The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: BSE

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Florence – 20 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Florence on Thursday 20th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if a deal is reached, are you convinced it will show that the non-cooperation policy was worth it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course I am convinced it would show that. We sought a deal for a long time and we were unable to make progress with our partners, for eight weeks we were unable to make progress. Over the last four weeks we have made progress. I don’t yet know whether we will be able to reach a deal tomorrow. I am here to negotiate. I am here to reach a deal if a satisfactory deal if obtainable. I shan’t know that until the morning. If we can get a deal, we will get a deal; if we can’t, then we will have to continue.

    QUESTION:

    What do you require from this non-cooperation policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is a matter for negotiation with our partners and I will discuss that with them in the morning.

    QUESTION:

    Have you been upset by accusations that you have climbed down?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we haven’t, so I am unlikely to be upset by something that frankly is not true. Some of the stories we have seen over the last 24 hours are from Alice in Wonderland, they have no basis in fact whatsoever, they are just complete nonsense.

    QUESTION:

    No question of a climb-down?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no question of a climb-down and you know that as well as I do, John, absolute nonsense. We have set out our position. We have been in a position and ready to negotiate. I hope we are going to reach a satisfactory agreement. Tomorrow we will find out whether we can or not. I very much hope we can.

    QUESTION:

    Has it been worth the resentment caused in Europe and will you be apologising for the disruption?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t have to be apologising for the disruption. You need to remember how this started. This started because our European partners were not cooperating with the proposals of the Commission and the proposals of the scientists to lift the ban on beef derivatives. It was their non-cooperation that forced the United Kingdom to take the stand that we did. And I think you have to remember why we did it. We did it because I am determined to get a settlement in the interests of the British beef industry. There are 650,000 people engaged in the British beef industry who require us to reach a settlement. Now if a few people are going to complain and gripe about our tactics, well I am afraid that is life and that is politics. What I require is a settlement and I hope we are going to get a settlement over the next day or so. We shall see.

  • PMQT – 20 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

    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. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend ignore advice from the Opposition, who would sign away Britain’s vital interests to some European super-state? When he meets European leaders in Florence tomorrow, will he remind them of Britain’s economic success, and will he continue to fight robustly for Britain’s interests in Europe, in contrast with the Opposition, who would fight for Europe’s interests in Britain?

    The Prime Minister: It is certainly the case that the principal Opposition party would jeopardise the rebate, undermine the veto and follow policies in Europe which certainly would not add to employment and would damage our position here and in Europe. I confirm that we shall not remotely follow any of those policies. We have a crowded agenda to address at the summit at Florence this weekend–on the intergovernmental conference, unemployment and economic issues–and I hope to get a resolution of the beef dispute.

    Mr. Blair: Under the European Commission proposal, when does the Prime Minister think that the ban on beef will finally be lifted? Obviously, I am asking not for a precise date, but for the approximate time when he now expects it to be lifted.

    The Prime Minister: We do not yet have an agreement on the framework. There is unanimous agreement by the Standing Veterinary Committee on the eradication plan, which is a great step forward. The agreement on the framework document remains to be achieved and I hope to reach an agreement in Florence. I am not certain that I will, but I certainly hope that it will be possible. After then, it will be for us–not the Commission–to determine the dates, as it will depend on the steps that we have to take. I would expect that, provided that we can reach agreement in Florence, we shall begin to see the lifting of the ban in the early autumn, but that will depend on negotiations still to come.

    Mr. Blair: The question is not when it will begin, but when it will end. Perhaps the Prime Minister will confirm the following about the deal. First, there is no date on the deal. Secondly, there are no guarantees; indeed, any part of the ban being lifted has to be referred to a committee which is under no obligation to accept it. Thirdly, he has had to concede extra cattle to be slaughtered, although there is no scientific basis for it. Fourthly, there is no lifting of the third country ban and, fifthly, there is no deal on additional compensation, though we shall be spending billions on it for years to come. If those points are correct, is not calling it a triumph, as some Ministers have today, an utter travesty of the truth?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in almost every aspect of what he has just said. Let me make it clear to him that, but for the action that we have taken, we would be nowhere near the deal that it may be possible to strike this weekend. In the first eight weeks after the ban was imposed, nothing whatever was offered to us by our European partners. In the four weeks since we began a process of non-co-operation, we have reached agreement on the eradication plan and reached agreement with the Commission on a framework. I hope that we shall reach agreement with our partners on a framework to enable us to begin to move towards lifting the ban.

    The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about the slaughter of extra animals. No animal that would not have been slaughtered is now to be slaughtered. All those animals would have been caught by the 30-months-plus plan. Almost every one of the statements that the right hon. Gentleman has just made shows a profound misunderstanding of the whole negotiation.

    Mr. Blair: My understanding is based on the European Commission document.

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

    Mr. Blair: Then perhaps the Prime Minister will answer the question that was put to him: when does he expect the ban finally to be lifted? I suspect that the reason why he will not give us an estimate is that, if he did so, the period would be in years, not months. That is why he does not want to give it. Is not the truth that he is now so desperate to extricate himself from this mess that he will settle for anything? There is humiliation in the deal. There is ignominy in the deal. In fact, it is not a deal at all: it is a rout.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s position is wholly idiotic. Not only that, but now that he is talking in that fashion, he might bear in mind that his hon. Friend the shadow Minister of Agriculture supported the ban, against the interests of this country, after it was proposed. First the right hon. Gentleman says that he supports our policy and that we must negotiate an agreement. Then, when we do negotiate an agreement, he changes his position. The fact of the matter is that there would have been no chance of an agreement, but for the policy of non-co-operation that we have followed. We are now within a few hours, with luck, of getting an agreement in Florence–and that is no thanks to the policies of the Opposition, who right from the outset have done all that they can for party advantage, notwithstanding the damage to the British agricultural industry.

    Mr. Duncan Smith: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend remembers the old cowboy movies that he must have watched in his youth. In that context, if one of our colleagues had gone to Germany and told a German audience that he would never be prepared to see Britain isolated in Europe, and that he would therefore be prepared to give up the veto, but then told a British audience that he would never give up the veto because Britain might have to be isolated in Europe, would my right hon. Friend be justified in saying to that person, “Paleface speak with forked tongue?”

    The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) went to Germany, I at least did not expect him while he was there to attack a policy that he was nominally supporting in this country. But instead, to curry favour with his hosts, he rolls over on his back with his feet in the air.

    Mr. Ashdown: I did not support the Government in the policy of confrontation. Is it not perfectly clear that the Prime Minister, having again marched his troops to the top of the hill in Brussels, is now engaged once more in uselessly marching them back down again? What is the cost of all that folly, the terrible damage to Britain’s influence abroad and to respect for this country?

    There is muddle, confusion and chaos at home, and we are now required to slaughter more animals. The Prime Minister says none, but the National Farmers Union says 66,000. Brussels is to police the scheme; there is no starting date, no timetable, no clear phasing and no binding response from our colleagues. What words will the Prime Minister now use to convince us all that this is the brilliant and decisive victory that he has predicted all along?

    The Prime Minister: Yet again the right hon. Gentleman shows his breathtaking capacity to understand nothing. He is wrong on almost every aspect, as he will discover at the end of the discussions in Florence, when we will have finally dealt with the matter. We would still be waiting for any movement towards the lifting of the ban by Christmas or later, had we followed the policy that he advocated. As it is, we are close to an agreement that will be in the interests of the British agriculture industry. He says that he is interested in the agriculture industry when he is in his constituency, but when he is in the Chamber he just wants to make silly points.

    Sir Peter Hordern: Did my right hon. Friend read the remarks that Mr. Henkel made at the conference attended by the Leader of the Opposition? He said that unemployment in Germany was continuing to increase, whereas in Britain it had fallen by 20 per cent., that the rate of taxes on retained profits in Germany was twice as high as in Britain, and that Britain was the enterprise centre of Europe. Is it not the case that we are doing rather well at cricket, our footballers are playing like heroes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) is nearly 80 years old? We are moving towards a position where all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, so why let Labour ruin it?

