The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • Mr Major’s Opening Address to the London Peace Implementation Conference on Bosnia – 4 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening address to the London Peace Implementation Conference on Bosnia, held at Lancaster House in London on Wednesday 4th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Could I begin by extending a warm welcome to the fifty-six delegations of the Peace Implementation Council assembled here today.

    This is the fourth time in as many years that I have had the pleasure of welcoming many of you to London for a key international conference on the future of Bosnia.

    So to all of you who are returning, it is excellent to see you again. And to those of you here for the first time, it is very good to have you here.

    When we last met here in Lancaster House a year ago – for the first ever session of the Peace Implementation Council – the conflict in Bosnia had just ended. It had claimed over 200,000 lives; and it had forced more than two million people to flee their homes.

    At that meeting, we set ourselves the task of ensuring that the guns remained silent. And we embarked on the massive task of implementing the peace settlement and rebuilding a shattered nation.

    One year on, we should not understate the achievements:

    – the guns have stayed silent. The armies have disengaged and have returned to barracks. Heavy weapons have been put in cantonments;

    – national, entity and cantonal elections have been held;

    – reconstruction has begun, with hundreds of millions of dollars spent over the last twelve months;

    – a quarter of a million refugees have returned to their homes;

    – Sarajevo, for so long a city under siege and a symbol of the Bosnian war, has been transformed;

    – the new Presidency has begun its work and agreement has been reached on the structure of the Council of Ministers.

    This is a substantial record.

    It would be easy to claim that we should have done better, that more refugees should have returned, or that the new central institutions are not yet working.

    But that would be to undervalue how much has been achieved. And it would fail to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of so many different organisations and individuals over the last year:

    – the drafters of the Peace Agreement who, under American leadership and with Contact Group support, drove the negotiations to a successful conclusion;

    – the 60,000 strong NATO-led implementation force, drawn from over thirty nations, which represents the biggest such effort that NATO has ever undertaken. It proved itself a success – and has provided an historic turning point in NATO-Russia co-operation;

    – the OSCE, which has organised elections involving about two million people;

    – the World Bank and European Commission which have together led the reconstruction effort;

    – the 1,500 plus members of the International Police Task Force who have been active throughout Bosnia, monitoring, training and improving police standards;

    – and the UNHCR, who have been taking forward the difficult and complex task of refugee return.

    I should like to pay a particular tribute to Carl Bildt, who as High Representative, has presided over the civilian side of peace implementation with exceptional energy and dedication, and formidable political skills. He has cajoled the international community and Bosnia’s leaders in equal part, driving forward the peace process.

    Could I therefore say to you, Carl, on behalf of all at this Conference, how much we have admired and appreciated your efforts over the last 12 months. No-one could have done more than you to consolidate peace in Bosnia: and we all welcome your agreement to stay on for a few months into 1997.

    Last month’s meeting in Paris set the framework for action to consolidate peace in Bosnia over the next two years. Today’s conference focuses in on the next 12 months:

    – on the priorities for Bosnia’s leaders;

    – and on the tasks and commitments of the international community.

    Just before coming here, I was glad to have the opportunity of a talk with Bosnia’s new Presidency. I would like to underline to this wider audience a little of what I have just said privately.

    None of us at this conference underestimate the task you face. You are rebuilding a nation, only a few months after a bitter war, with the wounds and divisions not yet healed.

    But you were elected by the Bosnian people as their investment in and commitment to a brighter future.

    They have placed their trust in you.

    They want you to help them restore their homes, reunite their families and recreate the communities in which they once lived in peace.

    And they want, above all, to be sure that the war which disfigured Bosnia’s past will never return.

    This is a heavy responsibility. And none of it will be easy:

    – it will require difficult decisions, difficult compromises, difficult concessions;

    – it will require the statesmanship to put the wider interests of your people above short-term or factional concerns;

    – and it will require concentration on the substance – on the establishment of your Council of Ministers and of your Central Bank for instance – not on the trivia of protocol.

    Over 50 states and international institutions have come to London with one objective in mind: to decide how we can best help you in the future.

    We are united in our wish to see Bosnia and Herzegovina succeed, so that you are able to assume in full your rightful place in Europe. The UK has devoted huge resources, both financial and human, to Bosnia over the last few years. We are now planning, with our allies and partners, to maintain troops on Bosnian soil into 1998.

    I am sure I am not alone in saying that a peaceful and secure future for Bosnia is a key foreign policy objective – and that our relations with Bosnia’s neighbours will be conditioned by their support for this objective.

    But the international community’s efforts in themselves will not be enough. There has to be a real commitment to peace and reconciliation within Bosnia.

    And as representatives of the different communities, the people of Bosnia and the international community look to you to lead the way.

    What precisely do we look for? The recent agreement on the structure of the Council of Ministers represents excellent and very welcome progress. I know that you are working to nominate individuals to their Ministerial posts as soon as possible. It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of your establishing quickly a fully-functioning government with which the international community can deal.

