Category: 1996

  • Mr Major’s Opening Statement on the Middle East Summit – 13 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening statement on the Middle East Summit, held on the 13th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Egypt is a senior member of the club of Middle East peacemakers. It is right that we should be meeting here in Sinai, whose peace and prosperity are one of the significant practical achievements of the Middle East peace process so far.

    We are here today for a simple reason: to support peace through political negotiation, and to make clear our implacable opposition to the wickedness of terrorism, and agree on practical measures to combat that terrorism.

    All those present share an absolute abhorrence of terrorist violence and a revulsion at those who murder innocent people. Most, like us, have known the effect of terrorism at first hand.

    But we are also here because of our full-hearted support for the peace process. We are not willing to see recent hopes die.

    The Middle East has seen remarkable progress in recent years. It has been led by exceptional and courageous men, some of whom are, sadly, not with us today.

    We owe it to them not to give in to those who have the evil purpose of destroying what has been created and preventing a peace settlement. If they win, peace loses.

    The people of the United Kingdom know something of the emotions and political difficulties involved in sustaining a process towards peace. We have only too much bitter experience of our own.

    Recently terrorist violence has also returned to the streets of London. Unjustified. Unacceptable. Leading nowhere but to more violence. We reject it with contempt. And we will continue to work for a lasting settlement with all those committed to peaceful, democratic methods.

    So I warmly welcome the co-operation between President Arafat and Prime Minister Peres to this end. I welcome the action President Arafat has taken. I urge him to persevere in this course, whatever the difficulties. Israel alone cannot police the Palestinian areas. The only solution is full collaboration between the Palestinian and Israeli security forces.

    They already do co-operate. As they do more, the way will I hope soon be clear for present measures affecting the people of the West Bank and Gaza to be eased. The parties need circumstances to be created which enable them to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible, on the Syrian as well as the Palestinian tracks.

    Britain has applauded the major steps forward between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians. We welcome recent progress in talks between Israel and Syria.

    That support remains complete today.

    We already co-operate with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the field of counter terrorism. We are looking urgently with them at the moment at what further practical help we might offer.

    We will consult President Arafat about how we can help train further the Palestinian Police Force and meet the needs of the Palestinian population. If by doing this we can erode the support Hamas gains: so much the better.

    If we deprive them of new breeding grounds in which to work, something worthwhile will have been achieved.

    We all know that terrorism is an international phenomenon. It thrives on international support. It often operates as Shimon Peres said, out of pariah states. We need collectively to try to stop this.

    I believe the time has come for us to look together, as part of the follow-up to this meeting, at the activities not just of those who actively conspire to commit terrorist acts but also at those who abuse the hospitality and protection available in some of our countries to create a climate in which terrorism can flourish. We need the right tools to tackle the terrorist fund-raisers and planners. This is something we must examine together, as those concerned will move from one safe haven to another.

    We have already started such as examination in Britain. I encourage others to do so, and to look at this collectively.

    But let us not forget where the core of the problem lies: with the bombers who have so savagely shattered the peaceful lives of Israelis in recent weeks and with those countries which encourage, condone and actively sponsor this terrorism. Let a clear call go out from this Conference to these countries to abandon such vicious policies. We have already spelt this out to Iran and Libya. I urge all concerned to commit themselves fully to the fight for the peace process and against terrorism.

    We are at a critical and difficult moment in the Process. But such moments have been met and overcome in the past. We must all be there to help ensure that they are met and overcome once more, in the future. If we are able to move in that direction, this meeting will have achieved something. But we must also move to practical action in the areas I have outlined.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Government Policies (Lichfield)

    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the impact of Government policies on the people of the city of Lichfield.

    The Prime Minister: Lichfield has benefited fully from the Government’s policies, which have given this country a stronger recovery than any other large European country and the longest run of low inflation for almost 50 years. Unemployment in Lichfield has fallen by 40 per cent. since its peak.

     

    Department of Employment

    Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister what functions of the former Department of Employment have been transferred to (a) the Department of Trade and Industry,

    (b) The Department for Education and Employment and (c) other Government Departments; and what plans he has for the further transfer of such functions.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the press notice released by No. 10 Downing street on 5 July 1995, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House. It was subsequently decided that the Department for Education and Employment would have responsibility for work permits.

    I have at present no plans for the further transfer of functions.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.

    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.

     

    Children (Exploitation)

    Mr. Alison: To ask the Prime Minister what invitations he has received from the Swedish Government for United Kingdom governmental participation in the world congress against commercial exploitation of children, to be held in Stockholm in August; what response has been made to the invitation; and which individuals will represent the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister: We intend to take part in this congress in response to an invitation I have received from the Swedish Prime Minister. The British embassy is in close touch with the organisers in Stockholm, but a final decision has still to be made on the composition of the United Kingdom delegation.

     

    Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe

    Mr. Sykes: To ask the Prime Minister what changes he has made to the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the parliamentary assembly of the OSCE.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) has resigned as a substitute delegate to the assembly and will be replaced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). This change takes effect from today.

     

    Conservative Party Functions

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions upon which Government-owned premises were used for Conservative party functions in 1995, including details of the purposes for which each event was held, the name of each event’s host and the date, time and place of each event.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 March 1996]: This information is not held centrally.

     

    EU Legislation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister how many EU regulations have been passed; how many of these have altered United Kingdom law; and how many have been the subject of the fiche d’impact in each of the last five years.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 11 March 1996]: The table provides a breakdown of the number of European Community regulations introduced since 1991.

    1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

    Council(15) 335 383 319 274 242

    Commission(16) 1,107 1,125 1,055 963 748

    Source:

    (15) Annual general reports of the activities of the European Communities from 1991-95.

    (16) Commission’s CELEX database of Community legislation. The figures exclude short-term or temporary regulations–eg. those measures relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters. for 1995, the figures include regulations adopted up to 12 December 1995; full year figures are not yet available.

    All European Community regulations are directly applicable in United Kingdom law. Information on how many proposals have been the subject of a fiche d’ impact is not held centrally. However, it is the Government’s policy to press for all proposals for Community legislation which may have a significant impact on business to be accompanied by a fiche d’impact.

  • PMQT – 12 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Deregulation

    Q1. Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish a league table of deregulation initiatives from each Government Department.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the further measures that I announced yesterday on simplified tax registration, new rights for business against enforcement action and simplified planning and development controls. I have arranged for a copy of details of the number of regulations repealed or amended by each Department to be placed in the Library.

