The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Internet

    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to ensure that major publications from his Department are accompanied by a simultaneous electronic release of the text on the Internet.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes, my Office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 18 July, Official Report, column 621.

     

    Fraud

    Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Prime Minister what inquiries to detect fraud by cross-checking his Department’s payroll with details of those claiming benefit he has undertaken; when these exercises took place; and how many staff were (a) suspended, (b) dismissed and (c) prosecuted as a result.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 July 1996]: None, but where the Benefits Agency had reasonable grounds for suspicion that an individual might be involved in benefit fraud the Cabinet Office would respond to its inquiries. Employees found guilty of fraud or dishonesty are liable to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

     

    Next Steps Review

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to publish the next steps review; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 July 1996]: The review will be published in the autumn so as to provide an input into ministerial discussions and subsequent decisions on public expenditure and resource allocation. The 1996 publication will continue the development of the review, providing trend data and other measures common across agencies and will also report on progress towards developing benchmarking or organisational performance.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy – 18 July 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 18th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if this year’s spending round would be a tough one].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, it is. It is always tough to keep spending down. It is very easy to increase spending but it is tough to keep it down, but we need to keep it down. The borrowing requirement is still too large and it is necessary to keep borrowing under control. That is partly why we have got such relatively low interest rates. I would like to keep them low so that mortgages remain low. So yes, it will be tough but I think a fair round.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he would achieve those aims].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will do it as we always do. We have to discuss bilaterally what our priorities are and we have to put our money where our priorities are, where we can make savings we can and we should because the money we have isn’t our money, it is the taxpayers’ money and we have an obligation firstly to take as little of it as necessary and secondly to spend it wisely and that is what the spending round will be about.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the spending cuts would hurt].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will have to see what the outcome of it is. I can’t judge precisely what the outcome will be and precisely where the savings will come. We have made savings over a number of years but our public expenditure is still too high a proportion of our total national take. We would like to get it down, we would like to get it down to 40 per cent of GDP and then, if we can, lower so it is necessary to restrain expenditure and there is no getting away from the fundamental reality that if expenditure rises too high than you are in danger of creating inflation, you are in danger of higher interest rates and you have the certainty over time of higher taxes and nobody in the country wishes to see that, so we must pick our priorities and put our money where our heart is to deliver the priorities that are right for this country.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was caught between Conservative MPs wanting tax cuts and the country not being able to afford them].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have said all along that if it is appropriate to have tax cuts, if the economy is in a shape for tax cuts, then we will deliver them, we will deliver them because we believe that people can spend their own money better on their own behalf and on behalf of their own families than any government can spend it for them, so if it is possible to cut taxes we will cut taxes but we won’t be imprudent, we won’t cut taxes and put the economy at risk. We will cut them if we are certain it is right to do so.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Tony Blair’s comment that the economy was in a bad way as every household was paying 1,000 pounds a year to service the country’s debt].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I must say I think it is rather ripe of the Labour Party to say that. I doubt that anyone watching this programme can ever think of a time when they supported us in cutting back expenditure. Their habit is always to cry, “Let’s have some more expenditure!”. They have opposed almost every expenditure reduction that we have proposed in recent years and I dare say when we cut back spending again they will oppose it and when expenditure rose in the early 1990s because of the recession what were the Labour Party saying to us? They were saying we hadn’t put up spending high enough, so it is frankly a little two-faced to run that argument.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would protect the vulnerable].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Throughout the years we have sought to save on public expenditure, we have sought to ensure that we do so whilst protecting the position of those who are most vulnerable and that is one of the reasons we get so much criticism for the size of the social security budget. We do so because we look at the people who are vulnerable and we have to make a judgement about whether it is right to make savings in that area. Sometimes there are areas in social security where we can make savings, others we can’t, it is a value judgement on each occasion.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Central Bank

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what consultations the Governor of the Bank of England held with him in drawing up the Maastricht proposals for a European central bank; and if he consented to those proposals.

