Category: 1996

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 June 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th June 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Honours

    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of those recommended for honours were civil servants, members of the armed forces and Government employees (a) in each of the two years prior to the changes of 1993 and (b) in each year thereafter.

    The Prime Minister: Figures for civil servants are not available separately. The proportions of state servants 1 awarded honours in the new year and birthday lists of around 1,000 names each, are listed. The number of military awards 2 shows the number of awards in the defence services lists, which are purely military, issued at the same time following recommendations to the Queen by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence:

    Year | Percentage of state servants (1) | Number of military awards(2)

    – ——————————————————————

    1991 | 19 | 533

    1992 | 19 | 527

    1993 | 18 | 475

    1994 | 17 | 424

    1995 | 16 | 320

    1996 | 17 | 315

    (1) Figures are for state servants which include not only civil servants in headquarters, professional and local posts, but also those giving wider state service, for example in the museums and galleries field; to both Houses of Parliament; and as circuit judges.

    (2) The numbers of military awards include members of the regular and reserve forces but exclude special lists for awards in a designated theatre (during the period from 1991 these have included Northern Ireland and the Gulf). Between 1994 and 1996, 56 meritorious awards were taken from the honours lists and were published separately in operational lists.

    Since March 1993, any automatic recognition to staff in particular posts has ceased. Awards for state servants are selected on merit, reflecting service beyond what might normally be expected.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the British Beef Ban (II) – 19 June 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the British beef ban, made during an interview in London held on Wednesday 19th June 1996.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked when Britain would end its obstruction policy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will end when I said we would end it at the commencement of this affair. When I initially made the statement in the House of Commons, I did so out of frustration – frustration because the European Union were not cooperating properly with seeking a solution to this problem, and frustration with some member states because despite the fact that the Commission had proposed the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives, despite the fact that the scientists recommended it, some nation states voted against it. So it was frustrating that caused me to put it in place. I said at that stage I would lift it when two things had happened: first, when the ban on beef derivatives had been lifted – that has now happened; and second, when we had agreed a framework that would enable us to see how the rest of the ban could be lifted.

    I emphasise a framework enabling it to be lifted, not the completion of all the matters in the framework. I set that out as the goal at the outset of this affair, I hope that we will soon reach that position.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was holding a gun to the heads of other member states for what was a British problem].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is quite wrong, and I will explain to you why it is quite wrong. When the BSE crisis broke, firstly we began to take very dramatic action. I doubt many of your viewers, watching this programme, realise that we will slaughter one million cows this year. I doubt they understand that. I doubt also they understand the safety measures that we have in place that exist nowhere else in Europe. But it is not as you describe it.

    We put this policy into operation because Europe were not cooperating with us. Despite the science, despite the recommendation of the Commission, Europe voted against lifting the ban on the beef derivatives. Now on the back of that, I wonder what you government would have done, or any other government, if they had the scientists on their side, the European Commission on their side, the World Health Organisation on their side, British scientists on their side, and for reasons unconnected with science, and unconnected with health, some member states voted to retain that ban. I think they would have responded too.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the British Beef Ban (I) – 19 June 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the British beef ban, made during an interview in London held on Wednesday 19th June 1996.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how Europe could regain trust in Britain after the beef crisis as other countries had also suffered].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me make a point about beef because you are quite right, the problems with beef have hit countries right the way across the European Union, the beef industry in Italy of course and in other countries across the whole of the European Union. I think it is not so much what the politicians can say, I would hope that the consumers would listen to what bodies like the World Health Organisation say – they say that British beef is safe and by definition Italian beef is safe and so is other beef – and I think it is to people like the World Health Organisation and the scientists that people should listen, and they are overwhelmingly of the view that it is safe to eat beef, both British beef and other beef, and it is a great sadness that consumer confidence has been damaged by some of the publicity there has been over recent months and that is doing great damage to beef industries across Europe. I would like to see that confidence restored speedily.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if thought agreement could be reached in Florence].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is certainly reachable. The framework document that has been published is a very good basis for an agreement and although I can’t be certain at this moment there will be an agreement, I think it is certainly possible that we will get an agreement. If there is goodwill on both sides and if people are prepared to look at the rationale for the decisions they take and look at the science, then I think there is a distinct possibility that we will get an agreement in Florence and I hope that will prove to be the case.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Italian Government had run out of patience with the British].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think public opinion across Europe should ask themselves why did the British do this? The British don’t normally do that. What was it that drove Britain to decide on a non-cooperation policy? I will tell you what it was.

