The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • John Major’s Commons Statement on the Northern Ireland Peace Process – 12 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Northern Ireland Peace Process.The statement was made in the House of Commons on 12th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the bomb explosion in the South Quay area of London last Friday, the declared end to the IRA ceasefire and the implications for security and the peace process in Northern Ireland.

    There is no doubt that the evil act in London was the work of the IRA. It has all the hallmarks of its operations, with the callous sacrifice of innocent lives. The bomb followed shortly after an IRA statement, given to the Irish broadcasting organisation on the evening of 9 February, that the complete cessation of hostilities ordered in August 1994 was now at an end. The IRA admitted its responsibility for the bomb on 10 February.

    The facts of the incident are briefly these. Around 5.45 pm last Friday, warning calls were made that a large bomb had been placed at South Quay station, Marsh Wall, in London. Local police arrived at the scene shortly after 6 o’clock, and anti-terrorist branch officers shortly after that.

    At around 6.30 pm a suspect vehicle, a Ford flat-backed lorry, was identified, and the immediate area was cleared. While the area was being evacuated, the vehicle exploded, causing extensive damage to buildings in the area, and a large number of casualties. Two people were killed and 43 injured, two of them critically. Three police officers were among the casualties. I know that the House will join me in extending our deepest sympathy to all the innocent victims and their families. It is little short of a miracle that the casualty list was not much longer.

    I should like to pay tribute to the efforts of the emergency services. Despite being hampered by a fractured gas main at the scene, they responded magnificently and they richly deserve all our thanks.

    I must say to the House that this may not be the last such atrocity. More may follow, both here on the mainland and in Northern Ireland, if the IRA ceasefire is not renewed. We will do all that we can to prevent that and to catch those responsible. The protection of the public will remain our first priority.

    In Great Britain, security has immediately returned to pre-ceasefire levels. In Northern Ireland itself, we had been careful from the very first moment of the ceasefire to take no irreversible steps to downgrade our security capability. All necessary measures to cope with the present situation are now in place. The Royal Ulster Constabulary is on full alert. We have sought to make an appropriate and proportionate response to the increased threat without disrupting daily life more than absolutely necessary.

    The IRA has brought the 17-month-old ceasefire to an end. There is no shred of an excuse for this return to violence, least of all now, when all-party negotiations were clearly in sight. After the August 1994 ceasefire declaration, we called repeatedly on the IRA to make it clear that it was permanent, despite criticism by some for doubting the good faith of the IRA. We did doubt its good faith and the IRA did not say that it was a permanent ceasefire. None the less, after a prudent period, in order to move the process forward we were prepared to act on the working assumption that the ceasefire would last.

    In the months that followed, we reduced the more visible and inconvenient aspects of security. We took soldiers off the streets and opened all the border crossing points. We did everything possible to create new jobs in Northern Ireland through renewed inward investment, and we helped to produce a remarkable economic upsurge. We talked to Sinn Fein leaders at official and at ministerial level. We constantly sought to move the peace process forward towards the all-party negotiations that everyone knows are necessary.

    No one took more risks for peace than the Government over the past two years, but we never lost sight of the fact that the IRA commitment had not been made for good. No responsible Government could have done otherwise. That was why we and many others saw a start to the decommissioning of illegal arms as a way of creating confidence in Sinn Fein’s acceptance of democratic peaceful methods, and showing that the violence had really ended. But all the time that Sinn Fein was calling for all-party talks, we knew that the IRA continued to train and plan for terrorist attacks. Punishment beatings and killings continued, as the House well knows. It remained ready to resume full-scale terrorism at any time. We could never be confident that its behaviour was that of an organisation that had decided to renounce violence for ever. The IRA peace was not a true peace.

    I regret to say that the events of last Friday showed that our caution about the IRA was only too justified. The timing of the return to violence may have been surprising: the fact that violence could resume was not. We must now continue the search for permanent peace and a comprehensive political settlement in Northern Ireland. Let there be no doubt that the Government’s commitment to that is as strong as ever, and will remain as strong as ever.

    We will work for peace with all the democratic political parties and with the Irish Government. But a huge question mark now hangs over the position of one of the parties–over Sinn Fein. Its leaders have spoken often of their commitment to peace and peaceful methods, but they have always ducked and weaved when they have been questioned about the IRA and its methods. After the events of last Friday, their ambiguity stands out starkly. The test for eligibility to take part in all-party negotiations was set by the British and Irish Governments in paragraph 10 of the Downing Street declaration. They should be democratically mandated parties, which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process.

    Sinn Fein’s leaders claim that they did not know about the bomb at South Quay and the IRA’s ceasefire statement, but they have refused either to condemn or to dissociate themselves from either. Sinn Fein must decide whether it is a front for the IRA or a democratic political party that is committed to the ballot and not the bullet. Meanwhile, one thing is clear: in the absence of a genuine end to this renewed violence, meetings between British Ministers and Sinn Fein are not acceptable and cannot take place.

    That is also the position of the Irish Government. They have made it clear to Sinn Fein that their attitude and willingness to meet at political level will be determined by whether the IRA ceasefire is restored. We and the Irish Government are at one on this: the ball is in the court of Sinn Fein and the IRA, if indeed that distinction means anything. It is for them to show through their words and actions whether they have a part to play in the peace process. I am not in the business of slamming doors, but the British and Irish peoples need to know where Sinn Fein stands.

    The people of a democracy are not passive spectators to events. They have the right to make their views clear on these issues, and the people of Northern Ireland, from both communities, have consistently done so. The popular will for peace has never been clearer or more coherently expressed than in recent months. The peace process will go on. I commend all those who have had the courage and the sense, in the face of this latest atrocity, to work to prevent a wider return to violence.

