The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1997

Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 28 February 1997

Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made on 28th February 1997.

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked about whether there was time for the Conservatives to win the General Election].

PRIME MINISTER:

Certainly there’s not very long and people will I think for that reason begin to focus more sharply. If opinion doesn’t change then we are going to have a Labour Government, and people will have to realise what a Labour Government will mean. It’s not just a question of Mr Blair who has done nothing to help this country achieve its present circumstances except to oppose the policies that have done it, it’ll be Mr Prescott who says it’ll be stupid to publish their tax plans. It’ll be Mrs Beckett who wants to surrender all the trade union laws. Now that is what people will get if people get a Labour Government.

February 28, 1997
PMQT Written Answers – 28 February 1997

Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th February 1997.

PRIME MINISTER:

Lockerbie

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 20 February, Official Report, column 1042, what factors led him to conclude that it was doubtful that the Libyan Government would deliver the suspects for trial in The Hague under a Scottish judge under Scottish rules of evidence.

The Prime Minister: The Libyan Government may have said they accept the holding of the Lockerbie trial in a third country, and a trial in The Hague is one such proposal. But they have not said that they will ensure the appearance of the accused at any such trial. Despite agreeing in 1993 that a trial in Scotland would be fair, they have argued that they cannot compel the accused to stand trial there, or in the United States, in the absence of a bilateral extradition agreement with either country. The same Libyan argument would apply to The Hague, there being no extradition agreement between Libya and the Netherlands.

I conclude, after five years of Libyan prevarication over delivering the suspects for trial in Scotland, that it is extremely doubtful that they would surrender them for trial in a third country.

February 28, 1997
PMQT Written Answers – 27 February 1997

Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th February 1997.

PRIME MINISTER:

Letters to Shareholders

Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the source of the information on shareholder identities which he used to send his letter of 28 January to shareholders in privatised companies;

(2) under what statutory provisions he obtained the information on shareholder identities which he used to send letters to shareholders of privatised companies; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: The Government were not involved in obtaining the information which came from published sources.

Engagements

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

Parliamentary Answers

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister how many questions were tabled for reply by his Department in each Session since 1979-80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally.

The Prime Minister: A list of the total number of oral and written parliamentary questions answered by Government Departments in the Sessions 1982-83 to 1995-96, as supplied by the parliamentary on-line information service unit, has been placed in the Library of the House.

Figures for 1979-80 to 1981-82 are not available. My Office estimates that over the past year approximately 1 per cent. of the total number of parliamentary questions were not answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information requested was not held centrally.

February 27, 1997
PMQT – 27 February 1997

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th February 1997.

PRIME MINISTER:

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

Mr. Gerrard: While the victims of Gulf war syndrome continue to suffer illness and are denied compensation, is it not a disgrace that no one in the Government is prepared to accept any personal responsibility for what has happened? As there is no doubt that service personnel and their families were seriously misled by the Ministry of Defence, does not that denial of responsibility prove that the assessment by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) of the Secretary of State for Defence as “not honourable” was spot on?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about the question of compensation, he will know that service personnel in this country can claim compensation for loss or injury caused by negligent action. There is a satisfactory way to do that. In order to consider compensation claims fairly, we need to establish what caused the ailments. There have been a series of inquiries, which are continuing, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has reported to the House.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the procedure whereby the minutes of the meetings between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England are published is healthy, because it leads to open government? Does he further agree that any Chancellor who abandoned that procedure might leave himself open to the suspicion that he was trying to fudge things on the economy?

The Prime Minister: Such a suspicion might be there. I think many people might be suspicious about why the shadow Chancellor is talking about a Budget this summer, were he to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hardly believe that it would be a Budget that reduced taxation. If the right hon. Gentleman has a Budget of a different type in mind, perhaps–like one of his predecessors as shadow Chancellor–he might care to publish it before the election.

Mr. Blair: May I refer the Prime Minister back to the subject of the Ministry of Defence, and ask him about the Defence Select Committee report this morning into defence medical services? Does he agree with the report’s central conclusion that so badly has the Ministry of Defence managed change that either we would send our troops into a crisis without proper medical back-up, or we would have to limit the number of troops we sent? That is a shocking conclusion. Do the Government accept it?

The Prime Minister: Of course we will examine the report of the Defence Select Committee. [Interruption.] I think the House would expect me to examine a report by hon. Members before I responded to a long and detailed report that I have not yet had the opportunity to read. If I were to respond in any other way, the House would ask how I could have known. I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that, although I have not yet read the report myself–but I most certainly will–I have been advised that the defence medical services can provide the medical support necessary to assist British troops on operational deployments, as they have done in the Gulf and in Bosnia. I have received that advice from the Ministry of Defence. But I reiterate the point that, of course, if a Select Committee reports, I shall examine that report carefully, and we shall respond in the usual fashion when the examination is completed.

Mr. Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for that, but he should be aware that precisely the same assurances were given two years ago, and the Defence Select Committee examined them and found them ultimately to be worthless. The language used in the report is fairly strong, saying that the situation is so serious that the service cannot recover, and that

“No amount of self-justification can disguise”

the state of the service. The Prime Minister said that he wanted to examine the report. That is fair enough, but if, having examined it, he finds that its findings are accurate, which Minister will take responsibility?

The Prime Minister: I think that we had better wait for the examination and see what the outcome is. The right hon. Gentleman is keen to determine blame before there is any certainty that there is any blame to be determined. I suggest that he wait until we have examined the report, as of course we shall. There has been some restructuring of the defence medical services, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I welcome the Committee’s endorsement, which he did not mention, of the new secondary care structures. That is very welcome.

Mr. Rooker: So you have read it.

The Prime Minister: I have not read the report–but I have received preliminary advice on it, and I shall read it. When I have read it, I shall report upon it in full. Let me return from the side issue raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I think that Select Committee reports require more attention than just a summary and one morning, and that is what the report will get from the Government. That may be how the Opposition would respond to reports from the House, but it is not how I respond to them.

Of course there have been teething problems. The Ministry of Defence has recognised that, and we are determined to overcome them.

Mr. Blair: May I point out to the Prime Minister that yesterday we had a highly critical report on Ministers’ handling of the use of pesticides in the Gulf war, today the Defence Select Committee says that there is serious doubt about front-line defence capability, as a result of changes that the Government have made, and that next week, apparently, a further report is to be made? I simply ask him: does anyone in this Government ever take responsibility for anything?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at the history of Gulf war syndrome, he will see the action that has been taken. He will also, I hope, acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces came voluntarily and immediately to the House the moment that it was drawn to his attention that he had not been advised accurately by his officials. My hon. Friend did as he should have done, and came immediately to the House.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about responsibility, but he is not in a position to criticise on that front– [Hon. Members: “Oh yes, he is.”] I am surprised to hear that, because, despite his call for openness in government, when it was found that his office was being funded in an odd way, the right hon. Gentleman would not accept responsibility; and when somebody tried to rig a poll on Radio 4, he said that that was nothing to do with him. No responsibility was accepted for that. When it turns out that the worst 20 education authorities in the country, including Islington, are Labour-run, that, too, is apparently nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of examination results has led to a significant improvement in standards in secondary schools? In the light of that, may I welcome the fact that the results of the tests for 11-year-olds in primary schools will be published school by school? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will do all they can to resist the attempts by the unions and the Labour party to undermine those tests?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly offer that assurance. The Labour party has objected to tests from the outset. It is not keen on children being tested, and it is less keen on the test results being made available to parents. Many people who are now used to receiving those test results would resent very much any suggestion from any quarter that that information should no longer be available to parents.

Mr. Ashdown: In his answer to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), the Prime Minister referred to those suffering from Gulf war syndrome as suffering from “ailments”. May I remind him that these are not ailments, but serious illnesses that threaten the quality of people’s lives? Is not the question on organophosphates very simple? Which Minister–either personally or through incompetence in his Department–allowed our service men to be exposed to the risk of organophosphates when other Ministers were making it clear that organophosphates were extremely dangerous? Will the Prime Minister comment?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman did not set out the position accurately before he asked his question.