    It was the non-cooperation of many of our partners in Europe and I will tell you exactly what happened. After the beef crisis broke, we came forward time and time again with plans to proceed and end the crisis and our partners in Europe did not sit down and talk to us about this; they said “Very interesting, now go away and come back with something better”. That is no way to treat a nation like Britain. Then, when we had got the agreement of the Commission, the unanimous recommendation of the Commission to lift the ban on beef derivatives, supported by the Commission, supported by the scientists, a number of our European partners voted against that recommendation, against the Commission and against science. There was no logic in that.

    I think people who say Britain has behaved unreasonable should ask themselves what would their government have done if the rest of Europe had continued to ban an export that the scientists said was safe and that the Commission said was safe and that the ban could be lifted. They wouldn’t have wanted to accept that and neither could I because our partners were not behaving cooperatively, they were not behaving reasonable in that instance and we needed to ensure that there was a proper, rational debate. That was the reason for the British policy and I said then that when we have that rational debate, when the ban on the beef derivatives is lifted – and that has now been lifted – and when we have a framework and agreement about how to tackle this crisis then we can end our non-cooperation policy.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Britain would leave the European Community if no agreement was reached at Florence].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think so. This is an important issue this question of beef, right the way across Europe it is important and it is important to Britain, there are 650,000 people whose jobs depend on the beef industry but there is a very wide range of issues in Europe. Britain is a member of the European Union, we have been a member of the European Union for a very long time and we are going to stay as a member of the European Union. We will put forward our own distinctive ideas about how the Union will develop, sometimes our partners may agree with those, sometimes they may not, but we are in the European Union and we intend to stay in the European Union.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 June 1996

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    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

    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister what changes have taken place in respect of Government policy relating to responsibility for the bombing of United States soldiers in 1986 in Berlin; what measures were taken to secure further information relating to Libyan involvement; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: None. The investigation of the 5 April 1986 bombing in Berlin is a matter for the German authorities.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the refusal of the United States Government to provide to the German prosecution authorities communication intercepts which the US authorities stated provide proof of the Libyan involvement in the Berlin Bombing in 1986; if he will raise the issue as being of community competence; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: No. This is a matter for the United States authorities.

  • PMQT – 18 June 1996

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Berry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

    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. Berry: Is the Prime Minister aware that he spoke for the whole nation on Friday when he said that he had had “a bellyful” of the Tory party?

    The Prime Minister: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that his quotation is inaccurate, but it could certainly be applied to questions such as that.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more and more people in Germany wish that their economy was run like ours–with low inflation, steady economic growth, flexible labour markets and falling unemployment? Will he take an early opportunity to invite the leaders of the German opposition parties to Britain so that they can see what can be achieved with Conservative policies?

    Mr. Faulds: More, more.

    The Prime Minister: I am glad to see that it evokes such approval on the Opposition Benches.

    It is certainly true that we have at the moment the most competitive economy in western Europe, that we are in a very good position on inflation, and that unemployment is a good deal lower–and we are at the top of the growth league. That, as my hon. Friend says, is an enviable position, and I know that it is envied by many of my European partners.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the appalling outrage of Saturday in Manchester and send our thanks to the emergency services and our sympathy to the victims? Is this not a moment of truth for Sinn Fein? Does it not show the wisdom of demanding a ceasefire before Sinn Fein participates in any talks? Does not the responsibility now lie squarely on it if it is to play any part in the future progress of peace?

    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. Saturday’s bomb in Manchester was a callous and inhuman act. It is a miracle that many more people were not injured and that many people were not killed. What is so startling is the total indifference of the people who left that bomb to what could well have happened to many people who have no connection whatever with the disputes in Ireland or the disputes that the IRA may have with the British Government or others.

    The right hon. Gentleman is right. The time has come for Sinn Fein to make up its mind. Either it will be a democratic organisation taking part in democratic politics or it will stay side by side as the reverse side of the coin to the IRA, with intermingled membership, in which case it has no part in democratic politics whatever. I believe that, when the right hon. Gentleman says that the moment of truth is here, it is for Mr. Adams and his colleagues, and everybody wishes to hear precisely what their views are–and let us have no more of the measly nonsense that we have had from them in recent years.

    Mr. Blair: I join with that entirely.

    Does the Prime Minister also agree that there has been progress in Northern Ireland? The British and Irish Governments are agreed on the way forward; all nationalist parties in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, apart from Sinn Fein, are agreed on peaceful means to achieve their ends; and the United States and others abroad may have been given a telling lesson on the realities of the IRA. Is not the only course now open to Sinn Fein to ensure that the IRA ceases its violence? If it cannot–or will not–the process should proceed with the democratic parties, and an agreement should be reached and put to a ballot of the people.

    The Prime Minister: It is entirely right that the talks must continue. We have no intention of allowing the search for a political settlement for Northern Ireland to be derailed by the activities of the IRA and Sinn Fein. I hope that all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will continue to demonstrate the leadership and courage necessary to make rapid progress, and to show the IRA that it cannot stop the process with bombs in Manchester, London or anywhere else.