    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have met all the parties in the past two weeks. That process will be intensified with the parties that have not, for the present, disqualified themselves. The aim is, as it has always been, to establish the necessary confidence to enable negotiations between all the parties to begin. I want everyone to be absolutely clear on that point. The objective of all our actions and policies, before and since the ceasefire, has been to get to a position in which all the constitutional and democratic parties can get around the table together. Everything else is a means to that essential end.

    On 24 January, I told the House that, if the paramilitaries would not start decommissioning their illegal arms, one alternative way forward was through elections, to give the electoral mandates and confidence that could lead straight, and straight away, to negotiations. As proposed by the Mitchell report, decommissioning could go ahead in parallel with those negotiations. The proposal has been consistently misrepresented by Sinn Fein, and it has been misunderstood more widely. I repeat now that its purpose is to lead directly and speedily to negotiations between all the parties that are committed to peaceful and democratic methods, and it is aimed at reaching a comprehensive political settlement.

    An elected body would have to be broadly acceptable and it would be strictly time limited. I am not proposing–as I have made clear on many occasions–an assembly with legislative and administrative powers. Any suggestion of a return to old-style Stormont rule is manifest nonsense on the basis of the proposals that we have put forward. The proposed elections are a door to full negotiations, and I continue to believe that they provide the most promising available opening. We will pursue that proposal and seek to persuade all concerned that it is indeed a way forward and not a means of delaying progress.

    Our ideas are still being discussed with the parties. I should like to reassure the House that there are ways forward to negotiations with all the parties, which could include Sinn Fein–but only, of course, if there is an unequivocal return to the ceasefire. Others, including the Irish Government, have ideas, too. Our minds are not closed, and neither, I know, are theirs. I have talked to the Taoiseach twice since the bombing, and we plan to meet soon in London to discuss all the possibilities. I intend to find a way through to the negotiations, with all those who are committed to democracy.

    The peace process in Northern Ireland has received a serious setback from the men of violence, but the process is not over–not by any means. We have seen the benefits of what has been achieved since the ceasefire: the freedom to live and to work normally; the freedom to enjoy life; increased prosperity and new jobs; and new hope for the future of the people of both communities in Northern Ireland. Those benefits must not lightly be thrown away.

    This Government will not be deterred by terrorism. The people of Northern Ireland have tasted peace–a peace that has changed their lives. I have told the House before that I will leave no stone unturned in the search for peace. That is true today, and it will remain true in the future. The people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deserve no less than that.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 February 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Pay Review Bodies

    Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reports and recommendations of the pay review bodies.

    The Prime Minister: The 1996 reports of the five pay review bodies have been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. The Government are grateful to the chairmen and members of the review bodies for the time and care that they have put into the preparation of the reports.

    The Government are concerned that pay settlements for these groups should be consistent with the approach to public sector pay. Under this approach, increases should be offset by efficiencies and other economies to help to deliver improved efficiency across the public sector. Specifically, the cost of pay settlements should be accommodated within the resources allocated to programmes. The Government have had to consider the recommendations of the pay review bodies against that background to determine the appropriate response.

    The main pay recommendations are as follows.

    The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has recommended a range of increases in daily rates of 3.2 to 3.8 per cent., plus an increase of 0.5 per cent. in the X factor reflecting the special demands of service life. This gives an average increase of 3.8 per cent. with effect from 1 April. Separately, following a quinquennial review of the value of armed forces pensions, it has recommended a 1 per cent. increase in pay to reflect reduced pension differentials with the private sector, with a further 1 per cent. increase next year.

    The Doctors and Dentists Review Body has recommended general increases of 3.8 per cent. for doctors and 4.3 per cent. for dentists. It has specifically recommended higher increases for junior hospital doctors of 5.3 per cent. for registrars and 6.8 per cent. for house officers, although the latter figure would be partly offset by a reduction in the rate for additional duty hours.

    The review body for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine has recommended that pay for these groups should once again be determined locally. The review body also recommended a 2 per cent. increase in the national scales which underpin local negotiations.

    The School Teachers Review Body has recommended a 3.75 per cent. increase in teachers’ pay, and other changes in pay structures.

    The Senior Salaries Review Body has recommended:

    1. values for the pay ranges for the senior civil service in the pay structure set out in January 1995 in the White Paper, “Taking Forward Continuity and Change”. Under these arrangements, Departments will determine individual salaries within the ranges and will be able to reward the best performers, with a framework in which the overall pay bill is expected to fall by some 7 per cent. next year as staff numbers are reduced;
    2. increases for senior military officers in the range 3.9 to 5.6 per cent. averaging 4.6 per cent. consistent with the AFPRB recommendations;
    3. increases of 3.9 per cent. for the judiciary.

    This is a complex set of recommendations covering a number of different issues that have been addressed in detail by the review bodies in preparing their reports. The Government have said that they will normally accept review body recommendations, and do not intend to reject them on this occasion. Nevertheless, if this year’s recommendations were implemented as they stand, from the due date, they would represent a marked step up in the level of pay settlements in the public sector, compared with settlements over the past year, and a significant charge on public expenditure programmes.

    Accordingly, the Government intend to stage their introduction and propose that in most cases the settlements to be paid with effect from 1 April should be 1 percentage point less than the review body recommendations, the balance to be paid later this year on 1 December. This meets the requirements on affordability and the approach to public sector pay, while retaining the pattern of increases recommended by the review bodies.

    Staging arrangements will also extend to the awards that Departments will determine for the senior civil service within the framework set by the SSRB recommendations.

    The Government have, however, decided that it would not be appropriate to apply this general arrangement to the recommendations for nurses and other staff covered by the NPRB.

    The following table summarises the main pay recommendations of the review bodies.