    Economic regeneration also has to be a key priority.

    In 1996, the international community took the lead in kick-starting the economy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Dedicated efforts by thousands of technical experts, NGOs and IFOR soldiers have restored some of the basic infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of people will benefit from the return of electricity this winter. Thousands of children have restarted their education.

    But there is a limit to what the international community can do.

    It is most important that next year, Bosnia and Herzegovina should accept the primary responsibility for your own economic development. Judging by my own visits, at least, what ordinary people want more than anything else – there as elsewhere – are jobs and a decent standard of living. These modest aspirations can only be achieved by establishing effective institutions and sound, market-based economic policies.

    But such policies can only work if people, goods and capital move freely throughout the country. There will be no economic revival while a businessman in Banja Luka cannot pick up the telephone and call Sarajevo.

    Moreover, without the right legal framework, the inward investment so crucial to economic recovery will tend to stay away.

    The international financial institutions stand ready to help. The international community will continue to provide support. But we look to you to take the lead:

    – to set up the Central Bank;

    – to pass the necessary legislation;

    – and to recognise that in today’s open trading environment, economic cooperation is not an option but a necessity.

    We look forward to 1997 also being the year in which large numbers of refugees start to return. In 1996, we achieved a great deal for those already living in Bosnia. But there are hundreds of thousands more in neighbouring states or further afield, who want to return but are unable to do so. We must address their fears and problems.

    We need a comprehensive approach, which recognises the linkages between the various refugee groups in the region.

    And we need to create conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina in which refugees feel safe to return. This means:

    – full respect for human rights;

    – police forces working within international democratic policing standards;

    – and genuine freedom of movement. One year on from the signature of the Peace Agreement, ordinary Bosnians are still afraid to cross the line between the two entities. This cannot continue.

    I will identify one further priority among the many for 1997. This is full implementation of the arms control commitments in the Peace Agreement, within the agreed deadlines.

    The achievement of a sensible balance in armaments in the region is self-evidently necessary for future peace and security. Everyone recognises this: that is why it was agreed at Dayton.

    But follow-up has been less than whole-hearted. This cannot be allowed to slip. The international community is determined to maintain pressure on this issue until we have achieved our objectives.

    How can the London Conference help with these priorities?

    The aim in the next day and a half is to have a detailed debate on all aspects of peace implementation, drawing on the extensive expertise of those around this table.

    I suggest that we need to identify precise, practical, tasks and targets in all areas, and commit ourselves to accomplishing them.

    So, within the framework of the Peace Agreement, we shall be looking for a series of detailed political undertakings from Bosnia’s leaders. We hope that the representatives of the Entities at this meeting will be ready to make commitments on areas within Entity competence.

    The international community will in turn undertake to provide substantial further help and resources, both human and financial. But this international help will be conditional on the willingness within Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement all aspects of the Peace Agreement.

    If we can work together to meet these shared goals over the next 12 months, we shall have taken a crucial and irreversible step towards securing Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future, as a nation able to stand by itself, and to look after its own affairs.

    Later in this conference, we will hear from Hans Van den Broek about the European Union’s support for the peace process.

    This is a key aspect, because Bosnia and Herzegovina’s destiny lies in Europe. All of us look forward to the day when Bosnia and Herzegovina can take its place in European structures and institutions as a successful independent nation based upon the principles and values that we all support.

    Much must happen before this vision can be realised. But if we can achieve our objectives for this conference – and then, crucially, carry them through on the ground over the next twelve months – we shall have laid solid foundations for a peaceful and prosperous future for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    I wish you well in your deliberations.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 December 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Cabinet Papers

    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister how many Cabinet papers were submitted to the full Cabinet in each year from 1991 to 1995.

    The Prime Minister: Details relating to proceedings of Cabinet and Cabinet Committees are not published.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

    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.

     

    Cabinet Ministers

    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister how many former Cabinet Ministers receive (a) police protection and (b) at what cost to public funds.

    The Prime Minister: For security reasons it is established policy that information of this kind is not published.

  • PMQT – 3 December 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

    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. Butler: What advice can my right hon. Friend give to the many constituents of mine and of other hon. Members who are excellently served by innovative and increasingly comprehensive GP fundholders, in the light of Labour’s repeated pledge to destroy such practices?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the helpful changes that have been made to the health service over recent years. More than 4 million extra patients have been treated since 1979–a million since the reforms began. There is no doubt that the reforms, including GP fundholding, have been an enormous success. I very much regret that the Labour party cannot accept what is successful and, instead, threaten it.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister say clearly, without any qualification, that his statement of 3 April on behalf of the Government that at the next election he will not rule out the option of joining a single currency in the next Parliament, remains unequivocally the position of the Government?

    The Prime Minister: That remains unequivocally the position of the Government.

    Mr. Blair: It is right to give the Prime Minister credit for such a clear reply. Let us see whether we can get another little clear reply. Can he tidy up one small loose end? Does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement on the radio at lunchtime, when he said of that position:

    “We are not going to change our position in the election campaign or in this Parliament”?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend said that; that is our position.

