The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: BSE

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Turin – 29 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference, held in Turin on Friday 29th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I should first apologise for the absence of the Foreign Secretary, but he has gone to the start proper of the intergovernmental conference.

    The discussions that we have had today have really been the tale of two topics: firstly, the intergovernmental conference, the agenda and the way in which it will develop; and secondly the current problems that exist as far as beef is concerned. Let me take those two issues separately and tell you what has been happening and the view that the United Kingdom government has taken.

    I will start, if I may, with the intergovernmental conference. I am very pleased at the outcome of the discussions that we have had today, and in particular the fact that we have agreed a non-prejudicial agenda that gives Britain a free hand to pursue her objectives of developing Europe as a partnership of nations.

    I think it is clear that the mandate that has been set is one that is satisfactory to all nations and will enable us to pursue the objectives set out in the white paper that we published just a few days ago.

    If I can pick out some of the elements from the agenda. Quite a lot of support, notably from Germany, on the subject of subsidiarity. We need also to look at the role of national parliaments, the working of the European Court of Justice and the re-weighting of qualified majority voting. I made it clear again this morning that Britain sees no case whatsoever for any extension of qualified majority voting. I very much welcome an agenda that sets these discussions in the IGC in the context of the challenges the European Union faces.

    I also made it clear this morning that as we look at the future development of Europe, we are going to have to tackle the situation that has arisen under which social measures are effectively brought in by the back door using the health and safety article of the Treaty, Article 118A. If Europe is to develop in a spirit of trust and cooperation, I think we have to act in good faith and it has long been our position that we believe that particular treaty head has not been used in the way it was originally intended. We agreed that health and safety provision in 1985 on the understanding that it would deal with matters of genuine health and safety affecting workers. What we have seen, most recently of course in the opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court on the interpretation of the working directive, we don’t agree with the remarks of the Advocate General, we don’t think that article should be a basis for action on working conditions that go beyond health and safety. That was not our understanding when we signed the article, it wasn’t our understanding when I reached the agreement on the Social Protocol at the Maastricht Treaty.

    So I made it clear this morning that this is a matter that we will have to turn to afresh in the intergovernmental conference. I reached agreements at Maastricht, and we reached agreements on the health and safety article before, that must not be undermined and must be kept in good faith. And I think it will be extremely difficult if we are unable to reach agreement on that in the intergovernmental conference. I indicated this morning that I would be looking in the IGC for changes to Article 118A so that it reflects our earlier understanding of its limited scope. And the reality is that if old agreements are to be re-interpreted, it is difficult to see how we can reach new agreements in good faith. But I think it was overall a very constructive exchange of views this morning.

    Both this morning and over luncheon we spent some time discussing the current problems in the beef industry. I set out this morning, and again over lunch, why some of the actions over the last week perhaps have made the problem worse. But we spent most of the time looking at the problem as it is today and how we actually deal with the problem for the future. We have already taken a number of steps to protect consumers and support the market.

    I should emphasise at the outset that the scientific advice that we have is that beef is safe, safe for us, safe for other people, safe to eat. That is the view of the scientists. But the collective hysteria that we have seen over the last few days has raised a great question-mark in the minds of consumers of beef. And the principal issue that we now have to address is how to restore confidence in the mind of consumers rather than the specific action on health, for I repeat we believe that British beef is safe.

    I think, and said to colleagues, that we need now to do three things. Firstly bring about the conditions in which the ban on British beef exports can be lifted, and lifted speedily. The United Kingdom has been meeting today, the Agriculture Minister has been meeting in Brussels today to try and identify with the Commission a package of measures that would enable the Commission to recommend lifting the ban.

    I would hope, if agreement is to be reached, and some progress has been made today, talks will continue and I anticipate an agriculture meeting on Monday. Providing agreement can be reached I would hope partners would feel able to accept the Commission’s recommendations. And if that is the case, I hope colleagues will give appropriate guidance to their Agriculture Ministers when they meet on Monday. But I emphasise, the talks are proceeding, they are not yet concluded, they are likely to continue over the weekend, it is likely to move into an Agriculture meeting on Monday.

    The second question we must address is the specific problem of the beef market, the beef market across Europe and the beef market in the United Kingdom. There was a universal recognition amongst our European partners today that this is not just a United Kingdom problem. This is a problem for the beef market across Europe. Consumption of beef has dropped in the United Kingdom, it has dropped here in Italy, it has dropped in France, it has dropped in countries right across the European Union. So we all have a collective communal interest in restoring confidence to the beef market, and also restoring the confidence of third markets to European beef as well as British beef. And that was the universal view of the colleagues that I have had discussions with today.

    We have agreed that we need to look at the language of reassurance. I think everyone recognised that panic measures merely breed more panic. The scientific facts speak for themselves. British beef is safe, European beef is safe, and safe for the consumer on any normal definition of that term. And might say, for those people concerned about British beef, the Meat Hygiene Organisation that has responsibility for monitoring that have their own officers, in some cases more than one officer, in each and every slaughterhouse across the United Kingdom. And every slaughtered carcass is examined by someone from the Meat Hygiene Office, and I made that point very clearly to my colleagues this morning.