    Main pay recommendations Pay bill costs

    percentage £ million percentage

    AFPRB–Armed forces 3.7-4.3(4) 211 3.8

    DDRB–Doctors and dentists 3.8-6.8 245 4.4

    NPRB–Nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions Allied to medicine (5) — —

    STRB–School teachers 3.75 421 3.8

    SSRB Senior salaries

    Senior civil service (6) — —

    Senior military 3.9-5.6 1 4.6

    Judiciary 3.9 6 3.9

    (4) Includes ½ per cent. increase in the X factor which reflects the special demands of military compared with civilian life. AFPRB has also recommended an additional 1 per cent. on pay as part of a staged pensions-related adjustment.

    (5) To be determined in local pay negotiations but with a guaranteed 2 per cent. increase in national pay rates.

    (6) Recommendations for the senior civil service affect the pay framework within which Departments will set individual pay rates.

     

    Crime Statistics

    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February, Official Report, column 1120-21, if he will list the years since 1966 when crime fell.

    The Prime Minister: Between June 1993 and June 1995 there were 572,000 fewer crimes recorded than in the preceding two years–the largest fall since records began last century.

    Complete year figures are available up to the end of 1994. Since 1966 recorded crime in England and Wales has fallen in the following years:

    1973, 1978, 1979, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1994.

     

    Nuclear Test Veterans

    Dr. David Clark: To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken to pay compensation to (a) British and (b) Australian nuclear test veterans from the 1950s.

    The Prime Minister: In studies carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board of over 20,000 British nuclear test veterans, the incidence of death and cancer has been less than among the general public in the same age groups, and no higher than among a matched control group These facts do not sustain a case for compensation. The handling of claims in Australia is a matter for the Government of Australia.

     

    Professor al-Masari

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the information (a) made available to the courts about the case of Professor al-Masari and (b) passed to the Government of Dominica about Professor al-Masari; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: No. It is not my normal practice to do so.

  • PMQT – 8 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

    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. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative and Unionist party will always stand four-square behind the Union? Is it not the case that the British constitution has evolved over centuries, but that it could take a matter of months for a meddling, middle-class public school boy to undermine or even destroy it?

    The Prime Minister: We have made some evolutionary changes to the constitution in recent years, and I believe that there is scope for more evolutionary change in the years ahead. I do not believe that large-scale changes that would significantly alter the face of the United Kingdom and the Union as we know it are in the interests of the United Kingdom. Frankly, I believe that many of the plans that have been put forward do not address the difficulties.

    I see no reason why Scotland should be taxed more highly than the rest of the United Kingdom. Neither do I see any reason why Scottish Members should vote on Scottish matters that English Members cannot vote on, and then vote in the House on the same matters as they affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those issues need very careful examination. I hope that they will receive that careful examination, as they clearly have not had it yet.

    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent newspaper article about education by the Labour transport spokesman, which I shall quote–[Interruption.]–which I shall paraphrase. It refers to public schools producing more social cripples than any other form of education devised by man. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that is yet another veiled attack on the Labour leader and some of his Front-Bench colleagues, or is it simply another example of hypocrisy?

    The Prime Minister: I feel as though I am in an air raid shelter on this occasion, speaking as a grammar school boy. My hon. Friend should not be too hard on the hon. Member concerned. I think that Labour Members are required to put their children down for private school these days so that they can remain in the vanguard of Labour education policy.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Scott inquiry was entirely fairly conducted and that no criticism can or should be made of its processes or procedures?

    The Prime Minister: As I said in the House on a previous occasion:

    “I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have confidence that he will do so”–

    and has done so–

    “thoroughly.”

    Mr. Blair: I must press the Prime Minister on that because he will know that, in the past few days, there has been a concerted attempt to rubbish the inquiry. Will he say unequivocally that he accepts that it was entirely fairly conducted?

    The Prime Minister: I just said to the right hon. Gentleman:

    “I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have every confidence that he will do so”–

    and has done so–

    “thoroughly.”

    The right hon. Gentleman is saying that neither he nor anybody else can comment fairly on the Scott report until people have had the opportunity to study it. I agree with that point, but it also applies to the past three years. It applies to the fact that the Opposition have made crude and blatant smears throughout those past three years without having had the evidence of the Scott report before them. If, in his question, the right hon. Gentleman was making it clear that he believes that those were unjustified attacks without any evidence, I would be pleased for him to withdraw them now and make it clear that he will repudiate them.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister is not even prepared to say whether the report is fairly conducted. When he says that we should await the findings of the report, let me remind him that he and his Ministers will have had the report for eight days, that four Government Departments have units working on it and that we are to get it a few hours before publication. I am not asking him to comment on its findings, but on whether it was fairly conducted. He set up the inquiry. He chose Sir Richard Scott. Is he now prepared to state that he is confident that it was fairly conducted? If he does not say that, the final vestiges of respect will be removed from the Government.

    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman had carefully prepared his third soundbite before my first answer, and I am tempted to refer him to the two answers I have just given. I made it clear that

    “I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have confidence that he will do so”–

    and has done so–

    “thoroughly.”–[Official Report, 6 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 15.]

    I have now said that three times. Will the right hon. Gentleman now stop preparing his soundbites in advance and listen to my answers before he prepares his questions?

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Illsley: Why cannot the Prime Minister publish such an important document as the report of the Scott inquiry a few days before the statement on it next week so that the Opposition, and indeed the House, can be properly informed? Is it not disgraceful that a few Conservative Members will have had that report for eight days, but the rest of the House will receive it on the day of the statement?

    The Prime Minister: We plan to follow the precedents for a weighty report of this nature, and to permit Opposition spokesmen to see the report several hours before the statement is made. Of course, the House will also wish to study and comment on the report. That is why we propose to find time in Government time for an early debate on the report a few days after the statement has been made, once the whole House has had the opportunity to study the report and comment on it on the basis of detail, not of innuendo and smear, which has been the nature of the comments thus far from a number of Opposition Members.

