The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Education

  • PMQT – 9 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 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. Dowd: Will the Prime Minister join me, and I am sure the whole House, in sending our deepest condolences to the family of Mr. Malcolm Murray, who died in Leeds general infirmary yesterday? Does he share the anger that we feel at the fact that he was in Leeds general infirmary because he had to be flown by helicopter some 200 miles after a fruitless search for an intensive care bed in London? Does not that demonstrate conclusively that the bed closure programme that the Government are pursuing in London has gone too far? Is he aware that he can do something immediately by instructing his Secretary of State for Health to accept the recommendation of the South-East London health authority that Guy’s hospital must not close?

    The Prime Minister: This is certainly a tragic incident and I share the view that the hon. Gentleman expressed about that. I believe that the whole House will join me in extending my deepest sympathy to Mr. Murray’s family upon his death. This is a serious case and the South Thames region has set up an urgent investigation, the outcome of which we must await. The full facts of the case are not yet in front of me, but I understand that Mr. Murray required a highly specialised form of treatment with which Leeds was particularly able to help– [Interruption.] –a highly specialised form of treatment, and that was the medical decision that was taken. Beyond that, we will have to wait for the result of the inquiry.

    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen that interest rates in France have had to be raised by 1.5 per cent. this week, notwithstanding the fact that– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen that interest rates in France have had to be raised by 1.5 per cent. this week, notwithstanding the fact that inflation is virtually non-existent and that unemployment stands at 12.5 per cent.? That has been necessary in order to confirm France’s status as an economic vassal state of Germany. Is it not therefore a cause for congratulation for our Government that we were not obliged to take the same course of action this week? Should we not make more of the fact that both the Opposition parties are committed to such a ruinous policy?

    The Prime Minister: There is, indeed, a great deal of exchange rate turbulence, which has reflected itself in the interest rate increase in France, to which my hon. Friend refers. As I have told the House before, there has been a pretty massive flight into deutschmarks as a result of an unsettled international situation. That is the principal underlying reason that has led to such difficulties for the franc. As I told the House some time ago, I see no prospect of the United Kingdom returning to the exchange rate mechanism for some time. I have made that point perfectly clear. The fundamentals of the British economy are such that I am delighted that we are not suffering precisely the difficulty that France has.

    Mr. Blair: Is it true that, when Ministers proceeded with the sale of electricity shares on Monday, they already knew that the electricity regulator was actively considering announcing a cut in prices?

    The Prime Minister: There have been some distorted versions of what has happened, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set out precisely what the circumstances are.

    The fact is that Professor Littlechild did not decide to undertake his review until Monday afternoon, after trading had begun in shares in PowerGen and National Power. But, although the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry were aware that he was considering the possibility, he had not notified them even on Monday morning–when stock exchange trading began–that he had made any decision to go ahead.

    I should also tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Treasury took independent financial and legal advice at the end of last week on whether, in the light of the possible uncertainty, the share sale prospectus was still accurate. The legal and financial advice that it received was that, even if the issue of price controls for the regional electricity companies was reopened, that was not material to the share sale of the generating companies. [Hon. Members:– “Rubbish.”] That is the legal advice that hon. Members say is rubbish. As for the generating companies, they are subject to a wholly different basis of regulation. It was in the light of that legal and financial advice that the Treasury decided to proceed.

    Mr. Blair: That may have been the legal advice, but may I ask the Prime Minister about the duty of his Government? Will he confirm that the Government knew that the regulator was actively considering making such an announcement? That is the first point. Secondly, if they did know, does the Prime Minister not think that it would have been better to disclose the information to prospective investors?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say just now, that was precisely the point of seeking the legal advice: to determine whether the prospectus was right. The right hon. Gentleman himself is a distinguished lawyer– [Interruption.] I suspect that, if the Government had sought legal advice on an issue of this sort and then not taken the legal advice that they had been given, the right hon. Gentleman would have been at the Dispatch Box asking why we had not taken the legal advice that we had legitimately sought and received.

    Mr. Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for his compliment about my being a lawyer, but surely the point– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I expect better behaviour from Ministers.

    Mr. Blair: I cannot say that we do, Madam Speaker.

    The question relates not to the legal advice, but to the responsibility of the Government. Does the Prime Minister not think that it would have been better to disclose that information? Never mind whether the Government were legally entitled to it; does he not think that it would have been better to disclose it? Or is the short truth that a privatisation programme already damaged by boardroom excess and customer complaints is now tarnished by at best incompetence and at worst double dealing by Government?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has now asked the same question three times. I answered his third question with my first answer, and I made the position clear in my second answer. Other than to get in his ritual soundbite, I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman has asked his question a third time. The fact is, as I have said, that the Government were aware that the regulator was considering the possibility at some stage in the future. He had not notified the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, even on Monday morning, of whether he had determined to proceed, and whether he had determined what his statement would be. That is the purpose of ensuring that the prospectus is right; that is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took legal advice. On the basis that it was right to proceed–that the prospectus was accurate –my right hon. and learned Friend proceeded. If he had not, the right hon. Gentleman would have been standing there asking why the sale did not proceed and why the Government did not take the legal advice that they had sought in order to do so.

