The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Bordeaux – 7 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Bordeaux, held on Thursday 7th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, a crowded agenda today, I wonder if I could ask you first of all about the fight against drugs, that is clearly an area of great Anglo-French cooperation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is, and growing Anglo-French cooperation. It is a matter that both countries feel very strongly about. What we have seen this afternoon in some of the practical cooperation that goes on to try and stop drugs, not just as they pass through our countries but to track them back to source.

    QUESTION:

    Another area of cooperation in Europe is of course Airbus and it does appear that that is one area where European industry in beating American industry?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well European industry has done extremely well. Many people were very cynical when the Airbus Agreement was originally made. But what we have seen is Airbus moving from a very small enterprise into one of the very big players in the aeroplane market and they have just had a spectacular success with an order from the United States and I am absolutely delighted about that.

    QUESTION:

    And does that mean that they could even overtake the mighty Boeing one day?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well that is certainly their ambition and I see no reason why they shouldn’t achieve it. They are planning to develop their equivalent of the 747, that will complete their range of aircraft. They are already very big players in the world market and they have plans to become bigger players. It is I think without any doubt the most spectacular example of European collaboration in industry.

    QUESTION:

    Looking ahead to your summit tomorrow, it does appear that Europe once again will dominate. Given that there seem to be very different attitudes in France towards the single currency, and indeed towards the Intergovernmental Conference, do you think it will be a fairly tense session of discussions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good gracious no. I know Jacques Chirac far too well for it to be a tense series of discussions. We have a whole range of areas in the Intergovernmental Conference where we have either the same or very similar views. They are not identical on every issue but it is certainly not going to be tense in any way. We will set out our views and we will discuss the matters that need to be determined, both in terms of the Intergovernmental Conference itself and also of course Economic and Monetary Union.

    QUESTION:

    But there is still this big division on further integration, isn’t there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have different views on some things, that is certainly true, but I think every individual country in Europe has differing views on something or other, I don’t see any great problems with that, we will discuss those differences.

    QUESTION:

    And do you think they understand why Britain wants to participate in a single currency discussion without necessarily committing itself in the end?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t have any doubt about that. Everybody knows there are very serious technical decisions to be taken that are going to affect every country right across Europe and we need to make sure that we get those discussions right. That is as important for France, as it is for the United Kingdom, as it is for Germany. So I think everybody wants to see the fullest collaboration in the discussions.

    QUESTION:

    There is one area I suppose where Britain and France share a former imperial history. There is now great concern about what is happening in the Great Lakes area of Africa. The French have come up with some ideas for international intervention of some kind, is that something which you think Britain, if you are asked about it, will be able to give you a positive answer on?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sure it is something we will discuss. There are a range of ideas that are now floating about and I think it is moving quite rapidly to the head of the agenda in the United Nations and in most of the leading countries that are involved in the United Nations. There is no doubt about the seriousness of the problem, I think that is self-evident. There is no doubt that in one way or another the international community will be required to help. Quite how and quite what will be necessary is one of the things I expect we will discuss tomorrow.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 November 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    This morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. My right hon. Friend has now departed for Bordeaux to attend the Anglo-French summit.

  • PMQT – 7 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th November 1996. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    This morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. My right hon. Friend has now departed for Bordeaux to attend the Anglo-French summit.

    Mr. Garnier: May I commiserate with my right hon. Friend on the damage recently caused to his property by a gang of criminal thugs, which included two Labour councillors? Will he take this opportunity to contrast the Government’s record on law and order with the pathetic performance of the smarmy army on the Opposition Benches? That smarmy army has not even criticised, let alone disciplined, those two Labour councillors.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I must say that, when I looked out of my window, it seemed like old times–the winter of discontent, with the Labour party on the streets; the mobs of the 1980s, with the Labour party on the streets; and then, in the 1990s, Labour councillors on people’s private property, causing damage and disruption: and the characteristic of all three? Not a word of protest from the parliamentary Labour party. Labour Members talk about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but they do not even have the energy to walk through the Lobbies when we are fighting crime.

