The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Turin – 29 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Turin on Friday 29th March 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, Good Morning and Happy Birthday.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much indeed.

    QUESTION:

    Can you tell us how this meeting can best contribute to the resolution of the beef crisis and what lessons do you think that carries for the way in which Europe does its business and the reforms you are going for?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have seen Prime Minister Dini this morning and we have discussed how to handle the matter mechanistically. I will discuss it this morning when we discuss the ICC and of course the two things are quite separate. But we will then have a subsequent discussion over luncheon. So that is how we will deal with it. And I think there is a general recognition that in the interests of all Europe this is a problem that has to be dealt with, it has to be dealt with comprehensively and has to be dealt with in a way that will restore consumer confidence, and that is what we will all be seeking to do.

    QUESTION:

    And the lessons for the future?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that the lessons for the future are that we will continue to do what we have done in the past. There has been no occasion when we have not taken the best scientific and medical advice as to what we will do. The scientists, even today, will say to you that British beef is safe, they do say that. The problem is not truly whether British beef is safe today, the problem is that because of the hysteria that there has been is a crisis of confidence, it is not actually a health crisis but a crisis of confidence in the beef market and it is that problem in particular that we now have to address. Unfortunate, but that is the real world and that is what we must deal with.

    QUESTION:

    Are you not going to feel a bit uncomfortable about asking them in effect to pay out cash to help us out of a problem when we have been so critical about Europe in the past?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that is remotely the situation. We will have to deal with a problem that affects everyone across Europe, it would affect the confidence of people right the way across Europe. That is the way other Heads of Government are seeing it, I have seen some of them already this morning. They have made it clear that that is the way that they see the problem. And I think it is in the interests of all Europe that we solve this problem that has a confidence impact on beef generally right the way across Europe. Beef Consumption has not only dropped in the United Kingdom, it has dropped quite dramatically in many other European Countries. So we all have a common interest in dealing with this problem of confidence, not of health, I emphasise again this is a problem of confidence that stretches right the way across Europe.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to be able to tell them what we plan to do in the UK to relieve this problem and ask for their help for a specific plan?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will be discussing some of those matters. More detailed discussions are actually going on in Brussels at the moment, they are going on today, and I think it is highly likely that there will be a meeting of the Agriculture Council very shortly, perhaps on Monday. I think that is probable. So we will be discussing it this morning, yes, but quite what details we will deal with I am not in a position to tell you at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    Do you regret your very angry response when the European Commission first announced there would be a ban?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t regret that.

    QUESTION:

    You don’t think it makes things more difficult for you now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministerial Visit (North Tayside)

    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to the North Tayside constituency.

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

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March.

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

     

    National Health Service

    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the spending per head of population on health provision in (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England in each of the last five years; and what is the projected spending in the current financial year per head of population in each country;

    (2) what percentage of patients in (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England are currently covered by general practitioner fundholders.

    The Prime Minister: The information is as follows:

    Gross total national health service spending per capita

    1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 (estimated outturn)

    Northern Ireland(3) 581 639 678 705 729 768

    Scotland 600 678 740 762 799 849

    Wales 536 612 684 705 732 770

    England 493 556 607 626 657 694

    (3) The figures for Northern Ireland are estimates, due to the fact that Northern Ireland’s health services and personal social services are provided on an integrated basis.

    Percentage of population covered by GP Fundholding Practices (at April 1995)

    Country Percentage population covered

    Northern Ireland 29

    Scotland 23

    Wales 40

    England 41

     

    Intelligence and Security Committee

    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if he has yet received the annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee in accordance with the Intelligence Services Act 1994; and if he will make a statement on the membership of the Committee.

    The Prime Minister: I have received the first annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee and am presenting it to Parliament today. Copies are also being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I am grateful to the Committee for the careful and thorough way in which it has carried out its work. Certain portions of its report contained material which fell within the provisions of section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, and which has accordingly, after consultation with the Committee, been deleted from the published report.

    The House will wish to be aware that, following consultations with the Leader of the Opposition and in accordance with section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act, I have appointed the right hon. Lord Blaker as a member of the Committee to succeed the right hon. Lord Howe of Aberavon who has indicated his wish to step down from the Committee. I am very grateful to Lord Howe for the part he has played in the Committee’s work.

  • PMQT – 28 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March.

    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.

    Sir Michael Neubert: Is not the wide welcome for the Government’s endorsement of Sir Ron Dearing’s proposals for the education of 16 to 19-year-olds thoroughly deserved, as they bring together academic study with work-related training and recognise young people’s differing skills and aptitudes for reaching their full potential? Is not that belief in diversity and choice the hallmark of Conservative policy and a striking contrast to anything else on offer?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the desirability of choice and diversity being the key to raising standards in schools. I am sure that that is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will set out more proposals this afternoon to achieve precisely that. That is what we want for all children–our children and everyone else’s as well.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that, to restore confidence in British beef, we should recognise the mistakes of the past and that contaminated meat did pass into the food chain, but that, for the future, we should take all measures that are necessary to make negligible, not just extremely small, any chance–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is disgraceful. The House will come to order.

