Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd February 1997.
PRIME MINISTER:
Defence Projects
Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister what changes he has made in the rules for reporting decisions to undertake major defence projects since 1991.
The Prime Minister: It remains the Government’s normal practice to announce decisions to undertake major defence projects to Parliament at the earliest convenient time.
Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st January 1997.
PRIME MINISTER:
Cabinet Office
Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals there are to change the 1997-97 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office other services vote.
The Prime Minister: The cash limit for the Cabinet Office, other services, class XVIII, vote 1, will be reduced by £637,000 from £42,036,000 to £41,399,000 and the running costs limit will be reduced by £637,000 from £43,153,000 to £42,516,000. This is to reflect a transfer of provision to the Office of Public Service, class XVII, vote 1, for superannuation awarding services and accommodation services, partially offset by a transfer of provision from the Office of Public Service towards the cost of early staff departures.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview in London with the Italian Prime Minister, Mr Romano Prodi, held on Friday 31st January 1997.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good afternoon, thank you for being here this afternoon. Can I firstly say what a pleasure it is to have the Prime minister back at Downing Street this morning. We have had the opportunity over the last three hours or so to run across a very wide field of mutual interest. We have spent a lot of time self-evidently discussing three particular areas. Firstly, the development of European Policy, and in particular the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference in Amsterdam. Secondly, bilateral matters, and I think the Prime Minister would probably agree with me when I say that the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Italy is in very good shape indeed. There is a great deal more trade and mutual cooperation, perhaps particularly in the defence field, but not only that, than many people perhaps have realised. And the third area we have been discussing is international affairs. We have a joint interest of course in the G7 Group, of which we are both members, a joint interest in NATO, of which we are both leading members, and of course a joint interest in the European Union.
So those are the areas that we have had the opportunity of discussing this afternoon. There are areas in European policy where we have a very similar position; there are areas, as we will both acknowledge to you, where we have a different perspective, and we have had the opportunity of discussing both of those this morning.
MR PRODI:
I have very few things to add to what John has said, because our conversation was very frank and the points you listed very well, we discussed deeply and our position, there are many points that are similar or identical. For example, we share similar views on enlargement both of NATO and of the European Union. We have stressed our position but we have always helped each other to understand, two countries, different interests and positions, and to have how to converge in the future, how to help each other in the common policies. We have also, I have to sum up, added to this [indistinct] specific elements like agricultural policy, BSE and other specific European issues.
I have to confirm that in the bilateral programme there are really no different views, that we are working in order to enhance the cooperation, especially in the military industry field and in a few basic fields in which Britain afforded the process of privatisation, that is British Airport, British Airways, common action in weapon production field and all these fields of cooperation must be deepened in the future.
QUESTION (Reuters):
Do you think Italy is making a big mistake in wanting so badly to join a single currency?
PRIME MINISTER:
Which Prime Minister?
QUESTION:
To you Mr Major.
PRIME MINISTER:
There are a brace of them here. I wouldn’t be so impertinent as to comment on Italian policy. The Italian Prime Minister has taken a great many courageous decisions in order to meet the criteria necessary to enter a European currency. I think we both share the view that the criteria need to be right, that it is necessary to have the right criteria. But I think it is for you to ask Romano that question, not me. I wouldn’t dream of commenting on that.
MR PRODI:
I can answer that. In this long conversation we have underlined that it is possible to have different interests between different countries you know and I have understood better a lot of the British position and I think that John has understood why I “badly” – as you told – insist on Italian entrance into the common currency. There is a different system, different interests and I think that this conversation, even if the result is not similar action, is very useful to understand each other much better.
QUESTION:
If Britain doesn’t go into monetary union, does this affect Italy or does it affect other European countries?
MR PRODI:
The problem of Euro will affect all Europe of course because I think that there is a general decision and the effect will be spread over all the European countries. So I think that each country must have a responsibility for a right and correct decision in the future and we have really deepened the problem of the consequence of the different actions.
QUESTION:
Did you reach any point of convergence? I understand why Britain wants unanimity in order to let some specific groups within the European Union on further integration [sic], Italy takes a more liberal view on this subject.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it is fair to say that Italy has a more flexible view of flexibility than we do, that is certainly true. I think there is a much greater understanding of both countries’ position on that. That there has to be great flexibility in an enlarging European Union I think is a common position, but amongst the 15 nations of the European Union there is a fine selection of what flexibility might mean in practice and there is a lot of debate to be had about that.
