Category: 1996

  • PMQT – 16 May 1996

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

    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. Dowd: Why does the Prime Minister now find it impossible to condemn the proven wrongdoing at Westminster city council under Dame Shirley Porter when, on 20 June 1995, from that Dispatch Box, he had no such compunction in condemning Monklands district council, even though the inquiry set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland was still under way?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the Labour party’s internal report, to which I had referred.

     

    Q2. Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations and thanks for his commitment to the Government strategy “Tackling Drugs Together”, as evidenced most particularly by his involvement with young people last Tuesday?

    Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday’s announcement of the fall of unemployment to a five-year low, and recommit himself and the Government to training more people for more jobs, rather than throwing them out of education by taking away child benefit from teenagers?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the importance of a comprehensive strategy to deal with drugs among our young people, and we have made a great deal of progress on that in the past year. There is a great deal more to be done. That work devolves, not only on schools, parents, community leaders and the police, but on all of us. We should all, in our own way, give a lead by ensuring that teenagers realise the dangers of drugs.

    Yesterday’s unemployment figures were further good news, as were the figures on inflation published earlier today. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that abolishing child benefit for teenagers would do nothing to help shorten the dole queues; I believe that many members of the Labour party fully understand that.

    It is good to see the shadow Chancellor here, in the same room as his colleagues. I hope that, as he sits on the Front Bench chattering to them, they may discuss child benefit.

    Mr. Blair: Has the Prime Minister seen the highly critical comments of the British beef exporters in relation to the Government’s handling of BSE? I appreciate the Government’s difficulties in this regard. However, in the light of those comments and the comments of farmers yesterday, is the Prime Minister satisfied that everything that should be done is being done in relation to BSE?

    The Prime Minister: We are well advanced in this matter and we are taking our case to our European partners. The ban is unjustified and it should be removed. We have had some progress. Before yesterday, we did not have the support of any of our European partners on any of the issues. Yesterday, half of the European Union supported our position in relation to gelatine, tallow and semen. According to the Agriculture Commissioner, there is every prospect that we will get a satisfactory result on Monday.

    However, we need to look not only at the lifting of that ban but at the lifting of the ban on beef generally. We will discuss a detailed series of proposals with the Commission, which we hope will persuade it to support us in encouraging our European partners to lift the ban. The ban is unjustified. All that can credibly be done is being done and will continue to be done.

    Mr. Blair: I put it to the Prime Minister that many farmers say that they do not know where to take their cattle for collection and that the approved list of abattoirs keeps changing–for example, some abattoirs that should be working are not working. Yesterday, we were told that it will take six weeks for the cold storage facilities to be up and running. In the meantime, there is a backlog of approximately 120,000 cattle. In the light of what appears to be a widespread gap between the perception of Ministers and the reality of what is happening, will the Prime Minister redouble his efforts?

    The Prime Minister: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that everything that can be done is being done to ensure that we speed up the slaughter of cattle that need to be slaughtered. There is a genuine problem that is not readily solvable–that is, the requirement to slaughter cattle exceeds the capacity of the industry to do so, even working at full rate. Some cattle will be put into cold storage, but that cannot happen until they have been at least partly rendered. The rendering industry is working at full capacity. Ministers and the industry are addressing their minds to solving those problems.

    Mr. Blair: It might be said, to coin a phrase, that it is hurting but it is not working. I put a related point to the Prime Minister. We are now embarking on a 30-month cattle slaughter policy without a guarantee from the European Union that the ban will be lifted. Do we have an assurance from our European partners that, if a package is agreed, we will have full compensation? We are planning to spend £2.5 billion to £3 billion over the next few years and only 30 per cent. will be guaranteed in return. In the meantime, there is no guarantee that the ban will be lifted.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to matters that are the subject of discussion with the Commission at the moment. The problem is not the Commission; the problem is the member states in the European Union. The first mechanism to ensure that the member states change their position and lift their ban is to reach a practical agreement with the Commission about how we deal with the general problem of BSE. It is not a question of dealing with what our European partners wish to do; it is a question of dealing with a proper strategy that will put the British beef industry back into a position in which it will export not only to Europe but to the United States and to New Zealand, which banned British beef some time ago. That is in the interests of our beef industry and it is foremost in our mind at the moment.

     

    Q3. Mr. John Townend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Townend: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the speech of the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment at the weekend, when he said that Labour–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I must hear the question. Is the hon. Gentleman asking about Government policy?

    Mr. Townend: I am asking what our response is to the hon. Gentleman’s policy.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Prime Minister is responsible only for Government policy, not for another party’s policy.

    Mr. Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the suggestion made at the weekend by the shadow spokesman for employment that a Labour Government would redistribute wealth? In plain language, does that not mean increasing taxes for the middle classes? Is that not old Labour–real Labour–which would tax out of envy? Does it not show that the Labour party is a high-tax party? Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to strengthen our reputation as a low-tax party?

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know the rules. We are going to pass on that question. If that is the best that he can do, I am calling Mr. Ashdown. Try harder than Mr. Townend.

    Mr. Ashdown: The farmers came here yesterday to complain not about the ban, but about the Government’s bungling. The Prime Minister has told us that the medicine is hurting, but it is working. How is it working for farmers who are losing their livelihoods because of the Government’s mismanagement of the matter? How is it working for pupils who are paying for tax bribes with rising class sizes? How is it working for the increasing number of young couples with negative equity who are facing house repossessions? Is it not perfectly clear that the Government offer the country not a continuation of the cure, but more of the poison?

    The Prime Minister: It was very prescient of you, Madam Speaker, to tell the right hon. Gentleman to try harder. That is very appropriate.

    The right hon. Gentleman, who is very keen to tell the House how strong a European he is, might recall that it is our European partners who have banned British beef unjustifiably on scientific grounds. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will try harder to persuade them that their ban is unjustified and, for once, join the Government in defending the interests of this country and of British agriculture.

    As to the extent that our policies are working, I know that the right hon. Gentleman finds it disobliging to hear that at the moment inflation, interest rates and unemployment are down and investments, exports and production are up. The right hon. Gentleman could find no other country in the European Union whose leader could make that claim in its Parliament.

     

    Q4. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the Government’s positive and very welcome response to the report of the working group on school security, is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent gun attack on Dowson first school in Valpy Avenue in Norwich, North when the art room was showered with glass? Fortunately, the incident occurred during the break when there were no children in the room. Will the Government use the extra resources that they have promised to provide protection measures in that school because parents are at present unwilling to allow their children to return to class?

    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend’s concern to ensure that schools are as safe and secure as they reasonably can be. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has heard my hon. Friend’s comments about the school in his constituency. I made it clear in the House on Tuesday that we will implement the recommendations of the working group on school security as soon as practicable–there are obviously issues to be examined before it can be taken in hand fully. We have already implemented some recommendations, including introducing measures to strengthen the law on offensive weapons in schools. It is an important matter and I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no undue delay.

