The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • PMQT – 19 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

    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.

    Mrs. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the low level of unemployment in my constituency, Congleton, which has fallen by a further 7.5 per cent. over the past year, would immediately be put in jeopardy if the minimum wage, the 48-hour working week and the social chapter were implemented?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear of the fall in unemployment in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I am delighted that that fall is mirrored in the constituencies of hon. Members right across the House. It is certainly the case that, were extra impositions such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend to be placed on employers, they would stop the fall in unemployment and send it returning upwards. That is not what we want, which is why we shall not accept the social chapter or such impositions.

    Mr. Blair: Why has the Prime Minister not yet made good the promise given two years ago to eliminate mixed-sex wards in our hospitals?

    The Prime Minister: We are seeking to make progress as soon as we can on every aspect of improvement in the health service. We have given priority to other matters. That has brought the waiting list down, widened the number of operations that have been offered and improved the quality of care. As we can, we shall move on the other issue.

    Mr. Blair: My point is that the Government made a specific promise two years ago that that issue would be a priority. Is not what is needed a proper programme that is led and co-ordinated by Government with the health authorities and national health service trusts, and the setting of a specified timetable to eliminate those wards, which cause enormous indignity, and distress people? The Government would thereby keep the promise that was made two years ago.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating–I agree with him–a properly managed examination of what could be done to improve the service across the health service. I agree with that. It is one of the reasons why we have focused on management. Management has been concentrating on getting more people treated. More people have been treated, and management will continue to move to improve that, and to improve the quality, dignity and privacy of service, as we announced.

    Mr. Blair: I find it extraordinary that the Government are spending £1.5 billion more on administration–

    Mr. Devlin: He is out of order: he must ask a question.

    Madam Speaker: Order. I need no lessons from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).

    Mr. Blair: Might I point out to the Prime Minister that there are 20,000 more senior managers and that £1.5 billion extra is spent on administration? Is it beyond the collective wit of the Government and the health administrators to deal with that problem? It is a question not just of money, but of political will. My point is very simple: did not the Prime Minister promise two years ago to deal with the problem? Why has he not delivered? If he does not deliver on that promise, why should anyone believe his promises about the national health service?

    The Prime Minister: If I had said at the last election that we would treat as many new patients as we are now, the right hon. Gentleman would not have believed me. If I had said at the last election that we would deliver extra resources, he would not have believed me. He and his colleagues claimed that we would privatise the health service. We said that we would not, and we have not. I hope that he accepts that that is the case now, and that it will not occur in the future. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that fact.

     

    Q2. Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 640– 22 per cent.–since the beginning of the year? Is not a reason for that good news the fact that the United Kingdom has a stable industrial climate with few strikes, except in the public sector? Is it not true that only a Conservative Government can be relied upon to do anything about that problem because the Labour party, with its strong links to the unions, is still the strikers’ friend? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

    The Prime Minister: There seems to be some support on the Opposition Benches for Labour’s support of the strikes–I hope that everyone noticed it.

    I have no doubt that one of the reasons why we are attracting more foreign investment than any other country is our success in restoring industrial stability in the private sector. The number of strikes today is one twenty-fifth of the level that it was when we came to government in 1979. I believe that people deserve the same protection against strikes in the public sector that they increasingly enjoy elsewhere. If Opposition Members do not agree, I suggest that they ask businesses whose post was not delivered and travellers who could not get to work because of strikes in those sectors.

    Mr. Hume: Given the Government’s praiseworthy efforts to promote agreement among the political parties in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister explain why the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), proposes to reduce the number of education boards–which are the most highly respected cross-community bodies in Northern Ireland–from five to three? During the consultation process, every Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland, the leaders of all political parties, all Church leaders and all local authorities disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman. Why are the Government ignoring the unanimous wish of the people of Northern Ireland in relation to education?

    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that that is the position with my right hon. Friend, but I shall examine the details of the hon. Gentleman’s claims and then write to him. I would be very surprised if my right hon. Friend did not have an extremely good reason for any decision he may have taken.

    Mr. Beggs: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

    Madam Speaker: Points of order come after questions, private notice questions and statements.

