The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1995

  • PMQT – 7 November 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th November 1995. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Unemployment (European Union)

    Q1. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the implications of the level of unemployment in the EU.

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

    I can confirm that employment and unemployment in the European Union will be on the agenda for the next European Council in Madrid in December.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend insist that the Council gives urgent attention to the forgotten army of 18.5 million unemployed in the European Union, a total which has soared by 5 million in the past three years? In particular, could he tell our friends in France, who are at present creating extra unemployment on top of a 12 per cent. total by setting artificial exchange rates, that they could learn a great deal from Britain, which escaped from the exchange rate mechanism and the social chapter and has found that unemployment has been falling ever since?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a most valuable contribution, particularly when he points out that this Government will not accept the social chapter, and neither will we impose the overheads of a minimum wage on the competitive manufacturing base that we have here today. The whole House can welcome the fact that unemployment in this country is down by 713,400 since December 1992.

    Mr. Hutton: On the subject of unemployment within the European Union, does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise it as a fact that, since 1979, the United Kingdom has had the third highest unemployment rate within the European Union? When will he drop the damaging dogma of his party and start to work with our European partners to tackle the scandal and the waste of almost 20 million people unemployed in Europe?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is very convenient for the hon. Gentleman to choose 1979, when we had to start the process of undoing the stranglehold that the trade unions had on the British economy, of privatising the industries that are now leading the British recovery across the world and of creating in this country the enterprise centre of Europe, all in the teeth of Labour party opposition.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is travelling to New Zealand to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most significant vote last night was that passed by 587 votes to two, which bans paid advocacy, which was the recommendation of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life and went further than the Nolan committee, and contrasts sharply with the sheer stench of trade union-sponsored humbug on the Opposition Benches?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in pointing out the justification for the determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to set up the Nolan committee so that the House would have an opportunity to deal with the matter of restoring public confidence in the House. It was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who ensured that such matters were thoroughly and comprehensively considered. The work was carried out by an independent committee. As a result, the House was able to pass by an overwhelming majority the far-reaching change to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and the Prime Minister were completely out of step with public opinion in wanting to keep the outside earnings of Members of Parliament secret? Does he share my sense of outrage that some Conservative Members are already making it clear that they will not observe the decision of the House? Will he make it clear that that would be totally unacceptable to him and the Prime Minister?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman raises a most important question for the House. I can say unreservedly on behalf of the Prime Minister and myself, since he asked me specifically, that both of us believe that it is right for all right hon. and hon. Members to enter into the spirit of the letter of the decisions taken yesterday evening. That was the will of the House. As to what the House should determine to do in the event of any right hon. and hon. Member not making such a decision, that is properly a matter for the House of Commons.

    Mr. Prescott: In view of his reply, will the right hon. Gentleman now ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his rejection of Labour’s proposal to refer the funding of political parties to the Nolan committee? Is it not time that the Prime Minister came clean on where his party gets his money, or has the Tory party got something else to hide?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Of course, we all know that the Opposition want to pass the cost of party politics on to the taxpayer. They want one-track Members of Parliament with no outside interests and who are totally beholden to the party Whips, with all the draconian centralisation of power that that would represent. That would be a wholly alien development in the constitutional history of this country.

    Mr. Prescott: Why cannot the public know where the Tory party gets its money? Who has paid for a knighthood? Who has bought a peerage? And which foreign business men have bankrolled the party, fleeing the country? I ask him again, what has his party got to hide?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is up to the sort of sleazy politics characteristic of the Labour party. The fact of the matter is that his party has sold out hook, line and sinker to the trade unions–it always has. He is the first person to complain that he has to ring up trade union leaders to ask their permission before he takes a simple decision on behalf of the Labour party.

    Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however hon. Members may have voted in the Divisions last night, those who seek to gain party advantage from the issue simply demean the institution that they claim to honour?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, but he characterises the Labour party in too generous terms. It is undermining the credibility of this House by constantly criticising the performance of a tiny number of right hon. and hon. Members. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who come into this House are motivated by the highest standards of public service.

    Mr. Beith: Now that the House has made an important decision, with the votes of hon. Members in all parties, on the conduct of Members of Parliament, would the Deputy Prime Minister move the agenda on to the other things that would make Parliament more relevant to the lives of people, such as electoral reform–because that would make far more difference to the lives of people than even the decisions we made last night–or will he do as the Prime Minister did last night and attach his cause to the side which in the end will lose?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Member may see that as moving the agenda on; I would regard it as moving it back into a wholly unacceptable dark age.