    The Prime Minister: Mr. Henkel, the president of the Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, said more than that: he pointed out that we had received 10 times as much investment from outside Europe as Germany had, despite the fact that Germany was a larger economy. What is rather strange is that the celebrated guest at that great meeting where the president of the BDI paid those compliments to the United Kingdom would like to change all the policies that have made this country so successful.

     

    Q2. Mr. Simpson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Simpson: Will the Prime Minister comment on his deputy’s claim on “Today” that the culling of a further 65,000 cows amounts to no more than “a handful” of cattle? How does he square that with yesterday’s comment by the Minister of Agriculture that any suggestions of a further cull were completely untrue? Will he give the House and the public two simple assurances: first, that the Government will guarantee full compensation to farmers for the reconstruction of the national herd and, secondly, that a sizeable contribution from Europe will now form a core part of the framework agreement that he has negotiated?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong to suggest that 67,000 additional animals are to be slaughtered, That is not remotely the case. Every one of those animals was going to be slaughtered in any event. Not a single extra animal will be slaughtered. [Interruption.] One can always tell when the Opposition do not like what they are hearing. Not a single extra animal will be slaughtered, so the hon. Gentleman’s question is based on total nonsense.

     

    Q3. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Butler: May I wish my right hon. Friend a most enjoyable weekend break in Florence? So as to ensure that it is enjoyable also for Conservative Members, will he make it clear from the start, and again at the end, that he will accept no weakening of the British veto and no extension of qualified majority voting?

    The Prime Minister: Weekends in Florence are always enjoyable, as I have learnt on many occasions in the past. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It is a lovely place, and I am looking forward to an enjoyable weekend there. And I can ensure that my hon. Friend enjoys both this and subsequent afternoons by giving him both the assurances for which he asks.

    Mr. Garrett: Why do the Government refuse to support the International Labour Organisation’s convention on home workers when this country has 1.5 million home workers, many thousands of whom earn less than £2 an hour, and many of whom earn less than £1 an hour? These people have no protection or rights under our existing legislation. Does that not show a quite incredible callousness?

    The Prime Minister: Not remotely. A large number of people in this country are in work rather than unemployed precisely because we do not have the sort of legislation that the hon. Gentleman prefers. I happen to take the view that policies, whether the hon. Gentleman likes or dislikes them, are for this House and should not be pushed upon us by bodies such as the ILO.

     

    Q4. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is no part of his Government’s policy to impose regional government and regional assemblies on the British people, which would mean yet another tier of government, more expense, more bureaucracy and more interference and would be a nightmare for the British taxpayer?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that regional assemblies would be a total irrelevance, were they to be introduced. They are proposed by the Labour party only because it knows that its plans for a tax-raising Scottish Assembly are untenable unless it moves into this nonsense. The Labour leader is rather confused about this policy. He said on one occasion, “We are not committed to regional assemblies,” and then on another occasion he said that regions should have assemblies. On this issue, not only does he disagree with his colleagues–he disagrees with himself.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the British Beef Ban (II) – 19 June 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the British beef ban, made during an interview in London held on Wednesday 19th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked when Britain would end its obstruction policy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will end when I said we would end it at the commencement of this affair. When I initially made the statement in the House of Commons, I did so out of frustration – frustration because the European Union were not cooperating properly with seeking a solution to this problem, and frustration with some member states because despite the fact that the Commission had proposed the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives, despite the fact that the scientists recommended it, some nation states voted against it. So it was frustrating that caused me to put it in place. I said at that stage I would lift it when two things had happened: first, when the ban on beef derivatives had been lifted – that has now happened; and second, when we had agreed a framework that would enable us to see how the rest of the ban could be lifted.

    I emphasise a framework enabling it to be lifted, not the completion of all the matters in the framework. I set that out as the goal at the outset of this affair, I hope that we will soon reach that position.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was holding a gun to the heads of other member states for what was a British problem].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is quite wrong, and I will explain to you why it is quite wrong. When the BSE crisis broke, firstly we began to take very dramatic action. I doubt many of your viewers, watching this programme, realise that we will slaughter one million cows this year. I doubt they understand that. I doubt also they understand the safety measures that we have in place that exist nowhere else in Europe. But it is not as you describe it.

    We put this policy into operation because Europe were not cooperating with us. Despite the science, despite the recommendation of the Commission, Europe voted against lifting the ban on the beef derivatives. Now on the back of that, I wonder what you government would have done, or any other government, if they had the scientists on their side, the European Commission on their side, the World Health Organisation on their side, British scientists on their side, and for reasons unconnected with science, and unconnected with health, some member states voted to retain that ban. I think they would have responded too.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the British Beef Ban (I) – 19 June 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the British beef ban, made during an interview in London held on Wednesday 19th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how Europe could regain trust in Britain after the beef crisis as other countries had also suffered].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me make a point about beef because you are quite right, the problems with beef have hit countries right the way across the European Union, the beef industry in Italy of course and in other countries across the whole of the European Union. I think it is not so much what the politicians can say, I would hope that the consumers would listen to what bodies like the World Health Organisation say – they say that British beef is safe and by definition Italian beef is safe and so is other beef – and I think it is to people like the World Health Organisation and the scientists that people should listen, and they are overwhelmingly of the view that it is safe to eat beef, both British beef and other beef, and it is a great sadness that consumer confidence has been damaged by some of the publicity there has been over recent months and that is doing great damage to beef industries across Europe. I would like to see that confidence restored speedily.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if thought agreement could be reached in Florence].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is certainly reachable. The framework document that has been published is a very good basis for an agreement and although I can’t be certain at this moment there will be an agreement, I think it is certainly possible that we will get an agreement. If there is goodwill on both sides and if people are prepared to look at the rationale for the decisions they take and look at the science, then I think there is a distinct possibility that we will get an agreement in Florence and I hope that will prove to be the case.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Italian Government had run out of patience with the British].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think public opinion across Europe should ask themselves why did the British do this? The British don’t normally do that. What was it that drove Britain to decide on a non-cooperation policy? I will tell you what it was.

    It was the non-cooperation of many of our partners in Europe and I will tell you exactly what happened. After the beef crisis broke, we came forward time and time again with plans to proceed and end the crisis and our partners in Europe did not sit down and talk to us about this; they said “Very interesting, now go away and come back with something better”. That is no way to treat a nation like Britain. Then, when we had got the agreement of the Commission, the unanimous recommendation of the Commission to lift the ban on beef derivatives, supported by the Commission, supported by the scientists, a number of our European partners voted against that recommendation, against the Commission and against science. There was no logic in that.

    I think people who say Britain has behaved unreasonable should ask themselves what would their government have done if the rest of Europe had continued to ban an export that the scientists said was safe and that the Commission said was safe and that the ban could be lifted. They wouldn’t have wanted to accept that and neither could I because our partners were not behaving cooperatively, they were not behaving reasonable in that instance and we needed to ensure that there was a proper, rational debate. That was the reason for the British policy and I said then that when we have that rational debate, when the ban on the beef derivatives is lifted – and that has now been lifted – and when we have a framework and agreement about how to tackle this crisis then we can end our non-cooperation policy.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Britain would leave the European Community if no agreement was reached at Florence].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think so. This is an important issue this question of beef, right the way across Europe it is important and it is important to Britain, there are 650,000 people whose jobs depend on the beef industry but there is a very wide range of issues in Europe. Britain is a member of the European Union, we have been a member of the European Union for a very long time and we are going to stay as a member of the European Union. We will put forward our own distinctive ideas about how the Union will develop, sometimes our partners may agree with those, sometimes they may not, but we are in the European Union and we intend to stay in the European Union.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 June 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 May, Official Report, columns 762-63, what consideration he has given to the issue addressed to him by the chairman of United Kingdom Families Flight 103, in a letter of 13 May, as to (a) whether the criminal investigation findings were reliable and complete and (b) whether there has been a fabrication of evidence to conceal certain matters therein set out.