    Mr. Salmond: May I take the Prime Minister back to 1981 when he was working in the public relations department of Standard Chartered bank and I was working for the Royal Bank of Scotland? The Monopolies and Mergers Commission ruled out a merger between those two organisations as against the Scottish public interest. Does the Prime Minister agree that–despite some dodgy lending decisions, such as the Tory party overdraft–the Royal Bank has been a fair success over the past 15 years as an independent organisation, as it has been over the past 300 years? If there were to be a hostile bid for Scotland’s other–

    Madam Speaker: Order. What has this to do with the Prime Minister?

    Mr. Salmond: I am coming to that.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to order and resume his seat. If he can tell me what the question has to do with the Prime Minister, I will allow it.

    Mr. Salmond: If there were a hostile bid for Scotland’s other major clearer, the Bank of Scotland, would the Prime Minister say that that should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and would the Scottish public interest once again be a determining feature in the outcome of such a bid?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who has to consider each case on its merits. He will consider each case, but I can give the hon. Gentleman no indication of what my right hon. Friend’s decision might be. That is for him and he would have to discuss and consider it.

     

    Dartmouth

    Q5. Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Dartmouth.

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

    Mr. Steen: Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep sense of outrage and injustice felt by south Devon fishermen as a result of the abuse by the Spanish of flags of convenience which results in 20 per cent. of the British quota being landed in foreign ports by the Spanish fleet? Will he take the opportunity at the intergovernmental conference to let the other countries in Europe know how committed he is to the British fishermen and that he will not tolerate that injustice any longer? Britain deserves something better from Europe and, because it does a lot for Europe, it deserves something back.

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I intend to raise that matter at the intergovernmental conference. Foreign-owned vessels cannot, of course, obtain British quotas at will, but it is possible to buy a British vessel with a licence and then fish against the United Kingdom quota. Although that is legal, it was certainly not what was intended when the common fisheries policy was established or when the House approved the common fisheries policy. The intention was that national quotas would be available for national fishermen, to the advantage of the whole Community, and I intend to raise that point at the intergovernmental conference. I have advised our European partners of that and we expect that there will be changes at the IGC and, of course, the conference cannot reach a conclusion without unanimity.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Jacques Chirac – 15 May 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Jacques Chirac, held in London on Wednesday 15th May 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say how very pleased we are to welcome the President here to Downing Street this morning. We have had the opportunity this morning of extremely productive discussions. I propose firstly to ask the President to report on those, I will then add a few words to that and thereafter we will take some questions.

    I should mention to you, I think most of you will know this, but the President has to address a joint session of Parliament very shortly so I fear we only have a limited time this morning. So without any further delay I will invite the President to speak to you.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    First of all I would like to thank the Prime Minister, to thank Her Majesty The Queen too and to say how very much I appreciated the way I have been welcomed for this visit.

    This morning we had a long conversation with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministers and our officials, and everyone will I think probably understand that the first subject that was discussed, because it is an urgent topical matter with many consequences, was the subject of BSE and the beef problem. And we have tried to make a very considerable effort in order to show real solidarity because there must be solidarity in a crisis of this kind in Europe and we want solidarity really to mean something, not just to be a vain word, and I hope this will come out clearly very soon, and perhaps even today in practical terms.

    We also discussed together an overall range of European affairs, including the preparation of the IGC and the problems linked to the present evolution of Europe, developments, enlargement, the single currency etc. We discussed questions of military cooperation, bilateral military cooperation, which is an area in which there is very considerable convergence in matters of concern to each country and the proposals that have been made by England and France. We also of course discussed a certain number of difficult situations in the modern world, and in particular Bosnia, but also Burundi and a certain number of other problems.

    And lastly we discussed certain bilateral issues, and in particular we took certain joint decisions relating to cultural affairs, or education affairs in particular for the exchange of young students for secondary school exchanges. This is the kind of thing we want to expand considerable. Also, a common policy on books publishing and translation.

    So those are the matters that we have been talking about today and I would like to particularly mention the spirit of our meeting, which can be summed up in a word, this is a real dialogue, consultation for concerted action which between England and France, this is the kind of thing which must imperatively be strengthened still further. That is my ambition and I understand it also to be the ambition of the British Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Jacques, thank you very much. Let me just add a few words to that. Firstly, perhaps I can endorse what the President has had to say. The relationship between Britain and France is extremely close at the moment. In a large number of areas we have very positive and very detailed cooperation, in defence in particular, but in many other areas as well, and the President has mentioned the number of bilateral initiatives that we have finally agreed this morning, the exchange of students perhaps being a particularly relevant one for the relationship between Britain and France, but by no means the only one.

    Of course there are areas of difference, and we have discussed those as well. We have discussed in particular this morning ways in which we might cooperate and look at one another’s positions in the intergovernmental conference before it begins.

    There are a wide range of areas where we have communal interests, and we have agreed that we will examine those and see wherever possible whether we can reach a joint position for the intergovernmental conference.

    I am very grateful for what the President has had to say in his support for the Commission’s proposal to lift the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen today. I think it is extremely important that we get the gelatine, tallow and semen ban lifted. I hope that will happen today. I am grateful for the very positive role that the President in particular has played in seeking to ensure that this comes about.

    We have touched on a wide range of international issues as well: the expansion of NATO, a matter of some importance to both of us; we looked at the relationships and the changes that are happening in different parts of the world. But the predominant part of the discussion was based upon European matters and bilateral matters, as the President has set out just a few moments ago.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Mike Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister and Mr President, if this partial ban is not eased today, how serious a problem is it going to be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We must hope firstly that it is eased today. We see no scientific reason for it not to be eased today, and if it were not to be eased today I think we would need to examine precisely why not and how that matter would proceed. But before I say more about that I think we had better wait and see what happens today.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    Mr President, if British beef is good enough for you to eat, why isn’t it good enough to be traded freely within the European Community?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    This is a [indistinct] issue and it is in fact irrational. There is a fear, a fear of disease, a fear of illness, and it is very difficult to overcome that. And I think the British government has done everything it can, it has put all its resources to bear to convince the Commission and the European Union of the need to have a plan, a plan which will in the long term and without risk restore faith in beef consumption. And I would think that the British government is making every effort and I hope we will make progress. We must go ahead step by step. Today as we understand, the Commission is going to propose that the embargo be removed. France favours that position. This will apply to gelatine, tallow and semen, of course, subject to compliance with the technical conditions which the Commission has included in its proposal.

    But it seems to me that these conditions are already in place and are being fulfilled by the British government, so there is no reason therefore for us not to support the proposal by the Commission. That would be a first step, a step in the right direction I would say. And in conclusion I would say that we think that this is a problem that affects the whole of Europe and it is up to Europe to express solidarity when solidarity is needed and I do hope that that strong solidarity will be expressed as of today.