    Mr. Prescott: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why, 50 years ago this week, the Tories voted against the creation of the national health service?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, after 50 years, the health service has been administered and supported by Tory Governments for longer than by Labour Governments. Because of that, we have made it one of the best health services in the world.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand that the people simply do not believe the Tories on health? Does he not remember that, before the last election, the Prime Minister promised to cut taxes year on year? They went up year on year. Now the same Prime Minister is promising to increase health spending year on year. Is that not like the tax promise? Should not all Tory pre-election promises carry a Government health warning?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, under this Government, health expenditure has gone up every year. If he really cares about the health service, why will he not, on behalf of his party, now give a commitment to match our pledge to increase, year on year, real-terms expenditure on the health service?

    Mr. Prescott: The Deputy Prime Minister fails to understand that our national health service, set up by a Labour Government 50 years ago, was the greatest peacetime achievement of any Government this century. Is not the simple truth this: the British people know that the only way to safeguard our health service for the next 50 years is to elect a Labour Government, and the sooner the better?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The British people know that the Labour party will not give the pledge that the Conservatives have already given. After all, we hear all about windfall taxes. If they are so profitable and so available, why cannot windfall taxes finance the health service? The reason is, of course, that there is not an easy killing of a windfall tax any more than there is a genuine commitment from Labour to the health service.

    Mr. Pickles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a seminar in my constituency, the chief economist for the National Westminster bank predicted that small businesses would be particularly vulnerable to a minimum wage? He warned that a minimum wage would cost thousands of jobs in Essex. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will never introduce a minimum wage?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Any fool knows that a minimum wage costs jobs. After all, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the shadow leader of the Labour party, has already said so.

    Mr. Prescott: Don’t get too excited.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am always excited by the right hon. Gentleman. The whole House is excited by him. He is an exciting person. Never has someone been so wrong, so often, on so many subjects.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

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

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago, before my observations about the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.

    Mr. Gunnell: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in welcoming the support given by players of Leeds United, of Leeds rugby league club and of Yorkshire county cricket club to the urgent appeal for funds by Leeds general infirmary for essential equipment, which, it says, it cannot afford because of the national health service funding level? Is it not an absolute scandal that, after 17 years of this Government, that hospital, having closed 40 beds only last month, is forced to beg to survive?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I would overwhelmingly support anyone who sought to raise funds for charitable purposes for the health service. One of the most exciting additional supports to health funding in Britain has come from the idea of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensure that part of lottery proceeds go to charities in Britain. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members are prepared to sneer at charitable giving in Britain. I realise that they would rather tax people into a position where charity was compulsory, as opposed to relying on people’s natural instinct to give, but I cannot believe that the purpose of such a generous decision by the various players to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred is designed to turn the health service into a party political matter.

     

    Q3. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

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

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend have a chance to speak to the Prime Minister while he is in France preparing for the summit and get him to bring back a few souvenirs for Opposition Members? I have in mind in particular some recent issues of Le Figaro newspaper, which extolled the virtues of what had happened to French companies that had come to the United Kingdom to invest in British firms, highlighting particularly the low cost base here and the stable, growing economy.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw to the attention of the House the remarkable article in Le Figaro. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew my attention to it earlier today. The House will be pleased to know that copies of the article are on their way to this country. For the benefit of many Labour Members, translations will be freely available.

     

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

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

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bayley: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House of the new rules that were introduced to curb the abuse by former Conservative Ministers such as Peter Walker and Norman Tebbit, who left the Government and moved to the boardrooms of companies that they privatised while in office? Does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Minister who privatised London’s buses–the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)–has moved from his boudoir at the Department of Transport to the profitable and sweet embrace of Capital City Bus?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will want to take that question extremely seriously because a most serious allegation has been made against my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). My hon. Friend has not accepted any job with Capital City Bus or any other company. He has consulted the advisory committee on business appointments and, of course, he will follow any advice that that committee gives.