    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the average household electricity bill in the eastern area is £272, while in France it is £366 and in Germany it is £394? Does that not demonstrate the success of electricity privatisation? Is not a sign of its success the fact that the Opposition wish to impose a windfall profits tax on the industry and put it at risk?

    The Prime Minister: The comparative prices that my hon. Friend quotes are a striking tribute to the success of privatisation over the past 18 years. I am delighted to see them. I very much hope that we shall keep those prices down. My hon. Friend is entirely right: a windfall tax would force prices up for consumers, and at an unknown amount, because we do not yet know precisely who will be subject to the windfall tax or what the levy would be on companies and thence on consumers.

     

    Q3. Ms Roseanna Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

    Ms Cunningham: With regard to yesterday’s meeting in Brussels, and the beef ban, is the Prime Minister aware that the National Farmers Union for Scotland is openly accusing the Government of straightforward prevarication in their refusal to proceed with the selective cattle cull, and that that gives rise to a very real apprehension that the Government are simply trying to stoke anti-European feeling in advance of an election and, indeed, to sacrifice the farmers? Why does he continue to set his face against a phased lifting of the ban, which would be of immediate benefit to Scotland and Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is perhaps not aware of all the things that are going on in Brussels and the discussions that we are having, or she certainly would not have asked her question in that fashion.

    Mr. Waterson: Can my right hon. Friend give some reassurance to pensioners in my constituency who are worried that the so-called flexible decade of retirement will mean massive increases in public spending and taxes or a severe cut in the state retirement pension?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that the plans proposed by the Opposition, in which a flexible decade of retirement would enable some people to retire early, would mean a massive increase in public expenditure, which they have said that they would not provide, or a significant cut in the basic rate of pension. I suggest that they come clean on precisely what they propose.

     

    Q4. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

    Mr. Mullin: Is it still the Prime Minister’s position that there is a moral case for cutting taxation? If so, can he explain the moral case for promising to cut taxation before an election and for increasing it as soon as the election is over?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do believe in cutting taxation, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s support when it is appropriate to cut taxation again in the future. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that by cutting taxation we are giving money back to people. I would say that by cutting taxation we are taking less of people’s own money.

     

    Q5. Mr. Atkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

    Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the independent auditor’s report, published yesterday, of the criminal and corrupt activities of Labour councillors on Labour-controlled Preston borough council who have lost or mislaid millions of pounds of Preston taxpayers’ money in recent years? Does he agree that that is the real example of sleaze and corruption in public life which should be rooted out? Is not that further example of Labour mismanagement of local authorities damning proof of what will happen if Labour ever controls our country?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the character of any party becomes clear until it is in power. [Interruption.] Those are not my words; they are the words of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). In local government, Labour is in power, and in power it has a habit of pouring taxpayers’ money down the drain and running up debts. Right across the country, where there are Labour councils one can see that “If you vote red, you live in the red.”

     

    Q6. Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. It is difficult to hear.

    Ms Hodge: Will the Prime Minister think again about his crass and insensitive reply to the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? Does he appreciate that the issue of mixed-sex wards is of particular importance to women? Does he know that 50 per cent. of women who are admitted to psychiatric hospitals have a history of sexual abuse? Will he give us a date when he will meet the promise that he gave two years ago? If not, how can we believe that the NHS is safe in the Government’s hands?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the hon. Lady spend Question Time after Question Time painting a picture of the NHS that does not exist for those who use it. During our 18 years in office, we have continually put more resources into the NHS, widened the services available to it, ensured that more operations are carried out and cut waiting times. That is a record that no previous Government have been able to match. If the hon. Lady remembers, it was under the previous Labour Government that waiting lists went up, hospitals were closed and the NHS practically came to a full stop.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 November 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Summit

    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received in relation to the location of the summit meeting during the next United Kingdom presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Union.

    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Prime Minister when he estimates Her Majesty’s Government will decide its preferred venue for the 1998 European Union summit.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has expressed support for Cardiff as a possible location for the June 1998 European Council. I am also aware of early-day motion 173 which also proposes Cardiff. An announcement will be made in due course.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his response to the letter from Friendship across Frontiers, signed by the chairman, Riad El Taher, on 6 November, about the mortality rate of Iraqi children, and the UNICEF report.

