The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1997

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Calcutta – 9 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Calcutta, held on Thursday 9th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, some good news, they have found the yachtsman, Tom Bullimore, alive in his hull.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I heard that just a few moments ago. I think that is an absolutely extraordinary story and quite wonderful news. I am absolutely delighted about it.

    QUESTION:

    And quite a rescue operation by the Australians?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe we owe a lot of thanks to the people who did it. I think very few people expected this happy outcome but I am absolutely delighted to hear about it.

    QUESTION:

    And what are your impressions of India so far?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have had a fascination with India for as long as I can remember. I greatly enjoyed my last visit three or four years ago and I am delighted to be back.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see any political risk in being here at a time like this when an election is approaching?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well no I don’t. I was invited to come by the CII [Confederation of Indian Industry] some time ago and I am here because there is a tremendous growth of trade between the United Kingdom and India. With the former Prime Minister, Narasimha Rao, I set up the British-Indian Association to try and foster extra trade. Since then trade and investment has increased by about 80 percent in the last four years and that is very important to India and it is very important to the United Kingdom. And I have brought with me on this occasion as high a powered group of senior British businessmen as I think have ever left the United Kingdom together, and I think that is going to generate a fair amount of increased trade and investment and that is very much in the interest of the United Kingdom and of India.

  • Mr Major’s Briefing en route to Calcutta – 8 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing en route to Calcutta, on Wednesday 8th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t want to take your time for more than a second. Just really to say that I hope you will enjoy the trip, you know where we are going, I think Jonathan has taken you in detail through the agenda, so I won’t traipse through all that again.

    The genesis of this visit was a meeting I had with the Confederation of Indian Industry at Downing Street last summer, June/July, I forget precisely when it was, it was the day that Ganguly was taking a very large 100 off England at Lords, I can tell you that, but I can’t remember the exact date. And they invited me to come and address their main event of the year, which will be their seminar on Thursday afternoon, when I hope to deliver a fairly substantial speech, largely about international trade, markets and business-related matters.

    When they invited me to come, and I accepted, it seemed a suitable opportunity to bring with us a business delegation and I think you have seen the size and composition of the business delegation.

    It isn’t the biggest ever to leave the United Kingdom, but it is probably as high powered as any that has ever left the United Kingdom, I think Ian Lang and Michael Heseltine have both taken larger numbers of businessmen but I don’t think there has been a better quality in terms of seniority of British businessmen travelling abroad on a single trip in the past.

    This isn’t a trip to look for short term contracts. There will be quite a few contracts signed when we first get there, but they are not the product particularly of this visit, they are the product of a great deal of work over the last few months. The businessmen who are here are largely here looking for long term contracts. The Indians are extremely good to do business with, but contracts don’t get signed and sealed in a day, so they will be here as part of a long term relationship with India and I hope we will be able to open a few doors for them that otherwise might have remained closed. Certainly we are discussing with some of the businessmen the sort of things that we can do that might be helpful for them.

    While we are here also we will take an opportunity of looking at some of the aid projects. We want to look at some of the drug liaison effort that is going on, that is one of the principal reasons for going to the Khyber Pass, apart from its historical significance, and a chance for seeing the Khyber Rifles. So hope it will be both a worthwhile and an interesting trip.

    We are going on also to Bangladesh, I have never visited Bangladesh before, and on to Pakistan. In each of the three countries the purpose of the visit is predominantly trade, perhaps a little less so in Bangladesh, but certainly a trade interest in Bangladesh as well.

    I don’t think there is really much more I wish to say at the outset. If you have any questions on business-related matters, or the visit, I will happily try and answer them, or pass them on to Ian if they fall into his bailiwick.

    What I would just suggest in conclusion, if it appeals to any of you. I suggest when we have finished this brief discussion that we might go a little back in the plane and have a glass of champagne, or two, and we will try and persuade the businessmen to come and join us and you will be able to get a feel perhaps from them if you wish to of the advantages that they see of the visit.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    There were a couple of pieces in the paper today about how tense the situation is in Pakistan. Is it your plan to see Benazir Bhutto and obviously people are going to ask would you be willing to meet Imran Khan if he was available?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there are any plans for me to meet Imran Khan, though I have met him before in the past of course. I know Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto quite well, we have met many times in the past, and I think it is highly likely I will see both of them. I should add that I don’t intend to get involved in internal Pakistani domestic politics, but I have known both of them of old, it would be extremely odd if I didn’t meet them.