I don’t think anyone wishes to see a position in which a small hard core, against the interests of everybody else, proceed ahead and we need to find a way of actually coping with that and protecting the interests of other nations. There are many different models. It is safe to say that no communal model has yet commended itself. I think we made some interesting progress in discussing the problem, but I wouldn’t pretend to you that we cracked the problem in our discussion on flexibility.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister Prodi, can you expand any further on next in Brussels on Monday that you might be bringing forward the budget for 1998? Is there anything further on that?
MR PRODI:
No, it is completely untrue and I know that there were rumours on this decision in Brussels. There is no official decision but the rumours that we have are in a completely different direction.
QUESTION:
Italy is to ask the European Union to launch a political initiative in Algeria. What is your comment on this initiative and can we consider it as the official position of your government?
MR PRODI:
No, the official position is that Algeria is an independent country and so we don’t want to interfere in their internal problems.
QUESTION:
My question is that you discussed the rumours of Italy bringing the 1998 budget forward, how do you fell about that?
MR PRODI:
I misunderstood your question. Look, this is debated in the political arena in Italy. I think personally that it is very useful to anticipate, even if there is no radical difference, but to have a clear idea of next year’s budget is very useful for the international environment, but this must be discussed with the opposition because to do it five months before the date, we have an agreement for the parliamentary procedures, so this discussion will go on.
QUESTION:
Mr Prodi, you said a couple of days ago that your comments that the lira was too strong were misunderstood. Could you clarify what you meant by that and what levels were you referring to in terms of the recent strength?
MR PRODI:
I don’t want to have any opinion on the real value of the lira. I only told a few days ago, and I repeat, that the lira, the decision of putting the lira at 990 lira per deutschmark was taken a few weeks ago and I clearly mean that if the rate of exchange goes a little up or a little down from that it has no real meaning, you know, they are completely normal fluctuations and so I am not worried about that. We have always fluctuated in the [indistinct] of the central band taken in Brussels.
Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th January 1997.
PRIME MINISTER:
Engagements
Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.
The Prime Minister: This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
European Court of Human Rights (Compliance Measures)
Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by him during the past decade in connection with the implementation of legislation or other compliance measures required as a result of a finding by the European Court of Human Rights of a violation by the United Government or local authorities; what reports he has requested and obtained about (a) the case of Graham Gaskin and (b) other cases; how much time has been spent by him on such compliance matters in the past 10 years; and what plans he has to improve the speed of compliance with and enforcement of findings of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Prime Minister: It is Government policy to implement judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and to do so promptly.
We have a very good record in this respect, but we are aware that in the case of Mr. Gaskin there has been considerable delay. This is an exception and it is being dealt with.
We are content with the manner in which we deal with implementation of judgments and have no plans to alter current practice.
Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th January 1997.
PRIME MINISTER:
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.
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. Sutcliffe: Is the Prime Minister aware of reports today that the national health service is in near-collapse in the north-west of England, with bed shortages and people waiting on trolleys? It is in crisis in Bradford as well, with 289 operations cancelled in the past quarter. A much-needed accident and emergency unit, which we were promised, has not been delivered after many years and we have the outrage of two new mixed-sex wards, which the Prime Minister said would not happen. Is not the truth that there are two health services, just as there are two Tory parties–a real health service which is near collapse and a fantasy health service which the Prime Minister talks about in the press?
Mr. Skinner: Tell us about fantasy land.
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will hear what I have to say.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) referred to the north-west. He might have begun by acknowledging the brand new £2.9 million extension to the accident and emergency department at the Royal Liverpool hospital, which opened a year or so ago and makes it one of the finest accident and emergency hospitals in the country. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bradford, South shakes his head. He does not think that it is one of the finest; I do.
The demand for the national health service is rising and so is the capacity to meet that demand, which is why more patients are being treated. Every health authority has made its plans for dealing with the growth in demand this year, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made additional sums available to deal with that demand.
Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Gibraltar are fiercely proud of being British and do not want to be a province of Spain? Will my right hon. Friend continue vigorously to support the people of Gibraltar to ensure that they have the same freedom of movement and voting that is taken for granted in the rest of Europe?
The Prime Minister: Britain stands by its commitment to the people of Gibraltar, which was enshrined in the 1969 constitution. We will not be entering into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. The Spanish Foreign Minister raised that matter informally with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, as indeed he had done on a previous occasion. My right hon. and learned Friend rejected the idea, because such a proposal did not and would not have the consent of the people of Gibraltar.
Mr. Blair: A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that it was essential in the national interest that our options remained open on a single currency and that he expected Conservative candidates to stand on that national manifesto. Is that still his expectation of Conservative candidates?
The Prime Minister: I think that, before taking me to task on this, the right hon. Gentleman should perhaps talk to the scores of his own Members of Parliament that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said would oppose his stance. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said:
“I think it almost an obligation to be honest with my own electorate.”
