The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1997

  • PMQT – 20 February 1997

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. O’Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 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. O’Hara: Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite all the Government’s attempts to massage and manipulate the figures, national health service waiting lists are again at record levels? There is a waiting list of 179,000 in my area of the north-west alone. Could it just be that the Government’s policy of replacing 50,000 nurses with 20,000 managers and doubling the price of bureaucracy has something to do with this crisis?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken.

    Mr. Mackinlay: No, he is not.

    The Prime Minister: Yes he is, and I will explain precisely why.

    Waiting lists are broadly the same as last year. They have fallen very dramatically during the present Parliament. If the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O’Hara) would care to look at the figures for the period before the health reforms and the patient’s charter, he will see that more than 200,000 people had waited for more than a year, of whom 80,000 had waited for more than two years. At the end of December, only 2 per cent. of patients-–22,000-–had been waiting for more than a year, and the number who had waited for more than 18 months was down to 123.

    The fact is that more people are being treated, they are being treated more swiftly, and they are being treated better.

     

    Q2. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that last month the Treasury repaid £6,000 million of debt? Will he also confirm that, if anyone sought to spend an extra £30,000 million of public money, they could do so only by increasing taxes, increasing borrowing and increasing interest rates, all of which would put an end to the economic recovery that is the envy of the whole of the rest of western Europe?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct on both counts. Certainly, if anything remotely approximating to £30,000 million were spent in the next Parliament in addition to current spending plans, taxes and interest rates would rise, and I have no doubt that it would have very severe effects on the economy as a whole. As for debt, I was delighted to see that £6 billion had been repaid in the past month-–

    Mr. Skinner: Who put it up?

    The Prime Minister: I will just remind the hon. Gentleman that we have a lower debt ratio than any other major economy in Europe. I will remind him that, in every single year since we came to power, the debt ratio has been lower than in any single year in which he supported a Labour Government.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor that although, of course, the Government are hostile to a single currency on a non-convergent basis, the Government-–I quote the Chancellor-–

    “doesn’t have a hostile attitude to the single currency . . . The position remains that we have an open option.”

    Those words were repeated by the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister repeat those words and say that he agrees specifically with his Chancellor and his Deputy Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, if there were not arguments in both directions, we would not have kept our options open. Of course I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has said in very clear terms that he agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will he disown Conservative central office, which has been briefing that, in effect, he has closed the option of joining a single currency?

    The Prime Minister: No one has been briefing to that effect. The Cabinet set out its position some time ago. It has been reaffirmed on a number of occasions. I reaffirm it again today. It was set out perfectly clearly. The right hon. Gentleman can forget the minor textual exegesis and stick with the facts: that the policy was set out perfectly clearly and that that remains the policy. I hope that the leader of the Labour party might now care to examine the different statements of members of his shadow Cabinet over recent weeks.

     

    Q3. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the superb and often inadequately recognised work carried out by the Prince of Wales’s group of charities? Quite apart from offering practical help to more than 150,000 young people, it has established more than 60,000 jobs. Will my right hon. Friend endorse the project that I visited in my constituency this week, where the Prince’s Trust rehabilitated a park? By such projects young people take practical steps to serve their local community, while at the same time establishing self-reliance.

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do that. Voluntary service plays a very important part in the fabric of life in this country, and I know of no nation in the world in which the sum total of voluntary service matches that of the United Kingdom. The work done by the Prince’s Trust and other voluntary bodies is absolutely magnificent, and the Government will continue to give their support to it.

    Mr. Ashdown: Let us see. Last week, the Health Secretary told us that the Conservatives would abolish a Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Secretary said, oh no, they would not. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government were hostile to a single currency and the Chancellor said, oh no, they were not. Has it yet occurred to the Prime Minister what is so plain and evident to everybody else-–that his divided Cabinet has given up fighting for the interests of the country and has started instead to fight for his job after the election?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s commitment openly and certainly honestly-–I concede that-–to put up the rate of income tax will certainly help to keep me here on this Bench after the election.

    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does not my right hon. Friend have sympathy for the victims of the failed cultural revolution? In Islington, for example, it is estimated that up to 50 per cent. of children are educated outside the borough. What does he have to say to those poor parents who are now driven to flee from a Labour administration and become educational refugees across the face of London?

    The Prime Minister: I think that it was the leader of the Labour party who said, “You can’t tell what a Government is like until it is in power.” In Islington, Labour is in power, and my hon. Friend points out vividly what it is like. If parents are fleeing Islington, as we understand they are, it certainly is a new version of the term “school run”.

     

    Sanctions (Libya)

    Q4. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the consequences for (a) the imposition of sanctions on Libya and (b) the case against Libyan nationals of the dismissal of James Thurman from the service of the United States Government.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so. The case against the two accused Libyans does not depend on any evidence that Mr. Thurman might give.

    Mr. Dalyell: Has Thurman been reassigned to other duties for fabricating forensic evidence?

    The Prime Minister: I am certainly not aware that that is the case. If the hon. Gentleman has any information that it is, or any information that he thinks bears on this matter-–

    Mr. Dalyell: It is in the New York Times.

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am not an avid and daily reader of the New York Times. If he has any information that is pertinent to this case, and would care to provide me with it, I will certainly undertake to have it carefully examined.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: As senior Scottish advocates have said that it would be impossible for the two accused to have a fair trial in Scotland because of press publicity, and as the Libyan Government have now stated that they will hand over the two accused to the Arab League for committal to trial in The Hague or anywhere else, would it not help those who lost their relatives and friends at Lockerbie to have the issue resolved? My right hon. Friend is, as we all know, basically a straight, decent person, so will he endeavour to solve the problem and stop simply engaging in the throwing of insults? Could we not solve it in the interests of those who lost their relatives and friends at Lockerbie?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly want a solution to this problem. We would like a solution as much as the relatives, but we need a proper criminal trial and there are genuine and practical difficulties in trying to establish such a trial in a third country. I think that many hon. Members, including-–if my hon. Friend will permit me to say so-–me, would, on grounds of principle, find a trial in a third country very difficult to accept. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] I shall tell hon. Members why. It could suggest that a trial in Scotland or the United States would not be fair.

    I am not prepared to accept that premise in terms of a trial in Scotland. Nor do I think that it would be remotely attractive for us to allow alleged terrorists to dictate where they may or may not be tried. That would be a bad principle. The Security Council resolutions say that they should be tried in Scotland or the United States-–two countries with a particular interest in the matter.

    I have to add that I am very doubtful that the Libyans would deliver the accused for such a trial, even if one were to be set up, but, for the reasons that I have set out, the trial should be either in Scotland, which would be the preference, or in the United States.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Prime Minister share my genuine concern about the outrageous activities of the directors of Camelot in attempting to take gambling on the lottery into every home in the land and extend their links with rather devious gambling projects abroad? Would it not be possible for him to stop this development? Otherwise, he will leave a legacy of children who were brought up in the midst of gambling mania.