Mr. Ashdown: Yes, I did.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that he did–he seems to know more than all the people who have examined the matter for some time. Yet I fear he does not. As usual, he is in the business of scapegoating without knowing the facts.

Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trade union Unison has been making direct threats against private firms which have had the temerity to put in for contracts with Birmingham city council, to the effect that, should those contracts be granted, strikes, disruptions and go-slows will follow? Is he aware that at least one such firm has been so frightened that it has pulled out of a contract? Will he take steps to get rid of those typical Labour bully-boy tactics, and ensure that there is free and fair competition for the small businesses of Birmingham?

The Prime Minister rose–

Mr. Prescott: Wait until Wirral.

The Prime Minister: Is not that interesting? The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says, “Wait until Wirral.” He does not address the issue, and he is not concerned about Unison. The Labour party is opposed to privatisation, but the right hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers–which has benefited from privatisation. There is a word for that, and I believe that it is hypocrisy. It seeps out of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who sits there shouting.

On the subject of responsibility, Labour controls Birmingham–it is a Labour council. Let us have some action and responsibility from the leader of the Labour party about the council’s activities. Perhaps he can stop talking to his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, and listen to what is being said in this House.

Q2. Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

Mr. Salmond: Does the Prime Minister understand why, after six years, many people will find his reply on compensation for the victims of Gulf war syndrome totally inadequate? How were people meant to process claims when the Department would not admit to using organophosphates? Does he know that recent estimates of those afflicted by the condition have reached 1,100– 10 times those killed and maimed in the original conflict? Therefore, is not the case for compensation overwhelming? Should not someone in his ministerial team have the simple integrity to accept responsibility for six years of departmental dissembling?

The Prime Minister: As far back as 1993, the Ministry of Defence established a medical assessment programme to try to diagnose why Gulf war veterans were ill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, having just issued his charge, should listen to what has happened. The methodology of the programme was audited by the Royal College of Physicians and subsequently endorsed in 1995. That programme, which commenced in 1993, did not produce any evidence of a new pattern of illness. None the less, the Government decided that more work needed to be done.

From the outset, we have been determined to find out what caused the illness of troops, so that action could be taken to put it right. In such circumstances, the question of compensation could be dealt with; but we need the facts before that can be done, and the medical committees are still determining what the facts may be. However the hon. Gentleman and the leader of the Labour party may try to bend reality, it is necessary to establish those facts, so that we can provide the compensation and medical treatment that may be necessary.

Mr. Rathbone: Whatever difficulties our forces may have faced in the Gulf, will my right hon. Friend reiterate the Government’s support for the Reserve Army, and especially the territorials?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to do that.

Q3. Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

Mr. Welsh: Will the Prime Minister admit that the Government’s failure to resolve the BSE crisis has cost taxpayers billions of pounds and the beef industry hundreds of millions, and that still there is no end in sight? Given that the latest scheme merely scratches the surface of the problem, when will Scottish farmers be able to escape the ban? Let us have a date; and a real date this time.

The Prime Minister: There was no reason for the imposition of the ban to begin with, but its lifting, alas, is not within the control of the Government or the House. I said that we had negotiated conditions that we had to meet, so that those who imposed the ban could lift it; we have met the conditions, but the lifting of the ban lies with those who imposed it. I should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman could understand that.

Q4. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

Mr. Brown: May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to an issue of which I gave him notice? There is a problem in my constituency of stowaways who have been arriving dead, unfortunately, in the holds of small ships arriving at New Holland and Immingham. It appears that the ships originate; Nigeria and Sierra Leone, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend might ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to get in touch with the ambassadors or high commissioners of those countries. The people travel in dreadful conditions, and, although they are illegal immigrants, they arrive dead, and something needs to be done about it.

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to consider that matter. My hon. Friend may also want to discuss the matter with my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. As he may know, the United Kingdom played a leading role in developing guidelines to ensure that stowaways are dealt with promptly and humanely.

The people to whom my hon. Friend refers are patently stowaways, who, despite the usual checks and searches, are not discovered when the ships leave their original ports. We need to examine, with both the host countries and the shipping lines, better arrangements to ensure that people are not hidden away on their ships, as that is clearly the source of the tragedies to which my hon. Friend refers.

February 27, 1997
PMQT Written Answers – 25 February 1997

Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th February 1997.

PRIME MINISTER:

Government Policy (Lichfield)

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effects of Her Majesty’s Government’s policies on people and businesses in Lichfield.

The Prime Minister: The people and businesses of Lichfield are benefiting fully from the Government’s policies. The UK is enjoying a stronger recovery than any other large European economy, the longest run of low inflation for nearly 50 years, and mortgage rates at their lowest levels for a generation. This year the UK is on course to have the fastest growth in the G7 group of leading industrial nations. It should come as no surprise that, in the past four years, unemployment in Lichfield has more than halved.

Albania

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister what official gifts he has received from the Albanian President.

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

Engagements

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

Cardiff European Council

Mr. Forman: To ask the Prime Minister what the dates will be for the 1998 Cardiff European Council.

The Prime Minister: The dates will be 15 and 16 June 1998.

February 25, 1997
PMQT – 25 February 1997

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th February 1997.

PRIME MINISTER:

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers who queued up yesterday to denigrate the reputation and character of the former Prime Minister and Father of the House? Does he agree that such attempts to vilify the Father of the House do great damage generally to the democratic process and particularly to the reputation of the Prime Minister and his Ministers?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has had a long and distinguished career. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We admire him and are fond of him.

Q2. Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

Sir Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of British Rail has been a great success story–so successful that it has confounded its critics? Is he aware that many of my constituents would like the same principles to be applied to London Underground, particularly if the proceeds were ploughed back into further investment?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement on that matter very shortly. The plans that he will announce will give London the world-class underground network that we wish it to have. We will expect standards and investment to rise while prices do not.

Mr. Blair: Most people remember who has been in charge of London Underground for 18 years. May I lead on from the question to the Prime Minister asked by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby)? The Transport Secretary has said that any proceeds from selling London Underground will go back into transport investment. This morning, however, the Chancellor said that he is relying on at least some of those proceeds as greatly benefiting the Exchequer to pay off Government borrowing. Who is right?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement that will answer all the questions that he and his hon. Friends are likely to ask about the proposed future of London Underground, but I shall not anticipate his statement.

Mr. Blair: I am not asking the Prime Minister to anticipate the statement–

Hon. Members: You are.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Blair: I am asking him to comment on the Chancellor’s remarks this morning. The Chancellor said that some of the proceeds would be used to pay off the national debt, which he has doubled. Is that correct? If all the proceeds do not go back into transport, what will happen if they do not cover the investment requirement? Will the customer pay more, will the public pay more or will the service be cut? I think that the Prime Minister should tell us.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be told in detail and at length by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in just a few moments. The privatisation of any industry is always a complex matter. It deserves to be set out clearly, comprehensively and at length, which my right hon. Friend will do shortly.

Mr. Blair: I assume that the Transport Secretary will tell us the precise percentage of money that will be reinvested in transport. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may shout, but is not London Underground worth £7 billion to £13 billion, and do not many people fear that, once again, a key public service will be sold off at a fraction of its true value so that a few people can make a vastly inflated profit with no guarantee of a proper service for the future?

The Prime Minister: The answer to each of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions is no. He is wrong on almost every point, as will become clear in a few moments. I find it extraordinary that the only two places in the world where privatisation is reviled and state ownership preferred are the Labour party and North Korea. No wonder the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) called the right hon. Gentleman the Kim Il Sung of the Labour party.

