The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1997

  • PMQT – 18 March 1997

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 March.

    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. Hughes: The Prime Minister yesterday made the uniquely personal decision not only to have a general election on 1 May and to dissolve Parliament on 8 April but that Parliament should be prorogued and sent away this Friday. [Interruption.] Is it not obvious that one of the reasons for that decision and for the unprecedented gap between prorogation and dissolution is that–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is so time-consuming. Come on, Mr. Hughes: spit it out.

    Mr. Hughes rose–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. There is no point in waiting for silence: the hon. Gentleman will not get silence. Produce your voice, Mr. Hughes.

    Mr. Hughes: One of the reasons for that decision is that the Prime Minister knows that the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on cash for questions will be ready on Monday or Tuesday. That report will therefore not be seen by hon. Members in this Parliament and will be hidden until after the general election.

    The Prime Minister: One of the reasons for making the announcement on Monday and arranging for Parliament to be prorogued on Friday was to give the hon. Gentleman time to finish his question. As for Sir Gordon’s report, I have no knowledge when it will be presented.

    Sir Cranley Onslow: Following his successful visit this morning to the headquarters of the McLaren formula 1 team in my constituency, does my right hon. Friend agree that what counts is not who is ahead at the first corner, but who has the skill, expertise, stamina and nerve to see the race right through to the winning post?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The purpose of going to see the McLaren team was rather wider than that. I wanted to draw attention to a tremendous British success story, of which there are many. McLaren and the British motor industry have been a huge success. Of the 20-odd cars that lined up at Melbourne for the grand prix won by David Coulthard, 20 would have been built in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that a situation where two thirds of health authorities and one third of hospital trusts are in deficit to the tune of £300 million is grave, and potentially disastrous for many parts of the national health service?

    The Prime Minister: I find it odd for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about funding in the health service, since he has declined to increase funding, whereas we have given a commitment to do so. In any event, the figures that he uses are blown out of all proportion. The forecast deficit is a relatively small fraction of the national health service budget and, of course, in less than two weeks’ time, funding for the national health service will rise by £1.6 billion, a multiple of the deficit to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

    Mr. Blair: Is the Prime Minister aware that many health authorities have deficits this year that will not be met by real-terms growth next year? To give one example, in north Essex, the deficit is £10 million and the real-terms growth that he is promising is only £9 million. He is not keeping the promise that he says he is making. He may believe that this is a matter of no account whatever, but is he aware that non-emergency surgery is being cancelled up and down the country, that accident and emergency departments are closing, that waiting lists are up and that there are bed and staff shortages in many parts of the national health service? Is that not a real tragedy, and disgraceful handling of the NHS?

    The Prime Minister: Some time ago, the answer to the question whether the NHS was working was set out by the shadow Foreign Secretary as whether more people were treated, and treated well. Since then, an extra 1 million people are being treated, and treated well, in the NHS. The number of consultants in accident and emergency departments has risen by 40 per cent. over the past few years. The right hon. Gentleman does not mention that. He does not mention the fact that we have committed increased resources over and above inflation to the national health service every year since 1979, and will do so throughout the period of the next Parliament. That is a record that would not have been met by any previous Government, and cannot be met by any other Government, because they would not have delivered the growth in the economy that we have achieved.

    Mr. Blair: The contrast is between the Prime Minister’s complacency and what people know is happening in the national health service the length and breadth of this country. Is it not the case that in, the past six years, there has been an increase in administration costs of more than £1.5 billion a year, with 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses? Is not the truth that the real challenge of the national health service is how to get money out of invoices, contractors, managers, company cars and pen-pushers and into front-line patient care so that we can rebuild the national health service that the Labour party created?

    The Prime Minister: There are elements of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say with which I would agree. That is why we support compulsory competitive tendering, which he does not support; that is why we cut a whole tier of management that he voted to keep; that is why we have cut management costs by 10 per cent., £340 million, in the past two years. He cannot do that.

    No one is being complacent about the need to improve the health service: that is why we are providing more resources; that is why I mentioned the extra doctors in accident and emergency; that is why 1.5 million more patients are being treated, with more than 10 million more in-patients every year, 3.5 million day cases a year and 14 million out-patients a year. Health service hospitals are now dealing with 75,000 patients every day of the year–£730 for every man, woman and child in the country, very nearly double the amount when his party left office. The Labour party may have set up the health service, but we have built it up.

    Mr. Sykes: When my right hon. Friend comes to choose his new Cabinet on 2 May–[Interruption.] Listen to the page three boys shriek, Madam Speaker. I remember when they were shrieking in Sheffield the week before the last general election. I should like to hear them shriek after this election, every single one of them. What would my right hon. Friend say if all that he had to choose from after the election was a group of failed teachers, a bunch of ex-trade union officials, one television director and a bar steward? That is all that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has to choose from.

    The Prime Minister: I think that it would be a kindness to protect the right hon. Gentleman from ever having to make such a choice. Who is meant by the bar steward, I cannot imagine.

     

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

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

    Mr. Wareing: How did the Prime Minister have the audacity at the weekend to tell Tory central council that his type of Conservatism aimed to help the struggling classes–the have-nots? In 18 years of Tory rule, what did his Tory party ever do for the homeless, the sick and the disabled? The Prime Minister is not only past his sell-by date, he is well beyond his use-by date. It is time he went.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is unusually animated on this occasion, for reasons that I do not understand. I suggest that he asks the millions of council tenants who would never have become home owners but for the activities of the Conservative Government or the millions of people who now have savings, shares and pensions that are owned by them rather than held by a Labour Government, as they were in the past, on their behalf. We believe that, in the late 1990s, people should have the right to personal ownership for themselves and their families, and that is what we are building. We apply that to everyone, not just middle-income earners such as the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. French: Did my right hon. Friend see the reports at the weekend that 40,000 people took to the streets of Paris to protest against the rising tide of European unemployment? Can he explain to the House why the same thing has not happened here and what will be the quickest way of making it happen here?

    The Prime Minister: I saw that, and I have also seen the trend in unemployment in many countries across Europe. The Labour party is keen that we should sign up to a 48-hour week, the minimum wage and the social chapter. Perhaps Labour Members should hear what the United States Chamber of Commerce had to say about the 48-hour week. It has just told the Irish Government:

    “It is no exaggeration to say”

    that it would be

    “the single most negative change in the last 20 years.”

    We intend to continue to put people back to work, as we have done in spectacular fashion in the past 18 months. Policies such as the social chapter, the minimum wage and the 48-hour week–however glib they may sound–are a recipe for putting people out of work if they are in work and, if they are out of work, making sure that they stay out of work for a long time ahead. That is the poison pill of the Opposition’s policy.

     

    Casualty Units (London)

    Q3. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to a London NHS hospital to discuss the operation of casualty units.

    The Prime Minister: We have made an extensive investment in recent years in London’s accident and emergency services as part of a £400 million capital investment to provide the highest-quality and up-to-date facilities. I hope to have the opportunity to see some of them before too long.