    The Prime Minister: My noble and learned Friend, the then Lord Advocate, concluded after the most intensive investigation in United Kingdom history that there was no evidence to support charges against the nationals of any other country. The alleged involvement of a Palestinian terrorist group was closely investigated during the early stages of the investigation, but no credible evidence emerged to substantiate its involvement in the Lockerbie crime. It is for a jury to decide how reliable the evidence is, but successive Lord Advocates would not have brought and maintained charges if they had believed that the evidence on which they were based was unreliable, incomplete or fabricated.

     

    Beef Ban

    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Prime Minister what representations were made to the United States Government following their banning of British beef in 1989; what further negotiations have taken place since; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: It is not true that the United States authorities banned British beef in 1989. However, the USA has not accepted imports of bone in beef from Britain since 1989. After 1989, negotiations concentrated on securing access to US markets for boneless beef, which were successfully concluded in July 1994. Negotiations continue on securing wider access to the US markets, although in regular discussions with representatives of industry, the USA has not been identified as a priority market for the export of beef.

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make representations to the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir concerning the detention in Mirpur prison of Chazanfer Ali; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: As Ghazanfer Ali, a Pakistani national, has now been formally charged and has made appearances in court, it is now a matter for the Azad Kashmir authorities. It would not be appropriate for us to make further representations.

     

    European Union Flag

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister what instructions were issued to Government offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

     

    Engagements

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

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

    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.

     

    Security and Intelligence Services

    Mr. Day: To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s sixth annual report for 1995 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 4(6) of the Security Service Act 1989. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 4(7) of the 1989 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work in providing assistance to the tribunal as provided in that Act and for reviewing the issue of warrants under the Intelligence Services Act 1994. I note that he is satisfied that the Secretaries of State have exercised their powers in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 Act.

    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s first annual report, for 1995, has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(6) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(7) of the 1994 Act. I am grateful to the Commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and authorisations, and in providing assistance to the tribunal as provided for in the Act. I note that he is satisfied that the Secretary of State has properly exercised his powers under the two sections of the 1994 Act.

    Sir Jim Lester: To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: A copy of Lord Nolan’s annual report for 1995 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the 1985 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and in providing assistance to the tribunal as provided for in the Act. I note in particular the commissioner’s view that the interception of both postal and telecommunications remains both an effective and essential operation in the interests of national security and the economic well being of the United Kingdom, and the prevention and detection of serious crime.

  • PMQT – 6 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

    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. Michael: Will the Prime Minister join the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in rejecting the idea of sixth form vouchers, or will he give in to the chairman of the Conservative party who has been telling newspapers that the right hon. Lady should be sacked?

    The Prime Minister: No, he has not. [Hon. Members: “Oh, yes he has.”] No, he has not. I know that the Opposition are a pantomime and I am tempted to say, “Oh no he hasn’t.” I saw the story in the press this morning and fair old nonsense it was.

    Mr. Walden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our overriding attitude towards Europe should be to persuade our partners against further integration? If so, does he think that his tactics on beef enhance or diminish our powers of persuasion?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to have my hon. Friend’s support against further integration of a federal nature in the European Union. That is right. The issues are dealt with on their own merits.

    On the question of beef, I very much welcome the decision taken yesterday by the Commission, which is a first step. My right hon. and learned Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have had a series of constructive meetings, including meetings this morning, on the issue. I hope that we shall be able to make progress by agreement.

    Mr. Blair: With reference to what the Foreign Secretary described as a turning point in the beef crisis, have the Italians simply agreed–as I understand it–to try to use their best endeavours to secure agreement with other European Union countries, or have the Italians now agreed to support the lifting of the ban and the British position?

    The Prime Minister: No–the Italians, who have the presidency, have now seen the framework document that we have produced and are using their best endeavours to see whether we can reach an agreement in advance of Florence. We have not finally discussed every aspect of that agreement with the Italians–that is happening at the moment, as it is with others. I hope that, as discussions continue over the next few days, we shall be able to reach an agreement. It is not certain, but I think that we have made a good deal of progress in the past few days, which is encouraging.

    Mr. Blair: May I then ask the Prime Minister whether it is still his clear policy and expectation that by the Florence summit there will be a firm agreement to lift the ban completely within a specified time scale?

    The Prime Minister: As I indicated when I announced the policy at the outset, we required two things before the ban is lifted completely. The first was the removal of the ban on beef derivatives, which has been obtained, and the second was a framework so that we were aware of precisely what needed to be done before the ban was lifted entirely. I very much hope that that will be achieved before Florence, but it is not solely in my hands. We can advance the case, and we are doing so; we need the agreement of the Commission and our partners across the European Union, which is what we are seeking to obtain.

    Mr. Blair: I am sure that the Prime Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I gather from what he is saying that a time scale is not necessarily part of the negotiation.

    I return to the question of cost that I put to the Prime Minister on Tuesday. He said then that it would not be part of the negotiation because of the refunding mechanism from the European Union. Will he confirm that the refunding in respect of the 30-month cattle slaughter scheme will come mainly out of the British rebate and that the net cost to Britain will therefore be some £2 billion, with several hundred million pounds extra for all sorts of other items? May I put it to the Prime Minister that, if the negotiation neither has a time scale nor an improvement in compensation, on any basis the price that this country will be paying for the beef crisis will be with us for many years to come?

    The Prime Minister: The beef crisis is a very serious crisis. There is no doubt that it is expensive for this country. That has been the case from the outset. We set out what the costs were at the beginning. To reassure people on public health, there is a substantial price to be paid, and we see that in the destruction of animals and in the consequent compensation to farmers. We wish to get rid of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, first, on public health grounds; secondly, to restore consumer confidence; and, of course, for the overriding reason that we wish international confidence in British beef to be fully restored.

    As far as the negotiations on time scale are concerned, we are seeking not an arbitrary calendar date but the steps that need to be taken–

    Mr. Skinner: A retreat is on the way.

    The Prime Minister: This is what I said at the outset. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not understand very much. If he understood a little more, he would probably interrupt a little less.

    As I said at the outset, we are seeking a framework–that is to say, the steps that must be taken to enable us to remove the ban. That is what I stated here when the ban was introduced. That remains our policy and it has not changed one whit.

    Mr. Lamont: Does the Prime Minister recall that, during the Napoleonic wars, Samuel Whitbread, the founder of the modern business, was always predicting defeat and urging the Government to open negotiations with Napoleon? Will the Prime Minister ignore the successors to Samuel Whitbread in the Confederation of British Industry who want to throw in the towel and who seem so indifferent to the plight of small businesses and farmers? Will he tell the chairman of Unilever to stick to cream cakes and detergents?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend puts the point with great clarity and precision. As he rightly says, there are a large number of small businesses–650,000 people are dependent on the beef industry, and it is in the interests of the people whose livelihoods are in the beef industry that we need to reach a satisfactory conclusion to this affair and restore the confidence in the international beef trade, which has been lost because of the lack of confidence and, frankly, the rather over-exaggerated response to the problem that we have had in the past. My right hon. Friend is entirely right to say that that is the priority.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Hoyle: Has the Prime Minister seen reports in the Daily Express that his predecessor, Baroness Thatcher, is calling for non-payment of bills to the European Union? Will he condemn that bizarre, foolish and reckless attempt at law breaking?

    The Prime Minister: I responded to that point several Question Times ago, and my response would not change today.