    The last few days have left quite deep scars of course in the beef industry, quite deep scars in the United Kingdom and problems in other countries as well. Healing them is going to take some time, but I think we have made a good start today and I anticipate that my colleagues will have had something to say about that at their own press conferences.

    In the discussion we had after luncheon, I was extremely reassured by the attitude taken by our European partners. There was support, without any qualification, from across the board amongst our European colleagues, support not just in a general sense but an indication that there would be support where necessary in a financial sense as well for the costs that will be incurred in dealing with this problem.

    There was a recognition that communal action is necessary to restore confidence and I think all colleagues took on board the fact that as soon as we have agreed a package it will be crucial to restore confidence, not just in the United Kingdom, but across Europe, that that confidence is sufficient to lift the ban that was placed on British beef earlier this week.

    So I think we have had some very constructive and worthwhile discussions today. I am grateful to my colleagues for the way in which they entered into those discussions, and I think we have set a good basis for carrying those talks forward over the weekend and into Monday.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister, we understood that Mr. Santer was suggesting that as soon as the Veterinary Committee has looked at and approved your measures then they would be prepared to lift the ban. Is that your understanding, that all they will really need to lift the ban is to be certain that you are taking the sort of measures which are acceptable to the rest of the Community?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is what the President of the Commission would like to see, I think you have interpreted his views correctly but of course, the Scientific Committee is composed of vets from the national countries and they will presumably have to make a recommendation to the Commission for the Commission to lift their ban so I very much hope that can happen speedily but I think we must wait and see what the attitude of the Veterinary Committee is. I believe there would be no justification for keeping the ban once we have reached agreement on a package that is acceptable to our European partners; I very much hope that will prove to be the case.

    QUESTION (John Kampfner, Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, you have criticised the speed with which the ban was imposed and you have spoken of collective hysteria. Do you believe there was any broader political motive in the minds of certain people, certain countries, certain institutions in the speed with which they imposed the ban?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t make that criticism. The reality is that the ban has an impact across Europe as well as here. One of our European partners made the point over lunch that his country had beef in a ship waiting off-shore that they wouldn’t take on-shore – not British beef but beef from another European country – so the reality is that the ban has impacted upon the confidence in beef not just from the United Kingdom but right the way across Europe and I think that point is recognised as a European problem and that is why everyone has a direct interest in dealing with it speedily and comprehensively and showing that Europe has confidence in Europe’s beef so that the rest of the world can have confidence in Europe’s beef as well.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, The Guardian):

    Prime Minister, I wonder whether you were in a position to indicate, in however general terms, to your colleagues the scale of the costs which could be involved in these measures that have been prepared over a number of years and whether in your opinion, roughly speaking, a 50-50 distribution of those costs is the ball park of the discussions that are taking place and whether the whole affair hasn’t led you to think again about the merits of the Common Agricultural Policy bearing in mind only a few weeks ago the Government was saying that the Committee didn’t need so much money for the beef intervention fund.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I don’t think it has changed our general view on other matters and neither is it going to change the negotiating position of the United Kingdom or other countries in the inter-governmental conference. There are quite separate matters: there are questions of policy which are matters of principle between the member states and they will continue as they were before and here we have an emergency that has existed across Europe in other guises in the past; a number of countries – Belgium, Germany – mentioned the earlier problems there had been with swine fever and the extent to which the European Union accepted a communal responsibility and that is what our partners have indicated they will do on this occasion.

    As to the scale of the problem, I don’t propose to put figures to it at this particular meeting. I do have a broad indication of figures, the President of the Commission indicated he did too and chose not to give them at the moment. I think we need to do a little more work upon that so I don’t propose to give you any particular figures.

    As to the division of costs, of course the costs arise in different ways. Some things arise under European Union programmes and in that case part of the cost will be met by the European Union, part of it by the United Kingdom, part of it gets docked out of the United Kingdom rebate, there is a clear-cut and well-established mechanism and there are other areas that are for national cost and some where the European will share the cost. It is not possible at this stage to put a proportion to it.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Prime Minister, do you still believe some of the costs could have been avoided if they hadn’t tried to put the ban on so rapidly and do you think there have been any lessons learned by your European partners about how this was handled?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think our European partners were responding to a collective hysteria that broke out across Europe; they will express their own views. They will have seen the general views expressed for their public in their own countries and they have expressed some views about that; no doubt they will do that in their own particular press conferences and I will leave it for them to make their own points.