    Mr. Steen: I understand my right hon. Friend’s reluctance to cover the walls of No. 10 Downing Street with deregulation league tables. If he did so, however, it would highlight the difference between his approach to small firms and that of the Opposition, which will certainly increase the number of rules and regulations emanating not only from this country but from Europe. Will my right hon. Friend boost his own excellent approach by promoting Ministers–and, indeed, Back Benchers–who have good ideas on deregulation, and demoting those who have not? Perhaps he will have a word with the Leader of the Opposition, suggesting that he take similar action with his Front Benchers.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of deregulation. We have undertaken comprehensive consultation with small businesses, and, as a result of what they had to say to us, we have set out a comprehensive range of action which will, I believe, have been welcomed across the small business sector. I very much regret the necessity to place extra burdens on business sometimes, but we are utterly resolute in not accepting burdens such as the social chapter which would undoubtedly make the country inefficient and cost us jobs. Small firms are the life-blood of the economy, and they deserve our support.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.

    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.

    Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister recall that last Thursday he gave the House the clear impression that the Government had no intention of taking away the employment protection rights of 10 million workers in private businesses? The very same day, he was contradicted by the Deputy Prime Minister. Who really speaks for the Government, and what is the true position?

    The Prime Minister: In no sense did my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister contradict what I said yesterday. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but noise from the Opposition does not make them right; they are just as wrong whether they are noisy or silent.

    I made it clear that I had no intention of announcing those changes yesterday; nor did I. I also made it clear that we intended to look at unnecessary regulations across the board: I made that clear to the House. Nothing is automatically exempt, but, having been examined, nothing will automatically be changed unless the examination suggests that that is worth while.

    Sir Terence Higgins: As the referendum is an alien concept inconsistent with our system of representative parliamentary democracy, would it not be a mistake to change the Government’s policy on the issue? On a single currency referendum, does my right hon. Friend agree that a single currency, in the sense that every member of the European Union gives up its own currency in favour of it, is not likely to happen before the next general election, the one after or the one after that and that a referendum on a core currency, which would split the Union, is even less likely to produce a sensible result?

    The Prime Minister: As I have said to the House before, let me say again to my right hon. Friend that there are circumstances in which we think that it might be appropriate to have a referendum on the particular matter of whether this country should decide to join a single currency, were one to go ahead in 1999. I have made that point to the House before; that is a matter under consideration and it remains so.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall that he used to be flatly against a referendum on a single currency and then–

    Mr. Ashby: Tell us your policies.

    Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Ashby, you are not at a football match now.

    Mr. Blair: And then the Prime Minister’s position changed to say that the question of whether to have a referendum would not arise until after a British Cabinet had recommended joining a single currency. That was the position reiterated a few days ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer: it would be postponed until the decision about the single currency. Is that still the Government’s position?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to swap quotes on these matters–[Hon. Members: “Answer.”] If the House is patient, I will come directly to the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I remind him, on the subject of consistency, that he once said:

    “we’ll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC”.

    To be strictly fair, he did subsequently say that he

    “wasn’t actually opposed to membership of the EC . . . I said at the election, within the closed doors of the Labour Party, that I disagreed with that policy on Europe.”

    The right hon. Gentleman did not of course say that publicly, which one might have expected from such an ambitious Member.

    I have often said before that, although I do not in general favour referendums in our parliamentary democracy, there are circumstances in which one might be appropriate. One of those circumstances is were the Cabinet to make a decision to join a single currency. I have made that clear; that is still the case. We are examining at the moment what the appropriate circumstances might be. When we have completed that examination, I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman is among the first few hundred people to know.

    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman did not actually tell us whether the Chancellor’s position remains the position of the Government. Can I put this question to him? Is it still his view that collective responsibility during the course of such a referendum would still apply?

    The Prime Minister: The fact is, on the first point, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was with me and agreed in Cabinet to the examination that we are undertaking. The examination that we are undertaking covers not only the point that the right hon. Gentleman raised but a series of other important points that would need to be clear were such a decision to be taken.

    Mr. Blair: So everything is up for review. The right hon. Gentleman used to be flatly against a referendum; now he cannot say. He used to be in favour of collective responsibility; now he cannot say. Is it not the truth that on this issue–[Interruption.] They do not like it, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman now cannot say on either issue. Is it not the truth that, on this issue, as in so many other areas, he is no longer able to be a Prime Minister taking these decisions in the interests of the country but is simply a full-time party manager trying to manage irreconcilable factions in his own party?

    The Prime Minister: One of these days, the right hon. Gentleman will learn to quit when he is losing. [Interruption.] He just made it perfectly clear that he has no interest in collective responsibility, no interest in Cabinet government and no interest in the Cabinet discussing these matters–which is precisely what his Back Benchers say about the way in which he determines his own policies. When he has had a little more experience, he will realise that that will never work in government.

    Mr. Churchill: Is it not fantastic that the European Court, the European Commission and the leader of the Labour party should be so hellbent on pricing British and European workers out of jobs and exporting those jobs to the Pacific rim? If people in this country choose, of their own volition, to work 48 hours or more a week, why on earth should not they be allowed to do so?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I strongly disagree with the ruling of the Advocate General this morning. We have one of the best records on health and safety at work across Europe. I do not believe that the working time directive can make any significant contribution to health and safety. We shall continue to argue the case that these matters are best agreed between employers and employees in the light of their own circumstances.

    European legislation such as the working time directive is ludicrous, and we will continue to tell our partners in Europe that that is so. It is precisely because of legislation like that and stupidities like that, that the European Union is becoming uncompetitive and losing jobs to other parts of the world. It is complete nonsense and it is time that people began to stand up and say so.

    Mr. Ashdown: So why did not the Prime Minister and the Government vote against the directive in the Council of Ministers? As the Prime Minister is in the business of swapping quotes, I shall remind him of two. In June 1992 he said to me, “I am not in favour of referendums and I will not put one before the British people.” Last week he said, “I have never changed my view–it remains that a referendum might be the course of action to take.”

    Is it not perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not the leader of his party, but the prisoner of his party? How long will it now take for him to join us in saying that, when it comes to deciding Britain’s future in Europe, Britain’s people have a right to a say?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that his hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has in the past admitted the differences in their party on the question of a referendum. He knows that there are sharp differences. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he favours a referendum on this issue. He should not be so uncharacteristically modest–has it not occurred to him that his splendid advocacy might just possibly change my hon. Friends’ minds?