     

    Q3. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that gas bills, electricity bills and telephone bills have been slashed since privatisation? Does he welcome today’s news that there will be a windfall rebate of £38 for gas consumers? Did he welcome the £50 rebate for electricity consumers? Does this not show that the regulator has already altered the proposals for a windfall tax of £3 billion into a shortfall tax?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right: privatisation and the regulator are reducing the prices of a large number of utilities. There has been a rebate of £50 on electricity bills and there will be a rebate on gas bills. The regulator is blowing to pieces the prospect that there might be resources for an artificial windfall tax to fund putative expenditure by any other political party. Opposition Members below the Gangway may not know that the Labour party’s industry spokesman is claiming that his party should embrace competition. I will not comment on the look of horror on the faces of the Opposition Members below the Gangway after hearing that.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is totally unacceptable for Yorkshire Water to show a profit of £162 million when it had a dreadful record on water supply, on leakage, on charges to customers and on investment during that period? Does the Prime Minister not think that it is time to revisit that regulator for tougher sanctions so that we can slake the fat cats and their thirst for profits? It is time that we had tougher regulations.

    The Prime Minister: In that case, the hon. Gentleman will support the water regulator, who took action against Yorkshire Water to cut its prices earlier this week.

    Mr. Viggers: May I ask my right hon. Friend to spare a moment during his busy day for the plight of people involved in a small section of the beef industry, the cow head de-boning sector? Is he aware that this small industry, which is made up of about a dozen mainly family-owned companies, has been driven out of business by the Government order of 28 March banning head meat? I ask my right hon. Friend to take the modest step of authorising the Ministry of Agriculture to discuss the amount of loss with the industry involved.

    The Prime Minister: I will invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture to examine that matter and then to contact my hon. Friend.

     

    Q5. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Mullin: Is it not time that the Prime Minister put a stop to the hypocrisy of the Tories being the party of the family? Perhaps he could take a tip from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and impose a curfew on his Ministers in the hope that they might sleep in their own beds rather than someone else’s.

    The Prime Minister: The policy of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)–which does not seem to carry the support of his Chief Whip–is for a curfew for people under the age of 10.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend seen the advertisement in today’s paper supporting a new political party in this country? Will he take the opportunity to confirm that he will always heed the views of the British people to stay part of the European Union so long as it is a part of a Europe of separate states and never part of a federated super-state of Europe?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I did see that advertisement this morning and I am happy to confirm that no Government that I lead will enter into a federal Europe. I have argued for a Europe of nation states and I shall continue to do so. I am delighted to see that there seems to be some support for that in other quarters as well, as was highlighted by the advertisement.

     

    Q6. Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Campbell: If money is available for tax giveaways in the next budget, will the Prime Minister guarantee that it will be put into the health service and the education service of this country?

    The Prime Minister: We have increased the resources for the health service above the level of inflation year after year after year. I shall not make any projections about what will happen in the Budget some months hence, but I note the hon. Gentleman’s expectation that the economy is doing well enough to mean that it might place us in a position to reduce taxes or increase expenditure. I am grateful for that unsolicited commendation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor’s management of the economy.

    Mr. Thomason: Has my right hon. Friend noted that the Rover Group, which is based partly in my constituency, has put in figures for the first quarter of this year showing an increase of 10 per cent. in production, and that the group’s exports are up even more? Can he confirm that it is his policy to encourage enterprise, and that that sort of improvement would be severely damaged by the Labour party’s policies?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that. I can also confirm that, in terms of growth, inflation, falling unemployment, investment and many other areas of economic management, this country is now leading any of our competitor countries in Europe as a result of decisions that the present Government have taken in recent years.

     

    Q7. Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Bayley: Does the Prime Minister recall that the Labour party proposed an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to tighten up on the sale of handguns by mail order? In view of the evidence given at the Dunblane inquiry that one of the guns used to kill those children was sold by mail order by a firm in my constituency, will the Government reconsider their policy and introduce legislation to tighten up or even to ban the sale of handguns by mail order?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have indeed strengthened firearms controls in recent years. Most self-loading and pump action rifles have been banned and a range of other changes have been made. As the whole House knows, we have given Lord Cullen a very wide remit and he may make recommendations to the Government. We will consider those very seriously, discuss them with other parties in the House and then decide what action needs to be taken.

  • PMQT – 4 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

    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. Prentice: Does the Prime Minister agree that Camelot’s profits of £1 million a week, and the bonuses of £100,000 being paid to the directors, are simply unacceptable? Why can we not have a non-profit making lottery, as is generally the case in Europe? When shall we start giving money to good causes instead of lining the pockets of fat cats?

    The Prime Minister: Camelot’s post-tax profits are less than 1p in the pound. Camelot has been extraordinarily successful, and the hon. Gentleman ought to be pleased about that, because his constituency has so far received £1.7 million in grants from the Sports Council, the Arts Council and the National Lottery Charities Board. The more profitable Camelot is, the more money will be available in grants for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others.

    Mr. David Hunt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although last night’s decision on a partial lifting of the beef ban is a welcome move in the right direction, what we need is a clear framework for a total lifting of the ban?

    The Prime Minister: I agree. Yesterday’s decision was a further step towards getting the ban lifted, and I am grateful to the Commission and to the increased number of member states that gave their support. We now look to the Commission to live up to its responsibilities and, by following normal procedures, lift the ban on beef derivatives. Of course, we seek not only a lifting of the ban on derivatives but a framework for a lifting of the whole ban–a ban that is not scientifically justified.

    Mr. Blair: I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the lifting of the ban on derivatives, but is the clear framework for lifting the whole ban that he seeks to achieve before the Florence summit to include a time scale–a time by which the ban is to be lifted?

    The Prime Minister: What we seek, what we are discussing with the Commission, and what my right hon. and learned Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are discussing with their colleagues in Europe, is a clear and staged process towards the complete lifting of the beef ban, based on science rather than on the irrational argument that has sustained the ban thus far. We have put our ideas to the Commission, and they are now under negotiation. At this stage, I do not wish to go into the details of the negotiation; I do not believe that it would be productive or in the interests of the beef industry to do so. We are looking for a proper framework that will allow a staged complete lifting of the ban, commencing as speedily as possible.

    Mr. Blair: I do not expect the Prime Minister to expose his hand on the precise time scale, but will a time scale be part of the negotiation, or not? Is that to form part of the framework, or not? Obviously the issue is when the ban will be lifted, so if a time scale is not to be part of the negotiation, what is the Prime Minister’s expectation? Are we talking about months, the end of the year or a longer time scale?

    The Prime Minister: I said that it would be a staged lifting. We are certainly looking for the beginning of the staged lifting at an early date, but it will be dependent on events that are yet to be discussed with the European Union. It would not be in the interests of the agriculture industry for me to go into the details at this stage, although it is tempting. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and I appreciate that we are talking about the livelihoods of 650,000 people who are involved in the beef industry in this country, many more who are involved in the beef industry across Europe and, indeed, the basis of the European internal market. All that has been put at risk by the unjustified action of other member states. We want the ban to be lifted; we are discussing that in detail. As soon as I have more to report to the House, I shall do so.

    Mr. Blair: I am not clear whether the time scale is to form part of the negotiation. We know that the cost of just the 30-month cattle slaughter policy is about £2.5 billion over the next few years and that there will be additional costs because of other measures. Will the refunding of that cost–at present only about 25 or 30 per cent. is to be refunded–be part of the clear framework that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking?

    The Prime Minister: No. A refunding mechanism for the costs of slaughter has been in place for some time. We are not discussing that matter with the European Union. I am concerned about getting the ban lifted. The ban is not justified and ought to be lifted. On the basis of the science available, what the World Health Organisation has said and the information that we have already made available to our colleagues, there is not in my judgment–or in the judgment of many independent judges–a justification for the ban to continue. I am primarily concerned, as I have said, about the health and future of the British beef industry. That is the matter under negotiation with our European partners.