    QUESTION:

    President Chirac, the British say that we supported you on nuclear matters, and in fact John Major was the only one to support you at that time, and now we look to you to support him on beef – is that a legitimate claim by him?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I don’t think it is a problem of supporting one another, it is a question of solidarity on a position. I have told you what France’s position is today, our position it seems to me is a reasonable one and it gives expression to the kind of solidarity that Europe must have with the United Kingdom in its present crisis that it is undergoing.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] have made some countries in the region to express the strong desire and wish that the United Kingdom, and mainly France as well, and Europe to play a major role in order to secure the peace that has been achieved so far. This matter has not been raised in your talks but will it be considered here in the future by the European Union as a whole?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I should say that the President and I were in touch on a number of occasions, as were Mr Rifkind and Mr de Charette, on the subject of the Middle East and the particular problems in Lebanon recently. There was a very close relationship and if I may say so, the Foreign Minister played a very distinguished role at that time in trying to bring about the ceasefire that has subsequently occurred. Huge progress has been made in the Middle East, there is more to be done, there is no doubt about that. There is no doubt I think that the present position in Lebanon is a fragile position across the border and we are looking for further progress. There is a great deal of bilateral cooperation, particularly between our Foreign Ministers but also directly between the President and dealing with this particular problem. There are some areas where the European Union can play a role, but I think predominantly the role will be played by the members of the Permanent Five, by Britain, by France and by the United States operating bilaterally.

    But that it is a very important matter is beyond doubt and that the British and the French governments are engaged is also beyond doubt.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] in the case of the embargo not being lifted tonight, would you contemplate to have the authority of the empty chair?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to indicate now what is going to happen in the hypothetical situation that you set out. If there is a bad decision today then we will make our position clear over the next day or so. But at the moment I very much hope that a sensible decision will be reached. There is no scientific reason not to lift the ban on gelatine, tallow and on semen, no scientific reason at all, and we have made that position clear. The position is really quite straight-forward. The Commission imposed the ban, the Commission have been discussing the matter with the British government. The Commission have now decided to propose that the ban is lifted. Upon that basis I see no proper justification for our colleagues in Europe not agreeing with that, now we must wait and see what happens later today.

    QUESTION (Nicholas Witchell, BBC):

    Mr President, have you heard anything from Prime Minister Major today to make you wholeheartedly confident that Britain will be, as you said at Buckingham Palace last night, a cornerstone in the construction of Europe?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Our discussions on European matters are on-going between our two countries and the British Prime Minister is committed to participating actively in the future of Europe. I understand completely the positions on both sides, and the problems that we have, but we always settle our problems in an open and friendly manner. And for my part what I would like to see is these friendly discussions going forward so that we can hear the voice of the United Kingdom strongly in the European system. You cannot have the future of Europe built without a strong British presence and without Britain being heard.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, we have heard talk about a menage a trois in Europe these days, we know the position of France, Germany and the UK, who is going to be in charge in this menage a trois?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    There is no leader, nobody takes charge in the political menage, not even in households generally. But I can say that France plays its role, as does Britain and Germany, we all do everything we can to harmonise positions. Reform is a constant endeavour, day to day effort, day in, day out, and we participate fully in those efforts.

    QUESTION:

    Today the Commission is bringing out a report on how the various countries in the EU are complying as far as debt is concerned, and therefore the implications that has for the Maastricht criteria. Do you have any comments to make on where the economy stands at the moment and being able to form a single currency, if we so decide, by 1999?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The concept of the criteria at Maastricht was originally a British concept. There are good economic criteria, quite apart from their necessity were any nation states to go ahead with a single currency in 1999. I think we will all look at the Commission report with some interest. But as to meeting those sort of criteria, they are the British government’s policy in any event to meet criteria like this for good economic reasons, and we will look at the report with interest. I think we will also look at the report as to how it indicates across Europe the economic readiness for a single currency amongst many of our partners.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    You shouldn’t believe that the convergence criteria are the only element to be achieved to create a single currency. The convergence criteria are founded on good sense, on common sense, based on sound management of the economy. And one should note that the UK, which has proposed, and very wisely so several years back, have made the necessary proposals regarding the restructuring of its finances, is a country where unemployment has fallen. So there is a link between sound, wise, financial management and jobs. Other countries have not been as wise as the United Kingdom in past years and so they now face deficit problems and unemployment problems. Over and above any other consideration, of course we are making every effort to reduce deficits, to respect the convergence criteria, and we do this, also it is a means of more effectively combating unemployment.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, would you say that following your conversations today, and those that you will have by the end of your visit, do you think that there will be rapprochement between the UK and French positions on the concept of the EU and the role of nation states in that union?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I would say that my concern, ever since I took office, is to ensure that there is the greatest level of rapprochement between British and French views. And I repeat, I want the building of Europe to be effective and I do not think that that construction of Europe can be effective without agreement with Britain. So we discuss and we make progress, I repeat reform, such wide-ranging reform in particular, is an on-going effort. It also involves enhancing dialogue and makes better understanding, and that is what we do, day in and day out.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Hampton Court – 15 May 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, with Jacques Chirac, held at Hampton Court near London on Wednesday 15th May 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    May I first welcome you all here this evening, but say above all what a particular pleasure it is to welcome the President, and Madame Chirac here to Hampton Court on this occasion.

    We had this morning around two hours of talks, a press conference in Number 10, a fairly busy day for the President and it seemed a good opportunity to offer him a friendly change of scenery this evening.

    Hampton Court has been, for most of its life, a royal palace. Cardinal Wolsey had a great deal to do with its foundation. He had, Mr President, the dubious distinction of leading one of Henry VIII’s first armies rather unsuccessfully I recall against France. And he began to build this in 1514. 12 years later, in a rather vain attempt to curry favour with Henry VIII, he gave it to the King, and without any vain intent to curry favour with Wolsey, the King accepted it.

    It has had a very remarkable history. The game of real tennis was born here in Hampton Court, so was Edward VI. Queen Mary spent her honeymoon here, and so did Charles II. James I organised the conference here which led to the authorised version of the bible. And Charles I assembled many of the magnificent pictures that you see around you this evening and for his pains was imprisoned here after the Civil War. King William died after falling off his horse here. And Queen Anne enjoyed the hunting so much here that even when illness prevented her riding any more she had the parks drained and the parks levelled so that she could hunt by carriage. George I had a rather different quarry, Mr President, he brought his German mistresses here, but we don’t often mention that in polite company. George II was the last sovereign to reside here before Queen Victoria opened the palace to the public.

    And yet throughout all that long history, of which the few words I have mentioned are but a small sample, the palace has had many connections with France, representing the intense interaction between our two countries over the centuries. The dates mean, very sadly, that Henry VIII left for France in 1520 to meet Francis I in the famous field of the Cloth of Gold, but not alas from here, despite the splendid portraits you see that record that famous event.

    Of course the relationship between the United Kingdom and France is not just an historical relationship. It is, I think, Mr President, a living truth. And today Britain and France stand not just as two of the oldest sovereign states in Europe, though certainly as that, not just as two countries each with a proud record of national independence, though certainly of that, but also I think as global partners – both Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council, Europe’s only two nuclear powers, we share membership of the Group of Seven, of NATO, of the European Union, of the Western European Union and of many other bodies as well.

    We have a trade and political relationship of great depth, one with another. We are each the other’s third largest biggest direct investors and third largest export market. About 10 – 12 million Britons cross the Channel every year to France. 875 British towns are twinned with France, and nearly one-third of those have been established within the last 10 years. And there is, of course, Mr President, a very high level of exchange between our young people and you and I were delighted to announce a further enhancement of that scheme today.