Mr. Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not the least of the advantages of the privatisation of London Underground would be the substantial capital receipts that could be reinvested in the system? How could any Government who voluntarily chose to deny themselves that capital receipt make good that funding other than through a substantial increase in public expenditure and the taxation necessary to raise it?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct, of course. I find it odd that the Labour party criticises the level of investment in London Underground when the shadow Chancellor is committed lock, stock and barrel to every penny of my right hon. and learned Friend’s spending plans, except that the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has a £12 billion black hole in his plans, as he has failed to understand ours.

Q3. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I return the Prime Minister to what is clearly a central contradiction in his programme for the general election–the statement by a former Prime Minister, Mr. Edward Heath–[Hon. Members: “Sir.”] Forgive me, Madam Speaker. Sir Edward Heath–[Hon. Members: “Order.”]–a former Prime Minister, who said that he agreed with the Labour party. He said that we were right on the social chapter, the national minimum wage and devolution. He agrees with us. Who is now standing up for the tradition of the Conservative party? Is it the Father of the House, a former Prime Minister, or is it the current Prime Minister, who has been manipulated by a bunch of extremists on his Back Benches?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman sits beside a bunch of people whom I would never consider calling extremists, but who hold almost every possible view on Europe and every other issue, so I find his question distinctly rum. It deserves to be ignored, which I shall do.

Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow, Her Majesty the Queen, in the presence of the President of Israel, will unveil a monument to Raul Wallenberg–a man whose bravery is an example to us all? Will my right hon. Friend also support the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to find out exactly what happened to Raul Wallenberg 50 years ago?

The Prime Minister: I think that everyone will happily support my hon. Friend’s request. The unveiling of the statue tomorrow is a welcome development and a just recognition of a great man who saved many lives during the last world war.

Q4. Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

Mr. Home Robertson: Lady Thatcher said back in 1974 that the establishment of a Scottish Assembly was a top priority. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has now confirmed that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament poses no danger to the integrity of the United Kingdom. Can the Prime Minister remember the last time his two predecessors agreed with each other about anything? How has he got himself into a position in which he appears to disagree with both of them?

The Prime Minister rose–

Mr. Home Robertson: Wait for it. Is the Prime Minister sure that Britain’s fossilised constitution is the securest ground to choose for Major’s last stand?

The Prime Minister: It really was not worth waiting for, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman. He is trying to pick out what my noble Friend Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said 20 years ago. What the leader of the Labour party said in 1983 is contradicted today by the leader of the Labour party in every particular. The proposals of 20 years ago that the hon. Gentleman referred to were not comparable with the tax-raising monstrosity proposed by the Labour party today.

Mr. Butcher: My right hon. Friend will need no reminding that any objective assessment of economic trends in Europe shows that Britain is now winning. Does he share the bewilderment of a number of foreign commentators, who cannot understand the logic of saying that it is time for a change? “Does that mean that you want to be losers?” they wonder. Will my right hon. Friend use every effort to make sure that that weird logic is not accepted by the British people?

The Prime Minister: I certainly undertake to do as my hon. Friend recommends. The economic criteria right the way down the board–growth, investment or the fall in unemployment–make it patently obvious to those who wish to examine the figures for a moment that the United Kingdom is out-performing most of its comparable continental rivals. That is because of the policies that we have followed. The policies that they have followed, which have led them into greater difficulty, are the policies advocated by the Opposition parties.

Q5. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

Mr. Prentice: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) referred to the alleged success of railway privatisation, whereby £19 billion of public assets went under the hammer for less than £2 billion. Is it not a disgrace that £13 billion of assets resting in London Underground could be sold off in a fire sale for less than £600 million?

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, like his right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party, waits for the statement that will follow in a few moments.

Mr. Prentice indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman produces all sorts of disparaging gestures. The interesting fact about the new Labour party is that it does not wish to know the arguments and it does not wish to know the facts; it just wants to parade the soundbites and prejudice invented by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).

Mr. Allason: May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the commitment–which became a promise, which became a pledge, which then became a withdrawal–by the Liberal Democrats to scrap the Christmas bonus in favour of an extra week’s income? Does he agree that the best thing for pensioners, especially those in the south-west, is lower bills, which means no windfall levy on South West Water, whose customers are already paying far too much for their water?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree that a windfall tax would undoubtedly add to the cost of fuel, water and other utilities–how much, of course, we do not know, because the shadow Chancellor either does not know what his plans really are or cannot say. It was very unkind of my hon. Friend to draw attention to the consistency of the Liberal Democrats concerning the retired.

Q6. Mr. Chris Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

Mr. Davies: What discussions does the Prime Minister intend to have with Governments of other nations to ensure that there are adequate international controls over the cloning of animals and other life forms?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is examining what discussions may be appropriate.

February 25, 1997
PMQT Written Answers – 24 February 1997

Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th February 1997.

PRIME MINISTER:

Scottish Grand Committee

Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister what has been the cost to public funds of the attendance of (a) the Prime Minister, (b) the Deputy Prime Minister and (c) officials from the Cabinet Office at meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland since 1994; and if he will list the meetings of the Committee which (a) to (c) have attended indicating the cost of their attendance and the names of those who attended.

The Prime Minister: I attended the Scottish Grand Committee meeting on 5 July 1996 in Dumfries and had officials in attendance as necessary. Ministers attend Scottish Grand Committee meetings as part of their normal parliamentary duties and officials do so as part of their normal departmental duties. Expenditure falling to my Department has been limited to travelling costs.

No other Ministers from the Cabinet Office have had the opportunity to attend a Scottish Grand Committee meeting.

Business Appointment Rules

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister when applications were received from the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and Dame Pauline Neville-Jones under the business appointment rules; and when, and on what terms, approvals for their appointment to the Natwest bank were granted.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) was not bound to seek the advice of my advisory committee on business appointments before joining the National Westminster bank in October 1995 because the guidelines on the acceptance of appointments outside Government for former Ministers did not come into effect until the start of the 1995-96 Session of Parliament.

Nevertheless, I understand that Mr. Hurd consulted the chairman of the advisory committee informally before taking up the appointment. Dame Pauline Neville-Jones applied for prior permission, in accordance with the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments by Crown servants, to accept a position with the National Westminster bank after retirement. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on the advice of the advisory committee on business appointments, approved Dame Pauline’s application unconditionally on 24 June 1996.

Intelligence and Security Committee

Sir Patrick Cormack: To ask the Prime Minister if he has received the 1996 annual report of the intelligence and security committee in accordance with the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

The Prime Minister: I have received the 1996 annual report of the intelligence and security committee and am presenting it to Parliament today. Copies are also being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I am grateful to the committee for the valuable work it has undertaken in the preparation of the report. Certain portions of the report contained material which fell within the provisions of section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994; accordingly, after consultation with the committee, these have been deleted from the published version.

February 24, 1997
Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Party Rally – 22 February 1997

Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Party Rally, held in Birmingham on Saturday 22nd February 1997.

PRIME MINISTER:

Introduction

I am delighted to be here in Birmingham today.

Birmingham is one of the great industrial cities of the world. It’s a superb shop window for the United Kingdom.

Each year, the G7 group of industrial nations meets to discuss policy. In recent years, they’ve been joined by Russia. Next year, the United Kingdom will hold the presidency of the G7 taking over from the United States.

I’ve decided that Britain will host next year’s G7 summit here in Birmingham. The great economic nations of the world will meet in one of the great industrial cities of the world.

Between now and then, we must achieve something never done before – a fifth successive election victory.

The question we’ll face is simple: “After 18 years, why 5 more?”

Well the answer to that is easy: it’s because on all the main issues we’re right and – as usual – Labour is wrong.

After the election the government will inherit the soundest economy Britain has known for generations.

We built it and I intend we shall inherit it.

