The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Dunblane

  • PMQT – 13 March 1997

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

     

    Ministerial Visit (Kent)

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

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Sanctions (Libya)

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

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

  • Government’s Official Response to the Inquiry into the Dunblane Shootings – 16 October 1996

    Below is the text of the Government’s official response to the Inquiry held by Lord Cullen into the Dunblane shootings. The response was published on 16th October 1996.

    The Government Response to the Lord Cullen Inquiry

    Introduction

    On 21 March 1996 it was resolved by both Houses of Parliament that it was “expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the incident at Dunblane Primary School on Wednesday 13 March 1996, which resulted in the deaths of 18 people”. The Hon Lord Cullen was appointed as a Tribunal:-

    “To inquire into the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the events at Dunblane Primary School on Wednesday 13 March 1996, which resulted in the deaths of 18 people; to consider the issues arising therefrom; to make such interim and final recommendations as may seem appropriate; and to report as soon as practicable.”

    The Report of Lord Cullen’s Inquiry (“The Public Inquiry into the Shooting at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996” Cm 3386) has been published. This White Paper sets out the Government’s response.

    The Government is grateful to Lord Cullen for his full and clear report into the circumstances of the shootings and the lessons which should be learned from them. Lord Cullen has benefited from a large number of written submissions and 26 days of oral evidence. He has completed his Report with commendable speed – for which the Government is grateful, because of its determination to act quickly and decisively on his recommendations.

    Recommendations on the certification system relating to Section 1 firearms

    Officers carrying out enquiries should be supplied in advance with full information about any known change of circumstances and any reason for exercising particular caution.

    The Government accepts this recommendation. The Home Office Guidance to the Police stresses that the police’s decision about whether to issue a firearm certificate is their most important firearms licensing task. The main consideration is a person’s character – and police forces are expected to provide their officers with all the necessary information. The Guidance to the Police will be amended to emphasise the point.

    The use of checklists by enquiry officers is endorsed, subject to the need for them to be alert to and report anything which could be relevant to the suitability of the applicant or certificate holder.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and the Guidance to the Police will be amended to emphasise the point.

    Enquiry officers should be given as much training and guidance for their work as is practicable.

    The Government accepts this recommendation. Existing Home Office advice to police forces is that ‘enquiry, administration and decision making processes’ in each police force should all be controlled by a centralised firearms administration and that all inquiries should be made by nominated, trained staff. The Guidance to the Police will be amended to emphasise the point.

    The power of search with warrant under section 46 of the Firearms Act 1968 should be extended to cases in which there is reasonable ground for suspecting that there is a substantial risk to the safety of the public; and to include in such cases the power to seize and detain any firearm certificate which may be found.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and will seek to amend section 46 of the Act accordingly.

    The power of search with warrant under section 46 of the Firearms Act 1968 should be extended to any civilian licensing and enquiry officer who is authorised in writing for that purpose by the Chief Constable.

    The powers enjoyed by police officers to inspect dealers’ registers and premises and approved clubs should be extended to civilian licensing and enquiry officers who are authorised in writing for that purpose by the Chief Constable.

    The Government accepts these two recommendations and will bring forward the necessary legislation.

    The steps being taken to enable police forces to hold and exchange information on computer as to the individuals who hold firearm certificates, and those whose firearm applications have been refused or certificates revoked are endorsed.

    The Government supports this recommendation and will discuss its implementation with the police service.

    The Guidance to the Police should advise that good reason implies intention; and that lack of past use prima facie indicates the lack of it.

    The Government accepts this recommendation. Lord Cullen criticises the Home Office Guidance to the Police, which says (6.8e) that a certificate for a handgun ‘should not be granted unless the person has regular and legitimate opportunity of using the weapon e.g. for target shooting as a member of a pistol club’. The Guidance will be amended to say also that the police should not generally renew a certificate unless it is clear that the person has actually been making use of his or her gun.

    Section 30(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 should be amended so as to provide for –

    the revocation of a firearm certificate on the ground that the chief officer of police is satisfied that the holder does not have a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the certificate is held; and for partial revocation; and

    in the case of the revocation of a firearm certificate in respect of the ammunition to which it relates, the power to substitute different quantities.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and will bring forward the necessary legislation.

    Each club which is approved for the purposes of section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 should be required to maintain a register of the attendance of its members who are holders of firearm certificates, together with details as to the firearms which they used and the competitions in which they participated when they attended.

    The Government accepts this recommendation. The approval criteria for clubs will be amended (see recommendation 15).

    Every holder of a firearm certificate should be required to be a member of at least one approved club; and the firearm certificate should specify the approved club or clubs of which he or she is a member and the firearms which he or she intends to use in each of them.

    The Government accepts this recommendation, for holders of firearm certificates for target shooting. The Government will bring forward the necessary changes in primary legislation.

    Each approved club should be required to inform the police when a holder of a firearm certificate has ceased to be a member of the club for whatever reason.

    Each approved club should be required to inform the police when a member who is the holder of a firearm certificate has not attended a meeting of the club for a period of a year.

    The proposal that each club should appoint a person to act as a liaison officer with the police is endorsed.

    The Government accepts these 3 recommendations and will amend the approval criteria for clubs (see recommendation 15).

    Explicit statutory provision should be made for the laying down of criteria for the approval of clubs for the purpose of section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

    The Government accepts this recommendation. The Government intends to give statutory force to the approval criteria for clubs (amended in line with recommendations 10, 12 to 14, 19 and 20).

    The language of section 30(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 should be brought into full correspondence with that of section 27(1); and each revised in order to achieve a logical and consistent arrangement.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and will seek to amend the Act accordingly.

    Section 27(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 should include (as one of the conditions on which the granting or renewal of a firearm certificate is dependent) that the chief officer of police is satisfied that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with the firearm and ammunition to which the application relates.

    The Government accepts this recommendation which would replace the present test in Section 27, that the applicant can be entrusted to have the firearm and ammunition ‘without danger to the public safety or to the peace’. The Government will bring forward the necessary primary legislation.

    It is desirable that the (Home Office) Guidance to the Police should contain advice as to the scope of ‘fitness’ to be entrusted with a firearm and ammunition.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and will amend the Guidance.

    Each approved club should be required to inform the police of the receipt of an application for membership; and the outcome of the application.

    Each applicant for membership of an approved club should be required to state whether or not he or she has submitted any prior application for a firearm certificate or a shot gun certificate which has been refused; and whether he or she has previously held such a certificate which has been revoked.

    The Government accepts these 2 recommendations, which will be implemented by a change to the approval criteria for clubs (see recommendation 15).

    The current requirement for a counter-signatory of a firearm application should be abolished; and replaced by a system for the provision of two references.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and will bring forward the necessary primary legislation.

    The proposal by the Association of Police Surgeons for the provision by the applicant’s medical practitioner of information as to the applicant’s medical history and its consideration by a forensic medical examiner should be the subject of consultation with the interested bodies.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and will consult as suggested.

    Consideration should be given to the reform of the scope for appeal against decisions of the chief officer of police by restricting it to enumerated grounds which do not trench on the exercise of his discretion.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and, subject as Lord Cullen suggests to further study and consultation with interested bodies on the exact terms of the change, will bring forward the necessary legislation.

    Recommendations relating to the availability of section 1 firearms

    Consideration should be given to restricting the availability of self-loading pistols and revolvers of any calibre which are held by individuals for target shooting

    – preferably, by their disablement, while they are not in use, by either (i) the removal of the slide assembly/cylinder, which is to be kept securely on the premises of an approved club of which the owner is a member or by a club official; or (ii) the fitting of a locked barrel block by a club official;

    – or, if such a system is not adopted, by the banning of the possession of such handguns by individual owners.

    As recommended by Lord Cullen the Government has considered restricting the availability of self-loading hand guns. It has given careful consideration to Lord Cullen’s suggestions, which fall into two parts. It has concluded that neither would provide an acceptable level of public safety.

    First of all he has suggested two methods by which hand guns might be disabled. The first involves the removal of key components from the gun. While removal of key components is feasible for certain types of guns, it is not a practical proposition for others. Alternatively, Lord Cullen has indicated that weapons might be disabled by fitting a locked “barrel block” to the gun. He recognised however that such devices are currently manufactured only for shot guns. Even if they were available, the Forensic Science Service – which advises the Government on the technical aspects of firearms including their deactivation – is not convinced that a barrel block or similar device could not be removed by a determined individual and the Government does not, therefore, believe that it could rely on such a measure.

