The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1997

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 January 1997

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Bletchley Park

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the current ownership of Bletchley park.

    The Prime Minister: The freehold of Bletchley park is owned in part by the Secretary of State for the Environment and in part by British Telecommunications.

     

    Sellafield

    Mr. Meacher: To ask the Prime Minister when he was first notified of the current proposals by UK Nirex Ltd. to build a rock characterisation laboratory near Sellafield.

    The Prime Minister: I was made aware of the proposals in September 1992. UK Nirex Ltd. made them public in October 1992 when it published a consultative document outlining the rock characterisation facility concept.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

     

    Nuclear Tests

    Dr. David Clark: To ask the Prime Minister how much money to date has been paid to the Australian Government in compensation for the nuclear testing carried out by the United Kingdom in the 1950s; what work Her Majesty’s Government are currently carrying out with the Australian authorities in this area; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: No such compensation has been paid. In 1968, Australia signed an agreement with the UK confirming that the clean-up of all test sites had been completed satisfactorily. However, in the interests of wider Anglo-Australian relations, in 1993, the UK agreed to make an ex gratia payment of £20 million, and now regards the matter as closed.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the dates he has visited Wales since 10 April 1992 in his official capacity.

    The Prime Minister: I have visited Wales on official business on the following occasions since 10 April 1992:

    3-4 September 1992

    11 June 1993

    28 October 1994

    13-14 June 1996

    In addition to these, I have visited Wales on a number of occasions.

  • PMQT – 21 January 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

    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. Campbell: In April last year, the Health Secretary promised to deliver a proper level of paediatric intensive bed space. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why, despite that promise, 15 critically ill children have been turned away from Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge in the past few months? Can he not keep any of his promises?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should check that her facts are accurate before she mistakenly sets out such policies. Every child needing a paediatric intensive care bed this winter has been found one. The bogus figures that the Labour party has produced can self-evidently be seen as bogus. Perhaps the hon. Lady would care to hear what Dr. David Hallworth, chairman of the independent Paediatric Intensive Care Society, said. He called Labour’s claims “pretty meaningless”, and very wisely added that this issue should not be

    “subject to party political point scoring.”

    Sir Terence Higgins: Does the Prime Minister agree that the electorate are not naive? They know that a promise not to increase rates of income tax is not the same as a promise not to increase personal taxation. If one says that one wants a starting rate of 10p, that is utterly meaningless if one does not also say at what level it will start and how wide the band will be. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the Government’s record on such matters?

    The Prime Minister: One simply needs to look at which was the last party to put up the basic rate of tax; and one recalls that it was the Labour party. One should look at which party has never supported a single Conservative tax cut and has done nothing to get the basic rate down to 23p–I think that Labour Members know that it is their party–at which party has supported absolutely no measures to control expenditure–the Labour party has supported none–and at which party has made £30 billion-worth of promises that it has not yet disclaimed, but that it must disclaim if it is to stand up its ludicrous claim that it will not increase taxes.

    Mr. Blair: The Conservative party’s 22 tax rises since the last election must have slipped the Prime Minister’s mind for a moment.

    May I return the Prime Minister to the point about intensive care beds for children? Does he accept that the figures given by hospitals of the number of children turned away–eventually found a bed in other hospitals, but turned away–are correct? If they are correct, how does that square with the Health Secretary’s promise that the whole matter would be dealt with, and that there would be no repetition of that practice, given what happened last year?

    The Prime Minister: I said a moment ago that the report produced by the Labour party was alarmist nonsense. I repeat that point. Every child needing a paediatric intensive care bed this winter has been found one–

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Not to the parents.

    The Prime Minister: Of course not to the parents–but, unless the hon. Lady will persuade the shadow Chancellor to provide more resources for health, I suggest that she and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) should not criticise a service that is treating more people, and treating them better. Just occasionally, it would be wise of them to praise the health service for the way in which it deals with the growing demands of health care, rather than always criticising it.

    Mr. Blair: We do praise the national health service. We built the national health service. What we condemn is the Government’s record on the national health service.

    May I put this to the Prime Minister? Of course it is the case that children are eventually found another bed–that was the case even in the tragic instance of Nicholas Geldard, which gave rise to this whole problem–but the Secretary of State for Health claimed that the business of having to go from hospital to hospital would stop. May I give the Prime Minister an instance from Bristol children’s hospital? Since January this year–even this year–15 children, just at that hospital, have been turned away because of a shortage of beds. Does the Prime Minister accept–[Interruption.] Hon. Members may shout, but does the Prime Minister accept that we are talking not just about intensive care beds for children? Has he seen the report prepared on community care for the mentally ill, and what today’s newspapers say about problems for doctors’ practices? Can he not accept that there is a crisis in some parts of the national health service, and that it is not good enough for him and other Ministers just to conceal the true state of affairs this side of a general election?

    The Prime Minister: If there is a crisis, and the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the language of priorities, why does he not match our pledge on spending in the national health service? If there is a crisis, why are more people being treated in the national health service than ever before? If there is a crisis, why have we met the charge set out by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), on whether our reforms are working–that is, whether more people are being treated?

    There are more intensive beds; there are more treatments; there are better treatments; there are speedier treatments. Unless the right hon. Member for Sedgefield is going to follow the lead that we have set in providing resources for the health service over the past 18 years, and committing ourselves to do so in the future, he is doing nothing more than seeking to make political capital out of a service that is dealing with a growing demand with great skill.

    Mr. Blair: May I put it to the Prime Minister that, over the past few years–since he has been in charge of the national health service–the service has been given 20,000 more managers but has 50,000 fewer nurses? Is it not the case that the national health service would be better if it were run as a proper co-operative service again, rather than hospital against hospital and doctor against doctor? The only party that will rebuild Britain’s national health service is the party that created it.

    The Prime Minister: It is perfectly true that the Labour party established the national health service, and I offer it full credit for its role in following up the Beveridge report instituted earlier by an all-party Government; but it is the Conservative party that has built up the health service. We have been in power for two thirds of the period that has elapsed since then, and we have built up the health service from its beginnings into a service that is now recognised as the best in the world.

    The figures that the right hon. Gentleman quotes on managers are wrong. The impression that he consistently gives of the health service runs it down. It would be very refreshing if, just for once, Labour Members acknowledged that we have on our hands the most successful national health service in the world, which provides more and better treatments than ever before. The reality is that the people of this nation who use the health service understand that, even if the Labour party, using it as a political football, does not.

    Mr. Rathbone: During the course of today, when the Prime Minister looked back on his trip to the far east, did he remember seeing there a beautiful and very rare flower called the rafflesia amoldia, which is parasitic in nature, is without a stem or roots and which with its vines embraces any handy, strong tree? If he did, did he draw any conclusions from seeing it?

    The Prime Minister: I saw no such flowers on that occasion.

    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister accept that, in last night’s vote, the Government won no part of informed opinion, including that in his own party, in support of their proposals for bugging people and their homes through the Police Bill? Surely he cannot accuse four past Home Secretaries, including a Conservative one, one past Conservative Attorney-General, the present Lord Chief Justice and many Law Lords of failing to back the police because they insist that those wide-ranging powers ought to be subject to prior judicial authority. We all understand that the Home Secretary must take time to digest that vote, but will the Prime Minister at least assure us that, rather than riding roughshod over that opinion, he will listen and respond to it? Will he note that, if he wishes to do so on a cross-party basis, we stand ready to participate?

    The Prime Minister: The whole House, including I assume the right hon. Gentleman, knows that intensive surveillance has been going on under successive Governments under the mantra of guidelines for about 30 years: there is nothing new about it. The purpose of the Bill was to put it on a statutory footing: that was what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was seeking to do, and he proposed that it should be put under independent review. The amendments tabled by the Labour and Liberal parties in the Lords contradict one another. They are unsatisfactory and will need to be changed. Of course my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will reflect upon the view that was expressed in another place, but the right hon. Gentleman has to realise that intensive surveillance can be used only in investigating serious crime and where there is no other way of obtaining the intelligence. That is an important principle, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to move away from that principle.

    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend remind those who listened with incredulity to the yesterday’s speech by the shadow Chancellor that, although imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is no substitute for the original?

    The Prime Minister: I suppose that every Conservative Member regards imitation as the sincerest form of flattery, but the reality is that, whatever the best intentions of the shadow Chancellor, the sheer nature of the Labour party is such that he certainly could not deliver that which he has promised. He knows that, I think the electorate know that, and the faces behind him portray that very clearly.

     

    Q2. Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Donohoe: Since 1989, some 25 per cent. of beds have been lost to the national health service in Scotland. Today, the senior Duke, the Duke of Hamilton, who happens to be the brother of the Minister who has responsibility for health in Scotland, told the people of Scotland that the Tories cannot be trusted with health. Does the Prime Minister agree?

    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain, after yet another attempt to denigrate the health service by the Labour party, why more people are being treated in the health service in Scotland and elsewhere. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that, or is he playing “follow my leader” by trying to use Britain’s national health service as a party political football for the Labour party?

    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend ask to see a report of the incident overnight at Full Sutton prison? When he does, does he expect to find that the progress that has been made in the Prison Service in recent years will be reflected by the fact that the disturbance was quelled quickly by the excellent work of the Prison Service and prison officers, to whom praise is due? Will he note that Full Sutton is a modern prison with no overcrowding, but that it holds some of the most violent prisoners in the country? It is their behaviour that was the cause of the riot.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point with great clarity and I need not add to it. I agree with him. I shall be seeing the report of what happened last night and I am delighted that it was handled so swiftly and efficiently.

     

    Q3. Mr. Clelland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Clelland: Will the Prime Minister accept some facts about the national health service? The Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle has turned away 23 children in need of intensive care beds in the past three months, including a 20-month-old baby who had to be taken 120 miles north to Edinburgh. If we add to that the case of my elderly constituent who, tragically, died after being driven 40 miles south to Hartlepool because there were no beds available in Gateshead, surely even the Prime Minister can see why the Tories are no longer trusted with the national health service.