    QUESTION:

    A few question marks have been raised about the fact that you should be going abroad when there is so much happening at home and the election campaign is under way. Do you think that it is a bit odd to leave things without you in charge while so much is going on?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think helping our trade effort abroad is quite important as well. The election is important when it comes in due course but the normal activities of government have to go on in the interim. And here we have the 50th anniversary of Independence in India, I think that is a pretty significant event in India and it is a pretty significant event as far as the United Kingdom are concerned too, so I certainly wish to mark the beginning of that with a visit, and of course the trading interest which continues.

    So I think it is quite right. Government and the normal activities of government have to proceed. The election is important, it will come in due course, but it doesn’t dominate or eliminate all other activities in government, I think it is quite right to come.

  • Mr Major’s Briefing en route to Calcutta – 8 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing en route to Calcutta, on Wednesday 8th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t want to take your time for more than a second. Just really to say that I hope you will enjoy the trip, you know where we are going, I think Jonathan has taken you in detail through the agenda, so I won’t traipse through all that again.

    The genesis of this visit was a meeting I had with the Confederation of Indian Industry at Downing Street last summer, June/July, I forget precisely when it was, it was the day that Ganguly was taking a very large 100 off England at Lords, I can tell you that, but I can’t remember the exact date. And they invited me to come and address their main event of the year, which will be their seminar on Thursday afternoon, when I hope to deliver a fairly substantial speech, largely about international trade, markets and business-related matters.

    When they invited me to come, and I accepted, it seemed a suitable opportunity to bring with us a business delegation and I think you have seen the size and composition of the business delegation.

    It isn’t the biggest ever to leave the United Kingdom, but it is probably as high powered as any that has ever left the United Kingdom, I think Ian Lang and Michael Heseltine have both taken larger numbers of businessmen but I don’t think there has been a better quality in terms of seniority of British businessmen travelling abroad on a single trip in the past.

    This isn’t a trip to look for short term contracts. There will be quite a few contracts signed when we first get there, but they are not the product particularly of this visit, they are the product of a great deal of work over the last few months. The businessmen who are here are largely here looking for long term contracts. The Indians are extremely good to do business with, but contracts don’t get signed and sealed in a day, so they will be here as part of a long term relationship with India and I hope we will be able to open a few doors for them that otherwise might have remained closed. Certainly we are discussing with some of the businessmen the sort of things that we can do that might be helpful for them.

    While we are here also we will take an opportunity of looking at some of the aid projects. We want to look at some of the drug liaison effort that is going on, that is one of the principal reasons for going to the Khyber Pass, apart from its historical significance, and a chance for seeing the Khyber Rifles. So hope it will be both a worthwhile and an interesting trip.

    We are going on also to Bangladesh, I have never visited Bangladesh before, and on to Pakistan. In each of the three countries the purpose of the visit is predominantly trade, perhaps a little less so in Bangladesh, but certainly a trade interest in Bangladesh as well.

    I don’t think there is really much more I wish to say at the outset. If you have any questions on business-related matters, or the visit, I will happily try and answer them, or pass them on to Ian if they fall into his bailiwick.

    What I would just suggest in conclusion, if it appeals to any of you. I suggest when we have finished this brief discussion that we might go a little back in the plane and have a glass of champagne, or two, and we will try and persuade the businessmen to come and join us and you will be able to get a feel perhaps from them if you wish to of the advantages that they see of the visit.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    There were a couple of pieces in the paper today about how tense the situation is in Pakistan. Is it your plan to see Benazir Bhutto and obviously people are going to ask would you be willing to meet Imran Khan if he was available?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there are any plans for me to meet Imran Khan, though I have met him before in the past of course. I know Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto quite well, we have met many times in the past, and I think it is highly likely I will see both of them. I should add that I don’t intend to get involved in internal Pakistani domestic politics, but I have known both of them of old, it would be extremely odd if I didn’t meet them.