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the lottery is very tightly regulated and there will be no changes to the structure or content of the constituent games without the specific involvement of the director general. The Government have no intention of allowing the good name of the lottery to be jeopardised. I think that the hon. Gentleman would share my pleasure at the sheer scale of the resources produced by the lottery for good causes. Today, for example, the heritage lottery fund is awarding £140 million to 24 of the nation’s best loved museums.

    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that efficient professional administration is vital to the success of the national health service? Does he recall that, when we decided to modernise the system by getting rid of the whole regional tier of NHS bureaucracy, the Labour party was against it? What does he therefore think of its promises to save money on NHS bureaucracy?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that there were substantial savings to be made by the abolition of the regional health authority tier, and that those savings were opposed by the Labour party. The health service is one of the most efficient health services in the world and, in terms of management expenditure, it is now 25 per cent. more efficient than in 1979.

     

    Electoral Registration

    Q6. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce proposals to encourage registration on supplementary lists of those missing from electoral registers before the announcement of the date of the general election.

    The Prime Minister: I see no need to do so. The vast majority of eligible electors are registered and a well-established claims procedure exists for those who are not.

    Mr. Barnes: Why will the Government not publish the number of people who are currently on electoral registers? What have they got to hide? Are the figures as bad as they were last year, when at least 2 million people were missing from the registers? Why cannot we have a massive campaign to put people on supplementary lists, which could be added to lists of those who are eligible to vote at the general election? The Halifax building society organised a massive campaign for what it called its “big vote”. The general election is the biggest vote of all, and all our people should be entitled to exercise their vote.

    The Prime Minister: I, of course, agree with that. The Conservative party has done all it can to ensure that people are registered to vote at the general election. As for the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asked, the 1996 electoral registers for the United Kingdom contained just under 44 million names-–the highest number ever. New registers came into force on 16 February, and the figures for them should be available by the end of March.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 February 1997

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

    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.

     

    Residential Properties

    Mr. Meale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the residential properties which are within his gift.

    The Prime Minister: Chevening, Dorneywood and the three flats in Admiralty house.

     

    Manpower Information Service

    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he had made of the national on-line manpower information service report from the university of Durham; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Angela Knight: I have been asked to reply.

    NOMIS–national on-line manpower information system–is the Office for National Statistics on-line labour market statistics database run under contract by the university of Durham. It enables users to access electronically via a modem link, a wide range of official labour market statistics.

    NOMIS does not produce reports, but the information that it makes available is widely used for research purposes and under crown copyright is quoted as the source of information.

    There are currently 800 subscribers to NOMIS, including local authorities, academics, research bodies, central Government and the commercial sector.

  • PMQT – 18 February 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 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. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Scots and the Welsh were to be given their own Parliament there would be an overwhelming demand from my constituents in Essex, and elsewhere in England, for English Members of Parliament to be given exclusive control over English affairs? What consequence does he think that that would have for the integrity of the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the anomalies that would be thrown up were there to be a Scottish or Welsh Parliament. The shadow Foreign Secretary once said, when he was shadow Health Secretary, that he as a Scot could not be Health Secretary in England were health to be devolved to a Scottish Parliament. Clearly there are much wider applications than just health were such a Parliament to be established. That is just one of many anomalies thrown up by the policy of devolution which I hope that we will be able to examine this week.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall the promise that he made on “Panorama” a couple of years ago that the excesses that we saw in the water industry would not be repeated in the rail industry? Is he aware that, in the next few days, the second of the railway rolling stock companies, which was bought on privatisation for £580 million, is to be sold for £900 million? The first rolling stock company, having been bought for just over £500 million, was sold a few months later for more than £800 million. Does he agree that such profits are entirely unjustified?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall the right hon. Gentleman saying that he supported the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition. That seems to apply only in generality and not in the real world when companies are efficient and sold on. The right hon. Gentleman and his party are as opposed to private ownership and privatisation today as they have ever been at any stage. They know that that is so and take every opportunity that they can to try to denigrate the success across the whole range of privatisation.

    Mr. Blair: I certainly support the enterprise of the market. What I do not support is the incompetence of the Government. I believe that most people in this country will see the difference between making an honest profit and profiteering.

    Can I point out to the Prime Minister that, in the sale in the next few days, the managing director, who put in £110,000 a year ago, will make £20 million and the finance and engineering directors, who put in £80,000, will make £10 million each, and it is reported that the part-time chairman of the company privatised earlier, who worked for one day a month and put in £25,000, has walked away with £4 million? Does the Prime Minister believe that that is the enterprise of the market? Is it not simple profiteering?

    The Prime Minister: It is hard not to remember that the right hon. Gentleman’s private office is funded by the profits of privatisation. If such funds are so wrong, perhaps he will pay them back to those who provided them. It is not all that long ago that he was saying:

    “the pragmatic approach to privatisation is . . . correct. The key is . . . sticking to it regardless of the pressures.”

    Of course, he said that in South Africa; what he says here is quite different.

    Mr. Blair: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that, just for once at one of these Prime Minister’s Question Times, he tries answering the question put to him? Is there not the sharpest contrast between the massive windfall gains–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have a little order in this House. I can hear the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) shouting and bawling.

    Mr. Blair: Is there not the sharpest contrast between the massive windfall gains made on the sale of a public asset that is effectively run through public subsidy, and the misery of thousands of commuters yesterday at Waterloo station, who saw their trains cancelled and their services destroyed because the train company laid off one tenth of its drivers? Is not that the clearest example of a Conservative Government favouring the few at the expense of the many?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman remembers the bad old days of British Rail nationalisation–services were cut with no protection for the passenger. Now, penalties can be imposed and passengers have the right to apply for compensation. Clearly, from what he is saying, he is proposing new capital controls on the market. We look forward to hearing precisely what those are. He cannot deny that privatisation has been a success. Investment is at record levels. [Interruption.] It is interesting to see Labour Members’ opposition to private ownership. I shall let them hoot a little longer. New rolling stock is being introduced, extra services are being offered–new services, new investment and higher standards. That is through private ownership across the range of privatised industries. People recall what it was like when Governments tried to run them.

     

    Q2. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that grammar schools and high schools exist in Dartford and in a further 60 constituencies across the country as a result of the election and re-election of Conservative Governments since 1979? The only guarantee of their continued existence is the Conservative party, and not the nightmare coalition of Opposition parties.

    The Prime Minister: That must be right. The message to parents is quite clear: Labour in office would wipe out grammar schools. Labour local authority leaders have made that absolutely clear. As the shadow education spokesman said some time ago,

    “Watch my lips. . . . With Labour there will be no selection.”

    There would be no selection, no choice, no improved standards, no opportunities and, if Labour had had its way, no tests, no information to parents and no improvement in education across the board. The worst 20 education authorities are all long-term Labour education authorities. That is not an accident; it is inevitable, given Labour’s policies and instincts.