    The Prime Minister: The predecessor of the existing Governor of the Bank of England was a member of a committee which compiled the so-called Delors report on economic and monetary union, published in April 1989. Although influenced by this report, the plans for economic and monetary union set out in the EC treaty as amended at Maastricht were the result of negotiations between member states’ Governments and were ratified according to national constitutional requirements. In particular, protocol No. 11 to the EC treaty requires Parliament and the Government to give consent to the United Kingdom’s participation in the third stage of economic an monetary union, on the terms contained in the treaty, before the United Kingdom would be able to take part. The Government have stated that they will seek to participate in the third stage only if they believe that it would be in the national interest to do so, on the basis of a full assessment of the implications for the United Kingdom at the appropriate time.

     

    Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what steps he will take in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that decisions of the EU, the European system of central banks and the European Court of Justice concerning monetary and exchange rate policy are not binding on the United Kingdom;

    (2) if he will ensure at the intergovernmental conference that no restriction, with special reference to the role of the Bank of England and EU institutions, is placed directly or indirectly on the power of the United Kingdom Government to determine monetary and exchange rate policy.

    The Prime Minister: Protocol No. 11 to the EC treaty on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland states that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. Paragraph 4 of the protocol states that the United Kingdom would

    “retain its powers in the field of monetary policy according to national law” were it to notify the Council of Ministers that it did not intend to move to the third stage. Paragraphs 5 and 8 of the protocol list those articles from the treaty and the statute of the European system of central banks from which the United Kingdom would be specifically excluded in these circumstances.

    As the Government’s White Paper on the intergovernmental conference, “A Partnership of Nations”, made clear, it is not expected that economic and monetary union will be discussed at the IGC. The Government have no reason to challenge that expectation, and will not be seeking to change the treaty arrangements relating to the United Kingdom.

     

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up an inquiry to examine (a) the reasons for the spread of BSE, (b) the use of animal material in feedstuffs, (c) the effectiveness of the measures taken to deal with the situation since 1986 and (d) the quality of the advice available to the Government on this matter.

    The Prime Minister: No. These are essentially technical scientific issues which have been considered many times by the Government’s own committee of independent scientific advisers, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. I have every confidence in the quality of the advice from SEAC.

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

     

    Burma

    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the Burmese Government about the death of James Leo Nichols, a United Kingdom citizen; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 July 1996]: Together with our EU partners, we issued a statement on 5 July calling for a full and satisfactory explanation from the Burmese authorities of the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death on 22 June of Mr. Nichols, who was a Burmese citizen. The statement also called for an investigation into Mr. Nichols’ death by the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Burma.

  • PMQT – 18 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister explain why a Treasury document shows that, under this Government, the economy is set to decline to the level of those of Brazil, Thailand and Mexico? Is not that a telling indictment of the Government’s policy?

    The Prime Minister: One of the attractions of the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that it looks forward to the possibility of what may happen 10 years ahead, whatever the policies followed and whoever the Government may be. I have no doubt that some of the matters in the document that the hon. Gentleman would consider barmy are policies that the Treasury considered might be adopted by a Government other than this one.

     

    Q2. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning today’s postal strike, which is causing widespread disruption to my constituents and throughout the country, and costing businesses many thousands of pounds? Does he agree that any proposal to give new rights to trade unions would merely encourage the incidence of such strikes? Is not this yet further proof that new Labour brings new dangers to the British people?

    The Prime Minister: Today’s strikes cannot and should not be justified, and I roundly condemn them. They are costing the country millions and causing great inconvenience to many people who are not part of the dispute.

    Mr. Skinner: Why?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks why–he supports the strikes and I am pleased that he acknowledges it. I am happy for the instincts of the Labour party to be laid bare by the hon. Gentleman; the House will be pleased to hear what he has to say.

    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the education spokesman, I understand, for the Opposition, said that the strikers should go to arbitration, which self-evidently must be right. I hope that we shall hear the same call from the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, and the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is sponsored by one of the striking unions. I should also hope to hear the same call from the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. New Labour laws to make strikes easier are exactly what the country does not want–and the Government will ensure that it does not get them.