    Sir Michael Spicer: The assurances gained by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Brussels yesterday are to be warmly welcomed. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is now important that those assurances are written into the treaty of Rome, given the experiences that we have had with the European Court of Justice and the way in which it has interpreted the treaty of Rome? Will he press for such amendments at the Dublin summit?

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said to the House the other day, the elements of the stability pact would not affect the United Kingdom unless we were part of stage 3 of economic and monetary union. As my right hon. and learned Friend will tell the House in his statement shortly, our position is legally protected under the treaty, but we intend to ensure that the detailed regulations leave no room for ambiguity.

    Mr. Ashdown: Ordinary people in Britain will pay more tax under the Conservatives at the next election than they paid under the Conservatives at the last election. The Treasury figures show that, the Treasury’s Red Book confirms it and Treasury Ministers admit it. Why is the Prime Minister the only person left in Britain denying it?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House and I shall explain gently to him how. If one earns more, one pays more tax. That is certainly true but, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary made clear, if we had not changed direct taxes at all since before the election, a family on average earnings would have paid more next year under the old regime than they will as a result of our tax cuts. The increase in taxation is a result of increased earnings. Unless the right hon. Gentleman would like marginal earnings to be untaxed, that is inevitable.

    Mr. Sumberg: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the bulletin of the Bury and Bolton chamber of commerce, which reports a dramatic upturn in business confidence and business activity in my constituency? As it is the chamber’s Christmas lunch on Friday, which I shall attend, will my right hon. Friend send my constituents a message of congratulations on that achievement and his best wishes for a new year of greater prosperity under a new Conservative Government?

    The Prime Minister: The strict answer to the first point about whether I have read the bulletin is no, I have not, but it clearly provides comforting reading. There is no doubt that the economy is improving, unemployment is falling, growth is continuing and manufacturing is doing extremely well in Bury and Bolton, and across the country. That is the result of the policies that we have been following, and we shall continue to follow them.

     

    Q2. Ms Walley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

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

    Ms Walley: Given that the Government have now been forced to admit, contrary to what the Prime Minister said to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), that the Budget was a tax-raising Budget, and given that changes to direct tax mean that income taxes have gone up, will he now take down his untrue posters that falsely claim that honest John has given lower income tax?

    The Prime Minister: All I can say to the hon. Lady is that she should read the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and she will find that the premise of her question is wrong.

    Dr. Twinn: Will my right hon. Friend support an inquiry into economic incompetence in local government and will he start that inquiry with the London borough of Enfield, which in this year alone has failed to spend £5 million on housing maintenance and £1 million of single regeneration budget money, due to be spent on industrial renewal in my constituency? Is that not another example of new Labour, new incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: There are many examples of that and it might be difficult to inquire into all of them. In view of my hon. Friend’s remarks, I shall draw the situation to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

     

    Q3. Mr. Betts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Betts: I refer the Prime Minister to the comment of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Sunday–that direct taxes have risen during this Parliament–and to his own comment a few moments ago that direct taxes have risen only because earnings have risen. Will the Prime Minister accept the figures produced independently by the House of Commons Library, which show that, during the course of this Parliament, families on average earnings will not only pay more in direct taxes absolutely, by more than £2 a week, but–as a proportion of their earnings–their direct taxes will rise from 20.2 per cent. to 20.7 per cent? Will he now accept that the Chief Secretary was right to make those comments on Sunday, and will he withdraw his statement that the Government have kept direct taxes down, as it is simply not true?

    The Prime Minister: People who are receiving larger incomes and are moving up the tax bands of course distort the figures. The reality is that people will be £1,100 better off next year, allowing for tax and inflation, than they were before the last election. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do not like that and, under Labour, no one would be richer but everyone would still have to pay more tax, as is inevitably the case under a Labour Government. Everyone knows that there would be higher tax rates under Labour, and I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the effrontery to pretend otherwise.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Marshall: As First Lord of the Treasury, my right hon. Friend is responsible for providing much of the finance for local government. Is he aware that many local authorities with high council taxes give poor services to their constituents? Does he agree that those who cannot run Islington or Hackney are incapable of running the country?

    The Prime Minister: New Labour hopes to produce a revolution in government, but I am astonished that it has utterly failed to do so in the element of local government that it already controls. There are a large number of examples of inefficiency that one could give, including a council that has not collected 20 per cent. of its council tax, is owed £16 million in arrears, has a debt of more than £800 million, pays interest of £91 million, has the sixth-highest council tax in the country and has the worst education results. That council should be well known to the Leader of the Opposition–it is his council in Islington.

     

    Q5. Mr. O’Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

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

    Mr. O’Hara: The Prime Minister boasts about 25 tax cuts. Will he confirm that, to qualify for them, a taxpayer must–among other things–be a small company, drive a vintage car and be dead?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is very amusing, but wrong.