    The fundamental point that is clear and is immensely distressing for the beef industry right the way across Europe – never mind just the UK – is that the view of the scientists was, is and remains that beef is safe, by any normal recognition of the expression beef is safe and yet because of the alarmism that spread across Europe, the people who are the consumers of beef lost confidence in the fact that beef is safe. The fact that that happened we can all look back to last week and attribute the blame in different directions but at this moment perhaps it is not particularly productive to do so. We could all look back and do that, so can you; you all know where to place your own version of the blame but the fact that this got out of control has now created a crisis that need not have been anywhere as large as it has become. There was a problem, it was a problem that I think could have been overcome with rational and sound judgement and appropriate measures – it spiralled out of control. I think all of us have lessons to learn about that when look at beef or health scares of any sort in the future whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

    One of the points made by more than one of my colleagues in discussion was that this particular health scare arose over British beef. Tomorrow’s health scare or next year’s health scare might arise in another European country and I hope all of us will learn lessons over how to try and damp down unnecessary hysteria.

    The first point always must be a secure position on public health. Nobody can deny making public matters that relate to public health, that is proper and we did that but I think we must try and see how we can avoid this collective hysteria in future.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, is the slaughter of the elderly animals which you have now decided will not be allowed to go into the food chain under active consideration and be part of the package which is considered by the Agricultural Ministers on Monday?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are looking at a range of issues at the moment in Brussels. Those talks are going on, George, as we speak so I don’t want to give out more information on them but there is a range of issues under discussion including that.

    QUESTION (Sarah Holmes, The Independent):

    Prime Minister, do you hold out any hope that the ban might be lifted as early as Monday or at least early next week?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t tell you the answer to that, I don’t know the answer to that. That will be a matter that will be decided after the agricultural meeting no doubt by the Standing Veterinary Committee who will make their own recommendations; it would certainly be my hope that it would be lifted speedily.

    At this stage, we have several ingredients to deal with before we get there: firstly, we need to reach an agreement with the Commission; secondly, that needs to be acceptable to the member states; thirdly, we need the Agriculture Committee meeting and then we need to see what the Standing Veterinary Committee have to say but I do think it is in the interests of everyone to make sure that we reach a circumstance in which this ban can be lifted speedily because nobody should be under the misapprehension that this ban just ring-fences a problem in British beef – that is not the case. Whilst this ban remains, it is going to be seen by the whole of the world outside Europe as a problem for European beef and I think to that extent everyone has an interest in this problem being solved speedily so whether Monday or not I can’t tell you, as soon as possible I certainly hope so.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Turin – 29 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Turin on Friday 29th March 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, Good Morning and Happy Birthday.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much indeed.

    QUESTION:

    Can you tell us how this meeting can best contribute to the resolution of the beef crisis and what lessons do you think that carries for the way in which Europe does its business and the reforms you are going for?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have seen Prime Minister Dini this morning and we have discussed how to handle the matter mechanistically. I will discuss it this morning when we discuss the ICC and of course the two things are quite separate. But we will then have a subsequent discussion over luncheon. So that is how we will deal with it. And I think there is a general recognition that in the interests of all Europe this is a problem that has to be dealt with, it has to be dealt with comprehensively and has to be dealt with in a way that will restore consumer confidence, and that is what we will all be seeking to do.

    QUESTION:

    And the lessons for the future?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that the lessons for the future are that we will continue to do what we have done in the past. There has been no occasion when we have not taken the best scientific and medical advice as to what we will do. The scientists, even today, will say to you that British beef is safe, they do say that. The problem is not truly whether British beef is safe today, the problem is that because of the hysteria that there has been is a crisis of confidence, it is not actually a health crisis but a crisis of confidence in the beef market and it is that problem in particular that we now have to address. Unfortunate, but that is the real world and that is what we must deal with.

    QUESTION:

    Are you not going to feel a bit uncomfortable about asking them in effect to pay out cash to help us out of a problem when we have been so critical about Europe in the past?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that is remotely the situation. We will have to deal with a problem that affects everyone across Europe, it would affect the confidence of people right the way across Europe. That is the way other Heads of Government are seeing it, I have seen some of them already this morning. They have made it clear that that is the way that they see the problem. And I think it is in the interests of all Europe that we solve this problem that has a confidence impact on beef generally right the way across Europe. Beef Consumption has not only dropped in the United Kingdom, it has dropped quite dramatically in many other European Countries. So we all have a common interest in dealing with this problem of confidence, not of health, I emphasise again this is a problem of confidence that stretches right the way across Europe.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to be able to tell them what we plan to do in the UK to relieve this problem and ask for their help for a specific plan?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will be discussing some of those matters. More detailed discussions are actually going on in Brussels at the moment, they are going on today, and I think it is highly likely that there will be a meeting of the Agriculture Council very shortly, perhaps on Monday. I think that is probable. So we will be discussing it this morning, yes, but quite what details we will deal with I am not in a position to tell you at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    Do you regret your very angry response when the European Commission first announced there would be a ban?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t regret that.

    QUESTION:

    You don’t think it makes things more difficult for you now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not.

  • PMQT – 28 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: Is not the wide welcome for the Government’s endorsement of Sir Ron Dearing’s proposals for the education of 16 to 19-year-olds thoroughly deserved, as they bring together academic study with work-related training and recognise young people’s differing skills and aptitudes for reaching their full potential? Is not that belief in diversity and choice the hallmark of Conservative policy and a striking contrast to anything else on offer?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the desirability of choice and diversity being the key to raising standards in schools. I am sure that that is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will set out more proposals this afternoon to achieve precisely that. That is what we want for all children–our children and everyone else’s as well.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that, to restore confidence in British beef, we should recognise the mistakes of the past and that contaminated meat did pass into the food chain, but that, for the future, we should take all measures that are necessary to make negligible, not just extremely small, any chance–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is disgraceful. The House will come to order.