    Mr. Hayes: If my right hon. Friend has the good fortune to bump into Sir James Goldsmith, will he remind him that, although he might think that wealth can buy privilege, it does not buy Members of Parliament and it does not buy Governments?

    The Prime Minister: The only things for sale in this House are Labour party policies to the trade unions. [Interruption.] The deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), says, “Change the computer.” We would like him to change the fact that half the Labour party’s policies are determined by the trade unions, that most of its money comes from the trade unions, that it is the handmaiden of the trade unions and that it has no independence. The trade unions pay for the Labour party and they own it–it was that way, it is that way and it always will be that way.

     

    Q3. Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March.

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

    Mr. Wareing: Does the Prime Minister remember saying in April 1992, “Vote Conservative on Thursday and the recovery will continue on Friday”? When he became Prime Minister, the unemployment figure was 1,754,811, but in January this year it was 2,224,207. They are his figures. What went wrong?

    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what has gone right with our economy, and he can then compare what has happened in this country with what has happened in other countries. If he is worrying about what has gone wrong, he should look at Liverpool council to get an indication. The leader of the Labour party said, I think, to The Spectator some time ago that one does not know the character of a party until it is in power. We have seen Labour in power in Liverpool council, and we know exactly the character of the Labour party.

    I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what has happened in Britain. We have the lowest sustained rate of inflation for almost 50 years–it is below 3 per cent; we have the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years; we have an unemployment rate well below the European Union average; we have the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years; we are the largest recipients of foreign investment outside Europe, into Europe and more than the rest of Europe added together; and we export more per person than any other country in Europe. In spite of the pantomime drivellings of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, that is what has happened in this country, and it is time that he woke up and saw it. It surely would not have happened with any other Government.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the ‘Your Business Matters’ National Conference – 11 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the ‘Your Business Matters’ Conference, held at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London on Monday 11th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Last year I set out my aim to make Britain the unrivalled Enterprise Centre of Europe: to do that we need an efficient economy, a de-regulated economy, the lowest possible corporate and personal tax regime, minimum burdens on employers and an array of supply side measures to boost enterprise and competitiveness.

    That challenge is for our whole economy. It can’t be met without a successful small business sector, which is why we set up this consultation exercise, the first fruits of which we can announce today.

    Small businesses are not some minority interest – they are the backbone of our economy and the main source of future jobs.

    They are central to the enterprise culture.

    I was brought up in a family whose livelihood depended on a small business. I know the passion and hope and commitment that goes into them; the uncertainty and risks that come with them. The courage and tenacity of the men and women who run businesses is a huge national asset. I want to see it receive support and reward. I do not want to see it loaded down with taxes or tied up in red tape.

    I was delighted that you chose as the title for the conferences “Your Business Matters”. Because that is literally true. Your businesses do matter. They matter to you, they matter to me, they matter to your customers and employees, and they matter to this government. And they are crucial to the future well being of the United Kingdom.

    Some might think that is putting it too strongly. I don’t: and I’ll tell you why. We all have ambitions for ourselves and our families – security, opportunities, higher living standards, first class public services and so on. We can only achieve these if business succeeds. And business is most likely to thrive in the face of fiercer global competition than we have ever known before if we pursue policies that create wealth and encourage enterprise.

    We are involved in economic warfare. And to win that war government should remove unnecessary shackles from business. That doesn’t mean a complete “laissez faire” approach. Where Government can help, it should. These conferences have enabled business to say how we can help.

    Now we have heard. My commitment to you is that we will respond to your concerns point by point. I shall make a start today and more will come later.

    Twenty years ago, if you asked what bothered businessmen, you’d have had a predictable response.

    Wildcat strikes. Unemployment. Crippling taxes. Spiralling inflation. Today we’ve seen strikes fall to the lowest level since records began. We have the lowest main rate of corporation tax in Europe.

    Unemployment – though still too high – is far lower than most of our European competitors.

    We’ve seen the longest period of low inflation for fifty years. The lowest mortgage rates for a generation.

    We’re number one choice in Europe for foreign investment.

    And we’re exporting more per person than Japan and the United States.

    These are the foundations upon which we are turning Britain into the Enterprise Centre of Europe. We are getting the basics right.

    – Low inflation.

    – Low interest rates.

    – Low taxes.

    – Keeping Government off the backs of business.

    – Making it worthwhile to create jobs.

    Education driven by what parents demand and industry needs.

    Enterprise depends on Government to keep taxes down by controlling public spending. We are steadily reducing the burden of spending. At around 40% of national income, government spending takes going on for 10% less than the European average. Good, but not yet good enough. It must fall further.

    That may sound like some abstract point that only matters to the Treasury. But it’s not. For if we spent at the average rate of most of our European partners, we’d have to raise an extra £60 billion in taxes.

    Our policy is precisely the reverse. Ken Clarke and I have both made clear that we intend to get spending down lower still so we can cut taxes again, when it’s safe to do so. We intend to exploit our growing advantage.

    Capital gains tax and inheritance tax are high on our list. Because they are a huge disincentive to business growth and job creation. We cannot expect you to take risks, to put your homes, your savings and your futures on the line, only then to see a great slice disappear in tax when you pass the business on.

    In the last Budget, we took an important step in dealing with this. We took shares in private companies out of Inheritance Tax completely. Now Britain is one of the few countries where you can pass on your business without paying tax. But we want to go further. We want to cut capital gains and inheritance tax further, and, when possible, abolish them.

    But these are not the only taxes that you’re unhappy about. You’ve also sent us a very clear message about business rates – about their level, and how they are calculated.

    That’s a message we take very seriously. We’ll look very carefully at all the points you have made. It will take time, because of the complexity of the matter but if we are persuaded that there is a better way of doing things, or that the burden on small business can be reduced, whether in the short-term or the long term, then that’s what we will do. We said we’d listen, and we will.

    We’ll look at all the points you’ve made on tax. But there’s more to the tax problem than the size of the bill. What has come out of our consultations is frustration with the labyrinth of forms and rules businesses have to master for the taxman.

    Taken together, the combination of PAYE, National Insurance and VAT are the greatest administrative burden government imposes on business. To tackle this problem last year we instructed the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency to work together more closely. Today, the results are starting to come through.