     

    Social Chapter

    Q3. Sir Ralph Howell: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to rewrite the social chapter of the EU.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rejected a new social chapter at Maastricht because it would have reduced competitiveness and destroyed jobs. The Government will not accept it, or anything like it, at next year’s intergovernmental conference.

    Sir Ralph Howell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the fact that the social chapter has few friends in the House except on the Labour Front Bench, would it not be constructive for the Government to produce a more acceptable alternative social chapter? Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister urge the Government to make the Right to Work Bill the cornerstone of that new social chapter to eliminate involuntary unemployment and save £5 billion per annum in this country alone?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend brings a particular expertise to this subject and there is a great deal to which we should listen in what he has to say. I know that he will welcome the introduction of the earnings top-up scheme, which is designed to help people move into and stay in work without the burden of a minimum wage, and he also will look forward to the introduction next year of the jobseeker’s allowance.

    Mr. Keith Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the absence of the social chapter, Britain has the longest working hours, the fewest holidays, the poorest pensions, the lowest wages and the highest levels of job insecurity of all the leading nations of Europe? Which of those facts does the right hon. Gentleman deny, and do they not explain why the British people are longing for a Labour Government with our promise to bring in the social chapter?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman does not recognise is that Britain has one of the fastest falling levels of unemployment and one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. What he threatens by his proposals is that the flood of inward investment coming here, not only from north America and Asia but from Europe itself, would come to a halt if Labour threw away the competitive advantages that our economy possesses.

     

    Engagements

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

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Alexander: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that tomorrow the new Gas Act is likely to receive Royal Assent? I remind him that, by opening the market to competition, new entrants are likely to come in and that standing charges in that industry are likely to be a thing of the past in a couple of year’s time. As standing charges are widely resented by the elderly and those on fixed incomes, will he urge British Gas and the other utilities to start abolishing those charges now, before competition and a change in the law oblige them to do so?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the privatisation programme, and that includes British Gas, has, of course, been a triumph for British consumers. The fact is that competition has cut prices for gas consumers; standing charges are down by 29 per cent. since privatisation; gas prices are down by over 20 per cent. since privatisation; and the legislation to which my hon. Friend referred has already led to the possibility of experiments in the south-west. I read in this week’s newspapers that perhaps another 10 to 15 per cent. will come off the prices to the domestic consumer as a result of that enhanced competition. What that all stands for is that the Conservative Government, by privatising these industries, have not only created world-class companies but served the consumer in a way that nationalisation could never have begun to do.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Roche: Given that, in the United States of America, it is illegal for foreign nationals to make donations to political parties, why do the Government not introduce the same legislation here? Are the Deputy Prime Minister and the whole of the Conservative Government frightened to let the British people see how the modern Conservative party is funded?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I know of no restriction in this country that says that foreign nationals who are members of trade unions cannot give money to trade unions, which is then directed to the Labour party.

    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if investment is to thrive, costs must be kept down and business taxes kept low? Does he therefore agree that it would be a disaster for investment, and therefore for our prospects for growth and employment in the future, if the Labour party were able to implement its plans to allow local authorities to fix their own business rates?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Labour party in power has always put up costs, prices and taxes. Whether it is a national Labour Government or local Labour government, the same process is at work. In either case, it would be a disaster for Britain’s investment potential.

     

    Q6. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jones: Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister when he returns what is the precise role of the Deputy Prime Minister? It seems to be costing £40,000 a month for the Deputy Prime Minister to answer even fewer questions than his right hon. Friend.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Just the other day, people were complaining because I had brought £1 billion of Siemens investment to the north-east. I think that I am cheap at the price.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 November 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Remploy Consortium

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from the trade union side secretary of the Remploy Consortium; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have received one such representation, which will be responded to in due course by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Education and Employment.

     

    Deregulation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister (1) pursuant to his oral answer of 2 May, Official Report, columns 167-68, what progress is being made towards repealing those regulations identified as unnecessary burdens to business;

    (2) if a compliance cost assessment has been completed on each regulation to be repealed; and what is the estimated saving to (a) small businesses and (b) the public funds from the repeal of each regulation.