     

    Q6. Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Banks: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has cut some 25 taxes in the previous two Budgets, and that, since the last general election, the average family now have some £1,100 more to spend? Do not such facts show the contrast between the Conservative and Labour parties?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The reality is that the basic rate of income tax is at its lowest level for 60 years. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) will remove himself for the remainder of this day’s sitting–I will have order in this Chamber–I am cautioning the hon. Gentleman. I will have no more of that in the Chamber.

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) intimated, we now have the lowest basic rate of income tax for 60 years and people’s living standards are rising. There is no doubt that Labour’s appetite for European-style regulation would provide European-level taxes.

     

    Q7. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay: Can we cut out all the claptrap? The top 10 per cent. of earners in this country have done very well, and people earning more than £64,000 are not paying higher taxes under the Tory Government. But the poor people–the most disadvantaged in our society– have seen their incomes fall and their tax demands go up. Is that fair? Should not the broadest backs bear the heaviest burden?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants to cut out claptrap, he should remain seated in future. The reality is that, as they were at between 83p and 98p when the Conservative Government came to power, it is hardly surprising if those upper rates of taxation have fallen. At the moment, one in four taxpayers–28 per cent., to be precise–now pay tax at only 20p in the pound and we seek to bring more people within that rate, so that the basic rate becomes 20p in the pound. That is a fair tax system, and we are delivering it.

    Dr. Spink: On a day when the Palace is graced with the presence of the forces’ sweetheart, Dame Vera Lynn, will my right hon. Friend send a message of good will to everyone in the British armed services who will be serving abroad over Christmas, and will he pay tribute to our armed services, which are the most professional in the world?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to pay tribute to our armed forces, both abroad and at home, and I am delighted to see that, on this issue at least, I have the whole-hearted support of those on the Opposition Front Bench.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 December 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    European Council (Scrutiny Reserve)

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each (a) occasion when and (b) matter upon which Her Majesty’s Government have entered a scrutiny reserve at European Council meetings in the current parliament.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 28 November 1996]: The outcomes of European Council meetings are issued as conclusions of the presidency alone. The question of scrutiny reserves does not therefore arise.

    In cases where the European Council reaches political agreement on draft legislative texts, it would be open to any Head of State Government to alert colleagues if these had not yet cleared parliamentary scrutiny. There is no central register, however, of the occasion on which this may have occurred.

    Different arrangements apply for Council of Ministers’ meetings.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 29 November 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    European Council Meeting

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals on (a) monetary union and (b) the environment he intends to table for discussion at the European Council in Dublin on 13-14 December; and if he will place copies of such United Kingdom submissions in the Library before the Council.

    The Prime Minister: None.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 28 November 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 28th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the Government had published their position on Northern Ireland at this stage].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were asked to publish this originally some time ago, there has been a lot of discussion about what it should be. Earlier this week Mr Adams pre-emptively gave his views, so I think not to have published now would have just caused great uncertainty in Northern Ireland. People would have just said: “well if the British Government are asked to publish what their position is, what is the delay? Are there secret negotiations? Is there bargaining?”, and we have seen the sort of turmoil that that misinformation has caused in the past. So the moment there was the interview by Gerry Adams it was necessary to publish speedily.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what would be a credible ceasefire].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we were cheated last time, weren’t we? When the ceasefire was declared we were told by the IRA and by Sinn Fein that this was for good, that it wasn’t going to go back to violence. But it did. And not only did it go back to violence, we now know that within days of declaring the ceasefire they were actually putting many tons of explosives in the London garage that we subsequently found. Now that won’t do. That was a fake ceasefire. They didn’t just mislead the British government, they misled Ireland, north and south, and the rest of the world as well. Well I don’t think that is any good in the future. So what we are saying about an unequivocal ceasefire is that when they declare it, we will need to be satisfied that this time they genuinely mean it and it is not a fake. And we will judge that in two ways: firstly, by what they say at the time of the ceasefire, we will require them to say that this is for good, for lasting.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it needed to be a written statement].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They will make a statement presumably, I am not going to be pedantic about how they do it, but we want them to commit themselves to the fact that this is real. And secondly, we will judge what happens on the ground, we will judge what they do as well as what they say. And by that I mean we will judge whether they are still conducting surveillance, whether they are still targeting, whether they are still purchasing arms. We will judge those things. We will judge whether there are paramilitary beatings. If those things continue then it is a fake ceasefire and we will state it as such. If those things cease then we will be able to accept – as I hope it will be – that this is a genuine ceasefire. And when we can be satisfied that it is a genuine ceasefire, then the door opens for Sinn Fein to enter the talks.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked for a timescale].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t want to put a timescale on it because I think a timescale would be supremely unhelpful. What matters is not the artificial passage of time but the certainty that what they have said is actually being carried out on the ground. Now I don’t know how long that will take, but I am not looking for artificial delay, I am not looking for a piece of string stretched from here to forever, I am looking for the certainty that what they have said is genuine. And when we can be satisfied that it is genuine then we can open the door to talks.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether it would be one or two months].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to put a time to it, either short or long. I don’t think we can put a time to it. But I will make a judgement as soon as we think we credibly can.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 November 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

     

    Ministerial Statements

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the circumstances in which it is acceptable for Ministers to make a statement which they know to be untrue on the Floor of the House; and what changes have been made to that list since March 1994.