    Mr. Michael Spicer: On the question of exchange rate turbulence, does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent rise in the deutschmark against the pound is good for British exporters to Germany and bad for German exporters to Britain? Would it not be a bad thing if we were ever again to shadow the deutschmark?

    The Prime Minister: We are not shadowing the deutschmark and I do not anticipate that we will. At the moment the performance of British exports makes it clear that both British industry and the British currency are performing well.

    Mr. Ashdown: Why does the Prime Minister not cut the legal waffle? The real question is not what is legally possible: it is what is right. Is the Prime Minister proud that his Government had to hoodwink the public to get them to buy their electricity shares?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is not a distinguished lawyer. If he lets fly like that I hope that he is never sitting down where he has to take a cool, calm decision of what is in the national interest. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to read the three answers that I gave to the right hon. Member for Sedgefied (Mr. Blair). Perhaps upon several readings of them he will know the answer to his question.

    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that devolving power to schools and hospitals has led to improved educational standards and more patients being treated? Would the imposition of an unnecessary layer of regional government harm that success?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that it most certainly would. There are forms of devolution that I favour, most notably devolution down to the family and to the local community so that they can make their own decisions. We are certainly not committed to regional assemblies. There seems to be some confusion among the Opposition as to whether they are. On Sunday the right hon. Member for Sedgefield ( Mr. Blair) said:

    “We are not committed to regional assemblies.”

    The deputy leader of the Labour party said:

    “No, I don’t say that is the position.”

    There seems to be some confusion about that on the Opposition Benches.

     

    Q2. Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Burden: When the number of full-time employees in the civil service has fallen by 29,000 in the past five years and the number on temporary contracts has grown by 82 per cent. in the same period, why are managers in the Employment Service being encouraged to sack temporary workers rather than let them have employment rights? Does the Prime Minister not realise that constant job insecurity is one of the biggest factors preventing any kind of feel good factor?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman took a wider view rather than being concerned with the point that he mentions, he would also have mentioned the dramatic fall in unemployment in every region of the United Kingdom. Self-evidently, work loads in Departments fluctuate, and by limiting periods of casual employment Departments are obliged to fill permanent vacancies with permanent staff, as they should. That is what is happening in the Department of Employment.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider those seven schools in west Norfolk that have become grant- maintained? If he visits those schools he will find high morale and excellent motivation and commitment. Is it any wonder that more and more Members on the Labour Front Bench want to send their children to grant- maintained schools, and is it any wonder that the public find that grossly hypocritical?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that there are seven grant-maintained schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I hope that there will be more in every constituency in the future. Education is an important ladder that helps people to raise themselves to a higher standard of living. Grant-maintained schools offer a wide choice, which I commend to everyone and congratulate everybody on taking. I trust that everybody will ensure that it is open to all who wish to have it.

    Mr. Enright: In spite of the headlong rush into vegetarianism, does the Prime Minister agree with Bob Reid, the former chairman of British Rail, that he would rather put money into a butcher’s shop than into rail privatisation?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman should have heard what else Sir Bob said. He also said:

    “I do believe that privatisation is right.”

    The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that.

     

    Q4. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Lidington: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend’s efforts to secure peace in Northern Ireland, does he agree that, until terrorism has been eradicated, it is right that we should continue to support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 to secure the protection of our fellow citizens in every part of the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister: I do agree with that. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear yesterday, we shall retain the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 as long as the powers are needed for the protection of the public in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. I should add that we have accepted independent advice that all of the powers in the Act continue to be necessary and justified. My right hon. and learned Friend made that clear to the House yesterday.

  • PMQT – 7 March 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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. Ottaway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Government’s policies have done much to help the leisure industry in this country? So much so– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. Hoyle: Sit down.

    Madam Speaker: Who are you telling to sit down? Be careful.

    Mr. Hoyle: I am telling the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to sit down; I am trying to be helpful.

    Mr. Ottaway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Government have done much to help the leisure industry in this country–so much so, that Ladbroke leisure group has been able to award 1.2 million share options to its directors? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a member of the remuneration committee who approved that share option scheme is also Chairman of the Employment Select Committee?

    The Prime Minister: As I said to the House last week, the Greenbury committee is examining executives’ remuneration. A number of important issues must be addressed, especially the disclosure of remuneration to directors and ensuring that bonuses and share options reflect the performance of a company. I am sure that practical, first-hand advice of that sort will be useful to every hon. Member. Mr. Blair rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. I must say to hon. Members that I have taken a Minister to task for less than that; I will not allow Back Benchers to hold up newspaper headlines.

    Mr. Blair: Now that the electricity regulator has finally bowed to months of pressure and has cut prices because of excess profits, will the Prime Minister agree that there should be a thorough overhaul of the regulatory regime of all utilities so that we can be sure that the same thing is not happening in gas, water and in the other privatised monopolies?