    I want to stand back from the regrettable nature of the question asked by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) and say that the only reason why no Labour ex-Ministers are in a similar position is that there have been no Labour ex-Ministers in recent memory. However, when there were Labour ex-Ministers, what was Lord Marsh doing–[Hon. Members: “He was a Tory.”] When he was at the Dispatch Box, he was a Labour Minister. He only became a Tory when he realised that we were right and he was wrong. What have Labour Members to say about Edmund Dell, who became head of Guinness? What do they have to say about Lord Varley, the former Energy Secretary? What about Lord Barnett, who is on the boards of a raft of different companies? It is one rule for them and one rule for everybody else–hypocrisy from start to finish.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jessel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

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

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jessel: As next year will be the 50th anniversary of the independence of India, and as relations between India and Britain have never been better, do the Government intend to supplement the Queen’s visit to India, the visit of our Prime Minister to India as guest of honour on Republic Day and my right hon. Friend’s visit to India to launch the Indo-British partnership initiative, with events in this country to mark the jubilee? Will he bear in mind that a large proportion of Indian people who are resident in Britain are natural supporters of the enterprise economy?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has left out of his list the distinguished role that he has played for 25 years as an officer and chairman of the all-party Indo-British group. He will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited my noble Friend Lord Cranborne to chair the group to determine how we can progress with such an important anniversary.

    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have rejected the recommendation of the Employment Committee that, in the unemployment statistics, the Government should include details of the 12 categories excluded from those figures? In those circumstances, does he recognise that the true number of unemployed is not just over 2 million, but nearer 4 million, and that the Government’s present figures are a complete sham and a fiddle?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I seem to remember the hon. and learned Gentleman producing reports saying that 100,000 jobs would go in the aftermath of the closure of the mines. Unemployment has fallen every month since.

     

    Q6. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

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

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Lidington: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent reports that about 40 per cent. of those leaving the jobless register are now setting up as self-employed to provide work not only for themselves but for other people? Does he agree that that augurs well for the present and future competitiveness of the country, enabling us to look forward to levels of unemployment continuing to fall in my constituency and throughout the nation?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is, of course, right. We have the highest proportion of our population at work of any major European country. The forecasts are that our position will continue to improve. I am delighted to recognise the announcement this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment of a significant extension of project work to concentrate particularly on those who have been unemployed for more than two years.

     

    Q7. Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

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

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Michael: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen advertisements for articles such as the Vindicator knife and the Rambo short sword? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to make it illegal to advertise or offer for sale such weapons in a manner that appears to condone or encourage violence?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: As the whole House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is in discussions with Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, but those discussions have not led to a simplistic definition that would have enabled the law to be changed. In other words, my right hon. and learned Friend was correct to say that this is a complex matter to which a satisfactory legal outcome has not so far been found. The whole House will be glad of my right hon. and learned Friend’s announcement yesterday about strengthening police powers of stop and search, particularly of those people who are likely to be carrying knives.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 November 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Union Flag and Royal Standard

    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for Wales to be represented on (a) the Union flag and (b) the royal standard.

    The Prime Minister: The Union flag is representative of all parts of the United Kingdom. Wales, as an integral part of the United Kingdom, is therefore represented by the Union flag. Similarly, the royal standard representing the sovereign of the United Kingdom applies to Wales as much as to every other part of the Union.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 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 – 5 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Primarolo: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 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.

    Ms Primarolo: Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to his own Government’s statistics, the average family living in council housing has been £3 a week worse off since the last election? Is not the main reason for that the fact that the Government have increased taxes 22 times since the election, and put VAT on fuel?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady is worried about the net cash position of council tenants, she might look to see who runs the highest tax rates across the country. The highest band D tax rates are imposed by Labour councils: Coventry, Salford, Hartlepool, Manchester, Islington, Redcar, Hackney–I will not continue the list; the hon. Lady knows them. If it is a Labour council, the council tax is high.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are doing everything in their power to help with the rebuilding of Manchester city centre following the terrible damage inflicted by the IRA bomb, while using some of the existing initiatives to help to regenerate our inner cities?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, following the bombing in June last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that a task force would be set up to oversee the city’s recovery. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), the sponsor Minister for Manchester, announced in Manchester today that EDAW had won a competition to redesign the city centre. That is an important step forward in the redesigning of Manchester, and, I hope, towards a greatly improved future Manchester city centre. Money has already been allocated from European funds, and it is quite possible that, if appropriate application is made, further funds will come forward.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister admit what he denied just two weeks ago: that, with casualty departments closing and waiting lists up in many parts of the country–and with some hospital trusts technically bankrupt–the national health service is indeed in a state of crisis?