    QUESTION:

    A few question marks have been raised about the fact that you should be going abroad when there is so much happening at home and the election campaign is under way. Do you think that it is a bit odd to leave things without you in charge while so much is going on?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think helping our trade effort abroad is quite important as well. The election is important when it comes in due course but the normal activities of government have to go on in the interim. And here we have the 50th anniversary of Independence in India, I think that is a pretty significant event in India and it is a pretty significant event as far as the United Kingdom are concerned too, so I certainly wish to mark the beginning of that with a visit, and of course the trading interest which continues.

    So I think it is quite right. Government and the normal activities of government have to proceed. The election is important, it will come in due course, but it doesn’t dominate or eliminate all other activities in government, I think it is quite right to come.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 7 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview held in London on Tuesday 7th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Conservatives had moved away from being bold reformers to being defensive].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The premise of your question is entirely wrong. That is not the basis of our appeal to the country. What we are saying to the country is that as a result of a whole series of difficult decisions that have been taken, after a very hard time both frankly for the government and for industry and commerce, we have now produced a position where the British economy has the most sparkling prospects for a very long time. What we are saying to the country is it has been very difficult to get here, it won’t be easy to keep it, we will have to follow the same policies in future if we wish this prosperity to blossom. And the appeal that we will make to the country is not as your describe it, the appeal that we will make to the country is the economy is right, that means the prospects before us are very bright indeed, don’t throw those prospects away, this is how we propose to develop them in the future. That is the substance of what we will be saying.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked where the new thinking was].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a whole range of new thinking. Let me deal with it. Though I have to say, before I delve into new thinking, new thinking is very fashionable for political commentators, but stability is what most people in the country would like to see, stability so they can get on with their own lives in security and stability and meet their own ambitions.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that was because they had had their stability hit hard].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no, no, people have always wanted stability. People’s living standards have risen; educational prospects have risen, 1 in 3 of our young people going to university whereas there were 1 in 8; there are a million more people being treated on the National Health Service. You mustn’t be so negative James, there is a great deal happening that is extremely good and I intend to see that that continues. As far as new thinking is concerned, there is still a good way to go on the education reforms, we are still continuing to improve the Health Service, both those things are fundamental to people.

    We are keen to ensure that the state doesn’t blanket out decisions that the family themselves should make. I am not opposed, as you seem to imply for example, to constitutional changes, I have made constitutional changes in the last five years, quite a lot of them, some in Scotland, some in Ireland, some in Wales, some in Parliament, and we have more planned for the future than we have set out. What I am opposed to is the sort of reckless all-purpose constitutional change without thought that our opponents favour.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 7 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview held in London on Tuesday 7th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Conservatives had moved away from being bold reformers to being defensive].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The premise of your question is entirely wrong. That is not the basis of our appeal to the country. What we are saying to the country is that as a result of a whole series of difficult decisions that have been taken, after a very hard time both frankly for the government and for industry and commerce, we have now produced a position where the British economy has the most sparkling prospects for a very long time. What we are saying to the country is it has been very difficult to get here, it won’t be easy to keep it, we will have to follow the same policies in future if we wish this prosperity to blossom. And the appeal that we will make to the country is not as your describe it, the appeal that we will make to the country is the economy is right, that means the prospects before us are very bright indeed, don’t throw those prospects away, this is how we propose to develop them in the future. That is the substance of what we will be saying.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked where the new thinking was].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a whole range of new thinking. Let me deal with it. Though I have to say, before I delve into new thinking, new thinking is very fashionable for political commentators, but stability is what most people in the country would like to see, stability so they can get on with their own lives in security and stability and meet their own ambitions.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that was because they had had their stability hit hard].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no, no, people have always wanted stability. People’s living standards have risen; educational prospects have risen, 1 in 3 of our young people going to university whereas there were 1 in 8; there are a million more people being treated on the National Health Service. You mustn’t be so negative James, there is a great deal happening that is extremely good and I intend to see that that continues. As far as new thinking is concerned, there is still a good way to go on the education reforms, we are still continuing to improve the Health Service, both those things are fundamental to people.