    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House of Lords provides a useful and important advisory service for this country at very little cost? It has no power to overrule or frustrate the will of the House of Commons. Has my right hon. Friend heard of the old phrase, “If it ain’t broke, don’t mend it”?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that this House should treat constitutional reform of any sort with care and consideration, and examine what the outcome of that reform might be before being committed to it. I do not believe that the reforms proposed to the House of Lords are relevant to the problems and opportunities facing this country over the next five to 10 years. It seems to me that the reform in question is irrelevant–and intended to be a spiteful, thoughtless irrelevance.

     

    Campbell Soups

    Q3. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit a Campbell Soups exhibition stand at a United Kingdom food trade fair.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister will be aware of the call for an international boycott of Campbell Soups and Fray Bentos products, arising out of the appalling decision by the company to close down the highly profitable Homepride plant in my constituency–having purchased it for £58.6 million only 11 weeks earlier. Are not the real stakeholders in Homepride not the greedy shareholders in America who do not give a damn about the people of Maryport, but the work force who have invested their lives in making that company a success and who are now being put on the scrap heap? Will the Prime Minister join the 341 Members of Parliament–a majority of this House–who have called on the company to reverse its decision?

    The Prime Minister: I realise the extent of the disappointment that must be felt at Maryport over the decision. I understand that Campbell’s has offered employees jobs at one of its five other plants–although, self-evidently, that will not be appropriate for many employees. I also understand the depth of the hon. Gentleman’s concern for his constituents, but I hope that he and everyone else will bear in mind the fact that Campbell’s has been in the United Kingdom for over 30 years. It employs more than 2,000 people here and has shown its commitment to the United Kingdom by investing more than £100 million here in the past 12 months. I would not wish to threaten and damage those investments, or the jobs that are safeguarded and are being created as a result of those investments.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Chidgey: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Social Security Secretary, who has described today’s proposed cuts of £1 billion in the social security budget as devastating?

    The Prime Minister: That is in no sense what my right hon. Friend has said about the outcome of the public expenditure round. The whole House will recall that, in recent weeks, I have been criticised by the Opposition for administrative costs being too high. Here we have a practical illustration of the Government seeking to cut administrative costs, in the interests of the taxpayer, to preserve the resources available for benefits–yet on that point the Opposition criticise me as well.

    The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind: does he criticise the Government for not cutting administrative costs or for making administrative savings? Even though he is a Liberal Democrat, he cannot have it both ways.

    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy to maintain that one is committed to the elimination of state subsidy and then to do the reverse? Do not the recent decisions by the Transport Commissioner show that the Labour party–whether old Labour or new Labour, in Westminster or in Brussels–is committed to state subsidy and to Spanish practices?

    The Prime Minister: The whole House will know of our concern about the Iberia decision. It is certainly not in the interests of the air travellers of Europe, and we have made that known to Commissioner Kinnock and to others.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Hoon: In a statement to the House about the setting up of the Scott inquiry, the Attorney-General stated that matters of form and procedure were a question for the learned judge. Why will not the Prime Minister condemn unequivocally those, such as Lord Howe, who have sought to impugn the integrity of the learned judge and to attack the contents of his report before publication?

    The Prime Minister: On attacks on the contents of the report, if anyone has predetermined what the contents of the report might be, it is the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and not my noble Friend Lord Howe.

    On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I refer him to what I said on 13 January 1994 at column 332.

    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of Lord Palmerston, who said that to be born British is like winning the lottery of life? Will my right hon. Friend now go further and say that to be born or to live in Milton Keynes is like winning the national lottery, and join me in welcoming the grant of £19 million to build what will undoubtedly be the best theatre outside London?

    The Prime Minister: There may be some challenges about the scheme being the best theatre, but I know that my hon. Friend is proud of the scheme and I congratulate him on it.

    As for being proud of being British, I just hope that we do not reach the situation where to live in Scotland is to lose the lottery of taxation because it has to face extra taxation and a tartan tax.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 February 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the criminal incidents since 1985, other than the blowing up of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, for which Her Majesty’s Government attribute responsibility to Libya.

    The Prime Minister: We believe that Libya was responsible for the murder of a number of Libyan dissidents, mainly in the late 1980s, including some in Europe, but none in Britain.

    We also believe that Libya may have been involved in other criminal incidents outside the UK, including the bombing of a UTA flight in September 1989. It would not be appropriate to provide further detail.

     

    Departmental Expenditure

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years (a) 1979-80, (b) 1989-90, (c) 1991-92, (d) 1993-94, (e) 1994-95 and (f) 1995-96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996-97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 January 1996]: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by (a) his Department, (b) his Department’s agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979-80, (ii) 1989-90, (iii) 1991-92, (iv) 1993-94, (v) 1994-95, (vi) 1995-96 and (vii) 1996-97.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 30 January 1996]: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department’s agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for (a) 1979-80, (b) 1989-90, (c) 1991-92, (d) 1993-94, (e) 1994-95, (f) 1995-96 and (g) 1996-97.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 30 January 1996]: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

    Mr. Robin Cook: To ask the Prime Minister which Minister (a) took the decision which set the terms of reference for the Scott inquiry, (b) took the decision to appoint Sir Richard Scott to head the inquiry and (c) took the decision to establish the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer Tuesday 6 February 1996]: The Government set up the inquiry, as I set out in my parliamentary answer on 16 November 1992, Official Report, column 74-75.

    Mr. Cook: To ask the Prime Minister if he will act upon recommendations made in Sir Richard Scott’s forthcoming report.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 February 1996]: The Government will consider carefully any recommendations made by Sir Richard Scott.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 February 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Parliamentary Private Secretaries

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister, if he will publish the current list of parliamentary private secretaries and the Ministers to whom each is attached.