    From next month new businesses will no longer have to register separately with the Inland Revenue, Contributions Agency and Customs and Excise. They will be able to sign up with all three in one go with one simple form. It comes with one leaflet telling small businesses all they need to know about tax, national insurance and VAT. We will shortly be starting a national programme for new employers to help them with PAYE and national insurance. Every new employer will be able to get free advice, on their own premises, before their first pay day.

    We intend to streamline the tax and national insurance systems in other ways as well. And to do it soon. More joint information. One audit visit, not two, to save you time. A single help-line to answer queries on both systems. And a fresh look at other ways of helping small businesses run their PAYE and NICs systems with minimum difficulty.

    These are bread and butter changes that will bring real benefits to small businesses. Simplification and deregulation are hard work. Their hallmark is painstaking pruning; cutting away what is not needed and cannot be justified.

    Let me make you this promise. Wherever we can, we will bin rules. Get rid of them. But there are areas where there is a legitimate public or business interest in having regulation – to protect the consumer, the environment, maintain fair competition, or whatever. In these circumstances wherever we can we will simplify .the rules and make them understandable. Written, I hope, in plain English!

    But in many cases, the problem isn’t only the rules: it is the way they are enforced. Business has consistently said that and I believe business is right. We intend to deal with this.

    In dealing with regulations, business deserves rights. Let me spell out for you what I believe they should be.

    First, businessmen have a right to expect that enforcement will be consistent and fair.

    Second, they should be told not just what they need to do, but why.

    Third, they should have reasonable notice.

    Fourth, a chance to challenge an inspector’s judgement and;

    Fifth, the right to appeal against it.

    I intend to make these rights a reality. We’ve already applied them to health and safety regulations – the great regulatory bugbear. Today I can tell you that, by June, we will apply them much more widely:

    to environmental standards,

    food safety,

    building regulations, and,

    a little later, consumer affairs.

    All these are areas business has complained about. I hope this action will make the system fairer and less burdensome.

    When I launched this programme of conferences at Downing Street I was very struck by a point one of the small business representatives made. He pointed out that small businessmen are expected to know all about every regulation that applies to them, they’re expected to abide by it, and they can often be guilty of a criminal offence if they don’t. But we don’t expect a single inspector or regulator to have that same encyclopaedic knowledge.

    Well, that seemed to me to be a pretty good point and I’ve looked at it carefully.

    Take the criminal sanctions point first. Obviously they have a role to play in some cases. But in others they are plainly inappropriate and we should find another way. We shall be looking at this further.

    But, as we do so, we’ve already decided that where a sanction is needed in future there will be a presumption that the least burdensome sanction will be applied -consistent with Community law – and civil sanctions will always be considered as an alternative.

    We’ve also looked at whether it would be practical to set up only one inspector for all regulations. We’ve concluded that the remit would be too wide, though it is a good ambition to aim towards as we reduce regulation. But I can announce some action now.

    I’ve already mentioned what the Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency are doing to offer a joint service. We’re going to carry this principle further in other areas.

    We shall start with planning and building regulations. You all know the story. You’re expanding; but you and your builder are frustrated beyond belief as you have to talk to the planning inspector one day, the building control officer the next, then you find the fire and health and safety officers want to know what’s going on. And heaven only help you if it’s a listed building!

    These control systems each have a proper role to play but working out what they mean for your business shouldn’t be a life’s work. It’s not what you went in business for.

    So we intend to pilot a single “one-stop shop”. This will bring together all the different enforcers, including fire safety, environmental standards, listing, planning and building control, and coordinated approvals for all local authority rules on planning and development. After gaining experience from this pilot, we plan to adopt this approach more widely. I believe that, pretty soon, we can make this whole process a great deal simpler.

    The time a small business most needs help with the regulatory maze is when it’s just starting up. It does nothing for morale or enterprise if your first few weeks is spent traipsing round libraries and making endless phone calls trying to find out what rules apply to you.

    During consultation businessmen have suggested making more use of computers and the Internet to provide more information about regulations. I agree. And we are developing exactly that. As Roger Freeman will be telling you later, we’ve developed the prototype of a computer based system to provide a single point of information about regulations and licences, designed particularly for start-up businesses. The prototype is on display here for the first time today, and over the next few months we plan to ask business what they think of it, and then take it forward.

    Every year the Government spends hundreds of millions on helping small businesses, through a huge number of different support schemes. You’ve told us these are too complex and I agree. So we intend to simplify them.

    So, to do this, I have set in train a radical review of all the government’s schemes to make them simpler and easier to understand. Work will begin immediately. It will be carried out speedily so that we can have early action. We will set out where we’ve got to in June, and then consult you fully on what we propose to do.

    We will also look at how these schemes are delivered and how we can improve communication. In your consultations you have told us to build on the network of TECs and Business Links. I agree – and that is what we shall do.

    Let me turn to the problem of late payment of bills. In our consultation the conferences were generally – not universally – against introducing a statutory right to interest. The DTI are examining all these responses. The problem is that many of the possible solutions cause as many difficulties as they solve. We have to make sure that what we do makes things better not worse.

    There are no easy answers to late payment. But that does not mean that there is nothing we can do. There is.

    I was very struck by the quotation in your conference report, quoting a businessman who said that “Rather than legislate, we should manage by embarrassment”.

    There is a lot to be said for that; peer pressure does work. So I believe we should take steps to generate embarrassment amongst those who wilfully and continually pay late.

    We intend to start by consulting again on whether companies should be required to publish their payment performance, as well as their policies. Personally, I think they should.

    The last time we looked at this issue, many businesses were in favour, but without agreement on how to achieve it. It may be difficult to design a perfect measure of payment performance. But the results of your conferences suggest that mandatory disclosure is something we should look at again, so we will. If consultation supports the idea we will implement it.

    But whether or not business collectively wants to go ahead with this requirement for itself, I am sure we should apply it to the public sector. It is simply not acceptable that the government should be a late payment culprit.

    We have done a lot to improve our payment performance. For example by the end of this month all Departments should have signed up to the CBI Prompt Payment Code. But I believe we can do better.

    So I intend to instruct all Departments to pay promptly and, to ensure they do, we will publish each year a league table of all Government Departments’ payment performance – not their aspirations, but the record of what they actually achieve, measured on a consistent and rigorous basis, and combine this with tough targets to ratchet up the weaker performers.

    I would like to do the same for local authorities, all too many of whom emerge from the conference reports as bad performers too. I have asked David Curry, as Local Government Minister, to pursue this urgently with local authorities and the Audit Commission. I hope they will agree to have league tables published on their performance. If not, we’ll consider requiring them to.