    Mr. Corbyn: When the Prime Minister finally gets around to visiting a casualty unit in a London hospital, what answer will he give to staff who have seen one in seven of all the acute beds in London lost, 12 of the 46 casualty units closed, huge waiting lists, people waiting on trolleys, loss of morale among staff and the recent resignation of the consultant in charge of the casualty unit at Queen Mary’s University hospital, Roehampton, who left because he could no longer run it within the budget provided and did not feel that he was giving people a decent service? Is that not the reason why nobody trusts him and his Government on the future of the national health service and will accordingly vote him out?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the first advice that I would give them is not to vote Labour, because they are getting more money from this Government than they would from any putative Labour Government. I would tell them that the number of consultants in A and E departments has risen dramatically by 40 per cent. I would tell them that the number of nurses appointed had risen by 21 per cent. I would tell them that more patients are being treated. I would tell them that the hon. Gentleman is living proof that old Labour lives, because, while the Labour Front Benchers are saying that they will not raise taxes, he is saying:

    “What . . . many”–

    including the hon. Gentleman–

    “have been talking about is the need to raise taxation for the above average income people in order to pay for the rest. I see a moral justification for that and I think it is the right thing to do.”

    That may be what he tells the consultants, but it is not what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) tells the consultants.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 March 1997

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th March 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Refuge Projects (Funding)

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister (1) which Departments have funded children and homeless charities central London refuge projects providing temporary havens for children in the last 15 years;

    (2) if he will estimate the central Government share of the average costs of providing four days refuge in a safe supervised haven project for a child aged under 16 years in central London;

    (3) when Ministers last discussed the need for and possible means of funding temporary safe havens for runaway children below the age of 16 years in central London;

    (4) if he will review the practicality of instigating a central London children’s refuge empowered to negotiate a cost contribution with individual social services departments in order to admit a child on the first day of need.

    The Prime Minister: The Department of Health has funded children and homeless charities in London on projects providing a refuge for children as defined in the Children Act 1989. Figures are not available to estimate the central Government share of the average cost of providing four days’ refuge, but the Department of Health has provided £300,000 over four years in respect of the London-based Centrepoint Glaxo refuge. Department of Health Ministers have met and discussed funding arrangements with voluntary organisations running the London refuge on several occasions; the last meeting was in September 1996. The Government have introduced legislation that enables the establishment of refuges that provide safe havens for children who appear to be at risk of harm. It is for local authorities and other agencies to work together to provide strategic solutions to the provision and funding of services for children in need–including young runaways. The Department of the Environment, as part of the rough sleepers initiative in central London, has funded Centrepoint in providing accommodation for young people, usually 18 to 25-year-olds, at a hostel in Vauxhall and for its “Off the Streets” project in Soho. DOE funding for the Vauxhall hostel is £165,000 in 1996-97. In addition, Centrepoint receives funding to provide emergency shelters for young people aged 25 years and under between December and March as part of the annual winter shelter programme under the RSI. In 1996-97, the DOE is funding Centrepoint to run a winter shelter in King’s Cross, providing up to 48 bedspaces.

     

    Roisin McAliskey

    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty’s Government have recently received from the German Government concerning the imprisonment in Holloway prison of Ms Roisin McAliskey; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, none.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Central Council in Bath – 15 March 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to Conservative Central Council, held in Bath on Saturday 15th March 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Today, I’m going to set out what I believe.

    And why you can only be sure with the Conservatives.

    We’ll win because our policies work. And Labour’s don’t.

    Because we say what we believe in. And Labour don’t.

    Because we’re proud of our record. And they’re trying to hide their past.

    That’s why Labour make such a performance of saying that they’ve changed.

    Mr Chairman, who were the leading lights of the Labour Party when the Blairs, the Cooks and the Browns joined it?

    I’ll tell you. The Kinnocks, the Benns, the Foots, the Healeys.

    Now they’re non-persons.

    They’re not talked of – except in private, where Mr Cook says Mr Foot is the best Prime Minister we never had.

    in public he supports Mr Blair – just – but in private he says something else.

    New Labour in a nutshell.

    But our real opponent is much more formidable than Labour.

    We’re fighting the argument that “it’s time for a change.”

    Economic change

    Time for a change?

    Odd, isn’t it – in 1979 Britain was near bankrupt, scorned, a great nation on the slide. Our country really did need change then.

    Why? Because in that harsh, unforgettable winter, Britain was governed by Labour.

    This spring, children born that winter will be voting for the first time.

    In their short lifetime, an old, decaying – some said dying – nation has been rejuvenated, restored, revived.

    Those young people won’t know it. Far too many others out there seem to be forgetting it.

    But Britain has changed – from being a European basket case to an international role model.

    People once talked of the British disease. Now they’re copying the British solution.

    The once sick man of Europe is setting the pace.

    So, when you hear siren voices wailing ‘It’s time for a change’ – fix them in the eyes and challenge this nonsense:

    ‘A change to what?’

    Is the nation moaning, out there “Low inflation. Who needs it? Let prices rip”?

    Are they frantic at the lowest basic rate of tax for sixty years? “I can’t bear it. Let’s put a penny on income tax again”?

    Do they despair as unemployment falls, month after month? “How boring. Why can’t we lose jobs like France and Germany”?

    Do they weep that we’re number one in Europe for inward investment? “Forget it – we don’t want foreign money here. Let’s have that Social Chapter, load costs on those companies and drive the new jobs away”?

    Mr Chairman, you know they don’t. No sensible person is asking for that.

    So, I say to the “time for a change” merchants: “Find me a better country in the world in which to live”.

    If you can – well, bye, bye, we’ll miss you.

    If you can’t, pipe down – and let us get on with the job of building the well-being of our nation to a level it has never known before.

    A Smaller, But Better State

    Mr Chairman, my Conservatism is first about helping more people realise their own private hopes and personal ambitions.

    And second about removing the avoidable fears that blight too many lives.

    Over the years Government after Government has wanted to do this.

    Now we have the prize we’ve all been seeking – the strongest, most stable economy that Britain has seen since way before the war.

    So now, we can really make progress.

    My aim is to make the state smaller, but better.

    That’s why our target is a 20 pence basic rate of tax – and for state spending to fall below 40 per cent of the nation’s wealth.

    Working two days a week for the state – surely that’s enough for all of us?

    I believe that if things can be done better in the private sector, they should be.

    But I also believe some things should always be done in the public sector.

    And if so, they must be done well.

    Over the years we’ve reined back the size of the state. Steel coal, gas, electricity, water, airways – all once leeched on the state for subsidy.

    Now they’re in the private sector, yielding taxes for schools, hospitals, police.

    It’s a remarkable record – a smaller state, lower income tax and better services.

    And there’s further to go.

    The Next Conservative Government

    Mr Chairman, in the last few days some interviewers have asked me: “It’s been a tough few years, Prime Minister. Why do you want to go on?”

    I’ll tell you.

    Because I dream of a people’s Britain, in which all the people – not only the confident and well to do – can make their own choices and mould their own lives.

    I believe that’s their right. Their right – to choose, to save, to spend, to know that they own.

    I want to see everyone have these opportunities.

    To see the have-nots become the haves.

    That’s why we started the sale of council houses.