    The Prime Minister: As I understand the position, the regulator has decided to have a look at the prices charged by regional electricity companies to consumers. That shows that the regulatory system that the House approved is working and that the regulator is using his powers to act in the light of the information available. I think that the action of the Director General of Electric Supply does exactly that. It shows that he can take into account the latest information. Information has become available since his last review. He is now looking at it again. That shows that the system is flexible and is working.

    Mr. Blair: Surely it shows precisely the opposite. Is not the point that the electricity regulator acted only after the Trafalgar House bid for Northern Electric exposed the full scale of the excess profits and because of public pressure, not his own internal investigations? Does that not strengthen the case for a review of the system to make sure that the same abuses are not happening in gas and water?

    The Prime Minister: No, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the point fully on board. He cannot claim at one moment that the regulator has too few powers and a few moments later complain that he is using his powers to deal with the situation that has arisen. New circumstances have arisen in the regulator’s mind, and the regulator has used his independent powers to look again at the question of pricing. Those are precisely the powers the House required him to have and he is now using them.

    Mr. Blair: The information became available not because of the regulatory system but because of the external requirements after the bid. Does the Prime Minister not understand that unless he acts firmly to stop the abuses in the privatised utilities–whether they are the pay deals, the overcharging or the excess profits–they will stand as a visible symbol of everything that is rotten in a Conservative Government?

    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has now managed to unleash his soundbite, but what he is actually proposing would not enlarge but would narrow the authority and options of the regulator. The fact that this arose out of something that the regulator did not determine shows how wide his powers are. That is the point. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that the regulator should have acted only if he himself had discovered precisely what was likely to happen.

    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend make it his first priority to travel the country and start a national debate on the importance of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange? Is it not extraordinary that a major political party should spend so much time on clause IV and does it not prove–

    Madam Speaker: Order. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that matter. He is, no doubt, coming to a question for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.

    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend consider travelling the country to establish whether there should be common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange?

    The Prime Minister: I think the evidence of the past two or three decades will spare me the necessity of travelling the country on that point because very few people who have sensibly looked at the matter do not believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is right to seek the abolition of a dinosaur that most sensible people realise has been dead for the past 20 or 30 years. The only surprise is that a substantial number in the right hon. Gentleman’s party still do not understand that.

    Mr. Ashdown: How does the Prime Minister justify the fact that, contrary to the specific recommendations of his own personal efficiency unit, the amount of public money that the Government spend on private consultants has now increased by £130 million to £865 million– sufficient to provide every child in the country with a year of pre-school education? How can the Prime Minister expect parents, teachers and governors to cut, cut, cut, when the Government’s record is spend, spend, spend?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman did not address the savings and improvements brought about by the activities of consultants. All that concerns him is making a spurious point that would have been better made about his own Liberal Democrat-controlled county council in Somerset. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the record on consultancies, he will find that one costing £50,000 yielded savings of tens of millions of pounds for the taxpayer.

    Mr. Rowe: Did my right hon. Friend note that in the recent debate on utilities many Opposition Members were keen to see utilities restored to the public sector? Is not it an extraordinary definition of monopoly to imagine that in a world in which foreign companies compete globally with our former public utilities, we should not stimulate competitiveness across the world?

    The Prime Minister: Opposition Members may still relish the day when it cost the taxpayer £50 million a week to subsidise utilities so that Ministers could run them inefficiently. These days, those utilities are yielding about the same amount of money each day for the taxpayer. Many utilities are selling their services and expertise abroad to great effect, generating from overseas activities huge sums of money for this country.

     

    Q3. Mr. Rooney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Rooney: It is three and a half years since Operation 2000 was launched. Is the Prime Minister aware that today fewer than 4 per cent. of directors and fewer than 3 per cent. of senior managers are women? Does he consider Operation 2000 a success?

    The Prime Minister: When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster speaks in this afternoon’s debate, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the improved opportunities for women across a range of circumstances–not least in public appointments for which the Government are directly responsible, where there has been a dramatic improvement. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is some way to go, but a significant improvement has been made in recent years, and I look forward to that continuing.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the document published by the Department of National Heritage last week, “Tourism: Competing with the Best”? It states that tourism could be the largest single issue by the year 2000. Tourism currently employs 1.5 million people, but the report makes it clear that we could do better. Does my right hon. Friend agree that tourism should have higher priority and that a single body should be responsible for encouraging inward tourism?

    The Prime Minister: I should like to reflect with greater care on my hon. Friend’s last point because of regional disparities in tourism in Scotland, Wales, the west country and elsewhere. My hon. Friend is right about tourism’s importance and the number of people that it employs. In some parts of the United Kingdom–not least, most recently, Northern Ireland–increased tourism is making a material improvement to the local economy.

     

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

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

    Mr. Burden: Does the Prime Minister recall specifically ruling out three months ago Government action on executive salaries on the ground that it would constitute–I believe that I quote the right hon. Gentleman correctly–“a pay policy for a small number of key executives”? In the light of the right hon. Gentleman’s statement to the House last week, does he think that is a policy or is not a policy–or, as usual, does he not know?