    The Prime Minister: We have identified over 1,000 regulations for repeal or amendment and are on target to have dealt with over half of those by the end of the year. The requirement to carry out a compliance cost assessment applies to regulations imposing additional burdens on business while the programme of repeals and amendments is concerned with reducing the burden. However, to take an example, simplification of the food temperature control regulations will help small businesses and generate savings of about £40 million a year for the industry as a whole without removing any necessary public health protection.

     

    Overseas Aid Budget

    Ms Lestor: To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many letters about the size of the overseas aid budget he has received from hon. Members since 1 September; and what was the comparable figure for the same period in the previous year;

    (2) how many letters about the size of the overseas aid budget he has received from non-governmental organisations since 1 September; and what was the comparable figure for the same period in the previous year;

    (3) how many letters about the size of the overseas aid budget he has received from members of the public since 1 September; and what was the comparable figure for the same period in the previous year.

    The Prime Minister: I have received a substantial number of representations on this matter over the past 12 months.

     

    President Chirac

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library (a) a copy of the memorandum on defence and security co-operation agreed with President Chirac of France on 30 October and (b) the text of the press conference he jointly hosted with President Chirac on 30 October.

    The Prime Minister: I have already done so.

     

    Quebec (Ex-premier’s Remarks)

    Mr. Mates: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it clear to the ex-premier of Quebec Her Majesty’s displeasure at his remarks about ethnic minority groups and the recent referendum.

    The Prime Minister: The outcome of the referendum is a matter for Canadians in Canada. The Canadian Prime Minister has called for reconciliation. We wish the Canadian people well in the task of working together to this end.

     

    Official Inquiries

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the official inquiries he and his department have undertaken over the last five years indicating the dates they were initiated and the date when the findings were released to the public.

    The Prime Minister: I have set up no further inquiries since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster answered a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on 25 May, Official Report, columns 717-20.

     

    Marriage

    Mr. Patten: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what steps Her Majesty’s Government have taken to help married families since April 1992;

    (2) what steps Her Majesty’s Government have taken to strengthen the institution of marriage since April 1992.

    The Prime Minister: The Government are fully committed to supporting the institution of marriage. Marriage is the bedrock of family life. Stable families are good for our children. They are a source of love and discipline, and of support for weaker members. However, we recognise that marriage is also a personal matter. We have taken several steps to support marriage, while at the same time respecting the privacy of personal relationships and choice.

    This Government believe that married couples should receive recognition in the tax system. Married couples therefore receive tax treatment on both income and capital. They pay nearly £260 per year less in tax than most single people on the same income, at a total cost of £2.7 billion in 1995, and are treated more favourably for capital gains and inheritance tax. Inheritance tax reliefs for married couples are alone worth around £950 million in 1995-96. We also believe that people should have access to help to overcome problems in their marriages. The Government have therefore given £8.5 million to marriage guidance and research organisations since April 1992.

    To take this further, an interdepartmental group on marriage was set up in April this year to identify how Government can develop additional services to help couples who are considering marriage or whose marriages are in difficulty.

    Housing is a crucial issue for married families. Our White Paper “Our Future Homes” sets out the aim of ensuring that a decent home is in reach of every family. We want to make sure that the allocation of social housing includes the need to support married couples who take a responsible approach to family life as an important objective. We want to take away as many barriers to marriage as possible. For this reason, the Government supported a private Member’s Bill in 1994 which widened the choice of venues for couples wishing to marry by civil ceremony.

    Government Ministers meet representatives from the Churches and other organisations supporting marriage on an on going basis to discuss the scope for further initiatives.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Jerusalem – 6 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Jerusalem on 6th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Could you just tell us whether you think the Middle East is now a less stable place, after the assassination?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Over the last few years, both Palestinians and the Israelis have made tremendous strides towards a Middle East settlement. Very few people anticipated that it would have got this far, and a great deal of the credit for that is of course to Prime Minister Rabin. I believe that his legacy will help carry that forward. I think that must be the hope. I don’t have a shred of doubt from my separate discussions with the Israelis and with the Palestinians that there is a will to take this matter forward. I very much hope that that will can be built on.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there are any lessons here for the Northern Ireland peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think there are some communal lessons for all processes of this sort. They are very difficult. They are very time-consuming. They need a lot of patience. Sometimes there are setbacks. It’s necessary to keep going. And from time to time it’s necessary to take risks. That has been true of the peace process here. It’s true of the Northern Ireland process as well.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview at Chequers – 5 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview at Chequers on Sunday 5th November 1995 following the assassination of Yitkhaz Rabin.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what is your reaction to the assassination?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am deeply saddened by what has happened. Yitzhak Rabin has been seeking for peace in the Middle East for very many years. I think no-one has done so much towards seeking it as he has. What has happened is a great tragedy, not just for his family, not just for Israel, but for the Middle East peace process.