    Late payment is also a big issue for small firms in the construction industry. The construction contracts legislation, going through Parliament now, will tackle their problems head-on by banning the unacceptable practice of “pay when paid” contracts.

    Late payment leads me to enforcement of debts, about which the conferences also had plenty to say. It is clearly unacceptable if businesses feel they can’t enforce debts effectively even after a court has judged in their favour. We have to do something about this. The Lord Chancellor’s Department is currently conducting a review of civil enforcement agents, such as bailiffs and sheriffs. This will be reporting soon, and we will have some positive changes to announce.

    Later today, Ian Lang and Roger Freeman will have further announcements to make, all of them intended to tackle the concerns you have raised with us. There will be more changes to come later as we work with you to help small businesses prosper.

    Low taxes, and less bureaucracy to pay them.

    More tax changes to come when we can.

    Pruning back rules.

    Fairer enforcement.

    A one-stop approach to regulation wherever we can.

    Using new technology to help cut the paper-chase.

    A range of measures to help with late payment in both public and private sector.

    Mr. Chairman, I know it’s very easy to talk of enterprise, competition and the markets, but refuse to live up to it when it comes to hard-edged action. But the future of Britain’s business will not be secured by sound-bites. It will be secured by sound policies that help business win orders, take on more workers and invest.

    Many of the right policies do not win short term popularity.

    You can’t fight inflation without tough policies. Words won’t do.

    You can’t get spending down if you get out your chequebook every time a special interest group comes knocking on your door.

    You won’t get taxes down if you attack successful businessmen.

    You can’t get more people in work if you load more and more regulations on [remaining section missing].

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Plutonium

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to take up the recent suggestion by the United States Government regarding the declassification of hitherto secret data on plutonium to encourage other nations with military plutonium stocks to declassify and release similar data.

    The Prime Minister: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to reveal details of the United Kingdom’s stocks of fissile materials held for defence purposes.

     

    Hong Kong (Visit)

    Mr. Parry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Hong Kong.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) on 7 March, Official Report, columns 315-16.

     

    Royal Residences

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those members of the royal family living in accommodation a contribution to the upkeep of which is made from public funds.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 13 February, Official Report, column 547.

     

    Weapons Licensing

    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make the Ministry of Defence the licensing authority in respect of weapons and goods licensable under the military list.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589-604. The Department of Trade and Industry is to undertake a review of the current export control powers and procedures, following which a consultation paper will be produced.

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a list of Ministers who have requested prior assent from the Prime Minister, under “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”, paragraph 75, for payment from public funds to meet the expenses of special advisers whose salary is not met from public funds accompanying Ministers on overseas visits; and if he will indicate which requests were granted and which were refused for each year since 1990.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Deregulation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of European Community legislation has been simplified or repealed in the past year, as referred to in his oral answer of 12 April 1994, Official Report, column 18.

    The Prime Minister: The answer that I gave on 12 April 1994 refers to the Commission estimate of the reduction in the volume of EC legislation arising from recommendations in the report on subsidiarity which was presented to the European Council meeting in Brussels in December 1993. In its “Better Law Making” report to the Madrid European Council in December 1995, the Commission reported on progress in implementing the Brussels programme. A copy of the report is in the Library of the House. Although the number of new Commission legislative proposals continues to decline, down from 48 in 1993 to a forecast of 19 in the 1996 work programme, the Government want the Commission to do more. I therefore welcome the remit given to the Commission by the Madrid European Council to bring forward further proposals to repeal and simplify both existing and proposed legislation.

     

    Ex-service Men and Women

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of interdepartmental co-operation in relation to ex-service affairs; and if he will meet the chairman of the Royal British Legion to discuss his views on this matter.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so. My noble Friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has regular meetings with ex-services organisations, including the Royal British Legion. In addition, my noble Friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Henley met the Royal British Legion on 23 November 1994 to discuss the provision of Government services to ex-service men and women.

    The Government’s continuing commitment is to ensure that all Departments provide an effective service for every citizen.

     

    Biodiversity Steering Group

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister which Departments are involved in the cross-sectional steering group on the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan; and what assistance they are giving the Department of the Environment.

    The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom biodiversity steering group included officials from the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Forestry Commission.

    The steering group published its report containing advice on the Government on 13 December 1995. Departments throughout Whitehall, including those involved in the steering group, are assisting the Department of the Environment in preparing the Government’s response to the report. We expect to publish this in the spring of 1996.

     

    Welsh Office (Permanent Secretary)

    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to announce the appointment of the new permanent secretary of the Welsh Office.

    The Prime Minister: The next permanent secretary of the Welsh Office will be selected following an open competition and the appointment will then be announced in the normal way.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 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.

     

    Far East (Visit)

    Mr. John Townend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the far east.

    The Prime Minister: I attended the inaugural Asia-Europe summit meeting in Bangkok on 29 February to 2 March together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This summit, for the first time, brought together the leaders of Thailand, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, China, the 15 member states of the European Union and the President of the European Commission. I warmly welcomed the opportunity it offered to reinforce the relations between Europe and East Asia, politically and economically two of the world’s three most important regions.

    The informal discussions covered a wide range of political and economic issues. The participants agreed on the need to deepen the political dialogue between Asia and Europe, to increase co-operation over arms control, human resource development, environmental protection and the fight against poverty, drugs terrorism and other international crime.

    On economic matters, there was common ground over the benefits of strengthening trade and investment flows between Asia and Europe in both direction. The meeting agreed to work for the further liberalisation of trade and for the success of the World Trade Organisation. It also recognised that intensified exchanges of science and technology, especially in sectors such as agriculture, information and technology, energy and transport, were important for extending the economic links between the two regions. Finally, there was agreement on the value of closer people-to-people contacts, especially among younger generations.

    The meeting set in hand an ambitious programme of follow-up work, including preparations for the first ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Singapore in December, work on improving conditions for the flow of investment between the two regions, the establishment of a business forum and promotion of reform of the United Nations including the EU initiative on financial reform.