    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether you, Madam Speaker, would like to let the hon. Gentleman try again, so that he may get his question right. Only one side of the House wants a pay policy for top executives. Labour wants a pay policy for people at the top–a maximum wage at the top, and a maximum wage at the bottom because then it would have the justification for a pay policy right the way down British industry. I am seeking to cope with abuses where they occur. If the hon. Gentleman had read what I said last week, he would understand that.

     

    Q5. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that education provides an escalator of opportunity for all children? Does he believe that choice and standards would benefit from the abolition of grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, all of which are popular? Would not the abolition of grant-maintained schools be particularly harsh on parents who prefer them to schools run by local education authorities, especially in Islington?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that education is one of the areas that gives the greatest opportunity to people. The reforms that we have introduced in recent years extend choice, create a diverse education system and aim to give the best possible education to every child. It is for that reason that we have made reforms right the way through the education system–reforms that have been welcomed by parents and schoolteachers and, increasingly, are welcomed and used by hon. Members in every part of the House.

     

    Q6. Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Lloyd: During this, the 50th anniversary of the ending of the war, will the Prime Minister today give some consideration to that generation who were prepared to fight and, in many cases, made considerable personal sacrifices in forced labour camps, for example, in Europe and elsewhere? Is the Prime Minister of the view that it is a fitting reward for that generation that they now spend their lives in poverty as pensioners under the Government?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the respect that everyone in Britain has for the generation who fought in the war. He will also know what has been done, not just in the past few years but during the past couple of generations, to ensure that their living standards are as high as can possibly be the case.

    An hon. Member: Not successful.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says, “Not successful.” Perhaps he would like to reflect on the number of improvements that we made in 1979 that had not been introduced by the previous Labour Government.

  • PMQT – 2 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 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. Maclennan: As the Prime Minister failed last night to persuade his campaign manager–the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of Maastricht–on Europe, how can he hope to persuade anyone else? Will the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) be joining those without a Whip, or will they join him within the ranks of the anti- Europeans in the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister: What has piqued the hon. Gentleman is that I managed to persuade a sufficient number of people into my Lobby to win the vote.

    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Lloyds bank survey of the north of England which shows that one third of all businesses in the region expect to take on additional staff in the next three months? Is he also aware that there has been a 13 per cent. drop in unemployment in the neighbouring constituency of Sedgefield? Why do we never hear any of that from the Member who represents that constituency?

    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to hear about the drop in unemployment in Sedgefield, although I thought that it had fallen by 16 per cent. I am delighted to see unemployment dropping throughout the United Kingdom, and we intend to pursue policies which ensure that it will continue to drop.

    Mr. Blair: In the light of yet another report today on an excessive pay package in a privatised monopoly and of his own threat on Tuesday to legislate, will the right hon. Gentleman back an amendment to the Gas Bill a week on Monday that would give the regulator the power to cut prices where pay deals are excessive? Would that not send the clearest possible signal to the utilities that the game is up?

    The Prime Minister: I set out the position clearly to the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday, and he should know that the role of the regulator is to protect the interests of the consumer. I do not propose to extend that role. The regulators are introducing competition and bearing down on prices. As to the underlying premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I set out that we shall wait and see the report from Sir Richard Greenbury and his colleagues. We shall then take action upon that, including legislative back-up if that is required.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister not know that the Greenbury committee has said that it will not propose any legislation and its report will not be out for months? Furthermore, its main recommendations will not affect the abuses in the privatised monopolies. The anger is now, the abuses are now: why will he not act now to put an end to the abuses?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s assertions are, frankly, wrong. I made clear the other day the subjects that I believe need addressing–the need for complete and open disclosure over remuneration and the need to ensure that bonuses and share options are firmly based on company performance. Those subjects need consideration. When we have recommendations that cover those, we shall consider them, and I have made it clear that, if necessary, we shall provide legislative back-up. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that it is both necessary and desirable to wait until we have that report and that information so that we can consider what action is necessary.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the debate on Europe and the single currency yesterday? In columns 1053 and 1056 of Hansard , the leader of a political party dealt with interventions by one of my right hon. Friends, first, by saying that he would give way, but not doing so, and, secondly, by accusing him of inconsistency? Is there not a lesson in that on how to get people to vote on our side by treating them with less courtesy than the Labour party? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: We had an excitable day yesterday and perhaps we can have a little more calm today, Madam Speaker. The debate yesterday was very revealing in a number of respects. It was revealing because of what the leader of the Liberal party had to say, and it was also very revealing because a number of Labour Members flatly contradicted assertions in the speech by the leader of the Labour party. He was open enough to admit that his party was split and his party was generous enough to show precisely that in the speeches that Labour Members subsequently made.

     

    Secretary of State for Wales

    Q2. Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will remove the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) from his post of Secretary of State for Wales.

    The Prime Minister: No.