    Mr. Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the disastrous loss earlier today of the first Ariane 5 space rocket. While it is still too early to be sure of the reasons for that loss, will he take the opportunity to confirm the Government’s support for the international collaboration that keeps so many fine British companies at the forefront of international science and technology?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, no one is quite certain what happened in the distressing loss of the Ariane rocket. I have not had the opportunity, in the few minutes since the information came through, to determine precisely the scale of British involvement. My recollection is that our involvement in Ariane 5 is relatively modest, although I think that we sponsored one of the satellites on board which would have been lost. Certainly, whatever may have happened, there is a future for co-operation with our colleagues in Europe on that and other matters.

    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister’s policy of declaring war on Europe has resulted in the partial lifting of a ban that everybody expected to be lifted completely even before the policy was adopted. Is it not perfectly clear that nothing has been achieved by that foolish policy that could not have been achieved without it? The cost to Britain has been lost respect and lost influence abroad, and a campaign by his Back Benchers and the press at home of ugly, petty xenophobia, which insults and demeans us all.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is just being plain silly. No one, as he so absurdly put it, has declared war on Europe. What I said when I announced the policy at this Dispatch Box was that we were not getting the co-operation in discussion on the important issue–important to the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents as well as to mine–that we had a right to expect as members of the European Union. If good will is not shown to us, people must not expect us to show it in return. I am determined that the matter be properly and speedily examined so that we may, first, get a lifting of the beef derivatives ban, which now looks probable in the very short term, and then a framework for a lifting of the complete ban. Exaggerated comments such as the right hon. Gentleman has just made achieve exactly what he accuses my hon. Friends of doing.

    Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on his election as Prime Minister of Israel? Does he agree that, following the recent welcome discussions with Yasser Arafat and, given flexibility, good will and mutual understanding on both sides, there is no reason why the peace process should not continue?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate Mr. Netanyahu on his election. The United Kingdom has a better relationship with the state of Israel today than at any stage in the history of that state. I know that the new Prime Minister is determined that that will continue, and so am I. Since his election, the Israeli Prime Minister has made it clear publicly that he wants to continue the peace process and to honour the agreements that Israel has already reached. I welcome those objectives. The House may wish to know that I have already been in touch with the new Prime Minister and invited him to the United Kingdom.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mrs. Roche: I am sure that the Prime Minister will share my delight that one of last Saturday’s jackpot winners is a resident of Hornsey and Wood Green. Will he encourage Camelot to give a fair share of its profits to good causes? Will he also admit that the Government were wrong to set up the lottery in such a way and that the pay of Camelot directors is another example of taking from the many and giving to the few?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I congratulate the hon. Lady’s constituent and those bodies within her constituency that have benefited from the lottery. However, perhaps she has forgotten that Camelot was awarded a licence by the regulator because it convinced the regulator that it could deliver the maximum sum of money for good causes. That is the purpose of the lottery and Camelot has achieved it spectacularly well. It also makes substantial donations to charity.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield, I am very proud of the borough of Macclesfield and its achievement in the recent local elections? Will my right hon. Friend accept an invitation from me and the leader of the council, Councillor Mrs. Margaret Duddy, to visit Macclesfield, where he will receive a warm welcome for the principled leadership that he is giving the Government and the Conservative party, and where he will see how a well-run and accountable local authority is warmly and very well supported by its local electorate?

    The Prime Minister: From what my hon. Friend tells us, Macclesfield is a example to us all. I certainly would be very happy to visit Macclesfield at an appropriate time, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not pin me down to a date.

     

    Q3. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. MacShane: Has the Prime Minister read reports that 77 Republican Congressmen voted to support President Clinton’s move significantly to raise the minimum wage in the United States? As America has the best job creation record in the world, why will he not send Treasury Ministers to see their Republican colleagues to learn how a statutory minimum wage goes hand in hand with fair play and good job creation?

    The Prime Minister: There are very few similarities between the structure in the United States to create jobs and the policies that those on the Opposition Front Bench advocate, which would destroy jobs. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see job creation, he can see it here in the United Kingdom. He will not see it in those countries nearby that have a minimum wage and adhere to the social chapter.

     

    Q4. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who talk tough about fighting crime must understand that we need support measures to act tough? How can any party that opposes our proposals to set up secure training centres for juvenile criminals be taken seriously when talking about curbing juvenile crime?

    The Prime Minister: I very much regret that our proposals for dealing with juvenile criminals did not receive the support of the Opposition, and I am sure that the electorate will have noticed it. I suppose that Labour’s recent proposals for curfews will be adopted for a short while by some Labour Members, but will be ditched after a decent interval. I am not sure that those proposals are workable, as I believe the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has suggested. I believe that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) has made some more scathing comments about the policy.

  • PMQT – 16 May 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Dowd: Why does the Prime Minister now find it impossible to condemn the proven wrongdoing at Westminster city council under Dame Shirley Porter when, on 20 June 1995, from that Dispatch Box, he had no such compunction in condemning Monklands district council, even though the inquiry set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland was still under way?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the Labour party’s internal report, to which I had referred.

     

    Q2. Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations and thanks for his commitment to the Government strategy “Tackling Drugs Together”, as evidenced most particularly by his involvement with young people last Tuesday?

    Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday’s announcement of the fall of unemployment to a five-year low, and recommit himself and the Government to training more people for more jobs, rather than throwing them out of education by taking away child benefit from teenagers?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the importance of a comprehensive strategy to deal with drugs among our young people, and we have made a great deal of progress on that in the past year. There is a great deal more to be done. That work devolves, not only on schools, parents, community leaders and the police, but on all of us. We should all, in our own way, give a lead by ensuring that teenagers realise the dangers of drugs.

    Yesterday’s unemployment figures were further good news, as were the figures on inflation published earlier today. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that abolishing child benefit for teenagers would do nothing to help shorten the dole queues; I believe that many members of the Labour party fully understand that.

    It is good to see the shadow Chancellor here, in the same room as his colleagues. I hope that, as he sits on the Front Bench chattering to them, they may discuss child benefit.

    Mr. Blair: Has the Prime Minister seen the highly critical comments of the British beef exporters in relation to the Government’s handling of BSE? I appreciate the Government’s difficulties in this regard. However, in the light of those comments and the comments of farmers yesterday, is the Prime Minister satisfied that everything that should be done is being done in relation to BSE?

    The Prime Minister: We are well advanced in this matter and we are taking our case to our European partners. The ban is unjustified and it should be removed. We have had some progress. Before yesterday, we did not have the support of any of our European partners on any of the issues. Yesterday, half of the European Union supported our position in relation to gelatine, tallow and semen. According to the Agriculture Commissioner, there is every prospect that we will get a satisfactory result on Monday.

    However, we need to look not only at the lifting of that ban but at the lifting of the ban on beef generally. We will discuss a detailed series of proposals with the Commission, which we hope will persuade it to support us in encouraging our European partners to lift the ban. The ban is unjustified. All that can credibly be done is being done and will continue to be done.

    Mr. Blair: I put it to the Prime Minister that many farmers say that they do not know where to take their cattle for collection and that the approved list of abattoirs keeps changing–for example, some abattoirs that should be working are not working. Yesterday, we were told that it will take six weeks for the cold storage facilities to be up and running. In the meantime, there is a backlog of approximately 120,000 cattle. In the light of what appears to be a widespread gap between the perception of Ministers and the reality of what is happening, will the Prime Minister redouble his efforts?

    The Prime Minister: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that everything that can be done is being done to ensure that we speed up the slaughter of cattle that need to be slaughtered. There is a genuine problem that is not readily solvable–that is, the requirement to slaughter cattle exceeds the capacity of the industry to do so, even working at full rate. Some cattle will be put into cold storage, but that cannot happen until they have been at least partly rendered. The rendering industry is working at full capacity. Ministers and the industry are addressing their minds to solving those problems.