    The meeting accepted the United Kingdom’s offer to host the second summit which will be held during our presidency of the EU in the first half of 1998. This is a clear signal of our commitment to developing relations with Asia and our determination to play a leading role in the evolving relationship between the two regions. Hong Kong During my visit to Hong Kong between 2 and 4 March, I had the opportunity to hear the concerns of a wide range of the Hong Kong community about their future. I was able to reassure them that:

    (i) Britain has a long-term commitment to Hong Kong which will last well beyond the transfer of sovereignty on 1 July 1997;

    (ii) in the event of a breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, we would pursue every avenue open to us and mobilise the international community;

    (iii) holders of the Hong Kong special administrative region passport would not be required to obtain visas for visits to Britain after 30 June 1997;

    (iv) we would guarantee admission to Britain for any member of the non-Chinese ethnic minority community with solely British nationality who came under pressure to leave Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty; and

    (v) we would support a private Member’s Bill to grant British citizenship to the wives and widows of the ex-service men from Hong Kong who fought for Britain in the war.

    I also had the opportunity to visit several parts of the territory, including the new airport and the extension to the convention and exhibition centre, where development is being pursued to ensure Hong Kong’s continuing success. Korea is an important trading partner: our exports increased by 44 per cent. in 1995 to more than £1.5 billion, and we have attracted more than 40 per cent. of all Korean inward investment in Europe. The prospects for further growth in these areas are good.

    I had a meeting with President Kim Young Sam, our third in 12 months, at which we discussed ways to increase the co-operation between our countries, particularly in trade and investment. I also met the leaders of the major Korean conglomerates. I encouraged them to consider further inward investment here by assuring them of the major benefits of doing so. During my visit, three new Korean investments worth £2.5 million were announced, bringing the number of Korean companies in the UK to 19. Four contracts were signed by British companies for joint ventures valued at £90 million, including a co-operation agreement between British

    Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and Hanjung for the building of spent fuel storage casks in a market expected to grow from £35 million to £2 billion.

     

    Princess of Wales

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions or communications Her Majesty’s Government have had since the beginning of the current year with the Governments of those other Commonwealth countries whose Head of State is Her Majesty the Queen, about the constitutional future and status of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: None.

     

    Duchy of Cornwall (Profits)

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if the income and profits of the Duchy of Cornwall are private and personal to the Prince of Wales.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The capital assets of the Duchy of Cornwall are inalienable, and the income from capital disposals must be reinvested in new capital assets. The Prince of Wales is personally entitled to the net income from the revenue account of the Duchy of Cornwall, from which he meets both public and private expenditure for himself, the Princess and their family.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister at what time or stage on 28 February he was advised that Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales was issuing a statement announcing her intention to divorce His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I was informed of the statement after it was issued.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what provisions exist for the Princess of Wales to renounce the rank and the title of Her Royal Highness.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The use of the style lies ultimately in the Queen’s gift, although the wishes of the princess would be taken into consideration.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what future funding arrangements from public funds are being made to facilitate HRH the Princess of Wales continuing her public duties subsequent to divorce.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: Matters relating to the divorce of the Prince and Princess of Wales and the princess’s future role are under discussion.

     

    Civil Servants (Conduct)

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if it is his policy that civil servants criticised in the Scott report shall be disciplined.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 March 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 6 March, Official Report, column 252.

     

    EU Directives

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the EU directives which have been gold plated when transcribed into United Kingdom law in the past five years.

    The Prime Minister: The Government’s policy is not to add unnecessary burdens on business when implementing EC directives in the UK. Departments keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy.

     

    “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”

    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to issue a revised version of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I will revise and reissue “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” as and when appropriate.

     

    Civil Servants (Company Directors)

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each (a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 March 1996]: For these purposes, my office forms part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 6 March, Official Report, columns 250-51.

  • PMQT – 7 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Stephen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 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.

    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a person who has committed a serious violent or sexual crime on two or more occasions must never be allowed to do it again? Does he accept that that is the overwhelming view of all our constituents, who are sick and tired of dangerous criminals being let out, to offend again and again, by out-of-touch judges, some of whom sit in the Court of Appeal?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point forcefully. Our aim is to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals. We are concerned to ensure that, for example, repeat rapists are not released from prison if they remain a danger. At present, that can happen, and it is a matter of concern to the public. On those grounds, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is right to proceed with his proposals.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity categorically to deny the lunchtime news reports that the Government are considering taking away all employment rights from millions of people who are employed by small businesses?

    The Prime Minister: We shall have some things to say on Monday about small businesses, but they will certainly not include what was the reported on the news at lunchtime.

    Mr. Blair: Can we–[Interruption] The proposal, as people will know, was made by the Deputy Prime Minister. Can we take it from the Prime Minister’s answer, which I thought was clear, that that proposal is gone, and dead and buried?

    The Prime Minister: I thought that I made the point clear to the right hon. Gentleman a moment or so ago. We shall be announcing a number of very attractive policies on Monday, but I have to tell him that that is not one of them.

    Mr. Blair: I congratulate the Prime Minister. The proposal was made two days ago, and now it has been dropped. We welcome that. Since we already have the President of the Board of Trade’s letter referring to the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter, can the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter be published so that we can see what other proposals have been made and whether they, too, are to be denied?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will see the proposals clearly because we shall announce them on Monday. They will be very attractive. I think that small businesses will welcome them. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that small firms create the vast majority of new jobs. They have done so for years past and they will do so in future. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am glad to hear that I carry Opposition Members with me.

    There can be no employment rights if there is no employment. We are seeking to maintain a fair balance between the rights of employees and the burdens on employers. We are therefore proposing to reduce or remove unnecessary burdens. [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] I am interested that Opposition Members would like to keep unnecessary burdens. No wonder that in every socialist Government throughout Europe, unemployment increases.

    Opposition Members would like to retain unnecessary burdens. I would like to get rid of unnecessary burdens, and I would welcome some support for that from the Labour party. Clearly, there is no support for that from the Labour party; burdens it likes and burdens it would wish to have.

    Sir Marcus Fox: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the opting out of a single currency is of supreme importance to the country? Would it not be damaging–

    Hon. Members: Reading.

    Madam Speaker: Order. Sir Marcus.

    Sir Marcus Fox: Would it not be damaging if other countries ignored this criterion? May I suggest with hope to my right hon. Friend that the issue of a single currency, if introduced, would be one on which we should hold a referendum?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear to the House on previous occasions that I believe that a referendum on joining a single currency could be a necessary step. My position has not changed. I still believe that it might be the right course. At present, the Government are considering the circumstances in which a referendum might or might not be appropriate. We shall tell the House of our conclusions as soon as we have reached them.

    Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister’s rather different answer to the last question of the Leader of the Opposition, does he agree that we shall never build or strengthen the small business sector by encouraging employers to adopt a hire-and-fire mentality and treating employees as scrapheap labour?