    QUESTION:

    How concerned are you about the future of the peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Everyone wants the peace process to continue and be successful. There is a great world interest in the peace process, not just here in the United Kingdom but right across the world. I think that what Mr Rabin would have wanted would be for this to have given some momentum to the peace process in the future and I very much hope that will happen.

    QUESTION:

    What will you be saying to the Acting Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will be expressing the thoughts of millions of people in the United Kingdom about what has happened. He was a very popular man here, a frequent visitor here, a very good relationship with the United Kingdom. There will be huge numbers of people in this country who will feel very personally about what will happen. I will certainly express that to the Acting Prime Minister. And then I will express the wish that he will carry on the work. He has been intimately involved with it. I am sure he will, and I hope that Mr Peres will carry it forward to success.

    QUESTION:

    How did you find Mr Rabin personally?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I found him a very engaging man. I had met him quite frequently over recent years. We had a great deal to discuss. I was the first British Prime Minister for many years to visit Israel just a few months ago. We spent a lot of time together. He visited here on many occasions.

    When he was here I think last time, or last time but one, it was the day of one of the dreadful bus bombs in Israel and we provided a plane immediately for him to go home. We spoke from time to time on the phone. I found him a man utterly determined to proceed down the peace process, despite the short-term difficulties, despite the obvious discomforts of going down that road politically, because he believed there was a great historical opportunity for peace and he was determined to try and take it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 November 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Opposition Parties (Civil Service)

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister what are the conventions whereby civil service Departments take steps to consult the Opposition about their policies towards the end of a Parliament; and when such steps are planned to be taken before the end of the current Parliament.

    The Prime Minister: The convention has been that, by authority of the Prime Minister, towards the end of a Parliament or when a general election has been called, Opposition parties may arrange, with the authority of their party leaders and through the head of the civil service, contacts with senior civil servants. These arrangements are designed to allow briefing on factual questions on departmental organisational changes which Opposition parties have in mind or which may result from Opposition party policies. Any exchanges would be confidential. Following the last general election, I told the leader of the Opposition that I would be content to authorise confidential exchanges between senior civil servants and Opposition spokesmen from January 1996.

     

    Copex Arms Exhibition

    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister what (a) financial and (b) other assistance is given by Her Majesty’s Government to the Copex arms exhibition.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board Trade.

     

    Duke of Windsor (Papers)

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 October, Official Report, column 747, how many other documents relating to the conduct of the Duke of Windsor during world war two are held by Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 November 1995]: British official papers in question have been released to the Public Record Office with the exception of a few items, which will be re-reviewed under the open government initiative and released at the appropriate time.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations Her Majesty’s Government have received from the Arab League in relation to Libyan sanctions and Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 November 1995]: None.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep on Commonwealth Games Success – 3 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Huntingdon, on 3rd November 1995, following the success of Manchester’s bid to hold the Commonwealth Games.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am absolutely delighted that Manchester have won and they certainly won on merit. They have been trying for a long time to get a major sporting event in Manchester and they thoroughly deserve this win.

    Economically, this means long-term advantages for Manchester. All the publicity the city will get is bound to result in long-term gain.

    QUESTION:

    Will this result in Manchester getting the Olympics?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope so. They tried very hard to get the Olympic Games and I tried to give them whatever support I could. Unfortunately, they were not successful despite having a well-constructed and very innovative bid.

    I would very much like to see the Olympic Games take place in the UK, perhaps in Manchester.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 November 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

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

     

    Annual Remuneration

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate the number of individuals in his (a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non- departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration, including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000 in (1) 1985 86, (2) 1990 91, (3) 1992 93, (4) 1994 95 and (5) 1995 96.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 1 November, column 324.

     

    Salaries

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what was the (a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in his (i) Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies in (1) 1994 95 and (2) 1995 96.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 1 November, columns 324-25.

  • PMQT – 2 November 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

    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.

    Ms Eagle: If the disclosure of the amounts that are earned in parliamentary consultancies is such an unimportant detail, can the Prime Minister say why up to 100 Conservative Members are threatening to resign if the House forces them to share that information with their constituents? Is that why he will vote for secrecy? What do Conservative Members have to hide?

