The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1995

  • Mr Major’s Interview in the Middle East – 10 March 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s interview on Friday 10th March 1995.

    QUESTION:

    We are very proud to have you here with us and we hope that this is the beginning of a permanent relationship between our newsroom and 10 Downing Street. I’m sure it will be a much closer relationship and I’m delighted to be here.

    Prime Minister, let me first of all start by asking you about the Middle East Peace talks. It seems like in the last few months it has reached an impasse and we believe that probably you will be visiting this area soon. We’d like to know if you are taking with you any new items or suggestions of initiatives to break this deadlock?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m looking forward in the next few days to very extensive discussions both with Chairman Arafat in Gaza and also with Prime Minister Rabin. I think at the end of the day the agreement is going to have to be reached between them, between the Palestinians and between the Israelis. But I think there is a great deal the rest of the world can do to help. One of the problems that has occurred of course, has been much of the difficulty in obtaining investment and obtaining good living standards. We’ve very real practical problems to discuss and I will be taking with me a large number of the most important and senior businessmen in the United Kingdom and we will be looking at what can be done in practice to improve trade, improve investment and lay the groundwork for a much higher quality of life for people in those areas.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you may be aware of the fact that any peace initiatives or any peace talks may not succeed if they can’t get the full sincere, political commitment as well as financial support. The European Union as well as Britain have promised the Palestinians a certain amount of money to implement the Oslo Agreement. So far that commitment hasn’t been met. Are you going to take this with you when you go to Chairman Arafat?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The European Union meets its commitments and it will meet its commitments on this front. There’s a certain amount of bilateral assistance that we’ve been able to give. That apart from our contribution via the European Union is a significant bilateral contribution that the United Kingdom has been able to make and we may be able to help a little more as well. I shall discuss that with Chairman Arafat.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I have been noticing the British foreign policy in the last few months, events seem to concentrate on what is going on with your neighbours, I mean the European Union. Are you worried a little bit that it might lead to Britain being isolated from its traditional allies like the Gulf States, the United States and Japan?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I’m determined that isn’t going to happen. About half our trade as a whole operates within the European Union, but the other half operates beyond it and the other half is expanding quite dramatically. The world is opening up in a remarkable way. The growth of our trade in recent years with the Middle East, with the Far East, with Latin America, all tremendous scope for improvement and although the European Union is very important to us, we have no intention of devoting so much intention to our concentration within the European Union that we neglect the rest of the world. We have longstanding and very traditional friends in many parts of the world, least up and down the Gulf and the Middle East and we have no intention of moving away from that.

    QUESTION:

    So Arab/British relations will improve as far as you are concerned in the light of foreign policy in the next few years?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m determined they will. I’ve had a very large number of visits to Arab leaders whom we’ve traditionally known for many years. Ever since I became Prime Minister and they’ve going to continue. Indeed in my visit next week, not only will I be meeting Chairman Arafat in Gaza but the day after I will be going to see King Hussein in Jordan. So those relationships are traditional, they’re valued relationships. They’re relationships we’ve had for very many years and there’s no question that they’re going to continue and I believe improve.

    QUESTION:

    From the foreign policy to the domestic policy. Opinion polls suggest that the Conservatives are not as popular as they should be and in the light of the new leadership of the Labour Party, Tony Blair. Will you still after two years be in 10 Downing Street?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I think we will. As far as Tony Blair is concerned, we get on perfectly amiably. We’re leaders of different parties. We have our disagreements, but they are political.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, thank you very much for talking to us and we wish you a very successful trip to the Middle East.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s my pleasure and I’m looking forward to it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

    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.

     

    Economic Policy

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what is the Government’s policy in respect of promoting political, social and economic expansion;

    (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which his goals relating to the promotion of social and economic expansion have been achieved.

    The Prime Minister: The objective of the Government’s economic policy is to promote sustained economic growth in order to raise living standards and create jobs. The Government are pursuing prudent fiscal and monetary policies together with supply-side measures which will continue to improve the working of the economy. This is the only way to ensure that economic recovery is sustained with low inflation.

     

    Toxic Waste

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister who will represent Her Majesty’s Government at the special meeting of the members of the Basel convention in Dakar called to clear up the confusion on how to define toxic waste; and what will be their remit.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 3 March 1995]: Her Majesty’s Government will send an observer.

  • PMQT – 9 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

    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. Dowd: Will the Prime Minister join me, and I am sure the whole House, in sending our deepest condolences to the family of Mr. Malcolm Murray, who died in Leeds general infirmary yesterday? Does he share the anger that we feel at the fact that he was in Leeds general infirmary because he had to be flown by helicopter some 200 miles after a fruitless search for an intensive care bed in London? Does not that demonstrate conclusively that the bed closure programme that the Government are pursuing in London has gone too far? Is he aware that he can do something immediately by instructing his Secretary of State for Health to accept the recommendation of the South-East London health authority that Guy’s hospital must not close?

    The Prime Minister: This is certainly a tragic incident and I share the view that the hon. Gentleman expressed about that. I believe that the whole House will join me in extending my deepest sympathy to Mr. Murray’s family upon his death. This is a serious case and the South Thames region has set up an urgent investigation, the outcome of which we must await. The full facts of the case are not yet in front of me, but I understand that Mr. Murray required a highly specialised form of treatment with which Leeds was particularly able to help– [Interruption.] –a highly specialised form of treatment, and that was the medical decision that was taken. Beyond that, we will have to wait for the result of the inquiry.

    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen that interest rates in France have had to be raised by 1.5 per cent. this week, notwithstanding the fact that– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen that interest rates in France have had to be raised by 1.5 per cent. this week, notwithstanding the fact that inflation is virtually non-existent and that unemployment stands at 12.5 per cent.? That has been necessary in order to confirm France’s status as an economic vassal state of Germany. Is it not therefore a cause for congratulation for our Government that we were not obliged to take the same course of action this week? Should we not make more of the fact that both the Opposition parties are committed to such a ruinous policy?

    The Prime Minister: There is, indeed, a great deal of exchange rate turbulence, which has reflected itself in the interest rate increase in France, to which my hon. Friend refers. As I have told the House before, there has been a pretty massive flight into deutschmarks as a result of an unsettled international situation. That is the principal underlying reason that has led to such difficulties for the franc. As I told the House some time ago, I see no prospect of the United Kingdom returning to the exchange rate mechanism for some time. I have made that point perfectly clear. The fundamentals of the British economy are such that I am delighted that we are not suffering precisely the difficulty that France has.

    Mr. Blair: Is it true that, when Ministers proceeded with the sale of electricity shares on Monday, they already knew that the electricity regulator was actively considering announcing a cut in prices?

    The Prime Minister: There have been some distorted versions of what has happened, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set out precisely what the circumstances are.