     

    Q3. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Winnick: Does the Prime Minister take the same view as I do: that the Daily Mail was right to campaign for the murderers of Stephen Lawrence to be brought to justice, and to name names? All law-abiding citizens are pleased that the murderer of Philip Lawrence, the headmaster who was knifed to death, is in prison–for a long time to come, I hope–but it is a matter of deep and continuing concern that the murderers of the 18-year-old lad who was knifed to death almost four years ago have not been brought to justice. Should not the authorities explore every avenue to ensure that his murderers are brought before the courts?

    The Prime Minister: The whole House is united in offering its sympathy to the parents of Stephen Lawrence, and in condemning this unpunished racist attack. There is total unanimity on that point. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that there is no question of statutory contempt as a result of the activities of the Daily Mail. As the House is aware, it is not through lack of effort that no successful prosecution has yet been brought. I hope that, even at this stage, it will be possible to mount a successful prosecution. If evidence is forthcoming, it will be examined. There is no lack of will to prosecute.

    Mr. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, unlike Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), he is not

    “at home with the European social model”?

    Will he also confirm that if we were to adopt that habit in this country, 23 million households would immediately face a £2,300 tax hike, which they would otherwise not need to pay?

    The Prime Minister: Unlike the shadow Foreign Secretary, who alas is not present, I am self-evidently not at home with the European social model. It is evident why no one should be. The head of European operations at one of Britain’s most successful companies was quoted in one of yesterday’s newspapers. He referred to one European country, and said:

    “The costs were absurd and everything we wanted to do was blocked by the unions . . . Whenever we wanted to do anything to improve the business, their first reaction was to call a meeting of the works council.”

    The senior executive of Grundig said:

    “No employee or business is safe.”

    That is the reality of the way in which these well-meaning ideas work in practice. The second reality is the 4.5 million unemployed in Germany, the 3 million unemployed in France and the 2 million plus unemployed in Italy.

     

    Q4. Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Loyden: Does the Prime Minister agree that we owe a debt to those people who fought in the second world war and who, in their working lives, created the wealth of this nation, and that they should be treated with the greatest respect? Is he aware that in my constituency two elderly people’s homes are to be closed? The age of the people in those homes ranges from 70 plus to the 90s. Does that reflect a civilised society, and will the Prime Minister speak to the Minister responsible to ensure that some action is taken to avoid breaking up what is now a family of people in their dotage?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I agree with the general proposition with which the hon. Gentleman started his question. I do not know the details of the case that he raises, but I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to examine it. When he has done so, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Robathan: In the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the form for the 5 o’clock race at Market Rasen? If so, has he noted a sporting chance at 8/1 called “Pause for Thought”? While welcoming any convert to Conservative principles, does he agree that “Pause for Thought” might be a maxim to the recent converts to privatising the Tote?

    The Prime Minister: The plan to privatise the Tote, apparently floated by the shadow Chancellor, seems to have been shot down very speedily by the shadow Foreign Secretary. One might say that it fell at the first fence.

     

    Q6. Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Martin: On the question of a Scottish Parliament, I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland says one thing and the Secretary of State for Health says another, but it would be petty, mean and spiteful if any future Tory Government tried to dismantle the Parliament that the Scottish people want.

    The Prime Minister: I hope that we shall have the opportunity of a detailed and sensible debate on devolution proposals–

    Mr. Skinner: What? In here?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I had hoped in here on Thursday, and beyond here thereafter, because, despite the passions and convictions felt about this issue by people on both sides of the argument, we can all, I hope, agree that it is an issue of crucial importance to the future of Scotland, of Wales, of the House and of other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope therefore that we can deal with it in detail. There are many questions to be asked and answered. I hope that that is the nature of the debate that we will have in the weeks ahead.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 February 1997

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Children’s Services Strategy Group

    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 28 January, Official Report, column 161, how he will monitor the performance of the children’s services strategy group; how long the group has been in existence; how often it meets and under whose chairmanship; and what guidelines have been issued to Government Departments on the status of the group’s advice.

    The Prime Minister: The children’s services strategy group first met in September 1996. It is likely to meet four to five times a year and its next meeting is scheduled for March. The group is chaired by Department of Health officials who lead on policy for children’s services. There are no plans to monitor the group formally, although Department of Health Ministers will be taking a close interest in its work. The group has not issued guidelines to other Government Departments. It is there not to issue formal advice but to co-ordinate and inform the development of policy relating to children in all areas represented by its membership.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 February 1997

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Homelessness (London)

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet representatives of London’s homeless.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing is in regular contact with the voluntary agencies which co-operate with the Government in the rough sleepers initiative. I am kept closely informed on this matter.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 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.

     

    Secretary of State for Health

    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister what responsibilities in respect of the Government’s policies towards constitutional matters he has given to the Secretary of State for Health.

    The Prime Minister: Ministers have collective responsibility for all the Government’s policies.

     

    NHS (Performance)

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the performance of the NHS in the United Kingdom (a) since 1979 and (b) between 1974 and 1979.

    The Prime Minister: Since 1979, the Government have established a record of significant and sustained improvements to the funding and management of the national health service, to patient services and to the pay and conditions of service of professional staff. For example:

    – spending on the NHS has increased by 75 per cent. in real terms. Between 1974 and 1979, in real terms spending increased by 17 per cent.

    – since 1979, capital spending has increased by 66 per cent. in real terms. Between 1974 and 1979, there was real-terms cut of 28 per cent.

    – the NHS is now one of the most efficient health services in the world. It treats 25 per cent. more patients per pound, at constant prices, than it did in 1979

    – since 1979, the percentage of gross domestic product spent on health in the United Kingdom has risen from 4.7 per cent. to 5.8 per cent. Between 1974 and 1979, the percentage of GDP spent on health in the United Kingdom fell from 4.8 per cent to 4.7 per cent.

    I regret that there was an error in my oral reply of 11 February, Official Report, column 137. The correct figure for general and acute activity between 1974 and 1979, is an increase of 7 per cent. Since 1979, general and acute patient activity has increased by 80 per cent.

    – the number of doctors in England has increased by 23,000 since 1979

    – the number of qualified nurses and midwives has increased by around 55,000 since 1979

    – the number of dentists has increased by more than 6,000 since 1978

    – doctors’ and dentists’ average earnings have gone up by 74 per cent. in real terms compared with 0.1 per cent. between 1974 and 1979

    – nurses’ average earnings have increased by 71 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Between 1974 and 1979, nurses’ average earnings decreased by 3 per cent.

  • PMQT – 13 February 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 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. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the reported comments of European Union Competition Commissioner Karel van Miert on the respective levels of state subsidy within the European Union? Did my right hon. Friend note that the United Kingdom has the lowest level of state subsidy per worker within the European Union and that the Federal Republic of Germany has the highest annual disbursement per year of any EU country? Is it not noteworthy that the UK now has the lowest unemployment for six years and that it is falling, whereas the federal republic has the highest unemployment for 64 years and it is rising? What deductions does my right hon. Friend make from those figures?