    We are keen to ensure that the state doesn’t blanket out decisions that the family themselves should make. I am not opposed, as you seem to imply for example, to constitutional changes, I have made constitutional changes in the last five years, quite a lot of them, some in Scotland, some in Ireland, some in Wales, some in Parliament, and we have more planned for the future than we have set out. What I am opposed to is the sort of reckless all-purpose constitutional change without thought that our opponents favour.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 5 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview on 5th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the talks between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think there are several things to be said about it. I don’t think there’s any secret that they’ve been talking. The substantive part of what they’ve been agreeing of course has been secret. I’m rather surprised they’ve kept the whole thing quite as secret as they have, it’s clearly leaked in the Sunday Times and they then briefed other papers. But the substantive issue of what they’re discussing I think is very important.

    Now what is shown this morning of their agreement I suspect is just the hors d’oeuvre of what they’re really discussing. The key point of course, that they will turn to, is the Scottish Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and then of course changing the voting system in the United Kingdom. Those will be the points of greatest interest and I suspect that’s the agenda that they’re really turning to. Now I believe that is profoundly dangerous for a range of reasons, I think it is more important than pure party politics, I’ve set out often enough my fears about a Scottish tax-raising Parliament and my fear remains that if you go down the route of a Scottish tax-raising Parliament you are lighting the fuse towards an independent Scotland and the break-up of the United Kingdom.

    Now I have set that out before the last general election and I passionately believe that to be the case and you can see the way in which opinion in Scotland, particularly amongst young people, seems to be moving. And if you had a Scottish Assembly, it would fail, of course, that would come into conflict with the Westminster Parliament most certainly, then you are setting up the scenario for a dispute between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament that would lead to a demand for independence. Now whether that would be in five years, ten years, I don’t know, but I it is profoundly dangerous that people look, not just at the short-term politics of this, but as the long-term constitutional implications of what the Labour Party and the Liberal Party are proposing. I think it is very dangerous, it is certainly going to be a substantive part of their secret discussions, of that I’ve no doubt and I believe the impact upon the United Kingdom will be thoroughly bad and the job of politicians is to stand up and look at the long-term implications and to explain, even though it may be popular in the short-term, why it is a bad thing for the United Kingdom in the long-term.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if a bad thing for the United Kingdom would be popular north of the border].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well superficially popular in Scotland certainly, but I don’t think the extra taxes they’d get would be very popular. I mean this would be followed by a new Scottish Parliament, that’s going to have to be paid for, more money on more bureaucrats, more money on more politicians and an agreement already that they could raise tax in Scotland by 3 pence in the pound. Now in the abstract one can see that people are not too worried about that, when the reality occurs and they have to pay more tax than the English, the Northern Irish and the Welsh I think it will be different and then when companies stop investing in Scotland because their employees paid higher tax and demanded higher wages then the huge change you have seen in Scotland over the last ten years, the tremendous drop in unemployment, the great widening of job opportunities will begin to disappear and I think then people would look back and say ‘we have bought a pig in a poke’. I don’t believe Scotland wants to be divorced from the rest of the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought a Scottish Parliament would win votes for parties that supported it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I don’t see it primarily as that, I think it may well be providing we can persuade people of the dangers and I will attempt to do so and I’ve been consistent on this for a number of years. I believe it is a profound mistake to the United Kingdom, that is the first point. The other element of their agenda of course, is the proportional representation and what they’re seeking to do of course is to, as the with the Scottish parliament which they would propose to introduce without reducing the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster, what they’re proposing to do effectively is to gerrymander the constitution. They’re determined to try and change a voting system, we have seen what that means right across Europe where you have minority governments, the inability to take really difficult decisions and perhaps above all the removal of choice from the electorate. If you have proportional representation and cosy agreements between the political classes then the electorate’s choice is diminished, they cannot say “I’ve had enough of this lot, out with them”. Because they’re fixed with other people unless there is a quite cataclysmic change in voting habits that would simply return the same people time after time.

    So I believe it is very, very damaging and I hope people will focus firstly on the fact that this has been done in secret, I wonder how many of the Shadow Cabinet know about the detail of these discussions before they leaked. I wonder how many of the Liberal Parliamentary Party know. I wonder after all this Labour talk of consultation what consultation there’s been with the average Labour supporter up and down the country. The answer is none of course, absolutely none.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 5 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview on 5th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the talks between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think there are several things to be said about it. I don’t think there’s any secret that they’ve been talking. The substantive part of what they’ve been agreeing of course has been secret. I’m rather surprised they’ve kept the whole thing quite as secret as they have, it’s clearly leaked in the Sunday Times and they then briefed other papers. But the substantive issue of what they’re discussing I think is very important.