    Mr. Blair: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

    For the future, we should take whatever measures are necessary to make negligible–not just extremely small–the chance of any specified bovine offal going into any part of the food chain. What are the measures that the Prime Minister is proposing following the Cabinet meeting this morning and will they include the measures proposed by shadow Ministers, which have already won wide-ranging support throughout the industry?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right about the need to take all the necessary public health measures. The reality is that we have always taken the action that was seen to be necessary and the advice that has been offered. In 1989, we took action that went beyond the advice that we had received. I have had an opportunity to look at the proposals that the Opposition made this morning. They are a mixture of motherhood and action that is already being taken, and they largely miss many of the matters that need to be dealt with. [An hon. Member: “What is wrong with them?”]

    If the hon. Lady would like me to run through the eight points and explain why they are irrelevant, I should be happy to do so. I will find them. Here they are.

    The Opposition call for proper enforcement of controls in slaughterhouses, yet they opposed the setting up of the Meat Hygiene Service, which was designed to ensure that they were enforced. They call for a random test of the brains of cattle. That is completely irrelevant, as we have stopped all brain products that could possibly be infected from entering the food chain. They suggest that products are labelled with ingredients; that is already happening. SEAC has already looked at the safety of mechanically recovered meat and we have already taken steps to ensure its safety.

    As for the plans for a quality assurance scheme, of course we wish to ensure the quality of all beef, but there would be no question of labelling some beef as safe and allowing the sale of unsafe beef, which is what they say would mean. Their plan to ban specified bovine offal in cattle under six months overlooks the fact that SEAC specifically considered this proposal and concluded that it was unnecessary, not least because there has never been a single incidence of BSE in cattle that young. The plan for a separate–[Interruption.] The Opposition asked me what was wrong with their plans.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman was asked a question by an hon. Member from a sedentary position. Members must learn to listen and not bawl out from sedentary positions.

    The Prime Minister: The plan for a separate food agency would mean that matters such as this would no longer be represented round the Cabinet table but would be represented in an agency. The chief medical officer already has the support that he has asked for to carry out his duties. The reality is that our examination is much more fundamental than this public relations nonsense from the Labour party. It is considering votes; we are considering the industry and the national interest.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that we have heard anything quite so pathetic as that. Let me take two of those measures–one, random testing, was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman’s own committee. As for the policy in relation to abattoirs, his own scientists have said that the regulations have to be enforced. Will he confirm that, as late as last year, almost half the slaughterhouses were not up to scratch and that, although it is true that there are far fewer today, there has not yet been one completed prosecution? Is that not right?

    Will the Prime Minister please, for once, stop shirking responsibility and instead take it? In particular, will he understand that, unless he can agree proposals now with the food industry, the retailers and the consumer organisations so that we present a united front, we shall never have the Government back in control of events rather than being controlled by them?

    The Prime Minister: What is pathetic is this document. What is also pathetic is this wriggling change of policy after the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Gentleman did everything that they could to extract maximum political advantage, at the cost, potentially, of jobs, and of the national interest, in the beef industry. On his remarks about controls in slaughterhouses, the Meat Hygiene Service has an officer–in some cases more than one officer–in each and every slaughterhouse, and every single carcass is inspected by those hygiene officers–officers whom Opposition Members voted against when we brought the proposals before the House.

    Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend assure his farmers–my farmers and farmers up and down the country–that the Government will do all that they can to avert the disaster facing British industry? In short, will the Government bring forward proposals for a selective slaughter policy to take out of the food chain the meat from cows that will be culled in any case?

    The Prime Minister: What needs to be done to ensure confidence both for the beef industry and for allied industries, in the interests of the farmers as well as public health, and the substantial range of matters that must be examined, are all under consideration at the moment. We must address specifically the question of market confidence: that means convincing our European partners and the beef outlets that beef is safe. The next step in that process will be an announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food later this afternoon.

    However, in the interests of the industry as a whole and of public health, it is important to deal with the matters comprehensively if we are to meet the objective of restoring confidence. Work and discussion on all the matters is going ahead–even as we meet this afternoon–in this country and in Europe. We shall carry out those discussions as speedily as possible. As soon as we are able, we shall bring comprehensive proposals before the House, but it is not in the interests of the industry for us to dribble them out piecemeal: we shall deal with the whole issue because that is the only way to restore the confidence so badly damaged so unnecessarily.

    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister knows very well just how many jobs and how many businesses are now at risk in what is the worst crisis to hit rural Britain for three decades or more. He knows that every delay will add to that list. I therefore assure him that, if he brings forward an urgent plan of action, designed to restore public confidence and to make the British herd BSE-free as soon as possible, based on culling and other measures, we shall support him. We shall also support every action that is designed to persuade our European partners that it is not a problem just for Britain, but a Europe wide problem that requires a Europe wide solution.

