The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview – 12 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held on Friday 12th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked his opinion on the European Court decision on beef exports].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen the detailed argumentation yet. All I have heard thus far is that they seem to have accepted many of our arguments but not reached a favourable decision. I don’t know why. I haven’t seen the judgement. It’s very long and complex, but it’s clearly very disappointing and frankly rather surprising.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he would do now].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have to study the decision. What this court decision was about was dealing with a fairly small element of the whole problem. What we still need to do with the beef industry is to continue to restore confidence in British beef. That is the most important thing. I think there is no reason not to have confidence in British beef. We must persuade consumers of that and I think that largely now they are persuaded and also abroad.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether his meeting with John Bruton was both frank and tough].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It was both of those things. That’s certainly true. But then John Bruton and I know one another very well. There is no point in us dissembling with one another. We had some frank exchanges on the issue.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked his reaction to the policemen injured in Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s indefensible. What we have seen in Northern Ireland in the last few days is thuggishness. Thuggishness on both sides. It’s all very well for everyone attributing blame to one side or another. The truth is it is on both sides and it is utterly unacceptable.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether any political pressure can been used on the RUC].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Government brought no pressure to bear on the RUC. This was a police operational decision as it had to be a police operational decision. The Chief Constable has made that clear. I wish Sinn Fein would stop telling lies. The reality is that if the Chief Constable had not acted as he did, people’s lives would have been lost. The Chief Constable’s responsibility is to maintain law and order and preserve property and people’s lives. I can just imagine what Sinn Fein and others would have said if the Chief Constable hadn’t acted as he did, if the matter had then got out of control as he believed it would, and lives had been lost. I wonder what Sinn Fein, with their double standards, would have said then.

  • PMQT – 11 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th July 1996. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is representing Her Majesty’s Government at an official function with President Mandela.

    Mr. McNamara: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that it is no longer the Queen’s writ that runs in Northern Ireland but the Orange writ? The actions of Her Majesty’s Government in the past day compare most unfavourably with the actions of Lady Thatcher who, when she sat on the Government Front Bench, saw down the Orange threat at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the framework document is still the policy of Her Majesty’s Government?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific question–the framework document is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government. It is generally accepted across the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have done more to bring peace to the Province, albeit that it is sadly disturbed at the moment, than Ministers in any other Administration in modern times.

     

    Q2. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend condemn unreservedly the disruption on London Transport being caused by members of the Associated Society Locomotive of Engineers and Fireman and, now, the National Union of Rail, Marine and Transport Workers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such action is a complete misuse of industrial power, causes hardship to millions of Londoners and threatens the tourist trade? Is my right hon. Friend surprised that some hon. Members have failed to condemn that disruption, and does he agree that, for Londoners, new Labour has come to mean hard labour?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises important and urgent matters. I am wholly sympathetic with his comments about the plight of Londoners faced with that unjustifiable action. As to persons who should condemn it, I put at the top of the list the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is sponsored by one of the unions concerned.

    Mr. Prescott: Will the Deputy Prime Minister break with tradition and give a straight answer to a simple question? Over the next 25 years, how much rent will the Ministry of Defence pay to the purchaser of the married quarters estate in return for the £1.6 billion estimated sale price?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will have noticed that, faced with the question that I put to him, all that the deputy leader of the Labour party could do was laugh and refuse to answer. On the specific question he put to me, what the House will want to judge is whether it should listen to his strictures or to the advice of the chiefs of staff about what is best for the military services.

    Mr. Prescott: Can the Deputy Prime Minister deny the press reports which state that the Government have agreed to pay far more in rent than they will receive from the sale? Is it not a scandal that the Government are keeping secret just how much taxpayers’ money they have guaranteed to pay to those property speculators?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has no understanding of how property deals are structured. If he had, he would realise that this negotiation will lead to improved standards for members of Her Majesty’s services and that the minimum guarantees are well below the occupancy levels assumed to prevail throughout that time.

    Mr. Prescott: Will the Deputy Prime Minister now tell the House the truth? This is a bad deal for service families and for the public. It is selling off a national asset at a knockdown price. It is a typical smash-and-grab operation by a Government of spivs.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: That is exactly what the Labour party has said about every privatisation measure that we have ever introduced. Every time we do it, we hear this ranting nonsense from the Labour party. Then, when we have done it, the Labour party cannot bring itself to reverse it.

    Sir Gerard Vaughan: In the week in which the Father of the House has celebrated his 80th birthday and his 46 years of service to the House, will my right hon. Friend associate himself with the congratulations and good wishes of the House?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has provided me with a most welcome opportunity to pay a fulsome tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who has served the House and the country with great distinction for a long time. I say only one word of personal thanks, which is that I am grateful that he had the foresight to recommend my name for the Conservative candidates’ list some 30 years ago.