    The Prime Minister: There has been no change in the position as I stated it in 1994. It is clearly of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the House. If they knowingly fail to do this, they should relinquish their positions, except in the quite exceptional circumstances, of which a devaluation or time of war or other danger to national security have been quoted as examples.

     

    Employment Contracts

    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister how many (a) full-time jobs, (b) part-time jobs, (c) full time jobs which are on (i) renewable and (ii) unrenewable fixed-term contracts, (d) part-time jobs which are on (i) renewable and (ii) unrenewable fixed-term contracts, (e) temporary jobs and (f) jobs classified as casual there have been in (1) his Department and (2) executive agencies of his Department for each year since 1992.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 November 1996]: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 27 November, by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General.

  • PMQT – 28 November 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

    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. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concerted campaign by Labour-controlled authorities against compulsory competitive tendering? Is he further aware that my local authority, South Ayrshire, favours direct labour organisations against the interests of small local contracting companies that have provided excellent services at low cost for a number of years? Does he agree that the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland highlighted that wasteful practice led to his being awarded the title of Parliamentarian of the Year?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the wasteful behaviour of a large number of Labour-controlled local authorities. Before the Opposition complain about council tax levels, they should put their own house in order. If they did, they would be able to hold down council tax.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, according to the Red Book, the overall tax burden next year will be higher than it is this year?

    The Prime Minister: No, I do not confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. For some time, the right hon. Gentleman has been desperate to cover up the fact that living standards are rising. The Opposition have produced the most spurious attacks on tax in the past few weeks. They claim that there have been 22 new taxes over the past five years, but I can identify 25 tax reductions in the past couple of years. The right hon. Gentleman takes no account of rising incomes and people moving into higher tax brackets, so he is painting a misleading picture. We have the lowest rate of basic tax for 60 years. It was 33p and it is now 23p.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister wants to take credit for the fact that people’s earnings have increased, but they have earned that money, not the Government. Is it not curious that the Conservative party no longer wants to talk about tax? Will the Prime Minister return to the central question that I asked him? Is it or is it not right, according to his own Red Book, that the overall burden of taxation next year will be higher than it is this year? As one of his hon. Friends said, the answer can only be yes or no. Which is it?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to what I just said, he would have had his answer. The right hon. Gentleman does not take into account the fact that more people are working and incomes are rising. Had the Labour party presented a Budget earlier this week, taxes would have increased quite dramatically. On the one hand he accuses us of cutting expenditure and on the other hand he accuses us of putting up taxes. We have kept direct tax down and we have increased expenditure on health, the police and other important services.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps, on the third occasion, the Prime Minister will now answer the question. Because of all the taxes in the Budget–the insurance tax, the airport tax, the council tax, the fuel tax, the abolition of profit-related pay–according to his figures, the tax burden is to rise next year. It will rise not just next year but, according to the Government’s plans, the year after, the year after that and the year after that, to a level higher than under the last Labour Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister will now answer the question: is it true that the tax burden is to rise next year? If it is, is not the reputation of the Tories as a low tax party now dead and buried?

    The Prime Minister: The more people work, the more they earn. That is the point that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand. If he thinks that taxes are too high, which ones would he cut? What support has he given us in cutting taxes? If he thinks that tax is too high, will he indicate that he will not proceed with the windfall tax, or a tartan tax, or a health tax or a teenage tax? How will he pay for the £30 billion-worth of promises that he has made? The plain fact of the matter is, however he huffs and puffs, people know that dogs bark, cats miaow and the Labour party puts up taxes.

    Mr. Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the French lorry drivers dispute is now causing serious traffic chaos and economic hardship in Kent, particularly around the channel ports of Ramsgate and Dover? Now that the strike is going on, it may have a much wider impact on the country. Will my right hon. Friend make strong diplomatic representations to the French Government to extract a firm commitment that full and fair compensation will be paid to British lorry drivers whose livelihoods have been affected by the mindless militancy of their French counterparts?

    The Prime Minister: I am horrified by the consequences of the dispute for British drivers and companies. Claims for compensation must be met by the French authorities. We have made that point to them. I hope that, very soon this afternoon, the leader of the Labour party will make clear his condemnation of one of his own Members of the European Parliament, who has today described the striking French lorry drivers as “a shining beacon”.

    Mr. Prescott: What sort of Government is there in France?

    The Prime Minister: The deputy leader of the Labour party asks what the Government in France are. What are the strikers and why are they being supported by Labour Members of the European Parliament? Will the deputy leader of the Labour party go down and talk to British lorry drivers and tell then that he thinks that the strikers are a shining example?