    The Prime Minister: A comprehensive list is as follows:

    Parliamentary private secretaries (as at 5 February 1996)

    Minister Secretary

    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    Minister for Agriculture Mr. D. Hogg) Mr. G. Clifton-Brown

    Minister of State (Mr. T. Baldry) Mr. N. Evans

    Defence

    Secretary of State (Mr. M. Portillo) Mr. D. Amess

    Ministers of State (Mr. N. Soames and Mr. J. Arbuthnot) Mr. N. Hawkins

    Cabinet Office

    Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. M. Heseltine) and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. R. Freeman) Mr. S. Coe

    Education and Employment

    Secretary of State (Mrs. G. Shephard) Mr. A. Coombs

    Ministers of State (Mr. E. Forth and Lord Henley) Mr. J. Whittingdale

    Environment

    Secretary of State (Mr. J. Gummer) Mr. D. French

    Ministers of State (Mr. D. Curry, Lord Ferrers, Robert Jones) Mr. M. Banks

    Foreign Office

    Secretary of State (Mr. M. Rifkind) Mr. H. Bellingham

    Ministers of State (Mr. D. Davis, Mr. J. Hanley, Sir N. Bonsor) Mr. P. Atkinson

    Health

    Secretary of State (Mr. S. Dorrell) Mr. D. Faber

    Minister of State (Mr. G. Malone) Mr. N. Waterson

    Home Office

    Secretary of State (Mr. M. Howard) Mr. D. Lidington

    Ministers of State (Mr. D. Maclean, Baroness Blatch Mr. D. Evennett

    Minister of State (Miss A. Widdecombe) Dr. R. Spink

    Law Officers Department

    Attorney-General (Sir N. Lyell) and Solicitor-General (Sir D. Spencer) Mr. E. Garnier

    Minister without Portfolio (Mr. B. Mawhinney) Mr. A. Duncan

    National Heritage

    Secretary of State (Mrs. V. Bottomley) Mr. P. Ainsworth

    Minister of State (Mr. I. Sproat) Mr. A. Robathan

    Northern Ireland Office

    Secretary of State (Sir P. Mayhew) Mr. J. Cran

    Ministers of State (Sir J. Wheeler and Mr. M. Ancram) Mr. H. Elletson

    Prime Minister Mr. J. Ward

    The Lord McColl

    Privy Council Office

    Lord President and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. T. Newton) Mr. J. Couchman

    Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords (The Viscount Cranborne) Mr. J. Sykes

    Scottish Office

    Secretary of State (Mr. M. Forsyth) The Hon. B. Jenkin

    Social Security

    Secretary of State (Mr. P. Lilley) Mr. P. Merchant

    Ministers of State (Lord MacKay and Mr. A. Burt) Mr. D. Congdon

    Trade and Industry

    President of the Board (Mr. I. Lang) Mr. S. Coombs

    Minister of State (Mr. T. Eggar) Mr. P. Luff

    Ministers of State (Lord Fraser, Mr. A. Nelson) Mr. T. Devlin

    Transport

    Secretary of State (Sir G. Young) Dr. C. Goodson-Wicks

    Minister of State (Mr. J. Watts) Mr. T. Dicks

    Treasury

    Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. K. Clarke) Mr. P. Butler

    Chief Secretary (Mr. W. Waldergrave) Mr. M. Robinson

    Welsh Office

    Secretary of State (Mr. W. Hague) Ms J. Lait

     

    Nolan Committee

    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will refer to the Nolan Committee the issue of the financial links of people who are being considered for appointment as ambassadors.

    The Prime Minister: There is no need to do so. This is already covered by the terms of reference.

     

    Local Authorities (Equity Portfolios)

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February Official Report, column 1121, on the purchase by local authorities of shares in privatised companies, what duties are owed by councils and their advisers to council tax payers which constrain their ability to build very unbalanced portfolios, with special reference excluding certain classes of equities.

    The Prime Minister: Local authorities are free to invest their funds how they choose, subject to their general duty of prudence and other matters set out in professional guidance issued by the accounting bodies. Where authorities place their general funds in investments which are not approved under regulations, receipts from the disposal of those investments are treated as capital receipts. Local authorities’ use of capital receipts is controlled through the capital finance system.

     

    Libya (Sanctions)

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 January, Official Report, column 46, what factors led to Her Majesty’s Government being unable to estimate the cost to British trade of sanctions against Libya; and if he will make it his policy to implement structures to allow such estimates to be made in situations where sanctions are imposed in the future.

    The Prime Minister: It is not possible to distinguish which elements in the overall fall in British exports to Libya over the past five years are attributable to the UN sanctions and which other factors such as the decline of the Libyan economy and lower oil prices.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

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

  • PMQT – 6 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

    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. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the considerable strength of the economy throughout the country, including Scotland, is based in large measure on reduced burdens on business? During his busy day yesterday, did he have the opportunity to–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Waterson: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to read reports in Scottish newspapers that two different spokesmen had said diametrically different things about whether extra public spending would be required to carry out Labour’s plans for Scotland?

    The Prime Minister: I am not remotely surprised to hear that Opposition Members say different things about their devolution policy. They have not yet thought through that policy; it is full of holes and full of damage. We said from the outset that a Scottish Assembly would require increased taxation and increased public expenditure. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has, I think, referred to that as utter rubbish. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has confirmed that that is indeed the case and that taxes will go up–a tartan tax of £6 per week initially, but undoubtedly more later. Another instance of Labour saying one thing and doing another.

    Mr. Blair: When customer complaints to British Gas have doubled and the company has been forced to split into two today because of huge losses on gas contracts, does the Prime Minister think that the leaving package of the chief executive–a £4 million pension fund, an annual income of £250,000 a year and £120,000 in consultancy fees–is justified?

    The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, the company has split into two to increase competition, which I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have liked. As for the package that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, that, in the private sector, is a matter for the shareholders. As those shareholders include the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes it up with the union. If the shareholders are unhappy with the arrangements, no doubt they will pursue the matter. If he does not know how to get the RMT on his side, he can ask the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is sponsored by it.