     

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

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that both Houses gave a spectacular welcome to President Mandela because he personifies the struggle against the apartheid regime? Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating those who supported the anti-apartheid movement throughout President Mandela’s years in prison? Will he join me in hoping that President Mandela’s attitude towards his former oppressors will strengthen and build the new democracy? Does he agree that President Mandela’s attitude brings shame to those in this country who gave succour and support to the apartheid regime? [Interruption.]

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I would have hoped that the House could have responded to the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are talking about one of the political giants of our time and I have no hesitation in paying tribute to a man who, in his behaviour since leaving prison, has made one of the most remarkable political contributions that I have ever seen. To have spent that part of his life in those circumstances and to have emerged with such apparent absence of any bitterness to set about the healing of the wounds in that country with the potential that that has for not just South Africa but the whole continent of Africa, must be regarded as one of the more remarkable political achievements of our century.

     

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

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the downbeat assessment of Britain’s industrial involvements of late by the voice of Labour–sadly not with us today–investment by Lucky Goldstar in Wales, Unipart in England and Lite-On in Scotland demonstrates that UK plc is in very good heart?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I hope that the entire House would want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on securing not only the largest inward investment ever to come to this country, from Lucky Goldstar of Korea, but probably one of the largest inward investments ever attracted into the European Union. It is a huge tribute to the policies of the Government, which are transforming the United Kingdom into the enterprise centre of Europe.

    If anybody wants to understand just how out of touch the Labour party is, they might remember the words of the deputy leader:

    “I don’t see much inward involvement flooding in. I see companies flooding out.”

    That is the Labour party keeping its hand on the pulse of what is happening.

    Madam Speaker: Question 5. [Interruption.]

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am happy to answer the question, if only I can get a chance to hear it in the first place.

     

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

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Welsh: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the Greenpeace campaign to stop industrial fishing for sand eels, which is destroying entire fishing grounds in the North sea, including Wee Bankie, near my constituency? Will he undertake to have this issue raised in forthcoming intergovernmental conference and common fisheries policy talks?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture take the matter extremely seriously and will raise it as appropriate in any international forum.

     

    Q7. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country has the finest civil service in the world, and that any newspaper reports to the contrary today are entirely bogus? Will he–[Hon. Members: “Reading.”] Will he endorse the view that the civil service has more important things to do implementing the Government’s excellent policies than spending time on the wholly academic issue of a possible Labour Government in the future?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question, because–[Hon. Members: “Reading.”] That is perfectly true. I was aware that the question might be raised, because it had been extensively reported in The Independent as a result of the organised publication of suggestions that there had been politicisation of the civil service by a civil service union– coincidentally on the day when the Labour party is organising a Supply day debate on the subject, so I had done some research.

    I understand that none of the cases involving allegations of improper conduct by Ministers has been substantiated, and that no further approaches have been made to the commission to investigate irregularities since its last report. The fact is that the Government created the appropriate machinery to allow civil servants the right of appeal if they felt that they were being asked to do things that were politically wrong. I understand that that machinery is working properly. I see no justification whatever for the civil service union report today when there is not a shred of verifiable evidence contained in it.

     

    Q8. Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Canavan: On this historic day, when both Houses of Parliament had the privilege of being addressed by one of the greatest political leaders of this century, will the Deputy Prime Minister appeal to all political leaders in Northern Ireland to stretch out to each other a hand of friendship, peace and reconciliation–just as Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk did to ensure a better future for their country based on the equality of all the peoples, irrespective of race, gender or creed?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman speaks for the House. I would add only one thought, with which I am sure that he would wish to associate himself. It is that President Mandela has done all those things within the context of the rule of law.

    Mr. Nicholls: At a time when commuters in London are being given a timely reminder of what life used to be like under Labour in a strike-ridden Britain, does my right hon. Friend recall that, even in the dark days of old Labour, there was never a suggestion that the firing of strikers should be outlawed? Does he recall that new Labour now proposes that it should be illegal to fire strikers? Does that not show that there really are new dangers in new Labour?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has raised a point that concerns us all. The new Labour proposals for trade union reform envisage changes to give unions powers that they never had under earlier legislation. Beyond any shadow of doubt, new Labour represents new dangers.

    Mr. Skinner: With regard to the earlier reference to jobs for south Wales, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how much subsidy, in all its various forms, has been paid by the Government to attract those jobs? Was not the right hon. Gentleman responsible for refusing subsidies to the pits, which he then closed a few years ago? If he had kept open those pits by paying subsidies, south Wales would not need so many jobs now.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: If I remember correctly–it is some time since I looked at the figures–the subsidies to the coal industry amounted to £19 billion, as a result of which jobs were not saved: they simply disappeared under Government after Government. The transformation now, which the hon. Gentleman cannot live with, is that the mining industry has just had its first ever strike-free year.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 10 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in London, held on Wednesday 10th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what is your reaction to LG’s decision to invest in South Wales?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is absolutely marvellous news for Wales and absolutely wonderful news for the United Kingdom. It is not just the fact that it is the biggest ever single investment into the United Kingdom – 1.7 billion pounds – it isn’t only the 6,000 jobs it will directly create, it will of course create over time a lot of extra jobs in order to service those. So it is remarkably good news for Wales and I am absolutely delighted that we have been able to encourage them to come here.