    The Prime Minister: Of course I cannot respond immediately to the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman raised–if he had wished me to do so, he would doubtless have given me notice of them–since literally hundreds of thousands of people are treated in the national health service every day. The hon. Gentleman gave some facts about the health service; perhaps I can give him some. We now spend £724 for every man, woman and child in the country compared with £444 in 1979. [Interruption.] It is nice to see that the mouth of the Humber has returned from Hong Kong.

    The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) will also know that, each and every year since 1979, there has been a significant real-terms increase in resources in the health service. More people are being treated and there are more doctors, more nurses and better and wider treatments. That is a success story and, try as it might, the Labour party–the Labour party is certainly very trying–will not be able to damn the success of the national health service.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 January 1997

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ministerial Visit (Indian Sub-continent)

    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of his visit to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; and who accompanied him on his visit.

    The Prime Minister: I was accompanied by my wife and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. We took 24 members of my office and other staff, 23 members of the press and 48 representatives of British industry, although not all of them accompanied us throughout the entire visit.

    Detailed cost information is not yet available. The representatives from industry and the press will, of course, be charged in the normal manner.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Anniversary of Indian and Pakistan Independence – 18 January 1997

    Below is Mr Major’s speech at a rally to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Independence of India and Pakistan. The speech was given at The Commonwealth Institute on 18th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Britain – The Best Place in The World

    I’ve just returned from a long visit with British businessmen to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    Everywhere I went the welcome for Britain was very warm.

    Today, many people with an affection for those nations are gathered here.

    What brings us together?

    The same beliefs, the same hopes – to see Britain prosperous, stable, secure.

    A tolerant, civil nation, where everyone has the opportunity to make a success of life.

    We don’t wish to see people boxed into compartments or pigeonholed to fit into plans, according to their colour or sex or wealth. That isn’t the kind of society I care for. It isn’t the kind of society we’re building.

    We should relish the fact that every person is unique, with their own talents and abilities. Diversity is a strength and we should play to it, so that everyone can make the most of their skills.

    Some will do better than others – that’s a fact of life. Some will need help – and a Conservative Government will be there to help them. That’s a fact of life too. But all should have the same opportunities and choices.

    My aim is to make Britain the best place in the world to live.

    Is that a pipe-dream? We aren’t the same size as some countries and don’t have the raw materials or climate of others.

    But we do have something quite unique. We have our history. Our instincts. Our national character. We have, above all, the British people.

    And thanks to their hard work, Britain is in an enviable economic position.

    We’re enjoying growing prosperity – and, as we look forward, we can expect hard work to be rewarded with higher living standards, year in year out.

    The present prospects are very bright.

    And stability and prosperity are already giving even more people the opportunity to get ahead in life, the chance to realise their dreams and ambitions. Ahead of us is opportunity for all – irrespective of background.

    All of us here today share values that are instinctively Conservative. Some of you – or your parents or grand parents – have risked everything by leaving your country of birth and settling here. Your livelihood depended on your enterprise, your determination to come to Britain to give you and your families a better life.

    If you say to a gathering of British citizens whose fathers or grandfathers came from Asia or the Caribbean, “Look, we’ve all done a lot better than we ever expected, and life together is a happier experience than anyone would have supposed thirty years back”, you are bound to be accused of complacency.

    But I am going to say that.

    I believe the general record since the sixties is a good one – a record of living together, getting along with one another, of general decency. It utterly contradicts the fears which were so widespread in the late 1950s and 1960s.

    Many decent people feared racial tension – that there’d be riots, killings and endemic hatred, a trench war between dark and light-skinned peoples.

    The press was heavy with speculative articles about the rage pent up and waiting for explosion, the backlash which was so certain to come. Commentators deplored racism while waiting excitedly upon events.

    But the great trench war between the races never happened.

    Why is it those fears were so wrong?

    I believe it was thanks to the fundamental goodwill and decency of the British people. And politicians recognised that and built on it.

    Plenty of perfectly decent people were unsure about whether actual formal legislation on racial equality, the actual out-lawing of the colour bar, was a wise move.

    They feared the backlash and doubted the possibility of making good by law. That’s a respectable point of view, but also quite wrong. Public goodwill and decency existed Out there in the country, but had to be given a lead. If freedom includes freedom to run a colour bar, and bureaucracy forbids colour bars as evil, then that bureaucracy is right and that freedom is wrong.

    Politicians agreed on how to tackle the problems. We had fine leadership on the race issue from many in all parties.

    The best expression of the consensus is – not surprisingly to me – in the words of lain Macleod. Listen to what he told a Conservative Conference:

    “I believe quite simply in the brotherhood of man – men of all races, of all colours, of all creeds. I think it is this that must be in the centre of our thinking. .”

    Macleod went on:

    “And this is coming. There are foolish men who will deny it, but they will be swept away…”

    And they were swept away – not by legislation alone but by the British people. It was the British character that won the day. Civil, decent and tolerant.

    Society is an unimaginably complex thing made up of little threads and small actions. It works through a blurring of sharp edges, a million acts and omissions. And the acts and omissions of most people in recent decades are ones which imply acceptance and tolerance.

    Yes, tolerance. Tolerance is the real test of civilisation. Most of the relationships between people turn upon tolerance. It’s tolerance that confounded the forecasters of doomsday.

    “Oh,” says smart, knowing opinion. “Is that all? Tolerance? What a banal commonplace, little thing.” Yes, indeed. It is so banal, so commonplace this tolerance, that it is Alpha and Omega. It is so little a thing that if it disappears, men die.

    If you disbelieve me look at Srebrenica. That’s a warning of what happens when people no longer tolerate other religions or values or races. Tolerance had disappeared. Civility vanished.

    Civility goes far beyond politeness. It’s a breakwater against first thoughts and worst instincts. It inhibits anger, pulls away from prejudice. Civil people acknowledge other people – they respect their cultures and traditions.

    To take a concrete example, I think most civil people would share my concern about an approach some have to Islam.

    If you were to play the game of word association – you know, think of a word, then follow with the first next word you associate it with – I fear that I know what would too often follow the word “Islamic”.

    It would be “fundamentalism”.

    Now where all extremism or militancies do occur – Christian, Moslem or Political – I am going to be against them.

    But “Islamic fundamentalism” – how glibly it trips off the tongue. It comes out for all the world as if there were no other things which go with “Islamic”.

    But there are. And we must resist the temptation to judge a race or religion by its least worthy members.

    Because what is salient about Muslims – just as it is about Sikhs and Hindus – in Britain is that they respect the law, secular and religious, that they cherish the family and bring children up by earnest moral standards, that they are good citizens.

    They were attracted to Britain by our values – values that have brought people here for centuries. The Flemings, Huguenots, Jews.

    There’s a new, twentieth century word to describe our kind of society. Multi-cultural. I prefer a different word – cosmopolitan. Our trading history has, in every sense, broadened our horizons and outlook. They brought with them skills, enterprise, innovation.

    Their background did not stand in the way of success. They melded into the landscape of British society – and long may that continue.

    Today, neither race, nor colour, nor religion, nor background must stand in our way.

    If the man in the same office, cursing the same computer when it goes down, following the same football team, grumbling about the same café menu, has a different complexion, then it’s just about the only thing different about him. His job, his family, his hopes, his fears, his allegiances, his experiences are often otherwise all the same.

    Life is lived, people join, people belong.

    Darkness, lightness – that’s a difference losing significance with every day crossed off the calendar.

    A quick glimpse at Britain today and you cannot miss the tremendous contribution the ethnic community makes to our country. From footballers to lawyers, businessmen to pop stars, newsreaders to doctors – they’re all adding to and sharing in Britain’s success.

    And their success has come from hard work, enterprise, innovation. Making the most out of opportunities that come their way. That’s the kind of nation we Conservatives believe in and are creating.

    The Challenge Ahead

    I don’t wish to paint a picture of utopia. There is much still to be done. I don’t pretend that the prospects for the young black man in Brixton is yet as open to talent as it is to the young white man in the Home Counties. It clearly isn’t.

    But we must try and make it so.

    Jobs, crime, education – these aren’t purely racial issues – and no purely racially based solution would solve them. But many of these problems do bear disproportionately on ethnic minorities; unemployment rates are significantly worse for all ethnic minority teenagers. And black households are twice as likely to be burgled as white households.

    The institutional barriers of racism and prejudices that stood in people’s way might have begun to crumble. But we still have more to do to entrench and broaden opportunity.

    Politically correct policies won’t achieve this. No man or woman wants to succeed because of their colour. They wish to succeed on merit.

    Few things would inflame racial tension more than trying to bias systems in favour of one colour – a reverse discrimination that fuels resentment. An artificial bias would damage the harmony we treasure. Equality under the law – yes; equality of opportunity and reward – yes. These promote harmony.

    Policy must be colour blind – it must just tackle disadvantage. Faced by British citizens, whatever their background might be.

    Education

    But how do you achieve equality of opportunity?

    It begins with education.

    Over the last few years we’ve opened up our schools so parents – and taxpayers – can see how well they’re performing. That hasn’t always made comfortable reading. Too often bad schools are found where we need good schools the most – in areas where education is a lifeline of hope.

    Ironically, the councils whose schools score the poorest results are Labour controlled – the party that says education is their ‘priority’. In many of their areas it’s so bad it needs to be made a priority. Their politicians make the most of our reforms, enjoying the choice we’ve given them, but seek to deny it to other parents, leaving them to suffer the shoddy teaching their children have left behind. Equality of opportunity rings hollow coming from their lips.

    We’re helping those children who suffer from such education with practical policies. Testing children on the basic skills, and giving parents the results. Inspecting schools on a regular basis. And, when it’s really necessary, closing down failing schools.

    If young people aren’t able to read, write and add up from an early age, their chances of getting a rewarding job suffer a crippling blow.

    That’s why literacy is so crucial.

    We’re setting up literacy centres to pinpoint our efforts on those who need help most. On top of the tens of millions of pounds we’re already spending to help pupils who don’t have English as their first language, this will be another lever to raise standards.