    The Prime Minister: I have not yet seen the detail of what Commissioner van Miert said, but the conclusion, from what my hon. Friend says, is surely obvious. The fact is that state subsidies cannot hide the effect of high social costs. They add to the levels of taxation and, in so doing, they damage competitiveness and employment prospects. That is precisely what we have seen across continental Europe. It is a problem that we have avoided in the UK, which is why our unemployment is so much lower.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm the following: first, that since last June when he promised that the beef ban would be lifted by last November, no part of the beef ban has been lifted; secondly, that under the selective slaughter scheme, not a single animal has yet been slaughtered; thirdly, that no formal proposal has yet even been put to the European Commission about lifting the ban from the BSE-free certified herds in Scotland, Northern Ireland and elsewhere; and, fourthly, that the cost of the BSE fiasco is now estimated at £3.3 billion and is currently running at £4 million a day?

    The Prime Minister: If I may take the last point first, which deals with cost, I think that the right hon. Gentleman should be more careful about what he says about that. If he recalls, it was the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) who first tried to stoke up the health scare about British beef right across Europe, despite the fact that British beef is safer than continental beef, and it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) who supported the unjustified beef ban. I find the right hon. Gentleman’s behaviour throughout the entire crisis absolutely astonishing. His behaviour would discredit a student debating society. Not once has he put the interests of the British beef industry in front of making petty party political points for his own party interests.

    Mr. Blair: Four specific questions, not one specific answer–that is about par for the course. I remind the Prime Minister that he was not obliged to stand at the Dispatch Box last June and promise that he would lift the beef ban by last November, but he made the promise. He broke the promise–like so many of his promises. He made the promise, not because he thought he could deliver on it, but because, as usual, he was in a tight spot and wanted to get out of it. Let me just put one of those specific questions and allow him to answer it: is the Minister of Agriculture right when he says that the cost is now £3.3 billion, or, as he put it, the equivalent of 2p on the standard rate of income tax? Is he right, or is he wrong?

    The Prime Minister: The cost is of that order. That is correct, and a substantial part of the reason for that is the health scares created by Opposition Members. Throughout the whole affair, the Government have been entirely open with the British nation, and the Labour party has repeatedly tried to stoke up health fears at home and abroad. If the Labour leader was really interested in restoring the British beef industry, he would be working with us to promote it, not undermining our position in the European Union just as we present plans on certified herds to the European Commission. But he is not interested in getting the ban lifted at all; he is interested in his own petty points.

    Mr. Blair: Rightly has it been said that BSE also stands for “blame somebody else”. The Prime Minister would do a lot more credit to his office if, just for once, when his Government make a mistake, he would accept responsibility for it. That he will not do so is one part of the reason why that fiasco will stand as a symbol of the incompetence of the most incompetent Government in living memory.

    The Prime Minister: Even at this stage, the right hon. Gentleman takes the position of those who would do down the British beef industry. Before he does more damage to the British beef industry, he should reflect upon the damage that he has already done to it. It is British farmers and taxpayers who have helped pay the price for his posturing over the past few months. The bitter harvest has been reaped, partly because of the Labour party’s domestic self-interest.

    Mr. Elletson: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent reports in the West Lancashire Evening Gazette and The Express about a little girl of 11 in my constituency who has been addicted to heroin since the age of nine? Will he order an urgent inquiry into how Lancashire social services failed to notice that that little girl was in danger, despite the fact that eight members of her immediate family, including her granny, have been convicted of offences relating to the supply of heroin? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case is an horrific example of the growing threat to children from drugs, and will he reassure my constituents and the country that the Government continue to make the war against drugs a top priority?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly offer that assurance to my hon. Friend and the House. My hon. Friend highlights a truly tragic case, as he set it out. Although I am not familiar with all the details of the case, I was aware of it, and I understand that the director of social services in Lancashire is now reviewing the department’s action, and that a report will be sent to the Department of Health’s social services inspectorate, where we will examine it with great speed and great care. It is essential that, when a child needs protection, it receives protection from all the agencies concerned. On the evidence at present available–I emphasise that–it seems as though that may not have happened in that case.

    On the more general question of drugs, as my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are deeply concerned about the problem of drugs and young people in particular. That is why the Home Office is currently supporting more than 1,500 locally based schemes on drug protection.

    Mr. Ashdown: Surely the real issue is no longer the price that farmers have paid for one incompetent Minister, but the price that the country is paying for the whole squabbling herd of them. We are seeing rising inflation, the usual pre-arranged pre-election boost followed by the familiar post-election bust, sacked teachers, the health service plunged into crisis daily, and increasing class sizes. When will the Prime Minister realise that he has only one function left to perform that is of any interest to anyone: naming the day? When will he get on with it?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to examine more carefully the litany that he recites. We have set an inflation target, which we shall meet, and which the right hon. Gentleman could only dream about. The average level of inflation under the last Lib-Lab Government was more than 15 per cent.–no wonder the shadow Chancellor dare not set an inflation target and tell the country what it is. He promises taxes, but he does not say who will pay them. He cannot tell us whether he would set an inflation target or what it would be. The right hon. Gentleman obviously has not seen today’s annual economic report from the European Commission, which argues that we will meet our inflation target.

    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Has my right hon. Friend carried out studies to establish how much a reduction in value added tax on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. would be outweighed by the impact on prices of a windfall tax on energy suppliers, which would possibly leave consumers worse off?

    The Prime Minister: I would be very happy to carry out such an inquiry, if we were told who would bear the windfall tax and at what rate it would be levied. We are now told that the windfall tax is legal, but, despite the fact that Labour Front Benchers claim to be in favour of freedom of information, they will not release the information on which that assertion is based. I invite them to do so. I also invite the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to tell us who would pay the windfall tax and at what rate it would be levied. He could then tell the consumers of electricity, gas and oil precisely what that would do to their bills.

     

    Q2. Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Will the Prime Minister comment on the statement by the Employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who admitted that only about half of the figures showing a fall in unemployment are genuine? Which half of those figures should we believe? As, at long last, a Minister has told us half the truth, will the Prime Minister inform us when just one Minister will tell us the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend said no such thing, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Opposition Members cannot bear the fact that unemployment is falling rapidly in this country, and has been falling for three years. There are now more people in work in each and every region.

    Mr. Janner: Four million unemployed.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not a single shred of evidence to support his claim. That is fiddling the figures on a scale that not even the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would contemplate. Unemployment is falling and people are in work. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) should recognise that fact. There has been a dramatic fall in unemployment in his constituency. He should talk to his constituents who are now in work and who would lose their jobs under the policies that Opposition Front Benchers advocate.

     

    Q4. Mr. Day: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

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

    Mr. Day: Bearing it in mind that the new consensus in British politics seems to be based on the successful policies of 18 years of Conservative government, and given the fact that the Opposition have spent the past two years denying the previous 16 years and are now espousing all the policies that they voted against in the past, will my right hon. Friend inform the House and the country why the electorate should consider voting for the pale pink imitation opposite, when it has the real thing in the person of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. After 18 years of Conservative government, we have low taxes, low inflation, more jobs and tumbling unemployment. The Labour party may adopt our rhetoric, but Labour Members do not believe what they say, and neither should anybody else.