    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that. Nor do I accept most of the misleading statistics that, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have used in recent weeks. If the right hon. Gentleman was so concerned about funding, perhaps some time ago he might have matched our pledge to increase funding in real terms each year.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister will now accept what his own Government’s statistics show: that, although they have spent an extra £1.5 billion on the national health service, it has gone into bureaucracy and administration rather than proper patient care. That is why there are 20,000 more senior managers and 50,000 fewer nurses since the Tory internal market reforms.

    I ask the Prime Minister to talk to people who use the national health service and who know when they go to a casualty department that something is seriously wrong; who know, when their appointments are cancelled and they are told that they are better off going privately, that something is wrong. Why does he not talk to women who had children in the national health service a few years ago and have had children recently and know the difference in the standard of facilities? Would it not be better for him to admit the existence of this problem and try to solve it rather than deny what everyone knows: that something is seriously wrong in the national health service?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman talks about management and bureaucracy in the health service. Perhaps he can explain to the country why he opposed the abolition of a whole tier of bureaucracy–regional health authorities–saving £100 million a year? The right hon. Gentleman’s party opposed that. If he thinks that a £43 billion service does not need proper management, perhaps he might remember what the Socialist Health Association said:

    “The NHS was traditionally under-managed and the party”–

    Labour–

    “should avoid bureaucrat bashing.”

    The right hon. Gentleman knows that it needs to be properly managed, that it is now being properly managed and that, as a result, money is being allocated to where it should go. He knows that waiting lists are falling, that the number of operations being performed is increasing, that a wider range of treatments is being produced and that the national health service is something that this country should be proud of, not something to be used as a political football by the right hon. Gentleman whenever that is appropriate.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that the Prime Minister–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. If any of the Whips have anything to say, let them come to the Front Bench and say it.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that the Prime Minister understands. This country is very proud of the national health service, but it is not proud of what the Government have done to the national health service. Is not the fear that any extra resources that are put forward now are just sticking plaster to see the Tories through to the election? Why will not the Prime Minister admit what the country knows: that there will be a crisis every year in the national health service while this Government remain in office?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that it was a Labour Government who closed hospitals, cut nurses’ pay and genuinely created a crisis in the health service. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to give up these kindergarten soundbites and concentrate on reality. NHS spending will be more than £34 billion this year–more than £720 for every man, every woman and every child. That is an increase over and above inflation of about three quarters since 1979. There were over 9 million episodes of hospital care in 1995-96–25,000 every day, up 46 per cent. in 10 years.

    As the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, the acid test is whether more people are being treated. They are, and they are being treated better and offered a wider range of services. The right hon. Gentleman knows that but he will not admit it: he is more concerned with his politics than with the reality of improving treatment.

    Sir Jim Spicer: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see the statement made last week by the railway franchising director in which he states in clear and unequivocal terms that, over the next few years, taxpayers will be saved more than £2 billion as a result of privatisation? If we add to that better punctuality, service and customer care, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that the Opposition prophets of doom and gloom recanted and accepted reality–that privatisation is good for the railways and good for the taxpayer?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. Not long ago, the Opposition were trying all sorts of scares about privatisation–safety on the railways, services being cut–all of which have been shown to be utterly and comprehensively wrong. The reality is that new rolling stock is being introduced, the service is being improved, there is more investment than before and extra services are being run on a range of lines throughout the country. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) may shake his head, but all he is showing is that he is ignorant–not that he has any knowledge.