    If the IRA and Sinn Fein wish to have any future interest in this process, they will clearly need to declare an unequivocal ceasefire. They will need to declare it immediately. They will also have to show that that ceasefire is credible and lasting, and is not just a tactical device to enable them to enter the talks until such time as it is convenient for them to leave. It is now up to them to demonstrate their credibility; it is not up to us or anyone else. They must demonstrate their credibility–but the talks will continue.

    Mrs. Roe: In the light of falls in unemployment, interest rates and inflation, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is now one of the most competitive economies in Europe? Does he accept, however, that much more still needs to be done to raise standards in our schools? Although things are improving, far too many children still leave school without the basic skills.

    The Prime Minister: Both the premise of my hon. Friend’s question and her substantive point are important. She knows that the British economy is in very sound shape; we intend to keep it so. As for education and basic standards, the Government have introduced a programme of reforms that is more comprehensive than any that we have seen at any stage in the past, designed to raise standards in schools, build on the national curriculum and ensure regular inspection and the publication of performance information.

    We have made substantial progress in recent years in raising standards, but there is no doubt that there is a great deal more that we wish to do to ensure that the quality of education for all our children is the equal of the quality of education anywhere else in the world. That is our intention, and we will continue to pursue it, despite the failures of so many Labour-controlled education authorities whose records have held back many children in inner London and elsewhere. [Hon. Members: “Seventeen years.”] It is no good hon. Members below the Gangway muttering in this fashion, when it is their party, in control in local government, that could act now to improve education, but does not.

     

    Q2. Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Livingstone: Given the funds that the Government have made available to the Russian Government and organisations in Russia in recent years to help to establish democracy, has the Prime Minister had time to read today’s statement by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe expressing the CSCE’s regret and concern at the extensive bias in the coverage of the presidential election? Will the right hon. Gentleman now use his contacts with President Yeltsin to point out to him the value of the British precedent of television and radio providing equal time for candidates, to legitimise this final stage of the Russian election?

    The Prime Minister: I have not yet seen the particular statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In view of what he says, I shall certainly consider it, but the very fact of the Russian presidential elections, and the way in which they have been carried, out would have seemed inconceivable just a few years ago. It is a welcome sign that Russia is settling into the normal pattern of democracy, and we must give great credit to President Yeltsin for that. I hope that the second round will be conducted well and that there will be a clear-cut and satisfactory result.

    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the control of business rates under the Government has been of immense benefit to businesses, large and small, throughout Britain and, therefore, to jobs? Will he ask the relevant Government Departments to analyse the consequences for jobs and for prosperity of taking off these controls and handing decisions back to loony Labour councils, as is advocated by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider any mechanism that tries to restrain on-costs on British business. It is clear that the fact that British business as a whole pays less over and above wages in on-costs is one of the principal reasons why are more citizens are in work in Britain than in any other country of similar size throughout western Europe.

     

    Q3. Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Welsh: Did the Prime Minister see last night’s “Panorama” programme, which catalogued 10 years of evasion and incompetence by the Government on the BSE issue? What does he have to say to Scotland’s hill farmers, now awaiting being dragged into the general economic catastrophe created by the Government, while he postures to no effect in Europe?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I did not waste my time watching “Panorama” last night–[Interruption.] I have much more productive things to do with my time than waste it watching nonsense from “Panorama”. We have taken account of the scientific advice that we have had throughout this affair, and that is what we will continue to do in the interests of British agriculture and of the British beef consumer.

     

    Q4. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recall the exchanges that he and I had in the House last October, when I raised the question of closed circuit television for security purposes in our towns and cities? Is he aware that the initiative that he announced last year is one of the most practical ways of dealing with crime and of introducing crime prevention measures? Although he may not be able to confirm to me today whether my constituency of Cleethorpes is to benefit from the forthcoming announcement, will he guarantee that he will have a word with our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and advise him that we in Cleethorpes are very supportive of that initiative?

    The Prime Minister: Bringing closed circuit television to all corners of the United Kingdom is a practical effort to create a safer Britain in future. We are investing around £50 million, and our target is to fund 10,000 new cameras in the next three years. I am pleased to hear from my hon. Friend about the Cleethorpes bid. Knowing my hon. Friend, I would have been surprised if there had not been a Cleethorpes bid, but he is right–I cannot confirm to him today whether it has been successful, but I hope that announcements will be made before too long.