    But that isn’t enough – we need to promote success and give excellence the freedom to flourish.

    Not every child is the same and they shouldn’t be forced to fit into a rigid education system.

    Every parent wants their child to be given the best education – and they’re the ones who know those children the best.

    So they should be in the driving seat of deciding what kind of education their children receive.

    Specialist schools, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and – yes, if parents want them – grammar schools. This is the choice we’re opening up.

    Creating a system that gives children an education that opens up a world of enjoyment, pleasure and potential. An education that prepares them for today’s modem hi-tech workplace, where getting a job becomes more competitive by the day.

    Jobs

    Almost alone in Europe, we’re enjoying falling unemployment. Britain is bucking the trend in spectacular fashion.

    This month, unemployment fell by 45,000 – down to its lowest rate for nearly six years.

    Over the last four years, Britain has created 900,000 extra jobs – more than France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined.

    Put it another way, since 1992 we’ve created the equivalent of two jobs every working minute – over 100 jobs every working hour.

    We’ve given people the tools – lower taxes, stable prices, a competitive edge – and they’ve created more jobs. Without the costly burdens of red tape and regulation that are weighing down European companies, British enterprise is winning the day.

    I know how tempting some of the policies of our political opponents might sound. New rights, new conditions, new minimum wages. But forcing employers to pay more to employ people means they won’t be able to take on new workers – but might end up sacking existing ones.

    And who will suffer? The young, the unemployed.

    Youth unemployment is 29% in France and 43% in Spain. That’s not a coincidence. Both countries have a minimum wage.

    Unemployment is not the kind of future I want for our young people – and it’s them I’m thinking of when I say ‘no’ to the minimum wage and Social Chapter. Why copy the mistakes other countries are making when things are going so well here?

    Unemployment is falling right across Britain – in every region, including the traditional employment wilderness of Northern Ireland – it’s now below 10%. That hasn’t happened for over 17 years. Some people used to point at certain areas and say they were no-go areas for new jobs. We’ve shown that doesn’t have to be so.

    Like the inner cities, where people need opportunities the most, but where it’s hardest to get a foot on the ladder.

    I was a councillor in an inner city once. I saw the problems people faced.

    And all too often socialist thinking made matters worse. It was well-intentioned – but wrong. Generations of wrong-headed policies in the inner cities drove away jobs with punitive business rates.

    The ambitious and the enterprising were driven from the inner cities by municipal controls and union driven services.

    Bad local government policy shut out new business with political correctness and impossible demands and self serving red tape. And the minority groups in our country often suffered most from this policy failure.

    But now look what’s happening.

    Bricks and mortar, jobs and hope are flooding back.

    Government-backed projects should create or preserve 600,000 new jobs, improve or complete more than a quarter of a million homes, and help over 92,000 businesses start up. Altogether, some £4 billion will be available over the next three years for local re-generation.

    Concrete proof that freeing enterprise, trusting private business, attracting investment spells new jobs, new opportunities, new hope.

    There’s more to do.

    Bring in more private capital. Break up monolithic council estates. Encourage more home ownership. Create more jobs. Build houses on a human scale.

    It’s a massive task. One I care about. But it can be done and we will bring in plans to do it.

    The people Labour have deserted, we’re helping – not with soundbites and smiles, but sound policies and substance. Labour’s heartlands reinvigorated by Conservative policies.

    Law and Order

    These policies aim not just to make people better off, but feel more secure.

    Safe streets and secure homes should not be a priority only for those in the leafy suburbs. Living free from fear is something every person should be able to enjoy. 5,000 more police constables by 1999, 10,000 more closed circuit televisions, tougher sentences for persistent offenders – these are practical policies to fight crime that has blighted too many communities.

    I spoke earlier about tolerance and civility. Sadly, there’s a small minority who do not share those values. They incite racial hatred and violence.

    That’s why we’ve given the police greater powers to deal with racially inflammatory material.

    But all too often, it’s verbal abuse that causes distress. Continuous snide, offensive language, designed to hurt. So we’ve strengthened the penalties available for intentional harassment and our new proposals will make the law stronger still.

    I’ve never been a victim of racial discrimination, but any decent person would agree that those kind of acts are utterly repugnant in a civilised nation like Britain. They have no place in our country – and never in our Party.

    The Conservative Party/Peroration

    The Party I joined is one that governed for the whole nation – because it represented the whole nation. You can’t tie a label to the Conservative Party. To me, that’s part of its attraction.

    We should remind people more often that the Conservative Party is an inclusive party – open to all.

    Its roots are sunk deep across the country. It must always be so.

    We have always had an alliance with people from all walks of life. That must always be so too.

    So to those of you here today and many beyond, I say that if you share our beliefs you are welcome.

    If you share our love of country, you have a place in our Party – in our associations, in our councils, in our Parliament.

    As an inclusive Party, we seek to build an inclusive Britain.

    We know how far we’ve come. We know what still needs to be done. We know how to do it.

    And if the work can be finished, we can then truly say “Britain is the best place in the world to live”.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 January 1997

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lord-Lieutenants

    Mr. William Powell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Lord-Lieutenants together with their date of appointment and current date of expected retirement.

    The Prime Minister: A list of Lord-Lieutenants, together with the dates of their appointment and expected retirement, at the age of 75, is set out in the table.

     

    County        Name        Appointed        Retirement date at 75

     

    England

    Bedfordshire        Mr. Samuel Whitbread        January 1991        February 2012

    Berkshire        Mr. Philip Wroughton        May 1995        April 2008

    Bristol        Mr. Jay Tidmarsh        April 1996        September 2007

    Buckinghamshire        Sir Nigel Mobbs        January 1997        September 2012

    Cambridgeshire        Mr. James Crowden        May 1992        November 2002

    Cheshire        Mr. William Bromley-Devonport        June 1990        March 2010

    Cornwall        The Lady Mary Holborow        September 1994        September 2011

    Cumbria        Mr. James Cropper        July 1994        December 2013

    Derbyshire        Mr. John Bather        June 1994        May 2009

    Devon        The Earl of Morley        May 1982        May 1998

    Dorset        The Lord Digby        September 1986        July 1999

    Durham(5)        Mr. David Grant        August 1988        January 1997

    East Sussex        Admiral Sir Lindsay Bryson        November 1989        January 2000

    East Riding of Yorkshire        Mr. Richard Marriott        April 1996        December 2005

    Essex        The Lord Braybrooke        August 1992        January 2007

    Greater London        Field Marshal The Lord Bramall        January 1986        December 1998

    Greater Manchester        Colonel John Timmins        December 1987        June 2007

    Hampshire        Mrs. Mary Fagan        January 1994        September 2014

    Hereford and Worcester        Sir Thomas Dunne        June 1977        October 2008

    Hertfordshire        Mr. Simon Bowes Lyon        January 1986        June 2007

    Isle of Wight        Mr. Christopher Bland        December 1995        October 2011

    Kent        The right hon. The Lord Kingsdown        July 1982        January 2002

    Lancashire        The Lord Shuttleworth        December 1996        August 2023

    Leicestershire        Mr. Timothy Brooks        April 1989        March 2004

    Lincolnshire        Mrs. Bridget Cracroft-Ely        March 1995        October 2008

    Merseyside        Mr. Alan Waterworth        October 1993        September 2006

    Norfolk        Sir Timothy Colmon        March 1978        September 2004

    Northamptonshire        Sir John Lowther        March 1984        November 1998

    Northumberland        The Viscount Ridley        December 1983        July 2000

    North Yorkshire        Sir Marcus Worsley        March 1987        April 2000

    Nottinghamshire        Sir Andrew Buchanan        February 1991        July 2012

    Oxfordshire        Mr. Hugo Brunner        February 1996        August 2010

    Shropshire        Mr. Algernon Heber-Percy        February 1996        January 2019

    Somerset        Sir John Wills        October 1994        July 2003

    South Yorkshire        The Earl of Scarborough        March 1996        December 2007

    Staffordshire        Mr. James Hawley        May 1993        March 2012

    Suffolk        The right hon. The Lord Belstead        December 1993        September 2007

    Surrey        Mr. Richard Thornton        May 1986        October 1997

    Tyne and Wear        Sir Ralph Carr-Ellison        May 1984        December 2000

    Warwickshire        Mr. Martin Dunne        December 1996        March 2013

    West Midlands        Mr. Robert Taylor        November 1993        June 2007

    West Sussex        Major General Sir Philip Ward        July 1994        July 1999

    West Yorkshire        Mr. John Lyles        August 1992        May 2004

    Wiltshire        Lieutenant General Sir Maurice Johnston        June 1996        October 2004

             

    Wales

    Clwyd        Sir William Gladstone        August 1985        October 2000

    Dyfed        Sir David Mansel Lewis        February 1979        October 2002

    Mid Glamorgan        Mr. Murray McLaggan        December 1989        September 2004

    South Glamorgan        Captain Norman Lloyd-Edwards        August 1990        June 2008

    West Glamorgan        Mr. Robert Hastie        April 1995        May 2008

    Gwynedd        Mr. Meuric Rees        December 1989        March 1999

    Gwent        Sir Richard Hanbury-Tennison        June 1979        January 2000

    Powys        Mr. Mervyn Bourdillon        June 1986        August 1999

     

    Scotland

    Aberdeen City        Lord Provost ex-officio                

    Aberdeenshire        Captain Colin Farquharson of Whitehouse        May 1987        August 1998

    Angus        The right hon. The Earl of Airlie        October 1989        May 2001

    Argyll and Bute        The Duke of Argyll        January 1996        August 2012

    Ayrshire and Arran        Major David Henderson        April 1991        July 2006

    Banffshire        Mr. James McPherson        October 1987        November 2002

    Berwickshire        Major General Sir John Swinton        September 1989        April 2000

    Caithness        Major Graham Dunnett        January 1996        March 2004

    Clackmannan        Colonel Robert Stewart        December 1994        August 2001