    Mr. Blair: Do we take it from that answer that the Prime Minister recognises no responsibility at all on the part of Government? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: Two years ago the Prime Minister told us that he found those excesses distasteful, and they have grown since then. He then told us to wait for the Greenbury committee, and the excesses continued to grow. We have had Greenbury and nothing has happened. When will the Prime Minister act in the public interest to make those privatised utilities serve the public and not a small group at the top?

    The Prime Minister: A moment ago, I explained to the right hon. Gentleman that he and one of his hon. Friends were saying different things. We have it again here. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the Government should not attempt to sit in the boardroom in a metaphysical sense. One of his hon. Friends said:

    “We believe that people should be rewarded for a performance, whether in the form of salary or the granting of share options”.

    That person, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)–a shadow Treasury spokesman–continued:

    “It is not for me to spell out the benchmarks of success”.

    The right hon. Gentleman is once again playing the politics of envy. [Interruption.] Let me be a moment. He loathes privatisation, he loathes private ownership and all that he has had to say about private ownership and a new Labour party is exposed every time that he takes that line.

    Mr. Blair: With all due respect to the Prime Minister, can he not see the difference between people operating within a highly competitive market and the privatised utilities operating monopoly services? Can there be any more telling expression of Conservative values than the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday condoning late payment to small companies while today condoning the excesses in the privatised utilities? One group of hard-working people is told to wait for its money and the other group is given by the Government a licence to print it.

    The Prime Minister: Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman the benefits of privatisation for millions of people who happen to be consumers. Gas prices have fallen by more than 20 per cent. since privatisation. Potential new suppliers are offering price reductions of 15 to 20 per cent. in the south-west. Personally, I believe that we need

    “the enterprise of the market and the rigours of competition”.

    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that, because that is the Labour party’s new clause IV, which he pushed through last year. As ever, Labour’s constitution says one thing and Labour Members do another.

    Mr. Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the exceptional courage of 21-year-old Fleur Lombard who came from the High Peak and who lost her life at the weekend in the course of her work as a firefighter? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is great scope for a scheme of rewards to recognise the contributions made by young people in all walks of life, whether they have shown great courage–as in Fleur’s case–or they have made a contribution to others and to society? Will he consider whether such a scheme could be backed by the Government?

    The Prime Minister: I will of course consider the matter. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our sympathy to the family of Fleur and those of the other firefighters who have lost their lives in service. There is no doubt that such incidents underline the selfless bravery of the fire service. On this occasion, a young lady lost her life while seeking to save the lives of other people. I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister think that it is right to delay payment on other people’s bills and to use their money to gain interest for oneself? Having done that, does he think it wise to then boast about it?

    The Prime Minister: Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman–

    Mr. Skinner: Can’t pay, won’t pay.

    The Prime Minister: That reminds me of what the trade unions say about their control over the Labour party.

    They say that unless they maintain that control, they will not pay for the Labour party, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for reminding me of that.

    On the substantive question, the Government–not least my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, when he was President of the Board of Trade–have done a great deal to encourage prompt payment. My right hon. Friend encouraged the establishment of the CBI’s prompt payment code. We required Government payments to comply with the code and we improved procedures in the small claims courts. We are making companies disclose their payments rapidly. Those are the practical measures that we are taking.

    Mr. William Powell: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the remarks of the Prime Minister of Belgium, delivered at Davos at the weekend, to the effect that, if the single currency does not proceed in 1999, the single market will collapse? Is it not the case that Belgium has not the slightest chance of meeting the Maastricht criteria as its general Government gross debt is more than twice the threshold level set down in the Maastricht treaty? Does my right hon. Friend believe that there is a secret agenda to proceed with the single currency despite the treaty of Maastricht? Do not Mr. Dehaene’s remarks vindicate my right hon. Friend’s decision to veto Mr. Dehaene as President of the European Commission?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly do not believe that the single market would be at risk if the single currency did not proceed in 1999 or at any other time in the future. I do not think that anyone can seriously dispute that, at the moment, there are uncertainties about the timetable. No one can say with absolute certainty which countries might qualify for stage 3 if it goes ahead in 1999. What is relevant is that we must address the key issues about how stage 3 would work, and I have raised that point at successive European Councils. Were it to proceed without the right economic background, there is no doubt that it would be a disaster, not just for the countries taking part, but for all the countries of the European Union.

     

    Q2. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Dowd: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his condemnation of late payment as a serious threat to the very survival of many small firms, or does he side with the Deputy Prime Minister, who advocates becoming skilful at keeping creditors away? Is not that latter approach a kick in the teeth for millions of honest small businesses? Which one does the Prime Minister support? May we have a straight answer?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have been dozing, because a few moments ago I set out a range of measures that the Government have introduced to encourage prompt payment, some of them initiated by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

    Mr. Booth: As last week we all heard the German Chancellor say that integration would be a matter of war and peace in the 21st century, will the Prime Minister tell Herr Kohl that integration and federation forced on countries and peoples that are free, against their will, often result in civil war? Where is Yugoslavia now? Will my right hon. Friend tell Chancellor Kohl that this country takes it ill when we hear loose talk of war from Germany?

    The Prime Minister: The whole House recognises the importance of examining very carefully what criteria there might be for any countries that decide to move ahead to stage 3. We need to look at what has been achieved in the European Union over the past 30 years or so and to ensure that that is not imperilled by moves to other advanced changes for which the European Union is not yet ready. That needs to be a pragmatic debate on whether the economic circumstances are right for movement and on what the implications would be, both in the short term and in the long term, for the countries that might be in a single currency and for those that might not be.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing feeling that the country is being run for and by a narrow magic circle of privileged people? In that regard, will he tell the House how it is that former Eton toff Darius Guppy can negotiate his sentence and negotiate his way out of prison–a prison that he likened to his school, Eton? How is it that top rail managers can fail to pay rail ticket fares yet not suffer any penalty? How is it that Cedric Brown can have a massive windfall pay-off? Is it not a case of, “It’s the rich what gets the pleasure and the poor what gets the blame”?

