Tag: 1995

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview Following Local Elections – 5 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep interview given on Friday 5th May 1995, following the previous night’s local election results.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good Morning. I thought it might be helpful if I were to say a word or two about last night’s election results.

    I have no excuses to make to you about last night’s election results. We have done what we believe is right for the country and clearly last night’s results show that thus far we have failed to persuade the country of that. We shall continue to seek to do so. So last night was a very good night for the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats and a bad night for the Conservative Party.

    I have come from local government and I appreciate its importance. I would like firstly to offer my congratulations to those Conservative Councillors who were elected and those Councillors who were elected for all other parties. They have an important role to play and the government will look forward to working with them to improve the livelihoods of everyone in the areas they represent.

    Can I say a word about those Conservative Councillors have failed to win last night? Many of them have served in local government, with great distinction, for many years. I know and appreciate the value of the work that they have done. I believe that they can take a sabbatical from local government with pride. The defeat they had last night was not their defeat. They were the victims of a national sentiment, not of the very proud record that they have in local government. I look forward to seeing them return local government in ever greater numbers in the elections that still lie ahead.

    I daresay after last evening that I will get a certain amount of conflicting advice from various quarters. I shall listen very carefully to all of that advice. But I have to say to you straight away that I have no intention of throwing away the long-term prosperity that we are seeking to build in this country. The price of that policy may well have been last night’s election results, but I believe the prize of the policy that we are following is long-term prosperity for this country. That is not just a slogan, it means more jobs, higher living standards, lower taxes, much more opportunities and far greater choice.

    And it also means low inflation, which again is not just for me a slogan, it means preserving the value of people’s money and increasing the security of their lives. That combination of circumstances, improving living standards and a stable currency, is a prize that we have sought in this country for very many years. I believe it is a prize that we shall have to continue to seek and our policies will continue to do that. There will be no change away from the policy to build long-term growth and stability for this country.

    I believe we are well on the way to achieving that. I have sought to do so from the moment I crossed the threshold of Number 10 Downing Street, and I shall continue to seek that outcome for so long as I am there. We have a five year Parliament. Throughout this Parliament we have put into place policies that have a long-term effect. All the long-term beneficial effects of those are not yet clear. I believe they will become clear. We have pursued them for three years, I intend to pursue them right through to the end of this Parliament and then defend them at the next general election.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC TV):

    Prime Minister, what do you say to those Tories who that they cannot win the next election under your leadership?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe that is remotely right and I think events will prove that is right. I heard criticism of course before the last general election. I think the reality is that we have had to take some very difficult decisions. I know those decisions hurt, but I have to say to you I believe it was in our long term interests to take those decisions. If they have concerned people, we have paid an electoral price for them in the short term. But I believe in the long term they will prove to be right and I am prepared to defend the policies that I have adopted for precisely that reason and I will continue to do so up to and through the election that I believe we shall win.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Can I just follow that through. You are saying that it is simply not in your mind, and will not be until the next election, that you would think that you ought to step aside and someone else should have a chance to see if they can do better?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Michael, it is not in my mind. I have never run away from difficulty in my life and I don’t intend to do so now. And for those people who may suggest, as some have, that at the moment the Conservative Party have their backs to the wall, I would simply say we will do precisely what the British nation has done all through its history when it had its back to the wall, that was turn round and fight for the things that it believed in, and that is what I shall do.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky):

    If you are not going on sabbatical is the rest of the Cabinet safe, is there going to be a reshuffle and particularly are the Chancellor and the Party Chairman safe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No doubt at some stage between now and the next general election, which I suspect is around 2 years away, I will consider whether there is a necessity for government changes. But I certainly have nothing to say to you about that at the moment.

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman):

    You say there are no excuses. Do you personally accept any culpability for what has happened and what would you say to any Tories who did come to you next week and say we think there should be a challenge now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If anyone thinks there should be a challenge, the Conservative Party have a procedure, a democratic procedure, for them to mount it. That is a matter for them, they will have to make that decision. I said I don’t make excuses. We have thus far – thus far – failed to persuade people that the long term policies I am following are right for the country. I believe that we will be able to persuade them that they are right and I shall continue to seek to do so.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley):

    Four-fifths of the country had the chance of voting in these local elections, only one-quarter of them have voted for the Conservative Party, and yet you are saying that nothing changes. Surely your policies have been rejected, isn’t there something you have to change?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I acknowledge the concern that people feel at the moment. I don’t lightly brush that aside, I am not complacent about it. I am not saying to people we are going to take no notice of the concern that you feel. But I don’t believe that people would have any respect for someone who believed certain long term policies are right, and then shifts away from seeking those long term policies and carrying them through to their conclusion. I am not here in Downing Street just because I am a professional politician who wants this job. I am here because there are things I believe in, I have always believed in and wish to try and carry through because I believe they are right for this country. Now it may be, even on the reduced turnout we had yesterday, that we have failed to persuade people of that, certainly all the evidence is that lots of Conservative voters chose not to come out and vote at this election because of their present concerns. We will have to persuade them that the policies are right, and I will endeavour to do so.

    QUESTION:

    Don’t you think an element of humility might go down with the electorate rather better than this sort of rather arrogant response which is telling the electorate that you have never had it so good?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think anyone who has heard what I have been saying has heard me say anything like you have never had it so good. What I actually said – perhaps you would care to play the tape back – was that I understand the way people feel, I make no excuses for the fact that we had a bad result last night, I acknowledge that people are concerned. But I also said that I am here, I was elected to do what I believed would be right in the long term interests of this country and I believe that is what people have a right to expect of their Prime Minister and of their government. And if we we’re not doing that then we shouldn’t be here. But since we are doing that I think we should continue to seek to carry it through successfully.

    QUESTION (European Business News):

    Would you put at least part of the blame down to the threat of Europe and closer ties to Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not in the business of apportioning blame to different elements of policy, I don’t think that is productive and I don’t think anyone truly can be absolutely certain. I think the bruises of the recession are clearly still there, I think there is no doubt about that. It has been a very deep recession, not just in this country of course but right across Western Europe, and people have not yet fully recovered from the effects of that recession so I think they feel very bruised. It will take a time to recover but recover I am sure they will.

    QUESTION:

    Are you aware that there are worries amongst the electorate over your policies on Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I am very well aware of the European debate. I think if I may say so that I am probably more aware of the European debate than almost anyone else in this country. Of course I understand those worries. I have indicated time and time again those areas where I share those worries.

    QUESTION:

    We see what looks like the Chancellor’s Rover held up at the gates of Downing Street, are interest rates going to have to go up?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you will have to wait for the outcome of the meeting between the Chancellor and the Governor this morning. I don’t yet know what the outcome of that is.