    The Prime Minister: No one is seeking to do that. The right hon. Gentleman should know better than that. We are encouraging a hire mentality. That is why unemployment has fallen while it is rising in other countries. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order.

    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what would create a fire mentality among small and large employers–the sort of burdens that would accumulate under the social chapter, which the right hon. Gentleman would like. Included would be the burdens that would be accumulated under a minimum wage policy, which, again, the right hon. Gentleman would like. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he has a policy change to make, we shall be pleased to hear it. Labour’s plans for a minimum wage could destroy thousands upon thousands of jobs, as would the social chapter, and both policies are supported by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government are creating jobs, and the Opposition parties’ policies would destroy them.

    Mr. Barry Porter: In view of the depressing statement by the Provisional IRA yesterday, where do we go from here?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the proposals that I set out the other day were perfectly clear. Sinn Fein has the opportunity, provided that there is a ceasefire and that it meets the other criteria, of joining in the democratic debate. If it fails to take that option, the debate will not stop. The debate will continue with the constitutional parties. I believe that that is the right way in which to proceed. Were we not to proceed with just the constitutional parties, we would have permitted the IRA to stop the constitutional process. I am not prepared to do that and neither, in my judgement, is any of the constitutional parties.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mrs. Campbell: Is it fair that Camelot is now able to pay out less than £10 to a player with three correct numbers? Bookmakers have to meet their obligations, so why should not the lottery operators do the same out of their obscene profits?

    The Prime Minister: The operators have to meet their obligations. The chances of someone winning the jackpot are much greater than the chances of not being paid £10 for three numbers, as Oflot itself set out this morning. The hon. Lady should know that it was Parliament that decided that the lottery should be administered by an independent regulator. The hon. Lady’s party was very keen that that should be the case. The hon. Lady shakes her head. I think that I recall that the Opposition voted that it should be dealt with by an independent regulator. It is for the director general of Oflot to consider how to protect players’ interests. That is what he has done. She should direct her question to him.

    Mr. Lamont: In the run-up to the intergovernmental conference, would the Prime Minister like to congratulate the European Commission on the success of its “Interfere in Britain” week? Should the first prize go to the European Court of Justice for its ruling on fishing or to the attack on the brand of Cheddar cheese, or should the golden fleece go to the European Commission’s astonishing dawn raid on the Football Association’s headquarters? Does the Prime Minister agree that there was never a truer word spoken by the European spokesman yesterday than when he said:

    “We are talking millions of footballs”?

    The Prime Minister: I must say to my right hon. Friend that I did not see that remark. I am rather sorry that I did not. I shall have the opportunity of discussing those matters with the President of the Commission later on this afternoon.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Gunnell: Has the Prime Minister seen the published explanation of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for his reluctant vote with the Government on the Scott report, in which he says that he voted because the Prime Minister personally told him that the Ulster Unionists had held a gun to his head and that losing the vote would damage the peace process? Is that true, and, if so, does it square with the Prime Minister’s pledge to keep the peace process in Northern Ireland completely separate from intensely controversial issues here at Westminster?

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear from the outset that I shall deal with the peace process on its merits. I believe that that is the way that it should be dealt with–on its merits. That is the way it has been dealt with so far; that is way it will be dealt with in the future. I certainly have not seen any such newspaper reports.

    Mr. Renton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm, with regard to the important speech that he made in Hong Kong on Monday, which has given new confidence there in these last 500 days of colonial rule, that Britain has no current immigration problems with Hong Kong and that the 3 million people who already have visa-free access to this country abide by the rules? They come here as students, tourists or business men and they do not wish to settle here.

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that to my right hon. Friend. In fact, in total, 1.2 billion people already have visa-free access to Britain. We have had no problems whatsoever with visa-free access from Hong Kong and I do not believe that there will be any in future. One of the principal reasons for taking this decision was to provide more assurance to people in Hong Kong, because I believe that such assurance will make it even more likely that they will remain there and continue to ensure that Hong Kong is a success in the future.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Hall: Is the Prime Minister aware that he spoke for the whole nation when he endorsed Chris Patten as the next leader of the Tory party in opposition, because he acknowledged that there was nobody in his Cabinet with leadership potential?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had read what I actually said, he would know that that was not it. In fact I said:

    “There are a number of colleagues with outstanding ability”,

    and I am delighted that that is so. What upsets the hon. Gentleman is the fact that there is nobody with outstanding ability on the Opposition Benches.

     

    Q6. Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Sir John Hannam: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of his far east tour. Does he accept that it is far better for this country to secure future jobs for British workers than to keep up the continuous carping criticism expressed by the Opposition parties?

    The Prime Minister: What was most striking about the conference in Bangkok was the extent to which growth in the far eastern economies provides business and trading opportunities for this country. I think that many people throughout Europe have utterly failed to realise the sheer size and scale of the change that has taken place across Asia, and the opportunities that are provided as a result. During my visit, a number of business deals were struck between companies here and companies in the far east, and I very much hope that there will be more. Such deals provide jobs, security and prosperity for people in this country.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the content of all briefings given by his press office on the subject of the Scott report since 15 February.

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

    This would be neither customary nor practicable.

     

    Hong Kong (Visit)

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out his programme during his recent visit to Hong Kong.

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

    It is not my right hon. Friend’s normal practice to do so.

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if all his engagements during his recent visit to Hong Kong related to public duty.

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

    Yes.

     

    Mobile Phones

    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions car based and mobile phones allocated to the use of his office have been cloned; to which officers these phones had been allocated; and when this cloning was discovered, in each of the last five years;

    (2) pursuant to his answer of 22 January, Official Report, column 45, to which officer in his personal office the phone cloned in 1994 was allocated; when it became apparent that this phone had been cloned; and what action has been taken by his office to improve the security of the mobile phone in the use of his office;

    (3) on how many occasions mobile phones allocated for the use of (a) himself and (b) his office have been cloned since his appointment.

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

    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on 22 January, Official Report, column 45. I have nothing further to add.

     

    Arms Exports

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister which Departments hold information relative to the financing by British banks, since 1980, using their customers’ balances, of arms supplied to Iraq and Iran; which British banks were involved; what proportion of such financing went on the supply of Valmara 69 anti-personnel land mines; and if he will make a statement.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 29 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

    Exports of lethal equipment including anti-personnel land mines from the United Kingdom to Iraq or Iran would require an export licence. No such licences have been issued since 1980. The financing by British banks of arms sales from other countries to Iraq and Iran would be a matter for Government Departments only if breaches of United Nations’ sanctions were involved. Government Departments hold no evidence of such breaches by British banks. If the right hon. Member has any information regarding possible breaches of United Kingdom export controls or United Nations’ sanctions, he should pass it to the relevant authorities.