    Mr. Blair: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

    For the future, we should take whatever measures are necessary to make negligible–not just extremely small–the chance of any specified bovine offal going into any part of the food chain. What are the measures that the Prime Minister is proposing following the Cabinet meeting this morning and will they include the measures proposed by shadow Ministers, which have already won wide-ranging support throughout the industry?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right about the need to take all the necessary public health measures. The reality is that we have always taken the action that was seen to be necessary and the advice that has been offered. In 1989, we took action that went beyond the advice that we had received. I have had an opportunity to look at the proposals that the Opposition made this morning. They are a mixture of motherhood and action that is already being taken, and they largely miss many of the matters that need to be dealt with. [An hon. Member: “What is wrong with them?”]

    If the hon. Lady would like me to run through the eight points and explain why they are irrelevant, I should be happy to do so. I will find them. Here they are.

    The Opposition call for proper enforcement of controls in slaughterhouses, yet they opposed the setting up of the Meat Hygiene Service, which was designed to ensure that they were enforced. They call for a random test of the brains of cattle. That is completely irrelevant, as we have stopped all brain products that could possibly be infected from entering the food chain. They suggest that products are labelled with ingredients; that is already happening. SEAC has already looked at the safety of mechanically recovered meat and we have already taken steps to ensure its safety.

    As for the plans for a quality assurance scheme, of course we wish to ensure the quality of all beef, but there would be no question of labelling some beef as safe and allowing the sale of unsafe beef, which is what they say would mean. Their plan to ban specified bovine offal in cattle under six months overlooks the fact that SEAC specifically considered this proposal and concluded that it was unnecessary, not least because there has never been a single incidence of BSE in cattle that young. The plan for a separate–[Interruption.] The Opposition asked me what was wrong with their plans.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman was asked a question by an hon. Member from a sedentary position. Members must learn to listen and not bawl out from sedentary positions.

    The Prime Minister: The plan for a separate food agency would mean that matters such as this would no longer be represented round the Cabinet table but would be represented in an agency. The chief medical officer already has the support that he has asked for to carry out his duties. The reality is that our examination is much more fundamental than this public relations nonsense from the Labour party. It is considering votes; we are considering the industry and the national interest.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that we have heard anything quite so pathetic as that. Let me take two of those measures–one, random testing, was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman’s own committee. As for the policy in relation to abattoirs, his own scientists have said that the regulations have to be enforced. Will he confirm that, as late as last year, almost half the slaughterhouses were not up to scratch and that, although it is true that there are far fewer today, there has not yet been one completed prosecution? Is that not right?

    Will the Prime Minister please, for once, stop shirking responsibility and instead take it? In particular, will he understand that, unless he can agree proposals now with the food industry, the retailers and the consumer organisations so that we present a united front, we shall never have the Government back in control of events rather than being controlled by them?

    The Prime Minister: What is pathetic is this document. What is also pathetic is this wriggling change of policy after the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Gentleman did everything that they could to extract maximum political advantage, at the cost, potentially, of jobs, and of the national interest, in the beef industry. On his remarks about controls in slaughterhouses, the Meat Hygiene Service has an officer–in some cases more than one officer–in each and every slaughterhouse, and every single carcass is inspected by those hygiene officers–officers whom Opposition Members voted against when we brought the proposals before the House.

    Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend assure his farmers–my farmers and farmers up and down the country–that the Government will do all that they can to avert the disaster facing British industry? In short, will the Government bring forward proposals for a selective slaughter policy to take out of the food chain the meat from cows that will be culled in any case?

    The Prime Minister: What needs to be done to ensure confidence both for the beef industry and for allied industries, in the interests of the farmers as well as public health, and the substantial range of matters that must be examined, are all under consideration at the moment. We must address specifically the question of market confidence: that means convincing our European partners and the beef outlets that beef is safe. The next step in that process will be an announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food later this afternoon.

    However, in the interests of the industry as a whole and of public health, it is important to deal with the matters comprehensively if we are to meet the objective of restoring confidence. Work and discussion on all the matters is going ahead–even as we meet this afternoon–in this country and in Europe. We shall carry out those discussions as speedily as possible. As soon as we are able, we shall bring comprehensive proposals before the House, but it is not in the interests of the industry for us to dribble them out piecemeal: we shall deal with the whole issue because that is the only way to restore the confidence so badly damaged so unnecessarily.

    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister knows very well just how many jobs and how many businesses are now at risk in what is the worst crisis to hit rural Britain for three decades or more. He knows that every delay will add to that list. I therefore assure him that, if he brings forward an urgent plan of action, designed to restore public confidence and to make the British herd BSE-free as soon as possible, based on culling and other measures, we shall support him. We shall also support every action that is designed to persuade our European partners that it is not a problem just for Britain, but a Europe wide problem that requires a Europe wide solution.

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s latter point: it is a Europe wide problem. I shall discuss the matter with our European partners in Turin tomorrow and my right hon. Friends will also discuss the matter with their European counterparts. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: 650,000 people are employed in the industry, which generates about £5 billion each year. That is why we must ensure that the proposal we bring forward is comprehensive and will work. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his offer of support as we do so.