    Mr. Ashdown: We have said what we would do to provide extra funding for the health service, both next year and now. If the Government have decided to commit more money to the health service for next year, that is a good thing. If they have decided that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the former Foreign Secretary, was right when he said that cutting taxes would be rejected in Britain if it was bought at the cost of closed hospital wards and sacked teachers, that is even better. But does the Prime Minister not realise that the crisis in the health service is not next year–it is now. Wards are being closed–now. Operations are being cancelled–now. Waiting lists are growing again–now. That money is needed–now. Will he provide it and, if not, what will he do to avert the national health service crisis and to prevent any further hospital ward closures this coming winter?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had better wait for the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on health service funding. It will be made clear at the time of the Budget. I have nothing further to say to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon except this: it was the right hon. Gentleman who, just a few days ago, was lecturing us about spending and debt. Now he is advocating extra expenditure. Whatever happens to be his tune for the day, he will shift to it. We have said–and we have kept the promise throughout 17 years–that we will provide extra resources for the health service to ensure that it is able to match the needs of the people of this country. That is why more people are being treated, and better treated, than ever before. The growth in the health service over the years has outstripped every other area of government, and I have made it clear that, in future, it will beat the inflation rate year after year after year. That is a pledge that people do not have to look in the mirror to see. They can look at our record. We have done it.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the present Government’s great success stories is the fact that they have brought about a growing economy with low inflation and falling unemployment? Will he now accept an invitation from me to visit Macclesfield, where all those facts are amply demonstrated–where we have a Conservative-controlled authority, where unemployment is falling and where we have an area that is proud to be Tory?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted that Macclesfield is doing so well. Throughout the country, we see falling unemployment, increasing growth, increasing jobs and increasing prosperity. That will continue to be the case while we retain a Conservative Government following the policies that we have followed in the past few years.

     

    Q2. Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware that more than 40 per cent. of retirement households in these islands depend entirely on the state pension–and that for a single person it is only £61 a week? Is he further aware that, if the link between pensions and earnings had not been broken in 1980, the pension would be £83 a week? On what basis can the Government deny pensioners who depend totally on the state pension any share at all in the increase in prosperity over that period?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. That is why we have always recognised the significance of the state pension as the cornerstone of income in retirement, and ensured that it has kept up with the increase in prices. In addition, of course, I accept that for many people the state pension is not intended to be the sole income. That is why, in preparation for the future, we have encouraged personal responsibility and additional pension provision and why, for the present, we have targeted additional resources on the safety net of income-related benefits for people who have no resources other than the state benefit. That is apart from the entitlement that they would certainly have to council tax benefit and housing benefit, so we have targeted a great deal of additional resources to ensure that people who do not have a substantial income and who perhaps depend entirely on the state pension have additional help.

    Mr. Carrington: As my right hon. Friend knows, millions of ordinary people own shares in privatised utilities. Does he agree that a windfall tax on those utilities would damage those investments and push up prices for the consumer?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about that. It is no good promising on the one hand to cut VAT on fuel while, on the other, proposing a windfall tax on the utilities which would put up the price of fuel by more than any potential reduction in VAT. Thus far, the shadow Chancellor seems to be spending the windfall tax on a number of different things, including helping the long-term unemployed back to work, improvements in child care provision–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]–new environmental tasks, small business VAT relief–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]. I am glad to hear Labour Members cheering. How much will the windfall tax be, and upon whom will it be levied? What will it do to the price of the utilities, which are used by everybody in the country? The more Labour Members cheer the spending, the more we know that the windfall tax will rise.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

    Mrs. Ewing: On this historic day when a certain individual tried to set fire to the House of Commons, will the right hon. Gentleman give some serious consideration to the thousands of pensioners and disabled people who, this winter, will be afraid to put on the fires in their houses? Will he give serious consideration to a reduction of VAT on fuel, a review of the home energy efficiency scheme and an automatic payment, thereby giving us a better reason to remember 5 November?

    The Prime Minister: I have always rather fondly hoped that we celebrated Guy Fawkes day because he failed to blow up the House of Commons. The hon. Lady’s point is similar to that raised a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and I hope that I can rest on that answer.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 November 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Prince’s Trust

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Departments which have an interest in the Prince’s Trust, indicating in each case the nature of that interest.