    QUESTION:

    You say that people are still bruised by the recession, do you think that to enable people to feel that things are going right for them that there will have to be tax cuts this autumn?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have said all along that the fact that we had to raise taxes was something I very much regretted. we did it because if we had not closed the gap between what we were spending as a result of the recession and what our income was then there was a likelihood that interest rates would have had to have gone up and mortgage rates would have had to go up. So it was a devil’s choice. And we decided that we had to take the decision on taxes in order to lay a long term position for sustainable growth, and that is what we have done. But I don’t like having higher taxes.

    When it is prudent to reduce taxes I will wish to reduce taxes and so will the Chancellor. We are not in the business of making short-term tax cuts that are not economically justifiable, that has not been our position. But when it is prudent to do so, and when we think it is economically justifiable, I would rather make tax cuts and leave people free to make their own choices with their own money than leave the money with government to make choices on their behalf. So when we can make them we will.

    QUESTION:

    I wonder if you could offer any reassurance to those many thousands of defeated Conservative candidates, some of whom were last night and this morning blaming government policy, that some elements of government policy will now be re-assessed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I indicated some time ago that I think many of the Councillors were defeated last night, not as a result of their record locally which I think is excellent, but because of peoples’ concern and national sentiment at the moment. Of course we will listen to what people are saying, but I repeat the point I made a moment ago. We are I think in a transitional phase. If you look at many of the things that are happening, people in this country are pleased that prices are not rising as once they did, they are pleased that the country is beginning to get back to more growth than they have had for a very long time, they are pleased that unemployment is falling faster here than in any other country, they are pleased that public services are getting better. I am not going to change the policies of making those improvements. If I think we can improve policy to increase the improvements and remove the concerns then of course we will do so, that is an everyday concern for us.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I look forward to the day when they are and I hope they will be.

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman):

    Going back to education and policies, that seems to have been one policy where people feel very strongly that you are letting the electorate down, you are letting the nation’s children down, are you going to take that on board and increase spending?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have done a great deal to improve education policy over the last few years. It is not just a question of spending, education policy, of course that is an element of it and despite all that has been said and written about education the amount of money available for education this year is larger than the amount of money available for education last year. We are seeking to improve education. I shall have some more statements to make, particularly on nursery education, before too long. I think many people will welcome what we have in mind there.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministerial Documents

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that documents originated or acquired by Ministers in the course of their official duties are not sold by them or their heirs and assigns.

    The Prime Minister: By convention, Prime Ministers, on leaving office, have taken with them copies of certain documents which they dealt with personally while in office. These include some documents originated or acquired by them in the course of their official duties. This convention has not applied to Ministers other than former Prime Ministers. The extent to which former Prime Ministers or their heirs and assigns may dispose of such papers, and how, depends on the circumstances of each case.

    It is my policy that in future material removed from official custody at the end of an Administration should contain no official material other than that which is already in the public domain.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances a document subject when originated to the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts may be classified other than a state paper.

    The Prime Minister: Documents originating from other than official sources, and which contain official information that should not be disclosed, come within the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts but are not state papers.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if retired Ministers are required to submit their memoirs for approval under the Official Secrets Acts before publication;

    (2) if the right hon. Nigel Lawson submitted his memoirs for approval under the official Secrets Acts before publication, with particular reference to mention of the Governor of the Bank of England.

    The Prime Minister: There is no requirement for former Ministers to submit their memoirs under the Official Secrets Acts before publication. The report of the Committee of Privy Counsellors on Ministerial Memoirs, Cmnd. 7386, recommended that former Ministers who wished to make public an account bearing on their ministerial life should let the Secretary of the Cabinet see in advance the full text of what they propose to say. The Cabinet Secretary offers advice to the author of the text, including on whether it contains material contravening the requirements of national security.

    My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Lawson submitted his memoirs to the Cabinet Secretary in the normal way, without any particular reference.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will refer to the Nolan committee the propriety of Ministers or their heirs retaining and using for private gain information or documents acquired in the course of their official duties.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

     

    Central Computer Database

    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister what plans there are to create a central computerised database on individuals using the database of the national insurance recording system 2–to be available to other Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The recently announced replacement of the national insurance recording system–NIRS2–does not include any plans to create a separate computer database on individuals, nor does it involve extending access arrangements to the NIRS2 database to other than existing users of the current NIRS system.

     

    Churchill Papers

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 27 April to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), Official Report, column 978, what steps he has taken to establish whether the papers sold by the Churchill family to the national heritage memorial fund were at any time covered by the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts.

    The Prime Minister: Churchill College has been advised on which papers in the Churchill archive can be released to researchers and which need to be withheld.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government took to purchase the annotated eight-page typescript of Sir Winston Churchill’s El Alamein speech sold by Sotheby’s in December 1994; and whether this is included in the Churchill documents purchased by the national heritage memorial fund.

    The Prime Minister: The manuscript to which the hon. Member refers was sold by a private owner and was one of many which Sir Winston Churchill gave away during his lifetime. At no time did it form part of the Churchill archive and it does not do so now. It is for the national institutions which maintain archives to decide whether to commit funds to the purchase of papers which appear on the open market.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister how many of the papers sold by the Churchill family to the national heritage memorial fund are to be found in the Public Record Office in their original or a duplicate form; and what copyright fees have to be paid to the Churchill family when such documents in either location are reproduced.

    The Prime Minister: The papers purchased by the national heritage memorial fund are the non-state papers. They are not normally to be found in the Public Record Office in either original or duplicate form. Copyright in the papers purchased by the national heritage memorial fund is a matter for the copyright owners.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will request the trustees of the national lottery fund to hand back the Churchill papers to the family in return for the money they have received.

    The Prime Minister: No. The integrity of the Churchill archive has now been secured for the nation by the purchase of the non-state papers from the Churchill family and by the transfer of the state papers similarly to Churchill College.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to reduce the fees charged for access to and reproduction of the Churchill papers; and if he will publish the proposed scale of charges.

    The Prime Minister: No fees are levied on access to the Churchill papers at Churchill College. Reproduction is a matter for the copyright owners as is the question of charges. A licence has been granted which waives the copyright fee in respect of the reproduction of Crown copyright material for the purposes of research and private study. Other charges, for example the commercial use of the papers, will be levied in accordance with normal practice.

     

    Civil Servants

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister whether civil servants who have been allowed to publish material which relies in any particular on what they have learnt or done in the course of their employment by the Crown are expected to hand to the Crown any profit derived by the author from the publication.

    The Prime Minister: The extent to which a civil servant may be required to account to the Crown for any profit made from such publication will depend on whether the author produced all or part of the work during official time and whether the work is based on or otherwise used Crown copyright material.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances civil servants may publish without prior approval any material based directly or indirectly on what they have learnt or done in the course of their employment by the Crown.

    The Prime Minister: Civil servants must clear in advance material for publication which draws on official material or experience.