    Mr. Litherland: The Prime Minister will understand that there are no words to describe the loathing that Manchester people have for the perpetrators of the crime against our city last Saturday, but it has happened and we must now begin to rebuild Manchester. Mancunians are resilient people, but they require help. Will the Prime Minister today give the assurance to the House that the Government will offer every support, including financial aid, for the restoration of businesses, buildings, jobs and homes in Manchester? Sympathy will not pay the bills.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has commented on three matters of importance. I entirely share his initial remarks about Manchester, and I have no doubt about the courage and determination of the people of that city in recovering from last week’s incident. Individuals injured by the bomb are eligible to apply for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Government-backed terrorism insurance scheme will ensure that participating insurers can meet claims by companies that purchased full terrorism cover. Businesses that have not done so are likely to receive limited reimbursement and should contact their insurance companies.

    The financial implications for local authorities are not yet clear. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider carefully any application for assistance by an authority affected by the incident, and he will certainly do so. In Manchester in the past–and I am sure that this will be so in future–an effective partnership between the Government, the private sector and the city council has delivered remarkable regeneration in many parts of the city. That partnership provides an excellent basis for rebuilding, and we look forward to working with the people concerned.

     

    Q5. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to a great man now gone, the late Sir Fitzroy Maclean? Was there not much to admire in that soldier, diplomat, Conservative Member of Parliament and patriot, who had an enviable ability for getting out of tight corners?

    The Prime Minister: Sir Fitzroy Maclean was a remarkable man with many qualities to admire–from being a founder of the Special Air Services to a Minister of the Crown at this Dispatch Box. In all his many roles, Sir Fitzroy made a remarkable contribution. He also played a crucial role in work with Tito’s partisans in the second world war. People will think of Sir Fitzroy Maclean as a man who lived life to the full. From what I know of him, I believe that he would regard that as a satisfactory epitaph.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 June 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th June 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Mr. Jovan Zebic

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister (1) on what dates Ministers met Mr. Jovan Zebic in their official capacity since 1990;

    (2) on what dates Ministers met Mr. Zoran Tanic in their official capacity since 1990.

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

     

    Sir James Kirkham

    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister when he last met Sir James Kirkham; and if he will outline the matters discussed.

    The Prime Minister: I have never heard of Sir James Kirkham. The hon. Member may be referring to Sir Graham Kirkham, whom I last met on Sunday 9 June at the Oval cricket ground and at a dinner at Downing Street. We discussed raising funds for good causes, in particular Mencap, in whose interests the cricket was played and the dinner given.

     

    Conservative Party (Donations)

    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) of 21 May, Official Report, column 96, what reports he received in 1991 and 1992 alleging donations to the Conservative party from sources linked to Bosnian Serbs.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to my answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on 21 May, Official report, column 96.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Manchester Bomb – 15 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s account, from his book, John Major – The Autobiography, relating to the Manchester bombings.


    JOHN MAJOR:

    Confounding the sceptics, we were able to hold elections in 30 May [1996]. Having wavered over a boycott, Sinn Fein not only took part, but recorded its best-ever result, with over 15 per cent of the vote (against 24 per cent for Trimble’s UUP [Ulster Unionist Party], 21 per cent for Hume’s SDLP [Social Democratic and Labour Party] and nearly 19 per cent for Paisley’s DUP [Democratic Unionist Party]). Pundits were divided over whether Sinn Fein’s vote was an endorsement of the IRA’s bombing campaign or an encouragement for them to call another ceasefire and join the negotiating forum. The IRA gave their answer when they demolished the centre of Manchester with a massive bomb on 15th June [1996], only days after the opening of the all-party talks under George Mitchell’s chairmanship. They were evidently not applying for admission. John Bruton hardened his stance, and demanded an unconditional and irrevocable ceasefire before they could enter.

    The Manchester bomb, deliberately placed in a crowded city centre, injured two hundred people and provoked deep revulsion. It confirmed that the IRA was stuck in a groove. Even more depressing in its political message was a reversion to wider sectarianism during the July-August marching season, despite the talks. As in 1995, Drumcree was against the flashpoint. To avoid clashes, the Chief Constable of the RUC Hugh Annesley routed an Orange Order march away from the Catholic Garvaghy Road. This decision provoked a risk of even greater violence, and had to be reversed. The reversal then triggered riots, and heightened tension between the two communities over several weeks.

  • Mr Major’s Statement Following Manchester Bomb – 15 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on 15th June 1996 following the bomb explosion in Manchester.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    This was a dreadful act. I condemn utterly those responsible. My first thoughts are with the injured and their families.

    This explosion looks like the work of the IRA. It is the work of a few fanatics and, as John Bruton has already made clear, causes absolute revulsion in Ireland, as it does here. This callous act of terrorism while the Queen was reviewing the colour of the Irish Guards is an insult to both nations.

    Sinn Fein have been clamouring to attend the Northern Ireland peace talks which began last week. If they are really serious about wanting peace, they must condemn this act and demand an unequivocal IRA ceasefire now.

    We shall spare no effort to bring those responsible to justice.