But the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would not understand that. He entered the House on an election address that demanded Britain’s withdrawal from the Community, even though he said later:
“I wasn’t actually opposed to membership of the E.C. . . . I said within the closed doors of the Labour party that I disagreed with that policy.”
Behind closed doors he says one thing, in public another: not the politics of conviction, but convenience, saying anything to get a vote–and that is what he advocates to his candidates.
Mr. Blair: The Labour party put its manifesto to its membership and got 95 per cent. support–I doubt that the Prime Minister could put his manifesto to his Cabinet and get 95 per cent. support. After all, I was only asking him to agree with what he himself said a few weeks ago. If he cannot say that he now expects Conservative candidates to do that, has he still the vestige of authority and courage left to stand at that Dispatch Box and say now that at least he strongly urges and seeks to persuade Conservative candidates to stand on his and the Government’s position?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is just being plain silly. Is he telling the House that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) are actually going to support his policy on Europe at the general election? He raises it on this day of all days–the first two Labour questioners on the Order Paper are among the 50 who say that we should not join a single currency. The right hon. Gentleman may ask his candidates to fib to the electorate–our candidates will set out their views, we will follow the policy that the Government have set out and people know our policy. What he is trying to do is to censor and smother what his party stands for.
Mr. Blair: I asked the Prime Minister two questions. I said, as he himself said a few weeks ago, “Does he expect them to stand on the same manifesto?” I answer, “Yes.” I then asked him, “Will he at least seek to persuade people to stand on the same manifesto?” I answer, “Yes.” He is so weak and powerless, he cannot even say. He cannot even get to that–[Interruption.] Is it not extraordinary–[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Mr. Blair: Is it not extraordinary that the Prime Minister of our country cannot even urge his party to support his own position? Weak, weak, weak, weak. I tell him that his weakness and his failure of leadership are the reason his Government are the incompetent mess they are.
The Prime Minister: Whenever the right hon. Gentleman gets abusive, we know that he is losing. If he is concerned about strength, will he today sack the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who yesterday contradicted what he said about tax? Will he today sack the Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party, who yesterday contradicted what was said about tax? All the right hon. Gentleman does is heckle and waft his arms around in a hopeless gesture. Yes or no–will he sack them or not? It is his policy, they are members of his shadow Cabinet, and they have denied his policy.
We have set out consistently what our policy is. I have said that it is important to keep the options–all the options–open. The right hon. Gentleman sniggers–I am quoting his words, not mine. He has followed in grandmother’s footsteps in following policy after policy of ours. He says that we should keep the options open. We keep the options open, but his policy apparently means something quite different, because he dare not admit what his policy is.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Ashby: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement–[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. [An hon. Member: “He was shouting abuse at the Prime Minister.”] Order. If anyone has been abusive, they will indicate it to me. [Interruption.] Order. I think that a lot of hon. Members are suffering from pre-election tension. Let us get on with Question Time. There are hon. Members I want to call.
Mr. Ashby: My right hon. Friend has undoubtedly seen the statement by the chairman of Toyota. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Toyota came to this country because my right hon. Friend’s policies provided the most favourable climate for companies such as Toyota to have a gateway into Europe? Does the chairman’s statement not show that it is important that we should maintain that gateway–important that we should maintain our foot in Europe, so that we get increased investment?
The Prime Minister: We intend to maintain our voice in Europe–there should be absolutely no doubt about that–but we do not intend to follow slavishly whatever happens to be the favoured policy of some European Governments at any particular moment. We shall not follow policies that would be damaging to British interests. We shall not sign social chapters. [Interruption.] The deputy leader of the Labour party is scoffing, as usual. I tell him: one signature on the social chapter will mean half a million signatures on the dole.
Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister has pursued a conscientious and honourable policy in pursuing a path to peace in Northern Ireland and we have been unwavering in support of that. Does he realise that he will lose that, and much else besides, if he fails to apply rigorously, in full and now, the recommendations of the North report, which he brought into being, and jeopardises peace on the streets of Northern Ireland next summer for continuing Unionist support and a few more days in power?
The Prime Minister: In a few minutes, the right hon. Gentleman will hear a statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the North report. However, in view of what he just said, I invite him to read the North report, and perhaps especially paragraph 1.49, which says:
“We are well aware that it is for the Government to take a view on how far it wishes to adopt our recommendations”.
It goes on to say:
“No doubt there will be a period of consultation, and there may be some question as to how far new structures and procedures can be put in place in time for the 1997 ‘marching season’.”