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s latter point: it is a Europe wide problem. I shall discuss the matter with our European partners in Turin tomorrow and my right hon. Friends will also discuss the matter with their European counterparts. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: 650,000 people are employed in the industry, which generates about £5 billion each year. That is why we must ensure that the proposal we bring forward is comprehensive and will work. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his offer of support as we do so.

    Mr. Lamont: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be total support for his comments yesterday about the European Union ban on worldwide exports of British beef which he said was unjustifiable, unjust and should be reversed? Does the Prime Minister recognise that we do not wish to be bribed, by accepting the return of some of our own money, into agreeing to something that is fundamentally wrong? Is there not a case for, if not leaving the British seat vacant at the IGC tomorrow, at least saying that there will be no progress until the ruling has been overturned?

    The Prime Minister: On the basis of the scientific advice that we have received, our partners must know that the ban on British beef is totally without justification. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is having urgent discussions to outline the measures that we are taking to ensure safety. I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall reinforce that point vigorously in Turin tomorrow. It is essential that decisions of that sort are taken by member states on the basis of rational judgments and of science, and not on any other basis–as I believe they were on this occasion. I shall certainly make our feelings clear tomorrow.

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March.

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

    Mr. Illsley: What message does the Prime Minister have for his so-called Euro-sceptic friends now that he is not going to Turin to talk tough to the intergovernmental conference but is going cap in hand to beg for compensation for the measures that he knows he must now take to resurrect the British beef industry, which has suffered because of his Government’s total incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have heard what I said a moment or so ago; if he did hear it, he patently did not understand it.

    We have set out our position on the intergovernmental conference, and I shall reinforce that, precisely as we have previously informed the House, in the discussions at the IGC tomorrow, but with one addition. I shall make it clear that the recent ruling on the working time directive is wholly unjustified, that we do not accept it and that we shall be seeking in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that the Commission does not misuse article 118A in future.

     

    Q3. Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March.

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

    Mr. Coombs: When my right hon. Friend goes to Turin, will he take the opportunity to impress on his fellow European leaders the absolute need to reduce business costs? Will he also ensure that there is no way in which the European social chapter–the European tax on jobs–is smuggled into this country by the back door or foisted on the British people by the back door despite our opt-out?

    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, and am happy to reaffirm, I am not prepared to see the social chapter opt-out, negotiated and agreed in good faith at Maastricht with our colleagues, undermined by an improper use of other treaty heads, and I shall demand changes in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that that cannot happen. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”]

    The Labour party may wish to sign up to policies that will make people unemployed–Labour Members are obviously reckless of employment, as they showed earlier this week with their statements on health matters–but we care about putting people back into jobs and we shall not accept any measures that prevent jobs being created.

  • PMQT – 26 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

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

    Mr. Wareing: Two weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister about unemployment, to which he gave an answer lambasting Liverpool city council. Will he now unequivocally condemn Tory Westminster council for risking the health of its people for political purposes by housing them in asbestos-ridden flats?

    The Prime Minister: That issue was very properly investigated by Westminster, which commissioned an independent report. I understand that the council has taken action in the light of that independent report. Before the hon. Gentleman goes further, he should compare the overall record of Westminster with that of other authorities. As he is sensitive about his local authority, appalling as it is, he should compare it with Lambeth and Hackney. He might look at the rent arrears in Lambeth, which are six times the level of Westminster, or the rent arrears in Hackney, which are 10 times as great. There are 21 times as many unoccupied dwellings in Lambeth and 23 times as many in Hackney. Whose housing policies are a disgrace?

    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy issue is not really a party political crisis but a crisis for the whole nation? Can he persuade the Leader of the Opposition to stop making cheap party political points, which are doing this country and its farming community so much harm?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anybody doubts the seriousness of the issue or the need to balance the competing interests of public health and the importance of the beef industry. It is important that we deal with the issue on the basis of rational, sensible decisions, based on proper information, not on hysteria. That is the way in which the Government have sought to deal with it thus far, and we will continue to do so.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister at least agree with me on the scientific basis of the case? Is it not, first, that scientists now say that there is a probable link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human killer; secondly, that prior to 1989 there was contamination of the food chain by BSE; thirdly, that after the regulations of 1989 there was supposed to be no such contamination, but there were breaches of the regulations; and, fourthly, that the scientists say that if, now, new measures are adopted, the risk in future will be “extremely small”?

    If we can agree that as the scientific basis, I ask the right hon. Gentleman–this is essential to restoring confidence–to quantify the risk from the period 1989 to now and the period now onwards when the risk is “extremely small”. Without that quantification, I do not think that confidence will be restored.

    The Prime Minister: It will be extremely difficult to restore confidence if right hon. and hon. Members continue to undermine that confidence whenever they have the opportunity to do so, for reasons that I think will seem unfathomable to people in the agriculture industry and to the wider public.