    Mr. Wigley: Surprise, surprise. Is the Prime Minister aware that, when the post of Secretary of State for Wales was first created, the idea was to have one member of the Cabinet from Wales, to speak up from personal experience of the needs and the aspirations of the people of Wales? The present incumbent is clearly incapable of doing that. Given the opinion poll this week, which has shown yet again that there is a 2:1 majority in favour of the powers of the Welsh Office being answerable to a Parliament in Wales rather than to a Governor General, will the Prime Minister stop having such an intransigent attitude to the question and allow the people of Wales to have at least some semblance of national democracy?

    The Prime Minister: I do not regard my position as the hon. Gentleman described it and would describe it quite differently. He is aware of my views of the possible difficulties with a Welsh Assembly. I do not believe that it is in the interests of Wales. To be frank, generally if the answer to the question is more politicians, then it is the wrong question. As to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, during his period in office, Wales has benefited from a steady stream of inward investment from the United States and the Pacific rim, and there has been a considerable improvement in the quality of life and the standard of living throughout Wales. Those are the policies that are necessary for the future. An extra tier of government, which would suck a great deal of authority from local councils in Wales, is not the way forward.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q3. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Blaby.

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

    Mr. Robathan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent visit to Enderby in my constituency by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), at which he discussed devolution with the Blaby constituency Labour party– all 25 of them? When my right hon. Friend visits Blaby, which I hope that he will do very soon, will he also discuss devolution, for he will discover that the overwhelming majority of my constituents, many of whom were born in Scotland or Wales, value the integrity of the United Kingdom, oppose devolution and have no interest in a ridiculous regional assembly based in Birmingham or elsewhere?

    The Prime Minister: Where there is a proper system of local government, I believe that devolution to an extra tier of government is an unwise way to proceed. There is one form of devolution that I strongly favour, which is devolution straight down to individuals: to let families make their own choice; and to let people have more control over schools, hospitals and local decisions. That is the form of devolution that we favour, not devolution to an extra tier of bureaucrats and politicians.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Etherington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Etherington: Will the Prime Minister attend the House tomorrow to vote in favour of the admirable Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)? More importantly, will he give an undertaking to the House that he will endeavour to ensure that parliamentary time is made available so that the will of the vast majority of people, who want the barbarism of blood sports abolished, can be brought to fruition?

    The Prime Minister: That has traditionally been the responsibility of individual Members and their consciences. I shall not be here to support the hon. Gentleman.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lancashire county council put £7 million of council tax money into a special contingency reserve to pay a 2.2 per cent. rise in teachers’ salaries? Unfortunately, it has not handed over that money to the schools to pay those salaries. Does he sympathise with those in the schools, who feel very angry about that and therefore want to go grant-maintained?

    The Prime Minister: A large number of schools have gone grant- maintained because they believe that they can better look after their own interests than if they are retained in the control of the local education authority. I hope and believe that many more will do so in the future, not least for the reasons that my hon. Friend set out. I do not think that anyone can be unaware of the campaign that is being waged at the moment by some education authorities. I noticed the press release produced by the Opposition this morning. If they had looked at the facts of what is to happen to the standard spending assessments of the education authorities that they quote, they might have produced a more straightforward and honest press release.

     

    Q5. Mr. Timms: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Timms: The Prime Minister will recall that, in 1991, the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that the channel tunnel rail link would be routed through east London to promote urban regeneration specifically within east London. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government remain committed to that objective for the rail link?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm the importance of the rail link and I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to let the hon. Gentleman have as much information as is currently available.

     

    Q6. Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Evennett: Now that the distraction of yesterday’s debate is behind us, does my right hon. Friend agree that he should turn his attention to the economic development that has been so successful in recent years, with falling unemployment, low inflation and record exports? Does he agree that the Government’s policies are dealing with the real issues that affect the lives of our citizens and that the Opposition have no policies whatever on the economy?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to commend the economic recovery, which is very strong and widespread, and shows signs of being the best economic recovery that we have seen in this country for very many years. I intend to continue to give my full attention to that economic recovery. I wish to ensure that we continue to have growth and falling unemployment, and that we continue to see the levels of investment and growth, particularly in the manufacturing industry, that we have seen of late. Only a continuation of those policies will, over a long period, improve the living standards of the British nation, which is what I wish.

     

    Q7. Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Fatchett: May I refer back to the issue of top people’s pay increases, which was discussed earlier? The Prime Minister has argued that he will leave all of that to the Greenbury committee and its report. Is it right that a Government should delegate that responsibility to an employers’ organisation that has a vested interest in top people’s pay? Is it not about time that the Prime Minister, who claims that he feels strongly about that issue, gave a lead to the country and introduced his own proposals–or shall we simply be left with government that is all delegation and no leadership?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are thirsting to go down the route of pay policies that the Labour party has gone down for generations. The concern that people feel about that issue is the concern that I spelt out with great clarity to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on Tuesday. We are examining that, we are waiting for recommendations on that, and, when necessary, when the facts are available, we shall decide what action needs to be taken, if necessary, including legislation. However, I have no intention of operating in the envious spirit that activates the hon. Gentleman.