    Mr. Lamont: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be total support for his comments yesterday about the European Union ban on worldwide exports of British beef which he said was unjustifiable, unjust and should be reversed? Does the Prime Minister recognise that we do not wish to be bribed, by accepting the return of some of our own money, into agreeing to something that is fundamentally wrong? Is there not a case for, if not leaving the British seat vacant at the IGC tomorrow, at least saying that there will be no progress until the ruling has been overturned?

    The Prime Minister: On the basis of the scientific advice that we have received, our partners must know that the ban on British beef is totally without justification. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is having urgent discussions to outline the measures that we are taking to ensure safety. I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall reinforce that point vigorously in Turin tomorrow. It is essential that decisions of that sort are taken by member states on the basis of rational judgments and of science, and not on any other basis–as I believe they were on this occasion. I shall certainly make our feelings clear tomorrow.

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March.

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

    Mr. Illsley: What message does the Prime Minister have for his so-called Euro-sceptic friends now that he is not going to Turin to talk tough to the intergovernmental conference but is going cap in hand to beg for compensation for the measures that he knows he must now take to resurrect the British beef industry, which has suffered because of his Government’s total incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have heard what I said a moment or so ago; if he did hear it, he patently did not understand it.

    We have set out our position on the intergovernmental conference, and I shall reinforce that, precisely as we have previously informed the House, in the discussions at the IGC tomorrow, but with one addition. I shall make it clear that the recent ruling on the working time directive is wholly unjustified, that we do not accept it and that we shall be seeking in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that the Commission does not misuse article 118A in future.

     

    Q3. Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March.

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

    Mr. Coombs: When my right hon. Friend goes to Turin, will he take the opportunity to impress on his fellow European leaders the absolute need to reduce business costs? Will he also ensure that there is no way in which the European social chapter–the European tax on jobs–is smuggled into this country by the back door or foisted on the British people by the back door despite our opt-out?

    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, and am happy to reaffirm, I am not prepared to see the social chapter opt-out, negotiated and agreed in good faith at Maastricht with our colleagues, undermined by an improper use of other treaty heads, and I shall demand changes in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that that cannot happen. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”]

    The Labour party may wish to sign up to policies that will make people unemployed–Labour Members are obviously reckless of employment, as they showed earlier this week with their statements on health matters–but we care about putting people back into jobs and we shall not accept any measures that prevent jobs being created.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Departmental Equipment and Furniture

    Mr. Ian McCartney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that (a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from the Cabinet Office and its agencies

    in each of the past five years, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 26 March.

     

    Duchy Lands and Assets

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if the lands and assets of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are the property of Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 March 1996]: No. Formal title to the lands of the Duchy of Lancaster is vested in the sovereign and of the Duchy of Cornwall in the Prince of Wales. However, neither the sovereign nor the Prince of Wales is able to dispose of the estates’ capital; they are entitled only to the annual income.

     

    Equal Opportunities

    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister what amounts of money have been paid out by (a) his Department and (b) executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations for which he is accountable to Parliament, to how many staff or former staff in respect of (i) alleged equal opportunities breaches which do not proceed to tribunals or courts and (ii) equal opportunities breaches which proceeded to tribunals or courts in (1) the current year and (2) the two previous years.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 26 March.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 26 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Cyprus

    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister when he last discussed Cyprus with President Clinton; what issues were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed Cyprus with the then Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. Holbrooke, on 14 February. We remain in close touch with the United States. We are committed to finding a settlement in Cyprus within the framework of the United Nations process, in consultation with the United States, the European Union and other partners.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

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

     

    Ministers (City Sponsorship)

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister what the criteria are for making appointments of sponsor Ministers for individual cities.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 March 1996]: The duties and responsibilities of sponsor Ministers are to support Government regeneration and competitiveness initiatives through publicity and contact with local civic and business leaders and to act as a channel for communicating local concerns.

     

    Royal Palaces (Works of Art)

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the value of the works of art in the royal palaces that are in the ownership of Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 March 1996]: The royal collection is not the responsibility of Government. The responsibility for works of art in the royal palaces rests with the Royal Collection Trust. Any questions concerning the royal collection should be addressed to the trust.

  • PMQT – 26 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

    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. Wareing: Two weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister about unemployment, to which he gave an answer lambasting Liverpool city council. Will he now unequivocally condemn Tory Westminster council for risking the health of its people for political purposes by housing them in asbestos-ridden flats?

    The Prime Minister: That issue was very properly investigated by Westminster, which commissioned an independent report. I understand that the council has taken action in the light of that independent report. Before the hon. Gentleman goes further, he should compare the overall record of Westminster with that of other authorities. As he is sensitive about his local authority, appalling as it is, he should compare it with Lambeth and Hackney. He might look at the rent arrears in Lambeth, which are six times the level of Westminster, or the rent arrears in Hackney, which are 10 times as great. There are 21 times as many unoccupied dwellings in Lambeth and 23 times as many in Hackney. Whose housing policies are a disgrace?

