by Kleinwort Benson].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ah, research! I think one needs to see what is actually happening across the country. I have, if I may say so, heard on many occasions in the past that a particular government isn’t getting credit for something. Governments between elections are there to be kicked, that is the way the British conduct their public affairs.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether it was actually near an election and not between elections].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we are not coming up to an election very soon. We will have an election before 1 May next year but that is not very soon, that is almost one-sixth of a Parliament. Within a few weeks of the French presidential election, the winner of that election was a long way behind; in the last two presidential elections in the United States the winning candidate was miles behind the losing candidate just before the election.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he was being complacent].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not being complacent at all, I am just indicating to you what happens and what has happened. I seem to remember being asked seven days before the last general election what I was going to do after it because the Tories were so far behind we could never win the last general election. Well we did, we won it with the greatest number of votes any political party had ever got.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he was now further behind in the polls].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We weren’t this far behind a week beforehand, we were this far behind a year or so before the last general election most certainly and I think people need to see the way things are changing.

    We will go into the next general election with the best economic position that any British Government has had in facing a general election since the Second World War. That is the position we will go into the next general election in and people will recognise how that has come about – of that I am certain and I do not believe they will wish to put it at risk.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the East Midlands – 25 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the East Midlands, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 25th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the East Midlands was the fastest growing UK region because of Government policy or local efforts].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a bit of both, to be honest. Certainly the East Midlands had a very difficult time and many people have used their initiative, invested a good deal of self-employment, a good deal of small employment. There has also of course been a great deal of assistance to that with the nature of the economy and a certain degree of inward investment. I was for example at Burniston recently where there is a very substantial increased investment. So I think it is both. But I certainly pay tribute to the initiative of local businessmen.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the areas of high unemployment that still existed in some parts of the region].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are problems in places like Mansfield, the former coal sites which are no longer operating, and we do wish to see what we can do to get more work back. We have provided, I think, through the European Union, something like 60 – 70 million pounds, I forget the exact figure, for the regeneration of those coalfields. Though I say that is European money, it is actually British money that goes to Europe and is then recycled. And I think we need to encourage more people to go to those areas. It can be done.

    If I can give you an illustration, not from the East Midlands. But you will recall Ravenscraig closing and that was an absolute disaster for the area at that stage but there was no market for the steel. And now of course all those jobs have been replaced with inward investment and regeneration within the area, and that is what I hope we will be able to achieve. The East Midlands generally is beginning to do very well, but there are still some blackspots that we must concentrate on.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he was helping the East Midlands].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The enterprise zones are there and they are delivering. They do take a time and maybe they haven’t created as many jobs in the short term as people might have anticipated.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Sherwood Park, which had meant to provide 4,000 new jobs, but had so far created 200 new jobs].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It has promised 4,000 jobs and it will deliver 4,000 jobs. These sites have to be cleared, there needs to be planning consent, you need actually to build, you need to get the inward investment, you need to find the businesses to operate it. What actually happened was the collapse of a structural employment in an area. That is very serious. What we are replacing it with, and what we are determined to replace it with, is not a structural imbalance with a single big employer, and the difficulty for the area if that collapses, but a wide range of employment. And it does, I am afraid, take more time than is immediately comfortable.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the impression being that it would have a much faster impact on creating employment].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You must forgive me if I can’t be responsible for the impressions that you might have got 4 years ago. We have sought to move forward and to assist as much as we can, both with the funding that has been put in there, the establishment of the enterprise zones and the measures that we have taken to encourage people to invest in the whole of the area. In much of the area, as the survey showed earlier this week that you mentioned a moment ago, the prospects for the East Midlands are as bright as anywhere in the United Kingdom and brighter than the East Midlands has known in the past. What we have to focus on now, and I agree with you that it is important to focus upon them, are a small number of black spots where there was an almost complete collapse of employment because what was happening there before was no longer required. That takes a while, but it is happening, it will be comprehensive and it will provide a much better future for those areas than they have had for many years in the past.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 25 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 25th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was pleased about the progress at Stormont, but how would he stop slow progress in the future].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I do welcome it very much, I think we are now making progress. What we now need to do is to move from the talks about talks, the talks about procedure to talks about the items which should be on the agenda and then to get on to the talks about substance and to do it speedily and I hope we can use the momentum created by the enormous disappointment – almost despair – felt by so many people after Drumcree to give some real momentum to these talks. That I think is the best way to restore confidence across Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Loyalist paramilitaries were being treated differently to Sinn Fein].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is quite a difference between the Loyalists at the moment and Sinn Fein. The Loyalists have a ceasefire, they have held to that ceasefire, they are engaging constructively in the talks, they have accepted the six Mitchell principles. None of those things apply to Sinn Fein and the IRA; they are in the middle of a campaign, we have seen a campaign, they are not engaged constructively in the talks and they haven’t accepted the Mitchell principles. I wish they would. I would like to see Sinn Fein/IRA call a ceasefire, it is what I believe every sensible person in Northern Ireland would like to hear from them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would let Sinn Fein join the talks].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I propose that they should get themselves into the talks. That is what I have set the talks up for. For a very long time Sinn Fein and others have said: “We need to sit in round-table talks with the other political parties!” You know, I know, everyone watching this interview knows that has been their cry for very many years.