Some can be put in place, as my right hon. and learned Friend will tell the House, but the matter is more complex than the right hon. Gentleman intimated. I suggest that he wait to listen to the detailed statement by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one should not unfairly–or even fairly–always go back to what people put in their election addresses in the 1980s, but one might want to look at what they put in their election addresses at the last general election and then wonder how many of those policies they have reversed in the past five years?
The Prime Minister: I think it is possible–[Interruption.] I am prepared to offer a prize to anyone who can find five policies on which the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has been consistent.
Mr. Hume: Is the Prime Minister aware that today is the 25th anniversary of one of the worst atrocities in the past 25 years in Northern Ireland, when the security forces shot dead 14 people on the streets of my city? Does he agree that the more than 3,000 people who have died in the past 25 years have all suffered atrocity, and that their families have suffered trauma because of such tragedies?
Given that that was the only atrocity that was carried out by the security forces with the ratification of Government, and given that the Prime Minister has told me in writing that those who were killed on Bloody Sunday should be regarded as innocent of any allegation that they were shot while handling firearms or explosives, can he please tell me why they were shot? If he does not know, does he not think that the matter requires public investigation?
The Prime Minister: I understand how the hon. Gentleman feels about the matter. Everybody knows his record in Northern Ireland over the years, and I pay due tribute to it.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of ratification by Government. I think that he might wish to reconsider what he said about that. The events of 25 years ago constituted a terrible tragedy. I concede that to the hon. Gentleman. I believe that everyone is determined that the lessons of that day are never forgotten. That, too, I share with the hon. Gentleman.
The actions at the time were fully investigated by the Widgery committee. I know of no reason at present to reopen that inquiry. If anyone has fresh, relevant evidence, of course it should be sent to the proper authorities. The important point is that everyone acknowledges the tragedy of what happened a quarter of a century ago today. The Government, with the hon. Gentleman’s help and, I concede, with the help of the leader of the Liberal party, the leader of the Labour party and many others, have been trying to reach a situation in Northern Ireland where there never, ever again need be any prospect of such an event recurring. That is what I passionately want. I do not believe that anyone doubts that. Without fresh evidence, I see no advantage in raking over old problems. If there were fresh evidence, of course we would examine it.
Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th January 1997.
PRIME MINISTER:
Arms Exports
Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 November, Official Report, column 1, when he expects to be able to report to Parliament the results of his review of export licensing controls.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) on 22 January, Official Report, columns 600-01 on progress on the Government’s response to the recommendations made by Sir Richard Scott following his inquiry into the export of arms and arms-related goods to Iraq.
European Council
Mr. Hawksley: To ask the Prime Minister where the European Council at the end of the United Kingdom’s presidency of the European Union in 1998 will be held.
Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to announce his decision on the location of the June 1998 European summit conference.
The Prime Minister: The European Council will be held in Cardiff.
Derek Bentley
Miss Lestor: To ask the Prime Minister what decision he has made in respect of a pardon for Derek Bentley.
The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering carefully the latest request for a posthumous free pardon. He will make an announcement as soon as a decision has been reached.
Minister for Children
Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister for Children.
The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 January 1997]: I have no plans to do so. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), has ministerial responsibility for children’s services at the Department of Health. However, all Government Departments are aware of the need to consider children’s interests and there are many mechanisms in place, both formal and informal, to ensure inter-departmental co-operation on children’s issues. These arrangements work well, especially now they have been expanded by the forming of the children’s services strategy group which brings together central and local government and the major voluntary organisations to look at key issues. This group is co-ordinated by the Department of Health.
Engagements
Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th January 1997.
PRIME MINISTER:
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
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. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government’s continued support for successful schools? Will he sympathise with the head teachers and governors of St. Olave’s and the London Oratory schools who will have difficulty in expanding their schools, even to accommodate more children of hypocritical Labour Front Benchers, if the Opposition have their way?
The Prime Minister: I can assure the House that we will press ahead with our plans to allow successful schools to expand, either before or after the general election. Last night, the Opposition voted to deny other parents the choice, and some children the opportunities, that they themselves enjoy. Our aim is to raise standards: they apparently peddle double standards.