    And we exchange culture as well, not just Cezanne in London for that astonishingly successful exhibition, but this year Henry Moore in Nantes, Frances Bacon at the Pompidou Centre, and a century of British sculpture in Paris. And I even noticed, perhaps at a slightly different level, that a Scottish lady will be singing for France in this year’s Eurovision Song Contest, accompanied by a Welsh singer and an Irish piper – a modern manifestation I think of the old alliance.

    A few of you may have noticed in the reception before dinner that we also exchange sportsmen. The new manager of the England football team – Glen Hoddle – who had a marvellous job, and I can’t understand why he should leave it as manager of my football team at Chelsea, but even though he neglected to win Chelsea a championship I look forward to him doing great things with the England team in the future and wish him the best of luck. He is very welcome here this evening. And he of course had a certain role in helping Monaco win the French championship. Chris Waddle of course went one better and helped Marseilles become the first French team to win the European Cup.

    And I mention this, Mr President, because I know of your own footballing interest, Paris St Germain’s most ardent supporter in many ways, and I think very pleased at their recent victory in the final of the European Cup Winner’s Cup. It is not every football fan who can receive his team at the Elysee Palace to congratulate them upon their success. I only hope they look after you extraordinarily well when you are able to watch their home matches.

    May I just touch on one other thing briefly? No evening in the United Kingdom at the moment would be entirely complete without some mention of beef. We are not serving you beef this evening. But I would like to take the opportunity of expressing my thanks to the President, and his colleagues in government, for their support over recent days and their very strong support in the progress that has been made in Brussels today. Some progress has been made today and I think there is every chance that will be carried a good deal further in the early part of next week, on Monday I hope of next week.

    We will be working hard, with the support we have had from France and from a number of other countries in the European Union, in carrying forward the progressive lifting of the ban that at present exists on British beef. I think that is merited and I look forward to that happening as speedily as possible. But for this evening I just want to take the opportunity publicly of thanking the President for his support privately, and his support publicly, so aptly demonstrated in the discussions in Brussels earlier today.

    And let me also add one other point. I would not wish to end this evening without paying a very genuine and heartfelt tribute to the President’s role in enhancing the relationship between France and the United Kingdom. I believe, as we meet here this evening, that it is as warm and as detailed, as friendly and as persuasive in all its aspects as it has been for very many years between our two countries. And a significant reason for that enhancement of our relationship is our guest this evening – the President of France – and I am most grateful to him for that.

    The toasts come later this evening. So let me simply end at the outset by welcoming you Jacques, and you Bernadette, as our guests here this evening at Hampton Court. I welcome you very warmly indeed on behalf of the British government and the British nation. And let me simply say this. I look forward to welcoming you back here and elsewhere in the United Kingdom on many occasions in the future. You are tonight amongst friends and I hope that you will enjoy the evening.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Prime Minister, my dear John, dear Norma. When history in fact brought our two countries together in the past it was very often on the battlefield. And here, like in France, the remnants of the past carry the imprint of past rivalry. And on the windows of this magnificent hall we can see in the middle of Henry VIII’s Coat of Arms the proud French cry of [indistinct] which was in fact the war cry of the Kings of France when they went into battle, very often against you.

    Now fortunately times have changed and there is a great feeling of solidarity which presides over the cooperation between our two countries, and it is that same feeling that is very present in my heart today when I am with you here, John, in this magnificent hall, in the middle of my State Visit to Britain.

    Her Majesty The Queen expressed this with great talent when she said that it is true that we don’t drive on the same side of the road, but it is also true that we go in the same direction.

    The very warm welcome that we have received in Great Britain, my wife and myself, I think bears witness to the very strong friendship that now bonds our two peoples together. The very gracious hospitality extended to us by Her Majesty The Queen, and our meeting with Her Majesty The Queen Mother, which I found extremely moving, and with members of the Royal Family, have in fact given us the most unforgettable moments which will remain engraved in our memories.

    During my visit to Parliament, and during the numerous talks that I have had with political leaders and with yourself in particular, Prime Minister, I was able to measure how very much our views and our interests converge, and how very much we share the same ambitions, to build a Europe that should be dynamic and prosperous, respectful of national identities, and to build together a world that should be better, with more justice, more tolerance, more humane.

    I met with the business leaders in the Guildhall and I noted the remarkable potential for innovation and development of British and French enterprises and how very successful they can be when they work together, which I very much encourage them to do.

    These conversations, and the contacts I have had, have strengthened my conviction, which is that France and Great Britain, which are great powers, that both have considerable prestige and international influence, and a remarkable capital you might say of talent and know-how, these two countries must cooperate more together.

    As Winston Churchill said, more or less, history has in fact forged between our two peoples unshakeable, unbreakable bonds that cannot be undone. We have fought together for many centuries. Now we must give each other as much support as we possibly can. And that, my dear John, is the frame of mind which is mine at present and I know that you share these feelings.

    My dear John, we have known each other for a number of years and you have been good enough to give me your friendship, and I have done likewise. The affection – I think I can say – that exists between us, our affinities, are this deep attachment that we share for our cultures, our national traditions, all this gives a special dimension to our working relationships. And personally I quite honestly take great pleasure in this. It is very pleasant to be able to work with someone in this spirit of trust and friendship.

    I think we should say perhaps something also about the subject that is unmentionable, or wasn’t to be mentioned today, in other words beef. But you have broken the tryst, my dear John, and the contract therefore, may I say simply that I am surprised that there is no fillet de boeuf on the menu.

    And could I say that I very much hope that we will be able to strengthen something which is in the very nature of things, in other words a very strong bond of friendship between France and Great Britain.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the British Beef Ban – 15 May 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the British beef ban, made outside 10, Downing Street on 15th May 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it’s extremely important that we get the gelatine, tallow and semen ban lifted, I hope that will happen today.

    ……

    The commission have now decided to propose that the ban is lifted, so on that basis, I see no proper justification for our colleagues in Europe not agreeing with that.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 May 1996

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Pay Review Bodies

    Mr. Pickles: To ask the Prime Minister what is the current membership of the public sector pay review bodies.

    The Prime Minister: The current membership, with effect from 1 April 1996, is as listed:

    Senior salaries review body

    Sir Michael Perry CBE (Chairman)
    Mr. Gordon Hourston
    Sir Anthony Wilson
    Sir Sydney Lipworth QC
    Mrs. Rosemary Day
    Ms Patricia Mann
    Mrs. Yve Newbold
    Mr. Mark Sheldon
    Mr. Michael Beloff QC
    Armed forces pay review body
    Mr. Gordon Hourston (Chairman)
    Mr. Michael Bolton
    Mrs. Dorothy Venables
    Mr. John Cox OBE
    Mr. John Crosby
    Air Chief Marshall Sir Roger Palin KCB OBE
    Mr. Guy Neely
    Sir Gavin Laird CBE
    Review body on nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine
    Mr. Bryan Rigby (Chairman)
    Miss Anne Mackie OBE
    Professor Gillian Raab
    Ms Ruth Lea
    Mrs. Shelia Gleig
    Mrs. Anne Dean
    Mr. Lyndon Haddon
    Mr. Keith Miles
    Review body on doctors’ and dentists remuneration
    Mr. Brandon Gough (Chairman)
    Mrs. Carol Hui
    Dr. Elizabeth Nelson
    Mr. David Penton
    Mr. Michael Innes
    Mr. Christopher King CBE
    Mrs. Beryl Brewer
    Mr. Roderick Jackson
    School teachers review body
    Mr. Tony Vineall (Chairman from September 1996)
    Mr. John Gardiner (Chairman until September 1996)
    Mrs. Brigita Amey
    Mr. Michael Harding
    Mrs. Julia Cuthbertson
    Mrs. Elizabeth Drummond
    Miss Janet Langdon
    Mr. Peter Gelding
    Mr. Philip Halsey CB LVO (until September 1996).