     

    Q5. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

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

    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, once he has had the guts to go to the country, for the first time in his political life he will be sitting on the Opposition Benches? I have been keeping this seat warm for him. After the election, at least half a dozen Tory ex-Ministers will put the knife into him, because they want his job. Then he will have the galling experience of having to vote for one of those Tory bastards. Which one will it be?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman comprehensively removes the thought that one mellows as one grows older. A report earlier this week said that people do not get cantankerous as they grow older; they are born that way. Remarks like the one that the hon. Gentleman has just made were repeatedly put to me before the last general election. He is still sitting there; I am still sitting here. I look forward to congratulating him on his 70th birthday, and he will still be there if he holds his seat.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the IRA Shooting of a Soldier – 12 February 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the news of a soldier being shot by the IRA, made outside the Hilton Hotel in London on 12th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Tonight has brought the terrible news that a soldier has been shot dead in Armagh – presumably another victim of the murderous efforts of the IRA. My heart goes out to his family. How many more victims must there be before the evil men responsible recognise the utter futility of their terrorism?

    Meanwhile, the deadly hypocrisy of Sinn Fein’s talk of peace is yet again fully exposed. Let me make two promises tonight:

    – There will be no hiding place for the culprits – none at all.

    – And I will not be deflected from the real search for a lasting settlement and peace in Northern Ireland.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Board of Deputies of British Jews – 12 February 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, held at the Hilton Hotel in London on Wednesday 12th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is just under four years since Norma and I last had the pleasure of dining with the Board of Deputies – and we’re delighted to be here again. It is also a great pleasure to see His Majesty King Hussein and Queen Noor as fellow guests this evening. In the quest for peace in the Middle East, over very many years, the King’s record is unmatched.

    A lot has happened in the world since I was last with you, and nowhere more so than in the Middle East. We’ve seen:

    – the Oslo peace agreements – hope that a final settlement is within reach;

    – the first-ever Palestinian elections;

    – the murder of Yitzak Rabin;

    – elections and a new government in Israel;

    – murderous, terrorist attacks on both Israeli and Arab;

    – and, most recently, the Hebron Agreement.

    Some big set-backs. But also some major advances on the road to peace. And some tragedies – none perhaps more painful for the people of Israel than the terrible helicopter crash last week. I know how dreadfully the loss of so many young lives will weigh on the whole community there, and here. We all share in your sorrow at this terrible accident.

    I know you will share my relief that the negotiations on Hebron were successfully concluded last month. This is a major step forward. I hope it will also prove to be a turning point in the peace process.

    Enormous efforts went into the negotiations. The international community has given unstinting support to the process. The American role has been crucial and I pay tribute to their efforts.

    Of course, the UK and the European Union are not directly involved in the peace negotiations. But we remain determined supporters. We provide substantial aid, both bilaterally and through the European Union, to support peace – and we will continue to do so.

    We are giving substantial aid to the Palestinians this year. It is in everyone’s interests that we do so. A prosperous Palestinian economy would make a major contribution to peace.

    Lynda Chalker was in the region a couple of weeks ago. She had a good look at how our existing assistance is helping and also announced a water and sewerage project for Hebron – the first project since the agreement. This is important because I doubt the Palestinian track would have made such progress without the efforts of international donors and I believe continuing help will be necessary.

    Perhaps the most significant outside involvement has come from within the Middle East. I know that both King Hussein and President Mubarak played decisive roles in bringing the two sides to agreement. The King’s last-minute intervention helped to resolve the final differences between the two sides. Let me say to His Majesty:- you left us with a lasting image of bold peace-brokering. Your commitment to the peace process provides a model of statesmanship and I warmly congratulate you upon it.

    But of course, none of this outside effort would have come to anything, if Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Arafat had not been willing to go the extra mile to find agreement. I am delighted that Mr. Netanyahu was able to take forward this part of the Oslo accords. I am sorry he was unable to join us tonight, but I know that his Government has only a slim majority in Parliament. He is attacked either for giving away too much in international negotiations or not enough. I sympathise. I know how he feels! But I am convinced he was right to reach an agreement on Hebron.

    A majority in Israel clearly thinks so too. The Knesset passed the Hebron deal by 87 votes to 17. Opinion polls show two-thirds of the Israeli public in favour. People claimed last year’s election result showed that Israel was divided. But a clear majority in Israel supports the Oslo accords; and supports progress to peace.

    Peace in the Middle East must become lasting. If hopes were to fall away now, bitterness would be redoubled. So there is much still to be done.

    – the Hebron deal must be implemented. Some tricky issues remain, including the extent of redeployment from the West Bank and also settlements. I hope both sides will approach these with imagination and flexibility.

    – other agreed steps must be carried out. Free passage between Gaza and the West Bank, and the opening of Gaza port and airport would rapidly help the economic regeneration of the area. This is vital. If you make people better off, you give them a stake in peace. You strengthen the peace constituency. Leave them poor and many will feel they have little or nothing to lose if peace goes – our interest must be to remove the breeding grounds for terrorism.

    – the rest of the Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians needs to be implemented faithfully by both sides, in spirit as well as in letter. I understand Israel released a number of female Palestinian prisoners yesterday, as promised. I warmly welcome this example of good faith.

    – the Palestinians must live up to their commitments on security. There has been some progress since last year’s bombing campaign. For example, over recent months the Palestinian and Israeli security forces have co-operated well. The threat from extremists in Palestinian territories seems to have receded. This is welcome news. But continued vigilance is needed against those who seek to derail the peace process through violence and terrorism.

    The Hebron deal also clears the way for final status talks to re-start. Frankly, we know these will not be easy. But I am encouraged that there have been cross-party discussions in Israel of final status issues. I welcome these first steps. A final agreement will require flexibility and a recognition of the aspirations of both sides. No options should be ruled out at this stage. In the meantime, the two sides must continue to build trust and confidence.

    There can be no final peace in the Middle East without a peace between Syria and Israel. The Israeli Government has expressed its wish to resume negotiations with Syria. The Syrians have also said they want to get back to the negotiating table. I very much hope a way can be found to bridge their current differences.

    I have already mentioned Your Majesty’s role in the Hebron Agreement. I hope Jordan reaps the dividends of peace she deserves. We are trying to secure a fair economic agreement between Jordan and the European Union. I hope we will be successful. I hope also that investment and trade between Jordan and Israel will increase, following their recent agreements.

    Britain and Israel have been friends for a long time. Our historical ties go back to the time of the British Mandate for Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel. Our friendship is based on mutual understanding and trust. It encompasses all the areas one would expect:

    – a political relationship, which allows us to exchange views with honesty and frankness; and we do;

    – a wide variety of cultural links, where you, the Jewish community in Britain, are rightly at the fore – deepening and broadening our ties with Israel;

    – and a commercial relationship that has put Israel in the top echelon of Britain’s trading partners; with bilateral trade now over two billion pounds a year.