  • PMQT – 21 February 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

    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. Hutton: In the light of today’s announcement that the chairman of the National Westminster bank has awarded himself a 35 per cent. pay increase, and the news that the seven wise men appointed by the Confederation of British Industry to provide new guidelines on executive pay have themselves shared more than £4 million in pay and tax this year, does the Prime Minister think that it is time that he joined the British public in condemning those latest examples of executive greed in Britain’s boardrooms?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, when excessive and unjustified pay increases have been agreed I have condemned them–and condemned them from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. Where the hon. Gentleman and I disagree is on whether, in the private sector, it is right for the Government to institute a pay policy both at the top–as the hon. Gentleman would clearly like–and with minimum pay controls at the bottom, as the Labour party would like.

     

    Q2. Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

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

    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that neighbourhood noise nuisance and noise pollution are a real and growing problem in today’s society? Will he urge our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to speed up his inquiry into the problem, and advance positive suggestions for its alleviation as soon as possible?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that noise pollution is a nuisance. I am sometimes inclined to think that it is a particular nuisance at 3.15 pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt about the extent of nuisance that is caused to many people, and the Department of the Environment is examining that now. I hope that we shall have some proposals on which to negotiate in the next few weeks, and I shall be pleased to hear the views of not only my hon. Friend, but anyone else who has views to offer on the issue.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm as a matter of fact that, since the internal market reforms in the health service, the costs of its administration have risen by over £1,000 million?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know–for the Socialist Health Association will have told him–that improved internal administration is necessary, not least because of the lack of financial control that existed before.

    Mr. Blair: Is not the problem the difference between what Ministers say about the health service and people’s experience of it? [Interruption.] Conservative Members would do well to listen to their constituents.

    Is not the problem the fact that people who see wards, and sometimes whole hospitals, facing merger or closure would prefer that £1,000 million to be spent not on more accountants and company cars but on beds, nurses and patient care?

    The Prime Minister: I am intrigued that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to what the public say. He may have seen the recent “British Social Attitudes Survey”, which makes it clear that, since our reforms, the number of people satisfied with the national health service has leapt by another 20 per cent., and that nine out of 10 people think that the national health service is satisfactory or better.

    He may also have seen the recent survey by doctors, which found that the overwhelming majority felt that health needs were being better met under the reforms than previously, and that a 2:1 ratio felt that competition among hospitals had improved service. That is the view of the public who use the service and of the doctors who run the service, both of whom have a greater and more in-depth knowledge of it than the right hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Blair: I have just one question for the Prime Minister: if the service is so good, why did the deputy chairman of the Conservative party ask before Christmas, in the interests of the Conservative party, for zero media coverage of the health service?

    The Prime Minister: I want a lot of coverage and I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman why–so that we can refer to the 8 million patients in total who are treated each year, to the 119,000 cataract operations, to the 333 million free prescriptions, and to the growth of the national health service over the past few years. I might also remind the right hon. Gentleman not only that more people are treated and that they are better treated, but that a wider range of service is available to the NHS today than ever before. Before he and his colleagues doubt the Government’s commitment to the health service, they should consider the additional funding that we have provided, and recall that Labour were the only Government ever to cut resources to the NHS.

     

    Q3. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

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

    Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will know that I am a member of the Select Committee on National Heritage and that it is considering the future of the British film industry. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Ken Loach, an English director, is today premiering his new film, which champions the cause of nationalisation on behalf of Labour’s Defend Clause IV group? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that film will be a nostalgic romp, looking at the nationalised car industry and the nationalised steelyards, and that it will possibly feature a romantic look at Red Robbo? Will my right hon. Friend be nominating that film for an Oscar?

    The Prime Minister: I very much doubt that I will be nominating the film for an Oscar, but it seems to be the sort of film that deserves a wide circulation. There is no doubt that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is right to wish to abolish clause IV from his party’s constitution. The only matter of surprise is that so many people in the 1990s still disagree with that obvious and worthy cause. The question is whether the right hon. Gentleman will succeed, and the answer is that of course he will, because he will have the support of the unreconstructed trade unions in doing so.

    Mr. Salmond: May I offer the Prime Minister a chance actually to do something about fat cat salary increases? Some thousands of small shareholders in British Gas, supported by the staff, are going to the annual general meeting in two months’ time with a motion to cut the outrageous pay increase of Mr. Cedric Brown. Does that motion carry the Prime Minister’s support or not?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman and to others that, if one puts an industry in the private sector, it must make its decisions in the private sector. That applies to British Gas, as to other companies.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom livestock industry leads Europe, both in terms of the quality of meat production, and in standards of animal welfare? Will his Government continue to press for higher welfare standards across Europe and, at the same time, uphold the rule of law in Britain, so that farmers and haulage firms can go about their legitimate business, free from the constant disruption of animal rights activists?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with both my hon. Friend’s propositions. There is no doubt about the need to maintain law and order, whatever the cause, where the law has been broken. As I have said, legally and practically, we need to work at Community level if we seriously want to bring the standards of animal welfare across the European Union up to the standards in this country. That is what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is seeking to do, and I hope and believe that he will be successful.