The longest consistent fall in unemployment since Ted Heath was Prime Minister. The longest period of low inflation since Mr Churchill was Prime Minister. The lowest basic rate of income tax since Mr Baldwin was Prime Minister. The lowest level of strikes since – well, since Mr Gladstone was Prime Minister. Britain is becoming the economic success story of Europe.

That’s a fact. You can’t hide it.

These days Britain’s economic success is so obvious – even Labour daren’t deny it.

So they claim it would be safe with them.

Well, you have to admire their nerve; they opposed our spending plans, tax changes, privatisations, deregulation – they opposed every single policy that has delivered success.

And then they claim they can carry forward the success of these policies.

They also claim they can be trusted with the unity of Britain when their priority is to break it up into smaller parts.

And they say they can be trusted on Europe, when their policy is to copy its mistakes.

On three main election battlegrounds – the economy, Europe, the Constitution – Labour are wrong, wrong and wrong again.

The Foot-in-the-Door Salesmen

To understand what New Labour is all about, you need to put yourselves in Labour’s shoes. When you’ve been wrong all your life what do you do?

Imagine the PR men’s advice.

“Ditch your past. Don’t say what you’d do. Just say what you’re against. Avoid details. Dream up gimmicks for headlines. Copy Tory language. And – above all – don’t forget to smile”.

New Labour is one great marketing scam. They only say what they are told the customer would like to hear. The exact characteristic of the foot-in-the-door salesman.

Nothing is quite what it seems. It depends on who they’re speaking to.

They are for grammar schools in the Wirral, but against them at the Party Conference. They are for lower taxes in The Times. But in favour of more spending in The Guardian. They are tough on crime in The Daily Mail. But soft on crime in the House of Commons. Put it altogether, and what do you get?

The world’s first:

Federalist – Nationalist,

Unilateralist – Militarist,

tax-cutting, more spending,

grammar school loving, grammar school hating,

socialist, non-socialist party.

There’s an old story of a seasoned politician who was once asked what time it was by a voter.

“What time would you like it to be?” he replied. That, in a nutshell, is New Labour policy.

If it would win a vote, please a newspaper editor, satisfy a pressure group, Labour would say anything.

If it would win two votes, they’d believe anything.

And if it would win three votes, they’d do anything.

They’re prepared to disregard the views of a lifetime in the briefing of a lunchtime.

As day succeeds day, the fraud that is New Labour becomes more transparent.

You can’t take at face value a word that Labour say. That’s why they’re so dangerous.

The Labour Leader claims he and his Party have changed.

Well the oratory has changed.

But have Labour really changed?

New Labour runs Liverpool – the council with the highest Council Tax. No change there.

New Labour runs Sheffield – the council with the largest number of empty homes. No change there.

And, of course, New Labour runs Islington, the council with the worst education results in England. No change there.

Mr Blair says – and I quote, “I don’t think the character of any party becomes clear until you’re in power”.

Let’s take his word for it. In all these councils New Labour are in power.

And what do we see?

New Labour – same old story.

One thing is clear, locally or nationally, you can’t trust Labour with Britain’s future.

Why Five More Years

But why does Britain need five more years of Conservative Government?

Not just to protect what we’ve achieved but because there’s much to be done.

In the 80s and early 90s we curbed inflation, extended private ownership, began to reform our schools and hospitals, toughened up the law.

We should be confident and proud of what we’ve done.

In the Tory years, the quality of life has been transformed.

No other Party would have attempted it – let alone achieved it.

But the Conservative reforms aren’t over – not by a long chalk.

Now we must carry them forward.

What is it people are still concerned about?

Where are the areas that still need reform?

They’re the areas where the state still has too much control.

Where the consumer is swamped by bureaucracy and the individual is forgotten.

Education

Take education.

I believe parents have a simple wish: to know that when they send their children to school, that school – paid for by their taxes – will give their children a decent education.

They should be able to count on that.

After years of reform, our Manifesto will give them a Guarantee of Standards. The first pillar will be tests.

In the next Parliament we’ll test children at 7, 11 and 14.

We’ll publish the results so that parents can see how their children are progressing, and teachers can discover how much their pupils have learnt.

And we’ll change the way tests are marked, so children get scores out of 100. I think you’ll agree that’s common sense.

It’s also common sense that every child is different.

So we will go on creating a range of schools, breaking up the drab slab of a solely comprehensive system.

More grant-maintained schools.

More specialist schools.

And, yes, more grammar schools.

If that’s what parents like, that’s what parents will get. Labour can’t bear any of this.

They wriggle, they writhe. They twist, they turn.

Never mind watching their lips – watch the agony on their faces as they perform their lingual gymnastics, trying to hide their hatred for choice and their dislike of diversity.

Grant-maintained schools, grammar schools, assisted places – we Conservatives believe in extending choice, not opposing it. It’s the basis of our philosophy.

And how Labour detest it.

But choice is meaningless unless it’s a choice of good schools.

A choice of bad schools is no choice at all and, tragically, in some Labour education authorities, that’s all you get.

We can already take over schools that are failing their children, but sometimes the problem isn’t just with the school – it’s with the education authority itself.

So where education authorities are failing, we’ll create new powers to take them over to drive up standards.

Labour will say, “But you have had 18 years to sort out education. Why has it taken so long?”

That’s rich, coming from them. Who’s opposed all our reforms? Labour. And here’s a fact for the doorstep.

The twenty education authorities with the worst education results are, without exception, traditional Labour authorities.

It’s their attitudes and their schools that have been failing our children.

So, after the election, I intend to ask the Government’s watchdog on standards – OFSTED – to examine, in turn, every single one of those failing education authorities.

We’ll improve them if we can, and replace them if we can’t.

We’re going to join the parents’ revolt against Labour education.

And if you don’t think there’s a revolt around ask them in Islington.

43 per cent of Islington’s parents agree.

They send their children to secondary schools outside the borough.

Some of them are rather well known parents.

43 per cent.

Parents running from councils like Islington.

Socialist-run councils – with Socialists running away from them, as fast as they can.

The People versus the Planners

That’s socialists for you.

Well-intentioned, but in love with controlling things.

But just look at our inner cities, choked by the dead hand of socialist planning.

We’ve brought in private investment and enterprise. And that public-private partnership is transforming what were once no-go areas for jobs and business.

But the toughest challenge still remains: large housing estates, soulless blocks where the only sense of community was snuffed out long ago, that have become deserts of despair.

Parties of every colour built them, thinking they were the right way ahead.

But they’ve become places where poor education, drugs, crime have created a vicious downward spiral.

Where people live dependent on the state, but are let down by local councils who own their homes.

Where the worst poverty is poverty of hope.

These estates are concrete proof that the old way – of hoping the state and councils can provide for all our needs – has failed.

These people deserve the chance to rebuild their communities and their lives.

Ours is a fresh approach, giving tenants the opportunity to vote to transfer their homes to new landlords.

This is People Power – giving people the chance to control their own lives.

To create a new community.

It isn’t just bricks and mortar that matter. It’s training and jobs, raising education standards, tackling crime.

It’s the community itself.

Our commitment is to transform the worst estates across the whole of the country and the lives of those who live on them.

We won’t solve it in a year – or even a Parliament.

But it can be done and will be done – by the next Conservative Government.

Just this week, we announced that tenants on 40 housing estates stand to benefit from millions of pounds to help the private sector transform 22,000 homes.

22,000 homes.

22,000 families.

I bet you didn’t read about that in your newspapers.

It probably didn’t merit a headline in some.

But that’s the reality of life in Conservative Britain.

As Britain grows stronger, more and more people are beginning to feel the warmth of prosperity touch their lives, whoever they are, wherever they live.

That’s why Labour have to knock it.

A week doesn’t pass without them kicking their favourite political football – the National Health Service.

Just look at the service they attack.

More patients being treated than ever before.

Shorter waiting times.

Better treatment.

Why is our health service such a success?

Not just because we’re spending more on it, though we are.