    Mr. Blair: Given that, as we speak, talks are taking place both here between the British and Irish Governments and in Belfast in respect of the peace process, after what, by common consent, must be judged the most damaging two weeks in the affairs of Northern Ireland since August 1994, does the Prime Minister agree that there are three essential foundation stones for rebuilding support for peace? The first is that the two Governments renew their relationship of trust, based firmly on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing street declaration and the other negotiated agreements between them that remain intact and valid. Secondly, all sides must demonstrate their complete commitment to the rule of law and the Government their even-handedness in its application, whether in response to the threat of violence by those engaged in marches, or the evil punishment beatings that claimed their latest victim last night. Thirdly, all parties to the talks on Northern Ireland should move from matters of procedure to matters of substance as soon as is humanly possible, so that we can show the people of Northern Ireland that the constitutional path to peace has life in it, hope in it and, indeed, is the only sane route to the future.

    The Prime Minister: The past 14 days have certainly been extremely difficult for everyone in Northern Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I shall try to respond to his three points. During the past few years, the British and Irish Governments have worked very closely together. It is important for the success of the talks that that co-operation continues, and it is this Government’s intention that that co-operation shall continue. The Irish Government and the British Government do not, of course, agree about every issue under discussion, but I believe that our relations are strong enough on Government-to-Government and personal levels for those talks to continue, even while we seek a solution to the disagreements before us. That is what we are seeking to do.

    Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the rule of law needs to prevail in Northern Ireland, as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The scenes that we have witnessed over the past few days–the violence, the intimidation and the aftermath of those scenes–are wholly unacceptable and should have no place in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

    As to the future and the talks, I entirely agree that progress so far has been inadequate. It is our intention to try to ensure that the talks move forward rapidly from talks about procedure to talks about substance.

    Our intention will be to try to turn the setbacks of the past couple of weeks into a positive advantage as the talks resume, and we will bring all our strength to bear to achieve that.

    Mr. Yeo: In view of the remarkable transformation of Britain’s competitive position, which has been brought about by our opt-out from the European social chapter and the virtual elimination of strikes, does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that a political party that claims to be seeking office should not only boast about its intentions to burden British business with the European social chapter obligation but cannot even unite its Back Benchers in condemning today’s strike on the London underground?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the United Kingdom’s competitive position at the moment. It is very important that we remain competitive in the areas to which he has referred, as well as others.

    I think that I heard the deputy leader of the Labour party say a moment ago, “What about your social conscience?”–

    Mr. Prescott: His social contract.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem roundly to condemn today’s strikes, which are damaging our competitiveness, as I believe he should. No doubt his relationship with his sponsors prohibits him from doing so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Hughes: On the day when the Cabinet has apparently decided to start a new campaign to clamp down on public expenditure, beginning once again with freezing the pay of public sector workers, which it has no doubt done to try to pave the way for tax bribes for its supporters before the election, what does the Prime Minister say to parents in my borough who find that the secondary school that their children attend is having to go to the British American Tobacco company for sponsorship to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds? Is it acceptable that the Government have so underfunded public services to try to produce tax cuts that schooling has become dependent on profits from tobacco sales, when under-age smoking is at its highest level for 10 years?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is making a silly point. He also knows about the growth in expenditure on, and provision for, education over recent years, the dramatic increase in spending per pupil and the improved educational opportunities that now exist. As for pay in the public sector, our view remains that set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor last September–that pay and price increases should be offset by efficiency savings. That has been our policy for some time, and we renewed it this morning.