  • John Major’s Speech to the 1996 Welsh Conservative Party Conference – 14 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Welsh Conservative Party Conference in Porthcawl on Friday 14th June 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Britain Transformed

    People will ask you ‘What have the Tories ever done for me?’

    It’s an honest question – bluntly put – and deserves an honest answer, equally straightforward.

    So spell it out for them.

    Remind the questioner there’s been a revolution in education. In 1979 one in eight young people went on to higher education. Today it’s almost one in three. A third of all families can look with pride to their child’s achievement. A third of our young people enter the world of work armed with a better education.

    ‘Well’, they may say “So there’s education. But what else have the Tories ever done for me?”

    Under the last Labour government, if you needed an operation, you had a one in five chance of waiting over two years. Today, only a handful of people are waiting that long.

    ‘Fine – there’s education, health. Fair enough. Anything else?’

    Inflation. There’s another certainty. If we’d kept inflation at the level we’d inherited and followed Labour’s policies, today a loaf of bread would cost £1.25 and a pint of milk 70p. About double today’s prices.

    ‘All right. I give you that. But what else have the Tories ever done for me?’

    Well, there’s tax. If we still had the tax system we inherited from Labour, the average earner would be paying £17 more a week- £17 a week – in tax. How about that?’

    “Mmmmm. Education, health, inflation, tax. Is that all the Tories have ever done for me?’

    Look, don’t have to tell you ladies and gentlemen, they’re tough on the doorstep. So come right back at them.

    There’s the unions. In 1979, we lost twenty nine and a half million days to strikes. Twenty nine and a half million. The dustmen, the council workers, the car workers all proving Labour doesn’t work. Since then, the number of days lost to strikes has hit the lowest since records began.

    ‘Yes, well’ they may say. ‘Apart from education, health, inflation, tax, strikes. That’s all very well, but what have the Tories ever done me?’

    Take a deep breath, and broaden the picture.

    Under Labour, loss-making nationalised industries cost the taxpayer £50 million a week.

    Today, privatised industries contribute £50 million a week in tax. £50 million a week – enough to pay for 11,500 hip replacements, 1 new hospital a month and 5 new schools.

    What’s more, electricity bills are down £18. Gas bills – excluding VAT – down over £90. Phone bills still falling – down £44 in the last three years. Privatisation works.

    ‘So there’s education, health, inflation, tax, strikes, household bills. But what have the Tories ever done for me?

    Jobs. Under Labour, unemployment rose by 122 per cent. 2.500 people became unemployed every week. This week, unemployment fell again – down by 800,000 since its peak. We’ve more of our people in work than any major country in Europe.

    ‘Sure, sure. That’s all very well. But how else have the Tories helped me?’

    There’s mortgages. Average monthly mortgage payments are around £170 lower than they were 6 years ago. At less than 7%, they’re at a 30 year low. The average rate under Labour was 11 per cent.

    ‘So that’s it, is it?’

    No. Here in Wales. William has been working to improve the environment. Intending to designate the Menai Straits as a nature reserve. Aiming for 50 of Wales’ beaches to be of the highest, blue flag, quality. Helping to protect Wales’ coast. So there’s health. Education. Inflation. Tax. Strikes. Bills. Jobs. Mortgages. The environment. How about that for a success story?

    ‘Yes … but why didn’t you tell me about all that in the first place?’

    Madam Chairman, that’s what life under the Tories has brought about: it’s quite a story. The story of a Britain transformed.

    Which part of our United Kingdom do you think has recorded over 1,500 new inward investment projects, worth billions, during the last thirteen years?

    Where has unemployment fallen by almost 26,000 over the last three years?

    Where has self-employment risen by almost 30 per cent since ‘79?

    Where have days lost from industrial action fallen to less than 1% of those lost in 1979?

    Here in Wales. That’s the kind of change Conservatism brings in its wake. Change for the better. And it doesn’t stop there.

    Look at Caerphilly. Once overshadowed by Cardiff and Newport, today a thriving major retail and commercial centre in its own right.

    Or the new Severn Crossing. Built with private finance as a vote of confidence for the growing South Wales economy.

    Or the new Ford plant I visited this morning, a £340 million investment bringing almost 500 new jobs to Bridgend.

    One success after another under a Conservative Government. To borrow a phrase you may have seen about town: ‘Yes, it worked’,

    Life is better. And if people want a change, they need to be clear what they’re changing from, and what they’re changing to.

    The Next Election

    At the moment too many people are sleepwalking into the next election – which is precisely what Labour want them to do. It’s the whole point of their strategy. They want to drug people into thinking that voting Labour is risk free. They don’t warn people to realise that if they vote Labour, Britain will never be the same again.