    The Prime Minister: So far as I am aware, my office has not yet received this letter.

     

    Tigris and Euphrates Valleys

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty’s Government have given to the Secretary General of the Arab League’s representations about the humanitarian situation in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 15 November 1996]: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, discussed the humanitarian situation in Iraq during the Secretary General’s visit to London in May 1996, and in Cairo in June 1996, raising in particular Saddam Hussein’s indifference to the suffering of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein continues to delay implementation of UN Security Council resolution 986 by attempting to renegotiate issues already with the UN. Like the Arab League, we want SCR 986 implemented as soon as possible; it will bring much needed relief to millions of Iraqis.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview at a Huntingdon Post Office – 15 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in outside a Post Office in Huntingdon, held on Friday 15th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the second anniversary of the National Lottery]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s been a stunning success. We established the National Lottery because I saw it as the only way we could provide large amounts of resources to the arts, to heritage, to sport. That’s what happened and we can now look forward. There is something like £300 million every year going into five different good causes including sports and the arts and that is going to revolutionise sporting prospects and revolutionise the availability of money. It’s going very well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the mid-week lottery and whether it was a step too far with people spending more money than they could afford?]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have a higher view of the responsibility of people than you do. I don’t see why the nanny state should stop that. If there’s a demand for it, there’s going to be a mid week lottery. People will make their own responsible decisions

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked Norman Tebbit and the Euro-sceptics]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Interesting view from Lord Tebbit. It’s not one I share.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what would he do with the money if he won the lottery]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m not anticipating doing so. It’s rather difficult if you haven’t bought a ticket.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Huntingdon – 15 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Huntingdon, held on Friday 15th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the extra jobs for Rover meant that the recovery was here to stay].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the announcement by BMW Rover is very good news indeed. What we have seen over recent months is a whole group of international investors beating their way to Britain in order to invest large sums of money. They can see the good prospects for this country and I am delighted about the investment. It’s very good news for Britain and excellent news for the Midlands.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the Working Time Directive].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, one of the reasons companies are coming here is because we are a very competitive nation. That is what is creating the new jobs: that is one of the reasons, no doubt, that many of the large investors are coming here. And measures like the Working Time Directive, not just this measure which is a bad measure in its own right, but other measures that would follow it, would damage that competitiveness and reduce the chance of such investments in the future. So I believe they are very damaging.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the sleaze in the Liberal Democrats was any different from the Premier Club].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I don’t know what the details are of the allegations against the Liberal Democrats. I haven’t seen the details yet. But I understand it’s a question of ‘cash for contracts’. Well, I don’t know the facts of that, but I just believe that’s a matter to be examined. The Liberal Democrats have said repeatedly when these matters have arisen that they should be thoroughly examined. I hope that on this occasion they will do that. Perhaps it should go to the Nolan Committee.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about paying for access to politicians].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well the Labour Party ask for a large amount of money to have dinner with Mr Blair. The question, as far as I understand it, is whether the contracts actually follow the meeting. I think that is the point at issue, not the question of meeting politicians.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Zaire].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, it covers some of the points that Michael Portillo was making yesterday. There are several difficult components to this. Firstly and clearly, you need to have secure control of Goma and Bukavu, which is certainly true. But beyond that there are an unknown number of refugees in many parts of Zaire, spread out widely across Western Zaire. So the point that we British have been making all along is we need plans, not just to cope with the main centres, but how we can cope with those refugees that are mobile. We don’t know where all of them are yet. This is part of the problem.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the rules of engagement].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The rules of engagement will be clarified very soon, and British troops intrinsically have the right to defend themselves and will certainly do so. No-one is going to take any risk whatsoever with the lives of British troops. They will have whatever rules of engagement that are necessary.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked when the first deployment would be].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, we have a group examining the situation out there, and we are still in further discussions with the Americans, the Canadians and others about precisely what the full scale of deployment will be. Not just the British deployment, but other people’s as well. So I hope it can be done very speedily. There isn’t a great deal of time, and speed in many ways is of the essence. So we will not delay: the faster it can be done the better.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 November 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Meacher: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to section 4 of the Government’s response to the fourth recommendation contained in the second report of the Public Service Committee on ministerial accountability and responsibility, HC 67, Session 1996-97, if he will make it Government policy to answer parliamentary questions relating to events taking place more than 30 years ago.