    Lord Cullen’s second suggestion is that if guns cannot be disabled, consideration should be given to banning the possession of self-loading pistols and revolvers by individuals. In the light of this the Government has decided to legislate early in the next session of Parliament to ban all hand guns of more than .22 calibre – including those used by Thomas Hamilton. This will mean that at least 160,000 guns – 80% of those legally held at present – will be destroyed. All hand guns chambered for .22 rimfire ammunition, including single shot guns, will also be banned unless they are kept in licensed gun clubs under conditions of the most stringent security.

    This means that, in two important respects, the Government intends to go further than Lord Cullen’s proposals: by banning all higher calibre handguns; and by prohibiting people from keeping even single shot handguns at home.

    Clubs will need a licence from the Home Secretary in England and Wales and the Secretary of State in Scotland. The Government intends to consult the police and other interested bodies on the stringent security standards which will be necessary to protect the public. These will be contained in guidance which the Government will issue and which will be enforced by the police. The standards will cover matters such as:

    – reinforced walls to ensure that thieves could not break into a club building;

    – the safes in which guns and ammunition would have to be stored;

    – strong perimeter fences;

    – burglar alarms linked directly to the police;

    – access control, including metal detectors, to prevent guns being illicitly removed;

    – regular and stringent inspection arrangements to ensure that club security was of an adequate standard.

    Very few, if any, existing gun clubs will meet these security requirements.

    Guns will be permitted to be removed only for very limited purposes which will be specified in law. Each time a gun is removed from a club a police permit will be required. Owners of .22 hand guns will have to hand in their guns to the police until they can find a licensed gun club. If, after a specified period, they cannot find a licensed club, their guns will be destroyed.

    The Government considers that these requirements are necessary in order to protect the public. The responsibility for meeting them will rest with those who wish to pursue the limited sporting opportunity which will continue to be permitted under these proposals.

    The Government recognises that it may take some considerable time to meet these standards. If an owner of a .22 calibre handgun is unable to keep his gun at a licensed club when the legislation comes into force, he will be required to lodge it with the police. If, after a specified period, he has not placed his gun in a licensed club, it will be forfeited.

    Recommendations relating to school security

    Those who have the legal responsibility for the health and safety of the teaching staff and pupils at school should prepare a safety strategy for the protection of the school population against violence, together with an action plan for implementing and monitoring the effectiveness of safety measures appropriate to the particular school.

    The Government supports this recommendation, and agrees that the safety strategy and action plan should take account of the situation at each individual school. This is consistent with the recommendations of the Working Group on School Security which the Government fully accepted in May this year. The booklet “Improving Security in Schools”, published in September 1996 by the Department for Education and Employment and issued to interested parties in Scotland by The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department, contains detailed advice to education authorities, boards of management of self-governing schools and proprietors of independent schools on managing risks and on possible security measures. In particular, it gives advice on carrying out the type of security survey and risk assessment which the Report recommends. School employers are familiar with these approaches through their management of occupational health and safety. In its discussion with those responsible for school management, the Government will continue to take every opportunity to reinforce the importance of reviewing security and safety in this manner.

    It is desirable that the guidance provided by the Education Service Advisory Committee in regard to violence to staff in the education sector should be extended to encompass the safety and protection of the school population as a whole.

    The Government supports this recommendation. The report prepared by the Education Service Advisory Committee (ESAC) “Violence to Staff in the Education Sector”, published in 1990, gave general advice to employers in all sectors of education and included a list of main factors which might be addressed in a plan of action (see recommendation 25). ESAC’s remit relates to hazards arising from education work; within this remit its guidance on violence could usefully be updated to complement the guidance “Improving Security in Schools” issued by DfEE in September 1996.

    Recommendations relating to the vetting and supervision of adults working with children and young people

    There should be a system for the accreditation to a national body of clubs and groups voluntarily attended by children and young persons under 16 years of age for their recreation, education or development, the main purpose of which would be to ensure that there are adequate checks on the suitability of the leaders and workers who have substantial unsupervised access to them.

    The Government accepts the need for co-ordination of information at national level about persons regarded as potentially unsuitable for work with children and young people. It also accepts the need to ensure that all voluntary youth organisations should have arrangements to check on the suitability of leaders and workers. The Government has decided that, following the proposals in the consultation document “On the Record in Scotland” published in June, access to criminal record checks should be extended to all voluntary youth organisations. It will also consult immediately with all interested parties in Scotland on the proposals for the establishment of arrangements for a national information and accreditation system. There will be parallel consultations in England and Wales.

    Consideration should be given to the development of a Scottish Vocational Qualification in respect of work with children, including the organisation of clubs and child development and protection.

    The Government accepts this recommendation. It is inviting the Scottish Vocational Education Council urgently to bring forward proposals for a qualification as recommended.

    Other matters

    Lord Cullen’s Report notes the concern of the casualties’ families at the delay in being informed of the fate of their children. He concludes that these delays were entirely unacceptable. The Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police made a written submission to Lord Cullen drawing attention to a number of procedural improvements designed to avoid the recurrence of these serious problems. The Government will ensure that these lessons, which were endorsed by Lord Cullen, are disseminated to other police forces.

    The Government also proposes to take action on four additional matters. They are

    – a ban on expanding ammunition, except for the purposes of shooting deer;

    – a requirement that firearms purchased by mail order will require to be delivered to a gun dealer and given to the certificate holder in person only;

    – a requirement that, in all circumstances, the disposal of a weapon (including its destruction) is reported to the police;

    – a requirement for all handgun shooters to obtain a firearms certificate from the police, ending the present system where a person without a certificate can shoot a handgun at an approved club. Special provisional arrangements would be made for new members.

  • PMQT – 14 May 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 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. Greenway: Bearing in mind the eternal anguish caused to families and the British people by the murders of my constituent Philip Lawrence and of the teacher and children of Dunblane, may I have my right hon. Friend’s absolute assurance that the Government will spare no effort to ensure proper security for schools and proper gun controls?

    The Prime Minister: As to school security, we have today accepted the recommendations of the working group that was set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment following the tragic murder of Mr. Lawrence, and we shall press on with implementing them. As to Dunblane, I have made it clear that when we have the chance to consider Lord Cullen’s recommendations and to consult other parties in the House, if legislation is found to be necessary–as I personally suspect it will–we have already set aside time in our parliamentary programme. I believe that there is a consensus in the House that schools should be secure places in which children can learn free from fear. Parents expect no less, and we will do all that we can to ensure that is the case.

    Mr. Blair: I support the Prime Minister in his welcome for the report on school security. Is not it a sad but true reflection of the need for such a report that in the past year, three in five schools have been vandalised by intruders and a high degree of pupils and teachers were actually assaulted by intruders? As well as accepting the working group’s recommendations, will the Government fully fund them–if necessary from within the current financial year?

    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that there will be a Government funding programme over whatever period is necessary to follow through the recommendations. We have not yet had the chance to study the recommendations in full, cost them or determine how rapidly they can be implemented. However, we will not be seeking delay but seeking to carry out the recommendations as speedily as practicable.

    Mr. Blair: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am sure that he knows that vandalism costs a lot of money–so the sooner that action is taken, the better financially. Will the Prime Minister agree to the working group’s request to be allowed to examine the broader problem of behaviour in schools? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the routine violence suffered by many teachers in schools is absolutely intolerable? Given that there are 11,000 school exclusions every year, which is about treble the previous number, we would co-operate fully in any legislation designed to make the time limits for exclusion more rational and to render the entire system of exclusions more acceptable.

    The Prime Minister: There may be areas of agreement and I welcome the support of the right hon. Gentleman. As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is examining this matter. It is important that we ensure proper behaviour in schools and proper sanctions by teachers. The Government would welcome support across the Chamber on this issue.

     

    Q2. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Dunn: Given that Sevenoaks district council, which is controlled by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, has just increased its council tax by a staggering and unprecedented 90 per cent.–which is a nightmare for council tax payers–does the Prime Minister agree with the maxim: “Dogs bark, cats miaow and socialists put up taxes”?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is being slightly unfair to the Liberal Democrats, who seem to have helped on this occasion with the tax raising. If one looks across local government, one sees that it is Liberal, Lib-Lab and Labour councils that ransack the pockets of council tax payers. [Interruption.] I am glad that Labour Members like extra taxes. This morning I read that the shadow Secretary for Employment wants to tax more as a sop to the trade unions.

    The Government see the removal of child benefit as a teenage tax. Many Labour Members want to tax anyone who earns more than the shadow Transport Secretary. [Interruption.] Yes, there is more. In Scotland, the tartan tax is an extra tax. The Labour party wants to tax business more with a minimum wage. There are plenty of opportunities for more arguments in the shadow Cabinet about the Labour party’s tax policy.