    The Prime Minister: With great respect to the hon. Lady, I say to her that she should not believe all the nonsense that she reads in some newspapers about the proposed actions of my hon. Friends or, indeed, about anything else. The Nolan report is extremely important. I set up the committee because I believed that there was a problem that needed to be looked at dispassionately. It has produced its report and the Select Committee has examined it. In a number of ways, the Select Committee has gone beyond the Nolan report. It has done so with my support, and I look forward to Parliament approving its recommendations.

    Mr. Lord: Thanks to the national lottery and the millennium fund, there is now a great deal of money available for good works. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could set ourselves two very worthwhile targets to achieve by the year 2000? They are, first, by that time every inner city ought to be a decent place for people to live in and secondly, every secondary school ought to have access to a good, proper cricket square.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend plays to my instincts, as I think he knows, in this case. There is no doubt that the national lottery has exceeded the success that even we had forecast for it. It has already raised in excess of £1 billion for good causes and a very large number of organisations are now able to put in place facilities that millions of ordinary people will enjoy and would not have been able to enjoy but for the lottery. The point about the lottery is that, because of it, some areas of importance to our national life that are never likely to receive total priority in any public expenditure round will now have a guaranteed stream of future income for many years ahead, and millions of people will benefit from that.

    Mr. Blair: Having set up Nolan and having agreed to implement it, what possible justification will the Prime Minister give when he comes to the House on Monday, along with the Cabinet and Government, and votes down its key recommendation–the simple honest requirement that Members of Parliament who have outside financial interests that are connected with their being Members of Parliament should disclose the amounts that they earn from them? Just what do he and his party have to hide?

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear, when I established Nolan, that I thought that there was a matter that needed independent investigation. Lord Nolan did that. He said, when he replied, that he thought that there were matters that needed some further clarification. The Select Committee has done that. I have made it clear throughout that I support the broad thrust of what the Nolan committee recommended and I have said so on more than one occasion. I still hold to that.

    Nolan made 55 recommendations, 45 to the Government, almost all of which are already being implemented, and I thoroughly agree with that, and 10 recommendations addressed to the House. The Select Committee has accepted nine of those, and has gone further than the Nolan committee in respect of the 10th, and I agree with that.

    What is most important in the midst of this is the Select Committee’s proposal to ban paid advocacy. That is entirely right, I support it, but if we do that, the income that hon. Members earn from other activities explicitly approved by Parliament seems to me to be a matter between them and the Inland Revenue tax inspectors.

    Mr. Blair: This has nothing to do with some detailed consideration of Nolan. It is to do with the squalid monetary interest of the Conservative party. That was Nolan’s key recommendation. If now, in weakness, the Prime Minister goes back on his word to implement the report that he commissioned, it will leave a stain on his prime ministership and on his Government that will not be removed until this rotten Administration is swept from office.

    The Prime Minister: I think that, one day, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there are serious matters about Nolan that deserve serious consideration, not the sort of short-term party political wrangling that we have just heard from him. On the substantive point, this is a serious matter for Parliament, with long-term implications, and it is a shame that he cannot understand that. I do not favour a wholly professional House staffed entirely by hon. Members who are professional politicians and nothing else. That is the route that the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party would wish to lead us down. He would then, no doubt, have his party thought police telling Labour Members what to do and issuing statements on their behalf, as he did last week. That is not the route for this House. He may find some short-term advantage in the line that he takes, but what he is proposing is bad for the future of the House of Commons.

    Mr. Blair: Madam Speaker– [Interruption.]

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

    Mr. Blair: The Nolan committee is not stopping people from having outside interests. It simply says that we should be open and honest about them. The Prime Minister is a man saying today what he knows to be wrong, and the question for him is this: when is he going to have the courage to stand up to his party and tell it what is right?

    The Prime Minister: We have gone further than Lord Nolan had on the matters that are undesirable. Rather than say simply, “Disclose income,” we have banned the things that we believe to be wrong. That is what I propose to do. The Select Committee is right in banning paid advocacy. If it is wrong, it should not be done. If it is right, it should not be impeded for party political reasons, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do.

    Lord Nolan considered whether hon. Members’ assets and income should be disclosed and that would, of course, include not only matters such as directors’ fees– [Interruption.] This is an important matter to the future of the House of Commons and it deserves to be seriously considered by the House, not just treated as Opposition Members are treating it.