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the individual value of each (a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 May 1995]: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office–Office of Public Service and Science. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

     

    Hospitality

    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on official hospitality in his official capacities in the financial year 1994-95.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The provisional total is £30,000.

     

    Rules of Succession

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister (1) in which country of which Her Majesty is Head of State the inheritance of the Crown is prohibited to adherents of certain religions;

    (2) in which countries of which Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State (a) the oldest child and (b) the oldest male child of the monarch succeed to the throne.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 April 1995]: I am not aware that any other Commonwealth realm has rules relating to the succession to the throne.

  • PMQT – 4 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

    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. Canavan: In view of renewed speculation that the Thatcher dynasty might emulate the Churchill dynasty by winning the lottery jackpot, will the Prime Minister set an example by ensuring free access to all his prime ministerial papers before they, along with him, are very soon consigned to the dustbin of history?

    The Prime Minister: I agreed in 1991 that I shall remove from my office, in due course, only papers of a truly personal nature and no official material, other than that which, like speeches, is already in the public domain. I hope that my successors will follow that convention.

     

    Q2. Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his visit yesterday to meet the victims of the IRA’s continued brutality will be widely welcomed? Does he agree that Sinn Fein’s protestations to be a democratic, political party ring hollow while it continues to orchestrate and to defend vicious attacks on the police and civilians?

    The Prime Minister: Sinn Fein’s mask slipped yesterday and it reminded us vividly of its character. As a result, I shall consider over the weekend whether the exploratory dialogue can go ahead. I shall probably decide that it should do so, because I wish Sinn Fein to become a fully democratic and peaceful party, playing a full part in negotiations with other parties. The purpose of the exploratory dialogue is to help to bring that about. As we have come this far, the wider interests of the people of Northern Ireland should not be abandoned without holding Sinn Fein’s feet to the fire in face-to-face negotiations.

    Mr. Blair: May I say that I associate myself entirely with those remarks?

    On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had conducted a review over many months into the taxation of insurance payments and had removed any uncertainty. Today, the Chancellor has popped up and announced a new and different review into part of the same problem. Why did not the Prime Minister tell us about that other review on Tuesday?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is slightly confused and is again seeking to spread a little despondency. I shall try to explain it for him carefully, so that he is able to remove any misunderstanding.

    There is no new intention to levy taxes on the payments from certain insurance policies. The question that has been asked by the insurance companies is whether those payments are already taxable under existing tax laws, which date back to the last century. The insurance industry has asked the Inland Revenue to give its opinions about that.

    The Inland Revenue receives similar questions from the insurance industry and other industries routinely, week after week. When the Inland Revenue has concluded its consideration of that issue, it will report to Ministers- -not, of course, before it is ready to do so. When we have its opinion, we can consider whether the law needs changing. Before the right hon. Gentleman spreads any more misunderstandings, let me say to him that there is no record of any tax ever having been deducted from those insurance payments and, until the matter is settled for those policies under review, the Inland Revenue will not expect tax to be deducted.

    So that the right hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of leaving out any information, let me say to the House that there is one real threat to people with private insurance. Let me quote:

    “We can close tax reliefs that are unfair, like reforming those for . . . private medical insurance”–

    the words of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us why he did not mention that review on Tuesday. How does what he has just said square with the fact that yesterday the Inland Revenue said that insurance payments other than those relating to mortgages were to be taxed and never mentioned any review, and why did the Chancellor say on Tuesday that it was a simple problem, that he had sorted it out in 10 minutes and that he had not even heard of the first review, never mind the second one?

    This has been not a review but a pre-election panic attack, and it bears all the hallmarks of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government–it begins in incompetence, falls into confusion and ends in chaos.

    The Prime Minister: We were carefully weaved round to the preordained soundbite again. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I know that he is not nearly as silly as he sought to make out in what he just said.

    The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that such routine inquiries are made of the Inland Revenue by industry and industry spokesmen all the time. They are answered by the Inland Revenue. There are huge numbers of them. They are not all referred to Ministers. Sometimes, when they are made public, the right hon. Gentleman tries to make a great scandal about them.

    The right hon. Gentleman knows well that there is nothing in this today and there was nothing in it on Tuesday. All he is about is the usual Labour party scaremongering for cheap political gain.

    Sir Giles Shaw: May I return my right hon. Friend to more relevant matters? I add my congratulations to many on the skill and courage that he showed in persisting with his programme in Londonderry yesterday.

    In relation to the magnanimous gesture that my right hon. Friend has just made in respect of discussions and preliminary talks, will he please ensure that any discussions or talks are not conducted under any form of duress and that, when such talks start, item one on day one in the first hour will be that of somehow getting rid of arms, which continue to overshadow the prospects of Northern Ireland with the threat of violence?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is, of course, quite right that there can be no suggestion of discussing those matters with Sinn Fein in the exploratory talks under duress.

    Let me also say to my hon. Friend that I have no illusions about the nature of Sinn Fein or its spokesmen. The behaviour of a few hundred of its supporters yesterday showed how far it has yet to go before it becomes a democratic party, as the rest of us in the House understand the meaning of the term, “democratic party”.

    In two hours yesterday, those supporters destroyed the image that Sinn Fein has sought to build up in recent months, and the event reminds us of the nature of the people with whom we are dealing. We want to push them towards democracy. We know that it will be a tough job, but we will continue to try because it is in the wider interests of the people of Northern Ireland that we should do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Jones: Will the Prime Minister finally confirm that he misled the House on 25 April when he said, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), that the information that there were two bureaucratic staff for every three teachers was in “Social Trends”? It is not; it is in the Annual Abstract of Statistics , which goes on to say that the so-called bureaucratic staff are cleaners, catering staff and nursery assistants. Will the Prime Minister now tell the House that?

    The Prime Minister: The source of the figures is even more appropriate than the hon. Gentleman suggests: the Local Government Management Board collected them.

    What I said to the House was wrong in one respect. I said that local education authorities employed two non-teaching members of staff to every three teachers. In fact, it is not two against three but two and a half against three.

    Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Having studied the report of yesterday’s debates–as I am sure he has–my right hon. Friend will have been reminded of the magnificent performance of our exporters, especially our industrial exporters. Does he agree that a number of Government policies have contributed to that success, not least privatisation, the reform of industrial relations, a sensible taxation system and inward investment, and that all those developments are threatened by the Labour party’s policies?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the remarkable performance of British exporters, including industrial exporters and exporters of services. They would undoubtedly be put at risk by many of the policies proposed by Labour, and the extra costs that those policies would impose on employers. Exports have successively reached a new record in about nine of the past 12 or 13 months. I cannot recall an occasion when that has happened before.