Mr. Blair: I see now: it is now our fault that they cannot run a halfway competent Government. Why does the Prime Minister not simply call a halt to what is the fag end of a burnt-out Government? They have no legislative programme left and the country is tired of waiting: March–not March; May–not May. If they are so confident, why does not the Prime Minister, just for once, put a stop to the dithering, name the day and call a general election?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman clearly is not aware of the importance of the legislation that he has just dismissed. He clearly does not want the legislation against crime that we are proposing. He clearly does not want the tougher sentences that we are proposing and he certainly does not want the educational choice for everyone that he himself has enjoyed.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Whenever the general election comes, will my right hon. Friend promise that, when he leads our party into it, he will not pledge to spend £30 billion more on public expenditure while at the same time saying that there will be no increase in taxation?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that we will not have £30 billion-worth of spending pledges. The Labour party is very keen to reassure people that it would not raise taxes, but it has not yet withdrawn the £30 billion-worth of spending pledges that make it inevitable that it will raise taxes, and it has not yet managed to school its Front-Bench spokesmen out of promising more expenditure on every occasion.
Q2. Mr. Miller: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Miller: I remind the Prime Minister of his words at Question Time on 28 January 1992, as this is the fifth anniversary of his pledge not to increase value added tax. Will he apologise to the millions of pensioners who this winter have had to pay the VAT that he imposed on their gas and electricity bills?
The Prime Minister: As the–[Hon. Members: “Answer.”] I propose to answer.
The hon. Gentleman might bear it in mind that his windfall tax will impose just such a tax on utilities, on electricity and gas, and on pensioners, but the Labour party does not have the courage to say how much it will be. It says that it will raise and spend the money, but it does not say on whom it will be levied or how much it will be. If the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about VAT, perhaps he can stop what he knows to be the wholly untruthful smear campaign about our future plans on value added tax.
Mr. Marland: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not, and never has been, his intention to impose VAT on Severn bridge tolls–[Laughter.]–and that, contrary to what the new Labour candidate for Forest of Dean says, it was not the Government’s idea, but that of the European Transport Commissioner, who is a former leader of the British Labour party?
The Prime Minister: I can confirm that. Perhaps if Opposition Members had listened to my hon. Friend before they began scoffing, they would have seen the trap opening in front of them. It certainly remains our view that tolls are not subject to value added tax, and we are opposed to the European Commission’s view that they should be–a view that I believe is held by Commissioner Kinnock.
Q3. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Winnick: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate the present right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) on his honesty? He said in an interview on Friday that it was most unlikely that the Government would be re-elected. Is that not the real reason why the Prime Minister is so terrified of calling the general election and clings desperately to office day by day? Does he consider it dignified to carry on to the very last moment so that he can stay at No. 10?
The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that we have the most successful economy, with the highest growth and the best inward investment record, in western Europe. None of the socialist Governments in Europe can begin to match that record, which people are understanding more and more as day succeeds day.
Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the countries that form the United Kingdom–Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland–although proud entities in themselves, would count for nothing in the world as individual, separate nations? Will he therefore assure the House that his Government will never follow the lead of the Labour party in proposing constitutional changes that would lead to the break-up of this United Kingdom and provide the perfect scenario for our component countries to be nothing more than provinces in a federal Europe?
The Prime Minister: The shadow Foreign Secretary seems to think that we are heading for a Europe of the regions. I strongly disagree with that view. I believe that the United Kingdom is at its strongest while it remains united and I fear that the policies proposed by the Opposition parties–to be fair, not merely the Labour party but the Liberal Democrats as well–would lead to Scotland leaving the UK. Were that to happen, it would damage not only Scotland, but each of the other parts of the United Kingdom as well. It is a policy that should be opposed and we will oppose it.
Q4. Mr. Rooney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Rooney: Does the Prime Minister recall his pledge, which was apparently reiterated by the Secretary of State for Health yesterday, to phase out mixed-sex wards? What condolences will he give to my constituents who have found that the Bradford Hospitals NHS trust has reopened and created two mixed-sex wards in the past month?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman recalls, it was this Government who, in 1995, gave patients the right to be told before admission if it was planned that they would be cared for in a mixed-sex ward. The Labour party did not seem to bother about that at all when in office. We decided to take action. We are monitoring the process. The health authorities will report back by the end of next month with individual timetable plans for separating male and female patients–timetable plans for action that the Opposition ignored for years.
Sir Roger Moate: On the vote last night on grant-maintained schools, does my right hon. Friend recall the remarks of the Labour education spokesman, who said:
“I am having no truck with left-wing, middle-class parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area”?
Should we check the Division list from last night, to find out whether the Leader of the Opposition voted in his own interests or those of his party?
The Prime Minister: I cannot imagine about whom the shadow education spokesman was speaking, but I gather that there was a miscount last night and the Government were not defeated in that Division. No doubt the usual channels are sorting out the position now. What is important is not Labour’s student union ambush of last night, but what it shows about Labour party policy, which is that Labour Members will enjoy choice and opportunity for themselves, but will come together as an act of policy and vote against it for people who happen not to be Labour Members of Parliament.