    Lord Nolan considered the matter. He concluded, and I quote from the Nolan report:

    “No-one has put a convincing case to us as to why that”– that is, disclosure–

    “might be necessary.”

    Parliamentary rules already require all outside interests to be entered in the Register. That will continue. It will be published more regularly. The substantive point is clear. If it is wrong, it should not be done and the Select Committee proposes to ban the things that are wrong. If it is right, it should not be impeded, as the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do.

    Mr. King: May I correct my right hon. Friend in one respect, in that it was not Lord Nolan on his own but 10 members under his chairmanship who considered these matters and described in the report whether we should recommend a ban on paid advocacy? We said specifically at that time that we doubted whether it was practicable or whether it would be acceptable to the House. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be an immediate ban on paid advocacy goes significantly further than Lord Nolan and his committee recommended? It goes to the heart of the issue of public concern, and should therefore be strongly supported.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and I sought to make that point a moment ago. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is the case, but for his own party reasons, he and his colleagues are deliberately distorting the central aspect to be determined.

     

    Q2. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

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

    Mr. Banks: No one would accuse the Prime Minister of being a professional politician. If hon. Members have outside consultancies, what is the Prime Minister’s personal objection to them declaring how much they get? Why does he object to that transparency?

    The Prime Minister: I have told the hon. Gentleman why. I believe that it is right for the House to know what interests Members of Parliament have. It is right that they should register the nature of those activities, as is proposed, so that the House knows about them. It is right that things which are wrong should be banned. Beyond that, hon. Members are entitled to the same tax privacy as others.

    Mr. Faber: Will my right hon. Friend pass on the grateful thanks of those of my constituents who have written to me in recent days to describe the misery and torment that they and their families have suffered because of the activities of the Rev. Moon? Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday’s extraordinary court decision is yet another example of the contempt with which some members of the judiciary seem to treat the views of the House and of the general public?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was right to refuse the Rev. Moon entry into the country. I do not believe that his presence here would be conducive to the public good. If the Rev. Moon decides to make representations, of course they will be considered.

     

    Q3. Mr. William O’Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

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

    Mr. O’Brien: As recently as 23 May, the Prime Minister assured my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he favoured greater transparency in the affairs of Members of Parliament. He is now saying that he will vote for more secrecy. When will the Prime Minister, with all the dignity and authority of his office, lead the Tory party from the front rather than the rear?

    The Prime Minister: We all know the lines that the Opposition Front Bench have given to the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that we are making much tougher and much more transparent the interests of Members of Parliament and we are banning the things that are wrong. That is the key point. If it is wrong, it should not be done, and the Select Committee is right to suggest a ban. The hon. Gentleman referred to 23 May. My activities and views have not changed. I foreshadowed them clearly and at some length in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition on 22 May, to which he has not yet replied.

    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is excellent news that no one in Somerset need wait more than 12 months for non-urgent treatment? Does that not show the success of the Government’s health reforms? Will my right hon. Friend take time today to persuade the Leader of the Opposition to drop his objection to fundholding?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the partisan proposals of the Opposition to turn back the clock on the NHS reforms are to be regretted, given the clear evidence of the success of those reforms. More patients are being treated, they have greater opportunities for treatment and they are treated more speedily. The Opposition’s plans to scrap GP fundholding in the face both of the overwhelming evidence of its success and the opposition of GPs who are providing a better service because of it will be unacceptable to people up and down the country.

     

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

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: As Tory Members of Parliament fight to save their second and third jobs, many people in my constituency want their first jobs. Is it not true that if Members of Parliament act as consultants, the public have the right to know whether they earn £50 or £5,000?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to touch upon the important issue of unemployment. However, he might more usefully have mentioned that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 21 per cent. from its peak– [Interruption.] it is interesting to note that Labour Members do not like hearing about the fall in unemployment–yet two years ago the then Leader of the Opposition raised the matter week after week. It is months since Labour Members have raised it, because they do not like the fact that it is going down in this country because of our policies, yet it is going up in other countries that follow socialist policies.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 31 October 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October 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.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

    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.

     

    Office Costs

    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the expenditure on his office broken down into (a) salaries and (b) other costs for each year since 1980 81, in 1994 95 prices.