    Mr. Blair: It might be said, to coin a phrase, that it is hurting but it is not working. I put a related point to the Prime Minister. We are now embarking on a 30-month cattle slaughter policy without a guarantee from the European Union that the ban will be lifted. Do we have an assurance from our European partners that, if a package is agreed, we will have full compensation? We are planning to spend £2.5 billion to £3 billion over the next few years and only 30 per cent. will be guaranteed in return. In the meantime, there is no guarantee that the ban will be lifted.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to matters that are the subject of discussion with the Commission at the moment. The problem is not the Commission; the problem is the member states in the European Union. The first mechanism to ensure that the member states change their position and lift their ban is to reach a practical agreement with the Commission about how we deal with the general problem of BSE. It is not a question of dealing with what our European partners wish to do; it is a question of dealing with a proper strategy that will put the British beef industry back into a position in which it will export not only to Europe but to the United States and to New Zealand, which banned British beef some time ago. That is in the interests of our beef industry and it is foremost in our mind at the moment.

     

    Q3. Mr. John Townend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Townend: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the speech of the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment at the weekend, when he said that Labour–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I must hear the question. Is the hon. Gentleman asking about Government policy?

    Mr. Townend: I am asking what our response is to the hon. Gentleman’s policy.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Prime Minister is responsible only for Government policy, not for another party’s policy.

    Mr. Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the suggestion made at the weekend by the shadow spokesman for employment that a Labour Government would redistribute wealth? In plain language, does that not mean increasing taxes for the middle classes? Is that not old Labour–real Labour–which would tax out of envy? Does it not show that the Labour party is a high-tax party? Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to strengthen our reputation as a low-tax party?

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know the rules. We are going to pass on that question. If that is the best that he can do, I am calling Mr. Ashdown. Try harder than Mr. Townend.

    Mr. Ashdown: The farmers came here yesterday to complain not about the ban, but about the Government’s bungling. The Prime Minister has told us that the medicine is hurting, but it is working. How is it working for farmers who are losing their livelihoods because of the Government’s mismanagement of the matter? How is it working for pupils who are paying for tax bribes with rising class sizes? How is it working for the increasing number of young couples with negative equity who are facing house repossessions? Is it not perfectly clear that the Government offer the country not a continuation of the cure, but more of the poison?

    The Prime Minister: It was very prescient of you, Madam Speaker, to tell the right hon. Gentleman to try harder. That is very appropriate.

    The right hon. Gentleman, who is very keen to tell the House how strong a European he is, might recall that it is our European partners who have banned British beef unjustifiably on scientific grounds. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will try harder to persuade them that their ban is unjustified and, for once, join the Government in defending the interests of this country and of British agriculture.

    As to the extent that our policies are working, I know that the right hon. Gentleman finds it disobliging to hear that at the moment inflation, interest rates and unemployment are down and investments, exports and production are up. The right hon. Gentleman could find no other country in the European Union whose leader could make that claim in its Parliament.

     

    Q4. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the Government’s positive and very welcome response to the report of the working group on school security, is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent gun attack on Dowson first school in Valpy Avenue in Norwich, North when the art room was showered with glass? Fortunately, the incident occurred during the break when there were no children in the room. Will the Government use the extra resources that they have promised to provide protection measures in that school because parents are at present unwilling to allow their children to return to class?

    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend’s concern to ensure that schools are as safe and secure as they reasonably can be. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has heard my hon. Friend’s comments about the school in his constituency. I made it clear in the House on Tuesday that we will implement the recommendations of the working group on school security as soon as practicable–there are obviously issues to be examined before it can be taken in hand fully. We have already implemented some recommendations, including introducing measures to strengthen the law on offensive weapons in schools. It is an important matter and I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no undue delay.

    Mr. Salmond: May I take the Prime Minister back to 1981 when he was working in the public relations department of Standard Chartered bank and I was working for the Royal Bank of Scotland? The Monopolies and Mergers Commission ruled out a merger between those two organisations as against the Scottish public interest. Does the Prime Minister agree that–despite some dodgy lending decisions, such as the Tory party overdraft–the Royal Bank has been a fair success over the past 15 years as an independent organisation, as it has been over the past 300 years? If there were to be a hostile bid for Scotland’s other–

    Madam Speaker: Order. What has this to do with the Prime Minister?

    Mr. Salmond: I am coming to that.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to order and resume his seat. If he can tell me what the question has to do with the Prime Minister, I will allow it.

    Mr. Salmond: If there were a hostile bid for Scotland’s other major clearer, the Bank of Scotland, would the Prime Minister say that that should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and would the Scottish public interest once again be a determining feature in the outcome of such a bid?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who has to consider each case on its merits. He will consider each case, but I can give the hon. Gentleman no indication of what my right hon. Friend’s decision might be. That is for him and he would have to discuss and consider it.

     

    Dartmouth

    Q5. Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Dartmouth.

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

    Mr. Steen: Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep sense of outrage and injustice felt by south Devon fishermen as a result of the abuse by the Spanish of flags of convenience which results in 20 per cent. of the British quota being landed in foreign ports by the Spanish fleet? Will he take the opportunity at the intergovernmental conference to let the other countries in Europe know how committed he is to the British fishermen and that he will not tolerate that injustice any longer? Britain deserves something better from Europe and, because it does a lot for Europe, it deserves something back.

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I intend to raise that matter at the intergovernmental conference. Foreign-owned vessels cannot, of course, obtain British quotas at will, but it is possible to buy a British vessel with a licence and then fish against the United Kingdom quota. Although that is legal, it was certainly not what was intended when the common fisheries policy was established or when the House approved the common fisheries policy. The intention was that national quotas would be available for national fishermen, to the advantage of the whole Community, and I intend to raise that point at the intergovernmental conference. I have advised our European partners of that and we expect that there will be changes at the IGC and, of course, the conference cannot reach a conclusion without unanimity.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Jacques Chirac – 15 May 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Jacques Chirac, held in London on Wednesday 15th May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say how very pleased we are to welcome the President here to Downing Street this morning. We have had the opportunity this morning of extremely productive discussions. I propose firstly to ask the President to report on those, I will then add a few words to that and thereafter we will take some questions.

    I should mention to you, I think most of you will know this, but the President has to address a joint session of Parliament very shortly so I fear we only have a limited time this morning. So without any further delay I will invite the President to speak to you.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    First of all I would like to thank the Prime Minister, to thank Her Majesty The Queen too and to say how very much I appreciated the way I have been welcomed for this visit.

    This morning we had a long conversation with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministers and our officials, and everyone will I think probably understand that the first subject that was discussed, because it is an urgent topical matter with many consequences, was the subject of BSE and the beef problem. And we have tried to make a very considerable effort in order to show real solidarity because there must be solidarity in a crisis of this kind in Europe and we want solidarity really to mean something, not just to be a vain word, and I hope this will come out clearly very soon, and perhaps even today in practical terms.

    We also discussed together an overall range of European affairs, including the preparation of the IGC and the problems linked to the present evolution of Europe, developments, enlargement, the single currency etc. We discussed questions of military cooperation, bilateral military cooperation, which is an area in which there is very considerable convergence in matters of concern to each country and the proposals that have been made by England and France. We also of course discussed a certain number of difficult situations in the modern world, and in particular Bosnia, but also Burundi and a certain number of other problems.

    And lastly we discussed certain bilateral issues, and in particular we took certain joint decisions relating to cultural affairs, or education affairs in particular for the exchange of young students for secondary school exchanges. This is the kind of thing we want to expand considerable. Also, a common policy on books publishing and translation.