    Why we’ve sold shares and spread savings.

    And it’s why we’re going to provide secure pensions for everyone.

    Because the Conservatism I’m talking about isn’t just for the lucky, the fortunate, the able, the self-confident.

    It’s for everyone.

    For those for whom life is a struggle.

    For those who don’t have the best education.

    Don’t have a decent home.

    Don’t live in a safe neighbourhood.

    Don’t have a job.

    I should know. I come from them. I care for them. And I long to see them have their fair share of the good things of life.

    Opportunity for all: the next Conservative Government is for them, as much as for anyone else.

    We’ll make sure that those who don’t have, do have.

    People’s Pensions

    Mr Chairman, as Britain grows wealthier, we must see to it that more of what the State spends goes where the taxpayer would like it to go.

    I believe in the Welfare State – and the security and comfort it offers the British people. I’m determined it will be there for our children and grandchildren.

    But we can only guarantee its future if it remains affordable.

    We have set out recently big ideas to do just that.

    Today’s pensions, for example, rely on each younger generation being able to pay for the old.

    As more people live longer, can we be sure that would always be possible?

    It’s a giant of uncertainty that no truly caring government could ignore. A giant that the next Conservative government will begin to slay.

    We aim to build on what William Beveridge intended.

    To build up – over time – a secure pension scheme for all.

    But we’ll go one better.

    Ours won’t be a state pension – though it will have a state guarantee.

    It will be a People’s Pension, owned by everyone – personally. It will be theirs – by right.

    It will be funded by real investments – not unwritten promises and rising tax.

    It will guarantee the new generation – our children and grandchildren – not just the basic state pension, but their own personal pool of savings.

    By the time they retire, someone on average earnings should have built up £130,000 of savings. Enough to provide a pension of £175 a week.

    It’s a long-term plan – a true Conservative idea – one that will give our children a security and independence that previous generations could only dream of.

    Protecting Savings

    Often true security and peace of mind come from savings.

    People save for security. For comfort in retirement. Against a rainy day. To ensure the dignity of self-provision.

    They worry about the cost of care if they grow infirm when they are elderly.

    And they despair when their savings are eaten up to pay for care.

    This week we announced a plan to tackle this problem.

    We will lessen the worries so many people have about the cost of nursing home care.

    It’s quite simple. A partnership.

    We intend to help people who plan ahead and take out insurance against long-term care.

    In return, for every £1 they spend, we’ll disregard an extra £1.50 of their assets and protect them from being used to pay for care.

    This will mean people can protect more of their savings for themselves and their families.

    Too many people who have prudently saved still find their money stripped from them by the accident of illness in old age. This will protect them.

    It’s the second great aim for the next Conservative Government – to banish the fear of losing their lifetime’s assets to pay for care in illness.

    I believe in the cascade of wealth between the generations. So we’ll help build it up. Help protect it – and, as we can afford it, steadily reduce the burden of tax upon it.

    A Modern National Health Service

    Over the last generations we’ve seen the greatest leap forward in the health of the nation that we’ve ever known.

    People are living better and living longer.

    That’s good.

    But, as more and more people live longer and longer, the demands on our doctors and hospitals must grew.

    And that means constant investment in new science and new treatments in the National Health Service.

    If you spend all your time worrying what will happen when you lose your health, you’ve no time left to enjoy it.

    So here’s a pledge to fight the third great fear – the fear of disease.

    It’s a pledge that no other party has matched.

    A pledge for you to take to the doorsteps, to the millions of families who treasure the peace of mind the National Health Service gives.

    We will continue to improve the Health Service year on year.

    We’ll plough savings back into health care year on year.

    And the next Conservative Government will provide more money for the NHS, over and above inflation, year on year on year, for the next five years.

    It’s why prosperity matters.

    Because growing national wealth will mean better National Health.

    Our aim is to make good health more infectious than disease.

    As far as the NHS is concerned, if you’re ill we’ll make it better.

    A Guarantee of Standards

    Mr Chairman, Britain will live or die by whether British workers can think better and work faster than our competitors. The prizes of the next century will go to countries with the best educated workforce.

    That means we need the best education for every child, in every class, in every school.

    We’ve come a long way – but not far enough to meet tomorrow’s challenges or parents’ wishes.

    Parents deserve more choice. We’ll give it to them.

    No ‘ifs’. No ‘buts’. No small print or sly evasions.

    More grant-maintained schools, more specialist schools, more grammar schools.

    If that’s what they want, that is what we – and we alone – guarantee they can have.

    Choice is crucial – but it’s no use if it’s a choice between two bad schools.

    Children have only one chance at education. Many schools are good. Exam results impressive. But it’s not universal.

    I’m not prepared to stand by and see children let down by bad schools and bad councils.

    That’s why we’ve put in place our reforms. A national curriculum. Local management. Tests. Tables. And inspections. We had to fight for them all – against bitter hostility from Labour.

    Our reforms have shone a spotlight on the dark corners of the education system. Exposed failing schools and the failing education authorities that run them.

    As a result, in our Manifesto, we can now do what no previous government has ever dared to do before.

    We can offer parents a guarantee of education standards.

    Where we need to, we’ll take action to turn failing schools around.

    And where whole education authorities are failing, – and, sadly, some are – we’ll send in professional teams to sort them out.

    Councils like Islington, Hackney, Haringey – the real Labour heartlands – have failed and failed and failed.

    They have betrayed generations of children.

    Time after time tests and tables show Labour councils to be the bleakest areas of the education landscape.

    And the Leader of the Labour Party has the gall to say that education is his passion. “Education. Education. Education.”

    But what has he ever done about those deplorable Labour councils?

    Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

    Nothing – but turn the car key and drive away to another borough and another school.

    Towards a GM school that Tory policies made possible – and which his policies would destroy.

    I don’t believe children are less clever in some areas. I believe they’re let down in some areas.

    I come from local government but I have no brief for it when it fails. So I offer this warning.

    We will not follow Mr Blair and Ms Harman as – head aloof – they pass by on the other side.

    We will go into those education authorities. We will examine them. And where they are failing, we will take their powers from them – in the interests of our children.

    The Inner Cities

    Our Conservatism must be for everyone – whoever they are, wherever they live.

    We want to spread the prosperity of the suburbs into our inner cities.

    Already we’ve transformed the face of many cities.

    But we must do far, far more.

    We’re going to tackle the problem of inner city deprivation more imaginatively than any Government before.

    We’ll bring to every tenant the choice of freedom from shoddy council control – for a fresh start with a better landlord.

    We’ll build a new partnership between public and private sector.

    Where tenants agree, we’ll bring in private capital to improve their lives on a scale never seen.

    To transform housing; improve schools; fight crime.

    Dignity, security, prosperity must walk down every street in the land.

    And that must include the inner cities.

    Grown up Government: Preparing for the Future – Now

    Mr Chairman, in the first years of this century Winston Churchill and Lloyd George laid the foundations of the Welfare State.

    The wartime and post-war governments, drawing on the work of William Beveridge, brought in state provision on a huge scale. It was right for its time. And, for a long time, it has served us well.