    The Prime Minister: Figures on a consistent basis are not available. In 1980 81, recorded spending on my office and Chequers on the votes of the Civil Service Department/Cabinet Office was £3.684 million in 1994 95 prices. In 1981 82, charges were introduced for the use of Ministry of Defence aircraft. Including those charges, spending was, at 1994 95 prices, £4,649 million in 1981 82 and £4.852 million in 1982 83. In 1983 84, charges were introduced by the Property Services Agency for buildings and services. Including those charges, spending was, at 1994 95 prices, £5.197 million in 1983 84. In 1984 85, charges were introduced for the use of the Government car service and for service personnel at Chequers. Including those charges, spending was, at 1994 95 prices, £6.193 million in 1984 85 and £6.830 million in 1985 86. In 1986 87, the cost of office services was included in the No. 10 budget. Including those costs, spending since then has been as follows:

    £ million

    |Total costs

    |1994-95

    |prices |Staff |Other

    ————————————————————

    1986-87 |7.469 |2.513 |4.956

    1987-88 |7.741 |2.519 |5.222

    1988-89 |8.777 |2.550 |6.227

    1989-90 |9.600 |2.703 |6.897

    1990-91 |9.533 |2.385 |7.148

    1991-92 |9.450 |2.487 |6.963

    1992-93 |10.866 |3.043 |7.298

    1993-94 |9.384 |3.327 |6.057

    1994-95<1> |7.671 |3.217 |4.454

    <1> In 1994-95 spending of £0.718 million on communications was transferred from No. 10 budget to the Cabinet Office budget.

  • PMQT – 31 October 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

    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. Winnick: Why did the Prime Minister in his meeting with the French President not condemn French nuclear tests, which have deeply offended British and international opinion? Did the Prime Minister not take such action because the British Government have connived with the French in a dirty deal whereby information arising from the nuclear tests will be passed on to this country? If that is the case, it shows the dishonesty of the Government.

    The Prime Minister: It is not the case. As I have said before, no information from the French nuclear tests will be passed to us–indeed, given the nature of our weapons, it would not be of use to us. There is no deal; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that and withdraw his allegation.

    At least the hon. Gentleman is consistent in his views. He has been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and he is, and he saluted the courage and determination of anti-nuclear demonstrators at Greenham Common. [Interruption.] I trail my coat to find out where Labour Members’ hearts are, and now we know.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mrs. Lait: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement that one of London’s most popular grant-maintained schools, the Oratory school, will be able to build a choir school, thanks to its self-governing status in the public sector? While that may be music to the ears of the parents with children at the school, how does my right hon. Friend think that the rest of the Labour Front Benchers will react?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I welcome that news.

    Grant-maintained schools have a greater freedom to develop their strengths because power is put where it should belong: with the school head, the school governors and the parents who know best what is in their children’s interests.

    Mr. Blair: Is it– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Stop this barracking–particularly from Ministers.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm as a matter of fact that what the chairman of the rail users’ watchdog as well as the Transport Select Committee have said is true: that, as a result of privatisation, an extra £700 million of taxpayers’ money will be paid to the subsidised, privatised railways?

    The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that over the years we have increased resources to the nationalised British rail industry. Contrary to what has been said by some people, the Government have supported record levels of investment. We made it clear when we decided to proceed with privatisation that we would support lines that were socially necessary–partly at the request of Her Majesty’s Opposition. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe now that we should not do that.

    Mr. Blair: Is it not right that the Select Committee attributed the extra £700 million to privatisation, not to paying for socially useful routes, and that hundreds of millions of pounds of City fees are involved? Is it not also true that investment in the railways today is half what it was two years ago and that, as a result of privatisation, 5,000 manufacturing industry jobs have been lost and the unified railway network has been broken up into 70, 80 or 90 companies?

    When will the Prime Minister, just for once, stop pandering to the right wing of the Conservative party? [Interruption.] Conservative Members may want rail privatisation: the British people do not. When will the right hon. Gentleman stop pandering to the right wing of his party and, instead, listen to and speak up for the British people, who want their railways run as a public service?

    The Prime Minister: I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman would get round to his “lurch to the right” campaign, launched so inexpertly–one might almost say he made a hash of it–by the new shadow Chief Whip.

    If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the policies we are following, of bringing choice to parents and opportunity to children, are a lurch to the right, the country will not agree. If he thinks that spending more on patients’ health is a lurch to the right, the people will not agree. If he thinks that dealing with asylum abuses, or standing up for Britain in Europe, represent a lurch to the right, he is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the centre right of politics is our ground and there is no way a squatter like him can rest on it. He may regard himself as the Trojan horse of socialism, but he will find that it is our land on which he is parking and there is no room for him on it.