     

    Q5. Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

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

    Mr. Taylor: What advice does the Prime Minister have for the governors of schools such as St. Agnes in my constituency which has seven teachers to cover the seven age groups in the school and who are now having to decide whether to make one of those staff redundant because of the failure to meet the teachers’ pay increase? Should the school engage in those redundancy procedures now, or should it wait a few weeks to see whether the Secretary of State for Education comes up with the goods in her argument with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    The Prime Minister: I think, perhaps, the first thing the governors should do is to examine whether their education authority has its priorities right in determining where the money that has been allocated to it has gone. Then, they might look at how many surplus places there might be in that education authority. I suggest then that they look at the balances in the education authority. When and if they are absolutely satisfied that the money is being spent properly, perhaps they can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said has convinced me that that is so in this case.

    Sir James Kilfedder: Is it not manifestly unfair and totally undemocratic that I was not consulted, briefed or spoken to at any stage during the drawing up of the draft document? Does not the Prime Minister feel that, in view of the involvement through Dublin of the Social Democratic and Labour party in the drafting of the document and in view of the fact that Her Majesty’s Government, through their representatives, have been talking to the political wing of the terrorists, that this is a contemptuous way to deal with Unionist Members of Parliament? Surely, when the Prime Minister speaks directly to the people of Northern Ireland, they will remember this.

    The Prime Minister: There has been widespread consultation. It is not the case that other parties have been involved in the drafting of the document that is to be produced. As my hon. Friend will know, the document is for consultation and consideration with my hon. Friend, with representatives from all the political parties in the House and with people right across Northern Ireland. What we are seeking to do, as we were asked to do by the political parties, is to set down some ideas for consideration, discussion and negotiation between the political parties. When and if they are able to reach agreement, we will carry the matter forward. The objective that I have is the same as that which I know my hon. Friend has and that is to ensure that what has been thus far a ceasefire is able to be turned into a permanent peace for the well-being of all the people in Northern Ireland, including my hon. Friend’s constituents, whom he represents so well.

    Mr. Maginnis: Does the Prime Minister agree that a well-directed and well-planned approach towards a practical solution to Northern Ireland’s problems would be better than a never-ending debate about some sort of theoretical process–the sort of debate that has gone on for 10 years since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement–which did not deliver peace, stability and reconciliation? Will the Prime Minister undertake to read and to study my party’s document entitled “A Practical Approach to Problem Solving in Northern Ireland”, with a view to arriving at a solution and not continuing this theoretical and futile debate for yet another 10 years?

    The Prime Minister: I share with the hon. Gentleman the wish not to have a futile debate. The way to ensure a constructive debate is to come together and discuss the ideas that are about and that are on the table. Ideas have been produced at the request of the political parties. As it happens, I received the document in the hon. Gentleman’s hands last evening, and I have read it this morning. I have no doubt that other documents will be produced. One has already been provided by the leader of the Democratic Unionist party. Further documents may be prepared.

    What is necessary; what the obligation owed, I believe, to the people in Northern Ireland who want a permanent peace, is for all of us–the Government, the hon. Gentleman, other hon. Members and the people of Northern Ireland–to make sure that those matters are examined, discussed, considered, and decisions reached that will enable us to move forward into a permanent peace. That is what I wish to seek, and my mind is open to the right mechanism to ensure that we achieve it. But what I am determined is that we do seek to move forward to try and ensure that the chance that is in our hands–we may not be able to hold it–that the chance of peace that is in our hands should not slip away because we are not prepared to examine the matter, to talk about the matter, to consider the matter, and to reach the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see reached.

  • PMQT – 16 February 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

    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.

    Mrs. Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend join me and every other Member of the House in condemning the appalling scenes of violence and vandalism in Dublin last night? Does he agree that those people are a disgrace to the United Kingdom and an affront to football fans? Will he assure the House that he will do everything possible to prevent such behaviour from occurring again either at home or abroad?

    The Prime Minister: I agree that the behaviour of a thuggish minority at the match last evening was a disgrace and a great embarrassment. I do not believe that the people involved are sports fans, nor do I believe that they represent the true face of this country or British sport. The Football Association and the Irish Football Association have launched a full inquiry into exactly what happened and will discover what lessons can be learnt for the future. I have said that we will do everything we can to help to identify the people concerned and ensure that they face due punishment.

    Mr. Blair: May I, first, associate myself entirely with the Prime Minister’s comments about the scenes of violence? Those people are not proper football fans, but criminals and thugs and should be treated as such.

    In today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that a single currency was a threat to the nation state. Is that the Prime Minister’s view: yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be wise not to misunderstand what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is saying. If he is so concerned about matters– [Interruption.] I note that the shadow Chancellor is chortling, but I must say to the Leader of the Opposition that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has said:

    “I am not a fan of a single currency”

    and his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said:

    “I personally am in favour of a single currency”.