    Madam Chairman, that’s not my idea of politics. Britain is the oldest democracy in the world. I’ve always believed that if you give the people the facts, and treat them like adults, then you can trust them to make their own minds up.

    Our job is to set out our case. To make people think before they vote. And to leave them in no doubt what the consequences would be for Britain if they decide to cast aside everything we’ve achieved and take a massive step into the dark.

    Because the next election is a watershed election. Many of the changes Labour want to slip past us are irreversible.

    Three over-arching issues will lift this election out of the run of the mill. Issues that will decide the kind of country we live in.

    First, there’s the United Kingdom itself. You might think it’s right to give Scotland its own Parliament and Wales an assembly. Or you might think that’s a rotten idea, as I do. But whatever you think, once you go down that route, it’s difficult to turn back. The change might be irreversible. It would be no use saying ‘No one told me that would happen’. It would be too late. The Union would be gone.

    Then there’s Europe. You might think that Britain’s destiny lies in being drawn ever deeper into a federal Europe. Or you might, like me, believe we should resist that tooth and nail. Because once you’ve given powers to Europe it’s all but impossible to get them back. No use saying ‘Oh I didn’t think that would happen’. It would have happened.

    Finally, there’s the economy. You can eve an argument about whether you have more state control, as Labour believe, or less, as you and I think we should. Whether or not you agree, don’t doubt what’s at stake. You’d be throwing away the strongest economy in Europe – I repeat the strongest major economy in Europe. No point in complaining ‘Oh, I didn’t think that would happen’ when taxes, strikes, inflation all start going up – as they always do under Labour. By then it would be too late.

    Britain’s success, our Union, our nation – that’s what Labour threaten. Between now and the next election I’m going to set out the difference, the major difference, if I may say so, between us and Labour – and I’m going to say it and say it and say it until everyone understands all that is at stake.

    The Choice

    On the day they go to the polls, people will think of a number of things. High on their lists will be which party will make me and my family better off?

    The Conservative answer is simple. We believe in rewarding hard work. Encouraging people to set up their own business, to save and invest for the future.

    We want to give people the chance to spend more of their money as they wish.

    So as soon as we can safely do so, our instinct is to cut taxes. They’re still too high.

    Britain will never be able to compete in tomorrow’s world if we’re lumbered with high taxes, cramping enterprise and investment. That’s what you’d get under Labour.

    But to cut taxes we need to keep spending under control. We’re doing just that. For the first time in its history, spending on the welfare state will grow slower than the economy. Of course we’ll always help those in genuine need. But let spending spiral out of control, and we can wave goodbye to a strong economy.

    Now look at Labour, they’re addicted to the spending state.

    Look at what they’re planning.

    First, anyone earning as much as Clare Short could be taxed more. Care has a bee in her bonnet. She thinks they’re doing too well. So it’s bad news for them.

    It’s also bad news for anyone living in Scotland. They’d be clobbered by Labour’s Tartan Tax.

    Bad news for any middle class parent with a child staying on at school. They run the risk of losing their child benefit. Labour’s Teenage Tax.

    Bad news for anyone who owns shares in a privatised utility. Labour’s Windfall Tax.

    And heaven help anyone who uses a company car or drives to an out of town shopping centre. They’d run straight into Labour’s Shopping Tax.

    Oh, they’re high on tax in the Labour Party. So to keep your money, make your choice: lower taxes under the Conservatives, higher taxes under Labour.

    As for jobs, we’ve the lowest unemployment of any major European economy.

    Why? Because of our policies.

    Look how much it costs to employ someone across Europe. I don’t mean wages. I mean extra costs over and above wages.

    For every £100 an employer spends on wages, he’d have to pay an extra £32 in Germany. An extra £34 in Spain. An extra £41 in France. An extra £44 in Italy.

    But here in Britain, the cost is just £18. That’s why we’re competitive. It costs less in overheads to employ people here than in other European countries.

    That’s why we’ve attracted more foreign investment than any other country in Europe.

    And that’s why I won’t sign the Social Chapter or have a minimum wage.

    But Labour would. They say they’re after full employment – what they’d get is more unemployment. The minimum wage would price job-seekers out of the market. The Social Chapter would price Britain out of the market.

    So once again, the choice is clear. Policies to create jobs under the Conservatives. Policies to destroy jobs under Labour.

    Of course, the only way Britain will remain competitive is if our children learn the skills of the future. Education is vital.

    Conservative Britain has come a long way. Schools are no longer a secret garden. Just look at our record. A national curriculum, tests, performance tables, regular inspection. Choice for parents – every parent – even Labour politicians. That’s all right. We’re broad minded. And more young people going on to higher education than ever before.

    That’s the Conservative record on education and I’m proud of it.

    And here’s the future under the next Conservative Government.

    More choice.

    More grant-maintained schools.