But because we’re giving the money to the hospitals and doctors themselves who know best how to use it.

Under Labour, bureaucracy would come back at the stroke of a pen.

They’d strip hospitals and family doctors of their freedoms and smother them with new layers of bureaucracy.

Our modern health service would be thrown into turmoil as Labour pushed it back to its bad old ways.

That’s not the way we should go.

We’re going to give more freedom to doctors and nurses. They’ll be able to offer more care in surgeries and nearer home.

And – where they want to – create a new generation of cottage hospitals, so patients can be treated by professionals they know in their own community.

And the same applies to our social services.

We’re going to end the politically correct regulations, which stopped couples who want to adopt children from doing so.

Regulations like this might sound petty. But to a couple who long to raise a family they can, quite literally, stand in the way of making a lifetime’s dreams come true. That’s the heart of the matter.

Politically correct beliefs that prevent this don’t fit into the British way of life.

The Constitution

Britain’s progress – our prosperity, widening choice, opportunity – depends on one thing: stability.

Labour’s plans for Britain would rip up our nation’s fabric up by the roots. “The most radical” constitutional change our country has ever seen, they boast.

A tax raising parliament in Scotland.

An assembly in Wales.

A splattering of regional assemblies across England.

And a referendum on changing the voting system to PR.

Why in the name of sanity do they want to start cutting up this country of ours? Why risk Britain’s success?

Devolution is the ransom Labour would pay to buy off the voices of separation. But it wouldn’t buy them off – it would just build up their appetite.

Then there’s PR. That’s the price they’d pay for the support of the Liberal Democrats. Why else does Mr Blair want a referendum on PR? He says he’s against PR and against referendums.

The constitution, the Union, British history – they are all pawns to New Labour.

No price is too high.

Nothing too sacred.

Labour are after votes – at any price.

“What’s the point of history? What relevance has that to the future” they say. “New Labour, no history”.

Well, Mr Chairman – let’s make New Labour old history.

We treasure the stability and security of our Constitution.

Careful reform that builds for tomorrow – yes. Reckless change – no.

The Labour leader hasn’t the first idea how his plans would work. He’s like a weak contestant on Mastermind.

“Name?” “Tony Blair.”

“Occupation?” “Demolition specialist.”

“Subject?” “British Constitution.”

Would Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster be able to vote on matters affecting England, but not Scotland?

“Pass.”

If someone from Birmingham was employed by a Scottish company, would they pay the tartan tax?

“Pass.”

Why should Scotland get a tax-raising parliament, but Wales only an assembly. What have the Scottish done to deserve such a fate? Why not trust the Welsh?

“Pass.”

Would regional assemblies duplicate the power of local government and Westminster?

“Pass.”

And so it goes on, and so on, and so on.

“At the end of that round, Mr Blair, you were asked twenty questions – and you passed on them all”.

Labour haven’t begun to think through the implications of their plans. And yet this would be their priority for government.

The last Labour Government fell, tied up in knots of devolution.

It was a complete failure. That’s where Old Labour stopped. And this is where New Labour would begin.

That’s not a route map for Britain’s tomorrow. It’s a masterplan for disaster. And it’s deadly.

Europe

And if devolution wasn’t enough, there’s Europe.

Here Labour would damage both our economy and our constitution.

They want us to follow the European way of doing things – the European Social Model.

It’s that old-fashioned approach: you pretend governments can protect jobs by imposing regulations and burdens on business.

All Labour have done is dress it up in new words: stakeholding. Social justice, social partnership.

New words to try to camouflage reality.

But they can’t.

Over 4 million Germans, over 3 million French and about 3 million Italians know that. They’re all unemployed.

That’s over 10 million people in Europe without a stake in a job.

Where’s the social justice in that?

They have a message that Labour should listen to.

“Give us our jobs back.”

And unless we want to lose jobs in the same way, Britons should listen too.

Labour tells us we shouldn’t be isolated in Europe.

Translated, that means “You may be getting back to work in Britain, but really you should be joining your European colleagues on the dole”.

By signing the Social Chapter and inflicting a minimum wage, Labour would conscript British youngsters into the growing army of the European unemployed.

That’s the message: if you want to get people into jobs don’t give one to a Labour MP.

And that’s only part of the picture.

Labour wish to undermine our veto and hand more power to the European Union.

They’re prepared to ransack the Westminster Parliament of its power.

Some would go to Edinburgh; some to Cardiff; some to the regions; and some to Europe. Parliament could keep what’s left.

A United Kingdom reduced to regions, each competing one against another, with no one voice, no common cause, no national purpose.

A Europe of the Regions, the Europe so beloved of Robin Cook.

This surely cannot be the future for us.

To consign it to the long list of failed, discredited policies New Labour, Old Labour, any old Labour have to their name.

We don’t take this position because focus groups say so. Nor out of party political advantage.

We do so because we believe what Labour is proposing threatens this United Kingdom of ours with change on an unprecedented scale.

Peroration

We should be more confident as a nation about what we’ve done, what we are, what we stand for.

If I had one wish, it would be that we could see ourselves as others see us.

As one of the most secure democracies in the world. An outstanding success story. A nation enjoying a renaissance in enterprise.

Behind us lie 18 years of building the foundations for rising prosperity.

When we came to power in 1979, Britain was derided as the sick man of Europe. Today we are admired as the success story of Europe.

The spirit of hope is around and growing by the day.

We must build on that and broaden the smile across the face of Britain. We have a tale to tell that cannot be denied.

Let’s not put it at risk.

The polling booth is not a casino. Not a place to gamble with Britain’s future. It’s the opportunity to secure our future.

An opportunity we Conservatives have created, and only we can build on.

February 22, 1997
Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the British Constitution – 20 February 1997

Below is Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the British Constitution, given on 20th February 1997.

PRIME MINISTER:

Madam Speaker Because of the large number of hon. Members who wish to speak, I have had to limit speeches – other than those from Front Benchers, of course-to 10 minutes throughout the debate.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) Last summer, the other place had a two-day debate on the constitution. It was a worthwhile and constructive occasion, and I hope that today will prove to be so as well.

We have no written constitution in this country – it evolves. It has changed in this Parliament, and it will change in the future. I agreed with the leader of the Labour party, when he said last week: ‘The idea that the British constitution should never change and evolve and develop is completely absurd.’ I entirely agree with that – of course it is right – and I made precisely the same point myself when speaking in Wales. The point is not whether our constitution should change, but how it should change and at what pace it should change.

We have given a new role to the Welsh and Scottish Grand Committees; we have devolved powers to schools and hospitals; and we have reformed procedures in this House and increased Government accountability to Select Committees. I am in favour of more change. We have agreed to set up a Northern Ireland Grand Committee similar to those for Scotland and Wales.

I favour further reform of the procedures in this House. We have set out our proposals to ensure that new legislation is better considered, with a two-year parliamentary programme and more draft legislation for consultation. As the two Houses are complementary, I see a case for similar examination of the other place. We will continue the process of improving public services, because we wish to give people more choice and opportunity.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

The Prime Minister I want to make progress – I shall give way a little later. All that change has been gradual; it is sensible, and it has been thought through before it has been produced. We on this side of the House have always advocated a Europe of nations. Labour’s plans would undermine the strength of the nation state. Like many on the continent, Labour seems to be advocating a Europe of the regions, but England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not regions – they are four nations within a united kingdom. A Europe of the regions would be the sure way to enable a bureaucracy to bypass national Governments. It is the wrong way forward, and it is not for us.

That is only one reason – it is by no means the principal reason – why I do not favour a tax-raising parliament for Scotland.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

The Prime Minister If the right hon. Gentleman will let me make a little progress, I undertake to give way later.

Mr. Benn It is on the European question.

The Prime Minister Oh, all right.