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 May 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th May 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Isle of Skye (Visit)

    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to pay an official visit to the Isle of Skye.

    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 14 May.

    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 – 14 May 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th May 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

    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. Greenway: Bearing in mind the eternal anguish caused to families and the British people by the murders of my constituent Philip Lawrence and of the teacher and children of Dunblane, may I have my right hon. Friend’s absolute assurance that the Government will spare no effort to ensure proper security for schools and proper gun controls?

    The Prime Minister: As to school security, we have today accepted the recommendations of the working group that was set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment following the tragic murder of Mr. Lawrence, and we shall press on with implementing them. As to Dunblane, I have made it clear that when we have the chance to consider Lord Cullen’s recommendations and to consult other parties in the House, if legislation is found to be necessary–as I personally suspect it will–we have already set aside time in our parliamentary programme. I believe that there is a consensus in the House that schools should be secure places in which children can learn free from fear. Parents expect no less, and we will do all that we can to ensure that is the case.

    Mr. Blair: I support the Prime Minister in his welcome for the report on school security. Is not it a sad but true reflection of the need for such a report that in the past year, three in five schools have been vandalised by intruders and a high degree of pupils and teachers were actually assaulted by intruders? As well as accepting the working group’s recommendations, will the Government fully fund them–if necessary from within the current financial year?

    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that there will be a Government funding programme over whatever period is necessary to follow through the recommendations. We have not yet had the chance to study the recommendations in full, cost them or determine how rapidly they can be implemented. However, we will not be seeking delay but seeking to carry out the recommendations as speedily as practicable.

    Mr. Blair: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am sure that he knows that vandalism costs a lot of money–so the sooner that action is taken, the better financially. Will the Prime Minister agree to the working group’s request to be allowed to examine the broader problem of behaviour in schools? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the routine violence suffered by many teachers in schools is absolutely intolerable? Given that there are 11,000 school exclusions every year, which is about treble the previous number, we would co-operate fully in any legislation designed to make the time limits for exclusion more rational and to render the entire system of exclusions more acceptable.

    The Prime Minister: There may be areas of agreement and I welcome the support of the right hon. Gentleman. As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is examining this matter. It is important that we ensure proper behaviour in schools and proper sanctions by teachers. The Government would welcome support across the Chamber on this issue.

     

    Q2. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Dunn: Given that Sevenoaks district council, which is controlled by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, has just increased its council tax by a staggering and unprecedented 90 per cent.–which is a nightmare for council tax payers–does the Prime Minister agree with the maxim: “Dogs bark, cats miaow and socialists put up taxes”?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is being slightly unfair to the Liberal Democrats, who seem to have helped on this occasion with the tax raising. If one looks across local government, one sees that it is Liberal, Lib-Lab and Labour councils that ransack the pockets of council tax payers. [Interruption.] I am glad that Labour Members like extra taxes. This morning I read that the shadow Secretary for Employment wants to tax more as a sop to the trade unions.

    The Government see the removal of child benefit as a teenage tax. Many Labour Members want to tax anyone who earns more than the shadow Transport Secretary. [Interruption.] Yes, there is more. In Scotland, the tartan tax is an extra tax. The Labour party wants to tax business more with a minimum wage. There are plenty of opportunities for more arguments in the shadow Cabinet about the Labour party’s tax policy.

     

    Q3. Ms Lynne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Ms Lynne: In light of the recent remarks made by leading film stars and others, does the Prime Minister agree with me and with them that violence on television and in films can lead to horrific copycat killings? Will he put whatever pressure he can on the film censor to withdraw the video certificate from “Natural Born Killers” and to persuade the BBC not to broadcast it?

    The Prime Minister: I share the concern of the hon. Lady and the concern of millions of people in this country about the level of violence in feature films and, perhaps even more damaging, in videos that are readily available to young people. It is encouraging that the concerns are echoed by many people in the film industry. I have not seen “Natural Born Killers”, but everything that I have heard about it suggests that it is distasteful. I hope that the British Board of Film Classification will hear what the hon. Lady has to say, consider it with great care and act on it.

    Mr. Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend seen today’s reports recommending less confrontation in Parliament? Does he agree that the quickest way to achieve this will be for the parties that claim to be against crime to vote in favour of, and not against, the Government’s increasingly successful law and order measures?

    The Prime Minister rose–

    Mr. Yeo: In addition, the parties that claim they want to help British men and women into jobs should join the Government in saying no to the social chapter. In short, new Labour should finally tell the truth and say that the Tories were right all along.

    The Prime Minister: I am glad that I made way for the second half of my hon. Friend’s question; it was well worth waiting for.

    I am surprised by the apparent amusement of the Opposition about dealing with these important issues, when their policies would not deal with a single one of them. Opposition for its own sake is generally what we get from the Opposition parties; we have got used to that. If they meant what they said, they would change.

     

    Intelligence Headquarters (Germany)

    Q4. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Chancellor Kohl about the arrangements made by the German intelligence chief, for showing Ali Fallahian, Iranian intelligence chief, round the Wiesbaden intelligence headquarters unit of the Verfassungschutz; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have had no such discussions with Chancellor Kohl.

    Mr. Dalyell: As three official documents of the German Government, brought to the attention of the British Government, confirm that Iranian-orchestrated terrorism has operated out of Germany for years, and against the background that I and Dr. Swire of the Lockerbie relatives have brought to the Government’s attention before I asked this question, will the Prime Minister reconsider responsibility for Lockerbie in the light of what he now knows?

    The Prime Minister: We have very carefully examined all the documentation that has been made available to us by the hon. Gentleman and others. The alleged involvement of others in the bombing has been exhaustively investigated; nothing that has been presented to the Government has been lightly laid aside without proper examination. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has concluded, on the basis of all the evidence, that there is a case for the two accused Libyans to answer and there remains no evidential basis for bringing charges against the nationals of any other country.

    The case is not closed. If there is further evidence, we will of course examine it, but the evidence needs to be founded, not unfounded speculation. Any evidence of that sort should be provided to the police or the Government and it will be fully and properly examined.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Rendel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Rendel: Given that about 50 councils throughout the country are now left without a single Conservative representative, and given that probably, in those areas, on average, about 20 per cent. of the electorate still supports the Conservative party and votes for it, does the Prime Minister agree that the current electoral system is very unfair to those Conservative voters, and indeed to the Conservative party, in those areas, and that therefore it would be better to replace the electoral system with a fair vote system, which would ensure proper representation on each and every council for every significant group?