    QUESTION:

    Turning to Northern Ireland, with the extra troops being sent in and the violence overnight, is the peace process effectively at an end now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it isn’t. At the moment we have to deal with the immediate problem that exists. The confrontation we have seen, the mob violence we have seen, does nobody any good in Northern Ireland. And I think the best way that that is going to be resolved is by negotiation at local level between the communities and I very much hope that is what is going to happen over the next day or so. But the RUC will seek to ensure that there is proper law and order there, that is essential. But I hope over the next couple of days that everyone with any influence will use that influence to encourage the communities to talk at local level and to bring this present impasse to an end. That is what we very much hope will happen.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that MPs are going to support you call for pay restraint this evening?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope so. We have had to ask other people for restraint over the last few years and we will have to do that again in the future. It is changing the face of the British economy, what has happened over recent years, and today’s announcement, for example, is another illustration of that. So was the announcement last week of Lite-On’s investment in Scotland of a thousand jobs.

    So the Government have set out its priorities. We believe restraint is appropriate and I very much hope that is what we will be able to achieve tonight.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the CBI/RIIA/COSAT Invesment Conference on South Africa – 10 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the CBI/RIIA/COSAT Investment Conference in South Africa, held on 10th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My visit to South Africa nearly two years ago was unforgettable : unforgettable for the reconciliation and hope which I encountered in all whom I met; unforgettable for the knowledge that South Africa had just crossed the threshold of a new beginning.

    I had the chance to meet young South Africans in the township of Alexandria. They face immense challenges – the challenges of getting educated, finding a job, making a living. But their enthusiasm and hope in their future was obvious.

    No British Prime Minister had visited South Africa for 34 years. When I addressed the National Assembly, I spoke of a fellowship for the future between Britain and South Africa.

    Since then, we have been putting that fellowship into practice in practical ways:

    – by increasing development cooperation, working with South Africa in education, health, agriculture, local governments and in helping South Africans to set up and run small business. Under the Soweto Skills Initiative captains of industry agreed to train young South African entrepreneurs from Soweto township in business skills.

    We are also making progress:

    – by increasing cooperation in science, in technology, in engineering;
    – by helping with integrating South Africa’s armed forces;
    – and – particularly relevant for this audience – by working together to promote trade and investment.

    And with some success.

    Trade between us has leapt. British exports rose 25 per cent in 1994 and a further 30 per cent in 1995.

    South Africa has a substantial investment in Britain. And Britain is the biggest foreign investor in South Africa.

    I am very keen that British business should continue to lead the way.

    It is important they do so, because investment from overseas will be one of the keys to South Africa’s future prosperity. Investment flows will dwarf any government-to-government assistance.

    South Africa can look to Britain as a channel for investment, through the City of London, with all the unique facilities that the City has to offer.

    And South Africa can also look to Britain as a friend in Europe, arguing for the widest possible access for South African products to the EU market, under the EU/South Africa free trade agreement now being negotiated.

    When I visited South Africa in 1994, I said that, “South Africa is open for business and we look forward to doing business with you”.

    That business is being done. And I have every confidence you will go on doing it.

    – A British company is by far South Africa’s largest foreign employer.
    – Nine of the top twenty foreign employers in South Africa, are British.

    Today, South Africa is an important political and economic force.

    Politically, her transition has been an inspiration around the world.

    Economically, she has the potential not only to attain the growth rate she needs, but also to lead the way to greater growth throughout Southern Africa.

    A great deal of the credit for bringing about the successful transformation of South Africa lies with our guest today.

    A man who has overseen and in many ways made possible South Africa’s transition to democracy.

    A man who, it can truly be said, needs no introduction.

    He needed no introduction yesterday for the thousands who lined the Mall and packed the stands on Horseguards Parade to welcome him at the start of his State Visit – a larger crowd than for any State visitor I can remember.

    And he needs no further introduction today.

    Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Nelson Mandela, President of the Republic of South Africa.

  • Mr Mandela’s Speech at Luncheon – 9 July 1996

    Below is the text of Nelson Mandela’s speech at a luncheon in London held in his honour on 9th July 1996.

    PRESIDENT MANDELA:

    Mr. Prime Minister;

    My Lords;

    Ladies and Gentlemen.

    Thank you for your kind words of welcome and support. My delegation and I have been moved by the warm welcome we have had. We are greatly encouraged by the evident desire on the part of the British public that South Africa should succeed in her endeavours.

    When you visited South Africa you said that you had come to re-awaken an old friendship and to signal a new fellowship between our two countries, a fellowship for the future. Your visit, Mr. Prime Minister, and the highly successful visit by Her Majesty did indeed achieve these goals, beyond our wildest expectations. Visits between our two countries are at an all-time high, cooperation is increasing and awareness of each other’s interests is growing.

    South Africa today is in a constructive mood. Our new democratic institutions have taken firm root and won the respect of all sectors of our society. The new constitution adopted by our elected representatives widens the frontiers of our freedoms, and gives South Africa democratic government based on the universal norm of majority rule.