    The Prime Minister: To the extent that such questions are admissible under the rules of the House–“Erskine May”, 21st edition, page 294–Ministers will seek to answer them, as any other question, in accordance with “Questions of Procedures for Ministers”.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

  • PMQT – 14 November 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 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.

    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the drop of more than 40,000 in the latest monthly unemployment count–which, I understand, is the largest monthly decrease for two years–illustrates yet again the success of the Government’s policies in promoting job creation? Does he agree that if United Kingdom employers had additional costs inflicted on them by the EU, that would put in jeopardy the downward trend in unemployment in our country, which has been going on for three years and stands in stark contrast with many other EU countries?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right, both about the welcome trend in unemployment and about the fact that unemployment is falling here in a way that cannot be seen anywhere else in the continent of Europe. That is not unrelated to the fact that we have avoided the burdens on business that so many of our partners have accepted. Of course, those burdens would have been accepted by the Opposition.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that today’s inflation rise, together with the sharp rise in long-term interest rates, should set the warning lights flashing? How does he square that with the promise that he made just a few months ago that he would meet his inflation target by the end of this year?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I know that the retail prices index figures are complex, but I think that he has failed to understand the impact of this morning’s figures. I will explain to him what has happened, and he can then explain it to his Back Benchers. The figures are calculated year on year, and there was a quite exceptional one-month fall last October. That means that the 12-month year-on-year figure looks artificially high. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that that will correct itself over the months ahead and that we expect to meet our target.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that we have ever heard a more ridiculous excuse for a rise in inflation figures. If the inflation figures were so good, why did interest rates have to go up? They went up because of the worry about inflation. Have we not heard it all before? We heard it all before the previous election and we heard it all before 1987, when the Government said that an economic miracle was under way. Will the Prime Minister answer these specific questions? On interest rates and inflation, will he confirm that Britain is now 11th out of 15 in Europe? Do any of our main competitors outside Europe have as high interest rates or inflation as Britain?

    The Prime Minister: I begin to suspect that the right hon. Gentleman truly does not understand; he is not being perverse–he genuinely does not understand. I will explain the position to him gently and easily. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor raised interest rates to prevent inflation from rising, not as a result of existing inflation. To hear lectures on inflation from the right hon. Gentleman, when the lowest inflation achieved by his party in government was 7.5 per cent. and millions remember when it was 27 per cent., and when the inflation figure today is a statistical aberration because of a dramatic fall last year, only illustrates the fact that the Labour party is totally incapable not only of running the economy but even of understanding it.

    Mr. Blair rose–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: The House will have noticed that the Prime Minister did not dispute that we were 11th out of 15 for interest rates and inflation. If he disputes it, let him come to the Dispatch Box and say that the figure is wrong. The House will listen to him when he rises to his feet and tells us that 11th out of 15 is wrong. The simple fact, as on every other matter, is that when he said that he would cut taxes, he raised them, when he said–[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like this because it is the truth. [Hon. Members: “More.”] They want more, so let us give them more–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This barracking must stop. Other hon. Members have questions on the Order Paper and I want to call them.

    Mr. Blair: Let the Prime Minister dispute any of the following facts. He said before the general election that he would cut tax, and he raised it. Does he dispute that? He said that he would eliminate public borrowing, and he doubled public sector debt. Does he dispute that? He said that he would lick inflation, and it has risen. Does he dispute that? If he does not dispute any of those facts, or the fact that we are 11th out of 15 for interest rates and inflation, why should anyone believe a word that he says on the economy?

    The Prime Minister: I had fondly suspected today that the right hon. Gentleman might have broken with tradition and mentioned the fall in unemployment, which his party is supposed to care about–[Hon. Members: “Answer.”] I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that the October inflation figures were the fourth best that we have known in October since the war. It is ridiculous for him to talk to us about taxation and to proceed as he did today, when the deputy leader of his party has said that Labour

    “shouldn’t follow the Government down the road of cutting the basic rate of tax”

    and that under Labour there would certainly be higher tax. I see hon. Members nodding in agreement. The right hon. Gentleman criticises us about tax while his party advocates higher tax. He cannot stomach the fact that the British economy is in better shape than any Labour Government have ever achieved and that he could not match the condition that it is in. He will do everything that he can to pursue grievance politics and damage the British economy in his own interest.