    The Prime Minister: That was an exceedingly well worked pay-off line by the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that the build-up merited it. This is the first time in my life that I have been told that I am part of a magic circle, and I do not think that I like it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Prime Minister’s Question Time

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since 9 June 1995 when answers given at Prime Minister’s Question Time were subsequently corrected or otherwise qualified.

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

     

    Crime Rates

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 30 January, Official Report, column 773, if he will set out the basis of his statement that crime is falling for the first time in 40 years.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 1 February 1996, Official Report, columns 1120-21.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Positive about Disabled People Symbol

    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list for his Department and each of the agencies for which he is responsible if it uses the Employment Service’s positive about disabled people symbol for (a) external recruitment and (b) internal recruitment and promotion.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 1 February.

     

    Honours (Public Nominations)

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons have been (a) created knight or dame and (b) elevated to the peerage following nomination by members of the public since April 1992.

    The Prime Minister: It is not normal practice to reveal the sources of nomination for particular levels of award. Overall, nearly a third of awards have been supported by members of the public. The bulk of the remainder are recommended from a variety of official sources, for example health and education authorities.

     

    Jewellery

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister what items of jewellery given to previous Prime Ministers are kept on the official inventory at 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister: Gifts received by Ministers in their official capacity are dealt with in accordance with the procedures set out in “Questions of Procedures for Ministers”. The details are not made public.

     

    Departmental Expenditure

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants for each of the years (a) 1979-80, (b) 1989-90, (c) 1991-92, (d) 1993-94, (e) 1994-95 and (f) 1995-96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996-97; and if he will estimate the savings accruing to his Department from the use of consultants in each of these years.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 January 1996]: For these purposes 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 1 February Official Report, column 911.

     

    Departmental Property

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department and his Department’s agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for (a) 1979-80, (b) 1989-90, (c) 1991-92, (d) 1993-94, (e) 1994-95, (f) 1995-96 and (g) 1996-97.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 30 January 1996]: For these purposes 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 1 February Official Report, column 912.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Antigua and Barbuda

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the authorities of (a) Antigua and (b) Barbuda to prohibit the right of public access to beaches on these islands.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 9 January, Official Report, column 16, to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) if he will place in the Library the evidence which he claims supports the charges against two accused Libyans in respect of the destruction of Pan Am 103 in 1988.

    The Prime Minister: No. Details of the evidence cannot be released as this would prejudice the outcome of a trial.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

    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.

     

    St. David’s Day

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlie his Department’s decision not to declare St. David’s day a bank holiday in Wales.

    The Prime Minister: Successive Governments have kept the pattern of bank holidays in the United Kingdom under review. The introduction of any additional bank holiday must take account of the potential costs and disruption to industry. To declare St. David’s day a bank holiday in Wales would create cost and disruption to businesses both in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

     

    Mitchell Report

    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister when a copy of his statement on the Mitchell report was communicated to the Irish Taoiseach; at what time it was (a) sent and (b) received; and what response he received from the Irish Government before to his statement to the House on 24 January.

    The Prime Minister: A copy of the text of my statement was faxed to the Taoiseach’s office at about 2 o’clock on 24 January. No response from the Irish Government reached me before I made my statement to the House.

     

    Departmental Costs

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to (a) his Department,(b) his Department’s agencies and (c) his Department’s non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979-80, (ii) 1989-90, (iii) 1991-92, (iv) 1993-94, (v) 1994-95, (vi) 1995-96 and (vii) 1996-97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c).

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 January 1996]: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  • PMQT – 1 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

    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.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming another successful year for the Manor House private hospital, which is funded by the Transport and General Workers Union and other unions to provide private health care for their members? In view of the Labour party’s long-term opposition to private health care, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a classic case of the Labour movement saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a fascinating point. I think that he mentioned the Transport and General Workers Union. It sponsors many prominent hon. Members, so they will certainly be familiar with its activities. I was not aware of the case my hon. Friend raises, but if it is true it certainly calls into question the deep and apparently sincere hostility of so many Opposition Members to the private sector of medicine that they have set out for so many years. It is surprising that they seem keen to use the private sector, but are keen to condemn it.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps I could ask the Prime Minister about the national health service. Can he confirm the figures of the Consultants Association and the Audit Commission that show that, under his Prime Ministership, within the past five years, the costs of administration have doubled? Given today’s news about the pay awards to top administrators, does not the Prime Minister think that the Secretary of State for Health should say clearly to the trust boards that, in future, the average pay rises for managers should be very similar to those for doctors and nurses?

    The Prime Minister: I cannot confirm the detailed figures that have been released–I have no reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about them, but I cannot immediately confirm them. The right hon. Gentleman should take great care before he returns to his old line of attacking management in the national health service and its costs.

    Mr. Skinner: Why?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks why. I shall give him several reasons. First, because that is precisely what the Socialist Health Association told him not to do. Secondly,

    “I don’t think it’s really in question any more that the NHS has been under-managed in the past”.

    [Hon. Members: “Undermanaged?] I am sorry that Opposition Members scoff–those are not my words but those of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) when she was Labour’s health spokesman. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”]

    Of course one would wish to ensure a fair division of pay among all people in the health service. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the present Government, under my Prime Ministership, gave the nurses a pay review body, whose recommendations we have always honoured.

    Mr. Blair: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the Secretary of State to do as I ask? [Interruption.] “No,” say Conservative Members, but I was quoting the words of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] Instead of the Prime Minister saying things that are in his folder and my putting things to him, will he answer the basic question? Why have administrative costs increased by more than £1 billion a year in the past five years–when the number of nurses is falling, when patients are on trolleys and when there is a shortage of acute beds? The question that the Prime Minister must answer is, why is the national health service safe in the hands of a Government who place administrators before nurses?