    In the past two years, despite the absence of legitimate local authorities, we have been able to make a start in improving social services. The lives of millions have been changed through better health care, water supply, electrification and education, amongst others. Constructive and focused development assistance from Britain made a significant contribution to this progress.

    The completion of our first democratic local government elections not only puts in place a critical element of democracy, but provides an indispensable instrument of development and opens the way for faster delivery of services.

    The peaceful manner in which the elections in KwaZulu/Natal were conducted should give confidence to all those with an interest in South Africa’s future. That was a joint achievement of the province’s people, political parties, and our security forces; and we are confident that the constructive relationship forged in political contest will endure in democratic local governance.

    Underpinning all the progress we have so far made is a powerful impetus towards national unity and reconciliation. We have achieved consensus of the broadest kind around the programme being defined by government for the reconstruction and development of our country.
    In particular, our recently announced strategies to combat crime and to effect growth, job creation and redistribution, have established a framework within which all major social sectors will be working in partnership. Building on the work of the last two years, it will move us beyond the present constraints.

    As we implement our programme and move towards our goals, our partnership with Britain will play a critical role.

    We are pleased to note the rate at which economic links with Britain have been growing, and appreciate the British Government’s active promotion of trade with South Africa.

    Britain furthermore remains South Africa’s main source of tourism – I am told that the current rate of 37 departures from Heathrow to South Africa every week will increase to more than 40 by the end of the year.

    The importance to us of our economic relationship with Britain is reflected in the fact that I am accompanied by one of the largest business delegations that has ever left our shores. This morning’s conference provided them with an invaluable opportunity to engage with Britain’s business community. They will also be keenly using other occasions to promote expanded economic activity between our countries. For, in the final analysis, the success of our macroeconomic framework relies on rapidly increasing investments.

    We also appreciate the British Government’s willingness to assist South Africa in obtaining the best possible agreement with the European Union, in order to promote development in South Africa and underpin the durability of the new democratic order.

    Investment that boosts our productive capacity, introduces new skills, and increases exports is critical to the reconstruction and development of our country. Conversely, the potential for growth in South Africa creates immense opportunities for profitable British engagement with our country, in a relationship of mutual benefit.

    Mr. Prime Minister;

    The British Government’s support for democracy and development in South Africa is invaluable. Co-operation and assistance with regard to economic, development and military matters have brought South Africa significant and substantial benefits. The discussions we held today will strengthen these relations, and deepen our co-operation as members of the Commonwealth.

    My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    I now kindly request you to raise your glasses to British/South African friendship – a fellowship for the future!

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    St. Andrew’s Hospital, Bromley by Bow

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit St. Andrew’s hospital, Bromley by Bow.

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

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 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.

  • PMQT – 9 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 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.

    Mr. Anderson: Does the Prime Minister agree that one part of the historic greatness of President Mandela is that he is prepared to forgive and forget the collusion of the Tory Government at the time of apartheid because he knew that, in his struggle against an evil system, he had the overwhelming support of the British people?

    The Prime Minister: President Mandela is a very welcome guest to the United Kingdom as President of the Republic of South Africa and I look forward to my talks with him tomorrow. I enjoyed my visit to South Africa and our discussions then, and I have no doubt that the President will be given a warm and friendly reception in this country by everyone he meets.

    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that the headmaster of the London Oratory school in Fulham–a school well known for its ability to attract the brightest pupils from all over London–recently said that, if Labour won the election, he would consider taking his school private? What advice does the Prime Minister have for parents of children at the school, apart from the obvious advice to vote Conservative?

    The Prime Minister: All parents at every school will be concerned about the quality of education in their school, and I am sure that that also applies to the London Oratory.

    Mr. Blair: Given the Chancellor’s admission today that there will be an extra £12 billion of borrowing this year and next–double last year’s forecast–what is the Prime Minister’s explanation for the appalling state of the public’s finances?

    The Prime Minister: I find the right hon. Gentleman’s question astonishing. If he had read the economic forecasts this morning, he would have read of better economic prospects in this country than in any country across the European Union, and better economic prospects than we have known for many years. Those prospects could not have been obtained other than by following the policies that we have followed in recent years.

    Mr. Blair: When the Prime Minister reads out his list of statistics, perhaps he will also confirm that Britain has a higher inflation rate than many of its main competitors–it has higher interest rates than France, Germany, the United States or Japan–and that it is the only country anywhere in the European Union, apart from Spain, to be running a trade deficit, despite the 20 per cent. devaluation of the pound. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he promised that he would cut public sector debt, but that it has doubled under his stewardship of the public finances, and that we now spend £25 billion a year servicing that debt–more than on law and order and more than on defence?