    Dumfries        Captain Ronald Cunningham-Jardine        October 1991        September 2006

    Dunbartonshire        Brigadier Donald Hardie        June 1990        January 2011

    Dundee        Lord Provost ex-officio                

    East Lothian        Sir Hew Hamilton-Dalrymple        January 1987        April 2001

    Edinburgh        Lord Provost ex-officio                

    Fife        The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine        October 1987        February 1999

    Glasgow City        The Lord Provost ex officio                

    Inverness        The Right Hon. The Lord Gray of Contin        August 1996        June 2002

    Kincardineshire        The Viscount of Arbuthnott        July 1977        October 1999

    Lanarkshire        Mr. Hutchison Sneddon        June 1992        April 2002

    Midlothian        Captain George Burnet        January 1992        December 2002

    Moray        Air Vice Marshal George Chesworth        March 1994        June 2005

    Nairn        The Earl of Leven and Melville        June 1969        May 1999

    Orkney        Vacant                

    Perth and Kinross        Sir David Montgomery        March 1995        March 2006

    Renfrewshire        The Lord Goold        July 1994        May 2009

    Ross and Cromarty        Captain Roderick Stirling of Fairburn        May 1988        June 2007

    Roxburgh, Ettrick and Lauderdale        The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry        June 1974        September 1998

    Shetland        Mr. John Hamilton Scott        February 1994        November 2011

    Stewartry of Kirkcudbright        Lieutenant General Sir Norman Arthur        January 1996        March 2006

    Stirling and Falkirk        Lieutenant Colonel James Stirling of Garden        December 1983        September 2005

    Sutherland        Major General David Houston        November 1991        February 2004

    Tweeddale        Captain David Younger        June 1994        May 2013

    West Lothian        The Earl of Morton        July 1985        March 2002

    West Lothian        The Earl of Morton        July 1985        March 2002

    Western Isles        The Viscount Dunrossil        December 1993        May 2001

    Wigtown        Major Edward Orr Ewing        September 1989        September 2006

     

    Northern Ireland

    Antrim        The Lord O’Neill        April 1994        September 2008

    Armagh        The Earl of Caledon        March 1989        May 2030

    Belfast        Colonel J. Elliott Wilson        February 1991        May 2000

    Down        Major William Hall        October 1996        August 2009

    Fermanagh        The Earl of Erne        June 1986        July 2012

    County Londonderry        Colonel Sir Michael McCorkell        May 1975        May 2000

    County Borough of Londonderry        Mr. James Eaton        August 1986        August 2002

    Tyrone        The Duke of Abercorn        December 1986        July 2019

    (5) To be succeeded by Sir Paul Nicholson.

     

    Visits to Pensioners

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister what visits he made to pensioners on low incomes during the recent cold weather.

    The Prime Minister: I meet pensioners throughout the year. Our commitment to help during periods of cold weather is underlined by the fact that over 5 million cold weather payments worth more than £43 million have been made this winter.

    In addition to cold weather payments, the total extra help above normal upratings made available to pensioners on income-related benefits since 1988 is worth around £1.2 billion a year.

     

    Bangladesh (Biharis)

    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had during his recent visit about the situation of the Biharis living in Bangladesh.

    The Prime Minister: This issue was not raised during my visit. We regularly discuss human rights issues such as refugees and displaced people with the Bangladeshi authorities.

     

    Companions of Honour

    Mr. Powell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those people created Companions of Honour since 30 November 1990.

    The Prime Minister: Members of the Order of the Companions of Honour appointed since 30 November 1990 are as listed:

          13 April 1992: The right hon. Kenneth Wilfred Baker MP

          13 April 1992: The right hon. Peter Leonard Brooke MP

          13 April 1992: The right hon. Thomas Jeremy King MP

          13 June 1992: Dame Elisabeth Jean Frink DBE

          13 June 1992: Noel Joseph Terence Needham FRS

          31 December 1992: Sir Victor Sawdon Pritchett CBE

          12 June 1993: Charles Hubert Sission

          12 June 1993: Dr. Elsie May Widdowson CBE FRS

          31 December 1993: Francis David Longhorne Astor

          31 December 1993: Dame Janet Abbott Baker DBE

          31 December 1993: Sir John Lindsay Eric Smith CBE

          11 June 1994: Sir Alec Guiness CBE

          11 June 1994: Professor Reginald Victor Jones CB CBE

          11 June 1994: The right hon. David Anthony Llewellyn, Baron Owen

          31 December 1994: Cesar Milstein

          31 December 1994: Professor Carel Victor Morlais Weight CBE

          17 June 1995: Sir Denys Louis Lasdun CBE

          17 June 1995: Sir Nevill Francis Mott FRS

          30 December 1995: Sir David Frederick Attenborough CVO CBE

          30 December 1995: Sir William Richard Shaboe Doll OBE FRS

          30 December 1995: The right hon. Douglas Richard Hurd CBE MP

          30 December 1995: The most Reverend Derek John Harford Worlock

          15 June 1996: The right hon. Richard Edward Geoffrey, Baron Howe of Aberavon QC

          31 December 1996: Alfred Leslie Rowse

     

    Pakistan and Bangladesh

    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has recently had with the Governments of Pakistan and of Bangladesh about refugees and displaced people in their countries.

    The Prime Minister: I discussed Afghan refugees in Pakistan during my recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Pakistan. I have not had any discussions recently with the Government of Bangladesh. However, we do discuss these issues regularly with the Bangladesh authorities.

     

    Peerages

    Mr. William Powell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the peerages created since 30 November 1990 together with the dates on which the holders were introduced.

    The Prime Minister: The peerages created since 30 November 1990 are as listed, together with the dates on which the holders were introduced:

    Title        Created        Introduced

    Lord Waddington        4 December 1990        4 December 1990

    Lord Sterling of Plaistow        17 January 1991        23 January 1991

    Lord White of Hull        25 January 1991        29 January 1991

    Lord Runcie        1 February 1991        26 February 1991

    Lord Palumbo        4 February 1991        12 February 1991

    Lord Griffiths of Fforestafch        5 February 1991        20 February 1991

    Baroness James of Holland Park        7 February 1991        19 February 1991

    Lord Laing of Dunphail        8 February 1991        19 February 1991

    Baroness Seccombe        14 February 1991        26 February 1991

    Lord Wolfson of Sunnigdale        26 March 1991        26 March 1991

    Lord Desai        5 June 1991        18 June 1991

    Baroness Hamwee        6 June 1991        12 June 1991

    Lord Marlesford        7 June 1991        11 June 1991

    Lord Judd        10 June 1991        25 June 1991

    Baroness Denton of Wakefield        11 June 1991        11 June 1991

    Baroness Hilton of Eggardon        14 June 1991        2 July 1991

    Baroness Mallalieu        19 June 1991        19 June 1991

    Lord Hollick        20 June 1991        25 June 1991

    Baroness O’Cathain        21 June 1991        3 July 1991

    Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn        24 June 1991        9 July 1991

    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish        26 June 1991        26 June 1991

    Lord Skidelsky        15 July 1991        17 July 1991

    Baroness Perry of Southwark        16 July 1991        16 July 1991

    Lord Cheshire        17 July 1991        24 July 1991

    Lord MacFarlane of Bearsden        29 July 1991        15 October 1991

    Lord Craig of Radley        30 July 1991        16 October 1991

    Lord Browne-Wilkinson (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)        1 October 1991        15 October 1991

    Lord Mustill (a Lord of Appeal of Ordinary)        10 January 1992        11 March 1992

    Lord Rix        27 January 1992        12 February 1992

    Lord Prentice        30 January 1992        12 February 1992

    Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank        12 February 1992        25 February 1992

    Lord Wilson of Tillyorn        14 February 1992        15 July 1992

    Lord Slynn (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)        11 March 1992        11 March 1992

    Lord Wakeham        24 April 1992 am        28 April 1992

    Baroness Chalker of Wallasey        24 April 1992 pm        28 April 1992

    Lord Taylor of Gosforth        27 April 1992 am        29 April 1992

    Lord Rodger of Earlsferry        29 April 1992        29 April 1992

    Baroness Thatcher        26 June 1992        30 June 1992

    Lord Finsberg        27 June 1992        13 July 1992

    Lord Parkinson        29 June 1992 am        7 July 1992

    Lord Healey        29 June 1992 pm        1 July 1992

    Lord Owen        30 June 1992 am        8 July 1992

    Lord Howe of Aberavon        30 June 1992 pm        1 July 1992

    Lord Lawson of Blaby        1 July 1992 am        6 July 1992

    Lord Merlyn-Rees        1 July 1992 pm        7 July 1992

    Lord Howell        2 July 1992 pm        9 July 1992

    Lord Moore of Lower Marsh        3 July 1992        6 July 1992

    Lord Tebbit        6 July 1992        9 July 1992

    Lord Younger of Prestwick        7 July 1992        14 July 1992

    Lord Amery of Lustleigh        8 July 1992 am        8 July 1992

    Lord Walker of Worcester        8 July 1992 pm        21 October 1992

    Lord Archer of Sandwell        9 July 1992        14 July 1992

    Lord Ashley of Stoke        10 July 1992        13 July 1992

    Lord Eatwell        14 July 1992        19 October 1992

    Lord Weatherill        15 July 1992        15 July 1992

    Lord Ewing of Kirkford        17 July 1992        26 October 1992

    Lord Geraint        18 July 1992        27 October 1992

    Lord Stewartby        20 July 1992        20 October 1992

    Lord Clark of Kempston        21 July 1992        28 October 1992

    Lord Plant of Highfield        24 July 1992        4 November 1992

    Lord Archer of Weston Super Mare        27 July 1992        20 October 1992

    Lord Ridley of Liddesdale        28 July 1992        28 October 1992

    Baroness Jay of Paddington        29 July 1992        21 October 1992

    Lord Williams of Mostyn        30 July 1992        26 October 1992

    Lord Braine of Wheatley        10 August 1992        2 November 1992

    Lord Cooke of Islandreagh        11 August 1992        3 November 1992

    Lord Barber of Tewkesbury        12 August 1992        2 November 1992

    Lord Hayhoe        21 August 1992        3 November 1992

    Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar        25 August 1992        4 November 1992