    I have delivered an opportunity for them to do so. We have set up these talks, we have set up a forum in which they can take part. That opportunity to sit down face-to-face with the other politicians they have wanted to meet for a long time is there and the only reason they haven’t taken it is because they don’t have a ceasefire and they haven’t adopted the Mitchell principles and it is in their hands to do so.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if mob rule was ruling Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, mob rule isn’t going to rule and it mustn’t be allowed to rule. The events of Drumcree were a disgrace and so were the events that followed it and on both sides the behaviour frankly in many cases was appalling, let there be no doubt whatsoever about that and I hope everyone has learned the lesson of Drumcree.

    Nobody gained from Drumcree. I hope the Orange Order or anybody else don’t think they gained anything from Drumcree. Everybody lost including the peace process in Northern Ireland. What we now have to do is to prevent a recurrence of that sort of event and use that event to push some real momentum into the talks in the months and weeks ahead and that is what we intend to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the marches situation was now out of control].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, of course it isn’t out of control and there is a great deal of work going on at local level between community leaders and others to make sure that the Apprentice Boys march does not cause trouble and I think it is very important that it doesn’t and Northern Ireland will feel very badly let down if anybody gets out of hand in the Apprentice Boys march.

    Freedom of marching and assembly is a traditional part of the United Kingdom tradition, it has been that way for a long time but it needs to be exercised responsibly and with restraint. The right to march should be a right to march for something not a march that is seen as an affront by other people and I hope those people organising that march or indeed any march realise that while they have a right to peacefully march, they do not have a right to cause disturbance and affront to other people in Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he wanted Northern Ireland to be governed in the future].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to see a peaceful Northern Ireland governed certainly with its own proper local government structure. We have had three generations of Irish politicians who have never had any responsibility at all except to advance views but never any responsibility to take decisions. That is a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland and I would like to see that corrected. Beyond that, it is a decision for the people of Northern Ireland but I would imagine they would still be part of the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Michelle Smith’s performance in the Olympics].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a superb performance, a magnificent performance. I don’t think anybody expected Michelle to win three gold medals and there may of course yet be a fourth in the butterfly so I very much hope there is. My warmest congratulations. I hope that everyone on the island of Ireland is cheering her, she deserves the support, she is getting a lot of cheers from over here.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Publicity

    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister how many staff are assumed in his Department’s budget to be employed (i) full time and (ii) part time, (a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996-97.

    The Prime Minister: Ten people are employed in press, media, information and publicity.

    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister how many staff were employed full time or part time (a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995-96, (ii) 1994-95 and (iii) 1993-94.

    The Prime Minister: Ten people were employed, on a full-time basis, to work in information publicity press and media, in each of the years 1995-96, 1994-95 and 1993-94.

    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1994-95 and (c) 1993-94.

    The Prime Minister: The cost for staff employed in the No. 10 press office for each year since 1993-94 is as follows:

    1993-94: £450,000

    1994-95: £450,000

    1995-96: £480,000

    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister what is the cost budgeted for staff employed full time or part time to provide information and publicity in 1996-97.

    The Prime Minister: The expenditure on staff in the No. 10 press office in 1995-96 was £480,00. The outturn expenditure in 1996-97 will be published after the end of the financial year.

    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister what is the cost assumed in the budget of people employed full time or part time to work on the press and the media in 1996-97.

    The Prime Minister: The expenditure on staff in the No. 10 press office in 1995-96 was £480,000. The outturn expenditure in 1996-97 will be published after the end of the financial year.