    The Prime Minister: First, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for calling him an hon. Friend. I promise the House that that was not a leak suggesting that the hon. Gentleman will cross the Floor, but merely an indication that we anticipate having his seat back at the next general election.

    I do not remotely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s proposals for a form of proportional voting. The only implication of a proportional voting system in this country would be that the decisions that should be made by a Government, and on which a Government should be answerable, would be made behind closed doors by Members like the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal party, and others, and not made by the Prime Minister and Government of the day, standing at the Dispatch Box.

     

    Q6. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Jenkin: As we await the return of the Family Law Bill to the Floor of the House, will my right hon. Friend consider a change of policy to allow for mediation and reconciliation between members of the shadow Cabinet, whose marriage of convenience appears to have been poisoned by the political gigolo from Hartlepool?

    The Prime Minister: They will have ample time for mediation and conciliation–perhaps five years after the general election–in opposition.

     

    Q7. Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Lewis: Does the Prime Minister accept that refusal to act on guns before Lord Cullen reports smacks of vacillation? If the right hon. Gentleman has any doubts about yardsticks for tackling gun control, will he read the report of the Adjournment debate that I initiated on 3 May 1995? He will find that during that debate I made four sensible suggestions for the control of guns. That debate took place 12 months before Dunblane.

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have made sensible suggestions. As for vacillation, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary, said the other day:

    “We shall . . . carefully consider all the evidence given to the Inquiry and the recommendations which Lord Cullen makes before coming to final conclusions.”

    It would rather seem that the Opposition Front Bench shares the Government’s view that there should be a proper examination of Lord Cullen’s report before conclusions are reached. I am sorry that there seems to be a split between the Opposition Front Bench and the Opposition Benches below the Gangway.

     

    Q8. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Marks and Spencer, that pillar of the British nation, has announced that if we were to be so foolish as to go for a single currency, it would have to spend at least £100 million on converting its tills, and that everyone in the high street would end up with bills running into billions? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should bring these matters to the attention of the President of France, Mr. Chirac, when he meets him for discussions? I understand that the gentleman is quite keen on a single currency. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he understands that underwear prices will increase in Marks in this country as well as in Paris, Lyon and all the other Marks stores in France?

    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has brought matters effectively to the attention of many people. I am not certain whether they will directly reach President Chirac.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 May 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th May 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministers (Unlawful Actions)

    Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which Government Ministers have had their actions declared unlawful since 1973 in (a) United Kingdom courts, (b) the European Court of Human Rights and (c) the European Court of Justice.

    The Attorney-General: I have been asked to reply.

    As regards cases in the United Kingdom and in the European Court of Justice, the information requested by the hon. Member is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In any event, most actions in the European Court of Justice are either references from national courts, in which the European Court of Justice does not declare actions to be unlawful, or infraction proceedings commenced by the Commission, where the case is against the United Kingdom and in practice it rarely, if ever, happens that action taken by a particular Government Minister is in issue. As regards the European Court on Human Rights, proceedings are against the United Kingdom, rather than individual Government Ministers. In practice, it is difficult to say that a breach of the convention has arisen solely because of action taken by a particular Government Minister.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the 1996 Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 11 May 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the 1996 Scottish Conservative Party Conference, held on 11th May 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I want to touch first on two issues of great concern.

    When last I came to Scotland, I went to Dunblane. The events there were a horror, almost unimaginable – a mad act that robbed innocent children of a happy future.

    Michael Forsyth and Michael Howard have already announced an amnesty on illegal guns to gather them in.

    Lord Cullen – one of Scotland’s most senior judges – is to advise us on what further action is needed.

    Should legislation be necessary – and it may well be – I can promise you we will move speedily. We have already set aside time in the Parliamentary programme for this purpose.

    I intend that we will do all we can to ensure such a crime cannot happen again.

    Secondly, beef.

    The European ban on beef has caused frustration and anger.

    Not just amongst farmers, but amongst everyone.

    Certainly here in Scotland, as Scottish beef is a by-word for quality.

    The ban is totally unjustified. It’s the result of panic, not science. And it must be removed.

    The ban turned a problem into a crisis, not just in Britain, but across Europe where beef markets have also been hit.

    Next week, the first steps towards lifting the ban are going to be discussed in Europe. I hope that progress will be made.

    For the ban was introduced by the Commission. And it is the Commission that has now unanimously recommended a partial lifting of the ban.

    Against that background, our European partners must understand the level of resentment that will be created if they fly in the face of scientific arguments and the Commission’s recommendations and continue to damage our beef industry.

    But let us be frank. Even when the ban has been lifted, we will need to rebuild consumer confidence to regain our markets. We need to make the case for quality again and again.

    Many beef herds have never had a case of BSE. So, while we aim to get the ban totally lifted, we’ll also be pressing to get rapid exemption for specialist beef herds.

    Such a move across the UK will particularly benefit Scotland, and the premium, grass-fed beef herds for which Scotland is rightly famous.

    We’re already consulting on proposals to get mature, prime beef from these herds back on the market in Britain.

    But to regain our markets around the world, we must – in our own interest – look at any sensible proposals to speed up the already rapid decline of BSE throughout the UK.

    I met with the Scottish NFU this morning, and heard from them first hand of the fears and anxieties of their members. I promise you this – we will stand by this industry.

    We have already committed huge resources. In addition to that, I am confident that we can deliver significant extra help for beef producers within this year’s European farm settlement. And, to help the exporters, we’ve agreed to pay more money to those whose stocks were destroyed or devalued in the initial crisis.

    I pay tribute to the leadership which the NFU has given over this difficult period, and to the effective and influential role they have played.

    We’ve made a start in tackling this crisis but we need to remove the threat of BSE once and for all. British beef is the best in the world.

    It’s good to be back in Scotland and to find you in such good spirits.

    So am I.

    I always enjoy coming to Scotland. Not least because you always doctor my water in a most agreeable way.

    We’re now within a year of the next General Election.

    And, when it comes – next year, I expect – we Conservatives are going to win that election – by working together, north and south of the border.

    It’s a good Tory word, “together” – and especially so here in Scotland.

    It emphasises that ours is a United Kingdom.

    And we’re the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    We believe in working together, north and south.

    And, so long as there’s a Conservative Government, that’s how it will remain.

    Some people say to me – why? Surely, if Scotland breaks away, England will save on public spending and can have lower taxes? And surely, it’ll be easier to win elections without the SNP, Labour and Liberal MPs from Scotland?

    True. But the United Kingdom as a whole would suffer. And so would Scotland.

    And we Conservatives put the United Kingdom first, even though it’s not to our Party advantage. That’s not the way Labour behave. Their devolution plans put the interests of the Labour Party first. We put the country first. And that’s the difference.

    For months, Michael Forsyth and his team have been taking the argument to Labour, exposing their flawed plans.

    Showing how they would wreck Scotland.

    Showing how the devolutionists are laying a false prospectus before the Scottish people.

    I have a message for you Michael. The battle you’re fighting for Scotland is as important as any that has been fought before.

    Fight hard. Punch hard. Punch often.

    And you’ll have from me all the support you need.

    When I became Prime Minister I spoke of a classless society.

    Many scoffed that this had happened without my noticing it.

    Others said it was a preposterous and even undesirable aim.