    As for the scientific evidence, neither the right hon. Gentleman, nor I, nor, I suspect, any right hon. or hon. Member, has competence to make that judgment. That is why we have to rely on the advice that we have received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which said that it does not believe that additional measures are justified at the present time. The House will be aware of what Professor Pattison has said on a number of occasions. He specifically said–it is very relevant to today’s position:

    “In any common usage of the word, we”–

    the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee–

    “think beef is safe. Anyone can eat beef or beef products and be safe.”

    That is the professional advice that we have received, and it is incumbent on us to accept and listen to that advice.

    Mr. Blair: Did not the Secretary of State for Health make a statement in the House last week that earlier scientific advice had been wrong, and tell us to wait for two days for advice on whether it was safe for children, while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was speculating about the killing of 4.5 million cows? Suddenly, the Secretary of State for Health appears to bristle with certainty and he tells us that the public are mad, not the cows. The matter has been handled with quite mind-boggling incompetence. I repeat that the scientists say that the risk in future is extremely small, but may I ask the Prime Minister once again to quantify that risk? As a matter of urgency, will he convene a meeting of producers and purchasers in the food industry to agree the necessary measures to restore confidence?

    The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had done enough damage in the last few days–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order–all of you.

    The Prime Minister: –for them to stop trying to create health scares by inviting responses from any Minister who can competently comment only on the basis of scientific advice. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. Since he wants to exchange quotations, may I say that it is not all that long ago that the shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang)–who has acted far more responsibly than some of his hon. Friends–told the House that

    “the possibility of BSE being transmitted to humans seems remote”?–[Official Report, 25 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 994.]

    The right hon. Gentleman knows the scientific evidence that we have received, and he knows the way in which we have been invited to proceed on the basis of it. For what reason does he continually try to undermine public confidence?

    Mr. Blair: When the Scott report came out, the Prime Minister blamed my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). When this report came out, he has blamed other Opposition Members. Does he not realise that the country expects him, as Prime Minister, to take responsibility? Since he has mentioned my hon. Friend the shadow Minister of Agriculture, perhaps he will adopt the measures that my hon. Friend has proposed, and let us hope that confidence can be restored.

    The Prime Minister: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman how it might be restored, again by quoting his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East:

    “We are talking about a huge industry and that is why we have to be very responsible and we must not hype something up and give the impression that it is wrong to eat beef or there is some evidence of a link if there is no evidence.”

    The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) have done everything they can to undermine confidence in beef and the agriculture industry. If they have undermined confidence to the extent that there is a serious problem, the agriculture industry and the public will know precisely whom to blame.

    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that consumers of beef are looking for further reassurance that British beef is best–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will be heard in this House.

    Mr. Marland: I will start again, Madam Speaker. Is my right hon. Friend aware that consumers of beef are looking for further assurance that British beef is best? Does he agree that it is now time for the British media to stand up for Britain and to dispatch some investigative teams to Europe to study what is known there as staggers or manganese deficiency, which is often BSE by another name?

    The Prime Minister: There are self-evidently two equally important interests to balance. First, there is the public concern about public health. That is of great importance to the Government, which is why we have repeatedly taken the advice on public health that we have been given. The second interest is confidence in the beef industry, the jobs it creates and its economic importance. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should look at both those matters and give them both great importance.

    Mr. Ashdown: This morning, the National Farmers Union, which is presumably not hysterical, backed by the entire food industry, which is presumably not hysterical either, has called for older cows to be taken out of the human food chain. If the Prime Minister will not follow that advice, will he at least answer this question? What has he got to say to farmers, to abattoir managers and to cattle market operators? They have been ringing all morning to say, “My doors are closed, my market has gone and in two weeks, my business will be in ruins. What do I do now?”

    The Prime Minister: I have received a letter from Sir David Naish and I have a copy of the letter that he sent to the Leader of the Opposition and to the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. My colleagues and I will study carefully the contents of the letter I have received. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening, he will get his answer.

    There are two reasons for proceeding in the way that Sir David recommends. The first is on public health grounds, if science recommends it; but science does not recommend it, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The second is if it proves necessary to restore confidence to the market because ill-conceived comments, ignorant of science, mean that sensible, practical measures that should have restored confidence will not restore confidence. I hope that sound judgment will prevail. If it does not, those who have destroyed that confidence will be the people to blame and everyone will be aware of that. They sit there, there and there on the Opposition Benches.

    Mr. Faber: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Wiltshire police force on the 5 per cent. fall in recorded crime which was announced today? When he considers further proposals on sentencing, will he give careful consideration to the views of the chief constable of Wiltshire? He believes that the vast majority of crime is perpetrated by a few known offenders and that

    “custodial sentences take them out of the game.”