     

    Q2. Mr. Booth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Booth: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that at the European intergovernmental conference he will block any proposal further to erode our right of veto? Is he fully aware that signing the social chapter is not only expensive in itself but would render Britain powerless to avoid becoming uncompetitive as Europe introduces more and more imposts? The Labour party will never understand that, which is one of the reasons why we shall win the next general election.

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly and willingly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The social chapter is a pipeline bulging with potential new burdens on business, all of which would cost jobs in the United Kingdom. As an illustration of the damage that a Labour Government would undoubtedly do, perhaps at some stage today the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would like to condemn the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Durham, who called on the Commission to take action against the United Kingdom including

    “seeking unlimited fines against the UK Government”.

    I want to know whether that is Labour policy or whether the right hon. Gentleman will disown him.

    Mr. Ashdown: Did the Prime Minister see the warning from Coopers and Lybrand yesterday that if we continue as we have so far the Government will be technically bankrupt by the end of next year? [Interruption.] That is what it said. The Prime Minister obviously has not read it. Let me put it to him like this: if a council had done what the Government have done and doubled its debt in six years, doubled the level of borrowing to which it had said that it would adhere two years ago and then, to win an election next year, cut its taxes to make things worse, would he regard that as responsible?

    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman said about the nation being bankrupt is just bizarre–it is just off the wall. If this is a bankrupt nation, why are all those overseas nations and overseas investors, both in Europe and beyond, investing in what he says is a bankrupt nation? I suggest that he looks at what is going on in Britain and stops taking advice from his economic advisers, who clearly know nothing about everything.

    Mr. Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week marks the first anniversary of the death of my constituent, Leah Betts, who died as a result of taking a single Ecstasy tablet? Will he join me in paying tribute to Leah’s parents, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that other young people learn the lesson of Leah’s death? Will he confirm that the Government will give every support to the Bill to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), which will ensure that night clubs whose managers do not take proper action to stop drug trading will be swiftly and permanently closed?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I met Mr. and Mrs. Betts some time ago and I think that the whole country remembers the tragedy that they had to endure and the courage with which they endured it. I certainly undertake to do all that I can to curb the menace of drugs and I will look most carefully at the private Member’s Bill that is to be introduced. If it is at all possible to give full support to that Bill, as I anticipate that it will be, then we shall certainly do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Pike: The Prime Minister will accept that there is still a major crisis over bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Does he accept that there has been enough dithering over the introduction of the selective cull scheme that was agreed at Florence? Will he give us a date for implementation of the scheme and say when we shall start to see an end to the problem?

    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here yesterday or, indeed, when I answered those questions from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield. Since the hon. Gentleman is asking precisely the same question, I am tempted to refer him to the answer I gave some time ago. The reality is that we are pursuing with the Commission proposals for relaxing the ban on the United Kingdom and the export restrictions on animals from certified herds and on those that are qualified under the beef assurance scheme. Those discussions are going on at the moment.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Robathan: The whole House will welcome the Government’s decision in principle to support international action to prevent humanitarian catastrophe in central Africa. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if British troops are sent to Zaire they will go with carefully considered and clear objectives, very precise instructions and a properly determined chain of command?

    The Prime Minister: I suspect that I speak for the whole House in expressing extreme concern at the situation in eastern Zaire. I believe that everyone is acutely conscious of the refugees’ plight and of the literally hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people who will undoubtedly face death in the next few weeks unless urgent action is taken.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be making a statement in a few moments. I believe that if western Governments have the capacity to help, there is a strong moral obligation upon us to help. We have considered very carefully how we can best provide that help and in principle we are prepared to provide troops for a multinational force.

    I have to say to the House, however, that the situation on the ground is complex and difficult, the terrain is tough, there is inadequate infrastructure and at this stage there is no clear ceasefire. So before sending British troops, or deciding upon the precise numbers, we need to be absolutely clear about what they are being asked to do in detail and the conditions in which they will operate. We also need to look very carefully at the particular circumstances that they will face. A reconnaissance team will be travelling to the region today to do that, and I hope that we shall be able to reach a firm decision before too long as to what troops are to go.