    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister what is his Department’s budget in 1996-97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media.

    The Prime Minister: My office does not use consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media.

     

    Honours Awards (Health Service)

    Ms Harman: To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of honours awarded in each of the last five years were awarded to people working in the health service.

    The Prime Minister: The percentages are as follows:

    Year | Percentage

    ———————–

    1992 | 7.1

    1993 | 6.1

    1994 | 6.5

    1995 | 6.1

    1996 | 6.1

     

    Independent Tribunal Service

    Sir Terence Higgins: To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department is responsible for the operation of the independent tribunal service.

    The Prime Minister: The independent tribunal service is an independent statutory body, sponsored by the Department of Social Security. The President is responsible for its operation. He and its full and part-time chairmen are appointed by the Lord Chancellor’s Department.

     

    Ministers’ Pay

    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers (a) will be and (b) will not be accepting the pay increases recommended by the senior salaries review body and approved by the House.

    Sir Raymond Powell: To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers (a) will be and (b) will not be accepting the pay increases recommended by the senior salaries review body and approved by the House.

    The Prime Minister: These are private matters for the individuals concerned.

     

    European Movement

    Mr. Neil Hamilton: To ask the Prime Minister what financial assistance the Government made to the European Movement in 1985; and what plans he has to offer financial assistance in future years.

    The Prime Minister: I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

     

    Government Statistics

    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make it his policy to require Ministers within his Government to read and initial answers to parliamentary questions which relate directly to the work of their Departments when those answers are prepared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer following his assumption of responsibility for the preparation of Government statistics; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) what specific steps he has taken to ensure that individual Ministers within his Government are made aware of each of the answers being given to parliamentary questions relating directly to the work of their Department in those cases where the answers to those questions are given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer following his assumption of responsibility for the preparation of Government statistics; what steps he is taking to ensure that those Ministers are required to record their awareness of such questions on each occasion upon which they arise; and if he will make a statement;

    (3) what public policy objectives are served by having the Chancellor of the Exchequer respond to written parliamentary questions dealing with abortion statistics;

    (4) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the handling by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Government statistics relating to the work of other Government Departments is consistent with the enhancement of the constitutional role of the House in scrutinising the actions of the Executive;

    (5) what consultation he had with right hon. and hon. Members prior to the decision that questions in respect of certain Government statistics were to be handled in future by the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than by the Minister to whose actions and policies they refer.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 July 1996]: The arrangements for answering parliamentary questions relating to the work of the Office for National Statistics have been reviewed, the aim being to enhance the accountability of Ministers to Parliament for the policies for which they are responsible and to emphasise that the statistics themselves are the responsibility of the director of the ONS, thereby improving public confidence in them.

    With effect from the start of the 1996-97 Session the following procedures will apply:

    all oral questions, and written questions which have some policy aspect, will be answered by the relevant Minister in whichever Department has responsibility for the subject concerned;

    written questions simply seeking statistics that are the responsibility of the director of the ONS, will be delegated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the director of the ONS for answer, which will also be printed in the Official Report; and the director of the ONS will routinely copy his answers to whichever Ministers he considers may have an interest.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Sport (II) – 24 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on sport, made during an interview held on Wednesday 24th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it was the case that little had been achieved in sport over the previous year].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. A great deal has happened since then both in schools and beyond schools and what we shall be able to do today after a great deal of work in the last year, is to actually launch the prospectus for the British Academy of Sport and that will be backed by around £100 million of lottery funding and the purpose of that is to provide an academy that will provide the best training, best coaching, best sports medicine and best sports science for elite sportsmen and women including I should say elite disabled sportsmen. This is something I believe we have needed in this country for many years and never had before.

    What I will be saying this morning is that we would like bids in to build and prepare this academy by October. I want an announcement in January and I want this radical change to British sport put in hand as soon as possible.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if sport in school was more important than funding the elite].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Absolutely I would and I mentioned the British Academy of Sport because that is at the pinnacle, but if we really wish to spread both a love of sport and a participation in sport, we need to develop excellence at school level and I will have a good deal to say about that this morning.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was a problem in that half of schools didn’t provide two hours of PE and sport a week].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is what we are seeking to change. One of the things we will be doing – I will come specifically to schools in a moment – will be creating a new category of specialist colleges for sport who will be able to select some of their pupils by sporting ability and there will be specific funding both from the private sector and for specialist colleges which will enable schools to become specialist colleges.