    Lord Elis-Thomas        18 September 1992        27 October 1992

    Lord Woolf (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)        1 October 1992        11 November 1992

    Baroness Williams of Crosby        1 February 1993        17 February 1993

    Lord Kingsdown        14 July 1993        21 July 1993

    Lord Dahrendorf        15 July 1993        21 July 1993

    Lord Menuhin        19 July 1993        20 July 1993

    Lord Attenborough        30 July 1993        25 October 1993

    Lord Lloyd of Berwick (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)        1 October 1993        12 October 1993

    Lord Haskel        4 October 1993        12 October 1993

    Lord Dean of Harptree        5 October 1993        13 October 1993

    Baroness Gould of Potternewton        6 October 1993        13 October 1993

    Lord Dixon-Smith        11 October 1993        19 October 1993

    Baroness Dean of Thornton Le Fylde        12 October 1993        19 October 1993

    Lord Lester of Herne Hill        13 October 1993        3 November 1993

    Baroness Miller of Hendon        14 October 1993        20 October 1993

    Lord Tugendhat        15 October 1993        27 October 1993

    Lord Nolan (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)        11 January 1994        18 January 1994

    Lord Wright of Richmond        14 February 1994        16 February 1994

    Lord Nickson        22 March 1994        4 May 1994

    Lord Quirk        12 July 1994        20 July 1994

    Lord Phillips of Ellesmere        14 July 1994        12 October 1994

    Lord Sheppard of Didgemere        6 September 1994        26 October 1994

    Lord Hambro        26 September 1994        26 October 1994

    Lord Dubs        27 September 1994        19 October 1994

    Lord Gladwin of Clee        28 September 1994        18 October 1994

    Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton        29 September 1994        11 October 1994

    Lord Shaw of Northstead        30 September 1994        11 October 1994

    Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)        3 October 1994        19 October 1994

    Lord Tope        4 October 1994        12 October 1994

    Baroness Rawlings        5 October 1994        18 October 1994

    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood        6 October 1994        2 November 1994

    Lord Kingsland        7 October 1994        2 November 1994

    Lord Blaker        10 October 1994        25 October 1994

    Lord Steyn (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)        11 January 1995        18 January 1995

    Baroness Hogg        3 February 1995        14 February 1995

    Lord McConnell        10 February 1995        15 February 1995

    Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill        17 February 1995        22 February 1995

    Lord Hoffman (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)        21 February 1995        1 March 1995

    Lord Hope of Craighead        28 February 1995        28 March 1995

    Lord Blyth of Rowington        24 July 1995        18 October 1995

    Lord Cuckney        25 July 1995        18 October 1995

    Lord Eames        25 August 1995        1 November 1995

    Lord Habgood        8 September 1995        25 October 1995

    Lord Mackay of Drumadoon        13 December 1995        13 December 1995

    Lord Winston        18 December 1995        20 December 1995

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire        19 December 1995        20 December 1995

    Lord McNally        20 December 1995        9 January 1996

    Lord Borrie        21 December 1995        16 January 1996

    Baroness Hayman        2 January 1996        10 January 1996

    Lord Sewel        10 January 1996        10 January 1996

    Lord Harris of Peckham        11 January 1996        7 February 1996

    Lord Pilkington of Oxenford        12 January 1996        7 February 1996

    Lord Feldman        15 January 1996        14 February 1996

    Baroness Wilcox        16 January 1996        13 February 1996

    Lord Taverne        5 February 1996        14 February 1996

    Lord Kilpatrick of Kincraig        16 February 1996        28 February 1996

    Lord Gilmore of Thamesfield        21 February 1996        28 February 1996

    Lord Cooke of Thorndon        3 April 1996        8 May 1996

    Lord Bingham of Cornhill        4 June 1996        26 June 1996

    Baroness Lloyd of Highbury        19 August 1996        ––

    Lord Vincent of Coleshill        3 September 1996        30 October 1996

    Lord Hussey of North Bradley        11 September 1996        6 November 1996

    Lord Thomas of Gresford        30 September 1996        29 October 1996

    Lord Clyde (A Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)        1 October 1996 am        16 October 1996

    Lord Currie of Marylebone        1 October 1996 am        29 October 1996

    Lord Taylor of Warwick        2 October 1996        30 October 1996

    Lord Saatchi        4 October 1996        20 November 1996

    Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean        7 October 1996        27 November 1996

    Lord Alderdice        8 October 1996        5 November 1996

    Lord Paul        9 October 1996        12 November 1996

    Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale        11 October 1996        12 November 1996

    Baroness Anelay of St. Johns        14 October 1996        5 November 1996

    Baroness Byford        15 October 1996        19 November 1996

    Lord Chadlington        16 October 1996        6 November 1996

    Lord Rogers of Riverside        17 October 1996        3 December 1996

    Lord Maclaurin of Knebworth        18 October 1996        27 November 1996

    Lord Whitty        21 October 1996        19 November 1996

    Lord Hutton (A Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)        6 January 1997        14 January 1997

  • PMQT – 16 January 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. William O’Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. O’Brien: Will the Prime Minister explain why tens of thousands of my constituents are finding it extremely difficult to pay their energy bills this winter? Why did he impose value added tax on their fuel bills when he promised the nation that there would be no increase in VAT? Will he explain why people should suffer from cold this winter because of his imposition of VAT on their fuel bills?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should know that, during the past few years, the price of fuel has been steady at the worst. The real price of some fuels has fallen as a result of the privatisation of the energy industries. The hon. Gentleman will recall, when last there was a Labour Government, that the price of fuel was rising at a rate of 30 per cent. a year.

    Mr. Legg: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for my private Member’s Bill, which is aimed at countering drug abuse in clubs, and is to have its Second Reading tomorrow? Did he manage to make any further progress in the war on drugs during his visit to the Indian sub-continent? What is his reaction to the comments made today by Brian Harvey of East 17, who says that Ecstasy makes people feel better and that he takes up to 12 tablets a day?

    The Prime Minister: I have not read the comments about Ecstasy, but I regard any comments of that sort as wholly wrong. Drug taking, whatever the drug may be, tends to lead on to hard drugs. We have seen often enough the tragedy that then occurs.

    As for my visit to the Indian sub-continent, in Pakistan especially, I looked at one of the most important drug routes along which a very large amount of hard drugs comes from Afghanistan, through Pakistan, to northern Europe. I spent some time discussing with the Pakistan Government and others what measures we may take to assist them to ensure that drugs are caught at source and do not reach either Pakistan or northern Europe.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister accept that, before the last general election, he gave a categorical pledge not to extend value added tax, and that after the election, in the first Budget, he did indeed extend VAT? Is that true or false?

    The Prime Minister: I think that we all know what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to justify the crude and untruthful campaign that was launched this morning–a campaign that he knows is simply scaremongering and which will not persuade the British people. We now know very clearly where the negative campaigning comes from and who encourages it.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps we can return to the question and see whether we can have an answer. I think that we are entitled to draw attention to the Prime Minister’s record and to draw an inference from it. Did he stand at that Dispatch Box and promise not to extend VAT–yes or no–and did he then extend it in the first Budget after the general election, yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the imputations he is trying to make. It is the Labour party–not the Government–that has made £30 billion of spending commitments, and it is the Labour party that would need to raise tax or break the promises that it has made to the people. The Government have set out our tax proposals, our expenditure plans and our declining borrowing requirement. It is the right hon. Gentleman–not the Government–who has questions to answer.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister is so confident in his denials, after 22 Tory tax rises since the general election, and if, as he constantly tells us, he is raring to go in an election campaign, why does he not experience a rare moment of decisiveness, call the general election–call it now–and let us all put our arguments to the verdict of the people?

    The Prime Minister: That campaign will come, and I look forward to it, but if the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about tax levels and wants to cut them, perhaps he will tell us which of his spending commitments he would cut.

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

    The Prime Minister: What public expenditure would be reduced under a Labour Government? What expenditure has the Labour party opposed? Which of our tax reductions has it supported? The right hon. Gentleman says one thing, but his entire record shows that he does another.

    Mr. Faulds rose–

    Madam Speaker: Points of order come after Question Time.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If my right hon. Friend wanted to raise a substantial amount of money in the next tax year, would he tax savings by restricting personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts, tax pensions by taxing pension funds and increase pensioners’ electricity and gas bills with a windfall tax? Is not the truth that the Chancellor has published his tax proposals in public, whereas the Labour party is considering proposals in private?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his points extremely clearly. We know that the windfall tax would pay, were Labour given the opportunity, for all sorts of goodies–there is a larger number of them every day. We now hear rumours that the windfall tax would be illegal. If, as has been said, the Labour party has legal advice to the contrary, let it publish that legal advice. What did the right hon. Gentleman say when asked about the windfall tax? He stated:

    “Well, we haven’t given a figure on that because we said that’s something that has to be and should be, I mean this would be . . . “.

    That is the gobbledegook we heard from the right hon. Gentleman. Labour does not know how it would pay for its programme, but we know–it would put up taxes.

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

    Madam Speaker: I think that I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman’s point of order.

    Mr. Faulds: This is rubbish.

    Madam Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Gentleman after the statement. I ask him to resume his seat.

    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is Government policy to be ready to join a single currency on 1 January 1999, and that they are willing to do so if it is in the nation’s interest?

    The Prime Minister: We will keep our options open, which is the entire purpose of the opt-out. We will make preparatory plans–which has been our position since, at Maastricht, some time ago, we established the opt-out.

    Mr. Tracey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of widespread support among the British public for more stringent penalties against persistent offenders, as proposed in the Government’s Crime (Sentences) Bill? What conclusions does he think that the public will draw from the Labour party’s abstention on the Bill and all Liberal Members’ voting against it? Is it not a fact that only the party of government is in favour of measures against criminals?