     

    Q5. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I enter a last-minute plea that the Prime Minister reconsider his decision about a free vote for Conservative Members of Parliament next week on the banning of guns? Why cannot those hon. Members be allowed to exercise their own consciences and decide for themselves how to vote on an issue that the public regard as extremely important?

    The Prime Minister: We ought not to forget precisely what the legislation is about: the controls that we place on legally held firearms and the right of law-abiding citizens to use them responsibly. That seems to be a matter on which it is right for the Government to take a decision, as the House expected before the Cullen report was presented to it, and we have done so. Firearms legislation has not traditionally been considered on a free vote in the House and we are not inviting the House to do so on this occasion.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Health Service – 13 November 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the health service, made during an interview held in London on Wednesday 13th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what plans he had for the Health Service].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is a strategy paper to look at the Health Service, not just tomorrow, not the day-to-day decisions on takes, but to actually look at the strategy for the Health Service 5 years, 10 years, 15 years ahead. And there are areas in it where we will now consult further on management training, on the use of new information technology, that is an area of particular interest and other areas as well. But what it seeks to do is to re-state the commitment to the Health Service, make the point that the resources are going to continue to be available, as necessary, and make the point also that the resources that are needed are affordable within a growing economy. The Health Service is going to develop, we wish it to develop well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be privatisation].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no question of privatisation in the Health Service, there never has been. If we were going to privatise the Health Service we would have done it in the last 17 years, we patently aren’t. The Health Service is going to have private capital coming into it in addition to the public commitment, that has been happening for years with things like the Private Finance Initiative. But the National Health Service is the National Health Service and it is not going to be privatised.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he agreed with Labour’s view that large sums of money was wasted on administration in the Health Service].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They do talk such nonsense, don’t they? If they are really concerned about 100 million pounds, why did they oppose the abolition of the regional health authorities, which you might well say were administrators, and would save 100 million pounds? We have proposals to save three times that amount at the moment actually going through the National Health Service.

    Here we have a service that spends 35 billion pounds a year. It is necessary to make sure that the resources are directed to the right sort of area, that is what it is about.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the highest paid staff in the National Health Service were administrators and not doctors].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I doubt as much as you though Adam, so things are not too bad. I very much doubt that that stands up to careful examination. If you look at what is actually happening in the Health Service you are seeing a growing demand and a growing supply of health care. Now what is absolutely essential in a service of that size is that we direct the resources to where the medical need is. That can’t be done without adequate and secure management and that is what the proper management techniques are about. And I think if you look at them, if you take primary health for example, look at the fund-holders, there is an example of giving proper local management down to doctors. I think in a few months about 58 per cent of the public will be actually covered by general practitioners who are fund-holders. Now that was wildly attacked by the Labour Party some years ago, until very recently in fact, as being a waste of money and the wrong way ahead. As usual, they were wrong, we were right and they are now having to come off their policy because it is producing a better Health Service for people at the most direct level in primary health care.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview – 13 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview on Wednesday 13th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he thought unemployment would fall]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Unemployment has been falling steadily now for about three years, the monthly falls are erratic, last month was a very large fall, this month is a very large fall. Can’t guarantee falls of that sort every month, but that the trend is going down and is going to continue to go down over the months ahead, I don’t think it [indistinct].

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he thought that the Working Time Directive would ruin it all?]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it would damage it, course it would, if you put more costs upon unemployment then you are going to damage that capacity to employ people. The real damage with the Working Time Directive and the other Directives that would come the same way if we didn’t oppose them now, is that they would put particular burdens upon the small and medium size firms who are creating decent jobs. Let us be clear where these jobs come from, it is not the ICIs and EECs pushing the bulk [indistinct] of employment it is the small medium size firms, those are the ones that will suffer particularly with extra burdens on business.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he thought 2 million unemployment was too high, given how unacceptable that would have been in 1979]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well you can trust that you can put the worst interpretation on things, in Germany there are 4 million unemployed and it is rising, it went up 40,000 this month. In France there are over 3 million unemployed, there is not another nation in Europe given the economic scene that has been right across the world, in the last few years, that has got unemployment down to the level it has been. Our unemployment is not just below the rest of Europe it is considerably below the rest of Europe. Where theirs are stuck, our unemployment levels are falling, and not just in some areas, right across the country as a whole, and a particular dent in long-term unemployment. That is very good news indeed, and it has been going on for three years.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the state of the economy would be good news for the election prospects in the months ahead]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we have been concerned to get people back to work for 3 years, this is what policies are about. This is why we are trying to create the right sort of environment in which there is growth in the economy which we now have. Faster growth anywhere in Europe, and that growth in the economy is producing more jobs.