    Sir Michael Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what information Her Majesty’s Government have received about the crash of the Trans World Airlines airliner last night? Will he take the opportunity to express the sympathy of the House to all involved, and to reaffirm that, if terrorism is involved, international co-operation must be accelerated and that this country will play a full part in that process?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm my hon. Friend’s last point. As yet, we have received no solid information about the cause of the dreadful crash that occurred a few hours ago. A great deal of examination is taking place, and as soon as I have further information I shall ensure that the House is aware of it. I have of course conveyed the sympathy of the House to the American Government, and told them that if they feel that we can assist in any way, we shall be happy to do so.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Ainsworth: To return to the leaked Treasury document, is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)–I believe that he is the Prime Minister’s right hon. Friend again–said this morning on the radio that some of the ideas in the leaked document would be included in the manifesto? Can the Prime Minister tell us which ideas–the privatisation of roads, cuts in post-16 education, the scrapping of old-age pensions, or the complete dismantling of the welfare state?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman stood up to ask that question immediately behind a shadow Chancellor who proposes to cut child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds and take about £1,000 from every family with two children of that age who want to go into further education. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about manifesto pledges, he should worry about his own side’s manifesto pledges, which would take child benefit away from people, raise extra taxes in Scotland and increase trade union rights so that there can be more strikes–and no doubt more sponsorship for the Labour party. Instead of talking drivel about policies that are not Government policies, he should concentrate on the drivel that is the policies of the Opposition.

     

    Q5. Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday’s welcome news that unemployment has hit a five-year low–[Hon. Members: “In Basildon?”]–is in part due to the Government’s reforms to curb trade union policy? Is not new Labour’s policy–[Hon. Members: “For Basildon?”]–to give privileges to trade unions, which no previous Labour Government would have done, further proof that new phoney Labour–[Laughter.]–would destroy the economic success of this country with dangerous new policies for Basildon, Southend and the rest of the country?

    The Prime Minister: As ever, my hon. Friend speaks for the country as well as for Basildon and Southend, West. There is no doubt that yesterday’s news about jobs was extremely good. We are now into the fourth successive year of falling unemployment. There is also increasing growth in new inward investment.

    Mr. Janner: They are fiddled statistics.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member shouts about statistics. They are new jobs. He may regard them as statistics, but I see them as new jobs. I welcome inward investment and new jobs, even in the hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency. I welcome them in any constituency. How he can refer to them as statistics when they are people’s hopes, livelihoods and futures, I cannot imagine. However, the policies to which my hon. Friend referred would damage the lives, opportunities and futures of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituents and everybody else’s.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Prime Minister say in public what the Foreign Secretary told the positive Europe group of Tory Members last Monday: that there will be no toughening of the Government’s stance on Europe–the Prime Minister is shaking his head already–that there will be no ruling out of a single currency and that there will be no additional demands for the repatriation of powers from Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Lady exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend told my hon. Friends. He set out the policy in the public document that determines our negotiating posture for the intergovernmental conference–precisely and in detail. If the hon. Lady has not yet read it, I invite her to do so as she will find it a clear-cut and excellent document.

    Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay at the fact that a group of Opposition Members should publicly support the striking tube train drivers who are grinding London to a halt and costing Londoners and London commerce millions of pounds? Does he agree that the public must be deeply angered by the irresponsible action of union members and the last-minute pussyfooting by the Leader of the Opposition in not condemning the strike?

    The Prime Minister: I have not seen a great amount of support for opposition to the strike from Opposition Members. No doubt the opposition to the strike will be clearly expressed by every Front Bencher over the next few days. Not only will there be a request that the parties go to arbitration–which is surely self-evidently right–but there will be a clear-cut condemnation of a strike that is causing a great deal of difficulty for many innocent people and damaging the industries concerned. When will we get that condemnation from the Opposition?

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    National Debt

    10. Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on trends in the level of national debt since 1990.

    The Prime Minister: There are a number of different measures of public debt. On the measure used for the European Union excessive deficits procedure, the general Government gross debt–GGGD/GDP–ratio remains lower than any other EU member state apart from Luxembourg and France.

    Since 1991, the GGGD/GDP ratio has averaged 44 per cent. Under the last Labour Government, the GGGD/GDP ratio averaged 62 per cent.

     

    European Court of Justice

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what assessments he has made of the (a) advantages and (b) disadvantages to the United Kingdom of the European Court of Justice.