    As far as sport in school is concerned, we are trying firstly to ensure that there is a minimum – a minimum I emphasise – of two hours sport a week but that of course isn’t sufficient and in addition to that we have started to build up much better links between schools and sporting clubs so that school facilities and club facilities can be mutually used outside school hours.

    What I would like to provide is a ladder of sporting opportunity for young people of all abilities, not just the elite, from the moment they get into school, through school into a club life after school and develop for the first time a proper link between school sport and club sport. I think it has been undervalued in our national life. Sport I think is good in its own right, it provides people with a love for life and I am very keen to see it take its proper place in our national life.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how schools could afford PE teachers and also about the 2,600 school playing fields currently under threat].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am glad you raised those points because we have strengthened the safeguards on sports grounds and playing fields so that they stay as sports grounds and playing fields.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the 2,600 playing fields would be sold].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, they won’t be sold I think in most cases. There may be one or two odd cases where there is such an absurd surplus of sports fields that they will, but generally the sports councils will become a statutory consultee and they will need to be persuaded that it should be sold and they won’t easily be persuaded so they should stay in schools.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about cuts to sports council funding].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The sports councils are getting a lot more money because what has happened with the lottery of course and one of the purposes for it. I agree with your point about money for sport and indeed for the arts over recent years, but they were never going to get the money they needed when they had to compete against the rest of the education system, pensions, social security, defence and other matters and that was really the reason for the lottery.

    The lottery will now provide, when it is in full flood, around £300 million a year for sport, £300 million for the arts, £300 million for heritage, for charities and for the millennium fund.

    Contemplate what we could have done if we had had £300 million a year for sport over the last ten years. It would have revolutionised sport. Well that is what we will have over the next ten years and a good deal of that will go to schools.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Sport (I) – 24 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on sport, made during an interview held on Wednesday 24th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he was planning a sports academy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the British nation is a sports loving nation. It likes to see its athletes win, delighted at the silver medal overnight, it would like to see a lot more medals from the Olympic Games. Absolute delight across the country when Tim Henman did so well, when the Test Team win, when the Rugby Team win, with that marvellous soccer win we had against the Dutch just a few weeks ago. It lifts the whole nation, we love sport. I would like our sport to be as good, if not better than any other nation in the world. And the purpose of the British Academy of Sport is to provide elite training, coaching, research into sporting injuries at a level better than you can find anywhere else. And I hope that by developing that excellence at the top it will filter down with the other changes we are making to improve both the quality and the quantity of sport at all levels in this country.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why it had taken so long to get to this point].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We didn’t have the lottery. Sports and the arts have always lost out in government over the last 30 years, whomsoever has been in government, to social security, pensions, defence and matters of that sort. So I invented the lottery to provide a guaranteed amount of money for sport, to improve sport, and the arts for that matter, and other issues. So as a result of that we now can look forward to having something like 300 million pounds a year for as far ahead as we can see devoted to sport. That is going to revolutionise sport and it has only happened because I invented, and this government passed, the British lottery. So we now have an opportunity to develop sport in the way we are seeking to do. And one of the developments will be the British Academy, but only one, it is much wider than that of course.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he could get youngsters into sport given that school playing fields had been sold, and how that talent could be developed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is a very important part of the sporting strategy, and that is what we are dealing with at the moment. Firstly, as far as selling off playing fields is concerned, that is going to stop because we have made the Sports Council a statutory consultee, they will not permit sports fields to be sold unless there is such a surplus of sporting facilities at a school that it is just unnecessary. So you can expect to see the end of sports fields being sold off, and I am very pleased about that. We have also done a deal with British Coal that will preserve a lot of sporting opportunities, mainly in the north, that otherwise might have gone. That also will be announced this morning.

    Of course a good deal of the lottery money will go into sport in schools. Many schools have already applied for lottery money – for cricket nets, for sports halls, for football pitches – and they have been awarded grants and we will be helping them to do that. We are also seeking to increase the amount of sport that is played in schools, develop better links between schools and clubs so that facilities can be used outside school hours and there is better training, that is good for the clubs and I think it is good for the schools, and develop a ladder of opportunity in sport from the very youngest people right up, if they are good enough, to the British Academy of Sport. I think we are going to see sport revolutionised as a result of these changes and I am delighted about it.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference on Sport – 24 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference on sport, held in London on Wednesday 24th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly thank you all for being here today and say how pleased I am to see you. I must say the Downing Street lawn over the years has seen many events, but I don’t think any have been quite as enjoyable as seeing the youngsters play there this morning. And I hope when I have finished speaking for a few moments that you will go straight back to your game, because it is much better to be playing sport than listening to speeches, even in Downing Street.