    The Prime Minister: I am shocked by that rare difference between the would-be coalition partners on this subject. Not just on this Bill, but on a series of recent law and order Bills, the Opposition, despite what they have said, have voted against the Government’s tougher law and order measures. By their votes they should be judged.

     

    Q2. Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. McAvoy: The Prime Minister has stoutly refused to own up to his 1992 pledge not to extend VAT to fuel. Conservative Members may not like it, but the Prime Minister is demeaning his office by repeatedly refusing to answer the question. Bearing in mind his shifty performance this afternoon, does he understand that the British people simply do not believe his promises on VAT?

    The Prime Minister: I wonder what makes me suspect a degree of co-ordination in Labour questions. Is it perhaps the guilty look on the hon. Gentleman’s face? The Labour party is seeking to smear in a crude campaign about the Government’s plans for the next Parliament. It simply will not wash.

    Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend find time today to study the statement by Commissioner van Miert on the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines and the threat–implicit threat perhaps–of fining the United Kingdom Government if they permit that alliance to go ahead? Surely it is a fundamental freedom for a national airline to decide in its commercial interests with whom it may or may not have an alliance anywhere in the world.

    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the Commissioner’s comments on the alliance, which were made within the framework of the existing structure of air services. I find them very strange when it has been made clear that the British Airways-American Airlines alliance can go ahead only if airline services are liberalised. The present position is that the Director General of Fair Trading will consider the Commission’s views with any other views that he has received when he prepares his advice to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. It will be for my right hon. Friend to decide whether to clear the alliance.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Cunningham: Can I now have a straight answer from the Prime Minister? Does he recall saying before the last general election that he had no plans to extend the impact of VAT? Why should anyone believe him now?

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to several of my earlier answers.

     

    Q4. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Evans: This question is not about VAT. I have not been included in the Opposition’s little scheme. I should like the Prime Minister immediately to introduce compulsory homework on basic economics for Labour politicians. They believe that they can spend £30 billion without there being massive tax increases or massive increases in borrowing. Does he agree that the electorate will not want to risk trading an improving economy and shrinking unemployment for the economic paralysis and tax hikes that will certainly come about if the nightmare happens and a Labour Government are elected?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has hit on an extremely good idea. If Labour Members did their homework–particularly the shadow Chancellor–they would learn that Labour’s sums do not add up. They cannot promise £30 billion of expenditure and at the same time say that they will not increase taxation.

    Mr. David Shaw: It will end in tears.

    The Prime Minister: What an excellent expression. It will end in tears. I strongly suspect that it will. The reality is that people will rumble the fact that Labour Members cannot keep those promises without putting up taxes.

    They cannot promise £30 billion in that fashion. If they ever formed a Government, Labour would be the same old tax raisers that they always have been.

    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the depths of dismay being felt on Merseyside as 1,300 Ford workers face redundancy, despite having won for their plant the company’s in-house award for achievement and quality of production just a few months ago? Does he accept that his Chancellor’s comments this afternoon that

    “You can’t win them all” have worsened that sense of dismay and make it look as though the Government do not care? Will he tell the House what action he and his Ministers are taking to secure the future of Ford Halewood and to find work for those who are facing redundancy?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend said–if the hon. Lady had quoted him fully–how much he regretted that decision, and so do I. It is surprising that Ford has decided to move; it flies in the face of most investment decisions, which are moving to the United Kingdom. That should not hide the fact that Ford’s new investment in Jaguar is worth 5,000 jobs and that it plans a further £2.6 billion of investment by 2000 and a lot of other investments.

    I understand entirely that that is no comfort to the workers in Halewood and I hope that it will be possible for them to find alternative employment, for example with other inward investors. The hon. Lady sniggers. When has she ever know inward investment like this coming into England? When has she ever known a time when the output of cars was at such a high level? As usual, the hon. Lady–I do not mean the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), who asked the question; I mean the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle)–sits there assuming that she would be able to put things right. The policies that she advocates led the British car industry to ruin. The British car industry is more successful today than it has been since the hon. Lady was born.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 January 1997

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Netherlands (Visit)

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister which persons representing which bodies were present at the meetings he attended recently with the President of the European Council in the Netherlands.

    The Prime Minister: I met the Prime Minister of the Netherlands in The Hague on 7 January. Mr. Kok was accompanied by his State Secretary for Foreign Affairs and three officials. I was accompanied Her Majesty’s ambassador at The Hague and three officials.

     

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Prime Minister who represented the British Government at the OECD conference on 16 December on economic flexibility and social cohesion in the 21st century.

    The Prime Minister: Participants to this conference were invited as individuals and not representatives of Governments. Professor Snower of Birbeck college attended, and presented a paper concerning long-term implications of current economic and social policies.

     

    Chlorofluorocarbons

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister which department is responsible for matters relating to the illegal trade in CFCs.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The Department of the Environment has responsibility for the United Kingdom’s domestic and international policy on the control of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal protocol, including trade controls. CFCs imported into the European Union require a licence from the European Commission. Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise is responsible within the UK for checking that such imports are properly licensed.

     

    Royal Travel

    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects parliamentary approval to be sought for the estimate relating to official royal travel by rail and air.

    The Prime Minister: The new grant-in-aid for royal travel will be payable from 1 April 1997 and will be administered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Pending approval of the main estimates for 1997-98, authority for payment will rest on the vote on account for 1997-98 and the winter supplementary estimate for class V, vote 3, both of which have already been approved by Parliament. Specific provision for royal travel is planned to be made in the main estimates for the Department of Transport’s votes. Main estimates are normally laid before Parliament shortly before the financial year to which they relate.

  • PMQT – 14 January 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th January 1997. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Ainger: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is returning from an official visit to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    Mr. Ainger: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen the results of a survey conducted by the Health Visitors Association showing that 2 million British children are malnourished, that one third of health visitors are dealing with childhood tuberculosis and that rickets has returned to plague hundreds of British children? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the association that those appalling effects on health are a direct result of family poverty and deprivation, and does he agree with me that any Government who are able to recreate the social conditions of the 19th century at the end of the 20th do not deserve to serve into the 21st?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The last occasion on which we saw some of the social conditions of the 19th century was in 1979, when the winter of discontent characterised the activities of the last Labour Government. The survey to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been drawn to my attention and I reject its findings.

    Mr. Richards: Has my right hon. Friend seen today’s edition of the Western Mail? Its front page states that the water and electricity giant Hyder is to move into the gas supply market, which would reduce prices by some £40 a year for the consumer. Does he agree that, if there were a windfall tax, Welsh consumers would be robbed of price cuts, and Labour’s policies would yet again end in tears?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the dangers of imposing a windfall tax on the people of Wales. He would, however, also be right to point to the dangers for a large number of people–pensioners and employees–who would suffer from the punitive effects of such a tax; although it must be said that, according to recent evidence, no such tax could be effectively levied. That leaves the question, “Where is the money coming from to fund Labour’s extravagant expenditure plans?”

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Prime Minister accept the verdict of the British Medical Association that the health service is facing its worst crisis for 10 years?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is difficult for the hon. Lady to suggest, when we have just announced £1.6 billion extra expenditure, that there is a crisis in the health service. The fact is that 25,000 patients a day are being treated in the health service. Nothing does more damage to the morale of those who work in it, and provide excellent service, than the endless sniping of the Labour party, which is obviously oblivious to the fact that for most of its life the health service has been safe in the hands of Tory Governments.

    Mrs. Taylor: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realise that the picture that he paints bears little resemblance to the everyday experiences of ordinary families in Britain? His complacency is an insult to the families of women in Leeds and London who died in the past few days because intensive care beds were not available. Can he not understand that his failure to give a serious answer to serious questions proves beyond doubt that the health service is not safe in Tory hands?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: As we are spending £724 for every man, woman and child in Britain, perhaps the hon. Lady will explain how things were better when it was only £444 in 1978-79, but there is a serious point behind what the hon. Lady raises: the need to provide intensive care beds. That is why, in December, we set up a national register for intensive care beds so that, by a single call, doctors can find out where they are–[Interruption.] I would have thought that the Labour party would be interested in the health service. As the Labour party and the whole House will know, the demand for hospital beds can literally double in a day and if the Labour party is suggesting that, in every hospital, we should keep beds empty all the time for fear that there may be an emergency, it is important that it should say that so that we can understand the lost opportunities for a large number of patients who rely on those beds.

    Mrs. Taylor: Surely everyone in Britain has the right to expect the national health service to be able to provide emergency, life-saving treatment when it is necessary. Is not the problem with what the Deputy Prime Minister says about figures and money the basic fact that the Government have created 20,000 more administrators and lost 50,000 nurses? If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the expert opinion of the British Medical Association, and if he wants a second opinion on the state of the health service, why not consult the people who really matter–the electorate–and the sooner the better?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady were a little more realistic with the figures that she quoted, she would have to point out that there are now 55,000 more qualified nurses and midwives than there were when the Labour party was last responsible for the health service and that waiting times are down. About 200,000 people were waiting more than 12 months in 1990–80,000 of them were doing so for more than two years–but today around 15,000 patients are waiting more than 12 months and only a couple of dozen are waiting more than 18 months.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Would my right hon. Friend have been prepared to answer questions from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) if his friends had not been so terrified of what he might say that they bundled him off to Hong Kong?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to ring me to explain that he could not be in the House this afternoon. I am not exactly sure why, but, given what the Leader of the Labour party said on Sunday, it occurs to me that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) may have gone looking for a job.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jones: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the low morale in the teaching profession as a result of changes in the rules on the early retirement scheme and of the poor settlement that local authorities had in Wales this year? Is he aware, for example, that hundreds of teachers in Wales are applying for early retirement and that 1,000 others face redundancy as a result of local authority cuts? Are those the education policies that the Government will be pursuing in Wales in election year? If so, they are in for a rough ride. The right hon. Gentleman can restore morale by extending the consultation period on the teachers’ pension plan and by giving local education authorities more money so that they can at least maintain existing services.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has made it absolutely plain why she is changing the rules of the early retirement programme. I do not know which world the hon. Gentleman is living in, but he must be aware that the Government have provided an extra £875 million for schools, colleges and universities next year. How he can talk about a crisis, I fail to understand.