    The Prime Minister: I think that everyone in the House will wonder why, on every conceivable occasion, the right hon. Gentleman wants to run down the country’s performance. I shall tell him what is happening: we have the lowest levels of inflation for 50 years–an achievement never remotely matched by any Labour Government–the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, four years of falling unemployment and growing employment, and the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years. Furthermore, the debt ratio is lower than it was in 1979–unlike in France, Germany and every other G7 country. That is the impact of the Government’s policies since 1979, and it is unmatched by anything that the Labour party ever remotely achieved in office.

    Mr. Blair: Madam Speaker, he does not deny a single fact that was put to him: that his forecasts have been wrong or that job creation and employment growth over the past 10 years have been lower in Britain than in any of the 10 main world economies. No Government–Labour or Conservative–have ever had £120 billion in North sea oil and squandered it or sold off every asset that the public owned and blown the money. Is it not true that, having promised that he would cut tax, he raised it; and having promised that he would cut borrowing, he raised it? Is not the lesson that, just as the Tories are untrustworthy and incompetent over tax, they are untrustworthy and incompetent over the state of the nation’s finances?

    The Prime Minister: I note–as will people here and abroad–the way in which, on every conceivable occasion, the Leader of the Opposition tries to sell this country short. I remind him that the economy is in the fifth successive year of sustainable growth. Since the last election, we have enjoyed the strongest recovery of any major European country.

    As for forecasts, the right hon. Gentleman sits next to the shadow Chancellor: the man who cannot say whether interest rates are too high or too low, or whether inflation is too high or too low, and who famously predicted in 1992 that unemployment would go up month after month after month. Since that time, unemployment has fallen month after month after month. The right hon. Gentleman should stop living in a world of his own and see that this country is leading Europe economically and regaining its place among the strong economic and industrial nations of the world.

    Sir Irvine Patnick: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, in Sheffield yesterday a Yorkshire and Humberside regional assembly was set up. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of councils is to look after local interests and not to set up offices in Brussels or create regional assemblies?

    The Prime Minister: I see no justification for regional assemblies and more bureaucracy. That may be the policy of the Labour party, but it is neither the wish of the electorate nor the policy of the Government.

    Mr. Ashdown: The day after it appears that ethnic cleansing has come once again to Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister emphasise to all he sees that those who wish to widen conflict only serve the purposes of the IRA and help those who wish to revert to violence rather than peace?

    The Prime Minister: I hope that the whole House will join me in condemning the scenes of violence that we have observed across Northern Ireland in the past couple of days. They are indefensible. The search for peace in Northern Ireland will not be assisted by such behaviour, but it could well be put back. In my judgment, that is emphatically not the wish of the people of Northern Ireland. At the moment, we need dialogue to ensure that we can move forward from the present situation, which is doing nothing but causing misery, hardship and damage. We need that dialogue speedily so that a resolution can be reached without delay.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the police, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Benefits Agency in Lancaster on a combined operation which has netted tens of thousands, if not millions, of pounds in fraudulent benefit claims? Those people are now saving the taxpayer huge sums that can be devoted to proper causes.

    The Prime Minister: I willingly congratulate those involved in that development. Perhaps I might add the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who has put in place the most comprehensive anti-fraud devices in the social security system that we have had at any stage.

     

    Q2. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. McKelvey: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why this country is up to its neck in debt? The national debt is £320 billion and the public sector borrowing requirement is £30 million, yet the same team can turn the Tory party debt of £17 million two years ago into a £20 million profit this year. Where did they get the money, and will they publish their accounts?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman talks about the same team. Since I became Prime Minister, the national debt has averaged 44 per cent. of gross domestic product. Under the previous Labour Government, it was 62 per cent. of GDP.

     

    European Union

    Q3. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the Union’s relations with those west European states which decided not to join the Union.

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

    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the remaining three nations outside the EU have very low unemployment–around 4 per cent. compared with the tragic and growing unemployment of around 20 million within the European Union, largely as a result of lunatic Brussels policies–will the Prime Minister, who has, happily, excluded Britain from some of the Euro-mess to the advantage of the nation and its people, ask the European Union at the intergovernmental conference to have another think about the future, especially in view of the nightmare of unemployment being created within the European Union which no one seems to want to talk about?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about unemployment across the European Union, which is more than 18 million. There is no doubt that the primary responsibility of Governments across Europe is to try to create the conditions in which unemployment can fall and new jobs can be created. As my hon. Friend knows, I have always argued that the way in which to reduce unemployment in Europe is through the supply-side policies we have followed in this country, which are aimed at increasing the ability of companies to compete and to create new jobs.

    Figures that will be published later today will show comprehensively that Britain is continuing to attract record inward investment. I very much welcome that, and it has helped to create many jobs. As my hon. Friend says, it would be utterly wrong to attempt to impose any kind of European social model, adding extra costs to employers and, as a direct result of that, condemning more people in Europe to remain unemployed. That is the wrong way in which to get people back to work.

    Several hon. Members rose–

    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a closed question. I call Mr. Stott.

    Mr. Stott: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he believes that one of Her Majesty’s loyal chief constables had the right–

    Madam Speaker: Order. I warned the hon. Gentleman, who should have read the Order Paper, that this was a closed question.