Mr. Benn May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in that capacity, what democratic justification there could be, in principle, for handing over his powers on public expenditure, taxation and interest rates to a central bank in Frankfurt, so that the responsibility that he now exercises – accountable to Parliament and the people – would no longer be exercised through the ballot box? Has he read the book of Genesis and of how Esau handed over his birthright for a mess of pottage, and has been remembered ever since as having made the biggest mistake of his life?

The Prime Minister I have, but I am not sure that I would draw a direct relationship between that story and the treaty of Rome, although the right hon. Gentleman might do so. There was a pained expression on the faces of the Labour Front Benchers as he asked his question. As he knows, if we had not obtained the opt-out that I obtained at Maastricht, we in this House would not have the option to make at some stage in the future the decision that the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to make.

Let me return to saying what I was about to turn to. I do not favour a tax-raising parliament for Scotland, or a toothless Welsh Assembly, or 10 regional assemblies, taking powers either from this House or from local government or from both – it is uncertain where they would come from. Nor do I favour unpicking the House of Lords, changing the voting system and ceding further powers from this House to Europe.

The Labour party has given in to the temptation to put party before country. [Interruption.] There is no nice way of expressing that, nor does there deserve to be. The plans drawn up by the Labour party, with the Liberal Democrats in tow, are a blueprint that would undermine the unity of the United Kingdom and erode the authority of this Parliament. As they stand, any Member of this House should be ashamed to endorse them.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) A moment ago, the Prime Minister recognised the nationality of Wales and Scotland, but the provisions that he suggested might be available for changing the government of those two countries were all encapsulated within this institution in London. Does that mean that, if the Conservative Government are elected to power, for however long they are in office, there will in effect be an English veto on any aspirations of Wales and Scotland to national autonomy, and that the only alternatives for Wales and Scotland are the status quo or full self-government?

The Prime Minister As the hon. Gentleman knows, the last time the people of Wales had the opportunity to choose, they chose by a majority of four to one not to have devolution, but to remain part of the United Kingdom.

The plan to set up an income-tax-raising parliament in Scotland, partly elected by proportional representation, on the bogus mandate of a referendum with two questions, before the legislation has even been considered, is deeply flawed. So is the plan to have an assembly in Wales without tax-raising powers, and a pre-legislative referendum with one question.

In essence, it is proposed that Parliament would be presented with what is little more than a public opinion poll and told to endorse it, however absurd examination of the subsequent proposals showed them to be; and if this Parliament exercised its constitutional right and radically changed the legislation, as well it might, there is no plan in the minds of the Labour party or the Liberal party for a subsequent referendum to discover whether that change would be acceptable. I believe that this is an abuse of the way in which constitutional change should be approached.

Mr. Tony Banks A moment ago, the Prime Minister talked about putting party before country. Is he not doing precisely that by keeping the whole country guessing about the date of the next general election? Is not that all about putting party before country? Does he not find it outrageous that one person should have the power to decide when the rest of the country will be allowed to vote? Would he support fixed-term Parliaments?

The Prime Minister A straight answer to the hon. Gentleman is no, and I will waste no more time on him.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart) Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister I will give way a little later, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

We have in the House constitutional parties that favour separatism – an independent Scotland and an independent Wales. Devolution plans, for them at least – and for others – cloak separatist ambitions. The Labour and Liberal parties may well believe that they are buying off the separatists. I believe that they are selling out to the separatists. [HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear.”] Let me now consider their plans for Scotland.

Of the 129 members of a Scottish Parliament –

Mr. Maxton rose –

The Prime Minister Just a minute. Of its 129 members – [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker Order.

The Prime Minister Of its 129 members, 56 would be placemen, drawn from lists approved by party leaders, with no accountability to constituents or responsibility for them. There would be gender quotas – a politically correct idea, which many people would find patronising.

There will be no revising chamber – no second chamber. The House of Lords would not be permitted to scrutinise Scottish legislation; neither would anything replace it. [Interruption.] I am pleased to see Labour Members hoot. Nor would anything replace it. Five million British subjects, on the threshold of a new millennium, would be brought under unicameral Government – the object of suspicion to every democrat for centuries. [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh.”] That is what they propose. No checks; no balances – that is the plan, and it is a complete rag-bag.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) rose

The Prime Minister I am sorry. I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. Maxton As the Prime Minister is talking about devolution, will he explain why he is prepared to devolve power to Northern Ireland but not to Scotland and Wales?

The Prime Minister I shall come directly and in detail to Northern Ireland, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. It is – [HON. MEMBERS: “Answer.”] It is a fair point, and I will discuss it in detail.

If I may return for a moment to Scotland, the other question unanswered is whether, in any legislation, there is to be Royal Assent. I am not sure, and I hope that it can be made clear. Then, of course, there is the – [HON. MEMBERS: “Why should there be?”] I did not hear what was said; perhaps it was not worth hearing. Then there is the West Lothian question.

Mr. Home Robertson rose

The Prime Minister I wish to make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

Mr. Home Robertson What about the East Lothian question?

The Prime Minister West Lothian is more logical that East Lothian. I shall deal with West Lothian.

The Labour leader has the opportunity to make history today: he can answer the West Lothian question. How could Scottish Members of Parliament in this House continue to legislate on matters in England, if English Members had no control over the same matters in Scotland? I hope that we will get an answer.

More insanely than that, those Scottish Members of Parliament voting on, say, health and education, and law and order, in England would not be able to vote on the same issues affecting their own constituents, because that would be the privilege of the Scottish Parliament.

Let me illustrate the point more clearly. The shadow Chancellor, who, alas, is not here this afternoon, would not be able to vote on health, education or other important matters relating to his constituents in Dunfermline, but he could get stuck into Dagenham or anywhere else in England, closing down grammar schools, abolishing GP fundholding practices and all the other regressive nonsenses that Labour supports. I do not understand how anyone can defend such unconstitutional nonsense.

Several hon. Members rose

The Prime Minister In a moment. I shall finish this passage, and then give way first to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). We have long known that those difficulties exist. The Labour leader himself has honestly admitted that “the anomaly is there” and said that the answer to the West Lothian question is – [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker Order. Mr. Campbell-Savours, I am sick and tired of hearing you shout out from a sedentary position – [Interruption.] Order. There was a great deal of pressure last Thursday on the Leader of the House to bring the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to the Dispatch Box today for this important debate. I want to hear the debate in silence. I call the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister Let me, Madam Speaker –

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) I want to ask the Prime Minister a question.

The Prime Minister I think that we have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman for the moment. Let me repeat what hon. Members may not have heard. The Labour leader has honestly admitted that “the anomaly is there”, and said that the answer to the West Lothian question ‘is the answer we’ve always given”.’ But what is that answer that he has “always given”? And where is it? It is as elusive as the Loch Ness monster. Has anyone seen it – or heard it? Will we hear what it is today?

Then, of course, there is the position of Scottish Members of Parliament who might be appointed as Ministers at Westminster. Will the leader of the Labour party confirm the statement of the shadow Foreign Secretary who, when responsible for health, said: ‘Once we have a Scottish Parliament handling health affairs, it is not possible for me to continue as Health Minister administering health in England”?’ The same principle would apply to education, the legal system, local government, home affairs and so on.

Since the 19th century, all devolution schemes have foundered on the question whether to withdraw voting rights from Westminster Members of Parliament representing nations with devolved Parliaments, or whether to reduce their number. The Liberal Democrats, to their credit, recognise that. They are already advocating a cut from 72 to 60 Scottish Members. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) does ‘not believe it will be possible to get a devolution Bill through Parliament without a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs to 57 or less.’ The Labour leader has said: ‘of course there are consequences in what we plan; we don’t ignore them.’ So what are those consequences, and what does he plan?

At present, Scotland has more Members of Parliament than a strict justification on grounds of population would produce. The Labour Opposition wish to keep them in Parliament, because, without them, they would have a diminished chance of a UK majority. So, in their party interest, they are prepared to gerrymander the electoral system. The powerful office of Secretary of State for Scotland would also be abolished, lessening the voice of Scotland in the House and in Whitehall.

Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) I recognise that the Prime Minister believes strongly and genuinely that creating any devolved Parliament could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I hope that he would respect the reverse view, which is that, without devolution, we risk the break-up of the United Kingdom. No anomaly that he has so far mentioned is as great as the present one, where 580 non-Scottish Members of Parliament determine purely Scottish legislation, such as the poll tax, which we had in Scotland before it was introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister The right hon. Gentleman referred to the poll tax and the grievance that it was introduced in Scotland first. The tartan tax is to be introduced in Scotland only.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) I wonder whether the Prime Minister had time to look at a survey published in The Scotsman on Monday, which showed that three quarters of Scots believe that the Tories are an English-based party with little relevance to Scotland. That included a third of Tory voters, although that was admittedly a small sample. After almost seven years of his prime ministership, why do so many Scots believe that he leads an anti-Scottish party? Might it be something to do with his implacable hostility to legitimate Scottish aspirations?

The Prime Minister I know that the hon. Gentleman would wish to peddle that line, but if he looked at what has happened to the quality of life in Scotland during the 18 years of Conservative Government, he would see the extent to which it has improved. If he looks at the growth of employment prospects, he will see the extent to which they have improved. If he sees the improvement in the education system or the health system, that has happened under Conservative Government during the past 18 years. If he were totally frank, he would acknowledge that that was the case.

I come to the point led into by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale – the infamous tartan tax. Why should people in Scotland pay income tax at a starting rate 15 per cent. higher than in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Cunninghame, South) Or lower.

The Prime Minister Or lower? The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) clearly thinks that the extra public expenditure voted by the House to Scotland per head of population would continue, so that the Scottish Parliament could offer lower taxes to the people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. He knows that that is unreal.

The Labour party has just put up posters giving a five-year pledge by the Labour leader not to put up income tax rates. However, Labour would put them up in Scotland, where it is pledged to establish a tartan income-tax-raising Parliament within a year, which would put up tax rates. That is a little insensitive of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield. The Islington elite clearly forgot about Scotland, and certainly forgot about the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), although I suppose that that is part of the Labour constitution. The hon. Gentleman should move to Islington.

Perhaps today the Labour leader will clarify the situation: income tax up in Scotland or not? If he has no plans to raise tax, why shackle his party to a policy that enables tax to be raised? What would the tartan tax do to jobs, investment and pensioners’ savings in Scotland?

An increase of 3p in the basic rate of tax would leave someone on average earnings in Scotland £6 a week worse off. For a married couple who both worked, it could be double that. It would cost families £300 with one person in employment, and perhaps as much as £600 with two people working. Scottish pensioners who saved all their lives or contributed to pension plans would be worse off, just because they live in Scotland.

If that injustice goes ahead in Scotland, how would it work? How much would it cost? Would not the Inland Revenue have to set up a separate tax regime for Scotland? Does not a separate tax regime acknowledge the blatantly separatist implications of Labour’s plans for a different tax system? Separate tax regimes define separate nations.

Several hon. Members rose –

The Prime Minister I am not the only one who thinks so. As another critic said: ‘The moment powers to raise taxation are offered and taken … the fracture of the United Kingdom will have begun.’ They are not my words – although I agree with them – but those of Mr. Neil Kinnock when he was a Member of Parliament. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington has shouted at me from a seated position often enough over the years, so he can stay seated today.

Would the tartan tax be levied according to where people live, where they work, or where their company is located? Could it become the tweed tax, spreading across the border? If someone from Islington was employed by a Scottish company, would he pay the tartan tax?

I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a practical example to chew on and respond to. Take the case of an important Scottish company, Kwik-Fit. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to listen, as he may wish to respond to this point. I am sure that the conversation of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is diverting, but he can talk to her later. Kwik-Fit has 4,000 employees in England and 1,200 in Scotland, but all are paid from the payroll in Edinburgh. Would they all pay the tartan tax, or would Kwik-Fit be expected to apply different tax rates to different employees? [Interruption.]

When Labour Members do not like it because they do not have the answers, they try to drown it out. I repeat: would Kwik-Fit be expected to apply different tax rates to different employees? If not, employees in England would pay the tartan tax. If they did not, they would face a tax rise if they were transferred to their head office in Scotland. What would that do to the competitiveness of an extremely successful Scottish company? Opposition Members have not thought about any of that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours We have.

Mr. Major Good, then the Leader of the Opposition will give us the answers this afternoon.

Mr. Campbell-Savours Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major No, we want the organ grinder, not the monkey.

What of Scottish Members of Parliament who advocate the tartan tax? Would they not be exempt from paying that tax? Within three months, the people of Scotland and the rest of Britain will have to vote on those crazy proposals. They have a right to answers, and, if those answers are not forthcoming today, they will be entitled to draw their own conclusions.

If anything could be as much of a mess as Labour’s plans for Scotland, it must be its plans for Wales. Wales is to have an assembly instead of a parliament.

Mr. Home Robertson rose –

Mr. Major I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I am now talking about Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh”.] Perhaps I shall give way in a minute.

What is it about the people of Wales that means that Labour would not trust them with the powers that it is prepared to give to the people of Scotland? When the shadow Welsh Secretary, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), talks of a Welsh assembly not having tax-raising powers, he adds “initially”. He says that Labour’s plans for Wales are “clear and becoming clearer”. What is becoming clearer –

Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to refuse to give way to a Scottish Member of Parliament who wishes to ask a question about Wales, when the Prime Minister is arguing about the United Kingdom?

Madam Speaker It is entirely up to the right hon. Gentleman to develop his speech in his own way. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will be called to speak later in the debate.

The Prime Minister The hon. Member for East Lothian knows that I have given way often enough in my speech, and shall do so again.

The shadow Welsh Secretary talks about a Welsh Assembly not having tax-raising powers initially. However, it is becoming clearer to the people of Wales that, in due course, they too will have to pay higher taxes for the privilege of living in Wales. I shall tell hon. Members why, and I quote: ‘No level of Government has been denied some control of revenue raising … indeed, the lack of such a power and the conflict this could provoke is a more significant danger than having it”.’ In essence, not having a tax-raising power is more dangerous than having a tax-raising power. That is not my view, but the view of the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). If the Labour leader does not repudiate that view, we know the fate for Wales – increased taxation.

Plans such as those mean that conflict between devolved Parliaments and the House would be inevitable. The outcome would be to damage the unity of the United Kingdom and lead to its fracture.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) Why does the Prime Minister persist in his nonsense of claiming that the choice before the people over Wales is for or against a devolved assembly? The choice is whether we have a vote or not. The Government are offering Wales no choice and no vote. That is what the people will decide in the general election. The Prime Minister is trying to stop Wales having a choice on devolution.

The Prime Minister Wales had a choice and expressed its view very clearly in the past.

Let me now move to what is proposed for England. A parliament for Scotland – [Interruption]. An assembly for Wales – [Interruption]. The more Opposition Members shout, the less they have the answers to the questions that I have put. There is a lot of sound and fury. We will see whether we get the answers. Then there are to be new assemblies for the regions of England.

Where is the appetite for a whole extra tier of government?

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) Ask the people.

The Prime Minister “Ask the people,” says the hon. Gentleman. I bet that they would be very pleased with more bureaucrats, more politicians, more taxes.

Labour say that they will set up regional assemblies ‘if that is what local people want’ Presumably that means yet more referendums.

Mr. Tony Banks What is wrong with that?

The Prime Minister The Labour leader says that he is not in favour of referendums – that is one thing that is wrong with it. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman shares very few views with his leader, so it is unsurprising that he does not share that one.