    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that local government in Manchester, Liverpool, Lambeth and Islington is inefficient and incompetent and that those authorities are run by the people who wish to run the country? Run the country? The Labour party could not run a bath.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Every time Labour spokesmen tell us what they would like to do to improve education standards I wonder why they do not talk to Labour councillors who run local education authorities and tell them to improve the appalling record over which they preside.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hoyle: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that on 6 March 1996 the Secretary of State for Health gave an assurance that he would keep a close eye on intensive care capacity? Despite that assurance, a lack of intensive care beds in Warrington hospital means that operations are being cancelled and patients are being transferred to hospitals as far away as Leeds. That is happening not just in Warrington but throughout the north-west. Because of the Government’s folly, the number of bureaucrats has increased threefold at the expense of beds for patients. What does the Deputy Prime Minister, the most important person in the country at the moment, intend to do about that?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the provision of emergency beds. Health service administrators, who, as I said, cope with 25,000 patients a day, do a remarkable job in extraordinarily difficult and unpredictable circumstances. If one asks our hospital administrators to keep beds empty in anticipation of emergency admissions, one must explain to those who do not get the advantages of those beds why they are empty. Labour would be the first to complain if it could show that beds were empty because we had said that we had to keep them empty in case of emergency admissions.

    Mr. Marlow: The Government have obviously been studying the so-called windfall tax. I wonder how it would work if a company, having been floated, was then taken over–

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question on a matter for which the Government have responsibility. If he does that, I will listen to him. If he does not, I shall call another hon. Member. Questions must be on Government accountability.

    Mr. Marlow: If my right hon. Friend were looking for advice on how to run our schools, would he take it from a party that has been running local education authorities that have produced the most appalling results in the country?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the difference between the rhetoric and the performance of Labour local education authorities. I have no doubt that there is a chilling relationship between their incompetence in education management and the incompetence that has led to the production of an unworkable scheme called the windfall tax.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Cummings: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. Is he aware of a recent case in which a seriously ill child of 20 months was driven from Sunderland to Edinburgh–120 miles–because of a lack of intensive care beds in Sunderland district general hospital’s paediatric unit? Will he assure my constituents, who use Sunderland district general hospital, that such incidents will not occur again, and will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the great distress in the health service?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am not familiar with the individual constituency case to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. I share the concern that he quite rightly feels on behalf of his constituent. However, I have answered the specific question, and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is aware of the problems.

    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of my poorer constituents in Lichfield can send their children to private schools because of the assisted places scheme? Will he please confirm that the Government have no plans to abolish the scheme, because without it those parents could not afford to send their children to private schools?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will not only maintain but expand the assisted places scheme. We believe in diversity of choice in education and in widening opportunities, which is why we have introduced legislation with precisely that purpose in mind. As I understand it, to exercise choice in the Labour party, one must either be the leader of that party or the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman).

    Mr. Beith: Does the Deputy Prime Minister realise the seriousness of the crisis in the health service and the depth of concern among all who work in it and all who depend on it? Will he take positive action by using his authority to end ward closures, while an evaluation is conducted of how much reserve capacity the health service needs? Everyone in the service agrees that it must have some reserve capacity.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Substantial capacity is available to deal with emergency cases; otherwise the very difficult cases–such as that to which the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) drew attention–would be much more numerous. The House should salute the energy and devotion of those who work in the health service, who cope with those cases, day and night, with immense skill, care and attention.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 14 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made during an interview in Lahore on 14th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he didn’t just call a General Election now].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    People won’t have to wait too long, will they? There is an election coming soon and I will have the election when I think it is appropriate to have it.

    As far as being run ragged is concerned, if the Opposition are so energetic they might actually sort out their policies, that would be rather agreeable and then we could have an election about policy which would be a very good idea.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was at a disadvantage because he didn’t have a Parliamentary majority going into a General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a great advantage to go into an election with the best economy in western Europe and we took the measures in the early part of this parliament to try and produce the best economy in western Europe and that is precisely what we have produced. We have now got very low inflation, we have got unemployment falling very dramatically over the last three years, we have got interest rates at a relatively low level, we have got very high growth and you seen the reputation that Britain has abroad and the strength of its commerce and industry.

    We have achieved that because of many things that made us unpopular, things that were bitterly opposed by the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, but you can now see that they are working and I think it is right to let people see that they are working in the last few months of this parliament so they can make a mature judgement. They may say, “We didn’t like what the Tories did, it was very uncomfortable!” – and some if it was, I concede that – but people can now increasingly see why we did it and as the economy gets better, they can see the fruits of having done it and I think it is right to wait for those and I’ll call the election when I’m ready.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if people would really change their minds that swiftly].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They changed their minds pretty swiftly in the last General Election campaign and I suspect that they will on this particular occasion. People are going to focus on this when they actually have to ask themselves the fundamental question, “Things are now going well, are they not?” to which the answer is “Yes, do we wish to risk that and perhaps throw it away with a leap into the dark?”. I think they will answer to that question “No!” and that question becomes sharper as we get nearer to the election and it becomes very sharp indeed once the election campaign proper really begins.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was ready to go to the country if a Parliamentary occurrence demanded it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Conservative Party is ready for the election whenever it comes. We would prefer to have the election a little later, I suspect that we will have it a little later because we wish to see the effect of our policies flow through, but if you mean are we organisationally ready for whenever I wish to call the election, the answer is yes.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Briefing with Ian Lang – 14 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint briefing with the President of the Board of Trade, Ian Lang, held en route to London on Tuesday 14th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought we might just round what has been happening and maybe just possibly look forward, a little, before you ask me to do so. But let us do the round-up first. I will get Ian to speak on the business side.

    MR LANG:

    This has been a very successful trip from the business point of view and I hope that you will take a further opportunity to speak to some of the businessmen who have been negotiating long-standing negotiations and advancing them a bit further. You have been given a list of the deals that have been concluded and the signings that have taken place in the last week. That is not a special exceptional situation, that is a slice out of what is a continuing process of deal-making and contract winning which is happening in India and Pakistan, as it is all over the world. And this mission, although it has been very successful and has had a high profile because the Prime Minister has led it, and you have been on it, is one of a large number of such missions that Ministers lead around the world. There will have been about 60 in the past year, led by myself, by Tony Nelson, by Peter Fraser, to a range of markets. They help enormously because they open doors for businessmen that might not otherwise open; they raise the profile of British industry and companies in the markets concerned; and they help to clinch deals because of the timing of the visits. And that is why our exports are at an all time high, building on the competitiveness that we have achieved.

    In India, as you know, our exports have risen by 80 percent in the last 4 years and we are the biggest investor from abroad. In Pakistan we are just overtaking the Americans as an investor and our trade with them has risen in the last few years and is broadly in balance. It is a tough market but one of immense potential. We are supporting 300 trade fares in the next year. We will be supporting a similar number of missions. And tomorrow I shall be launching the Central European Campaign, and in a few weeks time a Latin American campaign. So in the broad context this is part of a massive continuing effort that is repaying the action that the Prime Minister and the Government have taken at home in the last few years, and repaying at a level which has never been surpassed and which has led our standing in these countries and the other markets around the world, to a very high level indeed, as I am sure you will have heard yourselves during your visit.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, would you expect to step up the number of delegations like this that you take overseas?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, they are accelerating. And we would set them up, not because we have suddenly invented the thought of doing it, we haven’t, but because the way the British economy is growing, there will be greater opportunities. There are a whole range of parts of the world where the scope, both traditionally and because of what is going to happen in those economies for greater British involvement, is very real. The whole of the Asian sub-continent, South Africa, parts of Latin America, quite apart from our traditional markets – some of those are our traditional markets – quite apart from our European market I should more accurately have said, so the answer is yes.

    [small section missing]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we had better see what he has said. I think it is important to see what the guy has said. Let us carry on, shall we go on? Let me just consult my aide memoire to remind me of the things I want to raise with you boys.

    What is the reason for the trip, one or two of you asked me earlier. Well I would say contacts and contracts. The more we have contacts between our companies and their companies, our government and theirs, the greater the chance of getting contracts. That is the situation today and it is going to remain ,the situation in the future. That is why the answer to your question of a moment ago is yes, there will be more Of this, a good deal more if it. We have accelerated it a lot in the last few years and will go on doing it.

    On the question of drugs, I will answer questions about drugs if you want me to, but I have not really a great deal more to say than what I said yesterday, but if you wish me to answer questions I will.

    One thing I think has come out of this trip quite clearly is a pretty good realisation of the work that ODA do. People often think of ODA in terms of disaster relief and matters of that sort, but I think the practical work that they do, they and the British Council, that actually hits people who are in very severe circumstances sometimes, and in the case of British Council and education is as good as anywhere you will get in the world, and that is why we constantly talk about the quality of the British aid programme, as much as the size of the British aid programme.

    I think we have had a pretty good trip. It has been very enjoyable, I also think it has been hugely worthwhile and I think it has sown the seeds for some extremely fruitful business relationships in the future. So I am pretty buoyant about the trip. And as one or two of you reminded me in interviews just before, we are getting close to an election, I don’t know how close to it, I am not going to tell you how close to an election, but I am looking forward to that. I like elections, I am raring to go when we get back on the domestic scene. I daresay there will be a fair amount to be done. What you have seen on this trip is the extent to which the UK is well received overseas. Sometimes our perception of ourselves is not as generous as the perception of ourselves that the rest of the world have. And hope on this occasion that you have seen the perception of Britain by a very large and important part of the rest of the world.