    The fact is that Professor Littlechild did not decide to undertake his review until Monday afternoon, after trading had begun in shares in PowerGen and National Power. But, although the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry were aware that he was considering the possibility, he had not notified them even on Monday morning–when stock exchange trading began–that he had made any decision to go ahead.

    I should also tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Treasury took independent financial and legal advice at the end of last week on whether, in the light of the possible uncertainty, the share sale prospectus was still accurate. The legal and financial advice that it received was that, even if the issue of price controls for the regional electricity companies was reopened, that was not material to the share sale of the generating companies. [Hon. Members:– “Rubbish.”] That is the legal advice that hon. Members say is rubbish. As for the generating companies, they are subject to a wholly different basis of regulation. It was in the light of that legal and financial advice that the Treasury decided to proceed.

    Mr. Blair: That may have been the legal advice, but may I ask the Prime Minister about the duty of his Government? Will he confirm that the Government knew that the regulator was actively considering making such an announcement? That is the first point. Secondly, if they did know, does the Prime Minister not think that it would have been better to disclose the information to prospective investors?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say just now, that was precisely the point of seeking the legal advice: to determine whether the prospectus was right. The right hon. Gentleman himself is a distinguished lawyer– [Interruption.] I suspect that, if the Government had sought legal advice on an issue of this sort and then not taken the legal advice that they had been given, the right hon. Gentleman would have been at the Dispatch Box asking why we had not taken the legal advice that we had legitimately sought and received.

    Mr. Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for his compliment about my being a lawyer, but surely the point– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I expect better behaviour from Ministers.

    Mr. Blair: I cannot say that we do, Madam Speaker.

    The question relates not to the legal advice, but to the responsibility of the Government. Does the Prime Minister not think that it would have been better to disclose that information? Never mind whether the Government were legally entitled to it; does he not think that it would have been better to disclose it? Or is the short truth that a privatisation programme already damaged by boardroom excess and customer complaints is now tarnished by at best incompetence and at worst double dealing by Government?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has now asked the same question three times. I answered his third question with my first answer, and I made the position clear in my second answer. Other than to get in his ritual soundbite, I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman has asked his question a third time. The fact is, as I have said, that the Government were aware that the regulator was considering the possibility at some stage in the future. He had not notified the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, even on Monday morning, of whether he had determined to proceed, and whether he had determined what his statement would be. That is the purpose of ensuring that the prospectus is right; that is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took legal advice. On the basis that it was right to proceed–that the prospectus was accurate –my right hon. and learned Friend proceeded. If he had not, the right hon. Gentleman would have been standing there asking why the sale did not proceed and why the Government did not take the legal advice that they had sought in order to do so.

    Mr. Michael Spicer: On the question of exchange rate turbulence, does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent rise in the deutschmark against the pound is good for British exporters to Germany and bad for German exporters to Britain? Would it not be a bad thing if we were ever again to shadow the deutschmark?

    The Prime Minister: We are not shadowing the deutschmark and I do not anticipate that we will. At the moment the performance of British exports makes it clear that both British industry and the British currency are performing well.

    Mr. Ashdown: Why does the Prime Minister not cut the legal waffle? The real question is not what is legally possible: it is what is right. Is the Prime Minister proud that his Government had to hoodwink the public to get them to buy their electricity shares?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is not a distinguished lawyer. If he lets fly like that I hope that he is never sitting down where he has to take a cool, calm decision of what is in the national interest. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to read the three answers that I gave to the right hon. Member for Sedgefied (Mr. Blair). Perhaps upon several readings of them he will know the answer to his question.

    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that devolving power to schools and hospitals has led to improved educational standards and more patients being treated? Would the imposition of an unnecessary layer of regional government harm that success?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that it most certainly would. There are forms of devolution that I favour, most notably devolution down to the family and to the local community so that they can make their own decisions. We are certainly not committed to regional assemblies. There seems to be some confusion among the Opposition as to whether they are. On Sunday the right hon. Member for Sedgefield ( Mr. Blair) said:

    “We are not committed to regional assemblies.”

    The deputy leader of the Labour party said:

    “No, I don’t say that is the position.”

    There seems to be some confusion about that on the Opposition Benches.

     

    Q2. Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Burden: When the number of full-time employees in the civil service has fallen by 29,000 in the past five years and the number on temporary contracts has grown by 82 per cent. in the same period, why are managers in the Employment Service being encouraged to sack temporary workers rather than let them have employment rights? Does the Prime Minister not realise that constant job insecurity is one of the biggest factors preventing any kind of feel good factor?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman took a wider view rather than being concerned with the point that he mentions, he would also have mentioned the dramatic fall in unemployment in every region of the United Kingdom. Self-evidently, work loads in Departments fluctuate, and by limiting periods of casual employment Departments are obliged to fill permanent vacancies with permanent staff, as they should. That is what is happening in the Department of Employment.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider those seven schools in west Norfolk that have become grant- maintained? If he visits those schools he will find high morale and excellent motivation and commitment. Is it any wonder that more and more Members on the Labour Front Bench want to send their children to grant- maintained schools, and is it any wonder that the public find that grossly hypocritical?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that there are seven grant-maintained schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I hope that there will be more in every constituency in the future. Education is an important ladder that helps people to raise themselves to a higher standard of living. Grant-maintained schools offer a wide choice, which I commend to everyone and congratulate everybody on taking. I trust that everybody will ensure that it is open to all who wish to have it.

    Mr. Enright: In spite of the headlong rush into vegetarianism, does the Prime Minister agree with Bob Reid, the former chairman of British Rail, that he would rather put money into a butcher’s shop than into rail privatisation?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman should have heard what else Sir Bob said. He also said:

    “I do believe that privatisation is right.”

    The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that.

     

    Q4. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Lidington: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend’s efforts to secure peace in Northern Ireland, does he agree that, until terrorism has been eradicated, it is right that we should continue to support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 to secure the protection of our fellow citizens in every part of the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister: I do agree with that. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear yesterday, we shall retain the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 as long as the powers are needed for the protection of the public in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. I should add that we have accepted independent advice that all of the powers in the Act continue to be necessary and justified. My right hon. and learned Friend made that clear to the House yesterday.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    National Service

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of people who have performed national service (a) in each of the armed services, (b) in the Merchant Navy and (c) comparable service for the National Coal Board.

    The Prime Minister: The information requested is not available.

     

    Internet

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards encouraging party political debate on the Internet.

    The Prime Minister: Her Majesty’s Government are all in favour of a full and frank political debate on the Internet or in any other forum.

     

    Sir Paul Beresford

    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford); and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Labour Statistics

    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement regarding manufacturing employment.

    The Prime Minister: In the quarter to December 1994, employment in manufacturing industry rose by 37,000 the largest rise since quarterly records began.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March 1995.

    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.

     

    Innovation and Technology Transfer

    Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made with the review announced in the White Paper, “Scotland in Union”, of the scope for transferring from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Scottish and Welsh Offices responsibility for measures which encourage industrial innovation and technology transfer in Scotland and Wales.