    But now we are on the threshold of a new century. Right across the world – even in the richest nations – people are looking forward and saying that the State cannot shoulder all the burden -and for ever.

    Some things, like the free National Health Service, is a principle we must never change.

    But, I believe it is time for the third great move forward in public welfare.

    To bolster social security with personal and family security.

    To build alongside State provision growing private wealth.

    To replace the insecurity of dependence for many with the security of independence for all.

    I have laid some of those ideas before you today.

    This is a bold vision – a grand ambition. It is what I have always longed to do.

    When it’s accomplished – and the next generations have the savings and security that we are preparing for them – then I believe people will look back and say: “How lucky we are that governments then looked forward – not twenty minutes or twenty days, but twenty, forty, sixty years.”

    Mr Chairman, government is a grown-up business.

    It’s not about clutching for the advantage of the hour.

    It’s about working for the advantage of future generations some of us may never even know.

    And to do that, whatever may be the short-term reaction – from the unthinking, the uncomprehending, the sheer opportunist.

    Doing the right thing, at the right time, for the ends we know to be right.

    Labour

    Our record is in the book, our policies are on the table, our principles are clear.

    So when people go into the polling booth, and put a cross in the box beside the Conservative candidate, they’ll know what it stands for.

    You can only be sure with the Conservatives.

    But before they mark that X, I’d like them to think carefully – very carefully indeed.

    That X will decide the fate of Britain for the next five years.

    But they could mark X somewhere else.

    X for the unknown quantity.

    An X that might stand for … well, just about anything.

    Imagine waking up the morning if the X files stacked up for Labour.

    It would be like waking up on an aeroplane that’s taxiing for take-off. What would the new captain say?

    “Welcome on board. Before we take-off, I’d just like you to welcome your crew.

    You probably remember the last crew from the same training school crash-landed. So did the one before. Indeed, everyone before. But don’t worry, we’re new.

    In fact, we’re so new none of us have flown before, except on a television simulator.

    During the flight, our bar steward, John Prescott, will be coming through the cabin, offering a selection of goods, all of which cost more tax.

    I can’t tell you yet what altitude we’re flying at. Or what speed. Or what direction. But I’m hoping a focus group will tell me shortly.

    Our destination – is unknown. But I can tell you the flight time will be about five years.

    In the meantime, please ensure your seat-belt is securely fastened.”

    Please ensure your seat-belt is securely fastened. That’s surely true. You would certainly need it.

    Imagine.

    Trade union bosses licking their lips, their lunch boxes packed with their sandwiches and pay demands.

    Businessmen reassessing their options, thinking how many they’d have to sack once Labour signed the Social Chapter.

    Currency markets holding their breath, remembering how the last Labour government bankrupted Britain.

    Scottish Nationalists preparing to say ‘Whatever Mr Blair offers, it’s not enough’.

    And the European Federalists, rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of a Britain that will never be isolated in Europe, no matter what they proposed.

    If Mr Blair ever walked in through the most famous door in the world, half the hopes of Britain would disappear out the back.

    It’s taken 18 years of sound government and sheer hard work by the British people to get us here.

    We must not throw it away. Throw it away with the wrong economic policy.

    No, Mr Chairman.

    It’s not time for a change.

    And it would not be safe to change.

    Not safe to change economic management.

    Not safe to adopt reckless and opportunistic commitments to constitutional change.

    Not safe to toe the line in Europe and wreck our competitiveness.

    I’ll tell you what it is time for.

    It’s time for the clear-headed.

    Time for the far-sighted.

    Time for the experienced.

    Time to be sure.

    It’s time for us.

    That’s why we’ll win.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 March 1997

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Pay Review Bodies

    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister what is the current membership of the public sector pay review bodies.

    The Prime Minister: The current membership, with effect from 1 April 1997, is as listed:

    Senior salaries review body

    Sir Michael Perry CBE (Chairman)

    Sir Gordon Hourston

    Sir Anthony Wilson

    Sir Sydney Lipworth QC

    Mrs. Rosemary Day

    Ms Patricia Mann

    Mr. Mark Sheldon

    The Hon. Michael Beloff QC

    Professor Sandra Dawson

    Mr. David Clayman.

    Armed forces pay review body

    Sir Gordon Hourston (Chairman)

    Mr. Michael Bolton

    Mrs. Dorothy Venables

    Mr. John Cox OBE

    Mr. John Crosby

    Vice Admiral Sir Toby Frere KCB (from July 1997)

    Sir Gavin Laird CBE

    Mrs. Kay Coleman.

    Review body on nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine

    Mr. Bryan Rigby (Chairman)

    Miss Anne Mackie OBE

    Professor Gillian Raab

    Ms Ruth Lea

    Mrs. Shelia Gleig

    Mrs. Anne Dean

    Mr. Lawrence Lyndon Haddon

    Mr. Keith Miles.

    Review body on doctors and dentists remuneration

    Mr. Brandon Gough (Chairman)

    Mrs. Carol Hui

    Dr. Elizabeth Nelson

    Mr. David Penton

    Mr. Michael Innes

    Mr. Christopher King CBE

    Mrs. Beryl Brewer

    Mr. Roderick Jackson.

    School teachers review body

    Mr. Tony Vineall

    Mrs. Brigita Amey

    Mr. Michael Harding

    Mrs. Julia Cuthbetson

    Miss Janet Langdon

    Mr. Peter Gelding

    Mr. Vincent Harris.

  • PMQT – 13 March 1997

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

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

    Mr. Chidgey: No doubt the Prime Minister will join me in condemning the leaking of the Select Committee report on nursery vouchers. Does he share the Committee’s concern that nursery vouchers appear to be failing to provide parental choice, failing to improve standards and failing to provide more places? Does he accept that there is great folly in pressing ahead with a national scheme before the pilot schemes have been properly tested?

    The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman’s dismay that someone has chosen to leak a report. I have not yet read it, so I am unable to comment in detail on what may or may not be in it. As a matter of principle, rather than on the specific issue raised by the Select Committee report, parents have choice because of the voucher scheme. Without the voucher scheme, the only way to obtain a free nursery place would be to send one’s child to a state school. There was no choice or opportunity and the half a million parents who have taken up the option will be indicating that they believe that choice is right. The voucher scheme has also led to an increase in the number of places.

     

    Ministerial Visit (Kent)

    Q2. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit north-west Kent.

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

    Mr. Dunn: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of north-west Kent are glad to be part of an independent nation state and to play their part in our dynamic enterprise economy? They want nothing to do with those who spend their time selling Britain out or who would like to spend their time selling Britain short.

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the people of north-west Kent are glad to be part of an independent nation state. I agree that they and the rest of the United Kingdom have benefited enormously from the economic improvements of the past few years. They, like everyone else, enjoy the benefits of much lower inflation than we have had for many years, the lowest mortgage rate for 30 years and the lowest unemployment rate of any major European country. We intend to continue to pursue the policies that will ensure that they can continue to enjoy those things for many years to come.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Stewart: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

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

    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of central Government control of non-domestic rates has yielded immense benefits to industry and commerce, especially to small companies? Does he also agree that placing decisions on business rates under local control would add billions to industrial costs in the United Kingdom, undermine our inward investment efforts and threaten the very existence of huge numbers of small firms throughout Britain?