     

    Public Appointments (Women)

    Ms Jowell: To ask the Prime Minister how many appointees to public offices in the list of public appointments were women for each year since 1990; and what proportion these represented of the total for each office.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

    Information about the annual number of women appointed to public office is not maintained centrally. However, it is known that in 1990 and 1991, women held 23 per cent. of the total number of appointments to public bodies. In October 1991, at the launch of Opportunity 2000, my right hon. Friend announced a Government initiative aimed at increasing this figure further. Good progress has been made and the percentage of such posts held by women, at 1 September 1995, is 30 per cent. The following table gives the figures for the intervening years:

    Year Total number of public appointments | Number held by women | Percentage

    – ———————————————————————————-

    1990 44,057 10,256 23

    1991 39,122 9,135 23

    1992 41,011 10,701 26

    1993 42,606 12,007 28

    1994 42,876 12,686 30

    1995 40,170 11,898 30

     

    European Courts

    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages to the United Kingdom of membership of (a) the European Court of Justice and (b) the European Court of Human Rights; and by what mechanism the United Kingdom can withdraw from membership of each.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

    Accepting jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is an essential element of European Union membership, the advantages and disadvantages of which have been discussed many times in this House. The UK could withdraw from the jurisdiction of the ECJ only by withdrawing from the EU.

    Our policy in respect of the European convention on human rights was set out by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 13 December 1995, Official Report, column 647.

     

    Northern Ireland

    Mr. Stott: To ask the Prime Minister if his negotiations with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to determine the electoral process will include the Progressive Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 5 March 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

    Letters of invitation to the round of intensive consultations with the parties were sent on 28 February and the leaders of the Progressive Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party were among the recipients.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bomb in Israel – 5 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the bomb in Tel Aviv, Israel, in a pool interview held on Tuesday 5th March 1996.


    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, a third and very serious bomb, you of course condemn it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is an evil act. What has been happening in Israel has been a determination to try and find a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. A huge amount of work has gone into that, a huge amount of goodwill. And now some evil acts are seeking to drive that whole process off course. This is the third such atrocity in the last few days and there is no conceivable way in which it can be explained, it is quite literally evil. We have had some experience of acts of sheer terror like this, acts simply to murder, to destroy and to make a political point. I think they are absolutely unforgivable and my heart goes out to the Israeli people.

    QUESTION:

    The real worry must be that such serious acts – suicide bombings like this – will cut off the peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think that is what they are intended to do. I think they are intended to break up any chance of a rapprochement between the Palestinians and the Israelis and it will be very difficult to keep the process in being. I very much hope, though clearly it will make life very difficult, I very much hope after a while it will be possible to continue.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Society of British Aerospace Companies – 5 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Society of British Aerospace Companies, held in Seoul on Tuesday 5th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The British Ambassador has a very compelling way of encouraging you to speak to audiences, he just announces that you are about to do so. But happily on this occasion I have no inhibition about that, not least because although this is my first visit to Korea I found it an enormously entertaining and worthwhile day and I look forward to coming back again.

    I came here today essentially to follow-up the meeting that I had with President Kim Young-Sam in London just a year or so ago. When we met then, we identified the opportunity for a much enhanced trade and investment relationship between our two countries, and between Korea and the rest of the European Union, and we proposed some ways to expand that trade. We wanted to take stock of what we had agreed a year or so ago.

    We had of course met just a day or two earlier at the Europe-Asia summit where, amongst other things, it was agreed that Britain would host the next summit and the Republic of Korea would host the third summit.

    When the President and I met a year or so ago, we agreed that we should try and increase the economic relationship between our two countries. Since then British exports to Korea have increased by about 45 percent, and Korean exports to the United Kingdom by 61 percent, and our two-way trade has increased very dramatically.

    You can find the same sort of relationship in the interchange of investment, British in Korea and Korean in Britain. Indeed Britain now takes 40 percent of Korean investment across Europe, whilst Britain in turn is Asia’s largest single investor. So I think there is a very firm basis for our two countries on which to build.

    One of the changes that we are seeing around the world at the moment is I think an increased understanding across the world of the very remarkable changes that are happening in Asia, not least of course in Korea. The economic growth, the economic enthusiasm of what is happening in this part of the world is remarkable by any yardstick.

    I have no doubt that the growth of trade between Europe and Korea, between my country and Korea, are bound to increase. We have signed a whole series of agreements to directly cooperate in a number of sectors, and as a result of that that is bringing a lot of British trade missions here to Korea and vice versa.

    This reception marks the work of one of those trade missions – the Society of British Aerospace Companies. The aerospace industry is a key industry around the world, a key industry for Britain, and we are delighted to be working so closely with Korea as far as it is concerned. Certainly intensive cooperation is already under way. British and Korean companies are already working closely together on Korea Satellites, through the sales of Airbus aircraft, Rolls-Royce engines, Lynx helicopters, and I think that track record speaks for itself.

    I look forward to going back home on some future occasion in an airbus frame, a Rolls-Royce engine, with a Lynx helicopter in pursuit just in case I need it when stopping en route. Though if I do that I will have some explaining to do to British Airways.

    Let me just say that contacts between our countries of course are not just confined to business and governments. I think that contacts between the whole of Europe and the whole of Asia are becoming increasingly important.

    So, of course, are contacts between people. There has been a very rapid growth in the contacts between Europe as a whole, the United Kingdom specifically, and Korea over recent years. We have, for example, an increase of Korean students in the United Kingdom of 20 percent last year and 20 percent the year before. I am also told that the United Kingdom is the top destination in Europe for Korean tourists and that none of them come to watch our cricket team, which I personally find astonishing.

    We have, I think, complementary strengths – Europe, Britain, Korea. The partnership that may have seemed just a distant dream to many people a few years ago is becoming daily an increasing commercial, industrial, political and social reality. I am delighted that is the case, and delighted for the somewhat unexpected and impromptu opportunity that the British Ambassador has given me to say so. I am not sure what his next posting will be, but I will give it careful consideration. If he really behaves, I will leave him in Korea.

    Thank you for being here.