    I should have thought that, instead of carping, Labour Members might for once give some credit to British industry and British exporters.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Ainsworth: Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern and even fear among disabled people about the Government’s proposed new tests for incapacity benefit? Does he accept that that concern is genuine, and will he dissociate himself from the disgraceful comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security, who attempted to brand all those people fraudsters?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend did no such thing. He has taken a great deal of action to help disabled people, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. We are as concerned about disabled people’s security of mind, and the provision of services for them, as any other party in the country. The Disability Discrimination Bill, which has passed through the House of Commons and is currently passing through the House of Lords, will be the biggest single advance for disabled people that we have seen in this country for many years.

    As for the new incapacity benefit, I hope that–as the Labour party sometimes claims also to be concerned about the size of the social security bill–the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be indefensible to continue to pay incapacity benefits to people who are not genuinely incapable of work. Either the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends agree with that, or they do not. If they do, they have no cause to criticise the Government; if they do not, they had better stop giving us lectures about public expenditure, and admit to the increased taxation that they would have to impose.

    Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that air service agreements between the United States and the United Kingdom are a matter for the United States Government and his Government and are nothing whatever to do with the European Commission?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with that point and we have made our views entirely clear in that regard.

     

    Q5. Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister accept that desperately ill people and their families feel agony and anguish when they cannot gain immediate admission to local hospitals? My constituent, Lilian May Wilkinson, alas, died as a result of that situation. Does the Prime Minister understand that that is one of the many reasons why today people in the city of Leicester are pouring out to obliterate the Tories from our city?

    The Prime Minister: I should have thought that if the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted a detailed reply to the difficulties that have caused the tragedy to which he referred he might have given some prior notice of the case before using it in that fashion. He knows that the overwhelming majority of people get a better service from those who work in the health service than they would find anywhere else in the world. Errors do take place in a service that size. People are human; even those who work in the health service can make mistakes.

    However, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have done better to remind people that once every 16 seconds an ambulance makes an emergency call, that once every nine seconds a surgeon performs a national health service operation, that every tenth of a second someone somewhere visits his or her general practitioner and that 8 million people are treated each year. Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman choose one issue, of which he gave no notice, in order to try to make that sort of political point?

    Mr. Trimble: I assure the Prime Minister that there is one party in this place which will not allow itself to be subjected to duress. I refer again to yesterday’s incident which marred the Prime Minister’s visit to Londonderry. Does he realise that the incident was not unprecedented? While it was of a slightly greater intensity than others, that sort of street demonstration has occurred regularly in the past few months and it is part of an IRA-Sinn Fein campaign to undermine the Royal Ulster Constabulary–a campaign which is assisted by other elements, some of whom are within the House. Therefore, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that those members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have protected society from terrorism for the past 25 years have his wholehearted support and that there is no question of disbanding or restructuring the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

    The Prime Minister: I made clear in the speech that I gave yesterday in Northern Ireland my admiration for the work that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has done, not just yesterday–when I think that its members performed superbly–but over the past 25 years in seeing the people of Northern Ireland through a most difficult period in their history. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has a very proud record and I am happy to endorse it for the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.

    I said earlier that I have no illusions about the people with whom we are dealing. I say again that peaceful democratic parties do not act in the way that Sinn Fein supporters acted yesterday. They do not act as front organisations for heavily armed paramilitaries; they do not intimidate and threaten the population; they do not break the legs of teenagers with baseball bats, as they have been doing; and they do not behave in many other thuggish ways. Of course I welcome the end of killing in Northern Ireland. However, as I said clearly yesterday and will say again and again, much of the brutal behaviour by paramilitaries must be stopped before they can begin to claim that they are democratic parties.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Acts of Union

    Rev. Ian Paisley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the amendments which have been made to the Acts of Union between England and Scotland; and how many of these have affected Scottish law and how many English law; and in what way.

    The Prime Minister: The information requested can be obtained by an examination of the official revised edition of the “Statutes in Force” published by HMSO. This shows the Union with Scotland Act 1706, which was passed by the English Parliament, and the Union with England Act 1707, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament, revised to 1 February 1978, together with a note of all the repeals and amendments which have been made to those Acts until then. Cumulative supplements to the “Statutes in Force” were published until February 1991 but no amendments are shown to have been made to those Acts. Since then, information as to any further repeals or amendments to those Acts can be obtained by looking at the “Table on the Effect of Legislation” in part IV of each annual volume of the “Public General Acts”, published by HMSO. This has recently been published for 1993 and shows a repeal of article XXII of the Union with Scotland Act 1706.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland Visit – 3 May 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on his visit to Northern Ireland, made on 3rd May 1995.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about his visit to Northern Ireland]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I look forward to meeting Families Against Intimidation and church leaders, trade union leaders. I hope to speak at the CBI at lunchtime and I have a series of other engagements. The principal reason I’m here is that I don’t think you can keep wholly up to date with what’s happening here in Northern Ireland without coming here regularly and I want to take the opportunity of coming here, listen to what people have to say, talk to them about some of the problems that we have faced, some of the opportunities that lie ahead and form my own judgements about how we proceed. So that is the principal purpose of me being here.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked his comments on Ian Paisley’s suggestion that the Prime Minister’s visit was a publicity stunt]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    These things are arranged a long time ago. Ian says all sorts of strange things from time to time. I have been coming back to Northern Ireland on a regular basis. I set out for you a few moments ago why I’m here. I’m here to talk to people; I’m here to listen to people. If I were concerned in stunts like that, no doubt I would be somewhere out in the midst of the local government elections visiting somewhere there. I’m here because I’m keen to see this peace process move forward.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview at Wellington Park – 3 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep at Wellington Park on 3rd May 1995.


    QUESTION:

    Did you give the trade unions any reassurance on the Document?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we have been talking about – I think there are two aspects – that is one of them, that is part of it. First, I would just like to express publicly what I have said privately and that is to thank the trade unions in Northern Ireland for the work that they have done against sectarianism, originally anti-sectarianism, now non-sectarianism. I think they have played a remarkable role in the workshop to try and remove those discriminations. I was pleased to congratulate them on that this morning and encourage them to continue with their counteract programme, as I’m sure they will. What we spent most of our time discussing this morning was economic matters in their generality, including employment prospects. At the moment unemployment is falling more rapidly in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in Europe and it is falling more rapidly in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, more rapidly here therefore than anywhere else in Europe, and more people are getting into work. Now that will continue provided we are able to continue with the investment and continue with the changed and more confident aspect that exist in Northern Ireland since the ceasefire. Providing that is maintained, providing that is built upon, providing we can carry that process to a conclusion, then I think the economic future for Northern Ireland is infinitely brighter than Northern Ireland has seen at any stage in its history, so there is a very great prize for Northern Ireland, and I’m very keen to ensure that we carry the process forward: firstly, for self-evident political reasons, but secondly, because the economic changes it will make to all the people in Northern Ireland today and in the future will be very remarkable. We’re on our way but there’s a long way still to go.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Hillsborough Castle – 3 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s statement at Hillsborough Castle on Wednesday 3rd May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good morning.