    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right about that. The non-domestic rate set by central Government for England and Wales has never risen faster than the rate of inflation, and in Scotland the rate has been reduced in real terms. That is in sharp distinction to what occurred when local authorities set the business rate, often by attempting to hold down the domestic rate and pile costs upon business. That is one of the significant reasons why so many companies were forced out of inner-city areas, leaving the problems that we have been attempting to deal with.

    Mr. Blair: I have given you, Madam Speaker, and the Prime Minister notice of my question. Will the Prime Minister join me in recalling that it is a year to the day since the terrible events in Dunblane? We remember the little ones who died, and we grieve with their parents and their friends. They will not be lost to the nation’s memory. We all say to the people of Dunblane that our thoughts and prayers are with them today and in the years to come.

    One year ago, the House stood united in shock at the senseless and appalling tragedy in Dunblane. Today, whatever our differences are on any other matter, we are united again, this time in sorrow and in commemoration of those who died.

    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken for everyone in the House, and for millions beyond it. We all remember with great clarity the horror we felt when we heard of those appalling events. I remember visiting the school and the gymnasium with the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not believe that either of us will ever forget the scenes that we saw there; neither will anyone else who visited the school. Clearly, this will be a very difficult and emotional time for the bereaved and for the entire community of Dunblane. I am sure that the thoughts not only of the House but of the nation are with them today.

    Mr. Harris: May I raise with my right hon. Friend another tragic matter–the loss of two fishing boats, the Westhaven, from Arbroath, and the Gorah Lass, from St. Ives in my constituency? Will he express the sympathy of all hon. Members to the relatives of the seven men who are feared dead? Will he also honour the debt that we all owe to the fishing industry, and ensure that the investigating authorities have the resources to conduct speedily and thoroughly the urgent task of investigating the cause of that double tragedy?

    The Prime Minister: Seven fishermen have lost their lives this week, in two separate incidents. I am sure that the House will join my hon. Friend in extending every sympathy to the family and friends of those involved in those tragic accidents. I understand that both incidents are being investigated by the marine accidents investigation branch. I will attempt to ensure that that occurs as speedily and as comprehensively as possible, and of course the findings will in due course be made public.

     

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

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

    Mr. Jamieson: Has the Prime Minister seen the written answer to me from the Secretary of State for Defence on 20 February 1997, which confirmed that most of the “British beef” consumed by Her Majesty’s armed forces is purchased from Spanish-speaking South American countries? Does he not think it more likely that the ban on British beef would be lifted by the European Union if it saw that the British Government were backing British beef?

    The Prime Minister: I have not seen the particular answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I assure him that the British Government back British beef. That has been apparent in the resources that have been put into supporting the beef industry during the difficult past year or so.

    Sir George Gardiner: My right hon. Friend will have read of the campaign being waged by the British section of the European Movement to persuade the voters to scrap the pound and to move towards a federal European state. In view of the vast sums being given by the European Commission to that movement, will he say how much British taxpayers’ money is being laundered through the Commission for that rather dubious exercise?

    The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that without notice I can give a figure to my–to the hon. Gentleman on that particular matter. I would add that, from all that I read and understand, there is quite a lot of money available to both sides of the argument.

     

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

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

    Mr. Fraser: As this is probably the last opportunity I shall have to ask the Prime Minister a question, may I, as one ex-Lambeth councillor to another, wish him a long and happy retirement? It might have been otherwise–because does he realise that when he was running a housing department in Lambeth, under a Labour Government, he started more municipal homes to rent in one year than every single housing authority in England and Wales is now starting in the current year, and that the shortfall is by no means made up by housing associations?

    The Prime Minister: The reason for that, of course, was the dereliction and despair that I inherited from the Labour council, which had spent 30 years damaging the quality of life in Lambeth and has continued to do so whenever it has managed to persuade the people of Lambeth to re-elect it.

    Mr. Dykes: If my right hon. Friend has the chance during his busy day, will he reconsider the strange question of the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner)–a man of unshakeable principles for many years, as we know–whose description of European Movement funding is a travesty of the truth? The sums involved are extremely modest compared with the millions spent by Sir James Goldsmith on his own campaign, which is triumphantly scoring 0.3 per cent. in the opinion polls?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend has made his point very clearly and forcefully.

     

    Sanctions (Libya)

    Q6. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the impact on sanctions against Libya of the legal actions by the United States authorities against (a) Juval Aviv and (b) Les Coleman.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so. Mr. Aviv’s acquittal has no bearing on the case against the two Libyans accused in respect of Lockerbie. Legal proceedings against Mr. Coleman are pending in the United States, and it would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment on them.

    Mr. Dalyell: Have not the American courts driven the proverbial coach and horses through the case of the American Government on Libya? Does the Prime Minister realise that many serious people in legal Edinburgh doubt whether the Crown Office now has a substantial case to provide the basis for sanctions against Libya? Given the view of the families, could there be another fatal accident inquiry into these tragic events to get the truth?

    The Prime Minister: It is not for me to say whether the Crown Office has a case or not; it clearly believes that it does. I have made inquiries in the light of the question that the hon. Gentleman tabled, and I am advised that all the theories about responsibility for Lockerbie, including those of Mr. Aviv and Mr. Coleman, were thoroughly investigated. The evidence supports charges against the accused Libyans, and not against anybody else. The hon. Gentleman asks for a further inquiry of some sort. As he knows, there have been a number of inquiries already–a fatal accident inquiry that was held in public, a police inquiry, a Transport Select Committee inquiry, an air accident investigation branch inquiry, and the US presidential commission. In the light of those, I do not believe that a further inquiry would be productive.

     

    Engagements

    Q8. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend deplore, as I do, the increasing tendency for Government policy to be discussed as a result of leaks in the media and elsewhere? Does he share my increasing concern about that trend?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly do. It means that policies that are legitimately a matter for discussion in the House are often discussed and misunderstood before the details of the policies or the Select Committee report have been made public. That is damaging. I believe that the leaking of Select Committee reports, as happened last night, is an abuse of the procedures of the House. On that matter, I entirely share the views of my hon. Friend.

     

    Q10. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

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

    Mr. Barnes: It is probably seven weeks to the general election. Will not many people get a shock to find that their names are not on electoral registers? Why cannot we be told how many people are on the electoral registers in England and Wales, which should have been available for a month, before the House dissolves for a general election?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, electoral registers are published at the appropriate time. I believe that when he raised the matter about three weeks ago I told him that the full count is likely to be available towards the end of March.

  • PMQT – 11 March 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th March 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.

    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. Hendry: Does the Prime Minister agree that parents everywhere will welcome today’s publication of league tables for primary schools? Does he understand their very real anger at those who would deny them the right to know how their children’s schools are performing? Whether or not schools are doing well, parents have an absolute right to know how their children and their local authorities are performing. We understand that, but Labour does not.

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the tables. For the first time, parents will have the information they need to help to choose the appropriate primary schools for their children.