    Well, there have been remarkable changes in British society over the last 50 years. Indeed, I’m a beneficiary of them.

    But don’t tell me that a child brought up in deprived circumstances – and given an inadequate education – has the same prospects as one from a more prosperous background with a good education.

    There are many who achieve good results from bad beginnings. But one of our principal risks as a Government – and as a Party – is to ensure that fewer and fewer of our children have those bad beginnings. And that’s what our education reforms are about.

    We don’t believe that people in difficulties always have only themselves to blame. Don’t forget I’ve been poor and unemployed. And I know that our Party has done more than any other to relieve poverty and to finance the National Health Service and social security.

    It was practical compassionate Conservatism that marks me a Tory and millions like me.

    And it’s values like that that have underpinned the last 17 years of Conservative Government.

    17 years.

    Some people on the cocktail and chattering circuit think it’s time for a change. As though Government were a game of street cricket with everyone having a bat in turn. But what sort of change?

    Labour wouldn’t bring to Britain the sort of changes we’ve brought.

    Taxpayers. Cuts for everyone. The lowest basic rate for 50 years. Change that?

    Homeowners. Lowest mortgage rates for 30 years. Gas, telephone bills falling. Change that?

    Workers. More of our people in work than any major country in Europe. Change that?

    Savers. TESSAs and PEPs flourishing. Scotland is thrifty. It saves. And now it has a 20p rate of tax on savings – a new low. Change that?

    Businessmen. The longest period of low inflation for almost 50 years. Why change that?

    Parents. More choice than ever before. We shouldn’t change that – and Labour agree.

    Not only do they agree, they welcome our change and take advantage of it.

    You don’t believe me. Check with the Blairs. Ask Harriet Harman.

    Pupils. More going on to higher education than ever before.

    Patients. More being treated than ever before.

    The changes we’re brought about are changes for the better.

    Thanks to them, Britain is the best performing economy in Europe. The world’s leading companies are pouring in investment and jobs.

    Britain, with her unique heritage of trading links, and a mother tongue that’s the world’s common language, is winning new markets around the globe.

    Today, Britain stands on the threshold of a new era of opportunity and prosperity as a global trading nation. A small island that’s an international success.

    Of course, there’s much we have to do. But look what we’ve done.

    Take our schools, for instance.

    We inherited a system that had become a secret garden, overgrown with so-called progressive theories.

    Today, children are taught the basics. Labour called that a “fanatical doctrine”.

    We’re going to make sure that children are regularly tested. Labour said tests “encourage a climate of failure”.

    Exam results are published. Labour called that “political propaganda”.

    Schools can now govern themselves. Labour said that was “wrong”.

    Wrong? It’s precisely the kind of education parents want. That’s not wrong. It’s just commonsense.

    The same goes for crime. We’re been turning back the tide of political correctness that excused the criminal and forgot the victim. It meant once again taking on the so-called progressive establishment that dominates Labour thinking.

    Well, we took them on.

    For example, we increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children. For dealing in drugs. We gave the police new powers to stop and search suspects.

    And right the way down the line, Labour opposed almost every change.

    If Labour had won their arguments, dangerous criminals who are in prison today would be out – walking the streets.

    So, change? Change back to that? Surely that would be folly.

    Some of the changes we’ve made have been painful. They’ve hurt people. And they have hurt us politically in by-elections and local elections.

    But although it hurt, it worked.

    And when we look around us we can see life getting better and our country becoming more prosperous.

    So when people talk of change, ask them “What kind of change do you prefer?”

    “Higher inflation? Lower taxes? More jobs? Tougher laws under the Tories?”

    That’s the kind of change you and I want. And it’s the only way to meet the challenge of the future. A change to Labour would be a change all right – a change for the worse. Don’t let it happen.

    Mr Chairman, before these changes, British companies and British businesses were fighting just to keep their heads above water. Now they are fighting to lead the field.

    And that’s especially true in Scotland.

    Which place in the UK do you think has gained most from our reforms of the last 17 years?

    Seen living standards grow by over a third?

    Grown faster than the rest of the United Kingdom over the last five years?

    Exports 40 per cent more per worker than the United Kingdom average?

    Brought unemployment down to its lowest rate for almost fifteen years?

    You’re right: that country is Scotland.

    Could this remarkable success story have happened without the Union?

    It’s out of the question.

    Labour or the Scot Nats would never have given Scotland the changes she needed. Instead of sunrise industries we’d have had sunset industries, propped up by subsidy, but doomed to disappear. The only question was when.

    Our way has delivered the private investment that’s the key to Scotland’s success.

    In one year alone, almost 100 projects brought Scotland over one billion pounds worth of planned investment, creating or protecting over 12,000 jobs.

    International companies – like Motorola, NEC, BT – they’re all investing in Scotland.

    And they’ll continue to do so as long as they’re sure Scotland will stay in the United Kingdom and income tax will not rise above those in England.

    But, if either of these things do happen, they won’t. They’ll go elsewhere.

    That’s the choice for Scotland.

    One of the reasons they come here is that a Conservative Government has built an economy that encourages investors by controlling expenditure and keeping inflation down. That’s meant we’ve been able to cut interest rates and keep taxes low.

    Again – yes, it hurts. But it has worked. It’s making life better. Don’t throw it away.

    Enterprise has many elements. But high among them is something that goes right to the heart of running the country – and dips into the pocket of every family in the land. Tax.

    Tax is always a battlefield between the parties because we have different instincts.

    We believe in low tax because it stimulates initiative and enterprise, fosters personal independence, and helps the country create enough wealth to help those in need. So we cut taxes when we can. But, as Ken Clarke said yesterday, when, and only when, it’s sensible to do so.

    Labour’s instincts are different. They increase spending.

    So, as Roy Hattersley put it, “Labour now has a clear choice. It can either be the party of higher taxation and proud of it, or the party of higher taxes which it is ashamed to describe, afraid to admit and incapable of calculating with any accuracy. It cannot be the low taxation party”.

    For once, he’s right. People will have a clear choice, a party whose instinct is for less tax, or a party whose instinct is for more tax.

    That’s why our opponents don’t like talking about their tax plans.

    But there’s no honest reason why Labour shouldn’t come clean about them. Britain’s books are open.

    After all, I’m perfectly happy to talk about our tax plans. They’re quite simple.

    We’ll cut taxes whenever we safely can.

    Labour are the exact opposite. Believe it or not, I’m told there are actually people who say Labour are addicted to the politics of envy and want taxes for that reason. And New Labour too. Shocking isn’t it?

    Be that as it may, one thing is certain. Whatever Labour say for public consumption, people know from past experience they’d be worse off under Labour.

    Tory scare tactics, the spin doctors who rule Labour till say. Is it?

    For example, any family with a sixteen to eighteen year old child who is in education had better watch out. Under Labour, their child benefits could disappear.

    Let’s call it a Teenage Tax – a tax increase of up to £560 a year for families whose children are 16 or over and at college. For some families, that’s the same as an increase of 5p on income tax.

    Under Labour, anyone who earns more than Clare Short would be easy pickings for the taxman. Clare’s salary is about £35,000. Many people would love to earn that much. But thanks to Labour’s ThirtySomething Tax, they’d be worse off.