    Let me just say a brief word or two about the meetings I have had thus far this morning. I had a meeting over breakfast with the Church Leaders. This is one of a whole series of meetings I have had over the last couple of years and I can assure you that there will be more meetings of the same sort in the future. The purpose of this was to brief the Church Leaders on where we are at the moment with the process in Northern Ireland, to seek their views on what the community are saying and to discuss a range of matters relevant to Northern Ireland.

    Much of that discussion was private but I can simply say this morning that I value very much the contribution the Church Leaders have made. It has in my judgement been significant in keeping this process moving forward and I intend to maintain very close relationships with them in the future.

    As you will know I also met the Families Against Intimidation in Northern Ireland and I must say that when one sees a way from the abstract the specific problems and details that are faced by many people in Northern Ireland, it does make the problems that still exist even after the end of killing very vivid indeed. Everyone I think is delighted that for the time we have a ceasefire and people are not being killed by paramilitary groups. That is undoubtedly a great step forward. But because that step has been made it does not excuse the other criminality that still continues to be carried out by the paramilitary groups. And I would just like to make that entirely clear.

    People have begun to refer to the term ‘punishment beatings’. The first point I’d care to make about that is that punishment is not for anyone to inflict other than the legal Government of the day. It is not for paramilitary groups. And if one looks at the examples of what they are doing – young men taken out of their homes, their legs broken with baseball bats, held down and beaten, people’s homes broken into, wrecked as an example, people with their legs spiked with railings. Those are just some of the illustrations many of you will be familiar with.

    I think people need to realise that that is still being done by the paramilitary groups and that it is wholly and utterly unacceptable for any group that wishes to enter democratic life to behave in this fashion. It is not for the paramilitary groups to exclude people from any part of Northern Ireland. So let me make it beyond a doubt clear to anybody. These are acts of straightforward criminality. Whenever they occur I hope that anyone that has any evidence of any of these acts will bring that evidence forward to the police so that the police can act, secure a prosecution and secure a punishment. People in Northern Ireland must not be subjected to that sort of behaviour by the paramilitary groups and if they are to talk about peace, if they are to talk about entering the democratic system, then they are going to have to behave as democrats and that doesn’t just mean that people aren’t killed, it means that people aren’t beaten up, that their homes aren’t wrecked and that people aren’t excluded from the areas in which they live by those paramilitary groups.

    INTERVIEWER:

    There are concerns that the peace process is if not on a ‘twin track’ basis on a single track basis and that Sinn Fein are very far behind the other parties. What is your reaction to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The peace process is on a single track basis. Our objective is to try and get Sinn Fein in the same position where they can join political talks with everybody else. But to do that they need to be at the same position as everybody else. That is the position we have taken right from the start and it remains the position. The purpose of the exploratory talks with Michael Ancram is to move forward so that Sinn Fein are on the same position as other people, they meet the same criteria as the other political groups and then they can enter the other political talks. That is the purpose of them.

    QUESTION (Ken Reid):

    When Michael Ancram talks to Sinn Fein next week you have said decommissioning of arms is top of the agenda. Do you actually mean the surrender of guns?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The decommissioning of arms is perfectly clear. If people are prepared to enter into the democratic process then they don’t need arms. If they need arms then there must be a question about how serious they are about entering into the democratic process. Now we need to examine this matter. It isn’t a matter of semantics, it isn’t a matter of detail, it is a matter of principle and it is a matter of practice. The reality is that if Sinn Fein are to move forward as I wish to see them do, and enter fully into the democratic process as I wish them to do, and to enter into the talks with the other political parties as I hope they will do, then they are going to have to put themselves in a position where the other political parties will sit down and talk to them. And the other political parties will require them to acknowledge that guns have to come out of politics, to agree the polities of how guns will be coming out of politics and to make some progress in that effect. The Secretary of State has set that out clearly before. It isn’t a hurdle, it is something that must be done if the other political parties would be prepared to talk to Sinn Fein and if people can then see the sincerity of their wish to enter into the democratic process. Let there be absolutely no doubt I wish that progress to be made. The sooner we can justifiably move Sinn Fein forward into the talks process with the other political parties I will be delighted when we reach that day. It will be a great move forward. But there is no point in trying to move them to that position when the other parties will not talk to them because they have not met the same democratic criteria as the other parties. And that is a substantive point.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Belfast – 3 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech in Belfast on Wednesday 3rd May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much for that introduction. I look forward in a few minutes to hearing what you have to say about tax, and no doubt roads, and no doubt a whole range of other matters. And may I say what a delight it will be to discuss the same sort of economic matters in Northern Ireland that I would discuss in every other part of the United Kingdom as well, and the sooner I can come here and discuss just that, the better it will be for Northern Ireland and the better it will be for everyone else.

    But we have not quite reached that happy state yet and what I want to do this morning is to talk for a while about where we are on the road towards a durable peace. A great deal of attention, especially outside Northern Ireland, has been focused on a rather narrow definition of the peace process on the exploratory talks with Sinn Fein and with the Loyalist Paramilitaries. Of course they are important, but progress in Northern Ireland runs much wider and much more deeply than that, its seeds were sown long ago and people in all walks of life are contributing. You and your fellow businessmen are contributing. Those who have long worked for fair employment and against sectarianism are discrimination are contributing. The churches, the community workers, groups fighting courageously against intimidation and violence. And the police, not just in protecting the population with the army’s help, but extending crime prevention and community policing. And of course those democratic politicians who, throughout the troubles, have stood against violence and exclusively for constitutional methods.

    That common determination to move forward is, I believe, the surest guarantee that Northern Ireland will have a better future. Our task, everyone’s task, is now to create a rolling tide for peace that no-one can withstand. I want to see the people of Northern Ireland confident in themselves, confident in their economy and confident that the political system can produce a lasting agreement. And I think the signs of progress are beginning to show. Unemployment here is now at its lowest point for 13 years. Employment, the number of people in jobs, is at an all time high. Tourism is growing dramatically, there will be 20 percent more visitors this year spending an extra 200 million pounds, and there are going to be new hotels to house them.

    And since the Belfast Investment Conference there have already been 20 possible new investment projects. In the last week Seagate have announced a large expansion creating 300 jobs in Londonderry; Dairy Young [phoentic] is bringing 500 jobs to a new investment in Craigavon; and Mivan [phoentic] of Antrim have announced double profits. I hope we are going to hear further success stories at the Washington Investment Conference later on this month.

    So I believe that your growth challenge, an important initiative is an initiative that is catching that rolling tide for peace that I referred to. It comes at a time when Northern Ireland exports are growing even faster than those of the United Kingdom as a whole, and the United Kingdom as a whole is leading the field in exports across the whole of the European Union.