    Tougher teacher training.

    More selective schools – including grammar schools.

    More Assisted Places.

    More results published.

    Every child is different. Every parent deserves choice. Opening doors for everyone. That’s Conservative policy.

    Labour’s idea of education is a scorched earth policy. First they enjoy it, then they destroy it.

    Some Labour politicians went to private school. But do they support them? Not a bit of it. They’d deny others the chance they had by abolishing assisted places.

    Some of them went to grammar schools. So now they’d like to abolish them.

    Some of them make the most of choice. They send their children to grammar or grant- maintained schools. They’d be abolished too – once the children have left.

    Labour standards are double standards. And their motto: ‘do what I say, not what I do’.

    When it suits them Labour mouth platitudes about teaching children the basics. But when it came to the crunch, oh, that’s different. Where were they when we had to fight to introduce the national curriculum, tests, and league tables and the rest? Who opposed us at elections, in Parliament and in councils up and down the country?

    You’re right – Labour. My motto is: ‘watch what they do, not what they say’.

    So it’s clear. More choice, higher standards, more freedom under the Conservatives. Less choice, more control, more restriction under Labour.

    The Nation

    A strong economy. A skilled workforce. A nation that’s winning in markets around the world. That’s how we’ll become the Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    But, just when we’re enjoying economic success, nothing would be more disastrous than Labour’s plans to carve up Britain. It would be an act of constitutional vandalism.

    Our nation’s prosperity and future depends on unity. Once broken up, it would be difficult – probably impossible – to put it together. And that’s the second reason why the next election is all important.

    I don’t say this for party political reasons. Nothing would improve the partisan, political fortunes of the Conservative Party than to see Scotland and Wales with Labour and Nationalist MPs going their own way. But we don’t want that.

    For one thing, we want Scotland and Wales electing more Conservative MPs. But irrespective of how they vote, we believe the people of Scotland and Wales want to remain part of the United Kingdom.

    Our United Kingdom has been moulded over the centuries, battered by the tide of history. Yes, it has changed. And it is changing. But necessary change, not change for change’s sake.

    Yet Labour’s plans are just that.

    When was the last time you heard someone looking for a job saying ‘What we really need is an assembly. Then I’d get a job?’

    Or parents concerned about their children’s education. Are they thinking ‘An assembly! That’s what my child needs to get through school’?

    And how many pensioners have you heard muttering ‘Welsh assembly. Welsh assembly – that’s what we need to fight crime on the streets’?

    Madam Chairman, a Welsh assembly is as pointless as a blunt pencil.

    Worse still, Labour’s plans are an humiliating, patronising slap in the face for Wales.

    Labour’s lust for power has forced them to promise Scotland a tax-raising Parliament. Why? Because the only way Labour can hope to compete against the Scottish Nationalists is to propose barmy plans for their own party political advantage. That’s why Labour want a Scottish Parliament. It’s their bid for Scottish votes.

    As a result, Scotland would become widely over-represented at Westminster. The only way Labour could attempt to redress the balance is by lumbering England and Wales with totally irrelevant assemblies.

    I come to Wales as an Englishman. A Conservative Prime Minister. But Prime Minister of a United Kingdom.

    Labour Prime Ministers – one of them even sitting for a Welsh seat – have governed the United Kingdom without holding a majority of seats in England. But they never said they had no mandate to rule England. They never said England should go its own way.

    But now Labour are singing a different tune. My duty is to point out the dangers of following Labour down the route they’d take us.

    Wales will choose.

    If the Welsh people want a focus for division, then a good way of doing so is to vote for a Welsh assembly. If they think an inspiring way to greet the Millennium is to have more politicians, chattering away in an assembly, then by all means they can vote for one.

    If, unlike Mr Blair, they can guarantee that an assembly won’t demand powers to spend other people’s money, they can vote for one.

    If they know why a Scottish Parliament should be elected by PR, but a Welsh Assembly by first past the post, they should telephone Mr Blair- because he hasn’t the foggiest.

    I have only one vote. I know how I’ll be using it. To protect and defend the United Kingdom from policies that would hurt and never work.

    But Labour’s madness knows no bounds. It spreads to the third great issue – Europe.

    Labour believe that our future lies in a sort of superstate. Let me remind you, Labour would undermine the veto. Jeopardize our rebate. Sign up to the Social Chapter. Give more powers to the European Parliament.

    No wonder Mr Blair says he’d never be isolated in Europe. Armed with a blank cheque, he’d agree to what is wholly against our nation’s interests. With his set of policies, he’d have little choice.

    Some people might like his idea of being part of a European superstate. If so, they can vote Labour. That’s their prerogative.

    Others – like all of us here – have a very different vision. It’s a vision of a Europe of nation states, linked by traditions of freedom and democracy and a single market, trading together but preserving their own identity.