    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy issue is not really a party political crisis but a crisis for the whole nation? Can he persuade the Leader of the Opposition to stop making cheap party political points, which are doing this country and its farming community so much harm?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anybody doubts the seriousness of the issue or the need to balance the competing interests of public health and the importance of the beef industry. It is important that we deal with the issue on the basis of rational, sensible decisions, based on proper information, not on hysteria. That is the way in which the Government have sought to deal with it thus far, and we will continue to do so.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister at least agree with me on the scientific basis of the case? Is it not, first, that scientists now say that there is a probable link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human killer; secondly, that prior to 1989 there was contamination of the food chain by BSE; thirdly, that after the regulations of 1989 there was supposed to be no such contamination, but there were breaches of the regulations; and, fourthly, that the scientists say that if, now, new measures are adopted, the risk in future will be “extremely small”?

    If we can agree that as the scientific basis, I ask the right hon. Gentleman–this is essential to restoring confidence–to quantify the risk from the period 1989 to now and the period now onwards when the risk is “extremely small”. Without that quantification, I do not think that confidence will be restored.

    The Prime Minister: It will be extremely difficult to restore confidence if right hon. and hon. Members continue to undermine that confidence whenever they have the opportunity to do so, for reasons that I think will seem unfathomable to people in the agriculture industry and to the wider public.

    As for the scientific evidence, neither the right hon. Gentleman, nor I, nor, I suspect, any right hon. or hon. Member, has competence to make that judgment. That is why we have to rely on the advice that we have received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which said that it does not believe that additional measures are justified at the present time. The House will be aware of what Professor Pattison has said on a number of occasions. He specifically said–it is very relevant to today’s position:

    “In any common usage of the word, we”–

    the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee–

    “think beef is safe. Anyone can eat beef or beef products and be safe.”

    That is the professional advice that we have received, and it is incumbent on us to accept and listen to that advice.

    Mr. Blair: Did not the Secretary of State for Health make a statement in the House last week that earlier scientific advice had been wrong, and tell us to wait for two days for advice on whether it was safe for children, while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was speculating about the killing of 4.5 million cows? Suddenly, the Secretary of State for Health appears to bristle with certainty and he tells us that the public are mad, not the cows. The matter has been handled with quite mind-boggling incompetence. I repeat that the scientists say that the risk in future is extremely small, but may I ask the Prime Minister once again to quantify that risk? As a matter of urgency, will he convene a meeting of producers and purchasers in the food industry to agree the necessary measures to restore confidence?

    The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had done enough damage in the last few days–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order–all of you.

    The Prime Minister: –for them to stop trying to create health scares by inviting responses from any Minister who can competently comment only on the basis of scientific advice. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. Since he wants to exchange quotations, may I say that it is not all that long ago that the shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang)–who has acted far more responsibly than some of his hon. Friends–told the House that

    “the possibility of BSE being transmitted to humans seems remote”?–[Official Report, 25 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 994.]

    The right hon. Gentleman knows the scientific evidence that we have received, and he knows the way in which we have been invited to proceed on the basis of it. For what reason does he continually try to undermine public confidence?

    Mr. Blair: When the Scott report came out, the Prime Minister blamed my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). When this report came out, he has blamed other Opposition Members. Does he not realise that the country expects him, as Prime Minister, to take responsibility? Since he has mentioned my hon. Friend the shadow Minister of Agriculture, perhaps he will adopt the measures that my hon. Friend has proposed, and let us hope that confidence can be restored.

    The Prime Minister: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman how it might be restored, again by quoting his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East:

    “We are talking about a huge industry and that is why we have to be very responsible and we must not hype something up and give the impression that it is wrong to eat beef or there is some evidence of a link if there is no evidence.”

    The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) have done everything they can to undermine confidence in beef and the agriculture industry. If they have undermined confidence to the extent that there is a serious problem, the agriculture industry and the public will know precisely whom to blame.

    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that consumers of beef are looking for further reassurance that British beef is best–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will be heard in this House.

    Mr. Marland: I will start again, Madam Speaker. Is my right hon. Friend aware that consumers of beef are looking for further assurance that British beef is best? Does he agree that it is now time for the British media to stand up for Britain and to dispatch some investigative teams to Europe to study what is known there as staggers or manganese deficiency, which is often BSE by another name?

    The Prime Minister: There are self-evidently two equally important interests to balance. First, there is the public concern about public health. That is of great importance to the Government, which is why we have repeatedly taken the advice on public health that we have been given. The second interest is confidence in the beef industry, the jobs it creates and its economic importance. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should look at both those matters and give them both great importance.

    Mr. Ashdown: This morning, the National Farmers Union, which is presumably not hysterical, backed by the entire food industry, which is presumably not hysterical either, has called for older cows to be taken out of the human food chain. If the Prime Minister will not follow that advice, will he at least answer this question? What has he got to say to farmers, to abattoir managers and to cattle market operators? They have been ringing all morning to say, “My doors are closed, my market has gone and in two weeks, my business will be in ruins. What do I do now?”

    The Prime Minister: I have received a letter from Sir David Naish and I have a copy of the letter that he sent to the Leader of the Opposition and to the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. My colleagues and I will study carefully the contents of the letter I have received. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening, he will get his answer.