    The Prime Minister: The advantages and disadvantages to the United Kingdom of the European Court of Justice were set out in the White Paper, “A Partnership of Nations”.

     

    Engagements

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

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

     

    Berlin Bombing 1986

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) of 24 June, Official Report, column 14, what discussions Her Majesty’s Government have had with (a) the German, (b) the Lebanese and (c) the United States authorities about the activities of Yassar al-Shuraidi alias Yousef-Salam; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: We have had occasional contact with the German and United States’ authorities about the activities of Yassar al-Shuraidi alias Yousef Salam, but not with the Lebanese authorities, with whom there is no reason to do so.
    Bilateral discussions are conducted on the basis of confidence and trust between interlocutors. The substance of such discussions cannot be made public.

  • PMQT – 16 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

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

    Mrs. Kennedy: Today marks the launch of the Gun Control Network by the families of the victims of Hungerford and Dunblane. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the strength of the case against the private ownership of handguns? Will he accept that such a measure to ban them would receive the support of the overwhelming majority of the British people?

    The Prime Minister: I am, of course, aware of the strength of feeling on this issue and of the recent petition calling for strengthened control over firearms. As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have been careful to consult the Opposition parties on this issue from the outset, and I am delighted that, thus far, we have received their firm support for the way in which we are proceeding. Since 1979, we have strengthened firearms controls. As soon as we receive the report from Lord Cullen, we will consider it with great care. I am happy to reiterate to the House that, in the event it is needed, we have preserved a legislative slot to take any action that is required.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

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

    Mrs. Lait: In the light of the great news that Lite-On and LG are bringing thousands of new jobs to Scotland and Wales, does my right hon. Friend agree that breaking up the United Kingdom, creating an extra tier of regional government, surrounding it all in bureaucracy and making the Scots pay more tax is likely to scare away potential new investors? Is this not new Labour being new danger?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to welcome these substantial new investments to Scotland and Wales. They are the latest of a large number of inward investments that we have seen not only in Scotland and Wales but in other parts of the United Kingdom. I certainly hope that we shall get more. They are coming here predominantly because of the economic environment–[Interruption.]–because this country is an economic success story–[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is chuntering in the back row. He seems to forget that they have been coming here for 15 years under Conservative policies, because we have created a combination of lower inflation, lower taxes and lower costs. That is attractive not just to companies in this country but to world investors seeking the right country in which to place their money. I am delighted that they place it here. It would be a tragedy if policies were followed that would prevent them from doing so in future.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall promising the country at the previous general election that he would balance the budget? How does he square that with today’s further disastrous borrowing figures which show that, leaving aside privatisation moneys, the Government’s overdraft this year is running at a higher level than at the same time last year?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman would look carefully at today’s borrowing figures, he would see that they are entirely consistent with the economic forecast and that they confirm the excellent state of the economy–sustainable growth, low inflation and falling Government borrowing. As for comparatives, since 1979, average borrowing as a proportion of gross domestic product has been just under one half as much as under the previous Labour Government.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister will just confirm that this Conservative Government have received more in North sea oil revenues and from privatising the nation’s assets than the borrowing requirement under the last Labour Government. That is what his Government have had. Is it not also a fact that, under his prime ministership, the public debt has doubled? Will he confirm this statistic and answer this question directly: is it not the case that, as a result of his Government’s borrowing policies, every family in this country now pays £1,000 a year in tax, not for better services in respect of health, education and law and order but just to service the debt that he has created? Is that right or is it wrong?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is completely misleading the House. He knows what resources have been spent in recent years. I will tell him where they have gone–they have gone on health, education, defence and public services. The right hon. Gentleman is the man who says that he wants to keep taxes down, yet he wants to put public expenditure up. The reality is that, whereas he may play games in opposition, we have to deal with the realities of producing a successful economy, as we have done in recent years and as we will do in the years to come.