     

    Q3. Ms Lynne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Ms Lynne: In light of the recent remarks made by leading film stars and others, does the Prime Minister agree with me and with them that violence on television and in films can lead to horrific copycat killings? Will he put whatever pressure he can on the film censor to withdraw the video certificate from “Natural Born Killers” and to persuade the BBC not to broadcast it?

    The Prime Minister: I share the concern of the hon. Lady and the concern of millions of people in this country about the level of violence in feature films and, perhaps even more damaging, in videos that are readily available to young people. It is encouraging that the concerns are echoed by many people in the film industry. I have not seen “Natural Born Killers”, but everything that I have heard about it suggests that it is distasteful. I hope that the British Board of Film Classification will hear what the hon. Lady has to say, consider it with great care and act on it.

    Mr. Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend seen today’s reports recommending less confrontation in Parliament? Does he agree that the quickest way to achieve this will be for the parties that claim to be against crime to vote in favour of, and not against, the Government’s increasingly successful law and order measures?

    The Prime Minister rose–

    Mr. Yeo: In addition, the parties that claim they want to help British men and women into jobs should join the Government in saying no to the social chapter. In short, new Labour should finally tell the truth and say that the Tories were right all along.

    The Prime Minister: I am glad that I made way for the second half of my hon. Friend’s question; it was well worth waiting for.

    I am surprised by the apparent amusement of the Opposition about dealing with these important issues, when their policies would not deal with a single one of them. Opposition for its own sake is generally what we get from the Opposition parties; we have got used to that. If they meant what they said, they would change.

     

    Intelligence Headquarters (Germany)

    Q4. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Chancellor Kohl about the arrangements made by the German intelligence chief, for showing Ali Fallahian, Iranian intelligence chief, round the Wiesbaden intelligence headquarters unit of the Verfassungschutz; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have had no such discussions with Chancellor Kohl.

    Mr. Dalyell: As three official documents of the German Government, brought to the attention of the British Government, confirm that Iranian-orchestrated terrorism has operated out of Germany for years, and against the background that I and Dr. Swire of the Lockerbie relatives have brought to the Government’s attention before I asked this question, will the Prime Minister reconsider responsibility for Lockerbie in the light of what he now knows?

    The Prime Minister: We have very carefully examined all the documentation that has been made available to us by the hon. Gentleman and others. The alleged involvement of others in the bombing has been exhaustively investigated; nothing that has been presented to the Government has been lightly laid aside without proper examination. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has concluded, on the basis of all the evidence, that there is a case for the two accused Libyans to answer and there remains no evidential basis for bringing charges against the nationals of any other country.

    The case is not closed. If there is further evidence, we will of course examine it, but the evidence needs to be founded, not unfounded speculation. Any evidence of that sort should be provided to the police or the Government and it will be fully and properly examined.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Rendel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Rendel: Given that about 50 councils throughout the country are now left without a single Conservative representative, and given that probably, in those areas, on average, about 20 per cent. of the electorate still supports the Conservative party and votes for it, does the Prime Minister agree that the current electoral system is very unfair to those Conservative voters, and indeed to the Conservative party, in those areas, and that therefore it would be better to replace the electoral system with a fair vote system, which would ensure proper representation on each and every council for every significant group?

    The Prime Minister: First, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for calling him an hon. Friend. I promise the House that that was not a leak suggesting that the hon. Gentleman will cross the Floor, but merely an indication that we anticipate having his seat back at the next general election.

    I do not remotely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s proposals for a form of proportional voting. The only implication of a proportional voting system in this country would be that the decisions that should be made by a Government, and on which a Government should be answerable, would be made behind closed doors by Members like the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal party, and others, and not made by the Prime Minister and Government of the day, standing at the Dispatch Box.

     

    Q6. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Jenkin: As we await the return of the Family Law Bill to the Floor of the House, will my right hon. Friend consider a change of policy to allow for mediation and reconciliation between members of the shadow Cabinet, whose marriage of convenience appears to have been poisoned by the political gigolo from Hartlepool?

    The Prime Minister: They will have ample time for mediation and conciliation–perhaps five years after the general election–in opposition.

     

    Q7. Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Lewis: Does the Prime Minister accept that refusal to act on guns before Lord Cullen reports smacks of vacillation? If the right hon. Gentleman has any doubts about yardsticks for tackling gun control, will he read the report of the Adjournment debate that I initiated on 3 May 1995? He will find that during that debate I made four sensible suggestions for the control of guns. That debate took place 12 months before Dunblane.

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have made sensible suggestions. As for vacillation, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary, said the other day:

    “We shall . . . carefully consider all the evidence given to the Inquiry and the recommendations which Lord Cullen makes before coming to final conclusions.”

    It would rather seem that the Opposition Front Bench shares the Government’s view that there should be a proper examination of Lord Cullen’s report before conclusions are reached. I am sorry that there seems to be a split between the Opposition Front Bench and the Opposition Benches below the Gangway.

     

    Q8. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Marks and Spencer, that pillar of the British nation, has announced that if we were to be so foolish as to go for a single currency, it would have to spend at least £100 million on converting its tills, and that everyone in the high street would end up with bills running into billions? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should bring these matters to the attention of the President of France, Mr. Chirac, when he meets him for discussions? I understand that the gentleman is quite keen on a single currency. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he understands that underwear prices will increase in Marks in this country as well as in Paris, Lyon and all the other Marks stores in France?

    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has brought matters effectively to the attention of many people. I am not certain whether they will directly reach President Chirac.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the 1996 Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 11 May 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the 1996 Scottish Conservative Party Conference, held on 11th May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I want to touch first on two issues of great concern.

    When last I came to Scotland, I went to Dunblane. The events there were a horror, almost unimaginable – a mad act that robbed innocent children of a happy future.

    Michael Forsyth and Michael Howard have already announced an amnesty on illegal guns to gather them in.

    Lord Cullen – one of Scotland’s most senior judges – is to advise us on what further action is needed.

    Should legislation be necessary – and it may well be – I can promise you we will move speedily. We have already set aside time in the Parliamentary programme for this purpose.

    I intend that we will do all we can to ensure such a crime cannot happen again.

    Secondly, beef.

    The European ban on beef has caused frustration and anger.

    Not just amongst farmers, but amongst everyone.

    Certainly here in Scotland, as Scottish beef is a by-word for quality.

    The ban is totally unjustified. It’s the result of panic, not science. And it must be removed.

    The ban turned a problem into a crisis, not just in Britain, but across Europe where beef markets have also been hit.

    Next week, the first steps towards lifting the ban are going to be discussed in Europe. I hope that progress will be made.

    For the ban was introduced by the Commission. And it is the Commission that has now unanimously recommended a partial lifting of the ban.

    Against that background, our European partners must understand the level of resentment that will be created if they fly in the face of scientific arguments and the Commission’s recommendations and continue to damage our beef industry.

    But let us be frank. Even when the ban has been lifted, we will need to rebuild consumer confidence to regain our markets. We need to make the case for quality again and again.

    Many beef herds have never had a case of BSE. So, while we aim to get the ban totally lifted, we’ll also be pressing to get rapid exemption for specialist beef herds.

    Such a move across the UK will particularly benefit Scotland, and the premium, grass-fed beef herds for which Scotland is rightly famous.

    We’re already consulting on proposals to get mature, prime beef from these herds back on the market in Britain.

    But to regain our markets around the world, we must – in our own interest – look at any sensible proposals to speed up the already rapid decline of BSE throughout the UK.

    I met with the Scottish NFU this morning, and heard from them first hand of the fears and anxieties of their members. I promise you this – we will stand by this industry.

    We have already committed huge resources. In addition to that, I am confident that we can deliver significant extra help for beef producers within this year’s European farm settlement. And, to help the exporters, we’ve agreed to pay more money to those whose stocks were destroyed or devalued in the initial crisis.

    I pay tribute to the leadership which the NFU has given over this difficult period, and to the effective and influential role they have played.

    We’ve made a start in tackling this crisis but we need to remove the threat of BSE once and for all. British beef is the best in the world.

    It’s good to be back in Scotland and to find you in such good spirits.

    So am I.

    I always enjoy coming to Scotland. Not least because you always doctor my water in a most agreeable way.

    We’re now within a year of the next General Election.

    And, when it comes – next year, I expect – we Conservatives are going to win that election – by working together, north and south of the border.

    It’s a good Tory word, “together” – and especially so here in Scotland.

    It emphasises that ours is a United Kingdom.

    And we’re the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    We believe in working together, north and south.

    And, so long as there’s a Conservative Government, that’s how it will remain.