    There are two reasons for proceeding in the way that Sir David recommends. The first is on public health grounds, if science recommends it; but science does not recommend it, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The second is if it proves necessary to restore confidence to the market because ill-conceived comments, ignorant of science, mean that sensible, practical measures that should have restored confidence will not restore confidence. I hope that sound judgment will prevail. If it does not, those who have destroyed that confidence will be the people to blame and everyone will be aware of that. They sit there, there and there on the Opposition Benches.

    Mr. Faber: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Wiltshire police force on the 5 per cent. fall in recorded crime which was announced today? When he considers further proposals on sentencing, will he give careful consideration to the views of the chief constable of Wiltshire? He believes that the vast majority of crime is perpetrated by a few known offenders and that

    “custodial sentences take them out of the game.”

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with that view, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I am delighted that, again, crime figures are falling in the United Kingdom. Today’s figures show that recorded crime fell by almost 2.5 per cent last year. With the falls in the past two years, that represents the largest fall since records began more than a century ago. That has been achieved despite the fact that the Opposition have continually opposed the law and order measures which we have introduced–measures which, when my right hon. and learned Friend introduced them, they dismissed as gimmicks. The only gimmicks on crime are those from the Opposition. We are producing measures that are beating the criminal and bringing down crime.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

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

    Mr. Hall: Given the Prime Minister’s disgraceful performance this afternoon, does he remember telling the House last week that the Government have always and immediately acted on the expert advice given to them by scientists on bovine spongiform encephalopathy? In the light of that claim, can he tell the House why the Government failed immediately to implement the recommendations of the Tyrrell report to sample cattle brains to monitor BSE? We need a straightforward answer to that question.

    The Prime Minister: We are continually taking professional advice on health matters. Opposition Members are asking me not to take the professional advice but to do something else. If I had not taken the professional advice on the question of BSE, the hon. Gentleman might have had some cause for complaint. As it is, he has none–except against his own Front Bench.

    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that McDonald’s, the media and the Labour party have one thing in common: they are seeking to sell something, be it beefburgers, newspapers or themselves, and the Government have a heavier and wider responsibility to give leadership and guidance, based on the best possible scientific advice?

    The Prime Minister: First, we have to make judgments on what is in the interests of public health, and we must base them on the advice that we get, because Ministers do not have the medical competence to make those judgments themselves. Secondly, we have to make judgments about what is right for the industry, if other people, with ill-thought-out comments, damage it when it should not have faced the damage that may have been created by comments that should never have been made.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Taiwan

    Sir Nicholas Scott: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to support the application by Taiwan to join the United Nations organisation and to seek support from Commonwealth and EU partners for it.

    The Prime Minister: No. Membership of the United Nations is open only to states. Her Majesty’s Government do not recognise Taiwan as a state.

     

    Rathbone Community Furniture

    Mr. Parry: To ask the Prime Minister what reply he gave to Rathbone Community Furniture, Liverpool, in response to its recent letter to him; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: My office has forwarded the letter to the Department for Education and Employment which will respond in due course.

     

    Enterprise Zones

    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 19 March 1996, Official Report, columns 167-68, to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) if he will list the advantages which will be given to the area by virtue of the creation of an enterprise zone; and how long it has taken from the first proposal for such a zone to the date of coming into effect of such a status.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 March 1996]: The benefits available to businesses during the 10-year life of an enterprise zone are the following: 100 per cent. allowances for corporation tax purposes for capital expenditure on industrial and commercial buildings: exemption from the national non-domestic rate on industrial and commercial property; a simplified planning regime; speedier administration of residual statutory planning controls; exemption from industrial training levies and from the requirements to supply information to industrial training boards; processing applications for certain customs facilities as a priority, and the relaxation of certain criteria; and the reduction of government requests for statistical information. Enterprise zones can effect economic activity over a wide area through displacement effects and are not the appropriate regeneration measure in most circumstances.

    The Government announced that they would consider the case for new enterprise zones at Easington in County Durham on 29 March 1993; zones in that area were designated on 29 November 1995.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Elective Process in Northern Ireland – 21 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on the elective process in Northern Ireland, made on 21st March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the arrangements leading to all-party negotiations in Northern Ireland.

    In my statement to the House on 28 February,I announced that all-party negotiations would commence on 10 June. In a communique issued on the same day, the British and Irish Governments also agreed on intensive multilateral consultations with the Northern Ireland political parties. The purpose of those was to help the British Government to draw up proposals for a broadly acceptable elective process, including the possibility of a referendum, and to try to reach agreement on the format and agenda of all-party negotiations.

    During those consultations, the Government have met all the major parties and most minor parties in Northern Ireland on several occasions. Sinn Fein has of course excluded itself. There have been several meetings between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Tanaiste, Mr. Spring, including a review of the outcome of the consultations. The Irish Government have also had a number of meetings with the Northern Ireland parties.

    In some areas, we have seen encouraging signs of convergence between the parties’ views. In others, sharp differences have remained. The form of elections has been one of the main areas of disagreement between the parties.

    Three main systems have been proposed: an election in 18 constituencies, each electing five members by single transferable vote; an election on a party list system across one single Northern Ireland constituency; and a single constituency election across Northern Ireland with votes for parties, but not for named candidates. None of those systems has secured the clear support of major parties representing each of the main communities. Some parties have even threatened not to participate in the process and thus abort the possibility of all-party negotiations should one of the other systems be chosen.