    Firstly because of the climate and secondly because it is more competitive to established businesses in this country than anywhere else nearby. And thirdly because we have fewer burdens on business and they are more likely to employ people rather than find a way of avoiding employing people and putting money into sometimes costly and ineffective capital expenditure. Now all that is very good news for a Government that wants people back at work, that is what we wish to see.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the Working Time Directive]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think that many people in the Trade Union movement, I don’t know whether this applies to Mr Monks and Mr Bickerstaff, but I think many people in the Trade Union movement see Europe as a way of returning many of the outmoded practices that we have managed to get rid of in the last 17 years. Now that is not an attractive prospect for the British workers, and I think it is the British workers and British competitiveness that we have to look at.

  • Government Statement of European Court of Justice Ruling – 12 November 1996

    Below is the text of the statement issued by 10 Downing Street on 12th November 1996 on the ruling by the European Court of Justice.

    STATEMENT ON ARTICLE 118A OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY:

    My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Government also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.

    However, in its judgement today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118a is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a.

    That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.

    The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118a cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom’s expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.

    I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are being undermined.

    Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118a which properly belong under the other Member States’ Agreement on Social Policy.

    I am sending copies of this letter to Heads of State or Government of European Union Member States.

    To : His Excellency Monsieur Jacques Santer

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview at Launch of Gas-Powered Cars – 12 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview whilst at a launch of gas-powered cars on 12th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the European Court of Justice ruling about the Working Time Directive]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a very depressing ruling that we have had from the Court this morning. Europe for a very long time has been losing jobs and losing competitiveness compared to the rest of the world, compared to South East Asia, compared to the United States, compared to Japan. And I think the most important thing for the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, is to make sure they are competitive to make sure their economies are fit and healthy and to make sure they are creating jobs. This ruling does nothing to help any of that. In the United Kingdom we now have a very bouncy, very competitive economy. We can see growth rising, we can see unemployment falling. I would like to see unemployment fall by a very great deal yet, it is still far too high. I want to see it fall very fast, nothing in this ruling will help that happen.

    I find it extraordinary that the EU cannot see the damage that legislation like this has done in the past, will do with this piece of legislation, and, perhaps most importantly of all, will do with further legislation like this that we have already been promised. So I believe it is a bad piece of legislation. I don’t accept that it is appropriate for the United Kingdom. We shall go to the IGC and we shall insist on reversing this legislation at the IGC and taking further measures there also to make sure that there can be no repeat of similar legislation in the future.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had a realistic chance of defeating this at the Inter-Governmental Conference]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    People asked me that question when I said I wasn’t going to accept the Social Chapter at Maastricht, but I didn’t accept the Social Chapter at Maastricht and our partners accepted that that was going to be the case. This is just as important, it isn’t just the question of this particular ruling, let me make that clear. This is a bad piece of legislation but it isn’t just that. It is the question that if we were to accept this piece of legislation, there would be a raft of similar legislation following it and I think the European Commissioner has already made that clear. There comes a time in those circumstances where you just have to say “No”, that this is not in the interests of the United Kingdom economy. It is not a question of being against good employment practice. I am very much in favour of good employment practice, but I want an economy in which we can create jobs not in which we put up barriers that prevent the creation of jobs. I would like British people back in work, not debarred from work because of the raft of legislation that makes it too expensive or too difficult to employ them. That is the point of issue, that is why we oppose this directive, that is why we are going to have it changed at the IGC and that is why we propose to have the Treaty changed so that this legislation is reversed and that no similar legislation can subsequently be imposed upon the United Kingdom.