    Mr. Prescott: It is a Tory Government in France.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is the strikers’ friend now, as he always has been.

    Mr. Ashdown: I wonder why the Prime Minister and the Government do not realise why people are so fed up with all this lying about tax. Is not the central question this: does the Prime Minister really believe that the British people are so stupid that they could be tempted to vote Conservative again because he has cut their income tax by 1p, when his own figures show that he has forced their council tax up by between £40 and £60 a year?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about council tax, he might look at the council tax levied by local authorities under Liberal Democrat control. He might realise by how much their council taxes have gone up. He might remind the British public again that he is committed to increasing the standard rate of income tax. I hope that he will make that entirely clear. He is calling for more money to be given to Liberal Democrat councillors, who are

    “politically inexperienced and potentially a liability”.

    That is not what I think; it is what his party’s internal document says about its councillors.

    Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not his policy to barter or bargain for the restoration of an IRA ceasefire, which should never have been broken, and that Sinn Fein’s self-exclusion from the talks remains absolute, unless or until there is an unequivocal restatement of the ceasefire and the Provisionals establish over a period of time a commitment to exclusively peaceful means?

    The Prime Minister: There has been a great deal of rumour and disinformation on this issue in recent weeks. The Government have had a number of exchanges with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and others about the possibility of a new IRA ceasefire. We have made it absolutely clear throughout those exchanges that IRA-Sinn Fein should give up violence once and for all and commit itself to exclusively peaceful means. We have also made it clear that we cannot and we will not change our policy to bargain for a ceasefire. In order that that should be absolutely clear, we are publishing today a statement of our policy, which we sent to the hon. Member for Foyle last weekend. A copy is being placed in the Library together with a short explanatory statement.

    The talks that have been carrying on for some time are likely to break for Christmas soon and to resume later in January. When Sinn Fein could join the talks depends on its own actions–[Hon. Members: “This is a statement.”]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Listen to the answer to the question. These are crucial issues that concern our country.

    The Prime Minister: I must tell hon. Members that this a matter of great interest to people not just in Northern Ireland but everywhere.

    When Sinn Fein could join the talks depends on its own actions. We need to see an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire, we need to be able to make a credible judgment that it is lasting, and we need to know that Sinn Fein will sign up to the Mitchell principles. Those matters are in Sinn Fein’s hands. We are not seeking delay; we wish to see inclusive talks involving all parties as soon as possible, but if Sinn Fein continues to exclude itself, the talks must and will go on without it.

     

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

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

    Mr. Martlew: Does the Prime Minister sanction the Tory party campaign on “Honest John”? If so, does he agree that it is designed to deceive the public over tax? When are posters going to go up saying that the Prime Minister promised not to increase VAT, a promise that he broke; and that he promised not to increase taxation year in, year out–another promise that he broke? Is not the reality that nobody believes “Honest John”?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to our posters that indicate that we now have lower income tax, higher living standards and lower unemployment, and that that has come about directly as a result of policies that we have followed over the past few years as the Government. I am glad that he draws attention to those advertisements. I hope that everybody will see them.

     

    Q3. Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

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

    Sir Irvine Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that Sheffield city councillors have increased their council allowance by 200 per cent., that Sheffield city council spends £350 per pupil on education administration, whereas other metropolitan authorities spend only £250, and that Labour Members of Parliament get free accommodation from Sheffield city council? Is he also aware that Silverdale school in my constituency, which is in need of urgent repair, has been informed that there is no money for such repairs? Does not that show how Labour runs Sheffield city council and how it would run the country?

    The Prime Minister: The more Opposition Members barracked my hon. Friend, the more it was clear that he had hit a bull’s-eye by pointing out the way the Labour party behaves in local government. He mentioned Sheffield. Certainly it is one of the councils that have failed to collect millions of pounds of council tax.

    Mr. Prescott: What about Westminster?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman mentions Westminster–but he neglects to mention Southwark, Leeds, Newham, Camden, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Lambeth, all of them Labour councils over many years or dominant Labour under no overall control. What is it they say about Labour?

    “New Labour in local government offers excellence and efficiency.”

    Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

     

    Q4. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

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

    Mr. Barnes: As a matter of statistical integrity, will the Prime Minister confirm what he sought to avoid in answering my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition–that page 88 of the Red Book, which deals with total taxation and national insurance contributions, shows that there is an increase year by year over the next five years in the amount that will be paid out as a percentage of gross domestic product? Will he be honest?

    The Prime Minister: As I said to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield and other hon. Members earlier, that is the impact of more people working and being paid more, and of fiscal drag. Those are the facts that the hon. Gentleman does not understand. The reality is that people have more net income in their hands than they have had at any time in the past, and living standards are rising. However he tries to muffle reality, he cannot hide from that fact.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 November 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Investors in People

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister which Departments (a) have already met the Investors in People standard and (b) are aiming to meet it.