    Some people say to me – why? Surely, if Scotland breaks away, England will save on public spending and can have lower taxes? And surely, it’ll be easier to win elections without the SNP, Labour and Liberal MPs from Scotland?

    True. But the United Kingdom as a whole would suffer. And so would Scotland.

    And we Conservatives put the United Kingdom first, even though it’s not to our Party advantage. That’s not the way Labour behave. Their devolution plans put the interests of the Labour Party first. We put the country first. And that’s the difference.

    For months, Michael Forsyth and his team have been taking the argument to Labour, exposing their flawed plans.

    Showing how they would wreck Scotland.

    Showing how the devolutionists are laying a false prospectus before the Scottish people.

    I have a message for you Michael. The battle you’re fighting for Scotland is as important as any that has been fought before.

    Fight hard. Punch hard. Punch often.

    And you’ll have from me all the support you need.

    When I became Prime Minister I spoke of a classless society.

    Many scoffed that this had happened without my noticing it.

    Others said it was a preposterous and even undesirable aim.

    Well, there have been remarkable changes in British society over the last 50 years. Indeed, I’m a beneficiary of them.

    But don’t tell me that a child brought up in deprived circumstances – and given an inadequate education – has the same prospects as one from a more prosperous background with a good education.

    There are many who achieve good results from bad beginnings. But one of our principal risks as a Government – and as a Party – is to ensure that fewer and fewer of our children have those bad beginnings. And that’s what our education reforms are about.

    We don’t believe that people in difficulties always have only themselves to blame. Don’t forget I’ve been poor and unemployed. And I know that our Party has done more than any other to relieve poverty and to finance the National Health Service and social security.

    It was practical compassionate Conservatism that marks me a Tory and millions like me.

    And it’s values like that that have underpinned the last 17 years of Conservative Government.

    17 years.

    Some people on the cocktail and chattering circuit think it’s time for a change. As though Government were a game of street cricket with everyone having a bat in turn. But what sort of change?

    Labour wouldn’t bring to Britain the sort of changes we’ve brought.

    Taxpayers. Cuts for everyone. The lowest basic rate for 50 years. Change that?

    Homeowners. Lowest mortgage rates for 30 years. Gas, telephone bills falling. Change that?

    Workers. More of our people in work than any major country in Europe. Change that?

    Savers. TESSAs and PEPs flourishing. Scotland is thrifty. It saves. And now it has a 20p rate of tax on savings – a new low. Change that?

    Businessmen. The longest period of low inflation for almost 50 years. Why change that?

    Parents. More choice than ever before. We shouldn’t change that – and Labour agree.

    Not only do they agree, they welcome our change and take advantage of it.

    You don’t believe me. Check with the Blairs. Ask Harriet Harman.

    Pupils. More going on to higher education than ever before.

    Patients. More being treated than ever before.

    The changes we’re brought about are changes for the better.

    Thanks to them, Britain is the best performing economy in Europe. The world’s leading companies are pouring in investment and jobs.

    Britain, with her unique heritage of trading links, and a mother tongue that’s the world’s common language, is winning new markets around the globe.

    Today, Britain stands on the threshold of a new era of opportunity and prosperity as a global trading nation. A small island that’s an international success.

    Of course, there’s much we have to do. But look what we’ve done.

    Take our schools, for instance.

    We inherited a system that had become a secret garden, overgrown with so-called progressive theories.

    Today, children are taught the basics. Labour called that a “fanatical doctrine”.

    We’re going to make sure that children are regularly tested. Labour said tests “encourage a climate of failure”.

    Exam results are published. Labour called that “political propaganda”.

    Schools can now govern themselves. Labour said that was “wrong”.

    Wrong? It’s precisely the kind of education parents want. That’s not wrong. It’s just commonsense.

    The same goes for crime. We’re been turning back the tide of political correctness that excused the criminal and forgot the victim. It meant once again taking on the so-called progressive establishment that dominates Labour thinking.

    Well, we took them on.

    For example, we increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children. For dealing in drugs. We gave the police new powers to stop and search suspects.

    And right the way down the line, Labour opposed almost every change.

    If Labour had won their arguments, dangerous criminals who are in prison today would be out – walking the streets.

    So, change? Change back to that? Surely that would be folly.

    Some of the changes we’ve made have been painful. They’ve hurt people. And they have hurt us politically in by-elections and local elections.

    But although it hurt, it worked.

    And when we look around us we can see life getting better and our country becoming more prosperous.

    So when people talk of change, ask them “What kind of change do you prefer?”

    “Higher inflation? Lower taxes? More jobs? Tougher laws under the Tories?”

    That’s the kind of change you and I want. And it’s the only way to meet the challenge of the future. A change to Labour would be a change all right – a change for the worse. Don’t let it happen.

    Mr Chairman, before these changes, British companies and British businesses were fighting just to keep their heads above water. Now they are fighting to lead the field.

    And that’s especially true in Scotland.

    Which place in the UK do you think has gained most from our reforms of the last 17 years?

    Seen living standards grow by over a third?

    Grown faster than the rest of the United Kingdom over the last five years?

    Exports 40 per cent more per worker than the United Kingdom average?

    Brought unemployment down to its lowest rate for almost fifteen years?

    You’re right: that country is Scotland.

    Could this remarkable success story have happened without the Union?

    It’s out of the question.

    Labour or the Scot Nats would never have given Scotland the changes she needed. Instead of sunrise industries we’d have had sunset industries, propped up by subsidy, but doomed to disappear. The only question was when.

    Our way has delivered the private investment that’s the key to Scotland’s success.

    In one year alone, almost 100 projects brought Scotland over one billion pounds worth of planned investment, creating or protecting over 12,000 jobs.

    International companies – like Motorola, NEC, BT – they’re all investing in Scotland.

    And they’ll continue to do so as long as they’re sure Scotland will stay in the United Kingdom and income tax will not rise above those in England.

    But, if either of these things do happen, they won’t. They’ll go elsewhere.

    That’s the choice for Scotland.

    One of the reasons they come here is that a Conservative Government has built an economy that encourages investors by controlling expenditure and keeping inflation down. That’s meant we’ve been able to cut interest rates and keep taxes low.

    Again – yes, it hurts. But it has worked. It’s making life better. Don’t throw it away.

    Enterprise has many elements. But high among them is something that goes right to the heart of running the country – and dips into the pocket of every family in the land. Tax.

    Tax is always a battlefield between the parties because we have different instincts.

    We believe in low tax because it stimulates initiative and enterprise, fosters personal independence, and helps the country create enough wealth to help those in need. So we cut taxes when we can. But, as Ken Clarke said yesterday, when, and only when, it’s sensible to do so.

    Labour’s instincts are different. They increase spending.

    So, as Roy Hattersley put it, “Labour now has a clear choice. It can either be the party of higher taxation and proud of it, or the party of higher taxes which it is ashamed to describe, afraid to admit and incapable of calculating with any accuracy. It cannot be the low taxation party”.

    For once, he’s right. People will have a clear choice, a party whose instinct is for less tax, or a party whose instinct is for more tax.

    That’s why our opponents don’t like talking about their tax plans.

    But there’s no honest reason why Labour shouldn’t come clean about them. Britain’s books are open.

    After all, I’m perfectly happy to talk about our tax plans. They’re quite simple.

    We’ll cut taxes whenever we safely can.

    Labour are the exact opposite. Believe it or not, I’m told there are actually people who say Labour are addicted to the politics of envy and want taxes for that reason. And New Labour too. Shocking isn’t it?

    Be that as it may, one thing is certain. Whatever Labour say for public consumption, people know from past experience they’d be worse off under Labour.

    Tory scare tactics, the spin doctors who rule Labour till say. Is it?

    For example, any family with a sixteen to eighteen year old child who is in education had better watch out. Under Labour, their child benefits could disappear.

    Let’s call it a Teenage Tax – a tax increase of up to £560 a year for families whose children are 16 or over and at college. For some families, that’s the same as an increase of 5p on income tax.

    Under Labour, anyone who earns more than Clare Short would be easy pickings for the taxman. Clare’s salary is about £35,000. Many people would love to earn that much. But thanks to Labour’s ThirtySomething Tax, they’d be worse off.

    There are other taxes lurking.

    And, of course, anyone living here in Scotland would be hit by the Tartan Tax. But if they don’t need it, let them reject it now.

    Think how it would damage Scotland to pay more tax than the rest of the country. Who’d be hit most? Not those on high incomes, those on low ones. Someone earning, say, £76,000 a year would see his tax bill rise by 9%. At the same time, someone on £12,000 would see it rise by 14%.

    And this from a Labour Party that has the nerve to talk about ‘fair tax’.