    Peace is boosting business confidence, just as growing prosperity itself reinforces peace. So I think the moment is right for business, in partnership with government, to accelerate growth. And we need to make sure that this peace I speak of extends right across the community, that it meets the challenges of a new situation. This morning I had the opportunity of discussing some of those challenges with church leaders, with trade union leaders, and with representatives of Families Against Intimidation and Terrorism. And later on this afternoon I will be seeing how the RUC are responding to the challenges that they face.

    And one challenge of course is to deal with paramilitary criminality, with extortion rackets, with intimidation and with a vicious phenomenon of what are called punishment beatings. Since the ceasefire there has been an unwelcome increase in vicious paramilitary assaults, the mis-named punishment beatings. I met, as I said a moment ago, Families Against Intimidation and Terror this morning and they told me that they had counted 97 assaults since 1 September, at least one of which led to a young man’s death, a young man not yet 17 who killed himself as a result of what are euphemistically called punishment beatings.

    They told me of other things as well. Another 16 year old boy whose legs were smashed on both sides with iron bars for 10 minutes while he lay on the ground with a paramilitary foot on his body, holding him in place while he was beaten. The family is forced out of Northern Ireland for speaking out against terrorism. And I met a mother who, like other grieving relatives here, cannot be at peace in her mind because the paramilitaries murdered her son 17 years ago and they have still not told here where that body lies so that she can give her son a decent Christian burial.

    That is not politics. That is barbaric criminality. And everyone in the community should help the police and the courts to combat it, and no-one who aspires to democratic politics in any way should defend or in any way tolerate such unspeakable activities. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland, whenever they have any knowledge of any incident like that, any group that seeks to exclude someone from part of Northern Ireland, that takes upon itself punishment of some sort that they have no proper legal authority to take upon themselves, I hope anyone with any information of that sort will have the courage to take that information to the police so it can be properly dealt with, properly investigated, the perpetrators arrested, tried and if found guilty suitably punished properly in accordance with law.

    It is a difficult job, policing in Northern Ireland. I have a great admiration for what the RUC have achieved. They are already responding to the challenge of civilian policing throughout all of the community. But it does need the help of the community, not wilful obstruction of the crime prevention campaigns or intimidation of new recruits, the whole community needs to be involved to help develop policing for a Northern Ireland at peace and to break down decades of suspicion and distrust.

    Over the years the RUC has withstood the most intense assault and it has made many sacrifices in the cause of impartiality, courage and professionalism. As it is increasingly freed from the threat of terrorism, I believe it can serve the whole community as never before. The men and women of the RUC have seen Northern Ireland through the past 25 years, they have defended democracy, they have defended the rule of law, they deserve our support and they will get it and we will stand by them.

    Let me mention also the trade union leaders whom I met this morning and who play an important part in your lives as businessmen. They too have played a remarkable role often where passions burn most strongly in bringing all sides together. They have helped rid shop floors of destructive sectarianism, they have shown that people in Northern Ireland can and do work together in the workplace to the benefit of everyone and Northern Ireland as a whole. And for doing so they deserve their share of the credit for Northern Ireland’s success.

    Let me now for a few moments just turn to the political process. Paddy Mayhew and his colleagues will shortly begin a further round of talks with the parties. Those talks have one overriding objective – to move towards agreement on the widest possible basis on a stable and harmonious future for Northern Ireland. Such an agreement has always eluded us, it will not come quickly or easily now. But without question, we have a better chance of achieving it than we have ever had before.

    In the two framework documents we identified the issues that need to be addressed. There has been a wide debate about those issues, different views have been expressed, sometimes with more passion than accuracy. Hard questions have been asked. We now want to have a constructive discussion with the political parties on the way forward, about the issues in the two documents and about their own ideas as well on a political settlement. And encouragingly some meetings have already taken place between the political parties themselves.

    Mr Vice-Chairman, I am in doubt that with your support and with the support of the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland which seeks a stable and just future, there is a basis for a lasting settlement, a settlement which the parties can honourably agree and the people will be prepared to support in a referendum. This is a process with a single track. Sinn Fein, through their own actions, have left themselves further back than others, but they can advance down that track and we wish to see them do so. We want all parties in Northern Ireland to be full participants in a democratic, political and exclusively peaceful process.

    And that is one of the main purposes of the exploratory dialogue with the Loyalists and Sinn Fein. When Michael Ancram joins the dialogue with Sinn Fein next week it will be an historic moment. It will also be an historic opportunity because we want to explore how Sinn Fein and the Provisionals can best demonstrate their exclusive commitment to peaceful methods by putting away violence and by putting away the instruments of violence. They know what is required of them. We and the Irish government spelt this out in the Downing Street declaration and have done so on many subsequent occasions. There will be no tricks and no traps, just the opportunity offered by the Downing Street declaration to Sinn Fein to join in the political process on the same basis as other parties with a democratic mandate, the basis of exclusively peaceful methods and a commitment to abide by the democratic process, the basis of a level playing field on which no-one threatens violence or intimidation.

    When we began many people did not see the Downing Street declaration a a realistic basis for a ceasefire. They were wrong. Some now argue that it is not realistic to expect the paramilitaries to dispense with their arsenals. They too are wrong. It is neither realistic, nor acceptable, as we come to the end of the 20th century, for parties in our democracy to front private armies. And this is why I have said, and the Taoiseach has said, and President Clinton has said the decommissioning of arms is so important. And that is why we and the Irish government have worked on a joint plan for decommissioning.

    I can put it no better than the recent Irish Times editorial which said, and I quote: “Sinn Fein can be under no illusion that the question of IRA arms must be resolved before it can be an equal partner in political talks”. That is the end of the quote. To sit at the same table, Sinn Fein must gain the confidence of the other parties, by making a commitment to progressive disarmament and by beginning a verifiable process of decommissioning.

    Over the months the government and the security forces have responded in innumerable and imaginative ways to the new opportunities of the ceasefire. The people of Northern Ireland have responded themselves to those opportunities. It is now time for the paramilitary organisations and their political representatives to pay heed to what the people of Northern Ireland are seeking and are saying and to respond to that.

    I have no doubt that it is realistic to expect them to take these essential steps and we shall help them to do so in every way that we can. I spoke earlier of confidence. In the Downing Street declaration we offered a fair deal for everyone who embraced peace, and you can be confident, and they can be confident, that we shall stand by that pledge.

    You yourselves are helping-to generate confidence through your growth initiative. Every week, every month, has helped to build more confidence in that rolling peace process. The tide is carrying Northern Ireland away from violence and towards an enduring peace. With growing and visible economic success, an unshakeable political resolution, a much better future for Northern Ireland is at hand.

    There is a new atmosphere out there in Northern Ireland, a willingness to think afresh. People here, people I have spoken to today, people who have suffered terribly from violence over the years, they want to take down barriers and make peace irreversible, to make the price for going back to violence unbearable for those people who might seek to go back to violence.