    The Prime Minister: All Departments are meeting, or aiming to meet, the Investors in People standard. The White Paper “Development and Training for Civil Servants: A Framework for Action”, Command Paper 3321, issued in July 1996 announced the target that
    “by the year 2000, all civil servants will be employed in organisations recognised as Investors in People”.

    As at 31 March this year, 58 Departments and agencies, or parts of them, had achieved the standard. These accounted for 12 per cent. of civil servants. This compared with 5 per cent. of the national work force employed in recognised organisations at that time. Figures for the position at the end of September will be available shortly.

  • Government Statement on Northern Ireland – 27 November 1996

    Below is the text of the Government Statement on Northern Ireland, issued by 10 Downing Street on 27th November 1996.

    GOVERNMENT STATEMENT ON NORTHERN IRELAND:

    The Government wishes to set out the facts about recent contacts with John Hume and explain its position on the possibility of a new IRA ceasefire.

    Mr. Hume has suggested to the Prime Minister over the last few months that a new IRA ceasefire, which would in his view this time become permanent, is available if the Government clarifies its position on various issues, including the nature of the Belfast talks, decommissioning and possible future confidence-building measures.

    The Prime Minister has consistently made clear the Government’s position that we would welcome a new ceasefire but that we are sceptical about how credible it would be. The Prime Minister has also said from the start that there could be no question of changing our policy, or negotiating with Sinn Fein, to achieve a new ceasefire, which should be declared without further prevarication. However, he has added that he was prepared to re-state existing policy if that would help.

    The Prime Minister accordingly gave Mr. Hume in July the terms of a possible re-statement. Mr. Hume subsequently suggested different forms of words which did not, however, properly reflect the Government’s position. The Prime Minister sent Mr. Hume a further text on 23 November. This text included our views, in the light of continuing IRA attacks, notably on the Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn, on the terms and process of entry to apply after any restored IRA ceasefire.

    This British Government text is attached. It describes a position which we believe to be fair, balanced and reasonable.

    If Sinn Fein want to join the talks, it is for the IRA to declare a restoration of their ceasefire in terms which are convincingly unequivocal, indicate the intention that this ceasefire should be lasting, and reflect commitment to exclusively peaceful means. The fulfilment of paragraph 8 of Command Paper 3232 is directly relevant to this (“parties … which … establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process”). If this was followed by the absence of paramilitary activity, including such confidence-building factors as no targeting, surveillance and weapons preparation, the way would be open for the Secretary of State to invite Sinn Fein to participate in the negotiations on an equal basis with other parties, in accordance with the legislation setting up the talks.

    The talks are likely to break for Christmas soon and to resume in January at a date yet to be agreed. The statement attached does not determine how early Sinn Fein can join the talks after a ceasefire. That depends on the words and deeds of the IRA and Sinn Fein. We need to see an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire and to make a credible judgement that it is lasting. We need to know that Sinn Fein will sign up to the Mitchell principles. The Government is not erecting new hurdles or seeking delay. We wish to see inclusive talks involving all parties as soon as possible.

    But if Sinn Fein continue to exclude themselves from the talks, the talks must of course go on without them.

    BRITISH GOVERNMENT POLICY ON THE NORTHERN IRELAND TALKS

    This Government has made clear its approach to the search for peace in Northern Ireland on many occasions. But we continue to be asked about this or that aspect, particularly about the multi-party negotiations which started on 10 June in Belfast. There has been continued speculation about a new IRA ceasefire, despite the no-warning attack on Thiepval barracks, Lisburn and various arms finds, including the huge find in London. This has renewed questions about what effect this would have on the negotiations, and our approach to these negotiations. It may therefore be helpful to spell out our position again.

    The purpose of the negotiations is to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands. The negotiations have one overriding aim: to reach an overall political settlement, achieved through agreement and founded on consent.

    They will therefore address all the issues relevant to a settlement. Inclusive in nature, they involve both the British and Irish Governments and all the relevant political parties with the necessary democratic mandate and commitment to exclusively peaceful methods.

    It is important to emphasise that all parties are treated equally in the negotiations, in accordance with the scale of their democratic mandate and the need for sufficient consensus. But no one party can prevent the negotiations continuing by withdrawing from them. No party has an undemocratic advantage. Both Governments intend that the outcome of these negotiations will be submitted for democratic ratification through referendums, North and South.

    The prospects for success in these negotiations will obviously be much greater if they take place in a peaceful environment. The loyalist ceasefire has made an important contribution. It made it possible for the loyalist parties to join the negotiations. They are now playing their part in shaping Northern Ireland’s future, as I have acknowledged by meeting their leaders.

    The British and Irish Governments agree that, beyond the unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire, these negotiations are without preconditions. But in the light of the breaking of the ceasefire and the events since then, assurances are obviously needed that any new ceasefire would be intended to be genuinely unequivocal, i.e., lasting and not simply a tactical device. Consistent with this, the process set out below would follow the declaration by the IRA of an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire with the stated purpose of the conflict being permanently ended.