    Mr. Foulkes: In Orkney?

    The Prime Minister: They do–

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    The Prime Minister: It is interesting to note that any prospect of choice or information is an appalling proposition for Opposition Members–no wonder they propose to do away with this information if they ever get the opportunity. The tables expose under-achievement and high truancy, and where they occur: in authorities run by the party of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).

    Mr. Blair: Is the Prime Minister aware of the correspondence from the Association of Meat Inspectors sent to Ministers and the Meat Hygiene Service that shows that, contrary to what we were told last week, serious concern about contamination was being expressed to Ministers and others over a nine-month period and that contamination in abattoirs is getting worse, not better? Those are serious allegations. Will the Prime Minister institute immediate inquiries and ensure that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food publishes a full account of the state of abattoirs, of what warnings were given to Ministers, and of what action was taken?

    The Prime Minister: In the past few hours I have seen the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers since it attained some notoriety on the lunchtime media. I entirely share the concern of the right hon. Gentleman and the Association of Meat Inspectors to ensure the highest standards of hygiene in slaughterhouses. I am surprised by the contents of the letter for two reasons: first, I am surprised because the AMI is responsible for the enforcement of hygiene rules, and I understand that extra staff have been provided to the Meat Hygiene Service, including at least 250 staff who are responsible for inspection. Secondly, I am surprised because the vice-president of the Association of Meat Inspectors, who is a vet–unlike the general secretary to whose letter the right hon. Gentleman referred–said today that he is

    “fully supportive of the Meat Hygiene Service and everything they have achieved in raising standards”.

    Notwithstanding that point, I have not yet fully had the chance to investigate the letter, but I will most certainly do so.

    Mr. Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for that, but will he ensure that we are given a full account of exactly what was said to Ministers over that period of nine months and what the state of abattoirs is? Is there not an unanswerable case for ensuring that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not look after the interests of the industry and consumers together, and that we set up a proper, independent food standards agency that can look into these matters and monitor them on behalf of the public?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman raises two important points. Let me try to answer him in some depth on both of them.

    As to the importance of what Ministers have been doing, I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have had a total of 22 meetings on hygiene matters over the last year to deal with abattoirs and related matters. That series of meetings continues, which shows the extent of the Government’s concern. I will, of course, look personally at what has happened about those meetings.

    I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view on the need for independent advice. The point of distinction between us is whether it should come from an agency, or independent advice from scientific experts, but not necessarily an agency–[Interruption.] I will explain why not necessarily an agency, and I will use the words that are often used by hon. Members when criticising agencies that exist. Hon. Members often say to me that agencies do not stand at the Dispatch Box; that they are not answerable for what is happening. On a matter such as food safety–the right hon. Gentleman just asked that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food be held accountable–it is, perhaps, right that there should be independent advice. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that and we have set it in train, but a Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box and answer for the advice that he receives.

    Mr. Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for that, but I would just point out to him that, in the letter written last Wednesday, the Association of Meat Inspectors said that

    “far from being encouraged to enforce stricter hygiene standards, MHIs are being actively encouraged to ignore breaches of regulations and in some cases threatened if they try to take action”.

    I understand that inspectors have a responsibility, but surely Ministers do as well. I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether, as a result of his previous answer, he is prepared to look again at the possibility of an independent food standards agency–not to commit himself to it today, I understand that–as a better way to deal with these issues.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman poses his question. Let me deal with the first part of it and what instructions were given to inspectors.

    Inspectors have been given clear instructions to apply the rules firmly: for example–to pick up one of the points in the letter–if they see signs of any form of contamination, not to stamp meat as fit for human consumption. Their job is to stop such meat reaching the consumer. Abattoir managers and owners who flout those rules face prosecution. The right hon. Gentleman will know of the monthly report on observance of bovine spongiform encephalopathy rules. In addition, members of the AMI–the inspectors–know that they face disciplinary action if they fail to enforce the rules properly. That is a real threat. The Meat Hygiene Service has dismissed a number of employees and disciplined rather more for inadequately carrying out the public safety responsibility of careful examination of abattoirs, and that is right.

    Of course I will look at the question of independent advice, but for the reason that I set out a moment ago I do not favour a food standards agency.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the high level of investment in the electronics industry in central Scotland? Does he recognise the importance to that industry of manoeuvrability of components and products? Will he consider the requirements of fifth freedoms, which could benefit that industry, particularly by using Prestwick airport as a gateway?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, I visited Prestwick airport 10 days ago to look at its excellent cargo facilities. Granting fifth freedom rights to foreign airlines using Prestwick is attractive, provided United Kingdom airlines are given a fair opportunity to compete and there are matching rights for UK airlines overseas. I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is aware of my hon. Friend’s comments. I share my hon. Friend’s belief that good transport links are vital to that success.

    Mr. Ashdown: If, as the Government claim–

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Welcome to the role of grandparent.

    Mr. Ashdown: Yes, we hope that we shall be.

    If, as the Government claim, today’s primary school league tables are a fair and accurate judge, will the Prime Minister consider two facts? Of the top 20 local education authorities, eight have Liberal Democrat control, three have Labour control and only two have Conservative control. According to the tables, Britain’s primary education system is now, in the words of The Express, the worst in the western world and a national disgrace. After 18 years of Conservative government, does the Prime Minister take any responsibility for that, or is it the fault of the teachers and the Opposition parties?

    The Prime Minister: If it were not for the fact that we introduced this information, nobody would know precisely what was happening in schools. As to standards in secondary and primary schools, the fact is that, across the board, it is long-standing Conservative authorities that have the best results, certainly not Labour authorities. The 20 worst secondary schools and the 10 worst primary schools are in Labour authorities. The schools for which the right hon. Gentleman takes credit have been Conservative run for many years, and have only recently been run by the Liberal Democrats.

     

    Q3. Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Chartered Insurance Institute on its centenary year, which is marked by a major international insurance conference at Westminster today? Are not Governments throughout the world increasingly turning to the private sector to help to meet long-term social costs? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a partnership between insurance companies and the state is the best way of ensuring that future generations can meet their pension needs?

    The Prime Minister: If we wish to enshrine the welfare state for our children and our grandchildren, it is necessary to look again at how we can ensure that the provision that is made today is still affordable in years to come. That is why we produced the plans on basic pension plus. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health yesterday announced our partnership scheme for long-term care, and that is why further plans will be announced tomorrow. We are seeking to ensure that the welfare state is enshrined for the long term by taking decisions that every hon. Member knows need to be taken if we are to ensure the continuation and improvement of welfare provision.

    Mr. Ashton: As we are only three or four weeks away from the official start of the general election campaign, will the Prime Minister tell us whether, a few weeks before the last general election, the Conservative Government did a deal with the tobacco companies, in which several hundred hoardings were given to the Conservative party in return for an agreement that there would be no ban on tobacco advertising? Is that true? Will he confirm that that deal will not be done again?

    The Prime Minister: I confirm that no deals are being done, although I have noticed one: the substantial advertising campaign by the trade unions. Those trade unions fund the Labour party when the deputy leader is not abroad raising funds for the party before denouncing the Conservatives, whom he claims do the same thing.