    The Prime Minister: The review has been completed. It concluded that responsibility for the Smart and Spur schemes, which provide grants for the development of new products and processes and for design services in Scotland and Wales, should be transferred. In addition, it has now been agreed that responsibility for new measures to support innovation locally will be transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland as soon as the administrative arrangements have been completed.

     

    Civil Servants

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the Civil Service Commissioners to advertise for open competition at the previous rate of remuneration the post of any permanent secretary who wishes to take advantage of the recent pay award.

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Nuclear Non-proliferation Conference

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will be attending the conference on the future of the non-proliferation treaty to be held in New York in April and May.

    The Prime Minister: No. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary plans to attend on 18 April.

  • PMQT – 7 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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.

    Mr. Ottaway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Government’s policies have done much to help the leisure industry in this country? So much so– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. Hoyle: Sit down.

    Madam Speaker: Who are you telling to sit down? Be careful.

    Mr. Hoyle: I am telling the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to sit down; I am trying to be helpful.

    Mr. Ottaway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Government have done much to help the leisure industry in this country–so much so, that Ladbroke leisure group has been able to award 1.2 million share options to its directors? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a member of the remuneration committee who approved that share option scheme is also Chairman of the Employment Select Committee?

    The Prime Minister: As I said to the House last week, the Greenbury committee is examining executives’ remuneration. A number of important issues must be addressed, especially the disclosure of remuneration to directors and ensuring that bonuses and share options reflect the performance of a company. I am sure that practical, first-hand advice of that sort will be useful to every hon. Member. Mr. Blair rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. I must say to hon. Members that I have taken a Minister to task for less than that; I will not allow Back Benchers to hold up newspaper headlines.

    Mr. Blair: Now that the electricity regulator has finally bowed to months of pressure and has cut prices because of excess profits, will the Prime Minister agree that there should be a thorough overhaul of the regulatory regime of all utilities so that we can be sure that the same thing is not happening in gas, water and in the other privatised monopolies?

    The Prime Minister: As I understand the position, the regulator has decided to have a look at the prices charged by regional electricity companies to consumers. That shows that the regulatory system that the House approved is working and that the regulator is using his powers to act in the light of the information available. I think that the action of the Director General of Electric Supply does exactly that. It shows that he can take into account the latest information. Information has become available since his last review. He is now looking at it again. That shows that the system is flexible and is working.

    Mr. Blair: Surely it shows precisely the opposite. Is not the point that the electricity regulator acted only after the Trafalgar House bid for Northern Electric exposed the full scale of the excess profits and because of public pressure, not his own internal investigations? Does that not strengthen the case for a review of the system to make sure that the same abuses are not happening in gas and water?

    The Prime Minister: No, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the point fully on board. He cannot claim at one moment that the regulator has too few powers and a few moments later complain that he is using his powers to deal with the situation that has arisen. New circumstances have arisen in the regulator’s mind, and the regulator has used his independent powers to look again at the question of pricing. Those are precisely the powers the House required him to have and he is now using them.

    Mr. Blair: The information became available not because of the regulatory system but because of the external requirements after the bid. Does the Prime Minister not understand that unless he acts firmly to stop the abuses in the privatised utilities–whether they are the pay deals, the overcharging or the excess profits–they will stand as a visible symbol of everything that is rotten in a Conservative Government?

    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has now managed to unleash his soundbite, but what he is actually proposing would not enlarge but would narrow the authority and options of the regulator. The fact that this arose out of something that the regulator did not determine shows how wide his powers are. That is the point. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that the regulator should have acted only if he himself had discovered precisely what was likely to happen.

    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend make it his first priority to travel the country and start a national debate on the importance of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange? Is it not extraordinary that a major political party should spend so much time on clause IV and does it not prove–

    Madam Speaker: Order. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that matter. He is, no doubt, coming to a question for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.

    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend consider travelling the country to establish whether there should be common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange?

    The Prime Minister: I think the evidence of the past two or three decades will spare me the necessity of travelling the country on that point because very few people who have sensibly looked at the matter do not believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is right to seek the abolition of a dinosaur that most sensible people realise has been dead for the past 20 or 30 years. The only surprise is that a substantial number in the right hon. Gentleman’s party still do not understand that.

    Mr. Ashdown: How does the Prime Minister justify the fact that, contrary to the specific recommendations of his own personal efficiency unit, the amount of public money that the Government spend on private consultants has now increased by £130 million to £865 million– sufficient to provide every child in the country with a year of pre-school education? How can the Prime Minister expect parents, teachers and governors to cut, cut, cut, when the Government’s record is spend, spend, spend?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman did not address the savings and improvements brought about by the activities of consultants. All that concerns him is making a spurious point that would have been better made about his own Liberal Democrat-controlled county council in Somerset. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the record on consultancies, he will find that one costing £50,000 yielded savings of tens of millions of pounds for the taxpayer.

    Mr. Rowe: Did my right hon. Friend note that in the recent debate on utilities many Opposition Members were keen to see utilities restored to the public sector? Is not it an extraordinary definition of monopoly to imagine that in a world in which foreign companies compete globally with our former public utilities, we should not stimulate competitiveness across the world?

    The Prime Minister: Opposition Members may still relish the day when it cost the taxpayer £50 million a week to subsidise utilities so that Ministers could run them inefficiently. These days, those utilities are yielding about the same amount of money each day for the taxpayer. Many utilities are selling their services and expertise abroad to great effect, generating from overseas activities huge sums of money for this country.

     

    Q3. Mr. Rooney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Rooney: It is three and a half years since Operation 2000 was launched. Is the Prime Minister aware that today fewer than 4 per cent. of directors and fewer than 3 per cent. of senior managers are women? Does he consider Operation 2000 a success?

    The Prime Minister: When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster speaks in this afternoon’s debate, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the improved opportunities for women across a range of circumstances–not least in public appointments for which the Government are directly responsible, where there has been a dramatic improvement. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is some way to go, but a significant improvement has been made in recent years, and I look forward to that continuing.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the document published by the Department of National Heritage last week, “Tourism: Competing with the Best”? It states that tourism could be the largest single issue by the year 2000. Tourism currently employs 1.5 million people, but the report makes it clear that we could do better. Does my right hon. Friend agree that tourism should have higher priority and that a single body should be responsible for encouraging inward tourism?

    The Prime Minister: I should like to reflect with greater care on my hon. Friend’s last point because of regional disparities in tourism in Scotland, Wales, the west country and elsewhere. My hon. Friend is right about tourism’s importance and the number of people that it employs. In some parts of the United Kingdom–not least, most recently, Northern Ireland–increased tourism is making a material improvement to the local economy.

     

    Q4. Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Burden: Does the Prime Minister recall specifically ruling out three months ago Government action on executive salaries on the ground that it would constitute–I believe that I quote the right hon. Gentleman correctly–“a pay policy for a small number of key executives”? In the light of the right hon. Gentleman’s statement to the House last week, does he think that is a policy or is not a policy–or, as usual, does he not know?