    I will be quite brief. I want firstly to thank you all for being here. And also just to say a few words about sport and what is happening and what we propose to happen in the future.

    A year or so ago we launched the initiative to improve the level of sporting opportunities both at a national level, at a club level, and most crucially of all, at a school and local level. And I wanted to report to you some of the things that have been happening in that year and to illustrate the fact that that wasn’t a one-off development, that we are determined that these plans to improve sport at all levels get carried through and with the resources to make our plans, and our hopes, and our aspirations become a reality.

    Let me tell you some of what has been happening in the last year. I spoke a year or so ago of my dream of having a National Academy of Excellence, a British Academy of Sport. Let me tell you this morning that we have made a great deal of progress with that, the resources are now available for it and I anticipate that we will get tenders for a British Academy of Sport by around October, with a decision made about the site probably in January of next year.

    The purpose of this Academy, and we envisage a single central academy with perhaps up to 100 acres of land, will be to provide for the sporting elite, including the disabled sporting elite and participants in the paralympics, some of the best sporting equipment, coaching, training, scientific research, that you will find anywhere in the world. We have that at Lilleshall for football but we don’t have it for all other sports and I hope that we are going to be able to develop that.

    What I would like to see is the very best in British sport become the very best anywhere in the world, not just because we like winning, though I freely confess to you I do like to see our sports teams winning, but because I think the success of our national sporting teams, and our national sporting heroes in individual competitions like athletics, gives a lift both to the complete sport itself and to the whole country. We are a sports-loving nation and I believe that we have under-valued sport and its place in our national life for too long. That was largely done because sport has to compete for its money against social security, pensions, defence and all sorts of other areas.

    It was precisely because it would never get the resources that it needed that I decided to develop a national lottery. That will provide a continuing flow of money, in addition – in addition – to the money that comes from the government to develop sport, and the arts and other parts of our national life that are important to so many people.

    The lottery has been a stunning success and it is going to provide for as far ahead as we can see something in the region of 300 million pounds every year for sport. I just invite all those present, sports administrators and others, to contemplate what we could have done with British sport at national, club and school level, if we had had 300 million a year for each year over the last 10 years. We didn’t, but we have now, and we have to think on the grand scale of what we can achieve in the years that lie immediately ahead. The British Academy of Sport will be at the pinnacle of what is going to be there.

    But sport to me is a good deal more than just ensuring that our national teams, and our national competitors, are the best and have the best. I wish that to be so, but it is much more than that. Sport exists at club level, at village level and crucially at school level. And if we want to produce future great sporting champions either as teams or individuals, we are going to have to build from the bottom upwards, produce that love of sport and that opportunity for sport in youngsters like these here today and millions more like them in the future.

    So I would like to say a word or two about sport in schools. We set a minimum target last year of at least 2 hours sport in school and we are making progress towards that, though it is not yet universally achieved, but it will be. But that of course is still inadequate for what I wish to see available for young people and available in schools. I wish to build on that and l wish to build on that in several ways. Firstly by better links between schools and clubs. I don’t by clubs mean the Surreys, the Middlesex, the Arsenal and the Wasps, I mean smaller local clubs as well as that so that school sporting facilities and club sporting facilities are more available both to the club players, and to the school players and there is an inextricable link between the two, to begin to provide a ladder of sporting choice and opportunity from the very young years upwards. I want to see those school facilities used outside school. And the lottery is available to provide sporting facilities for schools as well. In the last year or so something like 20 million pounds has been provided for schools through the lottery to provide sports pitches, cricket nets, sport halls, football pitches, athletics equipment and all sorts of things that otherwise would not have been available to schools.

    We propose also to institute a new system that will offer a special sportsmark, a special acknowledgment for schools that actually specialise in making sure that a proper sporting provision is available for their youngsters. And in my judgment, sport is as much an important part of school life as is mathematics, the other sciences and the arts as well. We need to develop that love at a very young age.