    The Prime Minister: At the relaunch of Prince’s Trust volunteers on 4 June, I personally pledged Government support to the Prince’s Trust’s aim of recruiting 25,000 young volunteers per year by the year 2000. I have asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to promote the scheme across the civil service.

    Government Departments work in partnership with the Prince’s Trust to help meet the many and varied needs of disadvantaged young people. The following Government Departments work with the Prince’s Trust in a variety of ways, from providing secondees to giving advice on benefits policy:

    Department for Education and Employment;

    Welsh Office;

    Scottish Office;

    Northern Ireland Office;

    Department of Trade and Industry;

    Home Office;

    Inland Revenue;

    Department of National Heritage;

    Department of the Environment;

    Department of Health;

    Department of Social Security;

    Customs and Excise;

    Cabinet Office;

    Department of Transport;

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office;

    Ministry of Defence;

    Employment Service;

    Benefits Agency.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 November 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Cabinet Office (Cash Limits)

    Mr. Key: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals there are to change the 1996-97 cash limit or running cost limit for the Cabinet Office: other services vote.

    The Prime Minister: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit of the Cabinet Office: other services, class XVIII, vote 1, will be increased by £4,354,000 from £37,682,000 to £42,036,000 and the running cost limit will be increased by £2,567,000 from £40,586,000 to £43,153,000.

    The increases reflect the transfer of provision of £645,000–running costs–and £1,457,000–capital–from the Office of the Public Service, class XVII, vote 1, to cover the cost of new repayment services; the transfer of certain administrative functions, the OPS’s contribution to the cost of early staff departures and new IT systems and the increase of £70,000 in both running costs and receipts to account for staff loaned to Inland Revenue on repayment terms.

    The increases also include the transfer of provision of £105,000–running costs–and £400,000–capital–from the reserve to fund new services and essential building works.

    The vote is eligible for a cash limit increase of £1,788,000 in respect of end-year flexibility for running costs expenditure. The supplementary estimate will give effect to £1,738,000 of the increase.

    All the increases are either offset by interdepartmental transfers or have been charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 31 October 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st October 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Queen’s Speech

    Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Vote Office copies of the consolidated press lobby briefing on the Queen’s Speech.

    The Prime Minister: Copies of the background notes have been placed in the Library of the House.

     

    Data Protection

    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether (i) the security services and (ii) GCHQ have registered under the Data Protection Act 1984; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) if the intelligence services have registered under the Data Protection Act 1984; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: No. Agencies holding personal data for the purpose of safeguarding national security are exempt from registration under section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984. The exemption is kept under review.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 October.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 October.

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

  • PMQT – 31 October 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st October 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 October.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government’s intention first to cut and then to abolish both inheritance tax and capital gains tax–moves that would be extremely popular with all who work hard to provide for themselves and their children? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that the electorate hears a great deal about taxes that the Opposition would cut and precisely nothing about taxes that they would raise?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We hear very little about the windfall tax. Instead, we hear about promised reductions in value added tax–reductions that were called “cynical” by a shadow Treasury spokesman last year. But we hear little about what the rate of the windfall tax would be, on whom it would be levied, or what it would mean for the people who use gas, electricity and the other utilities.

    As for our tax plans, I can confirm that our first priority, when it is affordable, is to move towards a 20p basic rate of tax; and then to deal with the other taxes that my hon. Friend mentions.

    Mr. Blair: I think that what most people remember about cynicism and tax is that the Government promised not to raise VAT before the election and raised it straight afterwards.

    On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that he could not be precise about lifting the beef ban now because there were continuing discussions in Luxembourg. That meeting ended last night. Is it correct that, although a compensation package for all European farmers was agreed, there was no agreed progress on lifting the ban? If so, given that the Prime Minister’s timetable for lifting that ban expires tomorrow, what is his new timetable?