    As for the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point, and pushing aside the points on which he was inaccurate, I would tell him that there have been record amounts of investment in recent years–£1.5 billion in 1992-93, which was the highest for 30 years. Investment is still running at more than £1 billion in the current year, and every privatisation that we have introduced has provided better service. I see the new shadow Chief Whip in his place. It was he who once referred to the privatisation of British Airways as the pantomime horse of capitalism. It is now the most successful privatised air service in the world.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that positive discrimination in favour of women is both unnecessary and patronising? Will he comment on the policy of the Labour party, which has imposed by diktat from Walworth road–

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the attitude of the Labour party. I am sure that he has caught the first part of the hon. Lady’s question and is perfectly capable of answering it.

    Mrs. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will never impose women-only shortlists, as has been done by diktat of Walworth road in six constituencies in the north-west of England?

    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that I believe that we should seek equality of opportunities for everyone, for women in the House of Commons and elsewhere. It is certainly our policy to do so. My hon. Friends needed no special discrimination to get here. As to the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question, I can promise her–not only in this but in other matters–that we will not follow the policies of the Opposition, because, apart from anything else, daily they seem to be following our policies.

    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister consider these three dates? On 11 July, Srebrenica fell and 8,000 young men were taken away and massacred. On 31 May, I asked the then Secretary of State for Defence, in the House, to assure me that the policy on the defence of Srebrenica had not changed, and he gave me that assurance. It is now revealed, or claimed, that on 24 May, with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the British Government, the UN decided to abandon Srebrenica to its fate. Is that correct?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, just occasionally, might do the British forces and the British Government the credit of acknowledging what they have done. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is not correct. He has been wrong throughout the whole of this episode time after time. He has denigrated what the British Government have done and what the British armed forces have done. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman this: there are hundreds of thousands of people alive today in Bosnia because of what was done by the British Government and the British armed forces.

    Mr. Elletson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a successful conference this year in my constituency? Is he aware that next year the Labour party will be in Blackpool? Will he take this opportunity to reassure parents and police in my constituency that under a Conservative Government cannabis cigarettes will never be for sale?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance and I will tell the House why very clearly. The vast majority of people–between 80 and 90 per cent.–who move on to hard drugs graduate to hard drugs having first experimented with soft drugs. Any sensible person realises the danger of doing that and realises that any responsible person in public life would discourage the use of soft drugs because of the danger of moving to hard drugs. I am sorry that some Opposition Members with some responsibility in public life should choose to take a different view.

     

    Q3. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Dowd: Given the Government’s latest response to the recommendations of the Nolan committee, when will the Prime Minister stop his feeble backtracking on his alleged intention to improve the standards of conduct of Ministers and stop trying to defend the snout in the trough behaviour of so many on the Benches behind him?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows–or should know, if he took an interest in our matters–that the Nolan report is at present being considered by the Select Committee. It will very shortly be brought before the House, when we will have the benefit of the deliberations of the Select Committee and when the House can then vote on all the recommendations that emanate from it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter–the characteristically pompous letter–from the leader of the Liberal party, inviting Conservative Members of Parliament to back his party on education? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best response to that has come from a Harrow Liberal councillor, Bernadette Murphy, who says that the arguments for the Conservative education system are unanswerable and that every party should understand that? Will he congratulate her on reinforcing her message by resigning from the council and causing a by-election and giving such a clear steer as to how people should vote in that by-election?

    The Prime Minister: I did see the letter from the right hon. Gentleman, which he displayed so widely among my colleagues. I recall that the letter also said:

    “This is the moment to stand up for what is right and to put Britain first.”

    Clearly, Miss Murphy did.

     

    Q5. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that Britain requires a job skills audit? We have fallen from 21st to 24th in the league, according to the World Economic Forum’s report on skill shortages. Is that because the Government do not invest in education and training? Is it not about time that the Government recognised that education and training are vital to our economy?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated a skill shortage in answering questions. [Laughter] It is clear– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    The Prime Minister: It is clear that Opposition Members’ new standards of behaviour are only for certain occasions.

    Of course my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is right to examine the level of skills. He has done that to enable us to ensure that we can build on what has already been done to improve skills in the country. That is the purpose of the changes that have been made. That is the purpose of the training and enterprise councils; that is the purpose of investment. It is because of the increasing skills and increasing investment that our exports–not least in manufacturing–are performing better today than they have for many years.