    Later this month, President Weizman will pay a State Visit at the invitation of Her Majesty The Queen. It will be an historic occasion. The first ever State Visit to Britain by an Israeli President. And President and Mrs Weizman’s British connections – especially his service with the RAF during the war and her work in Britain with Holocaust survivors immediately afterwards – make their visit all the more welcome. I look forward to receiving them. I am sure the visit will highlight the close and warm relationship Britain and Israel now share.

    I have already mentioned the role the Jewish community in Britain plays in expanding our ties with Israel. But your contribution to British life is invaluable.

    Last month I gave a speech to members of the Conservative Party from the ethnic minorities. I told them that my aim was to make Britain the best place in the world to live. By that I meant a Britain that is tolerant. A Britain that is at ease with itself. And a Britain where everyone has the opportunity to make a success of life, regardless of colour, race, creed, or background. Black and white. African and Asian. Jew and Christian, Moslem and Hindu.

    Opportunity for all can only be assured through national prosperity. You all know how healthy our economy now is: we have strong growth, low inflation and rapidly falling unemployment. I appreciate hugely the Jewish Community’s contribution to Britain’s economic life. I am sure you will also benefit from the uniquely favourable position in which we now find ourselves.

    Choice in education is one of the cornerstones of my vision of Britain. Many Jewish parents would like their children to receive a Jewish education. I understand this. Britain has a long tradition of schools catering for particular religions within the state sector. We have worked hard on this issue. There has been an increase in the number of Jewish schools. And more are planned and I welcome this.

    We must protect the diversity of our country. We have a good record of racial tolerance in Britain. It is one of the better places in the world to live. The Race Relations Act and the Public Order Act give a high level of protection. But I’m not complacent.

    I know many of you are concerned about the activities of people who deny that the Holocaust took place. As I said in the House of Commons yesterday, I understand the hurt, offence and distress of those who suffered, or whose families suffered at that time. I want to take account of the views of the Jewish Community.

    I believe such bigotry is best confronted with calm reason and education.

    That’s why the National Curriculum requires all 11-14 year olds to be taught about the Holocaust.

    That’s why the Imperial War Museum is preparing a permanent exhibition on it.

    We are keeping a close eye on this issue. I am determined that, with the help of such measures, the significance of the Holocaust will never be forgotten.

    This is also why I am personally committed to the European Year Against Racism and will launch it in this country later this month. At the moment, the proposed European Centre to Monitor Racism and Xenophobia would not be able to gather information on racial harassment and violence. That is clearly unsatisfactory. We are therefore discussing this issue with our European partners. I want an effective Centre established as soon as possible.

    The Government cannot legislate away the actions of every wayward individual. But we can, and will, do our utmost to prevent organised activities against the Jewish – or any other – community in Britain. I know that many of you are concerned about groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir. Our universities provide young people the opportunity to express their views. But there is no excuse for the intimidation and harassment of innocent students.

    So I welcome the steps university authorities have taken to curb the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir and their supporters. The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals are considering what advice they can give to universities faced with groups which incite racial, religious or political hatred.

    The police and courts have a number of powers to restrict such activities. Intentional harassment is already a criminal offence. And the proposed Protection from Harassment Bill will give the authorities even greater powers to deal with these problems. The Bill should become law next month.

    Terrorism is an evil that threatens civilised society across the world. The people of Northern Ireland, the police and the security forces have to live day in day out with the threat of IRA violence. Hamas and others have attempted to derail the peace process in the Middle East with their murderous attacks. Such violence can never be rewarded. No-one can be allowed to bomb, kill, or maim their way to the negotiating table. And those who are involved in making peace cannot allow themselves to be deflected from this path by violence.

    We all remember the horrific assassination attempt against Shlomo Argov in 1982. The memory of the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and Balfour House in 1994 is still fresh.

    Fortunately, at least some of the perpetrators were caught. They have now been given long sentences by the courts. Quite right too.

    The Government is committed to combating any terrorist activity in the UK. We will not allow Britain to be used as a base by those who support terrorism overseas. That is why the police and Security Service give such a high priority to countering the activities of those trying to organise, or fund terrorism from the UK. Let no-one doubt our resolve in this. Where we have proof of wrong-doing, we will not hesitate to act.

    Like so many other issues, terrorism has become a problem spanning national boundaries. Terrorist groups may be active in one country, have their headquarters in another, recruit their members in a third and raise their funds in a fourth. An individual country cannot tackle them on its own. Effective international action against terrorism is therefore essential.

    Britain is at the fore of international efforts. The Group of Seven industrialised nations and Russia held a Counter-Terrorism Summit last July. We put forward three ideas:

    – we suggested all countries look at their legislation against terrorism to see if it needed strengthening. Lord Lloyd has already looked at ours and we are considering his recommendations. We will do so speedily.

    – we proposed a new UN Declaration on Terrorism. As a result, a Declaration was agreed by the UN General Assembly in December. It will help to prevent terrorists, including people planning, funding, or inciting terrorism, from finding refuge abroad.

    – finally, we suggested a Directory of counter-terrorist “centres of excellence”. We have already ensured there is an EU directory. One covering G7 countries and Russia should be established later this year. They will enhance practical international co-operation. Those involved in combating terrorism will be able to share expertise and experience more easily and effectively.

    Let me conclude by leaving you with three final thoughts. The right to live in peace – without fear of violence from any quarter – is one of the most fundamental rights of all. The Peace Process seeks to give the people of the Middle East that right. It is a lesson to us all. It shows that sworn enemies can work together. We must pray that it continues until a final settlement is reached.

    Here in Britain, we have many different peoples. My vision of Britain is one where this country is home for them all. Where they can live without fear of violence. Where Britain is the best place in the world to live.

    While we strive to improve our own country, we do not forget the trials and tribulations of our friends around the world. That is why we will continue to join the Government of Israel, the Palestinian authorities and fellow Governments in the Arab world in their efforts to find a solution to the Middle East conflict. Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians may sometimes feel alone as they search for that settlement, but they aren’t.

    They will have all the support we can offer them, as a Government, as a nation and as friends. That is why I am delighted to be here tonight.

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, held at the Hilton Hotel in London on Wednesday 12th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is just under four years since Norma and I last had the pleasure of dining with the Board of Deputies – and we’re delighted to be here again. It is also a great pleasure to see His Majesty King Hussein and Queen Noor as fellow guests this evening. In the quest for peace in the Middle East, over very many years, the King’s record is unmatched.

    A lot has happened in the world since I was last with you, and nowhere more so than in the Middle East. We’ve seen:

    – the Oslo peace agreements – hope that a final settlement is within reach;

    – the first-ever Palestinian elections;

    – the murder of Yitzak Rabin;

    – elections and a new government in Israel;

    – murderous, terrorist attacks on both Israeli and Arab;

    – and, most recently, the Hebron Agreement.