Mr. Loyden: Instead of spending public money on building the proposed royal yacht, will the Prime Minister consider using that money to kick-start the shipyards of this country so that our shipyard workers can get back to work to build ships in which our unemployed merchant seamen can sail?
The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the decision, because the yacht will be built in a British shipyard.
Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of being able to see league tables is greatly popular with parents? What significance does he give to the fact that the National Association of Head Teachers recently launched a major test case to try to ensure that parents would not have that right? What significance should be attached to the fact that the barrister who vigorously prosecuted that case was the wife of the Leader of the Opposition? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order.
The Prime Minister: The important element is the official policy of the Opposition, which has been to oppose greater information for parents and league tables–to oppose each and every one of the reforms that we have produced to give children and parents better choices and parents information about schools. We believe that parents should have information about schools; the Opposition policy is that they should not.
Highlands and Islands
Q6. Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to the highlands and islands.
The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
Mr. Kennedy: That being the case, may I invite the Prime Minister to take this opportunity to explain to local people a glaring inconsistency that emerged over the weekend and that they have difficulty comprehending? Why is it that, on a £60 million contract, public money is ruled in and private finance is completely ruled out; yet, on a contract of half that value and one that is fundamental to the interests of the people of the west coast of the highlands, the Isle of Skye and, indeed, the Western Isles constituency, which is one of the lowest-income parts of the country, the public sector is completely ruled out, private finance imposed and people now face the highest toll bridge charges, not only in Europe but probably in the world, for a future generation?
The Prime Minister: The reality is that tolls on the Skye bridge are going to be no higher than ferry fares in 1995. Without the private finance initiative project, Skye would not have had the bridge for another 20 years. I note that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to using private finance. I hope that, in all the constituencies up and down the country where private finance is providing better facilities, it will be clear that the Liberal Democrats oppose those projects.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Huntingdon, held on Friday 24th January 1997.
QUESTION:
[Mr Major was asked what he thought of the comments made by Leon Brittan].
PRIME MINISTER:
We have set out a policy of negotiating and deciding. That has been our policy for a long time and Leon Brittan has supported that policy. I didn’t ask him but I understand he did so again this morning. What we have been focusing on in the last few days is the economic criteria as to when and whether it might be safe to consider this properly. We have reached the judgement it is highly unlikely that the condition will be right for Europe itself – whether or not we are in it – to go ahead on 1st January 1999. The Cabinet reached that conclusion yesterday and self-evidently, if it isn’t right, we are not going to go ahead on that particular date. That is perfectly clear.
QUESTION:
[Mr Major was asked if he was surprised that this policy hadn’t won over the Euro-sceptics in his party].
PRIME MINISTER:
You make an assertion that I don’t intend to comment upon. We have set out our policy for a long time. Our policy is in the national interest. We have set out a national interest policy and set it out very clearly so there is no misunderstanding. We have now looked at what the economic conditions are across Europe and reached a judgement on whether it is likely to be safe for our European partners or anyone to go ahead with the single currency on 1st January 1999. And upon the available evidence to us at present, we think it is unlikely, very unlikely, that they could safely proceed.
QUESTION:
[Mr Major was asked if forty Euro-sceptics could defect after the General Election].
PRIME MINISTER:
It is completely off-beam – a story that has emerged from time to time, usually without any names and one that has usually been denied in the past. It seems to have re-emerged, it’s completely off-beam. As far as I’m aware there is nothing to justify it.
QUESTION:
[Mr Major was asked about Tony Blair’s Amsterdam speech].
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven’t read the details of everything the leader of the Labour Party plans to say but from what I know of what he plans to say, for example, after-school clubs for children, they have been our policy for some time. We have devoted many tens of million of pounds to them. I visited one very recently. They are a very good idea. They are our policy. I am afraid this is another example of the jackdaw tendency of the Labour Party, but if we leave a good policy lying around they will certainly scoop it up, shine it brightly and claim it as a brand new policy for themselves. But it isn’t. It is our policy, but I strongly suspect he has a watered down version of it. Beyond that, I understand what is in his speech will involve a good deal of expenditure and exclude private sector involvement which we would seek to include, so I expect there is not a good deal in the speech except for some copycat policies of ours.
QUESTION:
[Mr Major was asked about the return of Alan Clark].
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan Clark is an original. Everyone in the House of Commons knows he is an original. And he will being a dash of colour. It’s not just the question of the dash of colour and the originality of Alan Clark. There’s a very shrewd, clever, intelligent politician returning to the House of Commons and of course I welcome that.
QUESTION:
[Mr Major was asked if he would give Alan Clark a Governmental role].