    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether you, Madam Speaker, would like to let the hon. Gentleman try again, so that he may get his question right. Only one side of the House wants a pay policy for top executives. Labour wants a pay policy for people at the top–a maximum wage at the top, and a maximum wage at the bottom because then it would have the justification for a pay policy right the way down British industry. I am seeking to cope with abuses where they occur. If the hon. Gentleman had read what I said last week, he would understand that.

     

    Q5. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that education provides an escalator of opportunity for all children? Does he believe that choice and standards would benefit from the abolition of grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, all of which are popular? Would not the abolition of grant-maintained schools be particularly harsh on parents who prefer them to schools run by local education authorities, especially in Islington?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that education is one of the areas that gives the greatest opportunity to people. The reforms that we have introduced in recent years extend choice, create a diverse education system and aim to give the best possible education to every child. It is for that reason that we have made reforms right the way through the education system–reforms that have been welcomed by parents and schoolteachers and, increasingly, are welcomed and used by hon. Members in every part of the House.

     

    Q6. Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Lloyd: During this, the 50th anniversary of the ending of the war, will the Prime Minister today give some consideration to that generation who were prepared to fight and, in many cases, made considerable personal sacrifices in forced labour camps, for example, in Europe and elsewhere? Is the Prime Minister of the view that it is a fitting reward for that generation that they now spend their lives in poverty as pensioners under the Government?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the respect that everyone in Britain has for the generation who fought in the war. He will also know what has been done, not just in the past few years but during the past couple of generations, to ensure that their living standards are as high as can possibly be the case.

    An hon. Member: Not successful.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says, “Not successful.” Perhaps he would like to reflect on the number of improvements that we made in 1979 that had not been introduced by the previous Labour Government.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Northern Region

    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s achievements in the northern region since 1979.

    The Prime Minister: The Government have had many achievements in the northern region since 1979 as our policies have created a favourable economic climate for growth. During this period the region has undergone the biggest transformation since the 19th century with the emergence of a new and diverse industrial base. Pharmaceutical, food processing, clothing, light engineering, electronics and car manufacture have replaced traditional industries. In the area covered by the Government office for the north-east this change has come about through a range of measures:

    the attraction of £3 billion overseas investment since 1985, the most notable successes of which were Nissan and Samsung and a further £1.3 billion private sector investment into the areas covered by the Tyne and Wear and Teesside Development Corporations since 1987, creating and safeguarding over 30,000 jobs;

    over 5,500 hectares of derelict land reclaimed, including over 700 by the Urban Development Corporations in Tyne and Wear and on Teesside;

    in partnership with other organisations, the region’s Training and Enterprise Councils have successfully developed innovative solutions to the training and enterprise needs of their areas including the establishment of a business Innovation Centre in Sunderland and a management training and higher education facility in Northumberland. TEC’s in the region have also piloted a number of new initiatives: Open Learning Credits, Youth Credits, Adult Credits, the Out of School Childcare Grant, Workstart and Skillchoice.;

    assisting over 26,000 unemployed people to start their own businesses since 1987 through the Businesses Start Up Scheme run by Training and Enterprise Councils;

    820,000 people placed in jobs by the Employment Service since 1986;

    unemployment has fallen by 16,100 or nearly 10 per cent. since the national peak in December 1992;

    a substantial number of homes built and improved;

    over 4,000 jobs created, 5,000 jobs preserved and 550 new businesses assisted by the South Tyneside and Stockton and Thornaby Task Force; and,

    an increase in the numbers of young people staying in full-time education after reaching school leaving age. 12.4 per cent of those leaving schools in the region in 1992 93 intended to pursue a Degree course.

    The region also piloted the development of job clubs, now a successful national programme and expects to become the first to have contracted out careers services and to have facilitated a comprehensive network of Business Links.

     

    Internet

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Internet e-mail numbers of all Government Ministers.

    The Prime Minister: It is a matter for individual Ministers to decide whether to make public their Internet electronic mail addresses. The two Ministers with responsibility for use of the Internet are the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whose e-mail addresses are publicly available.

     

    Government Policy

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what role the Cabinet plays in the formulation of (a) economic policy, (b) monetary policy and (c) policy on a single European currency.

    The Prime Minister: The Cabinet is the ultimate arbitrator of all aspects of Government policy.

     

    Social Development Summit

    Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 27 February, Official Report, column 412, if the Minister for Overseas Development, in representing him at the Heads of State world summit for social development in Copenhagen, is responsible for negotiating those aspects of the draft declaration and action programme covering national action within the United Kingdom to reduce inequality and poverty and promote full employment and social integration.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will represent me at the high level segment of the summit on 11-12 March. My right hon. and noble Friend will make a statement setting out the United Kingdom perspective on the issues covered by the summit.

    Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 27 February, Official Report, column 412, if he will publish briefs which have been prepared by his Government for discussion at the world summit for social development about social development and anti-poverty measures taken and proposed to be taken in the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister: There are no plans to do so. It is not usual to publish briefing provided by officials to Ministers. The speeches of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development will be published, and copies will be placed in the Library.

     

    Lockerbie

    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has which would allow Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of the United States of America to resolve the Lockerbie affair other than by way of instituting criminal proceeding in Scotland or the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The Lockerbie bombing was a crime committed against a United States aircraft over Scotland. It has been investigated from Scotland with the co-operation of the United States authorities. The trial of those accused of this terrible crime must take place in Scotland or the United States. This has been confirmed by the UN Security Council.

    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the role in Beirut in 1988 of Ron Carviene, Bill Leyene and Dan O’Connor, under the command of Matthew Gannon and Charles McKee.

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

    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had when he last met President Clinton on the subject of the setting up of an international court to try those persons alleged to have perpetrated the murders of the passengers and crew members of Pan Am flight 103 and residents of Lockerbie in December 1988; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: None.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the memorandum for No. 10 Downing Street in 1989 adducing the reasons why Her Majesty’s Government would not allow the public inquiry into the Lockerbie crime; and at what level the decision on the public inquiry was taken.

    The Prime Minister: It is not usual practice to place internal Government correspondence in the Library. I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 10 January, Official Report, column 20.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his letter of 30 August 1994 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow what examination has taken place of the Toshiba and Helsinki warnings in relation to Lockerbie since the fatal accident inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: The fatal accident inquiry, which took place 22 months after the disaster, examined both warnings in some detail. In his determination, the Sheriff Principal concluded that the so-called Toshiba warning was not relevant to the circumstances of the deaths and that the so-called Helsinki warning lacked credibility. It has therefore not been considered necessary to conduct further examinations into these.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty’s Government have had from the German Government about their interrogation of Edwin Bolliers’s Statsi control and the sale of timing devices to the Statsi.