    Mr. Spearing: Norway was one of the countries that recently chose not to join the European Union. Is the Prime Minister aware that most of the top politicians, financiers and industrialists said that there would be dire consequences for Norway if it did not join? Does he agree that most of the indicators have shown that, far from being disadvantageous, it has been in Norway’s interest not to join? In view of that fact, what credit can we give most of the top politicians, financiers and industrialists in this country who are urging us to join economic and monetary union?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is comparing two separate things: first, whether Norway should join the European Union and, secondly, a particular subsequent development that may or may not take place in the European Union. If he sought the views of those in the United Kingdom who trade with Europe, he would find that surveys of leading business men have consistently shown that more than 90 per cent. favour membership of the European Union and do not see the European Union simply as a trading area. Each country must make its own judgments. Norway made its judgment, and we must respect that judgment, but it would be intolerable for the United Kingdom to be outside the European Union, in practice affected by its legislation but unable to have any say in framing it.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend will know of the importance of defence manufacturing in the north-west. Does he agree that–as thousands of employees in the industry await the contract for the replacement of maritime reconnaissance aircraft, among others–if we took the road to ruin and cut defence expenditure by £4.5 billion, as suggested by the Labour party, our action would devastate the industry in the north-west and cost thousands of skilled manufacturing jobs? Is this not yet another example of new Labour, new danger?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his case very persuasively. Another £4.5 billion off defence–which is what the shadow Chancellor would like–would indeed have dramatic effects on the capacity of the armed forces to undertake their role. As for contracts, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, a decision will be announced as soon as we have completed our assessment of the bids for the replacement of various pieces of equipment that are now due for replacement. I hope that we shall be able to make announcements before too long, but a wide range of factors remain to be considered.

     

    Q5. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Michie: Will the Prime Minister join me–along with, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)–in sending heartfelt concern to the families of those who were injured during the dreadful attack on the Wolverhampton school? Will he assure the House that he will do everything possible to give our children the protection that they richly deserve?

    The Prime Minister: The whole House will have been appalled by the incident at St. Luke’s school, and I have no doubt that everyone in the House and beyond will wish to send sympathy to the victims of that attack and hopes for their speedy recovery. The hon. Gentleman’s sentiments will be shared not only by the Government but by everyone in the House, and I shall ensure that they are carried into effect.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Transsexuals

    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Prime Minister which department and which Minister has been assigned overall responsibility for parliamentary issues concerning transsexuals; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 24 June 1996, Official Report, column 14. No Minister or Department has been assigned overall responsibility for parliamentary issues concerning transsexuals. Where, as in this case, issues may touch on the responsibilities of a number of Departments, Ministers and officials in the different Departments work closely together to ensure effective co-ordination.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Hafez Dalkamoni

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 13 May, Official Report, column 362, about the release of Hafez Dalkamoni, in what circumstances the release by one country of a prisoner who is a national of another country is not solely a matter for the authority of the detaining country; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), on 17 January 1996, Official Report, column 590, other than that Mr. Dalkamoni was released on 27 June and deported to Syria.

     

    Constitution (Referendum)

    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister what legislative provisions are currently in force which would enable a referendum on the constitution to be held in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: None. Powers previously taken in 1975 and in 1978 to hold referendums have been repealed.

     

    G7 Summit, Lyons

    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals to move the world economy closer to ecological sustainability he made to the Group of Seven summit in Lyons.

    The Prime Minister: The subject of ecological sustainability was not discussed at Lyon. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), on 2 July, Official Report, columns 425-27.

     

    Engagements

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

     

    Ministers

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the average length of time served by (a) Secretaries of State, (b) Ministers of State and (c) Under-Secretaries in each Government Department since he became Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister: This is a matter of public record.

     

    Parliamentary Pay and Allowances

    Mr. Dover: To ask the Prime Minister when the Government plan to publish the report by the Senior Salaries Review Body on parliamentary pay and allowances.

    The Prime Minister: The Government have now considered report No. 38 from the Senior Salaries Review Body on parliamentary pay and allowances. The Government are grateful to the review body for undertaking this complex remit so promptly. The report is being published today–as Command Paper 3330–and copies are available from the Vote Office.

    Following representations made during the Government’s consultations with other parties on the report, the Government will table motions to allow the House to consider whether it wishes to implement the recommendations of the report in full.

    The Government themselves, however, are clear that the recommended increases for Members’ and Ministers’ pay are too high and that the motions to give effect to these should not be passed in current circumstances. They will therefore oppose the motions and will table motions to bring into effect an increase in the salary of a Back-Bench Member from £34,085 to £35,108, that is by 3 per cent., with effect from 1 July 1996, and for similar increases in the pay of Ministers and other office holders. The Government will also table motions to implement the report’s recommendation that further increases should take effect from 1 April each year and should be linked to movements in senior civil service pay bands.