    After 8 months of ceasefire people can see no cause, no reason and no sense in the illegal arsenals which still impede progress. Neither can I. An opportunity to remove them, an opportunity to come fully into the democratic process is there, it is there for everyone with courage and vision to take that opportunity.

    I believe that the time has come to put those weapons aside forever and to invest only in peace. That is the chance that is at hand, that is the chance that I hope everyone will take.

    We for our part will do our best to bring those talks satisfactorily and honourably to a conclusion that will lead to a permanent peace in Northern Ireland. The opportunity is there. If we have to be patient, we will be patient. If we have to be bold, we will be bold. But we see that chance of peace and we don’t wish to see it lost. My hope is that everybody will see that peace and that chance in precisely the same way and we may be able to carry it through to fruition.

    I come back frequently to Northern Ireland. Every time I return I am refreshed in my view of the opportunities that exist here. I know in listening to what you have to say in a few minutes I shall find that view reaffirmed yet again and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to express it this morning.

  • PMQT – 2 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 May.

    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. Flynn: Does not the letter from my constituent, Mr. W. D. Knight, express the opinions of millions of people in this country when he says that he will never again buy a national lottery ticket? How, he asks, can the nation– [Interruption.] –gain £14 million of value by buying papers without copyright, many of which papers we already own? Will the Prime Minister guarantee today that, in future, in that instance and all others, national lottery moneys will go to genuine good causes of health, education and crime prevention, not to the rich and the greedy?

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent feels like that, because the proceeds of lottery money do go to very good causes, and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that. He is, of course, wrong in the assertion that the lottery money was used to purchase papers already owned by the state. That is not the case. What were purchased were the non-state papers, as I told the House last week.

    Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend, in determining Government policy, sometimes receive advice from advisers who one year suggest one thing and another year suggest something else? If they do that, does he take much notice of them, and does he consider that that is what the Labour party is doing?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we receive advice from many sources, some of which I take, much of which I do not. When advisers behave as my hon. Friend proposes, I tend to give less credence to their advice.

    Mr. Blair: On the Government’s policy, revealed this morning, to tax the mortgage insurance payments of sick and unemployed people, will the Prime Minister confirm that, at 10 o’clock this morning, the chairman of the Tory party said that there was no such policy; at 11 o’clock this morning, Downing Street said that there was a policy but they were reviewing it; at 12.3 pm, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) described the policy as lunacy; and at 12.42 pm the Chancellor issued a statement, saying that he had now completed the review and was ditching the policy? [Interruption.] Does not that show the utterly chaotic shambles that is his Government?

    The Prime Minister: I must say that that is extremely amusing and I can see that the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed it, as did everyone else. The reality is that he is wrong. I can certainly confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend has been reviewing the tax treatment of mortgage protection policies for some months. In light of the misguided reports that appeared this morning, he has removed the uncertainty that would otherwise have been removed in the Finance Bill.

    Mr. Blair: It is strange that the chairman of the Conservative party did not know about that–or perhaps it is not so strange. Has not the situation arisen because the Government are cutting mortgage help to the unemployed and therefore forcing all new home owners from 1 October to pay for mortgage insurance, as well as the new insurance tax? Rather than climbing down from the consequences of a mistaken policy, would it not be better to drop the policy that is penalising home owners?

    The Prime Minister: Finance Bill matters are generally withheld by the Treasury for reasons that even the right hon. Gentleman should understand. We give very generous help to people who are unemployed and in receipt of mortgages. We have provided such help for a long time and no one can question the growth in home ownership that has occurred under this Government. There is only one party in this country that truly supports home ownership and it is sitting on the Government Benches.

    Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will recall, I hope with pleasure, the very successful visit that he paid to Taunton last month. Is he aware that the local Liberal Democrats have produced, as an estimate of the policing costs for that visit, the wholly spurious and fantastic figure of £500,000; whereas the Avon and Somerset constabulary has said that it cost £2,000? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is typical of the dishonesty and the bogus statistics being used by both Opposition parties in the local election campaign?

    The Prime Minister: There does seem to be some slight difference between the two estimates of the cost of my visit to Taunton. As to the substantive underlying point that my hon. Friend raises, it is the case–and it has been so for many years–that public figures, particularly those who are answerable to the public, must and do travel around the country. If the Liberal party is suggesting that public figures should not travel around the country because public disorder results from such visits from time to time, I do not think that the people of this country would accept that proposition.

    Mr. Ashdown: When it comes to bogus statistics I suspect that the people of this country know very well where they are coming from. I welcome the very clear statement that the Secretary of State for Defence made just a few moments ago that, whatever action Britain might take in Bosnia, we would not act unilaterally. Does the Prime Minister agree that the situation now developing in Bosnia and Croatia must give cause for grave concern and that, if the conflict is not to spread disastrously, it is vital and urgent that the international community makes every effort to ensure that the second front of confrontation that has now opened in Croatia is closed as soon as possible?

    The Prime Minister: I hoped for a second that the right hon. Gentleman was about to clear up the dispute about the cost of my visit to Taunton. Perhaps he will do that on another occasion. As to the main part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question about Croatia, there is no doubt that yesterday’s Croatian attack, in which some United Nations peacekeepers were wounded, and the retaliation today by the Serbs, have created a very serious situation, as has the Bosnian parties’ decision not to extend the cessation of hostilities agreement. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, the UN Security Council has called on the Croatians to halt their offensive in west Slavonia and I hope that the Serbs will also stop retaliating against Croatian towns and cities. It is a serious and a grave situation; no one can have any doubt about that. Over many months the United Nations forces, both in Croatia and in Bosnia, have helped to limit the scale and the extent of the conflict. That has been the case for two years. I warned more than a month ago that returning to all-out war could make the position of the United Nations protection forces absolutely untenable. I repeat that warning today. Neither in Croatia nor in Bosnia will renewed fighting produce a satisfactory settlement–or a settlement of any sort.

     

    Deregulation

    Q2. Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up a seminar about expediting his deregulation plans for the Ministers he has appointed with responsibility for deregulation in all Departments.

    The Prime Minister: From time to time I hold meetings with colleagues to take stock of progress on deregulation. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade most recently met the appropriate Ministers on 27 April and discussed progress on deregulation measures and steps to improve enforcement procedures.

    Mr. Steen: The Prime Minister’s personal crusade to rid the country of red tape is greatly welcomed by Conservative Members, but is not the real problem at operational level, where officials are more zealous in enforcing regulations than in trying to reduce the impact of regulations that affect our industries’ competitiveness with European countries which do not have all those rules? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, take a fresh initiative that will get to the root of the problem?

    The Prime Minister: We are looking at the over-zealous enforcement of regulations. My hon. Friend is right. At national and local levels, over-zealous enforcement of regulations, particularly those affecting small businesses, causes a great deal of distress and worry. He is equally right that deregulation is central to our economic policy. He may be reassured to know that we now have a programme whereby more than 1,000 regulations are earmarked for amendment or repeal and we expect to have dealt with about half of them by the end of the year.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 May.