    We propose also to seek some specialist educational institutions that specialise in sport, and a large number of the pupils going into those would be people with some sporting ability.

    We propose to have university scholarships, on which some money has already been spent and more will be spent, to provide more opportunity to make sure that university and further education sport develops. So at each level we wish to see the development of sport.

    One other area I might just briefly mention is the question of the availability of sporting pitches. For some years people have been concerned at the loss to schools and educational establishments of their sporting pitches. Well we have taken action that will effectively stop that. There may be one or two areas where there is such a surplus of sporting equipment that it is appropriate to sell it. But mostly that isn’t the case and the best way to stop that is to do what we have done, and that is to give the Sports Council a statutory right to object if educational establishments wish to sell off sporting fields. I believe that will stop it in its tracks and make sure that schools retain the open space and opportunity to have the team sports which need outside facilities as well as the inside gymnasium facilities that are available.

    I am also delighted that with the cooperation of British Coal we have managed to preserve a very large number of sporting establishments, sporting sites that otherwise might have disappeared out of sport, particularly in the north of England, some 200 sites that will, as a result of the negotiations, be protected for sport and be available for sporting endeavour for the future.

    So these are just a small sample of the developments and changes that we have seen in the last year. For those of you from the press, many more of the things that have happened are set out in the very detailed literature that is available for you this morning and I hope you look at it.

    But the message I just want to convey is this. The determination to improve sporting opportunities is not a one year determination, it is a continuing determination by government to work with the Sports Council. We now have a UK Sports Council and the Chairman is with us here today, and I am delighted to see that, so we can properly develop at all levels, from the very top, from the excellence at the top to the people who may be no good at sport but just happen to love it, right down at the bottom. That the facilities for enjoying sport, for watching sport, for taking part in sport are increasingly available in this country.

    I believe this is an initiative that is long overdue. It is, I freely confess to you, an initiative that is very close to my heart. The best days of my life at school were certainly the days where we had some form of cricket, or rugby, or soccer or athletics. And if I say to these youngsters, anyone who tells you that school-days are the best days of your life, needs their [indistinct], except of course with the sporting provision that I hope increasingly will be available.

    So I would like to express my thanks to the people here. There is a changing attitude in schools. I remember going, a couple of years ago – rather longer actually – to a school to watch their sports day. What I saw shocked me in the culture that I saw there. A teacher said to me, well of course we have sports because it is good to make the children fit, but we don’t want competition, we don’t want people coming first and people coming last because that is damaging. So this is really a sort of anti-competitive day. We would like all the children to feel they have won and had a prize. And while the teacher was saying that to me, over in the corner the kids were organising races to see who won and who lost. And that is actually what sport is about, to see if you can win, to enjoy playing, but to see if you can win, if you can improve your standard and if you can have the enormous amount of enjoyment from sport that millions of other people have had in the past either from playing it or by watching it, then you will have quite literally a love for life that will never leave you. And our plans are to instil that opportunity to learn to love and play sport in schools, in clubs, in professional sport, in amateur sport and in excellence at the top of our sporting pyramid. That ladder of opportunity is being put in place.

    I would like just finally to thank the many sports administrators and national sporting stars who are here today to indicate their love of the games, their determination to see sport play its proper part in national life and also to give me the opportunity to thank so many of them for the way in which the sports stars have so often provided a role model that other people can aim to emulate and the administrators have striven to put in place a proper series of sporting facilities for the future. That is a communal aim. Thank you for being here to enable me to reiterate it again this morning.

    We have made a lot of progress in the last year and I am very grateful to Iain Sproat and Virginia Bottomley for all they have done to help bring that about. But what we have done is still the beginning. Fasten your mind on 300 million pounds plus every year, this year, next year, the year after that and for as far ahead as we can see, and begin to contemplate what we can build in this country for sporting opportunities for those who are the best, those who are quite good and those who just love to take part in whatever sport it is that fascinates them. That is what we are building and thank you for being here this morning to be a part of that development. Thank you very much indeed.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Sheffield City Council

    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 16 April, Official Report, column 509, and the letter of 17 April regarding remarks about Sheffield city council, when the hon. Member can expect a full reply.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 16 April, Official Report, column 509.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

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

     

    Intelligence and Security Committee

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if hon. Members may appear before the Intelligence and Security Committee.

    The Prime Minister: Yes. It is for the committee to decide whom it invites to give evidence.