    So those are the matters that we have been talking about today and I would like to particularly mention the spirit of our meeting, which can be summed up in a word, this is a real dialogue, consultation for concerted action which between England and France, this is the kind of thing which must imperatively be strengthened still further. That is my ambition and I understand it also to be the ambition of the British Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Jacques, thank you very much. Let me just add a few words to that. Firstly, perhaps I can endorse what the President has had to say. The relationship between Britain and France is extremely close at the moment. In a large number of areas we have very positive and very detailed cooperation, in defence in particular, but in many other areas as well, and the President has mentioned the number of bilateral initiatives that we have finally agreed this morning, the exchange of students perhaps being a particularly relevant one for the relationship between Britain and France, but by no means the only one.

    Of course there are areas of difference, and we have discussed those as well. We have discussed in particular this morning ways in which we might cooperate and look at one another’s positions in the intergovernmental conference before it begins.

    There are a wide range of areas where we have communal interests, and we have agreed that we will examine those and see wherever possible whether we can reach a joint position for the intergovernmental conference.

    I am very grateful for what the President has had to say in his support for the Commission’s proposal to lift the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen today. I think it is extremely important that we get the gelatine, tallow and semen ban lifted. I hope that will happen today. I am grateful for the very positive role that the President in particular has played in seeking to ensure that this comes about.

    We have touched on a wide range of international issues as well: the expansion of NATO, a matter of some importance to both of us; we looked at the relationships and the changes that are happening in different parts of the world. But the predominant part of the discussion was based upon European matters and bilateral matters, as the President has set out just a few moments ago.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Mike Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister and Mr President, if this partial ban is not eased today, how serious a problem is it going to be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We must hope firstly that it is eased today. We see no scientific reason for it not to be eased today, and if it were not to be eased today I think we would need to examine precisely why not and how that matter would proceed. But before I say more about that I think we had better wait and see what happens today.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    Mr President, if British beef is good enough for you to eat, why isn’t it good enough to be traded freely within the European Community?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    This is a [indistinct] issue and it is in fact irrational. There is a fear, a fear of disease, a fear of illness, and it is very difficult to overcome that. And I think the British government has done everything it can, it has put all its resources to bear to convince the Commission and the European Union of the need to have a plan, a plan which will in the long term and without risk restore faith in beef consumption. And I would think that the British government is making every effort and I hope we will make progress. We must go ahead step by step. Today as we understand, the Commission is going to propose that the embargo be removed. France favours that position. This will apply to gelatine, tallow and semen, of course, subject to compliance with the technical conditions which the Commission has included in its proposal.

    But it seems to me that these conditions are already in place and are being fulfilled by the British government, so there is no reason therefore for us not to support the proposal by the Commission. That would be a first step, a step in the right direction I would say. And in conclusion I would say that we think that this is a problem that affects the whole of Europe and it is up to Europe to express solidarity when solidarity is needed and I do hope that that strong solidarity will be expressed as of today.

    QUESTION:

    President Chirac, the British say that we supported you on nuclear matters, and in fact John Major was the only one to support you at that time, and now we look to you to support him on beef – is that a legitimate claim by him?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I don’t think it is a problem of supporting one another, it is a question of solidarity on a position. I have told you what France’s position is today, our position it seems to me is a reasonable one and it gives expression to the kind of solidarity that Europe must have with the United Kingdom in its present crisis that it is undergoing.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] have made some countries in the region to express the strong desire and wish that the United Kingdom, and mainly France as well, and Europe to play a major role in order to secure the peace that has been achieved so far. This matter has not been raised in your talks but will it be considered here in the future by the European Union as a whole?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I should say that the President and I were in touch on a number of occasions, as were Mr Rifkind and Mr de Charette, on the subject of the Middle East and the particular problems in Lebanon recently. There was a very close relationship and if I may say so, the Foreign Minister played a very distinguished role at that time in trying to bring about the ceasefire that has subsequently occurred. Huge progress has been made in the Middle East, there is more to be done, there is no doubt about that. There is no doubt I think that the present position in Lebanon is a fragile position across the border and we are looking for further progress. There is a great deal of bilateral cooperation, particularly between our Foreign Ministers but also directly between the President and dealing with this particular problem. There are some areas where the European Union can play a role, but I think predominantly the role will be played by the members of the Permanent Five, by Britain, by France and by the United States operating bilaterally.

    But that it is a very important matter is beyond doubt and that the British and the French governments are engaged is also beyond doubt.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] in the case of the embargo not being lifted tonight, would you contemplate to have the authority of the empty chair?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to indicate now what is going to happen in the hypothetical situation that you set out. If there is a bad decision today then we will make our position clear over the next day or so. But at the moment I very much hope that a sensible decision will be reached. There is no scientific reason not to lift the ban on gelatine, tallow and on semen, no scientific reason at all, and we have made that position clear. The position is really quite straight-forward. The Commission imposed the ban, the Commission have been discussing the matter with the British government. The Commission have now decided to propose that the ban is lifted. Upon that basis I see no proper justification for our colleagues in Europe not agreeing with that, now we must wait and see what happens later today.

    QUESTION (Nicholas Witchell, BBC):

    Mr President, have you heard anything from Prime Minister Major today to make you wholeheartedly confident that Britain will be, as you said at Buckingham Palace last night, a cornerstone in the construction of Europe?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Our discussions on European matters are on-going between our two countries and the British Prime Minister is committed to participating actively in the future of Europe. I understand completely the positions on both sides, and the problems that we have, but we always settle our problems in an open and friendly manner. And for my part what I would like to see is these friendly discussions going forward so that we can hear the voice of the United Kingdom strongly in the European system. You cannot have the future of Europe built without a strong British presence and without Britain being heard.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, we have heard talk about a menage a trois in Europe these days, we know the position of France, Germany and the UK, who is going to be in charge in this menage a trois?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    There is no leader, nobody takes charge in the political menage, not even in households generally. But I can say that France plays its role, as does Britain and Germany, we all do everything we can to harmonise positions. Reform is a constant endeavour, day to day effort, day in, day out, and we participate fully in those efforts.

    QUESTION:

    Today the Commission is bringing out a report on how the various countries in the EU are complying as far as debt is concerned, and therefore the implications that has for the Maastricht criteria. Do you have any comments to make on where the economy stands at the moment and being able to form a single currency, if we so decide, by 1999?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The concept of the criteria at Maastricht was originally a British concept. There are good economic criteria, quite apart from their necessity were any nation states to go ahead with a single currency in 1999. I think we will all look at the Commission report with some interest. But as to meeting those sort of criteria, they are the British government’s policy in any event to meet criteria like this for good economic reasons, and we will look at the report with interest. I think we will also look at the report as to how it indicates across Europe the economic readiness for a single currency amongst many of our partners.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    You shouldn’t believe that the convergence criteria are the only element to be achieved to create a single currency. The convergence criteria are founded on good sense, on common sense, based on sound management of the economy. And one should note that the UK, which has proposed, and very wisely so several years back, have made the necessary proposals regarding the restructuring of its finances, is a country where unemployment has fallen. So there is a link between sound, wise, financial management and jobs. Other countries have not been as wise as the United Kingdom in past years and so they now face deficit problems and unemployment problems. Over and above any other consideration, of course we are making every effort to reduce deficits, to respect the convergence criteria, and we do this, also it is a means of more effectively combating unemployment.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, would you say that following your conversations today, and those that you will have by the end of your visit, do you think that there will be rapprochement between the UK and French positions on the concept of the EU and the role of nation states in that union?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I would say that my concern, ever since I took office, is to ensure that there is the greatest level of rapprochement between British and French views. And I repeat, I want the building of Europe to be effective and I do not think that that construction of Europe can be effective without agreement with Britain. So we discuss and we make progress, I repeat reform, such wide-ranging reform in particular, is an on-going effort. It also involves enhancing dialogue and makes better understanding, and that is what we do, day in and day out.