If some regions choose to have an assembly, what will happen in those regions that do not? What would the assemblies do? The shadow Environment Secretary is very vague about that. He says that they will have “a say” over health. What that means, heaven alone knows. He is not certain, but just possibly he might want them to monitor water and electricity companies. He goes on to say that their demand for “more services” would be “unstoppable”. What services? What nonsense! He has not the faintest idea what they are going to do.

The real reason for establishing regional assemblies across England has nothing whatever to do with good government in England; rather it has to do with giving the Labour party a spurious justification for keeping the present number of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament in the House, even after establishing a parliament in Edinburgh and an assembly in Cardiff. That chaos – more government, more regulation – is the price that England would be asked to pay as the Labour party tries to appease separatism and tilt the electoral system in its favour.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) Has the Prime Minister not noticed that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee pointed out that the people of England have £17 billion of public expenditure per annum spent by his placemen and women through quangos, and the regions and the people living in the regions have no say in what the quangos are doing?

The Prime Minister If that is a new Liberal policy to abolish them all, I am very interested to hear it. No doubt they want to set up whole new elected tiers of bureaucracy. I note very carefully what the hon. Gentleman asks.

Let me turn to the point originally raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) about Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland remains one area where the Opposition parties have constantly supported Government efforts, and that has given the peace process added strength. I have publicly thanked them for that often enough, and I willingly do so again today. Unfortunately, some of them attempt to use the special circumstances of Northern Ireland to promote other views.

The hon. Gentleman asked why we can contemplate an assembly for Northern Ireland but not for Scotland and Wales. [Interruption.] It is a fair question, and if Opposition Members will listen, I will give them a detailed answer. The best answer is that given by the shadow Scottish Secretary, who said: ‘We would be unwise to draw a parallel between Scotland’s … desire to have a parliament and anything going on in Northern Ireland.’ I shall elaborate the point. He is right, because the circumstances are not comparable. That is only the background to why the hon. Gentleman made that statement.

What we have suggested for Northern Ireland is radically different from the plan that the Labour party has for Scotland and Wales. There is no suggestion of an assembly with tax-raising powers. There are no pluralist politics in Northern Ireland, as there are in Scotland and Wales. There is no representation by parties likely to form a United Kingdom Government. What we are seeking in Northern Ireland is a widely accepted accommodation based on consent. That would provide the surest possible foundation for maintaining Northern Ireland’s place firmly within the United Kingdom. That is our wish. Labour’s flawed proposals for Scotland and Wales would ultimately drive them out of the United Kingdom, and we oppose that.

Labour also proposes to fiddle with the House of Lords, despite the fact –

Mr. Campbell-Savours rose –

Mr. Donohoe rose –

The Prime Minister I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) until he has learnt better manners. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe).

Mr. Donohoe Will the Prime Minister’s proposals for Northern Ireland lead to a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament in the House?

The Prime Minister When Northern Ireland had an assembly in the past, it had 12 Members of Parliament and constituency sizes were about 50 per cent. larger than constituency sizes across the rest of the United Kingdom. There is already over-representation in Scotland: there are 72 Scottish Members, as against 17 for Northern Ireland. Its powers were not comparable with the powers that would go to a Scottish Parliament.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, if Northern Ireland had proper representation in the House, comparable to that for Scotland, we would have 23 Members of Parliament? Does he further accept that the plan is to return devolved local administration with powers to Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that the signing over of certain consultative positions to the Dublin Government is an anomaly in a kingdom that expects to rule itself?

As a graduate of Trinity college, I would have understood if the Government were guiding the appointment of a person to the senate of Trinity, but why, in the name of all that is wonderful, do we have to consult in quangoland on appointments to the senate of Queen’s university, the numbers of which must be sent to Dublin?

The Prime Minister The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about the comparable number of Members of Parliament. Indeed, there would be rather more English Members of Parliament on a comparable basis were we to have the same population representation as Scotland. As I said a few moments ago, we are seeking to provide the surest foundation for maintaining Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. That will remain our constant policy.

The Labour party also proposes to fiddle with the House of Lords, despite the fact that it works well as a revising chamber and as a forum for debate. There are times when we hear a little less from Labour Members about the House of Lords, such as last week, when they used it to undermine our plans to get tough on drug dealers, violent criminals and burglars. The House of Lords is all right then. What the shadow Home Secretary will not do in this House, he has his colleagues do in the other House if he possibly can. When the House of Lords so misbehaves itself that it agrees with the Government, Labour says that it is a bastion of unacceptable privilege.

Labour proposes to change the House of Lords in a two-stage reform. First, it would remove the right of hereditary peers to sit. For stage two, with characteristic firmness of purpose, it undertakes to work it all out later. Labour risks creating the largest and most powerful quango in history, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). It would be a House filled with hand-picked appointments, which would give a whole new meaning to the term “trade union barons”: an Islington focus group writ large. If those people are not to be appointed, will they be elected? If so, would the Upper House set itself up in opposition to this House? Who would arbitrate between them? Indeed: ‘The prospect of a second Chamber challenging or replicating the power of the first would produce instability and inefficiency, and is to be avoided.’ That is my view, but that is also how the Labour party put it in its document. So it admits the dangers, but it still proposes the change.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) The Prime Minister has already referred to a revising Chamber two or three times, saying, for instance, that one would not be available in Scotland under Labour’s plans. Is he happy with the fact that, on Tuesday, this House reversed the decisions of the House of Lords on every amendment?

The Prime Minister This House is sovereign. It is because the hon. Gentleman does not believe that that he follows the politics he does, but I do believe that this House is sovereign.

The final lunacy in Labour’s plans is, of course, reform of the voting system. The Liberal Democrats have long favoured that, for reasons that I well understand. It is true that the “first past the post” system does them no favours, but I think that it is right for the country. Proportional representation would deliver permanent coalitions, for ever depending on back-room deals with minority parties that would withdraw support whenever it suited them. [Laughter.] It is interesting to see that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) knows that that is true.

Labour’s view, however, is very murky. We are told that Labour flirts with the idea of a referendum on proportional representation – one of the dozen or so referendums that it now plans in order to keep the Liberal Democrats happy. But, at the same time, the Labour leader uses his familiar tactic of sending people out into the Lobbies to whisper that he personally is opposed to PR. We know that he says one thing in public and another in private; now we see that he says different things in private whenever it suits him. Today, he can tell us his position in public.

We are told that constitutional reform would be a priority for a Labour Government. [HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear.”] I am glad that Labour Members confirm that. Constitutional reform would be a priority – not jobs, not taxes, not health, not law and order, but gerrymandering the constitution with these barmy propositions.

Our constitution is the foundation of our democracy. It is the base on which our freedoms appear, and our economic prosperity. That is why I defend it. I would change it only cautiously, and after careful examination. If the case were to be made, I would support it, but no case has yet remotely been made for the changes proposed by the Opposition.

The constitution should not be a political plaything for party gain. Ours is a united kingdom, a proud nation state, part of a Europe that is and should remain a partnership of nations and not a federal state. Labour’s constitutional proposals would affect not just Scotland and Wales, but the whole United Kingdom. They would affect this Parliament. They would affect the way in which this nation is governed. The damage they would do is massive, and the benefits they would bring are dubious. They are rightly an election issue, and we shall make them so.

February 20, 1997
PMQT Written Answers – 20 February 1997

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

PRIME MINISTER:

Millennium Club

Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister how many times over the last three years, he has addressed the Millennium Club in his official capacity; and if he will list the names of those present and the companies they represented on each occasion; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister [holding answer 13 February 1997]: None.

Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister what reports he has received on the offer made to prospective members of the Millennium Club by Mr. Alan Lewis, concerning access to Ministers of Her Majesty’s Government and influence over Government policy; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister [holding answer 13 February 1997]: None.

Engagements

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

Consultants

Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies.

The Prime Minister: For this purpose, my Department is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 13 January, Official Report, columns 13-14.

February 20, 1997