    When I say the perception of Britain, I don’t just mean the politicians, I mean the business community as well. We are a big overseas investor. We have a very large investor presence, one of the biggest in the world, and that is now going to accelerate. When we get back tonight I daresay it will be quite an interesting period domestically in terms of politics. I look forward to the issues that we have got to discuss. There is still an amount of work to be done before the election. There is the Finance Bill which cuts taxes in a way our opponents would never have done; there is the Education Bill which carries forward reforms that our opponents would not have carried forward; there are the law and order measures that carry forward a very tough law and order programme, that is, despite all they have said, being opposed root and branch by the opposition; there is the work we are proposing on reforming social security, which would not have been done under any other government and would not be carried forward under any other government. So there are some very hard and fast areas of clear cut policy difference between the two sides.

    Now I am going to continue to talk about government policy, I am going to continue to talk about government policies and the way in which we begin to change them, to make sure that families have more opportunities to take their own decisions, with less of those decisions actually being taken by government, national and local. That is an instinctively Conservative view and it is one we are going to follow. We are going to continue to concentrate on the main policy issues up to now and the election. And as an adjunct to that, we will expose what we see as the danger of the Labour policies, and the Liberal policies, insofar as their policies are clear.

    If I may take some of those policies. What is very striking is that they are very keen to talk about almost anything except the detail of how they would do what they have promised to do. Detail seems to be a forbidden subject for them. Let me give you two examples of that. The details on their constitutional changes in Scotland cannot be seen, even with a very long telescope on a very clear day.

    What are they going to do in Scotland about what has become known as the West Lothian question? Why is it right for Scottish MPs to decide – in a Scottish Parliament, were there to be one – on education in Scotland, and then come down to decide on education in England? Where is the merit in that? What is the justification for that? What, equally, is the justification, if there were to be a Scottish Parliament, for the continued very large representation – over-large representation – of Scotland in the Westminster Parliament? Now those are just two, Ian could add a long list of other questions, to which, despite repeated questions, the answer comes there are none.

    When asked those questions, leading members of the Opposition say the answer is the same as they have always given. Well I am offering a prize for someone who can tell me what the answer they have always given is. Because the answer they have always given is evasion, not information.

    And then of course there is the windfall tax – this wonderful golden money tree that hangs at the bottom of a putative Labour Chancellor’s garden. Well who are the companies to be taxed? Do you not think it would be a good idea if they were told? what is the rate of tax they are going to face? Is every company undertaking that sort of business going to be taxed, or do the smaller companies that are now providing competition in the utilities, are they going to find they face taxes as well?

    If they are not, how do Labour propose to deal with the unfair distortion of competition in that market, if some companies are taxed and others are not taxed? And then perhaps, since they tell us they are certain it is legal, this tax, when some lawyers seem to think it is not – I don’t know whether it is legal or not, but some lawyers think it is not, the Labour Party say it – well perhaps since they are so keen on open government they can publish the information and advice they have had to explain why it is legal and why the lawyers who think it is illegal are wrong. In the interests of open government, in the interests of transparency, in the interests of competition and in the interests of telling companies what taxes they will pay if they are going to run a straightforward campaign, perhaps we should hear about these things. So I think those are some of the issues that are going to arise during the weeks that lie ahead.

    As far as Europe is concerned, I talked to you about that the other day. I understand you wrote quite a lot about it. There is not a great deal more I wish to say on this occasion. I will be engaged in the negotiations. I will be seeing Juppe very soon; Prodi, the Italian Prime Minister, I think I see both Juppe and Prodi in the next two or three weeks. Malcolm Rifkind will be fully engaged with our European partners and will be seeing Aznar, the Spanish Prime Minister, very soon.

    So those are some of the things that are appearing on the political agenda and I hope it will provide you with the odd snippet between now and polling day, whenever it might be.

    QUESTION:

    Tony Blair recently, on the Frost Programme, derided you for weak leadership. What is your reaction to that kind of personal attack?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If he doesn’t want to talk about politics, he has got to deal with the politics of insult, and that is what the Labour Party have been doing. When he accuses me of that, he then goes on to state exactly the same position as far as this single currency is concerned for his party. So perhaps he should look in the mirror before he advances charges like that. But the essence of it really is that if he doesn’t want to talk about policy – you can always be sure when they don’t want to talk about policy, they wheel out Tony Blair, or John Prescott or Brian Wilson in order to abuse – well I don’t think that will wash with the British electorate.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see leadership as an important issue in the campaign? As the previous questioner said, your opponents are saying that your leadership has not been sufficiently decisive and powerful, and they are trying to make leadership a big. part of the campaign. Are you prepared to do so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is the politics of insult, isn’t it? Leadership is about what actually is achieved. I will actually refer you to the front page of the Guardian just a few days ago, which was absolutely exemplary, I think it was first-class. It listed what interest rates were in 1992, what unemployment was in 1992, what growth was in 1992, and it indicated how much all those things had improved. Leadership is the outcome of policy, leadership is what determines the policies that are followed and whether it is successful depends upon whether those policies prove to be successful. I am indebted to the Guardian for showing that it has been successful. I am sorry the Labour leadership no longer read the Guardian.

    QUESTION:

    That same front page in the Major-supporting Guardian also indicated that you weren’t getting any thanks from the public in the opinion polls for all those improved statistics. How are you really going to turn that round? You offered a few words in an interview just now of general summary, but it really is a problem for you between now and the election, isn’t it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think people are beginning to see what is happening in the economy. For a long time people have been in a mode where they have felt Britain wasn’t doing as well as she might have done. I think it is now apparent that we are doing much better than we have done for very many years, and much better than any other country of remotely comparable Size in Europe. Now we all operate in the same economic conditions around the world. People should ask themselves, will ask themselves I think, why is Britain doing better. And the reason that Britain is doing better is because we have followed different policies, and we have followed different policies because the leadership of the Conservative Party has decided those are the right policies. Events have shown those policies are right.

    Now if we had followed the policies advocated by successive Labour leaders, we would not have unemployment falling, we would not have growth rising, we would not have low inflation, we would not have the borrowing requirement falling, we would not have record exports, we would not have the best economic scenario for generations. I am happy to go in the election on the basis of the best economic scenario since any of you were in short trousers.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, it is going to be a 20 hour day.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no, no, Michael, it is going to be longer.

    QUESTION:

    Longer than 20 hours, 20 hour plus days, how many more of those are you prepared to put in between now and the election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As many as are necessary until polling day?

    QUESTION:

    The Sunday Telegraph reported that they are going to send you to bed early [inaudible] get up late?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nobody has told me that.

    QUESTION:

    It was the Sunday Telegraph.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not yet in the Guardian and if I were you I wouldn’t print it.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not anticipate getting to bed especially early, no. Much too much to do.

    QUESTION:

    When the Cabinet meets on Thursday, will you be seeing the revised report from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I doubt it will be this Thursday.

    QUESTION:

    So does that mean it will be discussed at the Special Political Cabinet at Chequers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Possibly, I will have to wait and see. I will see how far the Chancellor has got when I get back and then it will come to Cabinet fairly soon. When it will be, I will decide over the next couple of days.

    QUESTION:

    On the subject of the single currency, do you believe there is any prospect of a change of government policy before the election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am tempted to follow Tony Blair and say my answer is the same I have given you a hundred times before.

    QUESTION:

    I am tempted to give the same answer you gave a couple of moments ago to that reply.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But you know the answer I have given you, you can look it up.

    QUESTION:

    But what is your current position on the single currency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You know what our position is on the single currency, we went all through this the other day, I am not being side-tracked again, lots of other messages today.

    QUESTION:

    And the prospects of it changing before the election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You know the answer to that question, I am not getting side-tracked on that again today.

    QUESTION:

    I wouldn’t be asking you if I knew the answer.

    QUESTION:

    That is all you are getting today.

    QUESTION:

    On Europe the other day, you suggested that you had found a way of unlocking the principal problem of let us call it modernisation of the Europe Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It was the IGC I was talking about.

    QUESTION:

    Yes, but at the same time you said you thought it would be something that for some EU member states would be difficult to swallow. Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Lots of things are difficult to swallow, but the negotiations at Amsterdam will have to be agreed by unanimity. And the only way in which the European Community can develop is the way I have set out. Now some people are very federalist because they see it as being in the interests of their country. Well that is fine for them, but it isn’t fine for the European Union as a whole. And have to look at the British interests and the European Union as a whole and centralism, or federalism – call it what you will, federalism means different things in Europe so it is a confusing term – isn’t very appropriate for us, so we are not going to go down that route.

    QUESTION:

    Does that mean that if you are still Prime Minister in June that you will be throwing your weight around and saying that we are not giving ground, take or leave it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wouldn’t call it throwing my weight around. If you mean will I negotiate toughly for what I think is the British interest, the answer is I will, yes, of course.

    QUESTION:

    You are going back tonight to take part in the Finance Bill. There is obviously quite a long period of guerilla warfare if you like from the Labour Party with the breakdown of the pairing arrangements. Are you worried that that might have an effect on your own troops, on their moral in the run-up to the election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I am not. The Conservative Party is getting ready for an election. It is a very important election. There is a lot at stake, as there always is in elections. This instance, in many ways, has more at stake than there usually is, because the state of the economy will open up more options for the next parliament than traditionally has been the case over the last 25 – 50 years. So I think the Conservative Party in Parliament and beyond it will recognise that.

    QUESTION:

    You have spoken about the need for Labour to flesh out more detail on its policies. Do you have any intention in the campaign to give a firm date by which you might reach your goal of reducing the base rate of tax to 20p or reduce capital taxes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t have a firm date. We are setting out an objective, much as we originally set out the objective from 33 pence to 25 pence in the basic rate of tax without a timescale, we are setting out the objective. We will do it prudently, I am not going to put a timescale on it, but that is our objective to reduce taxes in that way and as and when it is financially possible to do it, we will do it. But I am not going to tie myself to an artificial timescale, neither do I think it would be politically wise to do so.

    QUESTION:

    What sort of manifesto are you looking for, are you looking for a radical manifesto or a fairly cautious safety-first manifesto?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you will find some interesting things in the manifesto when it comes, perhaps I can just say that.