    Now what is shown this morning of their agreement I suspect is just the hors d’oeuvre of what they’re really discussing. The key point of course, that they will turn to, is the Scottish Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and then of course changing the voting system in the United Kingdom. Those will be the points of greatest interest and I suspect that’s the agenda that they’re really turning to. Now I believe that is profoundly dangerous for a range of reasons, I think it is more important than pure party politics, I’ve set out often enough my fears about a Scottish tax-raising Parliament and my fear remains that if you go down the route of a Scottish tax-raising Parliament you are lighting the fuse towards an independent Scotland and the break-up of the United Kingdom.

    Now I have set that out before the last general election and I passionately believe that to be the case and you can see the way in which opinion in Scotland, particularly amongst young people, seems to be moving. And if you had a Scottish Assembly, it would fail, of course, that would come into conflict with the Westminster Parliament most certainly, then you are setting up the scenario for a dispute between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament that would lead to a demand for independence. Now whether that would be in five years, ten years, I don’t know, but I it is profoundly dangerous that people look, not just at the short-term politics of this, but as the long-term constitutional implications of what the Labour Party and the Liberal Party are proposing. I think it is very dangerous, it is certainly going to be a substantive part of their secret discussions, of that I’ve no doubt and I believe the impact upon the United Kingdom will be thoroughly bad and the job of politicians is to stand up and look at the long-term implications and to explain, even though it may be popular in the short-term, why it is a bad thing for the United Kingdom in the long-term.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if a bad thing for the United Kingdom would be popular north of the border].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well superficially popular in Scotland certainly, but I don’t think the extra taxes they’d get would be very popular. I mean this would be followed by a new Scottish Parliament, that’s going to have to be paid for, more money on more bureaucrats, more money on more politicians and an agreement already that they could raise tax in Scotland by 3 pence in the pound. Now in the abstract one can see that people are not too worried about that, when the reality occurs and they have to pay more tax than the English, the Northern Irish and the Welsh I think it will be different and then when companies stop investing in Scotland because their employees paid higher tax and demanded higher wages then the huge change you have seen in Scotland over the last ten years, the tremendous drop in unemployment, the great widening of job opportunities will begin to disappear and I think then people would look back and say ‘we have bought a pig in a poke’. I don’t believe Scotland wants to be divorced from the rest of the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought a Scottish Parliament would win votes for parties that supported it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I don’t see it primarily as that, I think it may well be providing we can persuade people of the dangers and I will attempt to do so and I’ve been consistent on this for a number of years. I believe it is a profound mistake to the United Kingdom, that is the first point. The other element of their agenda of course, is the proportional representation and what they’re seeking to do of course is to, as the with the Scottish parliament which they would propose to introduce without reducing the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster, what they’re proposing to do effectively is to gerrymander the constitution. They’re determined to try and change a voting system, we have seen what that means right across Europe where you have minority governments, the inability to take really difficult decisions and perhaps above all the removal of choice from the electorate. If you have proportional representation and cosy agreements between the political classes then the electorate’s choice is diminished, they cannot say “I’ve had enough of this lot, out with them”. Because they’re fixed with other people unless there is a quite cataclysmic change in voting habits that would simply return the same people time after time.

    So I believe it is very, very damaging and I hope people will focus firstly on the fact that this has been done in secret, I wonder how many of the Shadow Cabinet know about the detail of these discussions before they leaked. I wonder how many of the Liberal Parliamentary Party know. I wonder after all this Labour talk of consultation what consultation there’s been with the average Labour supporter up and down the country. The answer is none of course, absolutely none.

  • PMQT – 14 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 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.