    The Prime Minister: No, the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood something–but I shall happily explain it in greater detail to him. The discussions yesterday in the Agriculture Committee were not the discussions to which I specifically referred. The discussions are going on with officials and with the Commission in order to deal with the science–that was not a matter for general discussion in the agriculture debate yesterday.

    What was agreed was more resources for farmers. The determination of precisely where the extra £50 million will go is to be discussed in this country and decided later.

    Mr. Blair: Actually, the right hon. Gentleman said on Tuesday that the discussions on lifting the ban were continuing now. My understanding is that lifting the beef ban was not even put on the agenda by the British Government at Luxembourg–an extraordinary state of affairs.

    The Prime Minister gave us the November timetable; it has now expired. Is it his position that the Florence agreement is still valid, or is his position that that agreement should be changed? In the latter case, what change is he seeking; and in either case, given that he gave us a timetable before, precisely what is his new timetable now? I think we should be told.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman needs to do a little more research before he asks ill-advised questions on this subject. The discussions on the scientific evidence are continuing with the Commission. Those discussions were not especially appropriate for the Agriculture Committee. Many of them are technical discussions and they are continuing. As I said to the House very clearly earlier this week, scientific issues that arose after the Florence agreement remain to be determined

    As I told the House on Tuesday, of course the Florence agreement is still in being. Much of that agreement has already been met, and, as I set out to the House on Tuesday, a determination on the rest of it depends substantially on the points still under discussion. I shall explain again gently to the right hon. Gentleman that those points arose after the Florence agreement in the light of changed science that is still being discussed. I hope that that is now clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that it will be clear to the farming industry, to Europe or to anyone else. What is clear is that the Prime Minister said that the beef ban would be lifted by November. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. We all remember when he stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the ban would be lifted by November. Is it the position now that it will not be lifted by November, and that he cannot tell when it will be lifted? I think that is true. He simply cannot tell us what the position will be.

    Is not that weak and ineffectual leadership–precisely what means that his Government can no longer advance Britain’s interests abroad, nor look after them properly at home? That is why people in this country say, “Enough is enough”. [Interruption.] Yes, they say that. If we are to get leadership, direction and purpose back in Britain, let the British people decide, and let this weak and vacillating Government go.

    The Prime Minister: That really was one of the most trivial series of comments–utterly trivial. This is a matter of great interest to British agriculture. Scientific changes are important to that industry, but the right hon. Gentleman does not understand them, does not enter into any research on them, deliberately distorts what little he does know, ignores the reality of what is happening to the British beef industry, and moves–as he does on his third question every Tuesday and Thursday–into a carefully pre-packaged, pre-prepared piece of irrelevant, juvenile sloganising. [Interruption.] I hear applause for the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is undoubtedly the author of much of this sloganising. The right hon. Gentleman should give up this matinee performance, and start dealing with the realities of the beef crisis and other matters that we deal with daily.

    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the county of Yorkshire has an economy that is bigger and better than those of many small nations? Is he also aware that 140 companies from Yorkshire are quoted on the London stock exchange, which is more than many other regions in this country? Will he send congratulations to all those in the county who have worked extremely hard to achieve the present state?

    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to congratulate the successful innovators who have produced a successful economy in Yorkshire, and undoubtedly many of them have been successful. That is also true in other parts of the country. At the moment, we have the most innovative and the most competitive economy in western Europe.

    Mr. Ashdown: The national debt has been going for 300 years. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he has doubled it in the past six?

    The Prime Minister: Can the right hon. Gentleman name a single expenditure cut that he has supported?

    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Union that he wishes to protect is the Union of the United Kingdom, and that his Government will have no truck with proposals that put the Union at risk, and would not give people living in England the same opportunities as the people living in Scotland?

    The Prime Minister: I confirm the importance of the Union not only to Scotland but to England and the rest of the United Kingdom. I have never advanced the argument that devolution, or the separation that the Scottish National party wants, would be bad for Scotland alone, although I believe that it would be bad for Scotland–because I believe that it would be bad for the rest of the United Kingdom too.