    Mr. Blair: Not a single one of those figures did the Prime Minister dispute–£1,000 a year in tax just to service the debt. Let me tell the Prime Minister that, if he wants to have a better balance in public spending, why not tackle the problems of long-term unemployment which have put up the bills for people in this country? Is it not the truth–[Interruption.] That is the party that has spent on welfare and unemployment but lowered spending on investment for the country’s future. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, if an ordinary member of the public had run an overdraft as large as this, he would have been told that his time was up and his home should be repossessed? Is that not the fate so richly deserved by this Government and this Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister: Dear, oh dear. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about success in dealing with unemployment, perhaps he would care to acknowledge that we have the lowest rate of unemployment of any significant nation in western Europe; that unemployment has been falling for three years, which it has not been doing anywhere else; that every single Labour Government we have ever been cursed with have increased unemployment dramatically; that he has policies that would increase the costs of employers, which would create unemployment; and that one of his unions is asking for a minimum wage of £6.03 an hour, which would cost an enormous amount in unemployment.

    While the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about economic performance, let me mention the things that he neglected to mention: the lowest level of inflation for 50 years; the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years–[Hon. Members: “More.”]–four years of falling unemployment and increasing employment–[Hon. Members: “More.”]–the lowest rate of basic tax for 50 years–[Hon. Members: “More.”]–disposable income rising way above inflation–[Hon. Members: “More.”]–No. 1 in Europe for investment–[Hon. Members: “More.”]–in the interests of other questioners, I shall stop there, but there is far more to the success of the Government’s policies.

     

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

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

    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no responsible Prime Minister would weaken Britain’s veto in Europe by giving Brussels more powers to determine matters that should be voted on and discussed in the House? Does not new Labour wish to surrender Britain’s veto in Europe? Does not new, phoney Labour mean new, real danger for residents in Basildon, Southend and the whole country?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend should not suggest that the dangers from those policies are in only Basildon and Southend. They are in every constituency around the land. He is quite right.

    The Government are not prepared to see our veto eroded, as the Labour party apparently is. On issues of national and constitutional significance, any Government should be prepared to protect British interests, if necessary by using the veto and saying no. I regret that the Opposition are committed to undermining the veto. If they say that they are never going to be isolated in Europe, what they are saying is that they would never use the veto whether it was in this country’s interests or not. They would follow the line determined by our European partners. That is their policy out of their own mouths, and upon that let them be judged.

    Mr. Ashdown: But Britain’s national debt has doubled since the Prime Minister took office. Britain’s annual debt has doubled against what the Prime Minister said that it would be two years ago. Is the Prime Minister prepared to confirm the words of his own Chancellor of the Exchequer in spring this year when he said that, when public borrowing was around £30 billion a year, tax cuts were irresponsible?

    The Prime Minister: As to the Budget, the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see. It is some months away. We will deal prudently, as we have always done, with that aspect.

    I seem to remember the right hon. Gentleman’s party supporting the largest public borrowing that we have ever seen at any stage in this country. Under this Government, the economy has gone from strength to strength to strength. If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about public borrowing, as I am, I invite him and the leader of the Labour party to support the Government in the public expenditure decisions that we will have to take in the forthcoming public expenditure round. We will judge by their words whether they support the decisions that we will take in the public spending round. If they support restraint, it will be the first time that they have done so.

    Sir John Gorst: In view of the industrial relations unrest in the Post Office, will my right hon. Friend give consideration not merely to the suspension of the monopoly but to the application of a law of contract to all parties in the Post Office?

    The Prime Minister: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend about the likely dangers of a Post Office strike. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is giving consideration to suspension of the monopoly, and I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend’s further point.

     

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

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

    Mr. Hall: The Prime Minister will be aware that last year’s tax revenue fell short by a staggering £7 billion. Likewise, last year’s public sector borrowing requirement was £10 billion greater than forecast 16 months previously. Does he agree that, if a managing director in the private sector made such an overestimate of a company’s income and plunged it into such huge debt, he would be sacked? What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows very well the degrees of difficulty in determining tax revenue. Of course, his way of determining tax revenue would be to support his leader in increasing taxes, with the large range of extra taxes that the Labour party is already planning. He might as well admit it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Brazier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

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

    Mr. Brazier: In considering the very sad events in Ulster and welcoming the deployment of extra troops there, I should like to ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the overwhelming priority must be the restoration of security, which must involve whatever resources and legal powers the security forces require.