    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the drop of more than 40,000 in the latest monthly unemployment count–which, I understand, is the largest monthly decrease for two years–illustrates yet again the success of the Government’s policies in promoting job creation? Does he agree that if United Kingdom employers had additional costs inflicted on them by the EU, that would put in jeopardy the downward trend in unemployment in our country, which has been going on for three years and stands in stark contrast with many other EU countries?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right, both about the welcome trend in unemployment and about the fact that unemployment is falling here in a way that cannot be seen anywhere else in the continent of Europe. That is not unrelated to the fact that we have avoided the burdens on business that so many of our partners have accepted. Of course, those burdens would have been accepted by the Opposition.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that today’s inflation rise, together with the sharp rise in long-term interest rates, should set the warning lights flashing? How does he square that with the promise that he made just a few months ago that he would meet his inflation target by the end of this year?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I know that the retail prices index figures are complex, but I think that he has failed to understand the impact of this morning’s figures. I will explain to him what has happened, and he can then explain it to his Back Benchers. The figures are calculated year on year, and there was a quite exceptional one-month fall last October. That means that the 12-month year-on-year figure looks artificially high. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that that will correct itself over the months ahead and that we expect to meet our target.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that we have ever heard a more ridiculous excuse for a rise in inflation figures. If the inflation figures were so good, why did interest rates have to go up? They went up because of the worry about inflation. Have we not heard it all before? We heard it all before the previous election and we heard it all before 1987, when the Government said that an economic miracle was under way. Will the Prime Minister answer these specific questions? On interest rates and inflation, will he confirm that Britain is now 11th out of 15 in Europe? Do any of our main competitors outside Europe have as high interest rates or inflation as Britain?

    The Prime Minister: I begin to suspect that the right hon. Gentleman truly does not understand; he is not being perverse–he genuinely does not understand. I will explain the position to him gently and easily. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor raised interest rates to prevent inflation from rising, not as a result of existing inflation. To hear lectures on inflation from the right hon. Gentleman, when the lowest inflation achieved by his party in government was 7.5 per cent. and millions remember when it was 27 per cent., and when the inflation figure today is a statistical aberration because of a dramatic fall last year, only illustrates the fact that the Labour party is totally incapable not only of running the economy but even of understanding it.

    Mr. Blair rose–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: The House will have noticed that the Prime Minister did not dispute that we were 11th out of 15 for interest rates and inflation. If he disputes it, let him come to the Dispatch Box and say that the figure is wrong. The House will listen to him when he rises to his feet and tells us that 11th out of 15 is wrong. The simple fact, as on every other matter, is that when he said that he would cut taxes, he raised them, when he said–[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like this because it is the truth. [Hon. Members: “More.”] They want more, so let us give them more–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This barracking must stop. Other hon. Members have questions on the Order Paper and I want to call them.

    Mr. Blair: Let the Prime Minister dispute any of the following facts. He said before the general election that he would cut tax, and he raised it. Does he dispute that? He said that he would eliminate public borrowing, and he doubled public sector debt. Does he dispute that? He said that he would lick inflation, and it has risen. Does he dispute that? If he does not dispute any of those facts, or the fact that we are 11th out of 15 for interest rates and inflation, why should anyone believe a word that he says on the economy?

    The Prime Minister: I had fondly suspected today that the right hon. Gentleman might have broken with tradition and mentioned the fall in unemployment, which his party is supposed to care about–[Hon. Members: “Answer.”] I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that the October inflation figures were the fourth best that we have known in October since the war. It is ridiculous for him to talk to us about taxation and to proceed as he did today, when the deputy leader of his party has said that Labour

    “shouldn’t follow the Government down the road of cutting the basic rate of tax”

    and that under Labour there would certainly be higher tax. I see hon. Members nodding in agreement. The right hon. Gentleman criticises us about tax while his party advocates higher tax. He cannot stomach the fact that the British economy is in better shape than any Labour Government have ever achieved and that he could not match the condition that it is in. He will do everything that he can to pursue grievance politics and damage the British economy in his own interest.

     

    Q2. Mr. Booth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Booth: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that at the European intergovernmental conference he will block any proposal further to erode our right of veto? Is he fully aware that signing the social chapter is not only expensive in itself but would render Britain powerless to avoid becoming uncompetitive as Europe introduces more and more imposts? The Labour party will never understand that, which is one of the reasons why we shall win the next general election.

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly and willingly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The social chapter is a pipeline bulging with potential new burdens on business, all of which would cost jobs in the United Kingdom. As an illustration of the damage that a Labour Government would undoubtedly do, perhaps at some stage today the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would like to condemn the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Durham, who called on the Commission to take action against the United Kingdom including

    “seeking unlimited fines against the UK Government”.