     

    Q4. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Church primary schools on their exceptional performance, as shown in the league tables that were published today? Is that not further and conclusive proof that traditional teaching methods, employed in an atmosphere in which achievement is expected and there are strict rules and discipline, are not only the most successful but the only proper methods?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to point to the excellent performance of the Church primaries. About 60 of the 100 best-performing schools in the tables are either Church or grant maintained. They show the success of a policy of promoting choice and diversity in our education system if we wish to promote excellence.

    [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I note the hatred of diversity and excellence on the Opposition Benches. I note Opposition plans to abolish grant-maintained schools, to undermine Church schools and to give local education authorities unprecedented control over them. It is very interesting indeed that members of the Labour party would like to deny other parents the opportunities that they exercise themselves.

    Q5. Ms Walley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.

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

    Ms Walley: Does the Prime Minister recall that, five years ago yesterday, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in his Budget speech that he would not increase VAT on fuel? Are we not entitled to know now why the Government did not go ahead with that?

    The Prime Minister: I think that we are entitled to know by what amount a windfall tax will add to the cost of fuel for people–and the cost of water, and the cost of all the other utilities. We are promised such a tax; we have not been given any information about the impact of that tax on either the consumer–

    Ms Walley indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: There is no point in the hon. Lady’s shaking her head; this is the fact of the matter. We have not been given any information about the impact of the tax on either the consumer or the dividends of hundreds of thousands of investors in those industries.

  • Banquet in Honour of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh – 11 March 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at a banquet in honour of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, held at the Banqueting House on Tuesday 11th March 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen

    May I welcome all of you here this evening.

    We’re here as part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the independence of India and Pakistan. On 15 August it will be fifty years since the last Viceroy of India hauled down his flag and new independent countries were born.

    On 4 February next year Sri Lanka also celebrates 50 years of independence.

    And we are here tonight to honour Bangladesh as well.

    Looking back over the last 50 years, all these countries have faced many challenges. Today, they have much to be proud of. In all of them – the anniversaries will be celebrated with enthusiasm for what has been achieved and optimism for the future.

    We share that. So we will also celebrate them here. Some might find that odd. I don’t. And I’ll tell you why.

    Britain’s relationship with the sub-continent goes back four hundred years. It goes back to when the first British travellers gazed in awe at the magnificence and power of the Moghal empire.

    The long years of the Raj followed. Views on that period are bound to differ. Tonight is not an occasion to dwell on it. We now have a modern partnership with the countries of South Asia. A partnership successive governments in all our countries have fostered and encouraged.

    Upon what is it based – this partnership? It’s based on the values we hold in common: the values of;

    – democracy

    – parliamentary government

    – the rule of law

    – freedom of speech

    – respect for human rights.

    Democracy may have sometimes seemed a fragile plant in South Asia. But I believe it has firmly taken root. Pakistan and Bangladesh have had some turbulent times over the last year. But ultimately people have decided at the ballot box who should govern them. And I still marvel at the scale of the Indian general election last year, when a staggering 343 million people voted in the largest democratic exercise the world has ever seen.

    English provides us with a common language with which to express these common values. It binds us together. As does our membership of a Commonwealth that has become more important as it has modernised.

    But the most important bonding is the deep well of friendship built up over generations. It is a well that has never run dry over political differences. And never run dry in half a century of rapid change.

    Some of those who took part in the events of 50 years ago would, I suspect, have been surprised by the depth and breadth of the links between the United Kingdom and South Asia today.

    These links are being made and remade every day. By businessmen. By students. By tourists. And by people visiting their families and friends.

    – There are more than three thousand Indian students studying in Britain. Literally, thousands more come from Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

    – Fifty thousand British tourists visit Sri Lanka every year – more than from any other country. Another one hundred and eighty thousand go to India.

    – Twenty-seven thousand British business people visit India every year.

    These are just a few of the illustrations of the richness and vigour of the connections between Britain and South Asia today.

    Nowhere are these connections more visible than among community life here in Britain. You only have to look round this room to see what a contribution people from South Asia make – today – to life in this country.

    From the entrepreneur striving to make his business succeed, to the cricketer teaching us, cricket’s inventors, just how well it can be played, to members of the Houses of Parliament, there is a South Asian flavour to modern British life. A flavour that adds to the vitality and enterprise of this country. That enriches its culture and national life. I warmly welcome it.

    Those of you here representing the arts make a particularly distinctive contribution to the cultural scene in this country. From achievements in music, in painting, and in literature to achievements on the, screen, on the playing field, and in cooking – British culture would be poorer without you.

    But the contribution of the South Asian community in Britain goes beyond new ideas. It also strengthens the values that characterise the best in British society. Tolerance. Respect for the law. Enterprise. The efforts of ordinary, decent people to build their family life and do their best for their children.

    The fruits of these efforts are already obvious. Young Asians are corning through the education system in large numbers. Their educational achievements outstrip other groups.

    They get the best exam results in schools. They are maintaining that commitment at university. They provide an example and encouragement to others.

    Britain’s Asian communities have produced some of our most successful entrepreneurs. There are over 100 Asian millionaires in the UK. I hope there’ll be many more. So too, I suspect, do you! South Asian talent and business flair is the bedrock of many British businesses.

    I don’t say that everyone who has come to this country has had an easy time. They haven’t. For some, the going has been hard. But what I do say is this. The ledger is in credit and the British people value what South Asia has brought us.

    This is why we celebrate these anniversaries. We wish to honour the contribution South Asians make to British life. And this is why we want to strengthen further our relationship with the countries of the sub-continent.

    The political relationship has long been central. Although inevitably we have had our ups and downs with individual countries, our political links with each of the countries concerned are in many ways closer than they have ever been.

    But relations have now taken on an extra dimension. Over the last few years, we have transformed the economic relationship between Britain and South Asia. Trade, in both directions, is booming and is now worth over four billion pounds a year.

    Let me give you an example. In 1993 I visited India. P V Narasimha Rao, who was then the Indian Prime Minister and I launched what we called the Indo-British Partnership. It struck a chord.

    Business took up the challenge. Trade between Britain and India doubled in just four years. And two hundred new Indo-British joint ventures have been formed every year since then.

    And it is not just with India that we have been so successful. Across South Asia, British firms are leading investors and partners.

    – In Pakistan, National Power are the largest investor in a joint project that will provide 13 per cent of Pakistan’s power capacity.

    – When I was in Dhaka in January, I witnessed the signing of Cairn Energy’s one hundred and fifty million US dollar contract with Petrobangla. Sales over the next 15 years should be worth one billion US dollars.

    – Sri Lanka is now the leading foreign supplier for Marks and Spencer. Many of these goods come from joint ventures between British and Sri Lankan companies.

    At the same time, South Asian firms are increasingly looking to Britain for suppliers and markets.

    They do so because they can find something more in Britain. They can find the enterprise capital of Europe. They can find access to the European Union’s Single Market. And they can find a country that is genuinely open to the outside world – open to her old friends and modern partners in South Asia.

    I was last in South Asia in January, when I visited India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. It’s a continent that I love. There is such richness, such diversity, such vibrancy that one can never tire of it.