    The Prime Minister: None.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss the implications with President Clinton of the FBI briefing paper regarding Iranian links and baggage being unloaded on Air Malta 180 destination Frankfurt airport.

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

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if British authorities have interviewed Marwin Khreesat, a bomb maker, briefly detained and then released in Neuss, Germany;

    (2) if he will put the transcript of the interview with Mr. Ghandanfar and Mr. Dalkamouni in the Library.

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it would be wrong to reveal details of the evidence in a criminal case while proceedings are pending.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will ask Chancellor Kohl the reasons why in October 1988 the Verfassungschutz released certain Palestinians and their bomb-making equipment.

    The Prime Minister: The release of detainees from German prisons is a matter entirely for the German authorities.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the prima facie evidence that a German-based terrorist organisation used its knowledge of a covert United States drugs operation to switch an unaccompanied bag containing drugs with an identical bag containing a bomb which destroyed Pan Am Flight 103.

    The Prime Minister: The allegation has been examined. No evidence has been found to support it.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Lockerbie victims’ families regarding information conveyed to them by members of the United States commission about the extent of the information available to United States and United Kingdom Governments and the probability of its publication; what elements of the United States commission’s findings support the families’ version; and if he will place in the Library the United Kingdom responses to these findings.

    The Prime Minister: I have recently received a letter from the family of a Lockerbie victim which referred to the United States President’s commission on aviation security and terrorism. A copy of the commission’s report, dated May 1990 will be placed in the Library.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty’s Government has made of the role of Khaled Jaafar, a Lebanese victim of the Lockerbie bombing.

    The Prime Minister: The fatal accident inquiry in 1990-91 considered allegations of involvement of Khaled Jaafar in the bombing. In his determination, the sheriff principal concluded that there was no connection between Mr. Jaafar and the suitcase which contained the bomb.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister on what evidence British officials publicly dismissed a document of the United States Air Force, air intelligence unit, asserting that Ali Akbar Mostashemi, former Iranian Interior Minister, paid $10 million to terrorist gangs to carry out the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988, as based on dud intelligence.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 26 January, Official Report , columns 299-300.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made of American reports about the destruction of Pan Am 103, based on reports from defecting Iranian pilots.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 26 January, Official Report, columns 299-300

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 25 January, what strategy, other than demanding a trial of Libyan suspects, Her Majesty’s Government have for obtaining justice for all the victims of the crime of Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister: The Lockerbie investigation has been the most exhaustive ever undertaken in this country. It remains open but has to date uncovered evidence to support charges against the two Libyans accused. Our demands, endorsed by the United Nations Security Council have been for the surrender of the accused for trial in the United States or Scotland, the satisfaction of French justice over the bombing of UTA 772, the payment of appropriate compensation and concrete proof from Libya that it has renounced terrorism. I can see no other means of meeting the legitimate demands for justice than by trial of the persons alleged to be responsible before a criminal court properly exercising jurisdiction in respect of these matters.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government were informed on or about 19 December 1988 of the travel plans of Major Charles McKee by the US Drug Enforcement Agency in Cyprus.

    The Prime Minister: No. I understand Major McKee was not an employee of the DEA.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his answer on 14 February, Official Report, column 571, he will identify the partners to whom he referred in relation to discussions about Lockerbie and UTH 772.

    The Prime Minister: The United States, France, other EU states and other friendly countries. We work most closely with the United States and France, the other states most seriously affected by the Lockerbie and UTA bombings. The Lockerbie issue is raised in bilateral contacts with a wide range of countries.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what information came to Her Majesty’s Government about approaches by members of the Juafar family offering precise testimony about Hezbollah and Achmed Tibril and their role in using a member of the Juafar family to get a bomb on board Pan Am Flight 103.

    The Prime Minister: No such approaches have been received.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what reports the United Kingdom and the United States authorities in Cyprus received from Mr. David Lovejoy, an employee of the United States Government directly or through other sources on the movements of the United States hostage rescue team, including Matthew Gannon and Major Charles McKee subsequently killed at Lockerbie, before the destruction of Pan Am 103; and if he will discuss with President Clinton the reasons why these reports were sought.

    The Prime Minister: The British authorities in Cyprus neither sought nor received any such reports.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his Private Secretary, Mr. Edward Oakden’s letter of 18 January to the relatives of the Lockerbie victims, if he will bring forward proposals whereby fatal accident inquiry presiding judges can have access to intelligence information.

    The Prime Minister: Section 4(3) of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths (Scotland) Act 1976 requires that, subject to an exception relating to the reporting of matters affecting persons under the age of 17, any fatal accident inquiry shall be open to the public. There are no proposals to amend that provision.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 15 February on Lockerbie, if he will list the witnesses interviewed by the German authorities at the request of, or in consultation with, the Scottish authorities and on what dates; and on what occasions Scottish officers were present, assisting at interviews.

    The Prime Minister: Disclosure of the fact the Messrs Ghadanfar and Dalkamouni were interviewed was an exceptional step taken only because of the unwarranted criticisms which had been, and were continuing to be, made of the German authorities and the Scottish police. It would not be appropriate to go beyond this by discussing details of confidential communications between the Scottish police and prosecuting authorities and their counterparts in Germany, or indeed in any other country.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 26 January, Official Report, column 300, in what month of what year allegations were first made to the effect that Ali Akbar Mostashemi had paid $10 million to have the Lockerbie bombing carried out; who were the competent authorities to whom the Prime Minister refers; and how much of the alleged contradicting material came from Abdul Meged Jiacha.

    The Prime Minister: This allegation first appeared in the British press in September 1989. I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 26 January, Official Report, column 299-300.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the statement of Mr. Vincent Cannistraro, head of the CIA counter-terrorism operations until 1990, that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine general command was implicated in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 and had been planning other operations against United States and Israeli targets when some of its members’ squad were arrested in Frankfurt and that the operation had been bankrolled by Iranians.

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

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the posting of warnings about Pan Am flight 103 on United States embassy bulletin boards, and the subsequent United States directive requiring imprisonment of officials, should they discuss warnings with family, friends, and colleagues in the absence of a public warning.

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

     

    European Courts

    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the leaders of the other member states of the European Union, on the modification of structure, membership and functions of (a) the European Court of Auditors, (b) the European court of first instance, and (c) the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: We did not discuss these issues at the last European Council meeting in Essen, but, as I said in my December statement to the House, we did emphasise that, in the interests of combating fraud and waste, the Council must ensure that the Court of Auditors’ reports are rigorously scrutinised and followed up.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Bermingham: To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to assist the speedy conclusion of the Scott inquiry and to ensure that the report is published before 1 May.

    The Prime Minister: As I said when I announced the terms of reference for the inquiry on 16 November 1992, Official Report, columns 74- 75, Lord Justice Scott will be entirely free to decide on the publication of his report. The inquiry will report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The Government continue to give Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry the fullest possible co-operation.