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with that view, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I am delighted that, again, crime figures are falling in the United Kingdom. Today’s figures show that recorded crime fell by almost 2.5 per cent last year. With the falls in the past two years, that represents the largest fall since records began more than a century ago. That has been achieved despite the fact that the Opposition have continually opposed the law and order measures which we have introduced–measures which, when my right hon. and learned Friend introduced them, they dismissed as gimmicks. The only gimmicks on crime are those from the Opposition. We are producing measures that are beating the criminal and bringing down crime.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

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

    Mr. Hall: Given the Prime Minister’s disgraceful performance this afternoon, does he remember telling the House last week that the Government have always and immediately acted on the expert advice given to them by scientists on bovine spongiform encephalopathy? In the light of that claim, can he tell the House why the Government failed immediately to implement the recommendations of the Tyrrell report to sample cattle brains to monitor BSE? We need a straightforward answer to that question.

    The Prime Minister: We are continually taking professional advice on health matters. Opposition Members are asking me not to take the professional advice but to do something else. If I had not taken the professional advice on the question of BSE, the hon. Gentleman might have had some cause for complaint. As it is, he has none–except against his own Front Bench.

    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that McDonald’s, the media and the Labour party have one thing in common: they are seeking to sell something, be it beefburgers, newspapers or themselves, and the Government have a heavier and wider responsibility to give leadership and guidance, based on the best possible scientific advice?

    The Prime Minister: First, we have to make judgments on what is in the interests of public health, and we must base them on the advice that we get, because Ministers do not have the medical competence to make those judgments themselves. Secondly, we have to make judgments about what is right for the industry, if other people, with ill-thought-out comments, damage it when it should not have faced the damage that may have been created by comments that should never have been made.

  • PMQT – 7 December 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

    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 this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Hood: Will the Prime Minister tell us who is running the Government this week? Is it proper for the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) to announce that the Government intend to publish a White Paper on Europe? If so, is that not further proof of the lurch to the right–or is the Prime Minister doing what he usually does: ruling nothing in, ruling nothing out and being decisively indecisive?

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear this morning, we are examining all the issues that will come up in the intergovernmental conference, including whether it would be appropriate to have a White Paper.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present turmoil in France epitomises the potential social and political dangers of any attempt to shackle Britain to a single European currency or the social chapter, as is proposed by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: What it certainly shows, as my hon. Friend will be aware, is the difficulties that the present French Government have inherited from their socialist predecessors. If their predecessors had dealt with the underlying structural and fiscal problems at the time, the present French Government would not be facing this difficulty.

    Mr. Blair: I am surprised that the Prime Minister cannot tell us whether there will be a White Paper, but let me put this question to him and see whether he can answer it. Is it still the Government’s position that he will not rule out joining a single currency in the next Parliament?

    The Prime Minister: That is still the Government’s position, as I have made clear on a number of occasions.

    Mr. Blair: I think that that is a very important statement. The Prime Minister has said that he will not rule it out in the next Parliament. We know that that is not the position of the Welsh Secretary or of many of his Back Benchers. Will he tell us this, then: is that the position of the whole of his Government, including the Euro-sceptic members of the Cabinet?

    The Prime Minister: Of course it is the position of the whole Government and it has been repeatedly stated that that is the position of the whole Government. We have made that clear on a number of occasions, and nothing has changed.

    Mr. Robert Jackson: One of the conditions of the Dayton agreement is that all the parties should observe the European convention on human rights. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be somewhat paradoxical for British forces to be, in a sense, enforcing the European convention on human rights in Bosnia while we in Britain are contemplating withdrawal from that convention?

    The Prime Minister: We are certainly unhappy about some of the rulings made under the European convention on human rights. We have made that point and we will continue to do so. We were one of the founders of the European convention on human rights which, as my hon. Friend knows, is a quite separate matter from the European Court of Justice. That does not alter the fact that we and a number of other countries have been profoundly unhappy with some of its rulings. As I have said, we have made that point clear and will continue to do so.

    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister make it clear whether Britain will withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights?

    The Prime Minister: We have not said that we shall withdraw from the European convention on human rights. We have said that we are profoundly dissatisfied with some of the court’s judgments and that we propose to take that up with the European Commission of Human Rights and deal with it in some way in the future.

    Mr. David Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the end of this decade, a great many of our computers and those elsewhere will fail because they are not programmed to recognise the double zero of the year 2000? That will have immense and costly consequences for British business, small businesses and, perhaps, Government Departments. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government are aware of that and how they are responding to it?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful question. I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade examines the matter and responds to him.

     

    Q3. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

    Mr. Banks: When the Prime Minister writes his customary letter to Santa this Christmas, will he make it quite clear that he is not asking for a puppy? Will he make it clear that he would discourage anyone from giving a puppy as a present to a child this Christmas, because a puppy is for all the year, not just a Christmas present?

    When the Prime Minister has finished his Christmas list and is writing his resolutions for the new year, will he make a resolution to introduce legislation to ban puppy farms? Such legislation would win support on both sides of the House and outside.

    The Prime Minister: I hope that everyone who contemplates giving a pet as a present for Christmas bears in mind that it is a present for the long term, not just for the short term. I hope that people will be responsible in their present giving.

    Mr. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend surprised at the survey today which found that more than half of all private investors would remove their capital from Britain in the event of a Labour victory–or does he consider that that is the inevitable consequence of such a catastrophe?