    Some big set-backs. But also some major advances on the road to peace. And some tragedies – none perhaps more painful for the people of Israel than the terrible helicopter crash last week. I know how dreadfully the loss of so many young lives will weigh on the whole community there, and here. We all share in your sorrow at this terrible accident.

    I know you will share my relief that the negotiations on Hebron were successfully concluded last month. This is a major step forward. I hope it will also prove to be a turning point in the peace process.

    Enormous efforts went into the negotiations. The international community has given unstinting support to the process. The American role has been crucial and I pay tribute to their efforts.

    Of course, the UK and the European Union are not directly involved in the peace negotiations. But we remain determined supporters. We provide substantial aid, both bilaterally and through the European Union, to support peace – and we will continue to do so.

    We are giving substantial aid to the Palestinians this year. It is in everyone’s interests that we do so. A prosperous Palestinian economy would make a major contribution to peace.

    Lynda Chalker was in the region a couple of weeks ago. She had a good look at how our existing assistance is helping and also announced a water and sewerage project for Hebron – the first project since the agreement. This is important because I doubt the Palestinian track would have made such progress without the efforts of international donors and I believe continuing help will be necessary.

    Perhaps the most significant outside involvement has come from within the Middle East. I know that both King Hussein and President Mubarak played decisive roles in bringing the two sides to agreement. The King’s last-minute intervention helped to resolve the final differences between the two sides. Let me say to His Majesty:- you left us with a lasting image of bold peace-brokering. Your commitment to the peace process provides a model of statesmanship and I warmly congratulate you upon it.

    But of course, none of this outside effort would have come to anything, if Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Arafat had not been willing to go the extra mile to find agreement. I am delighted that Mr. Netanyahu was able to take forward this part of the Oslo accords. I am sorry he was unable to join us tonight, but I know that his Government has only a slim majority in Parliament. He is attacked either for giving away too much in international negotiations or not enough. I sympathise. I know how he feels! But I am convinced he was right to reach an agreement on Hebron.

    A majority in Israel clearly thinks so too. The Knesset passed the Hebron deal by 87 votes to 17. Opinion polls show two-thirds of the Israeli public in favour. People claimed last year’s election result showed that Israel was divided. But a clear majority in Israel supports the Oslo accords; and supports progress to peace.

    Peace in the Middle East must become lasting. If hopes were to fall away now, bitterness would be redoubled. So there is much still to be done.

    – the Hebron deal must be implemented. Some tricky issues remain, including the extent of redeployment from the West Bank and also settlements. I hope both sides will approach these with imagination and flexibility.

    – other agreed steps must be carried out. Free passage between Gaza and the West Bank, and the opening of Gaza port and airport would rapidly help the economic regeneration of the area. This is vital. If you make people better off, you give them a stake in peace. You strengthen the peace constituency. Leave them poor and many will feel they have little or nothing to lose if peace goes – our interest must be to remove the breeding grounds for terrorism.

    – the rest of the Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians needs to be implemented faithfully by both sides, in spirit as well as in letter. I understand Israel released a number of female Palestinian prisoners yesterday, as promised. I warmly welcome this example of good faith.

    – the Palestinians must live up to their commitments on security. There has been some progress since last year’s bombing campaign. For example, over recent months the Palestinian and Israeli security forces have co-operated well. The threat from extremists in Palestinian territories seems to have receded. This is welcome news. But continued vigilance is needed against those who seek to derail the peace process through violence and terrorism.

    The Hebron deal also clears the way for final status talks to re-start. Frankly, we know these will not be easy. But I am encouraged that there have been cross-party discussions in Israel of final status issues. I welcome these first steps. A final agreement will require flexibility and a recognition of the aspirations of both sides. No options should be ruled out at this stage. In the meantime, the two sides must continue to build trust and confidence.

    There can be no final peace in the Middle East without a peace between Syria and Israel. The Israeli Government has expressed its wish to resume negotiations with Syria. The Syrians have also said they want to get back to the negotiating table. I very much hope a way can be found to bridge their current differences.

    I have already mentioned Your Majesty’s role in the Hebron Agreement. I hope Jordan reaps the dividends of peace she deserves. We are trying to secure a fair economic agreement between Jordan and the European Union. I hope we will be successful. I hope also that investment and trade between Jordan and Israel will increase, following their recent agreements.

    Britain and Israel have been friends for a long time. Our historical ties go back to the time of the British Mandate for Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel. Our friendship is based on mutual understanding and trust. It encompasses all the areas one would expect:

    – a political relationship, which allows us to exchange views with honesty and frankness; and we do;

    – a wide variety of cultural links, where you, the Jewish community in Britain, are rightly at the fore – deepening and broadening our ties with Israel;

    – and a commercial relationship that has put Israel in the top echelon of Britain’s trading partners; with bilateral trade now over two billion pounds a year.

    Later this month, President Weizman will pay a State Visit at the invitation of Her Majesty The Queen. It will be an historic occasion. The first ever State Visit to Britain by an Israeli President. And President and Mrs Weizman’s British connections – especially his service with the RAF during the war and her work in Britain with Holocaust survivors immediately afterwards – make their visit all the more welcome. I look forward to receiving them. I am sure the visit will highlight the close and warm relationship Britain and Israel now share.

    I have already mentioned the role the Jewish community in Britain plays in expanding our ties with Israel. But your contribution to British life is invaluable.

    Last month I gave a speech to members of the Conservative Party from the ethnic minorities. I told them that my aim was to make Britain the best place in the world to live. By that I meant a Britain that is tolerant. A Britain that is at ease with itself. And a Britain where everyone has the opportunity to make a success of life, regardless of colour, race, creed, or background. Black and white. African and Asian. Jew and Christian, Moslem and Hindu.

    Opportunity for all can only be assured through national prosperity. You all know how healthy our economy now is: we have strong growth, low inflation and rapidly falling unemployment. I appreciate hugely the Jewish Community’s contribution to Britain’s economic life. I am sure you will also benefit from the uniquely favourable position in which we now find ourselves.

    Choice in education is one of the cornerstones of my vision of Britain. Many Jewish parents would like their children to receive a Jewish education. I understand this. Britain has a long tradition of schools catering for particular religions within the state sector. We have worked hard on this issue. There has been an increase in the number of Jewish schools. And more are planned and I welcome this.

    We must protect the diversity of our country. We have a good record of racial tolerance in Britain. It is one of the better places in the world to live. The Race Relations Act and the Public Order Act give a high level of protection. But I’m not complacent.

    I know many of you are concerned about the activities of people who deny that the Holocaust took place. As I said in the House of Commons yesterday, I understand the hurt, offence and distress of those who suffered, or whose families suffered at that time. I want to take account of the views of the Jewish Community.

    I believe such bigotry is best confronted with calm reason and education.