    Before the last election, Labour published their plans. They said they’d increase spending, so naturally Labour would raise taxes to pay for it.

    The New, unscrupulous, Labour Party are different. Whenever Mr Brown threatens honesty on taxes, Mr Blair contradicts him. And Mr Prescott tries to keep up, but doesn’t quite know what’s going on. Well, I can tell you what’s going on.

    Labour still want to spend more of your money, that’s what’s going on. They can’t kick the habit – it’s a sort of reflex action. So they’d tax more. They always have. They always will. And nothing is going to change them.

    I sometimes wonder what on earth Labour stand for these days.

    Their leadership is trying to shed all its history, philosophy and creed with one contemptuous shrug and replace it with – what? A burning desire for office.

    But a lust for power is not, and never has been, a qualification for being entrusted with it.

    But it’s not just taxpayers who’d be worse off.

    Parents would be deprived of a choice of school for their children.

    Patients would see hospitals turned upside down as Labour tried to turn back the clock.

    Shareholders in privatised companies would find their shares threatened.

    But don’t just look at what Labour would do to our reforms. Don’t just think about how Labour would hit the pockets of the people. The real danger is to the very fabric of Britain itself.

    By their own admission, Labour say that they’d bring in the most extensive package of constitutional reform our nation has seen.

    Mr Chairman, this constitution of ours has run like a thread through this land for centuries. It’s been our backbone and our heritage. And without so much as a qualm, Labour would cut it in two.

    I wonder sometimes if they have any idea what their plans would mean?

    Labour would change our United Kingdom for good. Or rather, not for good. Palpably, flagrantly for the worse.

    If we were to let Labour tear this ancient island of ours apart, it could well be impossible to put it together again.

    Labour has tried the devolution gambit before.

    And now they’re at it again. A Scottish Parliament here, a Welsh Assembly there, regional assemblies heaven knows where. Will they never learn? What a way to mark the Millennium by tearing up the United Kingdom.

    Mr Chairman, this fiddling by Labour is a wild and dangerous game. No one can say where it would end.

    No-one can answer the questions it raises.

    No-one, least of all Labour – can tell how such totally irresponsible and disruptive plans would affect this nation and the real concerns of all its people.

    Would it help the Scots if they paid more tax?

    Do the Welsh think a talking shop would improve their lives?

    And when was the last time you heard people saying, “What Britain needs is more politicians in regional assemblies”?

    And all this would be just the tip of the iceberg.

    Proportional representation. No government ever able to take decisions without backroom deals.

    A Bill of Rights.

    Elected mayors – to do what, for heaven’s sake?

    A whole raft of constitutional doodling. That’s Labour’s irrelevant manifesto.

    Would it mean more jobs? Yes, for bureaucrats and politicians.

    More investment? Well, no actually – probably less.

    More prosperity? No. Just more taxes.

    Would Britain’s voice carry more weight in the council chambers of Europe if we divided her into three? No, much less.

    Mr Chairman, the changes Labour plan, no matter how slickly packaged and presented by their media gurus, would destroy in years what has been built up in centuries.

    Nor are the dangers Labour post restricted only to devolution. Their European policy is demeaning and disastrous.

    Now, I fully understand that the European issue raises the most passionate feelings. Who, in this country, would know that better than me? It’s a central issue of our time. But that shouldn’t distract us from a cool, dispassionate assessment of what is truly in our nation’s long-term interests – and what is not? That is my guiding principle. Getting the balance right for Britain now and in the years to come is the key to our approach to Europe.

    Yes, Britain must be a part of Europe, and a partner of Europe. But a Europe of nations, not a united states of Europe. Not a federal Europe. When people say “Let’s have a referendum on whether we want a federal Europe”, I say “why?”

    Because, Mr Chairman, there’s no need. Once again, I make this pledge. While I am Prime Minister, if others should opt for such a Europe, then Britain will not be part of it. We don’t need a referendum to know that we don’t want a centralised Europe.

    But let no one doubt that Labour would accept such a Europe. Already they’re committed to sign up to the Social Chapter. To give more powers to the European Parliament. To re-negotiate our rebate. To undermine our veto.

    So on both counts – what Labour would do to Britain at home and what Labour would do to Britain abroad – the whole future of this nation is at stake.

    Mr Chairman, come the election, the future we’ll be fighting for is a Conservative future.

    One where everyone feels that they belong.

    Where all our people, no matter what their background, have a chance to realise their dreams.

    To go to a good school, university, get a job, have a home of their own.

    To do what they think is best for themselves, their families, their children.

    To enjoy more of what they’ve earned and saved.

    These are the building blocks of the future.

    They’re what drive the people of our country.

    A people independent of spirit, proud of their past. Who look to a future of enterprise encouraged and work rewarded.

    Who want to protect the freedom and responsibilities of the family against the intrusions of the state.

    Who believe in the rule of law.

    And who love our country.

    Mr Chairman, at the last election, when I said I would fight to protect the United Kingdom, I was accused of wrapping myself in the Union Jack. It was meant as an insult. But I didn’t take it as such.

    You don’t have to dislike other nations to be proud of ours and I am proud of ours. I never feel more comfortable than in defending our nationhood and our unity as a Kingdom.

    The Union Jack in the flag of this United Kingdom – and we Conservatives, by nature a kindly Party, need to be ruthless, remorseless and relentless in defence of that Kingdom, as we always have been when that unity has been under threat.

    It is so once again today. Labour’s slick world of the soundbite and the over-simplified solution to problems of immense complexity has nothing to offer to bind this nation together. The superficiality of their policies – many of them disingenuous and ill-thought out – is breathtaking. What’s more, they bear little or no relation to the reality of government.

    When you walk through the door of Number Ten, reality walks in with you. Reality on a world scale. Over the years a Conservative Government has faced that reality and learnt how to handle it. So let me give you, here in Scotland today, this assurance.

    We Conservatives have the confidence and the tradition and, yes, the experience to guide us as we take our nation forward, out of this troubled century and into the next.

    That’s why we’re going to win the next election.

    Why we deserve to win that election.

    At stake is more than just our achievements. More than just the strongest economy we’ve seen for decades.

    This election will decide the very future of the United Kingdom itself.

    The future of our Parliament, our Union, our Country.

    It’s a fight for our Nation’s Future.

    And it’s a fight we’ll win.

  • PMQT – 21 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 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 a further meeting later today.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: In the wake of the Dunblane tragedy, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should take all possible steps to prevent illegal firearms from getting into the wrong hands? Will he look at the firearms laws to see what reasonable steps can be taken to revisit them?

    The Prime Minister: I do agree with my hon. Friend about that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have been in discussions with the police for some time about the possibility of a firearms amnesty. Those discussions had begun before the appalling tragedy in Dunblane. I can now tell the House that it has been agreed that an amnesty will take place. Details are being worked out, and we will advise the House of them as soon as possible.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the only way now to restore trust and credibility over bovine spongiform encephalopathy and beef is not more assurances from Ministers but clear and firm advice based on scientific evidence? Does he agree that that evidence should be published in full so that the independent scientists who provided it can be properly examined and can defend it?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health gave the assurance yesterday that he would publish the advice that we have had. As the House will know, we ensured that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee’s statement was published as soon as was practically possible yesterday. As my right hon. Friend told the House yesterday, the facts on which the committee based its deliberations will be made public in scientific journals as soon as possible. I shall of course ensure that the appropriate evidence is placed in the Library of this House.

    Mr. Blair: I am grateful for that assurance; I hope that it genuinely covers all the advice that has been given. I assume from what the Health Secretary said yesterday that the scientific advice that the Government have received is absolutely clear that it is entirely safe to carry on feeding beef and beefburgers to children. May we have a categorical statement that the right hon. Gentleman’s scientific advice does indeed say that? [Interruption.] The clearer and better the statements, the sooner public concern will be allayed–Conservative Members should realise that.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see the advice for himself because we have published the advice that we have had on this matter, and we will publish any further advice that we receive so that people can see for themselves, from the scientists, what the evidence is. That is more valuable than hearing from those without scientific information, and we will make sure that it is available.

    As my right hon. Friend has already said, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that children are more at risk than adults from eating beef, but I understand very well, as, indeed, will every hon. Member, the concern that parents will have, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has specifically asked SEAC–the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee–to provide specific advice on that matter. As soon as we receive that advice, we shall make it public so that people may see it for themselves.

    Mr. Blair: I think that it should be made entirely clear. Is the statement that the Prime Minister is giving us that the scientific advice is that it is entirely safe to continue to feed beef to children? If he can tell us yes to that question, it would allay some of the fear.