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is mistaken on almost every point that he puts to me, but let me deal directly with his point about management costs. It is fair to raise the important issue of management costs. If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about management costs, and I am sure that he is sincere in what he says about them–[Hon. Members: “Oh.”]–can he explain why he does not support the 8 per cent. cut of administrative costs next year that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health proposes? The right hon. Gentleman does not support that. Can he explain why he voted against the abolition of regional health authorities, which saved a whole tier of management?

    We have provided the resources for more medical staff and for the treatment of 1.5 million extra patients. A few years ago, it was impossible to check properly how resources were used because there was no proper management in the national health service. As the right hon. Member for Derby, South said, that had to be put right. We have put it right. Now that we have put it right, the right hon. Gentleman criticises it.

    Mr. Blair: Let us debate at least on the basis of facts. Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that the extra costs are more than £1 billion a year? If they are, instead of spending that money on bureaucrats, administrators, company cars and pen-pushers, why does he not spend it on nurses, doctors, patients and beds?

    The Prime Minister: The money is being spent on patients. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be able to grasp that point. To spend it on patients, it is necessary to do what we have been doing–put resources into medical care and manage them so that money is available for medical care. Until the right hon. Gentleman understands that, he will continue to ask me questions that are, literally, senseless. I suggest that he examines the matter again with the right hon. Member for Derby, South, who understood those matters when she was Labour’s health spokesman, but who obviously disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman–which may well be why she has almost disappeared from public view in recent months.

     

    Q2. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Jenkin: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that boot camps are for the punishment of young offenders, humanely but firmly? May I urge my right hon. Friend to make use of the military corrective training centre at Colchester garrison and ignore the blandishments and objections of Liberal Democrat and Labour Colchester councillors, who once again demonstrate that the Opposition parties are the villain’s friend?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I shall certainly examine his suggestion. We hear much from the Opposition parties about their approach to crime, and in some cases about how tough it is. We do not see it at a national level and, if my hon. Friend is correct–I have no reason to doubt that he is–those parties clearly take the same inadequate approach at local level as we have seen them take at national level.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Hain: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House on Tuesday that the British economy is now the best in the western world, when in fact seven European countries are growing faster? Does he also recall telling the House that crime in Britain is falling for the first time for 40 years, when in fact crime fell in 1977 and 1978, under Labour? Was he deliberately misleading the House or just reverting to his old, routine incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right on crime figures, but I understated what I might have said to the House. The fall is not the first for 40 years–the hon. Gentleman is right about that–but the largest fall in crime since records began 100 years ago. It was achieved against the opposition of the hon. Gentleman and many other Opposition Members to almost every measure that we have brought forward in recent years.

    The hon. Gentleman referred also to the economy. I said that we have the best performing economy in western Europe, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should look at exactly what I said. The facts are that we have the lowest level of inflation for 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest unemployment of any major European country and the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years. We are number one in Europe for foreign investment and we export more per person than Japan or the United States. Which European country can match that record?

     

    Q4. Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that privatised companies are a very attractive proposition to investors? Is he aware of a pamphlet issued recently by a Labour Member of the European Parliament that shows that nearly £1 billion has been invested in privatised companies by Labour local authorities, including Southwark, Lewisham and Islington? Is not that yet another example of Labour hypocrisy? They opposed privatisation, but now they profit from it.

    The Prime Minister: I have seen the brochure and I commend it to hon. Members. It was written by a Labour Member of the European Parliament and has a foreword by the leader of the Labour Members of the European Parliament. Its case is set out as my hon. Friend claims. I am delighted to welcome Islington, Lewisham and Southwark to the stockbroker belt, but it strikes me as odd that the Opposition opposed privatisation, they fight privatisation in the House, they go on television to attack privatisation, they attack the management of privatisation, and yet they buy shares in privatised companies and enjoy profits from them. As usual, they are saying one thing and doing another.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hardy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Hardy: How does the Prime Minister think the British people will recall his widely publicised promises in the 1992 general election campaign to cut taxes year after year, given that he then increased them by more than at any other time in British history? Is not that the most glaring example of saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that taxes are now going back on a downward trend. He might like to hear some examples of saying one thing and doing another. The Opposition are claiming that they will not put taxes up; but what did the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) say some time ago?

    “Well, I would say is this: that if the Chancellor, to raise money to do things, did raise the tax level on the top rate from 40 to 50 per cent., we would not oppose it”.

    That is not what the Leader of the Opposition says. Of course, the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is temporarily absent–[Hon. Members: “Where is he?”] I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman is–he has decided to heckle someone else this afternoon. He said, however, that Labour

    “should not follow the Government down the road of reducing the basic rate of tax”.

    How does that square with the promises made by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about taxation?

     

    Q6. Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme provides an excellent opportunity for thousands of children? Is it not another example of hypocrisy and double standards that the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition health spokesman have benefited from the excellent facilities in private education, yet wish to do away with the scheme?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. The assisted places scheme is another policy that increases choice and opportunity, particularly for people on modest incomes. That is why we are committed to doubling the scheme.

    The Labour party is opposed to the scheme–or at least that is what I thought until the Labour leader gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) an assisted place in the shadow Cabinet.

    Mr. Alfred Morris: When does the Prime Minister expect to be able to respond to the motion on Members’ and Ministers’ pay that stands in my name and in those of 300 other right hon. and hon. Members? Meanwhile is there any comment he can offer the House on the subject today?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there needs to be a new mechanism for determining Members’ pay for the future, as the existing link to civil service pay grades disappears following civil service restructuring. That has been the case for some time. We have been considering how to take the matter forward. Of course we shall take account of the views expressed by the House in the early-day motion standing in the right hon. Gentleman’s name. We have not concluded our consideration and consultations. As soon as we have, we shall bring our conclusions to the House.