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister what is the total amount spent so far arising from the Intelligence and Security Committee being established.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Direct administrative and staff costs–excluding accommodation–were £207,054 from December 1994 to the end of June 1996.

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister how many officials work for the Intelligence and Security Committee; and what are their grades.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Four. One grade 7, one senior executive officer, one higher executive officer (development) and a personal secretary.

  • PMQT – 23 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lichfield

    Q1. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister what analysis he has made of the effect of the Government’s social and economic policies on the people of Lichfield; and if he will make statement.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Lichfield has benefited fully from Government policies which have given the United Kingdom a stronger recovery than any comparable European country, the longest run of low inflation for 50 years and the lowest mortgage rates for a generation. Unemployment in Lichfield has fallen by 40 per cent. in the past three years.

    Mr. Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that businesses in Lichfield are experiencing real problems due to the postal strike? Has he been deafened, as I have, by the absolute silence from Opposition Front-Bench Members, who have refused to condemn the postal strike? Might that be because the Communications Workers Union has contributed some £250,000 to Labour party coffers?

    The Prime Minister: The strikes last week were completely unjustified, and I hope that future plans for industrial action will be called off before more damage is done. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the sponsored silence by Opposition Members continues on this matter. [Interruption.] The deputy leader does not have a sponsored silence this afternoon, nor did he last week when he apparently told his leader to backtrack on what he had said in public–which is no doubt what the right hon. Gentleman was doing when he met the unions yesterday.

    Mr. Brian David Jenkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm for the 20,000 residents of Lichfield district who live in my constituency that, under the Tory Government, crime has risen by 147 per cent., education funding from central Government is the lowest in any shire district in England and residential mental health care is being closed for lack of funds? Moreover, when those 20,000 people were given the opportunity to vote in the recent South-East Staffordshire by-election they overwhelmingly turned to new Labour: new life for Britain.

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman make that devastating attack on the spending policies of the shadow Chancellor, who has made it perfectly clear that it is not his policy to spend any more money than the present Government. The hon. Gentleman had better discuss his own difficulties with his own Front-Bench spokesmen. As for crime, it is falling throughout the country and has been falling for some time–the first time that that has happened for a long period. No doubt it might have been easier to achieve that if we had occasionally had the support of Opposition parties for the measures that we adopted.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent call by the chief executive of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority for the teaching of modern British history to be reinstated for GCSE? Does he further agree that any open-minded student will come to the conclusion that over the years socialism has done this country a great disservice, and that history would be likely to repeat itself should new Labour ever get the chance to implement new dangers?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that young people should have the opportunity to study the history of this country, and I hope that the examination boards will be aware of the popular concern among many parents on that subject. Whether students study British history or world history, I think that they will see that policies of high regulation, high spending and high taxes have consistently failed, and that, when people are asked to make a choice between a party that believes in low taxes and one that believes in high taxes, they will choose low taxes yet again at the 1997 election.

    Mr. Blair: With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I think that people will remember that they were supposed to have chosen low taxes at the last election, but then got the largest peacetime taxes in history. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the following question with an unequivocal yes? Does he agree with his Chancellor’s recent statement that he can see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament?

    The Prime Minister: We have made the position on a single currency entirely clear. I shall make a judgment on what is in this country’s national interests, which means that we shall need to know the circumstances of the time, and precisely what a single currency would mean for this country. We need to be engaged in the debate right until its conclusion, whether or not we enter. If we did not enter, a single currency would still have an effect on this country, so it is still important that Britain’s voice be heard in the negotiations until they are concluded.

    Mr. Blair: Why could the Prime Minister not simply answer yes to my question? After all, I am only asking him to agree with his own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does not his response show precisely the paralysis of policy? Let me offer him another chance. Can he, like his Chancellor, see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House whether he agrees with the argumentation in the pamphlet that I have here–a pamphlet produced by Labour Members of Parliament which led to Labour Members squabbling in public this morning and denouncing the shadow Chancellor. I have told the right hon. Gentleman what the Government’s position is. We have set it out in a White Paper. That is the position, and it has not changed.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister asked me whether I agreed with the pamphlet. The answer is no, I do not agree with it. Now let us have a clear answer from him. What sort of situation are we in when a Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot keep his own Ministers, and the Prime Minister’s closest political friends are saying that his party cannot row together or work together? Why should the country put up with another nine months of drift and decay? After six years of that type of weak leadership, are not people entitled to say that enough is enough, and that the only reshuffle that matters will be one that reshuffles the Government out of office and gives the country a fresh start?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may be prepared to commit himself to decisions without the facts that would affect this country. If he will not commit himself to a decision, he had better make up his mind whether he is in favour. He won’t because he can’t, because his party is split from top to bottom on the issue. The reality is that we shall consider the facts–not the prejudices, but the realities–and make a decision on what is right for this country.