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that the advice is on the record. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman would listen, it would be helpful to the whole House. The advice is on the record, and the right hon. Gentleman himself said a few moments ago that he needed to see the scientific advice, not speeches by Ministers. I agree with that point. That is why we are making public the scientific advice so that there can be no doubt what the absolutely basic advice is from the scientists. It is on the record. Further advice will be put on the record.

    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent decisions of the European Court of Justice are progressively undermining the social chapter and that it is becoming not worth the paper on which it is written? Although I welcome the Government’s decision to try to deal with that problem and the problem of fish while at the intergovernmental conference, does he accept that the time factor means that the British taxpayer is likely to face claims from Spanish fishermen before the IGC is completed? Will he therefore accept the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) and legislate to prevent this decision from being acted on in the British courts, and restore the sovereignty of the House?

    The Prime Minister: As I told my hon. Friend, we propose to pursue these matters in the IGC. Of course I am prepared to look at any advice that I receive from any of my hon. Friends, or, indeed, from any hon. Member. Although we are concerned about the way in which the health and safety element of European legislation has been applied–we believe that it has been misapplied–I do not accept my hon. Friend’s point that it undermines the whole basis of the social chapter opt-out. Evidence suggests the contrary, and we intend to ensure that the social chapter opt-out remains of the value that it has always been, both now and in the future. We shall pursue that point and the other matters raised by my hon. Friend very vigorously in the IGC.

    Mr. Ashdown: In view of what now appears to be the well-justified public concern about certain aspects of food safety, of which BSE is only the latest example, has not the time now arrived to break up the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food so that the interests of the producer and the consumer can be looked after by two different Departments?

    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, and I think that, on reflection, he will not agree with it himself.

    On the question of recent events, an independent committee of the most eminent scientists advises the Government on these matters. The Government invariably take that advice. No Minister now or in the past has the scientific competence to deny that advice, and we do not do so. We take that advice and we publish it. That is the right way to proceed.

    Mr. Thurnham: In the wake of last week’s awful tragedy, will the Prime Minister add to the tributes to a lifetime of work for children by the late Baroness Faithfull, who died on the same Wednesday morning still hard at work at the age of 85? Does he agree that, in her lifetime of devotion to the welfare of children and through her sincere concern for the treatment of offenders, she set an example to us all?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that, and am happy to endorse his tributes to Lucy Faithfull. In her lifetime she was a tireless worker on behalf of disadvantaged children, and her devotion and concern does indeed set an example to everyone.

     

    Q2. Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

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

    Mr. McNamara: Is the Prime Minister aware that the average unemployment level in the three Hull constituencies is 20.2 per cent? More than 30,000 men are unemployed. How can the Prime Minister justify the spending of £5 million of European and United Kingdom funds to relocate jobs from Fenners polymer factory in Hull to south Wales, thus losing 350 jobs in Hull and more than 150 in Peterborough? Would not the money be better spent on creating proper jobs in south Wales, rather than creating unemployment in Hull?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I shall look at the instance to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but, as I do not know the background, I cannot comment immediately. I can, however, comment on the fact that, although unemployment in Hull is far higher than we would wish, it has fallen by 20 per cent. from its peak and continues to fall. I am delighted about that.

    Mr. Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today’s welcome reduction in inflation means that there will be more protection for jobs, more protection for savings and more protection for public services? Would he care to tell the House what would happen to jobs, savings and public services if the Labour party ever came to power?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of low inflation. For the first time in 30 or 40 years, we now have a low-inflation economy, and there is no sign that inflation is going to take off. If it did so in the fashion in which it did so in earlier years–most obviously in the late 1970s–it would not only rob savings of their value, but would rob millions of people of their jobs.

     

    Q3. Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

    Mr. Foulkes: “I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.” [Laughter.]

    Madam Speaker: Too clever by half.

    The Prime Minister: Forgive me, Madam Speaker. Because of the noise on the Opposition Benches, I did not catch the question–but I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Turner: Are the Prime Minister and the Government at all contrite about the BSE crisis, given that Labour’s then agriculture spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), raised the question of safety six years ago? What he said was contemptuously rejected by the Government at the time.

    The Prime Minister: Let me repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said yesterday. At each and every time in the past, we have accepted totally and immediately the expert advice given to us by the scientists on this matter–on each and every occasion. If we had not accepted that advice, the hon. Gentleman would be in a position to criticise the Government, because those scientists are there to advise us. They are the specialists; we are wise to accept their advice; we have done so in the past; we are doing so now; and we will do so in the future.

    Mr. Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that small businesses in countries such as France and Italy enjoy substantial exemptions from the employment law that applies in those countries? Let me enter a plea on behalf of British small businesses: give us the same advantages.

    Mr. Skinner: They want a social chapter.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is mistaken if he thinks that my hon. Friend is seeking the social chapter. I think that he is seeking an assurance that we will not have it, and that the Government want to enable small businesses to continue to create the extra jobs that they have created in recent years. I announced a number of measures to that end recently. We will continue to consider what might be done to enable small businesses to fuel more growth, and create more jobs and prosperity in our economy.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hardy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

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

    Mr. Hardy: Is the Prime Minister aware that, just before the 1979 election, a Select Committee visited prisons and met burglars? It found them to be ardently Conservative. Were not burglars richly rewarded as crime soared, the proceeds of crime rose and the number of convictions fell markedly? Is the Prime Minister confident of retaining the support of that bedrock of Conservative enterprise?

    The Prime Minister: I confirm that crime was rising for decades and is now falling in this country. One of the reasons why it is falling is that there may be even more burglars, howsoever they may vote, in prison, which is where they should be.

    Mr. Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the British people why unemployment is lower in Britain than in France, Germany, Spain or Italy? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: I can echo only what the hon. Member for Bolsover is now convinced of. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Gentleman very much; I will conduct him. The social chapter and minimum wage are certainly a part of the answer. The low tax structure that we have compared with Europe is part of the answer, the deregulation in this country is part of the answer, the supply-side reforms are part of the answer and a Conservative and not a social democratic Government are part of the answer. We intend to retain those benefits, both in the short term and in the long term, and to provide more jobs.

     

    Q5. Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the Prime Minister started late.

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

    Mr. Madden: May I ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I gave him prior notice, concerning Irish prisoners? Will he intervene personally to expedite the transfer of Irish prisoners, including Patrick Kelly, to prisons in the Irish Republic? Will the Prime Minister do that in view of the specific assurances that the Government of the Irish Republic have given about the sentences to be served? Will he also ensure that the regime prevailing in Belmarsh prison is dramatically improved in relation to Irish prisoners?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering a number of requests for repatriation, including the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Each request must be considered on its merits. It needs to be subject to the consent of both jurisdictions and of the prisoner concerned. Those matters are being examined. As a result of Sir John Woodcock’s report, security at Belmarsh is being improved. I understand that a newly refurbished special secure unit is due to open next month.

  • PMQT – 19 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Easington (Visit)

    Q1. Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to pay a visit to the Easington constituency.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I have at present no plans to do so.

    Mr. Cummings: What a pity–the right hon. Gentleman will never know what he is missing. Since I gave the Prime Minister notice of my question, has he had the opportunity to ascertain why the Department of Transport has rejected a submission by Durham county council for funds to provide access roads to the Dawdon and Fox Cover enterprise zones in my constituency? Would it not be common sense–[Interruption.]–for the Department of Transport to support those sites, which have been designated by the Department of the Environment, and for funds to be allocated to allow the building of access roads to the A19? Is this not a case–[Interruption.]–of one Government Department not knowing what the other is doing? Will the Prime Minister use his influence to get the problem resolved?

    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question–all of it. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has confirmed the orders which will allow the Dawdon and Fox Cover road link to be constructed. As the hon. Gentleman will know, designated enterprise zones may be areas attractive to private sector inward investment and I am confident that the regeneration agencies in local partnerships will go some way to funding the link road, which I agree is the key to the regeneration of the area. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the designation of enterprise zone status will provide the impetus for the creation of up to 1,000 new jobs in the two zones.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Burden: The Prime Minister will no doubt remember that a few years ago the present Home Secretary was the Minister in charge of water privatisation. Does the Prime Minister recall what his right hon. and learned Friend said on 17 March 1989? He said that after privatisation

    “it will entirely disappear as a political issue. No one will be talking about it at all. It will be in the private sector, delivering the goods.”

    With 800 million gallons of water leaking away every day, and with the goings-on in Yorkshire, when the Prime Minister holds his crisis Cabinet meeting, where will he lay the blame for the lack of a water feel-good factor–on the privatised utilities or on the judgment of his right hon. and learned Friend?