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’m not going to carry out my next Government reshuffle now, but I’m delighted you acknowledge there is going to be one.
Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd January 1997.
PRIME MINISTER:
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
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. Salmond: Does the Prime Minister realise that for £200 million we could re-equip every primary school in the United Kingdom with books and new computers to the tune of £10,000 per school? Would not that be a more meaningful project for the millennium generation than building a giant dome in Greenwich with a lifespan of 10 years? How does he think people in Birmingham, Swansea or Glasgow feel about the concentration of funds on Heseltine’s folly on the Thames?
The Prime Minister: Many different projects will come out of the millennium fund–all of them worthy–including that to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is not a question of having only a single project for the millennium. As a result of the lottery, which we established, about £1.8 billion will be available for the millennium. It will be spent in a variety of ways, and I think that, in one way or another, it will benefit almost every part of the country.
Mr. Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since the last general election, unemployment figures have fallen dramatically and without resort to a windfall tax? If anyone was minded to impose one, should not we be told which companies would be subject to it, on what basis they would be subject to it, how much it would cost them and what revenue would result?
The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the desirability of knowing precisely what the windfall tax might amount to and who would pay for it. There seems to be some confusion about who would pay for it. I gather that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition’s office said that British Airways did not fit inside the terms of the windfall tax but that the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary said that, as far as she was aware, no one had ruled out the fact that British Airways would have to pay a windfall tax. Remarkably, having contradicted the leader’s office, she went on to add that she did not think there was any confusion about that policy.
Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister seems very keen to ask me questions and have me answer them. I suggest that if he is really keen on that, he goes ahead and calls the general election. However, let us do things in a more conventional way to begin with.
After this morning’s Cabinet meeting, will the Prime Minister confirm unequivocally what he said unequivocally in December: that he will not rule out the option of joining a single currency in the next Parliament, even in the first wave, and that that will remain his party’s position at the next general election?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that point and I will explain to the right hon. Gentleman what the Cabinet did and decided this morning. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has conducted a review of the criteria for a single currency and that was looked at in depth in Cabinet this morning. We have concluded, on the basis of that detailed examination of the criteria and on the basis of the information currently available, that it is very unlikely, although not impossible, that a single currency will be able to proceed safely on 1 January 1999. I am talking not just about Britain’s participation, but about the single currency itself. If it did proceed without reliable convergence, we would not, of course, be part of it.
Mr. Blair: Let us just–[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Blair: Let us be clear about what the Prime Minister means there. Is he saying that it is unlikely–
Mr. David Evans: What is your policy?
Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a time when the Opposition answer questions; it is a time when the Opposition ask questions.
Mr. Blair: Let us be clear about what the Prime Minister is saying, particularly in light of the interview that the Chancellor has just given on television. Is the Prime Minister saying that it is unlikely that the whole system will go ahead on 1 January 1999? Is it clear that if the system does go ahead on 1 January 1999, he retains the option to join?
The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman reads what I have said, he will find that I answered that question quite explicitly just a few moments ago. I said that on the information currently available, it was very unlikely that the single currency would proceed safely on 1 January 1999 and that if it did proceed without reliable convergence, we would not be part of it.
Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister is not answering the question of whether he agrees with the Chancellor that if the single currency does proceed on the right criteria, he retains the option to join. Let him answer that question specifically and then let him answer this question, too. If that is the position of the Conservative party, is it the position of the whole Conservative party? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] “Yes”, they all chorus. Will he then tell us whether he will prevent–[Hon. Members: “Bye bye.”] I know quite well why Conservative Members want this question to be shouted down. Will the Prime Minister undertake to say that if that is the position of the whole Conservative party, he will prevent any group of Conservative party candidates from standing on the manifesto of ruling out the option altogether?
The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had had a mirror in front of him so that he could see the faces behind him, he might just have settled on my first two answers, both of which I am happy to reiterate to him.
Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if any politicians try to persuade voters that living standards and pay packets are safe in their hands by making a few pledges about income tax rates, and if those politicians do not simultaneously and unequivocally rule out any tampering with the ceiling on national insurance contributions, they are guilty of a gross and serious fraud on the British people that only he and a continuing Conservative Government can prevent?
The Prime Minister: It was an extraordinary speech by the shadow Chancellor the other day, and one I greatly enjoyed reading and will greatly enjoy revisiting time and again between now and the election. The reality is that it is not a case of whether a Labour Government would increase taxes; it is simply a question of where a Labour Government would increase taxes. Would it be by increasing national insurance contributions, changing the rate of national insurance contributions, cutting tax allowances or raising inheritance tax? The scope is very wide.