    There are other taxes lurking.

    And, of course, anyone living here in Scotland would be hit by the Tartan Tax. But if they don’t need it, let them reject it now.

    Think how it would damage Scotland to pay more tax than the rest of the country. Who’d be hit most? Not those on high incomes, those on low ones. Someone earning, say, £76,000 a year would see his tax bill rise by 9%. At the same time, someone on £12,000 would see it rise by 14%.

    And this from a Labour Party that has the nerve to talk about ‘fair tax’.

    Before the last election, Labour published their plans. They said they’d increase spending, so naturally Labour would raise taxes to pay for it.

    The New, unscrupulous, Labour Party are different. Whenever Mr Brown threatens honesty on taxes, Mr Blair contradicts him. And Mr Prescott tries to keep up, but doesn’t quite know what’s going on. Well, I can tell you what’s going on.

    Labour still want to spend more of your money, that’s what’s going on. They can’t kick the habit – it’s a sort of reflex action. So they’d tax more. They always have. They always will. And nothing is going to change them.

    I sometimes wonder what on earth Labour stand for these days.

    Their leadership is trying to shed all its history, philosophy and creed with one contemptuous shrug and replace it with – what? A burning desire for office.

    But a lust for power is not, and never has been, a qualification for being entrusted with it.

    But it’s not just taxpayers who’d be worse off.

    Parents would be deprived of a choice of school for their children.

    Patients would see hospitals turned upside down as Labour tried to turn back the clock.

    Shareholders in privatised companies would find their shares threatened.

    But don’t just look at what Labour would do to our reforms. Don’t just think about how Labour would hit the pockets of the people. The real danger is to the very fabric of Britain itself.

    By their own admission, Labour say that they’d bring in the most extensive package of constitutional reform our nation has seen.

    Mr Chairman, this constitution of ours has run like a thread through this land for centuries. It’s been our backbone and our heritage. And without so much as a qualm, Labour would cut it in two.

    I wonder sometimes if they have any idea what their plans would mean?

    Labour would change our United Kingdom for good. Or rather, not for good. Palpably, flagrantly for the worse.

    If we were to let Labour tear this ancient island of ours apart, it could well be impossible to put it together again.

    Labour has tried the devolution gambit before.

    And now they’re at it again. A Scottish Parliament here, a Welsh Assembly there, regional assemblies heaven knows where. Will they never learn? What a way to mark the Millennium by tearing up the United Kingdom.

    Mr Chairman, this fiddling by Labour is a wild and dangerous game. No one can say where it would end.

    No-one can answer the questions it raises.

    No-one, least of all Labour – can tell how such totally irresponsible and disruptive plans would affect this nation and the real concerns of all its people.

    Would it help the Scots if they paid more tax?

    Do the Welsh think a talking shop would improve their lives?

    And when was the last time you heard people saying, “What Britain needs is more politicians in regional assemblies”?

    And all this would be just the tip of the iceberg.

    Proportional representation. No government ever able to take decisions without backroom deals.

    A Bill of Rights.

    Elected mayors – to do what, for heaven’s sake?

    A whole raft of constitutional doodling. That’s Labour’s irrelevant manifesto.

    Would it mean more jobs? Yes, for bureaucrats and politicians.

    More investment? Well, no actually – probably less.

    More prosperity? No. Just more taxes.

    Would Britain’s voice carry more weight in the council chambers of Europe if we divided her into three? No, much less.

    Mr Chairman, the changes Labour plan, no matter how slickly packaged and presented by their media gurus, would destroy in years what has been built up in centuries.

    Nor are the dangers Labour post restricted only to devolution. Their European policy is demeaning and disastrous.

    Now, I fully understand that the European issue raises the most passionate feelings. Who, in this country, would know that better than me? It’s a central issue of our time. But that shouldn’t distract us from a cool, dispassionate assessment of what is truly in our nation’s long-term interests – and what is not? That is my guiding principle. Getting the balance right for Britain now and in the years to come is the key to our approach to Europe.

    Yes, Britain must be a part of Europe, and a partner of Europe. But a Europe of nations, not a united states of Europe. Not a federal Europe. When people say “Let’s have a referendum on whether we want a federal Europe”, I say “why?”

    Because, Mr Chairman, there’s no need. Once again, I make this pledge. While I am Prime Minister, if others should opt for such a Europe, then Britain will not be part of it. We don’t need a referendum to know that we don’t want a centralised Europe.

    But let no one doubt that Labour would accept such a Europe. Already they’re committed to sign up to the Social Chapter. To give more powers to the European Parliament. To re-negotiate our rebate. To undermine our veto.

    So on both counts – what Labour would do to Britain at home and what Labour would do to Britain abroad – the whole future of this nation is at stake.

    Mr Chairman, come the election, the future we’ll be fighting for is a Conservative future.

    One where everyone feels that they belong.

    Where all our people, no matter what their background, have a chance to realise their dreams.

    To go to a good school, university, get a job, have a home of their own.

    To do what they think is best for themselves, their families, their children.

    To enjoy more of what they’ve earned and saved.

    These are the building blocks of the future.

    They’re what drive the people of our country.

    A people independent of spirit, proud of their past. Who look to a future of enterprise encouraged and work rewarded.

    Who want to protect the freedom and responsibilities of the family against the intrusions of the state.

    Who believe in the rule of law.

    And who love our country.

    Mr Chairman, at the last election, when I said I would fight to protect the United Kingdom, I was accused of wrapping myself in the Union Jack. It was meant as an insult. But I didn’t take it as such.

    You don’t have to dislike other nations to be proud of ours and I am proud of ours. I never feel more comfortable than in defending our nationhood and our unity as a Kingdom.

    The Union Jack in the flag of this United Kingdom – and we Conservatives, by nature a kindly Party, need to be ruthless, remorseless and relentless in defence of that Kingdom, as we always have been when that unity has been under threat.

    It is so once again today. Labour’s slick world of the soundbite and the over-simplified solution to problems of immense complexity has nothing to offer to bind this nation together. The superficiality of their policies – many of them disingenuous and ill-thought out – is breathtaking. What’s more, they bear little or no relation to the reality of government.

    When you walk through the door of Number Ten, reality walks in with you. Reality on a world scale. Over the years a Conservative Government has faced that reality and learnt how to handle it. So let me give you, here in Scotland today, this assurance.

    We Conservatives have the confidence and the tradition and, yes, the experience to guide us as we take our nation forward, out of this troubled century and into the next.

    That’s why we’re going to win the next election.

    Why we deserve to win that election.

    At stake is more than just our achievements. More than just the strongest economy we’ve seen for decades.

    This election will decide the very future of the United Kingdom itself.

    The future of our Parliament, our Union, our Country.

    It’s a fight for our Nation’s Future.

    And it’s a fight we’ll win.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 May 1996

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Office Space

    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the square footage and cost of office space rented by his Department and its agencies and the number of his Department’s or agencies’ buildings partly or fully unoccupied together with the square footage of that unoccupied office space and its estimated rental value where available in each of the past five financial years.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

     

    European Union Flag

    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister which Government offices displayed the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement.

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