    The Prime Minister: I cannot pretend to be surprised at that survey’s findings. I suspect that those surveyed have examined the likely implications of joining the social chapter and of the spending promises made by the Labour party and realised what they would do to taxation, competitiveness and employment.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

    Mr. Bayley: As a parent of school-age children I am sure that I speak on behalf of many parents when I tell the Prime Minister that the Government have failed to convince the public or school caterers that British beef is safe. Will the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, make sure that the Department of Health issues genuinely independent advice about this matter to reassure parents?

    The Prime Minister: Of course this is an important matter for schools and for the safety of consumers as a whole. I have sought and received advice that there is currently no scientific evidence that BSE can be transmitted to humans or that eating beef causes CJD. That is not in question. I am also advised that beef is a safe and wholesome product. The chief medical officer’s advice is clear–there is no evidence that eating beef causes CJD in humans.

     

    Q5. Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of teaching is crucial to improving standards and that the publication of test results is important in monitoring them? Does my right hon. Friend find it strange that the belated conversion of the Labour party to recognising the need for higher standards has not been matched in the past by its willingness to see the publication of test results? In fact, it has done everything to frustrate that.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a point that will be recognised by parents throughout the country. On this matter, the Opposition’s actions have frequently spoken a great deal louder than their words. During the past few years, they have opposed every measure that we have introduced to raise standards. They have described school league tables as political propaganda, test results as virtually useless, teaching children the basics as a fanatical doctrine–[Laughter.] Hon. Members may scoff, but they are scoffing at what their party and their Front Bench have said.

     

    Q6. Mr. Beggs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

    Mr. Beggs: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Northern Ireland students who have been accepted into universities in England to follow physiotherapy or other courses leading to para medical qualification should not be disadvantaged and should not be expected to pay the balance between their mandatory award and the fees charged by the universities, which sometimes amounts to more than £5,000? Will he consider the matter and ensure that Northern Ireland students are not less well off than students from the Irish Republic or the European Union? Will he endeavour to remove this perceived disadvantage?

    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly examine that matter. If the hon. Gentleman has pointed to a genuine disadvantage, I shall invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to examine it and see whether it can be corrected.

    Mr. Lidington: Which local education authority produced the worst results in the recently published GCSE league tables? What options would the Government want to be available to parents in that local council area who are dissatisfied with the education authority’s performance?

    The Prime Minister: I understand that the worst results were in Islington education authority. There are several options available to Islington. I hope that the education authority will try to correct what has gone wrong and improve the quality of education for all the children in Islington. Of course, there remains the option of grant-maintained schools, which many parents throughout the country rightly perceive as offering good education that they want their children to enjoy.

     

    Q7. Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

    Mr. McFall: In her Centrepoint speech this morning, Princess Diana highlighted the inadequacy of the present system for homeless young people forced to live on the streets. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to respond to that eloquent plea by providing further assistance for such young people so that the problem no longer blights British society?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have been dealing comprehensively with the problem for some time and have made remarkable improvements over the past few years. We are fully committed to ensuring that there is no necessity for some people to sleep rough. We very much hope that the culture, which has grown up among some people, of doing so can be changed and broken. The Government are providing about 5,000 places in permanent and temporary accommodation for people who otherwise would have to sleep rough. That is in addition to the outreach and resettlement services for homeless people living on the streets. There is no doubt that there has been a remarkable reduction in the number of people sleeping rough. Plans to eliminate that practice continue, and I look forward to that day being reached.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: I welcome very much what my right hon. Friend said about a possible White Paper on Europe. Does he agree that it would not only help to set out the Government’s basic objectives, but would draw to public attention the ever-widening gulf between the Government and the Opposition who, under their present leadership, are destined to surrender more of our liberty, power, jobs and freedom to Brussels?

    The Prime Minister: That policy is clear in many Opposition speeches, but it is not universal. They seem to sing a different tune on some occasions. We are considering the desirability of a White Paper, which was recommended by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the Scrutiny Committee. We shall consider their recommendations carefully, but we have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will most certainly oppose some areas–certainly in advance of any White Paper saying so–in the negotiations that are to take place next year. They include an extension of qualified majority voting, massive new powers for the European Parliament and signing the social chapter. Whatever decision is reached about a White Paper, those policies are firm and will not change.

     

    Q8. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

    Mr. Skinner: When will the Government stop closing hospitals and wards, which affects the million-long waiting list and creates misery for all the people who want to get into hospital? Is the Prime Minister aware that it is creating another problem? Does he know that people are roaming the streets at night looking for hospitals to visit, but cannot find them? It is giving a whole new meaning to the term “roving ambassador”.

    The Prime Minister: On the subject of provision of resources in the health service, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the increased provision–an extra £1.3 billion again this year, which is 70 per cent. above inflation during the year. There was a time when there was a significant cut in the health service, but that was when the hon. Gentleman supported a Labour Government.

  • Mr MacGregor’s Letter to Mr Major on BSE – 29 June 1988

    Text of Mr. MacGregor’s Letter to Mr. Major on 29 June 1988