  • PMQT – 7 May 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

    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. Banks: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the strong support that I have given to those in Southport who have sought to raise teaching standards in our schools. In the light of today’s Ofsted report on reading, will he spare a thought for parents in Islington and Southwark whose children, according to the report, have been failed by weak and mediocre teaching methods? Does he agree that, if we are to improve standards in our schools, improved teaching methods must be the cornerstone of the Government’s education policy?

    The Prime Minister: I do feel for those parents, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has announced new measures today to root out and shine the light on those bad, Labour-controlled local authorities whose record was shown up so sadly in the report from Ofsted over the weekend. The Labour party’s only response to that is to threaten to give more powers to those very same councils to which its Front-Bench spokesmen will not entrust their own children.

    Mr. Blair: Can the Prime Minister confirm today’s reports that, in the next Conservative manifesto, he will pledge to privatise the Post Office? Is he aware of the enormous concern of many people in rural areas who fear for the future of their post offices and postal services?

    The Prime Minister: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that many rural post offices–a very important part of local communities–are already in private hands. It is astonishing that he does not seem to know that.

    Mr. Blair: It is completely astonishing that the Prime Minister does not understand the concern of those people that the post offices will be sold off. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, over the next few years, the Treasury intends taking an extra £400 million out of Post Office profits and that that money will simply be another back-door Tory tax? Is that right or not?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we are looking to make sure that the Post Office gives customers the efficient and effective service that they deserve. I repeat to him, since he clearly still does not understand it, that the rural post offices that he is concerned about are in private hands and that they are efficient and effective. I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that.

    Mr. Blair: I have asked the Prime Minister twice whether that will be in the Conservative manifesto. If he is so confident about it, perhaps he can tell us whether it will be. As for a better service, let him tell that to the water customers whose prices have risen by 40 per cent. Perhaps he does not understand that the Conservatives’ obsession with privatising our public services is one reason among many others for their humiliation last Thursday. Would it not be better in future if he paid less attention to the factions in his own party and more to the voice of the British people?

    The Prime Minister: I was wondering how the right hon. Gentleman would manage to get around to that from privatisation, but I suppose that I should have known from precedent that it does not matter what the first two questions are, the soundbite is always prepared. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. We cannot hear hon. Members.

     

    Q2. Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Sir Wyn Roberts: Reverting to education, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this Conservative Government will not take away the £560 per annum of child benefit for the over-16s on which so many families rely to get their children through A-levels? Does he agree that the scrapping of child benefit at that level would be devastating for many families and would prevent many youngsters from going on to further education?

    The Prime Minister: I can of course confirm that. Since the leader of the Labour party is so interested in what will be in manifestos, perhaps he can confirm that the scrapping of child benefit for youngsters of 16 and 17, as proposed by the shadow Chancellor and objected to by the shadow Foreign Secretary, will be in Labour’s manifesto, at a time when child benefit is being supported by Labour’s official spokesman on social security. Perhaps he would care to make that clear speedily. On the merits of the case, there is no doubt that that would be a severe disadvantage–[Interruption.] You can tell when the right hon. Gentleman does not want to answer: he chats to his hon. Friends. That policy would be a severe disadvantage to many families on low incomes who want their children to have a better start in education than they themselves had.

    Mr. Ashdown: On the first day of the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, does the Prime Minister recognise that peace in Bosnia is more at risk through the ambitions to create a greater Croatia than through any threat from a greater Serbia? Does he at least recognise that the withdrawal of IFOR without replacement in November would mean that there would be no chance of an unchaperoned peace persisting? Does he recognise that the west must now insist on the inviolability of Bosnia’s borders and must halt Croatia’s quietly annexing Bosnian territory?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that the peace is uneasy across the former Yugoslavia. That is undoubtedly the case. At this stage, it is too early to judge what will be necessary at the time when IFOR withdraws. There is a great deal to be done. Thus far, the military work has been immensely successful. There is quite a lot still to be done on the civilian side. We shall need to make the judgment to which the right hon. Gentleman referred at a later stage.

     

    Q3. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend share the deep concern of the British people and all of us–[Interruption.] I am quoting the Leader of the Opposition, who loves to talk about the British people. We represent the British people here. [Interruption.] Yes, we do, and we always will and the Opposition had better learn that. Does my right hon. Friend share the deep concern of the British people and myself at Ofsted’s report today of appallingly low reading standards in three Labour-controlled local authorities? Does he agree that generations of children have been let down educationally and in other ways by the Labour and Liberal parties while the leader of the Labour party and others in that party have rescued their children into Conservative authorities and selective schools but would deny those opportunities to others? [Interruption.] Yes, they would.

    The Prime Minister: I do not blame anyone, whoever he or she may be, for taking advantage of Conservative Government reforms on education or on anything else. It is certainly true that Labour Front-Bench Members know an awful lot about schools in Islington and Southwark–sufficient, certainly, to send their children elsewhere.

    Mr. David Marshall: Following last Thursday’s election results, has the Prime Minister given any thought to how his premiership is perceived by the great British population? Does he not realise that, far from giving an Oscar-winning performance, he is regarded politically as a dead man walking?

    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I can tell him quite sincerely that it is not reciprocated.

     

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

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

    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will grant export licences for any orders for British beef received from countries outside the European Union? Is it not time for the British Government actively to promote the sale of British beef to countries all over the world, as a clear demonstration to the British public and to British farmers that we will not stand idly by while European farm Ministers destroy this country’s beef industry to the benefit of their own?

    The Prime Minister: I share the concern and frustration expressed by my hon. Friend. We continue to believe that the ban on British beef products is unjustified and disproportionate. The European Commission President and the Agriculture Commissioner have now accepted that British beef is safe. On that basis, there is no justification for member states retaining the ban. We continue to press the Commission and other member states for a comprehensive framework for the speedy relaxation and complete removal of the ban.

    Mr. Faulds: To placate the loony Little Englanders behind him, why does not the Prime Minister–[Interruption.] You will hear me in the end. Why does not the Prime Minister send an expeditionary force under Field Marshal Cash and a gunboat under the lunatically immature Redwood to teach the bloody foreigners a lesson?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that the view right across my party is that we are better off remaining in the European Union, and I have expressed that view on many occasions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware of who it was who once said:

    “Many voters, including myself, are still unconvinced it was a good idea to join the Common Market in the first place.”

    In case he does not know, it was the shadow Foreign Secretary.

     

    Q5. Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Sweeney: Could my right hon. Friend find time to visit the Vale of Glamorgan in the next few months, where on Thursday there was a local government by-election with a 10 per cent. swing to the Conservatives? Does he agree that that swing shows that the Conservative fight back has started well and truly in the most marginal seats in Britain? Does he agree that the fact that the Labour-controlled Vale of Glamorgan council has just raised council tax by 22 per cent. demonstrates that Labour government, whether locally or nationally, is bad for our pockets?

    The Prime Minister: I think that history certainly supports my hon. Friend’s claim, and so do current events. The Labour leader and the shadow Transport Secretary both want a higher rate for middle income earners and the deputy leader–alas, missing today–wants a higher top rate of tax. They are in complete turmoil over their plans for child benefit, which amount to an extra 5p on income tax for a family on average earnings. The fact is that raising taxes is the Labour instinct–it is in Labour’s blood, and nothing will stop it.

    Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware of figures published last month which show that, for the first time, gross domestic product per head in the Irish Republic has now passed that of Wales? Does he believe that that is because of the very strong voice that the Irish Republic has in the European Union and the benefits that it receives from that, or is it because of his Government’s failure to develop a good spread of well-paid jobs throughout Wales?

    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a look at some of the jobs in Wales which are the result of inward investment and which would not be there but for the Government. As for the GDP figure, the hon. Gentleman might bear in mind the fact that a substantial amount of the Irish Republic’s GDP–5 per cent. or 7 per cent.–is a direct subvention from the European Union.