    The Prime Minister: Self-evidently, the overwhelming need is to restore normal law and order to the Province so that problems are solved by dialogue and not by violence and confrontation. We must continue to do whatever we can to ensure that the bomb in Enniskillen–whoever turns out to be responsible for it–does not relaunch the cycle of violence that has so scarred life in Northern Ireland in recent years. I particularly welcome the restraint that has been shown by loyalist groups and I very much hope that they will continue to show that restraint in future. The security forces have our full support. They will continue to have our full support in the Province and in the rest of the United Kingdom.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

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

    Mrs. Roche: Given that 21 Conservative Back Benchers have signed an early-day motion expressing serious concern about the sale of Ministry of Defence homes and that one of them described it as a half-baked scheme, deeply upsetting to service families, how do the Prime Minister and the Government justify the sale and the £900 million a year rent bill to the British public?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is mistaken in what she says and in her judgment. The service chiefs support the sale. They have recognised and said publicly that it will raise £1.5 billion in public revenue. The Labour party has said a great deal about public borrowing. Will they vote against the £1.5 billion that the sale will bring into the public revenue and cut borrowing, or will it be another occasion when the leader of the Labour party says one thing and votes in a quite different way?

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 15 July 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview held in London on Monday 15th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the government gave no direction to the Chief Constable of the RUC in the last week].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it was an operational matter. The government are responsible for broad policy of course, but the Chief Constable is responsible for operational matters. The belief that Ministers at some distance can give detailed instructions on how to handle a street order or disorder I think is fatuous. So the answer is no instructions were given at all.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if no help was given the sensitivity of a political matter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends what you mean by help. If Sir Hugh Annesley had asked for the government’s advice, if he had asked us to assist, if he had asked us to comment, then of course we would have discussed the matter with him. But it is not for Ministers to instruct the Chief Constable how to handle a matter dealing with control on the streets. He is the professional at that, not the Secretary of State or any other Minister.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sir Hugh had asked him for any advice].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, he didn’t ask for any advice and he has made that clear. It was an operational decision by him to ban the march in the first place. As events changed he sensibly considered the matter and decided in the interests of order that he would make a change to his original decision, and that he did. Both decisions were his and his alone, as he has made clear repeatedly.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sir Hugh made the right decision].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think he did make the right decision. I am not going to second-guess the Chief Constable or criticise the Chief Constable. He has an immensely difficult task in Northern Ireland. He needs to retain the confidence of both communities. He didn’t just make these decisions on the day. I think it is worth remembering he had been discussing the matter with the Garvaghy Road residents and with the Orange Lodge for some months past, there had been a whole series of meetings to try and and reach an accommodation. The problems he faced was neither side, neither the marchers nor the residents were prepared to reach a compromise to make matters at all easy either for the public at large or for the Chief Constable.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the government should have become involved].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you mean should the government override the Chief Constable – emphatically no.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if discussions should take place with the Chief Constable on matters such as this].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Chief Constable must make the judgement. He is the professional. Let me put the point to you the other way round. If Sir Patrick Mayhew, or any other Minister, had intervened in this and instructed the Chief Constable, I wonder precisely what you would be saying to me about political control of the police. You would be saying this is unprecedented, it is unconstitutional, where does it stop? And you would be right to ask those questions. We have a very clear constitutional distinction in this country. The government sets the law, it is available to be consulted, but operational decisions, decisions concerning the maintenance of law and order, are properly for the police. And we have full confidence in Hugh Annesley and he has our full support.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Stone of Scone

    Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister at what time he first informed the Dean of Westminster of his intention to make a statement to the House about the Stone of Scone; and what consultations previously had taken place with the dean and chapter.

    The Prime Minister: My discussions with the dean and others before the announcement were confidential.