    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this Michaelmas the Treasury will be receiving around £1.5 billion from the sale of the armed forces married quarters estate? What excuse is there for the Chancellor to delay the essential announcement on the procurement orders which we all expected before the House rose for the summer recess? He cannot have it both ways. First, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that we have the best armed forces in the world? Secondly, does he agree with our Secretary of State for Defence that they should also be the best equipped?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of the armed forces. I also invite him to agree that we have provided the resources to ensure that our armed forces have the best equipment. He will recall the announcement a week or so ago and the £500 million committed. We are evaluating our assessment of the bids for the various pieces of equipment now due for replacement. When that evaluation is completed, but not before, suitable announcements will be made.

    Mr. Ashdown: Let me put it to the Prime Minister another way. At the end of a Parliament which began with the farce of devaluation and ended with the fiasco of BSE, which has seen Tory Members leave their party and Tory Ministers desert their Government, and which has gone from cash for questions to cash for dinners in Downing street, is it not time for the Prime Minister to lead his exhausted and divided party out of power to fight their civil wars somewhere else?

    The Prime Minister: I think that in his litany the right hon. Gentleman misses some facts of importance to the British people. He cannot recall an occasion in his political lifetime when the British economy has been in such good shape, when inflation has been so low, when unemployment has been falling so well, when growth has been at the top of the European league and investment is coming into this country as it is coming into no other country in Europe. That is happening because of the policies of this Government–policies that his tiny party has objected to throughout this Parliament.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: As next Sunday, 28 July, happens to be the 25th anniversary of my resignation from the then Government over their decision to join the EEC, does the Prime Minister accept that there is growing contempt among the voters for people in all parties who pretend that there are any easy answers to the difficult and complex problems of the European Community? Will he think seriously over the summer recess about the possibility of seeking the advice of the voters of Britain as to which way they wish to proceed on Europe? Would not the best answer to the Opposition be to remind them that the country belongs to the people, not to the political parties?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt from the Opposition’s European policies precisely what they would surrender in the European debate. However they try to hide it, the veto would go and qualified majority voting would increase. They signed up to the socialist manifesto, and the Leader of the Opposition cannot wriggle away from it now. In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, of course we shall consider what is in the interests of the United Kingdom. I do that and I shall continue to do that.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

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

    Mr. Hain: Will the Prime Minister rule out any bid from Mr. John Beckwith for the £1.5 billion sale of defence homes and the £750 million sale of benefit offices, in view of his role in organising Premier Club dinners where business men pay £100,000 to bend the Prime Minister’s ear? Is there not a clear conflict of interest between being premier of Great Britain and the right hon. Gentleman’s position as patron of the Premier Club?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all the facts. I saw the story that interested and misled him. No one can buy access to Ministers. [Interruption.] No one is promised favours. [Interruption.] There is one exception in public life: it is possible to buy access to Labour party policy through the trade unions; it is possible to buy votes; it was possible to summon the leader of the Labour party to explain his remarks about the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers last week; it is possible to change Labour party policy, but not ours. As regards Mr. Beckwith, any bid is independently assessed before being approved.

     

    Q4. Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

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

    Mr. Baker: Will my right hon. Friend condemn from the Dispatch Box the politically motivated strikes by London underground drivers and postal workers? Will he confirm that he has no plans to introduce legislation to give trade unions increased powers or to increase the powers of strikers, which is precisely what is on offer from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. The deputy leader of the Labour party talks about £100,000. Perhaps he will remind the country how much the union that sponsors him pays to the Labour party year after year. Perhaps he will explain that that is why he will not condemn a totally unjustified strike. Perhaps he will explain that not one of the candidates in the shadow Cabinet elections will condemn the strike. If they were standing for election to a Trappist monastery, they could not have been more silent than they have been on the subject of the strike. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) knows that the Labour party’s relationship with the trade unions is a disgrace to British democracy: they rule, and the Labour party follows.