    I made it clear in my statement on 28 February that,if no agreement proved possible, the Government would come forward with proposals based on a judgment of what is most likely to be broadly acceptable to the parties and to the people of Northern Ireland. Whatever the merits of each of the three main systems, it is clear that none, on its own, meets that criterion of broad acceptability.

    We have therefore considered how to proceed. We have decided to propose a new system, including the most attractive elements of other proposals. We will therefore introduce legislation, immediately after the Easter recess, providing for an election on 30 May using a list system rather than individual candidates, organised in 18 constituencies, but not by single transferable vote, and supplemented by Northern Ireland-wide party preference.

    Briefly, electors will have to register just one vote which they will cast, in the constituency, for the party of their choice. Five seats in each of the 18 constituencies will be allocated from party constituency lists of candidates, published in advance, in proportion to each party’s share of the vote. In addition, the votes in all the constituencies will be aggregated and the 10 most successful parties across the whole of Northern Ireland will secure two elected representatives each, from party lists published in advance.

    I believe that this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome. The Province-wide element should help to achieve the widely shared objective of making the negotiating process as inclusive as possible through representation of the smaller parties.

    The elections will create a pool of 110 elected representatives. The successful parties will be invited by the Secretary of State to select, from among their representatives, negotiating teams for the negotiations to begin on 10 June. The transition from the elections to the negotiations will be automatic and immediate.

    Our aim is to see inclusive negotiations. Sinn Fein has, however, currently excluded itself from negotiations by the ending of the IRA ceasefire. That is its choice. But it can make itself eligible to participate through the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire. That, too, is its choice.

    The negotiations need to take place in an atmosphere of confidence. As I told the House on 28 February,all parties will need to make clear at the beginning of negotiations their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Mitchell report and to address, also at the beginning of negotiations, Senator Mitchell’s proposals on decommissioning. There can be no backing away from that. Equally, there must be confidence that, as the negotiations proceed, they will be comprehensive and address all legitimate issues.

    As well as furnishing negotiating teams, the elected representatives will be members of an elected forum to meet in Belfast on a regular basis when negotiations are not in session. The purpose of discussion in that forum will be to promote dialogue and mutual understanding within Northern Ireland.

    The forum will not engage in the negotiations, which will be free-standing, but could interact with and inform the process at the request of the participants in negotiations. For example, the negotiators might agree to commission discussions, studies or reports from the forum. The legislation will also provide for the forum to be able to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies or individuals can be made.

    The forum’s life will be time limited to 12 months, renewable for up to a maximum of a further 12 months. It will not continue in existence if negotiations are no longer in process. In its procedures, it will be required to proceed by broad consensus.

    We have also looked at proposals for referendums.We agree that the people of Northern Ireland must have full ownership of the negotiation process and its outcome. The electoral legislation will give the Government powers to hold referendums in Northern Ireland. That will enable us to meet our undertaking to put the outcome of negotiations to the people of Northern Ireland before submitting it to Parliament.

    It has also been argued that a referendum now could be valuable, for example, on the use of violence for political ends. Our judgment at present is that the case for such a referendum has not yet been conclusively made, but we have not ruled out the option of holding a referendum with an appropriate question or questions on the same day as the elections.

    There is one other important area that needs to be settled before negotiations can begin: the ground rules for the negotiations. At the end of last week, a consultation paper was issued to the parties. It sets out what an acceptable approach might be, drawing on the experience of the 1991-92 talks round and preliminary consultation with the parties. Further consultation with the parties will continue to ensure that the maximum common ground can be identified.

    I have outlined today what I believe to be a viable and a reasonable way forward. Everyone in this process has had to make compromises, some of them difficult compromises. Everyone has needed to exercise patience, and I am grateful to those who have done so. But the basis of our approach has remained unchanged–namely, the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Downing street declaration, and the need for an approach that can build confidence and lead to an agreement capable of winning the allegiance of both main communities.

    I therefore urge the Northern Ireland parties to look carefully at the announcement that I have made today, and the short paper giving more detail which we are publishing in parallel. No party has got all that it wanted. Equally, I see no issue of principle that could reasonably cause any party to walk away from the democratic process that I have set out. I do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland would understand if any party did.

    Let us also not forget that the threat of terrorism continues to hang over the process. That is why the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence, and parallel decommissioning, remain so important. The IRA used the lack of a fixed date for all-party negotiations as an excuse to break its ceasefire. There was never any justification for its actions. Now, its excuses are running out.

    What I have set out today represents a clear and direct route to all-party negotiations. The prospects for a just and lasting settlement are better than they have been for a generation if all parties take advantage of the opportunities that lie before us. Let me make it clear yet again that, while we want to see all parties round the table, the process will go on with or without Sinn Fein. If it excludes itself from taking part in democratic negotiations, it will not be able to exercise a veto against others doing so.

    Once again, the people of Northern Ireland are watching the latest steps along the road to negotiations with bated breath. Their hopes for peace could not be clearer or more overwhelming. We need to move beyond procedures to the substance of negotiations as speedily as we can. The chance is there–no one who stands unreasonably in the way of a settlement will be readily forgiven.