  • PMQT – 4 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 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. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, in the next two or three days, Members of Parliament and Ministers will be voting to set a new and increased national minimum wage for Members of Parliament and Ministers? If it is good enough for them, why can we not have a national minimum wage for everyone else? If those increases go beyond the pay barrier, will the Government give a guarantee that workers, including nurses and others, and pensioners will all receive the same?

    The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman carried every Opposition Member with him with that particular remark.

    The point about a minimum wage, of course, is the impact that it would have on the capacity to employ people. That is the point that we have repeatedly made. That is one of the reasons why unemployment is falling in this country, whereas it is rising in other countries. We intend to continue to see a downward trend in unemployment, which is why we do not favour the policies that the hon. Gentleman advocates.

    As for the report that will be published this afternoon, let me say first to the hon. Gentleman that it is worth remembering precisely why the review was set up. It was for two reasons essentially: first, it was necessary to devise a new formula for determining Members’ pay as the old one had broken down and, secondly, 300 Members of the House, of whom 200 were Labour Members, had called for such a review–not the hon. Gentleman, I concede that–in a motion before the House.

    Following the consultation that I have had with leaders of other political parties, it is clear that they do not wish to express a view and that they believe that it is a matter for the House as a whole to decide. The Cabinet decided this morning to offer the House an opportunity to vote for the recommendations as they stood, but the Government will be recommending and also voting for restraint.

    Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence exports earn this country billions of pounds every year and guarantee thousands of jobs in Lancashire and elsewhere? Is it not, therefore, an absolute disgrace that Labour Members now oppose the sale of British defence equipment to Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and, some of them, even to the world’s largest democracy, India? Does not that show that workers in the defence industry face a real danger from the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: Defence is a very important industry in this country and one that plays a very important part in our economy, both in export earnings and, of course, in job provision in many parts of the country–the north-west, the west country and many parts of the home counties as well–so it is extremely important. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the policies of the Labour party. It is also right for the House to note that the further defence review promised by the Labour party promises to cut sufficient from the funds to ensure that there would be no money at all for the Royal Navy.

    Mr. Blair: Are this morning’s newspaper reports correct that the selective slaughter scheme for beef is now to amount to 120,000 cows, which is a higher figure than previously thought, and that an additional £100 million, £200 million or possibly more will have to be paid in compensation on top of the £2 billion that the Prime Minister has already mentioned? Are those reports correct?

    The Prime Minister: It is not possible to be entirely clear precisely how many animals will be slaughtered. What is clear is what was set out in the 30-months-plus scheme, with which I think the right hon. Gentleman is familiar. Beyond that, we are asked from time to time to make estimates of precisely what the figures are, and an estimate of about 120,000 is the best that we can make–that figure has been around for some considerable time. The cost is the cost that we have set out on previous occasions.

    Mr. Blair: I think it is clear that the number is to be greater than originally anticipated. When the Prime Minister made his statement to the House earlier, he suggested that the reports of additional slaughter schemes were incorrect. Will he confirm whether, as a result of the Florence summit and the statement from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last night, the 1989 to 1990 cohort is to be included in the selective slaughter scheme, which will increase the number of cows involved? Last night, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food apparently said that it would take six to nine months for the scheme to be implemented. Does the Prime Minister still hold to November of this year as the date by which the ban will be completely lifted?

    The Prime Minister: Yes; on the information we have, we still hold to the dates that we set out, but, as I said at the time, those dates depend on our meeting the requirements, which I previously set before the House and which we believe we can meet in the time scale that I set out. Long before I went to Florence, there was a lot of discussion about the 1989 to 1990 cohort involving both my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture and me. There is a distinction between the compulsory slaughter and the voluntary scheme that exists for the 1989 to 1990 cohort–it has to be voluntary, because there is no means of determining precisely which animals would qualify for it.

    Mr. Blair: With due respect to the Prime Minister, the Agriculture Minister had said that the 1989 to 1990 cohort was not to be included and it is now clear that it is. The Agriculture Minister now says that the lifting of the ban may or may not take place at the end of the year. As more details emerge, is it not clear that the costs will be greater, the number of cattle slaughtered will be higher and the time scale will be longer–those prices are all to be paid by the British people?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have lost sight of the two fundamental reasons why the policy is necessary. The first is to ensure public health–a point that has not crossed his lips at any stage of the questions that he has bothered to ask me on the subject. The second reason is to ensure that the British beef industry will be able to recover and recapture the markets around the world for prime British beef. That is the point at stake: the livelihoods of 650,000 people. It would be helpful if, for once, instead of the pedantry that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, he acknowledged, first, the need to deal with the matter in the interests of the beef industry and, secondly, the need to deal with it in the interests of public health.

    Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will never introduce a policy which, as the price of a sell-out to Scottish nationalism, would bring in the compulsory dismemberment of England into regions? That latter policy would be purely to justify the continued presence of Scottish Members of Parliament in the House. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that such a policy would set in trend a series of developments that would be bad for the cohesion of England, bad for Scotland and bad for a Union that has served our people so well?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend speaks for millions of people in every part of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The dangers that arise from the Opposition’s policies are self-evident and many people are beginning to see them. [Interruption.] Why are the significant questions not answered? If Scotland has its own Parliament, why should there be continued over-representation of Scottish Members in the House? What about the position of hon. Members who represent Scotland? If they determine some issues in a Scottish Parliament, by what logic or equity should they vote for those matters as far as they affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland? If the Labour party has no interest in introducing new taxes, as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) says, why is he having a referendum to try to approve them in Scotland?