     

    Q2. Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Austin-Walker: Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) reminded the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a BBC radio interview in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, recalling the introduction of VAT, said that if we could start again we could have VAT on everything. Does the Prime Minister share the Chancellor’s desire to extend VAT to children’s clothes, water, public transport and food, or does he share the view of Opposition Members and of the mass of the British people–that enough is enough?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly think that enough is enough of absurd sloganising of that sort. I am delighted that the Opposition have decided to spend so much of the money that they have apparently accumulated on the sort of trashy advertising campaign that they are trying to conduct this afternoon. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about VAT, I shall tell him what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said about a Scottish nationalist proposal to reduce VAT to 5 per cent. He described it as

    “another cynical ploy from an increasingly opportunistic and desperate party”.–[Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 49.]

    Now the Labour party is doing the same.

    Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following yesterday’s rise in interest rates, mortgage rates in this country remain at their lowest level for a generation? Can he recall any Government-announced interest rate move, whether upwards or downwards, that was not opposed by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: No. One part of the shadow Chancellor’s litany is absolutely consistent: if interest rates go down he claims that that shows weakness in the economy, but if they go up he claims the same thing. It is a consistent litany. My right hon. Friend is right about the present level of interest rates. He is also right to say that the British economy is exceedingly strong, and that we shall keep it strong and keep inflation low.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Hutton: Does the Prime Minister accept that, after 22 Tory tax rises since 1992, which have left the typical British family with an extra tax bill of £2,000, the British people are entitled to say that they have had enough both of him and of his party’s broken promises on tax?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the level of tax, I look forward to finding out which tax reductions he has supported in recent years. Will he say now that he will not support the windfall tax, the tartan tax, the health tax proposed by his Front-Bench spokesmen, or the teenage tax that will result from child benefit being taken away? Which of those, all of which have been proposed by the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, will the hon. Gentleman oppose?

    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the European Commission has disgracefully suppressed new evidence showing a clear link between rigid labour laws and high unemployment? Is not that a huge embarrassment for the Commission and for Opposition Members who support the job-destroying social chapter and a minimum wage? Does it not show that the Labour party’s approach would lead to massively increased unemployment?

    The Prime Minister: I have not seen the report, but like my hon. Friend I have heard that the report exists and that there has been some difficulty in getting it into the public gaze. I shall certainly ask whether the report will be published, so people can have a sensible debate on the policies that underlie it and see whether they are, as we believe, costing jobs; if they are, we shall consider whether we can take action to prevent that from occurring in the future and to reverse those expensive, job-costing policies, which are so much the flavour of the month with Opposition Front-Benchers.

     

    Q4. Mr. O’Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 31 October.

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

    Mr. O’Hara: Two days ago in the House, I repeated to the Prime Minister our invitation to co-operate in the introduction of legislation to regulate the advertising and sale of certain dangerous knives and weapons that are obvious to Opposition Members and to the British public and that ought to be obvious to the Government. The Prime Minister once again retreated.

    [Hon. Members: “Question.”]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Those who are calling out for a question are often the first to be guilty. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to carry out the regulations and put his question, but he does not need any guidance from Conservative Members.

    Mr. O’Hara: Certainly, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister once again retreated behind the need for a definition. We have now produced a definition and–

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must now put a question; otherwise, he must resume his seat.

    Mr. O’Hara: Has the Prime Minister seen the definition, does he agree with it, and will he now sit down with us and discuss it?

    The Prime Minister: Of course we will examine very carefully any constructive proposal. I understand that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and that there will be a meeting with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in the near future. I must say, however, that it seems that the Labour Front-Bench team has been forced to accept what my right hon. and learned Friend has said all along: that it is not easy to define knives to be banned, despite the fact that the hon. Member for Blackburn said that it was. I believe that he has had to change his position. Of course we will consider any constructive suggestion from the hon. Member for Blackburn or from the hon. Gentleman.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 30 October 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th October 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Parliamentary Delegations (Europe)

     

    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he has nominated a new leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union.

     

    The Prime Minister: Following the sudden death earlier this month of Lord Finsberg, who served with great distinction as leader of the United Kingdom delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union from 1987, I have today appointed the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) as the new leader of the delegation.