     

    Disabled People

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I therefore refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary Office of Public Service and Science gave the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 1 February, Official Report, column 712.

     

    Public Inquiries

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, in what circumstances a public inquiry may take evidence on intelligence matters in camera.

    The Prime Minister: Whether and to what extent a public inquiry may take evidence in camera depends on the powers given to the inquiry when it is established.

     

    Libya

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if the United Kingdom has an extradition treaty with Libya.

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Command Papers

    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department, or agencies for which it is responsible, in 1994 giving, in each case, the total cost to the Exchequer of their publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 March 1995]: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office aims to recover all production and distribution costs from the sales revenue of all White Papers and Green Papers which it publishes. The cost to my Office of the 1994 pay review body reports was approximately £8,000. Figures for 1980 are not available.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the 1995 Local Government Conference – 4 March 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1995 Local Government Conference, held at the International Maritime Organisation at 4, Albert Embankment in London. The speech was made on Saturday 4th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Everyone in this room believes in service. Many of you have a long record of service in local government. In recent years that has been against a difficult political and economic background. But that is now changing.

    We are now into a comprehensive economic recovery. It hasn’t been easy. It’s involved difficult and often unpopular decisions that have had a backlash for you in local government. I know how unfair that is. But the decisions we made were necessary and now we need to capitalise on them. To make sure that it is widespread and that it improves the security and livelihood of people as well as the health of industry and commerce.

    I was given the wise advice that politics is about people when I entered local government. I learned in local government that too many people have too little self-esteem. There is a poverty of ambition.

    Yet local government can help with many of the causes of that: education, housing, social services. So local government matters. It matters in the delivery of the services and in creating the choices and opportunities that people deserve. And it is not an accident that these are found more often in areas with a long tradition of Conservative local government.

    When I am with Conservatives in local government, I know I’m with people who share the values and instincts that brought me into our Party. You and I joined the Party for the same reason.

    It spoke a language people can understand. Not the language of protest, of rights, of obligations by others – but the language of opportunity and hope and service.

    Our party has beliefs but, like the British people, we’re not ideological. We’re not defined by grand theories handed down from on high. We’ll never have a Clause IV to abolish. We grow from shared values and experience. We speak to people about their aspirations and their futures. We are not little Englanders nor are we blind nationalists. But we do share a deep love of country. We want it to do better. We care about its traditions and its future. We are a commonsense party, pragmatic when necessary and we find answers in practical action.

    Always remember, we are different from other Parties. We see people first and foremost as individuals not as part of a group. To us, they’re people, not a block vote. We don’t set one part of society against another with the politics of envy. We don’t trade politically on social divisions. We don’t pigeonhole and categorise on the basis of class, colour, gender or creed. Our Party is open to everyone. And it always must be.

    When times have been difficult, as they have, we are wise to remember our virtues and our strengths because they are what set our Party apart.

    Economy

    Let me now turn to the fact that should be central to public debate at present – but isn’t. The fact that we are now well into the broadest based, most secure economic recovery we have seen for generations.

    I know that for many people, this recovery isn’t apparent. It would be much more evident if it were led by house price rises and consumer spending. But we know where that leads. We are better with what we have: a long-term recovery led by investment and exports.

    All around the world people can see how well the British economy is doing. Only here in Britain is that not recognised. That matters. It matters politically. It matters economically too. Because confidence is a key ingredient in taking advantage of our recovery.

    You can help us and yourselves by taking this message out onto the doorsteps. When people ask about the feel good factor invite them to look at the lengthening job columns in your local paper, point to the falling dole queues, to the local businesses that have won new export orders.

    To the fact that employment in manufacturing is growing for the first time in generations. To the fact that we are beating the performance of the best economies in Europe. These things matter to local government because your spending and your services depend upon the growth of the British economy.

    And herein lies one of the ironies of government. We need growth to pay for services. But to make sure we have that growth we must hold down spending to what we can afford.

    That is why this year’s spending round was tough. The local government settlement is tight. It had to be. This means choosing the right priorities. Let me illustrate the point.

    Is it really more important to expand top management in town halls or to put money into services? You know the answer. But an extra £500 million has gone into top management over recent years.

    Is it really defensible that in some authorities, employees take twice as much sick leave as in others? Of course not. But it happens.

    Is it really the right priority that for every three teachers in the classroom, there are two others in the education service who are not teaching?

    And why in times of stringency, is it always the front line teachers that we are told will be cut back?

    The responsible local government position is to say: yes, it’s a tough settlement so we’ll pick our priorities and our teachers are among the first of them. That’s the way local government acts best in the interests of local communities.

    Of course setting the right priorities is difficult. But that plays to our strengths. Many Conservative councillors bring to local government invaluable experience in business. You know what it’s like in the market place. You know how intense are the competitive pressures out there. Local government cannot be divorced from the real world.

    Regional Assemblies

    Nor should it be too divorced from its electorate. The virtue of most local government is its closeness to the electorate. But that link with people would be gravely weakened if local government were to lose many of its services to the new regional assemblies that the Labour Party would like to inflict on us.

    Frankly, the last thing our communities need now is Labour’s plans to put you under the control of regional government. Another whole tier of government would make Britain the most over-governed country in Europe.

    And why are they doing it?

    Because they’ve promised a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales and they don’t want an English backlash.

    And why have they offered these?

    Because they’re running scared of the Nationalists. And why are they running scared of the Nationalists? Because they need to win a large majority of seats in Scotland and Wales to win a General Election at Westminster.

    So there you have it.

    Because of their partisan political interests at Westminster Labour are prepared to inflict a whole new higher tier of Regional Government, at unknown cost, with a huge increase in bureaucracy and weaken the powers of genuine local government.

    And “once regional government is up and running the demand for more services will be unstoppable.”

    Don’t take my word for it – that’s a straight quote from Labour’s policy document.

    And at whose expense will that be? It will be at your expense. Let me tell you why. According to dear old Frank Dobson, Labour’s policy would ‘probably’ – note that – suggest that a few responsibilities for delivering services should be transferred from local government to regional assemblies. So, these new Assembly’s won’t just take devolved powers from Westminster – they will inevitably suck up powers from the present system of local government. A new principle – devolution upwards.

    Which few responsibilities are they going to take? Well, we don’t really know. Planning? Transport? Education? These are all functions local government now has. Is Frank Dobson suggesting that Labour is likely – wholly or partly – to suck them up into regional assemblies? He seems to be. And, of course, the appetite of these assemblies will grow with the feeding.

    I wonder how many Labour candidates for the local elections realise that Labour wish to disembowel the Councils they’re standing for.

    And these regional authorities will also have an appetite for spending. They’ll spend. You’ll precept. So they’ll get the money and you’ll get the pleasure of sending out the Bills.

    Or will you? Because who do you think said this:

    “You could not conceivably establish elected regional assemblies as well as having a tier of shire counties and districts underneath that”.