    I therefore commend to the House the approach that I have set out and the hope that the House will today send a clear signal of support for this democratic process. That would be the best answer to the terrorists who continue to threaten it and the people of every part of our islands.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

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

     

    Ministerial Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy

    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister which non-ministerial individuals, other than civil servants, attend meetings of the EDCP Cabinet Committee.

    The Prime Minister: Some officials from Conservative Central Office and parliamentary private secretaries attend at the invitation of the Deputy Prime Minister, as chairman of this committee. They do not take part in any discussions, but are ready to follow up any issues of a party political nature. In this way, the civil servants present are protected from following up matters that do not properly relate to the presentation and co-ordination of Government policy.

     

    Departmental Contractors and Suppliers

    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister what measures his Department is taking to ensure that its contractors and suppliers (a) pay their employees a wage which ensures such employees do not need supplementary welfare payments via various state benefits and (b) meet workplace health and safety regulations; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 20 March 1996, Official Report, columns 194-95.

  • PMQT – 21 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

    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 a further meeting later today.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: In the wake of the Dunblane tragedy, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should take all possible steps to prevent illegal firearms from getting into the wrong hands? Will he look at the firearms laws to see what reasonable steps can be taken to revisit them?

    The Prime Minister: I do agree with my hon. Friend about that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have been in discussions with the police for some time about the possibility of a firearms amnesty. Those discussions had begun before the appalling tragedy in Dunblane. I can now tell the House that it has been agreed that an amnesty will take place. Details are being worked out, and we will advise the House of them as soon as possible.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the only way now to restore trust and credibility over bovine spongiform encephalopathy and beef is not more assurances from Ministers but clear and firm advice based on scientific evidence? Does he agree that that evidence should be published in full so that the independent scientists who provided it can be properly examined and can defend it?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health gave the assurance yesterday that he would publish the advice that we have had. As the House will know, we ensured that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee’s statement was published as soon as was practically possible yesterday. As my right hon. Friend told the House yesterday, the facts on which the committee based its deliberations will be made public in scientific journals as soon as possible. I shall of course ensure that the appropriate evidence is placed in the Library of this House.

    Mr. Blair: I am grateful for that assurance; I hope that it genuinely covers all the advice that has been given. I assume from what the Health Secretary said yesterday that the scientific advice that the Government have received is absolutely clear that it is entirely safe to carry on feeding beef and beefburgers to children. May we have a categorical statement that the right hon. Gentleman’s scientific advice does indeed say that? [Interruption.] The clearer and better the statements, the sooner public concern will be allayed–Conservative Members should realise that.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see the advice for himself because we have published the advice that we have had on this matter, and we will publish any further advice that we receive so that people can see for themselves, from the scientists, what the evidence is. That is more valuable than hearing from those without scientific information, and we will make sure that it is available.

    As my right hon. Friend has already said, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that children are more at risk than adults from eating beef, but I understand very well, as, indeed, will every hon. Member, the concern that parents will have, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has specifically asked SEAC–the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee–to provide specific advice on that matter. As soon as we receive that advice, we shall make it public so that people may see it for themselves.

    Mr. Blair: I think that it should be made entirely clear. Is the statement that the Prime Minister is giving us that the scientific advice is that it is entirely safe to continue to feed beef to children? If he can tell us yes to that question, it would allay some of the fear.

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that the advice is on the record. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman would listen, it would be helpful to the whole House. The advice is on the record, and the right hon. Gentleman himself said a few moments ago that he needed to see the scientific advice, not speeches by Ministers. I agree with that point. That is why we are making public the scientific advice so that there can be no doubt what the absolutely basic advice is from the scientists. It is on the record. Further advice will be put on the record.

    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent decisions of the European Court of Justice are progressively undermining the social chapter and that it is becoming not worth the paper on which it is written? Although I welcome the Government’s decision to try to deal with that problem and the problem of fish while at the intergovernmental conference, does he accept that the time factor means that the British taxpayer is likely to face claims from Spanish fishermen before the IGC is completed? Will he therefore accept the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) and legislate to prevent this decision from being acted on in the British courts, and restore the sovereignty of the House?

    The Prime Minister: As I told my hon. Friend, we propose to pursue these matters in the IGC. Of course I am prepared to look at any advice that I receive from any of my hon. Friends, or, indeed, from any hon. Member. Although we are concerned about the way in which the health and safety element of European legislation has been applied–we believe that it has been misapplied–I do not accept my hon. Friend’s point that it undermines the whole basis of the social chapter opt-out. Evidence suggests the contrary, and we intend to ensure that the social chapter opt-out remains of the value that it has always been, both now and in the future. We shall pursue that point and the other matters raised by my hon. Friend very vigorously in the IGC.

    Mr. Ashdown: In view of what now appears to be the well-justified public concern about certain aspects of food safety, of which BSE is only the latest example, has not the time now arrived to break up the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food so that the interests of the producer and the consumer can be looked after by two different Departments?

    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, and I think that, on reflection, he will not agree with it himself.