    The successful conclusion of this process would depend on whether words, actions and all the circumstances were consistent with a lasting ceasefire. For example, how far the declaration of a new ceasefire was convincingly unequivocal and intended to be lasting would be an important indicator. Whether or not any paramilitary activity, including surveillance, targeting and weapons preparation, continued would also be directly relevant. Developments which were inconsistent with an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire or Sinn Fein’s commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence would affect consideration adversely. Sufficient time would have to be taken to ensure the requirements of paragraphs 8 and 9 of Command Paper 3232 were accordingly met before Sinn Fein were invited to participate in negotiations.

    We envisage that the process would involve:

    – meetings with Sinn Fein at various levels to explore with them what assurances could be given and what confidence-building measures established;

    – the British and Irish Governments would invite Sinn Fein to meet them together for the purpose of making an early total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and nonviolence;

    – the two Governments would then propose bilateral and other consultations with all the parties to seek to determine how, if this process were successfully concluded, the negotiations could most constructively be advanced, including the issue of the participants adopting an agreed indicative timeframe for taking stock of their progress;

    – following a successful conclusion of the process set out above, including due time for consideration, the two Governments would expect the independent chairmen to convene a plenary session for all participants, with Sinn Fein invited formally to participate, to consider the outcome of these consultations and the future programme of work.

    From their entry into negotiations onwards, Sinn Fein would, in common with all the other participants, be subject to all the agreed provisions and rules of procedure. These include those governing the contingency where any participant is no longer entitled to participate on the grounds that they have demonstrably dishonoured the principles of democracy and non-violence.

    The range of issues on which an overall agreement will depend means that the negotiations will be on the basis of a comprehensive agenda. This will be adopted by agreement. Each participant will be able to raise any significant issue of concern to them, and to receive a fair hearing for those concerns, without this being subject to the veto of any other party. Any aspect can be raised, including constitutional issues and any other matter which any party considers relevant. No negotiated outcome is either predetermined or excluded in advance or limited by anything other than the need for agreement.

    Among the crucial issues is decommissioning. So the opening plenary is addressing the International Body’s proposals on decommissioning of illegal arms. In their report, the International Body said the parties should consider an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations. We and the Irish Government support this compromise approach. Agreement needs to be reached on how to take it forward, so that the process of decommissioning is not seen as a block to progress in the negotiations, but can be used to build confidence one step at a time during them. So both Governments have already said they will be looking for the commitment of all participants to work constructively during the negotiations to implement all aspects of the International Body’s report.

    It is essential that all participants negotiate in good faith, seriously address all areas of the agreed agenda and make every effort to reach a comprehensive agreement. For their part, the two Governments are committed to ensure that all items on the comprehensive agenda are fully addressed. They will do so themselves with a view to overcoming any obstacles which may arise.

    For our part, we are wholly committed to upholding our responsibility to encourage, facilitate and enable agreement over a period through the negotiations.

    This must be based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions. We want to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement.

    We are also determined to see these negotiations through successfully, as speedily as possible. This is in line with the hopes and aspirations of people in both the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. These have already given momentum to a process which will always have difficulties. We will encourage the adoption by the participants of an agreed indicative timeframe for the conduct of the negotiations and, if it would be helpful, will bring forward proposals for this. We have already proposed that a plenary meeting should be held in December to take stock of progress in the negotiations as a whole. The two Governments will also review progress at regular intervals. I will be meeting the Taoiseach on 9 December and the Secretary of State regularly meets the Tanaiste. Progress will be reviewed again by the end of May 1997, a date set in the legislation.

    Meanwhile we are committed to raising confidence, both through the talks and through a range of other measures alongside them. The International Body’s report itself proposes a process of mutual confidence-building.

    So we will continue to pursue social and economic policies based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equity of treatment and parity of esteem irrespective of political, cultural or religious affiliation or gender. We support, with equal respect, the varied cultural traditions of both communities. We are also committed to developing policing arrangements so that the police service should enjoy the support of the entire community.

    It is worth recalling that, in response to the ceasefires of Autumn 1994 and the changed level of threat, we undertook a series of confidence-building measures.

    These included changed arrangements for release of prisoners in Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995, security force redeployments, a review of emergency legislation and others. If the threat reduces again, the opportunity for further confidence-building measures returns.

    But confidence-building is a two-way street. Support for the use of violence is incompatible with participation in the democratic process. An end to punishment beatings and other paramilitary activities, including surveillance and targeting, would demonstrate real commitment to peaceful methods and help build trust.

    The opportunity for progress has never been greater. The process of peace and reconciliation has received valuable economic support from the United States, the European Union and through the International Fund. The negotiations are widely supported internationally and benefit from independent chairmen from the USA, Canada and Finland. They also have the overwhelming support of the people throughout these islands. They want them to take place in a peaceful environment, free of all violence. That is our aim too.