    Jack Straw said that. Does that mean that they’ll suck up all your powers? We don’t know. That’s the latest revisionism. So presumably it’s official Labour policy. Probably. But what does it mean? Are you to be abolished? Heaven alone knows.

    Now, you’ll have noticed that what poor old Frank Dobson has been saying is quite different from what Jack Straw said.

    But if they can’t agree on what these assemblies will do, surely they can say where they’ll be established. Well you’d be disappointed. They have – and I quote – ‘no fixed views’.

    It’s not as if they can plead ignorance of local government. Frank Dobson has plenty of experience. He was Leader of Camden Council, among the most inefficient and expensive in the land. The Council, not Frank. Well, maybe Frank too. In any event, I think he was the Leader. He would say he was ‘probably’ the Leader.

    So there we have it. I have never known such a total shambles as Labour’s plans for Regional Parliaments and Assemblies. They are a complete mess. Farcical, amateurish, ill-thought out and contradictory. The plain fact is instead of rambling around the country addressing carefully selected audiences on Clause IV, a dinosaur that has been dead for years, the Labour leader should be explaining this nonsense to Local Councils. 16 years in opposition and they’re still making policy on the hoof. They have lots and lots of options. No one can say their local government policy is in a straitjacket. But perhaps the person who wrote it should be.

    Call me old fashioned, but when I was a councillor in Lambeth the people who emptied the bins were called dustmen. And it was an honourable calling. Then the politically correct decided dustmen had to be called refuse collection operatives. Now I understand Labour authorities call them environmental hygienists. Well, I suggest we give our environmental hygienists a copy of Labour’s plans and tell them to pass it to honest, down to earth dustmen and they’ll know exactly what to do with it.

    What nonsense their plans are. We don’t need yet another tier of councils, more politicians, more bureaucrats, more directives, more frustration and more costs. They want councils that:

    – deliver low council taxes;

    – put the frontline first;

    – play a role in making our streets safe;

    – back local business.

    There’s a clear choice here, First, lower council taxes. If you want to pay over £75 more, vote for your Liberal candidate. If you want to pay about £150 more, vote for your Labour candidate. But if you want to spend more of your money on your groceries, your clothes, your holiday, your family, then vote Conservative.

    But, paying less doesn’t mean getting less – if you give priority to frontline services. Conservative councils work for higher standards in the classroom. Labour Sheffield doubles its leisure budget and cuts its funds for education.

    And Wigan spends £1/4 million of its education budget on vintage traction engines, including the splendidly named Lively Lady. Frankly, I’d sooner money went on lively pupils.

    Conservative councils give priority to better homes. Labour Sheffield admits it takes twice the national average time to prepare properties for new tenants.

    Conservative councils give priority to fire services. Labour Dudley apparently thought it more important to send its councillors to Delhi to see how the Indian Fire Brigade works.

    And good Councils, too, are involved in the fight against crime. They have a pivotal responsibility in making our streets safe. The best way to fight crime is to make sure it doesn’t happen in the first place. It is not just a matter of leaving everything to the police. Better street lighting, more closed circuit cameras in streets and shopping malls – the electronic bobby on the beat. Intelligent use of the planning laws. And it also means backing the active citizen. In many ways local authorities can play a role which makes streets safe for the law abiding and dangerous for the criminal. You, as leaders of our communities, need to give the message loud and clear. We are all on the same side in the fight against crime.

    We must always be the party that backs local business. You know that it is the factories that create the local jobs, it is the shopkeepers who create the bustle, vitality and character of our town centres. But how often, as councillors, do you hear of over-zealous officials imposing petty restraints which make life difficult for business and drive shops from the centres of our towns? It is you, as Conservative councillors, who can exercise the restraining arm. With your help, you can help local business prosper and create jobs.

    Peroration

    Conservative councils stand for commonsense, not politically-correct nonsense. Stories about the antics of Labour councils pandering to political correctness well might be funny. But, it’s not so funny if it’s your money going down the Swanee.

    I have a great trust in the commonsense of the British people. I don’t believe they’ll be taken in by clever-dick sound bites. They want a rational explanation of the great issues. They want to know what is at stake. We’ve got to get out and tell them. Now more than ever we must go on the attack and end the easy ride that Labour and the Liberals have had.

    A General once said: ‘Wars are not won by evacuations’.

    They are won by winning the battle of ideas.

    By offering the best services at the lowest cost

    By taking our case, undiluted, out to the doorsteps.

    It’s an old fashioned concept. It’s hard work. But it’s the right thing to do and I believe it will bring you the success you deserve.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lobby Organisations

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if Ministers in his Department have on any occasion in the last seven days met representatives of (a) Messrs C. S. M. Parliamentary Consultants Ltd., (b) Dewe Rogerson Ltd., (c) Decision Makers Ltd., (d) G. J. W. Government Relations Ltd., (e) G.P.C., (f) G.J.W., (g) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (h) Market Access group, (i) Politics International, (j) Westminster Communications Group, (k) Westminster Strategy, (l) Good Relations, (m) Rowlands Sallingbury Casy, (n) Lowe Bell, (o) People Corporate and Political Relations and (p) Shandwick Consultants Ltd., and discussed issues relating to clients of these companies.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

    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.

     

    Northern Ireland

    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made for the framework document on Northern Ireland to be available to the public in Great Britain.

    The Prime Minister: Copies are issued by first class post in response to requests to the Northern Ireland Office freephone or freepost facilities. A full summary of the document is running on the teletext system nationally and the full text of the document is on the Internet system worldwide.

    Career Breaks

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister, how many (a) men and (b) women applied for career breaks in his Department; and how many have had their employment terminated in the last five years.

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

  • PMQT – 2 March 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

    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. Maclennan: As the Prime Minister failed last night to persuade his campaign manager–the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of Maastricht–on Europe, how can he hope to persuade anyone else? Will the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) be joining those without a Whip, or will they join him within the ranks of the anti- Europeans in the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister: What has piqued the hon. Gentleman is that I managed to persuade a sufficient number of people into my Lobby to win the vote.

    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Lloyds bank survey of the north of England which shows that one third of all businesses in the region expect to take on additional staff in the next three months? Is he also aware that there has been a 13 per cent. drop in unemployment in the neighbouring constituency of Sedgefield? Why do we never hear any of that from the Member who represents that constituency?

    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to hear about the drop in unemployment in Sedgefield, although I thought that it had fallen by 16 per cent. I am delighted to see unemployment dropping throughout the United Kingdom, and we intend to pursue policies which ensure that it will continue to drop.

    Mr. Blair: In the light of yet another report today on an excessive pay package in a privatised monopoly and of his own threat on Tuesday to legislate, will the right hon. Gentleman back an amendment to the Gas Bill a week on Monday that would give the regulator the power to cut prices where pay deals are excessive? Would that not send the clearest possible signal to the utilities that the game is up?