     

    Isle of Wight

    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Isle of Wight council calling for independence.

    The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, none.

    Mr. Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will undertake a study on the future status of the pound sterling as legal tender on the Isle of Wight following the council’s call for independence.

    The Prime Minister: No. The Isle of Wight is part of the United Kingdom and sterling continues to be the only legal tender on the island.

     

    Beef Exports Ban

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take action if the EU committee of experts fails to agree to lift the ban on British beef exports to third countries.

    The Prime Minister: We expect the Commission and other member states to act fully in accordance with the framework for removing the ban agreed unanimously at Florence.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Sport in Schools (II) – 14 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on sport in schools, made during an interview held in London on Friday 14th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was trying to do with sport what Harold Wilson had done with education and the Open University].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think the Open University was a remarkable contribution by Harold Wilson. But no, it isn’t. We are part of a nation of sports lovers. The whole of this initiative is to deal with sport right from the grass roots upwards, to put sport back in schools, to improve it in clubs, and the British Academy of Sport is to deal with excellence. I believe in this country people like to see our sporting stars succeed, they like our team to win. The British Academy of Sport will ensure that we have the best of our sporting stars given the best training and the best facilities at a young age.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Margaret Thatcher’s sell-off of 5,000 playing fields when she was Prime Minister].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were surplus fields in those days, I don’t think there are many surplus fields now, so we have changed the system. But what we are seeking to do is to create a renaissance in sport, not just, as I emphasised a moment ago, for the elite, not just for those people who are very good at it, but for everybody, youngsters upwards, whether able-bodied or disabled we want to increase the sporting facilities, increase the sporting opportunities and increase the quality and standard of sport in this country.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if standards in British sport were currently quite low].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wouldn’t understate the excellence of British sport, one only has to think of the record of our athletes for example over recent years, or our Rugby 15 for example. So we have a very high quality of sport and some of the greatest individual sportsmen and women in the world. But I think we need to improve that, to give more people opportunities, and in particular improve the quality of team sports.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he knew lottery money would be spent on sport when Government had previously pledged not to become involved with the distribution of that money].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been discussing this with the Sports Council. What we decided when we established the national lottery was that the individual components of it, that is to say sport, arts, heritage, millennium fund and so forth, would be going through intermediary bodies. Now the proposals we have announced this morning have been very carefully discussed with the Sports Councils who give them full backing. So we can work with the Sports Councils and that is what we are seeking to do.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Sport in Schools (I) – 14 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on sport in schools, made during an interview held in London on Friday 14th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it was a personal mission for him to get more sports played in schools].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In a sense it would, yes. One has seen the decline in school sport for 25 maybe 30 years and I think if we are really going to reach the quality of sport at the top levels that I would like to see, it has to start at the bottom levels so you need sport back in schools, but I think we need it also if we are going to see a renaissance in sport right across the country. It isn’t only for people who are good at it, it is for people who enjoy it and I think today we have taken quite a large step towards that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why sport was important and whether some people thought it wasn’t necessary].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I suppose some people would, but I don’t think you have a rounded life just by having a career and a fat wallet. There are many things beyond that, sports is one, the arts are another and the underlying thought when I decided to proceed with a lottery was neither arts nor sport nor heritage, none of those things, would ever get the resources they need out of the taxpayer’s pocket, there would always be greater demands and the only way to provide those resources was the lottery and get for millions of people better sporting facilities, a better quality of sport, a better opportunity to take part in sport or indeed a better opportunity to see art; it is an important part of their lives.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether there were some advantages in playing sport that helped develop people].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t want to be pompous about it but I think there are. I think it is character-building. Life is competitive; one thing is certain about competitive sport, you either win or you lose and you have to learn to win and you have to learn to lose, and I think if you can learn to do that in a sporting environment it is something you have gained.

    The other point that I feel very strongly about is that if you learn to love sport as I do and as you do as a youngster, it is a love you have for life, it doesn’t go away; your own special team perhaps is a great treasure to you, but beyond that you love the game. I think it adds an extra dimension to life.