    On the question of recent events, an independent committee of the most eminent scientists advises the Government on these matters. The Government invariably take that advice. No Minister now or in the past has the scientific competence to deny that advice, and we do not do so. We take that advice and we publish it. That is the right way to proceed.

    Mr. Thurnham: In the wake of last week’s awful tragedy, will the Prime Minister add to the tributes to a lifetime of work for children by the late Baroness Faithfull, who died on the same Wednesday morning still hard at work at the age of 85? Does he agree that, in her lifetime of devotion to the welfare of children and through her sincere concern for the treatment of offenders, she set an example to us all?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that, and am happy to endorse his tributes to Lucy Faithfull. In her lifetime she was a tireless worker on behalf of disadvantaged children, and her devotion and concern does indeed set an example to everyone.

     

    Q2. Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

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

    Mr. McNamara: Is the Prime Minister aware that the average unemployment level in the three Hull constituencies is 20.2 per cent? More than 30,000 men are unemployed. How can the Prime Minister justify the spending of £5 million of European and United Kingdom funds to relocate jobs from Fenners polymer factory in Hull to south Wales, thus losing 350 jobs in Hull and more than 150 in Peterborough? Would not the money be better spent on creating proper jobs in south Wales, rather than creating unemployment in Hull?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I shall look at the instance to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but, as I do not know the background, I cannot comment immediately. I can, however, comment on the fact that, although unemployment in Hull is far higher than we would wish, it has fallen by 20 per cent. from its peak and continues to fall. I am delighted about that.

    Mr. Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today’s welcome reduction in inflation means that there will be more protection for jobs, more protection for savings and more protection for public services? Would he care to tell the House what would happen to jobs, savings and public services if the Labour party ever came to power?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of low inflation. For the first time in 30 or 40 years, we now have a low-inflation economy, and there is no sign that inflation is going to take off. If it did so in the fashion in which it did so in earlier years–most obviously in the late 1970s–it would not only rob savings of their value, but would rob millions of people of their jobs.

     

    Q3. Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

    Mr. Foulkes: “I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.” [Laughter.]

    Madam Speaker: Too clever by half.

    The Prime Minister: Forgive me, Madam Speaker. Because of the noise on the Opposition Benches, I did not catch the question–but I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Turner: Are the Prime Minister and the Government at all contrite about the BSE crisis, given that Labour’s then agriculture spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), raised the question of safety six years ago? What he said was contemptuously rejected by the Government at the time.

    The Prime Minister: Let me repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said yesterday. At each and every time in the past, we have accepted totally and immediately the expert advice given to us by the scientists on this matter–on each and every occasion. If we had not accepted that advice, the hon. Gentleman would be in a position to criticise the Government, because those scientists are there to advise us. They are the specialists; we are wise to accept their advice; we have done so in the past; we are doing so now; and we will do so in the future.

    Mr. Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that small businesses in countries such as France and Italy enjoy substantial exemptions from the employment law that applies in those countries? Let me enter a plea on behalf of British small businesses: give us the same advantages.

    Mr. Skinner: They want a social chapter.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is mistaken if he thinks that my hon. Friend is seeking the social chapter. I think that he is seeking an assurance that we will not have it, and that the Government want to enable small businesses to continue to create the extra jobs that they have created in recent years. I announced a number of measures to that end recently. We will continue to consider what might be done to enable small businesses to fuel more growth, and create more jobs and prosperity in our economy.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hardy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

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

    Mr. Hardy: Is the Prime Minister aware that, just before the 1979 election, a Select Committee visited prisons and met burglars? It found them to be ardently Conservative. Were not burglars richly rewarded as crime soared, the proceeds of crime rose and the number of convictions fell markedly? Is the Prime Minister confident of retaining the support of that bedrock of Conservative enterprise?

    The Prime Minister: I confirm that crime was rising for decades and is now falling in this country. One of the reasons why it is falling is that there may be even more burglars, howsoever they may vote, in prison, which is where they should be.

    Mr. Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the British people why unemployment is lower in Britain than in France, Germany, Spain or Italy? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: I can echo only what the hon. Member for Bolsover is now convinced of. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Gentleman very much; I will conduct him. The social chapter and minimum wage are certainly a part of the answer. The low tax structure that we have compared with Europe is part of the answer, the deregulation in this country is part of the answer, the supply-side reforms are part of the answer and a Conservative and not a social democratic Government are part of the answer. We intend to retain those benefits, both in the short term and in the long term, and to provide more jobs.

     

    Q5. Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the Prime Minister started late.

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

    Mr. Madden: May I ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I gave him prior notice, concerning Irish prisoners? Will he intervene personally to expedite the transfer of Irish prisoners, including Patrick Kelly, to prisons in the Irish Republic? Will the Prime Minister do that in view of the specific assurances that the Government of the Irish Republic have given about the sentences to be served? Will he also ensure that the regime prevailing in Belmarsh prison is dramatically improved in relation to Irish prisoners?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering a number of requests for repatriation, including the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Each request must be considered on its merits. It needs to be subject to the consent of both jurisdictions and of the prisoner concerned. Those matters are being examined. As a result of Sir John Woodcock’s report, security at Belmarsh is being improved. I understand that a newly refurbished special secure unit is due to open next month.