     

    Q2. Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Does the Prime Minister fully realise how much the Labour party in Scotland looks forward to his visit? Will he today, or at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Dumfries tomorrow, answer my question, which his deputy dodged last Thursday? Why is it all right to offer Northern Ireland devolution, with a Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Cabinet and no reduction in the number of Members of Parliament at Westminster, while denying the same to the people of Scotland? How does he justify treating the two countries so differently?

    The Prime Minister: How does the hon. Gentleman justify tax raising in Scotland and not in Wales? That is the distinction to which the hon. Gentleman must bend his mind. If he cares to read the speech that I made a week ago–I shall send him a copy–he will see in detail a series of reasons why there is a clear distinction between Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The hon. Gentleman had better bend his mind to his own policy: why a tax-raising power in Scotland but a non-tax-raising assembly in Wales? What has he got against the Scots, and why not not he trust the Welsh?

     

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

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

    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm his commitment to the assisted places scheme and to doubling it? Does he agree that, if the scheme were abolished, those children would still have to be educated in the state system, thus producing a small net saving? Does not that simple piece of arithmetic demolish the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer’s policy to abolish the scheme and spend the money in the primary sector?

    The Prime Minister: I fear that some of the figures issued by the shadow Chancellor this morning are shown to be wholly wrong, even on cursory examination. It was already clear before today that the windfall tax is unravelling before the Opposition’s eyes, and it certainly could not pay for the new pledges that they make. Sadly, the shadow Chancellor seems to have got his sums wrong. He has inflated the amount that he hopes to raise by forgetting to include the cost of sending the children who were in assisted places schemes back to the state sector. It can be seen simply from a cursory glance at the Opposition’s new plans that the sums do not add up. The new Labour party’s policies mean new taxes: taxes in Scotland; taxes on people with children aged between 16 and 18 who would lose child benefit; taxes for living in London; and taxes on jobs, with the social chapter and a minimum wage. That is what is offered by the Labour party. No wonder we talk of new dangers.

    Mr. Hoon: The Prime Minister has rightly condemned those who oppose the rule of law and those who fail to follow the courts’ decisions. Will he unequivocally condemn Governments who refuse to implement, or threaten to refuse to implement, the European Court of Justice’s decisions?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government implement the regulations. Where we think they are wrong–in some cases we do–we shall raise the matter at the intergovernmental conference to change the underlying European Community law. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so keen on ensuring that the law is obeyed. I hope that, in the interests of providing good, strong law enforcement, he will now apologise for the number of occasions on which he and his colleagues voted against law enforcement measures introduced by the Government.

     

    Q4. Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my Lincolnshire constituency, those who work in the seaside resorts and on the land are in the habit of working far more than 48 hours a week during the summer, although often less in the winter? If the Brussels Commission is to impose its directive limiting the number of working hours to 48 hours a week with effect from 23 November, will that not seriously reduce the standard of living of many of my constituents? If the European Court of Justice seeks to overturn that part of the social chapter from which we have opted out, will my right hon. Friend take steps to reassert it?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has neatly picked up the point to which I alluded in response to the previous question, which was asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). I share my hon. Friend’s concern on behalf of his constituents.

    The European Court has not yet given its final judgment on our challenge to the working time directive–although the Advocate General’s opinion was not encouraging. If we lose in that judgment, we shall seek treaty change at the intergovernmental conference to ensure that the social protocol is not undermined by presenting social measures in the guise of health and safety.

    I reached an agreement on ensuring that we were not covered by that at Maastricht, and I intend that that agreement shall be kept. Our colleagues in Europe need not expect that we will reach further agreements at the next intergovernmental conference unless, at that conference, they are prepared to restore the agreement that I reached at Maastricht. It specifically deals with the matter referred to by my hon. Friend.

    Mr. Salmond: The Prime Minister is coming to Dumfries tomorrow to speak at the Burns supper and to celebrate the bicentennial of Scotland’s national bard. Is he aware that the lines that he has twice quoted in the House from “The Dumfries Volunteers” were written when Burns was under investigation by the Government of one of his predecessors for sedition as a radical and a Scottish nationalist? Will the Prime Minister demonstrate his knowledge of all things Scottish–stretching from stones to poems–and remind the House of the first two lines of Burns’ most famous poem “Tam o’Shanter”?

    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of regaling the House with poetry. I enjoyed listening to “Tam o’Shanter” last time I attended a Burns supper–and, with a bit of luck, I will hear it again tomorrow night. Rabbie Burns had a varied political career during his lifetime. As the hon. Gentleman would know, Burns’ political career was varied as to where he gave his affections–and they were not affections that the hon. Gentleman would follow.