    I want to know whether that is Labour policy or whether the right hon. Gentleman will disown him.

    Mr. Ashdown: Did the Prime Minister see the warning from Coopers and Lybrand yesterday that if we continue as we have so far the Government will be technically bankrupt by the end of next year? [Interruption.] That is what it said. The Prime Minister obviously has not read it. Let me put it to him like this: if a council had done what the Government have done and doubled its debt in six years, doubled the level of borrowing to which it had said that it would adhere two years ago and then, to win an election next year, cut its taxes to make things worse, would he regard that as responsible?

    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman said about the nation being bankrupt is just bizarre–it is just off the wall. If this is a bankrupt nation, why are all those overseas nations and overseas investors, both in Europe and beyond, investing in what he says is a bankrupt nation? I suggest that he looks at what is going on in Britain and stops taking advice from his economic advisers, who clearly know nothing about everything.

    Mr. Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week marks the first anniversary of the death of my constituent, Leah Betts, who died as a result of taking a single Ecstasy tablet? Will he join me in paying tribute to Leah’s parents, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that other young people learn the lesson of Leah’s death? Will he confirm that the Government will give every support to the Bill to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), which will ensure that night clubs whose managers do not take proper action to stop drug trading will be swiftly and permanently closed?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I met Mr. and Mrs. Betts some time ago and I think that the whole country remembers the tragedy that they had to endure and the courage with which they endured it. I certainly undertake to do all that I can to curb the menace of drugs and I will look most carefully at the private Member’s Bill that is to be introduced. If it is at all possible to give full support to that Bill, as I anticipate that it will be, then we shall certainly do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Pike: The Prime Minister will accept that there is still a major crisis over bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Does he accept that there has been enough dithering over the introduction of the selective cull scheme that was agreed at Florence? Will he give us a date for implementation of the scheme and say when we shall start to see an end to the problem?

    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here yesterday or, indeed, when I answered those questions from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield. Since the hon. Gentleman is asking precisely the same question, I am tempted to refer him to the answer I gave some time ago. The reality is that we are pursuing with the Commission proposals for relaxing the ban on the United Kingdom and the export restrictions on animals from certified herds and on those that are qualified under the beef assurance scheme. Those discussions are going on at the moment.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Robathan: The whole House will welcome the Government’s decision in principle to support international action to prevent humanitarian catastrophe in central Africa. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if British troops are sent to Zaire they will go with carefully considered and clear objectives, very precise instructions and a properly determined chain of command?

    The Prime Minister: I suspect that I speak for the whole House in expressing extreme concern at the situation in eastern Zaire. I believe that everyone is acutely conscious of the refugees’ plight and of the literally hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people who will undoubtedly face death in the next few weeks unless urgent action is taken.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be making a statement in a few moments. I believe that if western Governments have the capacity to help, there is a strong moral obligation upon us to help. We have considered very carefully how we can best provide that help and in principle we are prepared to provide troops for a multinational force.

    I have to say to the House, however, that the situation on the ground is complex and difficult, the terrain is tough, there is inadequate infrastructure and at this stage there is no clear ceasefire. So before sending British troops, or deciding upon the precise numbers, we need to be absolutely clear about what they are being asked to do in detail and the conditions in which they will operate. We also need to look very carefully at the particular circumstances that they will face. A reconnaissance team will be travelling to the region today to do that, and I hope that we shall be able to reach a firm decision before too long as to what troops are to go.

     

    Q5. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I enter a last-minute plea that the Prime Minister reconsider his decision about a free vote for Conservative Members of Parliament next week on the banning of guns? Why cannot those hon. Members be allowed to exercise their own consciences and decide for themselves how to vote on an issue that the public regard as extremely important?

    The Prime Minister: We ought not to forget precisely what the legislation is about: the controls that we place on legally held firearms and the right of law-abiding citizens to use them responsibly. That seems to be a matter on which it is right for the Government to take a decision, as the House expected before the Cullen report was presented to it, and we have done so. Firearms legislation has not traditionally been considered on a free vote in the House and we are not inviting the House to do so on this occasion.