Mr. Blair: What about the 22 tax rises?
Mr. Major: Twenty-two tax rises says the Leader of the Opposition. Which of those would he repeal? Which of those would he reverse? What about the 25 tax reductions that he never mentions?
Q2. Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Cohen: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in my constituency, one in five primary school children are taught in classes with more than 30 other children? [An hon. Member: “Lucky.”] A Conservative Member says, “lucky.” Does the Prime Minister agree with that? I presented the Class Size (Reduction) Bill, and Labour has made a firm election pledge on the matter. Why have his Government done nothing except preside over ever-rising class sizes? Why do his Government prefer silly status symbols to sensible class sizes?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether that counts as an expenditure commitment; it will be interesting to see in due course. The proportion of children in classes of more than 31 has fallen since 1979. Beyond that–[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen might wait a moment. Beyond that, there is evidence that parents agree that class size is not the most important factor. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, let me tell him that the average class size for 11 to 16-year-olds in Islington is smaller than at the London Oratory.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is less expensive to keep good youngsters good, which is why any initiative to expand the cadet forces must be welcomed? Such an initiative would impose on left-wing authorities the cadet forces’ right of access to school property and buildings.
The Prime Minister: I saw the speculative stories in the press this morning about cadet forces and must say that they were a touch overblown in the way in which they were printed. I strongly encourage participation in cadet forces. They provide young people with the opportunity to develop qualities of responsibility, self-reliance, resourcefulness and endurance.
Mr. Tony Banks: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not join, then?
The Prime Minister: I did not join because I was playing cricket, which provides exactly the same qualities for people.
There are now more than 130,000 young people in the cadet organisation. I would certainly wish to encourage wider voluntary participation in the cadets. That of course requires more assistance from adult volunteers, but I hope that it will be possible to increase the scheme.
Q3. Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. McAvoy: Will the Prime Minister confirm that one of his reasons for wanting school children to join the cadets is that they can learn the qualities of loyalty, self-discipline and leadership? Is it not therefore regrettable that the Defence Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister were never members of the cadets, as the first needs lessons in loyalty, the second in self-discipline and the third in leadership?
The Prime Minister: That was very well rehearsed. [Hon. Members: “Author.”] One scans the sides to my hon. Friends’ cries of “Author”. The hand behind the words can readily be discerned.
Q4. Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.
The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Bellingham: Does the Prime Minister agree that businesses need certainty and stability when planning investment? Do not the conflicting statements about which companies would pay a windfall tax prove yet again that there is a gaping hole at the heart of Labour’s spending plans that can only–
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about the Government’s policies. If he can do that, I will hear him, but if he cannot he must resume his seat.
Mr. Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that any windfall tax would lead to higher gas, water and electricity bills for my constituents?
The Prime Minister: It is undisputed that if there were to be a new tax at an undisclosed rate on an undisclosed number of companies at an undisclosed time, it would have an impact not only on the price of the products those companies produce, but on the dividends that the shareholders legitimately expect from having invested in those companies. At the moment, there is complete uncertainty about any windfall tax proposals. Clearly, the proposals are coming apart at the seams. It is a case of give Labour spokesmen the facts and let them draw their own confusions.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the Prime Minister say why he is spending hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation for farmers in the BSE crisis and is preparing to spend more than £100 million in compensation under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, yet adamantly refuses to pay any compensation to those infected with hepatitis C by contaminated blood transfusions? Where is the justice in that? Will he take personal charge, show some compassion and, even now, ensure that legitimate compensation is paid?
The Prime Minister: Everyone has great sympathy for the people who suffer from hepatitis. The underlying point is essentially whether action was taken that could have been better done at the time that then created the problem faced by the sufferers from hepatitis. If one accepted that principle, it would be a wholly new principle for the national health service and not one that any Government have accepted in the past. The hon. Gentleman himself understands that.
Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd January 1997.
PRIME MINISTER:
Scotch Whisky Industry
Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Indian Prime Minister in respect of the Scotch whisky industry.
The Prime Minister: Although the Scotch whisky industry was not discussed during my meeting with the Indian Prime Minister, it was covered in the meetings between the Indian Finance Minister and my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, at one of which representatives of the Scotch whisky industry were present. The Indian Minister indicated that whisky would be involved in a wider programme of liberalising imports of consumer goods into India, although the timing was not yet clear. The Government will continue to press for improved access for Scotch whisky to this potentially very important market.
UN Special Session (Environment)
Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister which Government Minister will be attending the United Nations General Assembly special session on the environment in June.
The Prime Minister: I shall be attending the United Nations General Assembly special session in June.