    The Prime Minister: Water companies have a statutory duty to maintain supplies and we expect all companies to take the necessary measures to do that. Yorkshire Water has invested more than £1 billion in the past five years and will invest as much again over the next five years. Around two thirds of every pound in profit is reinvested for the benefit of consumers.

    On the general subject of water privatisation, more than £15 billion has been invested in modernising the industry since privatisation. That could not and would not have been possible without the industry’s access to private sector finance.

    Madam Speaker: Questions are getting too long. Let us have a short one.

    Mr. Allason: I shall be brief, Madam Speaker. In a week in which an Algerian suspect has been arrested on charges involving terrorism in France, many people have been distressed to realise that Hamas supporters in this country have been raising money for terrorism. It is especially distressing that they have all been receiving social security benefits in this country. Will my right hon. Friend put a stop to that?

    The Prime Minister: We are certainly determined to ensure that the United Kingdom is not a base for external support for terrorism anywhere in the world. I take to heart what my hon. Friend has said about Hamas. We must also look at the activities of other people who come here and actively conspire to commit terrorist acts, those who abuse the hospitality and protection available here and those who use this country as a base from which to cause trouble for other countries.

    Mr. Blair: In the wake of the Dunblane tragedy, does the Prime Minister agree that we should not prejudice the outcome of the Cullen inquiry? Will he confirm that all the issues concerning gun laws will come within the scope of the inquiry? Does he further agree that it would be sensible at least to begin to examine those issues now on an all-party basis? In particular, we should address, first, the question of handguns being kept in private homes. Secondly, we must address the concern expressed at the weekend by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland–my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)–and many others that currently the police have to prove why a firearms certificate should not be issued rather than the gun owner having to prove why it should.

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that Lord Cullen’s inquiry will be considering the subject of handguns. I can also confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has begun a review of existing gun controls and intends to offer every assistance to the inquiry under Lord Cullen. At my right hon. and learned Friend’s invitation, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) is already a member of the Firearms Consultative Committee, but I know that my right hon. and learned Friend would welcome the views of other parties in the House before he makes a decision on the entirety of the evidence.

    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that cutting off the electricity supply to any home in our country should be undertaken only as a last resort? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last year when electricity was a nationalised industry no fewer than 80,000 households had their electricity cut off, but that since then the figure has dramatically reduced and last year only 1,000 households out of the 24 million in England and Wales were disconnected? Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the privatised electricity companies for adopting what can perhaps most aptly be described as a more enlightened policy?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the changed circumstances following privatisation. There is no doubt that privatisation has proved to be the right structure for the industry, and the independent regulator’s promotion of competition is very much in the interests of the consumer.

    We have seen evidence of that in falling prices and, as my hon. Friend has vividly illustrated, in a better service for the many people who face difficulties.

     

    Q3. Mr. Wicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Wicks: As the Prime Minister has summoned his Cabinet colleagues to a crisis meeting tomorrow to discuss the mystery–to him–of the missing feel-good factor, will he consider having a meeting with the victims of negative equity, who number 1.7 million, or with representatives of the 8 million people who have become unemployed since the last general election? Does the Prime Minister accept that those people do not feel good, but that they feel bad and they feel let down by him and his Government?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed about the nature of tomorrow morning’s meeting. He really ought not to believe all–or, indeed, much–of what he reads in The Independent.

    I am delighted that the number of people in negative equity is falling. I am also delighted that fewer people are unemployed in this country than in any comparable country in Europe–in particular, those comparable countries which follow the policies that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, given the chance, would inflict on this country.

     

    Q4. Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his disapproval–expressed in the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference–of the power of the European Court of Justice to make new laws that are binding on nation states will be warmly welcomed? Is he further aware that he is not alone in Europe, but shares with others–such as the French Prime Minister–concern that the European Court is overstepping the mark? Will he assure the House and the country that at the IGC he will insist that the court’s powers are cut back, so that it does not become the supreme court of a federated superstate of Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. and learned Friend that assurance. I heard what the French Prime Minister had to say, and I thoroughly approved of the way in which he said it.

    I am greatly concerned about the fact that the European Court’s interpretations have too often seemed to go beyond what Governments intended when the laws were framed. The court’s functioning can be improved; I believe that it must be improved, and we will seek improvements at the intergovernmental conference. As my hon. and learned Friend said, a federal Europe with the European Court becoming, little by little, a European supreme court is not a Europe that this Government can support.

    Mr. Clapham: In view of the fears expressed in the nuclear industry that the heavy running of the advanced gas-cooled reactors may have resulted in distortions which could cause a nuclear accident, and bearing it in mind that if the nuclear industry were privatised, commercial decisions could outweigh safety decisions, will the Prime Minister now shelve the idea of privatising the nuclear industry?

    The Prime Minister: We have sought advice, and we have been advised that privatisation of the nuclear industry would not in any way damage safety standards. That is clearly very important. Thus far, Nuclear Electric has an excellent safety record. I think that that is understood by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

     

    Q5. Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Waterson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this country has attracted more inward investment than any other country in the European Union, and more than France and Germany combined? Is that not the hardest possible evidence that the United Kingdom is well on its way to being the enterprise centre of Europe?

    The Prime Minister rose–

    Mr. Skinner: Don’t forget the social chapter and the minimum wage.

    The Prime Minister: I am in the happy position of being prompted by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to remind the House of the perils of the social chapter and the minimum wage. I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that they are indeed very damaging to the employment prospects of people in this country, and I look forward to his support in denouncing them at every opportunity so that his constituents may stay in work rather than out of work.

    As for the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I certainly intend to keep the advantages that he mentioned at the forefront of the country’s mind. Our policy is to put British jobs and British business first. Investors are attracted here by low costs and flexible working practices; we intend to maintain those, and to improve them. [Interruption.] In case the hon. Member for Bolsover is in any doubt, I repeat: no social chapter and no minimum wage.

     

    Q6. Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Marshall: If the Prime Minister is really concerned about the missing feel-good factor in areas such as Glasgow, will he agree to spend a day in the city with the new Lord Provost, Pat Lally, and talk to people and see for himself the severity of the problems caused by unemployment and poverty? If he were to do that, he might realise precisely why now is the time for a change.

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman would stand back and look at the prosperity and opportunity that now exists in Scotland, he would see a total sea change from the situation that we inherited from the last Labour Government. If he would seek two or three cities throughout the United Kingdom that have shown the greatest improvement in that period, his own city of Glasgow would be among them.

    Mr. Redwood: Will the Government overturn any European Court of Justice judgment which damages our social chapter opt-out?

    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated, we intend at the intergovernmental conference to try to prevent the misuse of health and safety legislation to bypass the social chapter opt-out. That is a matter that we shall address directly at the IGC, with the intention of achieving the aims set out by my right hon. Friend.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Stirling Royal Infirmary – 15 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments made on the work of the Stirling Royal Infirmary following the Dunblane Tragedy during a visit to the hospital on 15th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This hospital has had to deal with a horror of almost unimaginable proportions.

    Tony [Blair] and I, this morning, were delighted to come here together so that we could take the opportunity to thank the hospital for the work that they have done. I don’t think there is any doubt in the minds of anyone in that hospital, certainly none of the patients or the other people that we met, that they had to face an horrific job and have done it with the most enormous skill and dedication over recent days.

    We met a number of the patients, some of whom had been very severely injured, and they are in remarkably good shape, and there’s no doubt that they’ve had the most tremendous treatment and I was delighted to be here this morning with Tony to express our thanks to them for the work that they’ve done.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Dunblane Tragedy – 15 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments made on the Dunblane Tragedy during a visit to the town on 15th March 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what was the purpose of his visit]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wanted to come and physically see for myself, and in what I hope is going to be a very unobtrusive visit, I’d like to see what has happened, form some of my own judgements and perhaps physically show some support for the people who have had such a terrible time over the last few days.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he expected to find during his visit to Dunblane]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think it must be a community that cannot possibly yet begin to imagine quite what has happened to them.

    It’s bound to take a time to put the community together again. From all I’ve heard of it, people have handled the matter with immense courage so far. But that courage will need to be sustained. I think the huge wave of emotional support that has come from all over the United Kingdom, I don’t think I have ever seen anything quite like it and I can remember nothing quite like it , and I hope that in some fashion that that will be of some support to the people of Dunblane.

  • PMQT – 14 March 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Booth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

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

    Mr. Booth: Will my right hon. Friend join me and others in the House in expressing our outrage and horror at the appalling deaths and killings in Dunblane yesterday?

    The Prime Minister: Yesterday was an event of almost unimaginable horror. We can only begin to guess at the impact it will have upon the families and the whole community. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in extending our sympathy to the families of the children and their teacher who were killed and to the children and the other teachers who were injured in yesterday’s attack. Many questions will have to be addressed and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a fuller statement at the end of Question Time.