    That’s why the National Curriculum requires all 11-14 year olds to be taught about the Holocaust.

    That’s why the Imperial War Museum is preparing a permanent exhibition on it.

    We are keeping a close eye on this issue. I am determined that, with the help of such measures, the significance of the Holocaust will never be forgotten.

    This is also why I am personally committed to the European Year Against Racism and will launch it in this country later this month. At the moment, the proposed European Centre to Monitor Racism and Xenophobia would not be able to gather information on racial harassment and violence. That is clearly unsatisfactory. We are therefore discussing this issue with our European partners. I want an effective Centre established as soon as possible.

    The Government cannot legislate away the actions of every wayward individual. But we can, and will, do our utmost to prevent organised activities against the Jewish – or any other – community in Britain. I know that many of you are concerned about groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir. Our universities provide young people the opportunity to express their views. But there is no excuse for the intimidation and harassment of innocent students.

    So I welcome the steps university authorities have taken to curb the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir and their supporters. The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals are considering what advice they can give to universities faced with groups which incite racial, religious or political hatred.

    The police and courts have a number of powers to restrict such activities. Intentional harassment is already a criminal offence. And the proposed Protection from Harassment Bill will give the authorities even greater powers to deal with these problems. The Bill should become law next month.

    Terrorism is an evil that threatens civilised society across the world. The people of Northern Ireland, the police and the security forces have to live day in day out with the threat of IRA violence. Hamas and others have attempted to derail the peace process in the Middle East with their murderous attacks. Such violence can never be rewarded. No-one can be allowed to bomb, kill, or maim their way to the negotiating table. And those who are involved in making peace cannot allow themselves to be deflected from this path by violence.

    We all remember the horrific assassination attempt against Shlomo Argov in 1982. The memory of the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and Balfour House in 1994 is still fresh.

    Fortunately, at least some of the perpetrators were caught. They have now been given long sentences by the courts. Quite right too.

    The Government is committed to combating any terrorist activity in the UK. We will not allow Britain to be used as a base by those who support terrorism overseas. That is why the police and Security Service give such a high priority to countering the activities of those trying to organise, or fund terrorism from the UK. Let no-one doubt our resolve in this. Where we have proof of wrong-doing, we will not hesitate to act.

    Like so many other issues, terrorism has become a problem spanning national boundaries. Terrorist groups may be active in one country, have their headquarters in another, recruit their members in a third and raise their funds in a fourth. An individual country cannot tackle them on its own. Effective international action against terrorism is therefore essential.

    Britain is at the fore of international efforts. The Group of Seven industrialised nations and Russia held a Counter-Terrorism Summit last July. We put forward three ideas:

    – we suggested all countries look at their legislation against terrorism to see if it needed strengthening. Lord Lloyd has already looked at ours and we are considering his recommendations. We will do so speedily.

    – we proposed a new UN Declaration on Terrorism. As a result, a Declaration was agreed by the UN General Assembly in December. It will help to prevent terrorists, including people planning, funding, or inciting terrorism, from finding refuge abroad.

    – finally, we suggested a Directory of counter-terrorist “centres of excellence”. We have already ensured there is an EU directory. One covering G7 countries and Russia should be established later this year. They will enhance practical international co-operation. Those involved in combating terrorism will be able to share expertise and experience more easily and effectively.

    Let me conclude by leaving you with three final thoughts. The right to live in peace – without fear of violence from any quarter – is one of the most fundamental rights of all. The Peace Process seeks to give the people of the Middle East that right. It is a lesson to us all. It shows that sworn enemies can work together. We must pray that it continues until a final settlement is reached.

    Here in Britain, we have many different peoples. My vision of Britain is one where this country is home for them all. Where they can live without fear of violence. Where Britain is the best place in the world to live.

    While we strive to improve our own country, we do not forget the trials and tribulations of our friends around the world. That is why we will continue to join the Government of Israel, the Palestinian authorities and fellow Governments in the Arab world in their efforts to find a solution to the Middle East conflict. Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians may sometimes feel alone as they search for that settlement, but they aren’t.

    They will have all the support we can offer them, as a Government, as a nation and as friends. That is why I am delighted to be here tonight.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 February 1997

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    EU Works Council Directive

    Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the employment impact of the implementation by British companies of the EU works council directive agreed under the EU social chapter.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the speech I gave at the European Policy Forum in Brussels on the 4 February, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 February 1997

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagement for Tuesday 11 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 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.

     

    Building Society Conversions (Disabled People’s Rights)

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister which Departments have responsibility for assessing the National Disability Council’s representations for action to stop building societies converting to banks without paying bonus shares to disabled people who are not the first named on their account; what response has been made to the council; what action has been taken by the Government; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Officials from Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department responsible for overseeing building societies, and the disability unit of the Department of Social Security have been working together with the independent National Disability Council on this issue. A report of their progress was given to the National Disability Council’s meeting on 27 January. My hon. Friend, the Minister for Disabled People hopes to respond to the council in the near future.

     

    Interception of Communications

    Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister what role the Interception of Communications Tribunal and the commissioner have in the handling of (a) complaints of interceptions not authorised by warrant and (b) surreptitious surveillance of telephone calls by methods not prohibited by the definition of interception of the Court of Appeal in R v. Ahmed (1984); and what changes there have been to their role, with special reference to the area of unauthorised interception, since the statement by the Home Secretary on 7 February 1985, Official Report, column 1121.

    The Prime Minister: The tribunal and commissioner have no statutory power to investigate allegations that interception has taken place without a warrant issued under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. That would fall to be investigated by the police. The Act, which defines the roles of the tribunal and commissioner, is concerned only with the interception of communications in the course of their transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunications system. It does not apply to private telecommunications systems. There has been no change to the roles of the tribunal and commissioner since the introduction of the Act.

     

    Ministerial Visits (Indian Sub-continent)

    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 January, Official Report, column 448, who the 48 representatives of British industry were who accompanied him on his recent visit to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    The Prime Minister: The following list details those commercial organisations who were represented on various stages of my visit to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh:

    Alfred McAlpine, SAGG, ANZ Gringlays, ABI, BAT, BOC, BAe, British Airways, British Council, CBI, Commercial Union, Courtauld, Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Eagle Star, Foster Wheeler, GEC, Grand Met, HSBC, Hyder Consulting Group, ICI Paints, Kvaerner, Mott McDonald, NatWest Markets, PowerGen, Premier, Robert Fleming, Rolls Royce, Royal Sun Alliance, The 600 Group, Scotch Whiskey Association, Standard Life, W S Atkins, Asia House, Caparo Group, GEC Alsthom, General Accident, GPT, John Laing International Ltd, Prudential, RTZ/CRA, T&N, University of Warwick, Cable and Wireless, Midland Electricity, Hardy Oil, LASMO, NatWest Securities, Siemens Plessey, Shell UK, Balfour Beatty, Barclays Bank, Barclays BZW, Biwater, ICI-Polyester, National Grid.