    I don’t want to see our nation swept aside. Our Parliament at Westminster must remain the focus for British democracy – not Brussels.

    Yes, of course we must remain a part of the European Union. We can’t afford to be outside the world’s largest single market. We created that single market. It remains in our national interest to be part of it. The Union has made co-operation, not conflict, the habit between the nations of Western Europe.

    But we need to persuade our partners that the way forward is by building a partnership of nation states. A partnership that respects the cultures and traditions of European countries.

    We will argue for the Europe we want. And if we disagree, and think Europe is going in the wrong direction, we’ll simply say politely but firmly – ‘no, that’s not for us’.

    Europe must be flexible enough to allow us to do that. As more countries join, we can’t hope to fit into some universal blueprint. Nation states can’t be expected to march in institutional step.

    Flexibility, patience and understanding are essential. So I say again, if Europe goes federalist. Britain will not follow.

    Peroration

    Madam Chairman, no party has the right to point the British people towards the polling booth anaesthetised by warm words, hollow generalities, and a vague wish for change.

    We Conservatives inherited a Britain on the rocks.

    We’ve spent seventeen years rescuing this country from that inheritance and turning it round.

    Turning the tide of progressive thought in schools takes years.

    Reversing liberal approaches to crime takes years.

    Curbing the powers of the unions takes years.

    Getting inflation down to all time lows takes years.

    Building a Europe of nation states takes years.

    But on Britain’s doorsteps pointing to what we’ve achieved is only half the picture.

    We need to alert people to the choice they will have to make. When they go into the polling booth and pick up that stubby little pencil, what they’re voting for will be nothing less than the future of Britain.

    Say to the people before they vote ‘If you want a fragmented country, a weaker Britain, the end to our economic strength and that’s what you vote for, then fair enough, that’s democracy. You have that right’.

    But don’t leave them on the doorstep under the illusion that they’re voting for something else. Don’t let them be conned by that sort of thing: it’s a false prospectus.

    These issues are too great, too important to be brushed aside. If Labour had their way, the face of Britain would be changed for good. Forever. And irredeemably for the worse.

    We Conservatives can’t afford to let that happen – and we won’t. Which is why New Labour, Old Labour, any old Labour, are trying to pull the political wool over people’s eyes.

  • Mr Major’s Statement Following Meeting with Romano Prodi – 13 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep statement in London following a meeting with Romano Prodi, the Italian Prime Minister, on 13th June 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good Morning. Let me just say a very few words about our discussions this morning. I was very pleased to welcome the Prime Minister here this morning, to congratulate him upon his recent election win and the formation of his government, and to thank him for the constructive role the Italian Presidency have been taking over recent weeks over the difficult problem of resolving the crisis over beef. The Presidency have been extremely helpful and we have had a very useful discussion about that this morning.

    Our discussions centred really in three areas: bilateral relations, which are excellent; the agenda for the European Union meeting at Florence in a few days time that I much look forward to attending; and how to resolve the present difficulties over beef. On each of those areas we had extremely constructive and worthwhile discussions and I am very encouraged by them. The Prime Minister may want to say a word or two and then we will take just a very few questions.

    MR PRODI:

    I think that you have already given the clear picture of what we have told in our discussions. I want only to add that the discussion has been very constructive, deep, without of course conclusion because this is a process of discussion, but I think it has been very helpful for preparing the Foreign Ministers meeting of next Monday and the Florence Conference at the end of next week.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Can I ask you both what prospect you now see of a settlement in the beef crisis before the opening of the Florence settlement, and whether that peace can be achieved without the agreement for Britain to kill another 20,000 cows?

    MR PRODI:

    I can talk in terms of probabilities, I tell you that this morning we have pointed the questions in a very clear and precise way, you know you approach the moment in which you see not, you don’ t see the solution done but you see which can be the solution. And so I think we have made good progress.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are making progress but we are not there yet.

    QUESTION:

    Does the information coining out today that Britain continued to export, or double its exports of contaminated foodstuffs to the rest of Europe after the ban in this country, does that complicate getting a settlement before Florence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No problems at all with that and we have had no difficult discussions about that whatever this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that the firm action which was taken against Bill Cash and the Referendum Party yesterday will send a useful signal to Europe in this context?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That was an internal question and it was dealt with internally.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    Mr Prodi, what would you hope to achieve at Florence apart from this question of beef? What were you hoping to do there?

    MR PRODI:

    We shall tackle the institutional programme. But we shall give the agenda for the intergovernmental conference and we shall not take a decision, because you know that is a project that is starting now and the directional work will be changing the institutional framework the programme of internal policy and foreign policy and the science. And in Florence we shall tackle deep the problem of unemployment and the different strategies to tackle unemployment in Europe.