    Mr. Blair: May I agree with what the Prime Minister has said and simply add this: Britain today is a nation in mourning. Our senses are in a state of shock, bewildered at the sheer horror of what happened. Not war, nor a catastrophe of nature, nor human error was this, but a massacre of innocents without cause and without reason. How many parents last night will have clutched their own children to them, looking at them differently and imagining the pain which, for others, is all too real?

    Politics is silent today. We grieve. We hope that this dark shadow can in time be lifted. We stand in solidarity with the community of Dunblane and we pay our respects.

    The Prime Minister: Sometimes, after a tragedy, there is little we can say that we feel will bring comfort to the people concerned. After yesterday’s tragedy, I believe that that is a feeling that everyone in this House will understand. Words seem inadequate; I feel that today.

    The right hon. Gentleman’s words will find a echo in the heart of every parent in the House and right across the country. What happened yesterday cannot be understood and must not be forgotten. It was an act of wickedness beyond imagination and I do not believe that anyone can be unmoved by that, either now or at any time in the future. What we must now do is look to the interests of the children, their families and the others who were injured and see what external help can be given–perhaps by this House, but by others as well–to try to play some part in putting that community together again.

     

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

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

    Mr. Evennett: In the wake of the appalling tragedy in Dunblane yesterday, will my right hon. Friend urge the media to exercise the maximum possible restraint to allow that community to grieve in private?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly join my hon. Friend in that request. There is a code of practice on privacy for such occasions. I hope very much that that code of practice will be rigorously observed on this occasion.

     

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

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

    Mr. Wigley: As someone who, before entering the House, lived in the borough of Merthyr Tydfil not far from Aberfan, may I convey the sympathy of Wales to the people of Dunblane and to all the families who have suffered loss? Does the Prime Minister accept that playing with guns can at times mean playing with lives? It should always be a certainty that neither personal indulgences nor vested interests come before assuring the safety of communities and the avoiding of tragedies such as the tragedy that happened yesterday.

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s early words will be well received everywhere. On the subject of gun control, clearly my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will wish to consider the implications of the incident for any future changes in firearms control. There is of course a Firearms Consultative Committee that, as a statutory body, constantly keeps legislation under review. Its purpose is to review the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. I know that it issued a statement this morning saying that it does not propose to express a view on the matter in advance of the conclusions of the fatal accident inquiry, but that it will want to consider the implications for future firearms legislation or practice.

     

    Q4. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Speaking as a former teacher and in the aftermath of the awful tragedy yesterday, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reinforce the tributes that are rightly paid to head teachers and teachers who put the welfare and safety of their children above all else?

    The Prime Minister: It is not very many weeks ago that the House and the country were mourning the death of another teacher, Mr. Lawrence, who was murdered outside his school by being stabbed to death. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has told me, both last night and this morning, of the courage of teachers at the school. I particularly single out the courage and performance of the headmaster, Mr. Taylor, who had appalling circumstances to deal with yesterday, but, I am informed, dealt with them with the greatest possible courage in every respect. I am happy to join my hon. Friend, himself a former head teacher, in that tribute.

    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Dunblane is a small, close-knit community and no doubt that closeness will stand it in good stead as it grieves over the appalling slaughter of innocent children and their dedicated teacher. Will the Prime Minister convey to the people of Dunblane that their grieving is shared by the whole country; every parent in the land is grieving with them? In particular, will he convey to the people of Dunblane the horror and sadness of my constituents and Londoners across our capital city who feel today that they are part of that small, close-knit community?

    The Prime Minister: I shall happily convey the hon. Lady’s thoughts when I have the opportunity of visiting Dunblane tomorrow. She speaks for the attitude of every parent in the country. For a small number of parents, yesterday was a day of horror that they could never have imagined. The thought has flitted across the minds of every other parent in the country that it might have been their son or their daughter on that occasion.

     

    Q5. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

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

    Mr. Butler: In common with many colleagues in the House, I went home last night to see my own children for exactly the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I associate myself with everything that has been said. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his sense of priorities, which led him to take a day out this week to attend the conference against terrorism in Egypt? Terrorism so often–and deliberately–causes the sort of grief, slaughter and horror that was caused by one evil mad man yesterday. May I urge my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to play a full part in the international war against that most evil of activities?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the summit in Sharm el-Sheikh was a very useful and worthwhile occasion. It was the first time that I can recall when so many Heads of Government from different parts of the world met specifically to deal with the problems of terrorism and how to curtail and defeat it. The summit not only condemned terrorism in very strong terms but, more practically, laid the foundations for a programme of international co-operation in anti-terrorist activities. I think that everyone will welcome that.

    The first meeting to follow yesterday’s summit will take place within the next fortnight, and I hope that we shall see practical and worthwhile co-operation that will make the terrorist’s life much more difficult than it has been hitherto. That is the determination of the Governments who met yesterday, and I look forward to seeing it carried into practice.

     

    Q6. Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

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

    Rev. Martin Smyth: Further to the Prime Minister’s answer to a previous question, I too share the grief of the mourning families in Dunblane. Does he share my concern that journalists and other pundits have spent much time, recently, blaming Israel for its attitude to the Hamas terrorists, just as they blamed the Prime Minister for holding back the peace in Northern Ireland, when they should put responsibility on the terrorists who continue the terror?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree, without qualification, with everything that he has said.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rule of law should always prevail in a democracy? On this day, above all others, as we discuss the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, does he agree that the House should agree unanimously to the measures? Does he agree also that terrorism and violence by the gun or by the bomb should be rooted out wherever they occur?

    The Prime Minister: I think that that would be the unanimous view in dealing very severely with terrorists. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 has proved indispensable as part of our armoury against terrorism. It is vital that its powers are continued by the House.

    Mr. Norman Hogg: The Prime Minister’s decision to visit Dunblane will be deeply appreciated by everyone in Scotland. Does he accept my assurance that we shall all co-operate to give the fullest support to that community in whatever action is necessary in view of this tragic and terrible event?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I hope that everyone will understand that I visit Dunblane as a representative of the House: it is in that spirit that I conduct my visit.

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the terrible tragedy will focus the prayers of the nation on mothering Sunday this weekend? Does he agree that it would be a proper mark of respect if people observed a period of silence on Sunday to remember the children and their teacher and to pray together as a nation?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that, now and up to and beyond Sunday, many people will remember the events at Dunblane. Perhaps it would be particularly appropriate if the churches were just a little more crowded on Sunday.

    Sir David Steel: As one who was married in Dunblane cathedral and who therefore regards it as a place of particular happiness and serenity cruelly shattered, I support the Prime Minister’s decision to visit Dunblane tomorrow on behalf of the House. I add the thanks of the House to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), for the way in which they represented the interests of the House yesterday to that grieving community.

    Although I do not suggest that anything could have prevented the madness of yesterday, will the Prime Minister ask his relevant ministerial colleagues to look again at the report of the Firearms Consultative Committee and see whether further steps can be taken in response to its recommendations without relating it to yesterday’s episode?

    The Prime Minister: As to the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, those matters will need to be examined, and I assure him that we shall do so with an open mind. On his first point, I echo the tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) who, together, visited Dunblane yesterday. That was appropriate, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he did on that occasion.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While we contemplate this horror, is it not wonderful that the love of children has brought the House together? I pray that it will do so more often.

    The Prime Minister: Sometimes our political disputes, whether they involve great or small matters, seem very petty beside human matters. I think that this is one such occasion.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Comments on Dunblane – 13 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep comments on Dunblane on Wednesday 13th March 1996.

    QUESTION:

    There’s obviously been a tragedy of great dimensions. I just wondered if we could have your initial response to what you’ve heard?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well this is a sickening, evil act, that almost passes belief. Those children were in school. They had nothing to do with anything. They were where they should have been safe. They’re perhaps of a generation that has more to look forward to in optimism and hope than any before, and suddenly this appalling act just knocks out all that opportunity. My heart goes out to those parents and their families, and their teachers as well, who will have to cope with what has happened. It beggars belief that it could have happened.

    QUESTION:

    A tragedy for the whole of Scotland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the whole of the United Kingdom and beyond. The news of what happened has reached here at this conference, and head of government after head of government has come up to me already to express their sympathy with what has happened. We don’t yet have all the details, but we know sufficient to know that this is the sort of tragedy that occasionally the world has seen in recent years – today’s bitter, brutal, heartless thing to happen. We don’t have all the information yet, but I think it’s a tragedy of course for Scotland, but far beyond it as well.