    As Prime Minister on such visits, one has to wear many hats – metaphorically and literally. Some of them are more fetching than others? Have got more publicity than others! But it was striking to talk with South Asian leaders about economic reform.

    This may sound like a dry subject. But I believe that it’s the single most important issue for the people of South Asia. We have learnt by experience that to compete in the modern world you have to change. This can be uncomfortable. But change that is made for a purpose is worthwhile.

    All the South Asian leaders I met stressed, again and again, that their purpose was to realise their country’s potential. Their political potential. Their economic potential. And, above all, their human potential – by improving the quality of life of their people.

    That is why they are committed to opening markets, to removing red tape, and to welcoming investors.

    And that is why we in Britain are committed to responding. UK firms have the expertise, the experience and the will to help the economic transformation of South Asia.

    The UK’s development assistance programme is also geared to helping change. We are working with the countries of South Asia to develop their human resources, through better education and health. We are cooperating to create the conditions needed for increased private investment. And I saw for myself in Bangladesh how Britain is helping to stimulate entrepreneurial skills by giving micro-credit to small and new businesses.

    Each country faces different problems. They are at different stages.

    I welcome the latest Indian budget as an important step on the road of fiscal reform. India can also think of the opportunities if infrastructure bottlenecks are removed. If closed business sectors are given the freedom to serve their countrymen. If, for example, the insurance sector is opened up to investment.

    The new government in Pakistan can think of what can be achieved by pushing on with liberalisation and fiscal reform.

    And Bangladesh and Sri Lanka can think of their potential if they make a success of privatisation.

    Make no mistake. All are facing in the right direction. Towards open markets and liberal economies, where people are free to exploit their energy and enterprise. It is the direction that we in Britain are facing too. And because we all face the same way, our partnership has real meaning.

    For India and Pakistan this year is the fiftieth of their existence as modern states. We know they’ll celebrate. It’s their party. But we would like to join in. To demonstrate that we are old friends. And modern partners.

    I hope too that this year will see greater partnership between India and Pakistan. The prospect of talks between Nawaz Sharif and Deve Gowda is very welcome.

    As I speak, the Royal Yacht Britannia is in Bombay, after a very successful visit to Karachi. With her are the Lord Mayor of London and many British business people, including representatives of the insurance companies who have generously sponsored this occasion. Anthony Nelson, the Minister of Trade, who is here this evening, will jet off tomorrow morning to join them.

    The British Council is putting on an exciting programme of cultural events funded jointly by India, Pakistan: and British companies.

    In India, the highlight will be an exhibition of treasures from the British Museum. entitled “The Enduring Image”.

    In Pakistan, another exhibition “Traditions of Respect” will celebrate the contribution of the Islamic world to British culture.

    I know there will also be many cultural events in this country. Some will form part of the programme of events the Government is organising to mark these anniversaries.

    But I am delighted that there will also be many more unofficial events across the country:- Banquets. Festivals. Music, dance and drama. Sporting events. Exhibitions and displays in museums, galleries and historic houses. All reflect the friendship of our countries, the vitality of our communities, and the creative value of their meeting. All are a demonstration of the energy and enthusiasm of people m this country, for the countries of South Asia.

    Finally, as 1997 draws to a close, two events will symbolise our enduring friendship.

    Her Majesty The Queen will visit the sub-continent in October to wish India and Pakistan well in their anniversary year. And all of us – Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India and the United Kingdom – will participate in the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh this autumn.

    In celebrating the last fifty years, we celebrate a shared history, shared values and a truly modern partnership. And above all we can look forward to a shared future in which our roads, our cultures, our interests will be shared as never before. I wish the countries of South Asia every success over the next fifty years. I am sure they will achieve it.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on 10 Downing Street – 10 March 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on 10 Downing Street, London, made during an interview in the building on Monday 10th March 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the great atmosphere of 10 Downing Street and its history].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well you are quite right about the atmosphere. Everything that has happened in English history of real relevance has been determined here for the last 250 years or so. So there is undoubtedly a very special atmosphere. There isn’t a corner of this house that doesn’t have a history to it, and in many cases, a very remarkable history. Just 10 yards away from where you are is William Pitt’s desk, for example. He would have sat there right the way through the French Revolution, the wars with France, as Prime Minister pretty nearly for 20 years. And in every corner of the house you will find something like that, so it is a very special place to work.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he ever wondered about his position].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t. I have been here quite a long time now, six and a half years.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it had worn of as the first few weeks must have been very special].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The person who doesn’t feel that when they first come here has no feelings at all. Of course the atmosphere that hits you hits everyone. When you come into this building through that black door, it looks like a suburban semi-detached/detached house. It isn’t, it grows. It’s like the tardis, the more you get in it, the more you realise it is very big. It goes up a long way, it goes down, it goes back a long way, there is a great deal to it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 March 1997

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th March 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister how many of his answers to parliamentary questions in the last 12 months have exceeded the advisory cost limit; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Where the cost of answering a particular parliamentary question is estimated to exceed £450, it is the general practice for Departments to make clear that the question could be answered only by incurring disproportionate cost. Given the number of questions tabled, it would be unreasonable for my office to calculate the exact cost of answering every single parliamentary question.

     

    Parliamentary Finances

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the reasons why he will not refer the subject of party finances to the committee chaired by Lord Nolan; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The Home Affairs Select Committee has already considered the question of party funding.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister what official engagements he undertook in Ayrshire on 28 February.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Private Finance Initiative

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his office is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 March 1997]: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. In 1996, the Cabinet Office let one PFI project–the provision of the Government’s metropolitan telephone service, involving capital expenditure of £1.25 million in each of the years covered by table 5.5 of the Red Book. The figures for this project have been included in the totals given in the Red Book, but were not given a separate entry in table 5.5 where figures are shown to the nearest £10 million.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 March 1997

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th March 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 February, Official Report, columns 419-20, if he will put forward proposals for a bilateral extradition agreement between the United Kingdom and Libya.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 March 1997]: No. The United Nations Security Council decided that Libya must surrender the accused for trial in Scotland or the USA.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 6 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 March.

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

     

    Organophosphates

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister from what date information was available to any Government Department about the dangers to health from the use of organophosphates; what action was then taken to ensure that all Departments considering their use were made conversant with the dangers; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Organophosphates were first investigated for use as insecticides in the 1930s in Germany. Since then, information on the health effects of OPs has accumulated over time. Much of the information is in peer-reviewed scientific journals, books or World Health Organisation publications and is therefore available to all Government Departments as well as to the general public.

    Government Departments receive advice and information on a regular and on-going basis about OPs and their possible effects on human health from a number of sources both external and internal. OP compounds have been reviewed on many occasions, including the independent expert committees which advise the Government on pesticides and veterinary products. They have not recommended a ban or suspension of the use of this class of compounds.

     

    Governor-General Visits

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will recommend that an invitation be issued to (a) the Governor-General of Australia, (b) the Governor-General of Canada and (c) the Governor-General of New Zealand to make a visit to the United Kingdom of equivalent status to a state visit.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1997]: No.