    The Prime Minister: I set out the position clearly to the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday, and he should know that the role of the regulator is to protect the interests of the consumer. I do not propose to extend that role. The regulators are introducing competition and bearing down on prices. As to the underlying premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I set out that we shall wait and see the report from Sir Richard Greenbury and his colleagues. We shall then take action upon that, including legislative back-up if that is required.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister not know that the Greenbury committee has said that it will not propose any legislation and its report will not be out for months? Furthermore, its main recommendations will not affect the abuses in the privatised monopolies. The anger is now, the abuses are now: why will he not act now to put an end to the abuses?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s assertions are, frankly, wrong. I made clear the other day the subjects that I believe need addressing–the need for complete and open disclosure over remuneration and the need to ensure that bonuses and share options are firmly based on company performance. Those subjects need consideration. When we have recommendations that cover those, we shall consider them, and I have made it clear that, if necessary, we shall provide legislative back-up. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that it is both necessary and desirable to wait until we have that report and that information so that we can consider what action is necessary.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the debate on Europe and the single currency yesterday? In columns 1053 and 1056 of Hansard , the leader of a political party dealt with interventions by one of my right hon. Friends, first, by saying that he would give way, but not doing so, and, secondly, by accusing him of inconsistency? Is there not a lesson in that on how to get people to vote on our side by treating them with less courtesy than the Labour party? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: We had an excitable day yesterday and perhaps we can have a little more calm today, Madam Speaker. The debate yesterday was very revealing in a number of respects. It was revealing because of what the leader of the Liberal party had to say, and it was also very revealing because a number of Labour Members flatly contradicted assertions in the speech by the leader of the Labour party. He was open enough to admit that his party was split and his party was generous enough to show precisely that in the speeches that Labour Members subsequently made.

     

    Secretary of State for Wales

    Q2. Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will remove the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) from his post of Secretary of State for Wales.

    The Prime Minister: No.

    Mr. Wigley: Surprise, surprise. Is the Prime Minister aware that, when the post of Secretary of State for Wales was first created, the idea was to have one member of the Cabinet from Wales, to speak up from personal experience of the needs and the aspirations of the people of Wales? The present incumbent is clearly incapable of doing that. Given the opinion poll this week, which has shown yet again that there is a 2:1 majority in favour of the powers of the Welsh Office being answerable to a Parliament in Wales rather than to a Governor General, will the Prime Minister stop having such an intransigent attitude to the question and allow the people of Wales to have at least some semblance of national democracy?

    The Prime Minister: I do not regard my position as the hon. Gentleman described it and would describe it quite differently. He is aware of my views of the possible difficulties with a Welsh Assembly. I do not believe that it is in the interests of Wales. To be frank, generally if the answer to the question is more politicians, then it is the wrong question. As to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, during his period in office, Wales has benefited from a steady stream of inward investment from the United States and the Pacific rim, and there has been a considerable improvement in the quality of life and the standard of living throughout Wales. Those are the policies that are necessary for the future. An extra tier of government, which would suck a great deal of authority from local councils in Wales, is not the way forward.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q3. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Blaby.

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

    Mr. Robathan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent visit to Enderby in my constituency by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), at which he discussed devolution with the Blaby constituency Labour party– all 25 of them? When my right hon. Friend visits Blaby, which I hope that he will do very soon, will he also discuss devolution, for he will discover that the overwhelming majority of my constituents, many of whom were born in Scotland or Wales, value the integrity of the United Kingdom, oppose devolution and have no interest in a ridiculous regional assembly based in Birmingham or elsewhere?

    The Prime Minister: Where there is a proper system of local government, I believe that devolution to an extra tier of government is an unwise way to proceed. There is one form of devolution that I strongly favour, which is devolution straight down to individuals: to let families make their own choice; and to let people have more control over schools, hospitals and local decisions. That is the form of devolution that we favour, not devolution to an extra tier of bureaucrats and politicians.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Etherington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Etherington: Will the Prime Minister attend the House tomorrow to vote in favour of the admirable Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)? More importantly, will he give an undertaking to the House that he will endeavour to ensure that parliamentary time is made available so that the will of the vast majority of people, who want the barbarism of blood sports abolished, can be brought to fruition?

    The Prime Minister: That has traditionally been the responsibility of individual Members and their consciences. I shall not be here to support the hon. Gentleman.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lancashire county council put £7 million of council tax money into a special contingency reserve to pay a 2.2 per cent. rise in teachers’ salaries? Unfortunately, it has not handed over that money to the schools to pay those salaries. Does he sympathise with those in the schools, who feel very angry about that and therefore want to go grant-maintained?

    The Prime Minister: A large number of schools have gone grant- maintained because they believe that they can better look after their own interests than if they are retained in the control of the local education authority. I hope and believe that many more will do so in the future, not least for the reasons that my hon. Friend set out. I do not think that anyone can be unaware of the campaign that is being waged at the moment by some education authorities. I noticed the press release produced by the Opposition this morning. If they had looked at the facts of what is to happen to the standard spending assessments of the education authorities that they quote, they might have produced a more straightforward and honest press release.

     

    Q5. Mr. Timms: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Timms: The Prime Minister will recall that, in 1991, the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that the channel tunnel rail link would be routed through east London to promote urban regeneration specifically within east London. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government remain committed to that objective for the rail link?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm the importance of the rail link and I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to let the hon. Gentleman have as much information as is currently available.

     

    Q6. Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Evennett: Now that the distraction of yesterday’s debate is behind us, does my right hon. Friend agree that he should turn his attention to the economic development that has been so successful in recent years, with falling unemployment, low inflation and record exports? Does he agree that the Government’s policies are dealing with the real issues that affect the lives of our citizens and that the Opposition have no policies whatever on the economy?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to commend the economic recovery, which is very strong and widespread, and shows signs of being the best economic recovery that we have seen in this country for very many years. I intend to continue to give my full attention to that economic recovery. I wish to ensure that we continue to have growth and falling unemployment, and that we continue to see the levels of investment and growth, particularly in the manufacturing industry, that we have seen of late. Only a continuation of those policies will, over a long period, improve the living standards of the British nation, which is what I wish.

     

    Q7. Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Fatchett: May I refer back to the issue of top people’s pay increases, which was discussed earlier? The Prime Minister has argued that he will leave all of that to the Greenbury committee and its report. Is it right that a Government should delegate that responsibility to an employers’ organisation that has a vested interest in top people’s pay? Is it not about time that the Prime Minister, who claims that he feels strongly about that issue, gave a lead to the country and introduced his own proposals–or shall we simply be left with government that is all delegation and no leadership?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are thirsting to go down the route of pay policies that the Labour party has gone down for generations. The concern that people feel about that issue is the concern that I spelt out with great clarity to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on Tuesday. We are examining that, we are waiting for recommendations on that, and, when necessary, when the facts are available, we shall decide what action needs to be taken, if necessary, including legislation. However, I have no intention of operating in the envious spirit that activates the hon. Gentleman.