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

    Mrs. Ewing: Now that the Prime Minister has finally plucked up the courage to allow the voters of Perth and Kinross to take their democratic decision, is it his intention to endorse the views of the Secretary of State for Scotland that any reference to Scotland as a region is merely a matter of geographical error, or will he state clearly that Scotland is indeed a nation and not a region, and, therefore, we should have the right to self-determination? When he is in Scotland this weekend, will he launch an educational project to tell his Back Benchers the difference between a region and a nation?

    The Prime Minister: There are four nations within the United Kingdom. Scotland is one of them. I look to see it remaining in the United Kingdom and I very much regret that the hon. Lady and her parliamentary colleagues seek to make it independent and outside the United Kingdom.

    Sir Peter Fry: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to compare his current gas and electricity bills with the size of those bills only a few years ago? Will he reflect on the success of the Government’s policy in producing real reductions in the charge for energy? Will he join me in wondering how local government candidates representing the new, clean Labour party can produce leaflets which say that the Government are bleeding us dry through privatised gas and electricity companies? Does he agree that the new, clean Labour party is using the same dirty tactics of the old, discredited Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend puts the matter exceedingly clearly and well and I entirely agree with him. There is no doubt that in general prices have fallen in the privatised industries, though that is not remotely what Opposition Members expected. The right hon. Gentleman, now the leader of the Labour party, once said of electricity privatisation:

    “it is barely an issue that prices will rise because of privatisation.”– [ Official Report , 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 684.]

    He was wrong then and he is wrong now.

     

    Q4. Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 May.

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

    Dr. Jones: The Prime Minister will be aware from the latest economic figures that a large proportion of the 0.8 per cent. growth in the first quarter was attributed not to manufacturing but to sales of national lottery tickets. Is not the Prime Minister concerned that using the proceeds of the lottery to enrich one or perhaps two Tory Members will put the faltering recovery in further jeopardy? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and ask him to pay the money back?

    The Prime Minister: I am inclined to say to the hon. Lady, come off it. The growth in the economy was 4 per cent. last year, and is estimated at 3 per cent. this year and 3 per cent. next year. When did the Labour party in government ever produce such growth figures? The answer is that it never did. The hon. Lady knows that growth has primarily been built on exports. When was there an export record similar to that which British industry has enjoyed over the past 14 months? Nine or 10 months out of the last 13 or 14 months, there has been a new record in exports as our competitiveness and capacity to penetrate markets in Europe and the rest of the world increase. That is what is happening with economic growth at the moment, and it has never been matched by the Labour party.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Business Consultants

    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Department and Mr. Edmund Sykes;

    (2) if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Department and Mr. Stephen Crouch.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 28 April 1995]: I am unaware of any such relationships.

     

    Civil Servants

    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Prime Minister how many civil service appointments were made to the administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

     

    Local Education Authorities

    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister (1) pursuant to his oral answer of 25 April, Official Report, column 675, concerning the ratio of administrators to teachers, if he will give the relevant reference in Social Trends;

    (2), pursuant to his oral answer of 21 March, Official Report, column 140, if he will publish evidence showing that there are two administrators for every three teachers across the country.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on 27 April, Official Report, column 613 .

     

    Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi

    Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) when Minister for Defence Procurement under the “Question of Procedure for Ministers” referred to the Prime Minister for his advice on the approach he had received for Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi concerning the sale of arms to Lebanon.

    The Prime Minister: Discussions between myself and Ministers are private.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the reasons for which the Rhein-Main routine airport film of the loading of luggage on to the Boeing 727 feeder aircraft for Pan Am flight 103 on 21 December 1988 was confiscated; and whether this information was conveyed to the Dumfries and Galloway police investigating the Lockerbie crime.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to discuss the Lockerbie case with Chancellor Kohl. It would not be appropriate to disclose what communications have passed between foreign authorities and the investigating authorities in this country while criminal proceedings are pending.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply of 10 January, Official Report, column 20, if he will list all the investigations carried out in relation to Lockerbie, referred to in Government document JRE 10119.045 attached to the letter of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) of 21 April to the hon. Member for Linlithgow; and what evidence he has for the belief adduced in that document that no further inquiry is warranted.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 28 April 1995]: I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland did not write to the hon. Member on 21 April referring to investigations carried out in relation to Lockerbie or in respect of the document referred to. The document to which the hon. Member appears to be referring was produced for internal use and I am not therefore prepared to comment further on it.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 March, Official Report, columns 545-46, and to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 10 April, what response he has had from the United States authorities as to the authenticity of a signal, a copy of which was sent to him and to the US embassy in London, by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, purporting to be a threat to the life of Major Charles McKee, who died over Lockerbie, by the agencies of the US Government.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 28 April 1995]: As the hon. Member has been advised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and by the US authorities, the investigation has concluded that the document is a fabrication.

     

    Security Services

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements exist for hon. Members to visit the headquarters of the security services.

    The Prime Minister: It is not normal practice for the security and intelligence agencies to host visits to their headquarters by hon. Members.

     

    Acceptance of Gifts

    Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 April, Official Report, column 344, if he will give the reasons for his policy of regarding the number of occasions on which the Government has been approached for advice on the suitability of accepting a financial gift, payment or commission by a Government Minister or an hon. Member or their relatives as confidential.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 28 April 1995]: As I said in my previous answer, advice on specific cases is private. No central record is kept of the occasions on which such advice is sought.

     

    Nursery Education

    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many hours per child per week of nursery education he intends in his commitment to nursery education for all four-year-olds;

    (2) whether his commitment to nursery education for all four-year-olds is a commitment to education with qualified teachers for all children from the day of their fourth birthday.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is looking at a range of options for implementing my commitment to provide, over time, a pre-school place for every four-year-old whose parents wish them to take it up. How many hours per week each place should provide, when the provision should start for each child, and appropriate staff qualifications and adult to child ratios are among the issues under consideration.

     

    Ministers (Car Hire)

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 5 April, Official Report, column 1131, if he will place in the Library a list of the Ministers’ hired cars, giving the purpose of the hire, on how many occasions cars have been hired, the cost of private care hire facilities through the Government car service and the purposes for which cars were supplied (a) to members of the Government, (b) to civil servants and (c) to others for each year since 1987;

    (2) if he will publish information on (a) the cost and (b) the numbers of cars hired from the private sector for the transport of members of the Government for each year since 1987 where it is available.

    The Prime Minister: The information as requested is not available.

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 5 April, Official Report, column 1131, in what circumstances private hire facilities for members of the Government may be provided for non-government business; and if he will publish the relevant guidance issued.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the replies given to the hon. Member of 5 April, Official Report, column 1131 and 24 April, Official Report, column 344.