    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would care to adjudicate between the two of them.

    Mr. Blair: I am delighted that the Prime Minister keeps asking me questions; it will put him in good practice. Let me make him an offer: instead of the twice weekly Prime Minister’s questions, one day a week we will move over to the Government Benches and then the right hon. Gentleman can ask me questions.

    Let me just bring the right hon. Gentleman back to my question: it is his Chancellor of the Exchequer who has said in clear terms that a single currency is not a threat to the nation state. Does he agree or not?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman– [Hon. Members:– “Answer.”] I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman in my own way. He would be better advised to address himself to his own party and his own position. The right hon. Gentleman said in his own election address that he was opposed to British membership of the European Union. Then, later, he actually said:

    “I wasn’t actually opposed to membership”–

    and he went on to say–

    “I said . . . within the closed doors of the Labour Party, that I disagreed with that policy on Europe.”

    What is the right hon. Gentleman now saying within the closed doors of the Labour party and why will he not say it in public?

    Mr. Blair: I think we can see why the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet for a vow of silence on this issue. One simple question remains for him to answer: if he cannot trust his Cabinet or his Chancellor on these critical economic and foreign policy issues, why on earth should the people of Britain trust him or the Government to govern the country?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say in public what he said in private, why should anybody trust the Opposition? The Government have made it clear that we will decide in the light of the prevailing circumstances whether it is appropriate to join a single currency. The Cabinet is utterly united on that point and it reinforced that unity this morning, as the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interests of rail passengers, which were enhanced so much by the Government’s recent proposals, will be put at risk by the actions of the rail unions? Does he agree that those very unions are threatening to support clause IV against Opposition reformists, and does he have any confidence that the Leader of the Opposition will renounce those unions?

    The Prime Minister: I really do not know what he will do. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seems very keen to answer questions. I wish that some day he would try it, because if he did, it would be the first time yet in his career. I think that the aim of rail privatisation will undoubtedly be maintained, and it is to improve the quality of rail service. I hope that the need to improve the rail service does not escape the right hon. Gentleman for Kingston upon Hull, East, who has been summoned to his sponsoring union, the National Union of Rail Maritime and Transport Workers, to explain why the Opposition want to scrap clause IV.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Childish.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that that is rubbish. He says that they do not want to scrap clause IV. It is no wonder that he is sitting on the Back Benches.

     

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

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

    Mr. Watson: Given the unambiguous statements yesterday by the President of the European Commission on European Union internal passport controls and the creation of a single European currency, does the Prime Minister still hold to the view that he expressed in Brussels last July that Jacques Santer is the right man in the right place at the right time?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman reads what the President of the European Commission said yesterday, he will find a whole range of specifically British issues, where we have made it perfectly clear that we wish change and where he has indicated the need for change. To that extent the President of the Commission will prove far more amenable to the British position than any of the alternatives.

    Mr. Anthony Coombs: In the light of the recent fall in unemployment, is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent CBI survey that showed that exports from small manufacturing companies in this country are at their best level for 10 years? As they appear not to be having any problems with exchange control or exchange rate risks, is there not a further argument for saying that what Jacques Santer, the President of the European Commission, says about the need for a European single currency by 1997 is undesirable, unrealistic and unnecessary?

    The Prime Minister: I think that, in respect of the first point of my hon. Friend’s question, he is quite right to stress the growth in exports. He might have also stressed the extent to which manufacturing exports, in particular, are doing so well, and the fact that manufacturing employment has risen by 37,000 in the quarter to December. That is the fastest quarterly growth in employment in manufacturing at any stage since records began and shows clearly the extent to which manufacturing industry is undergoing a renaissance. As far as the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question is concerned, I have indicated clearly that I do not think that there is any prospect of a single currency in 1996 or 1997. At a later stage we will look at what is in the national interest in light of the circumstances.

     

    Q3. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: This year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war, in which many of today’s British pensioners were involved. Why do our pensioners lag behind the rest of Europe when it comes to pensions and benefits? Why have the Government never considered providing a veterans’ benefit, which has been introduced elsewhere in Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman would do well to look at the reality of what has happened.

    He would see that, since 1979, benefits to poorer pensioners have risen by 18 per cent. over and above the increase in prices. He would see that benefits to unemployed couples and others in difficulty have risen dramatically above the rate of inflation.

    The hon. Gentleman would also see that, among those people to whom he sometimes refers as the “poorest”, there has been a dramatic rise in the possession of consumer durables. That suggests that people have more net disposable income and it suggests also that their living standards are improving, which is demonstrated by every dispassionate survey that we have seen.

     

    Q4. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: When my right hon. Friend is next in touch with Mr. Santer, will he commend him for his words yesterday that, in matters of immigration and asylum, which affect many citizens in their daily lives, the Commission will seek to meet their expectations and to allay their concerns? Will my right hon. Friend tell him that the expectations and concerns of my constituents will best be met by upholding the British border controls that were agreed in Luxembourg 10 years ago?

    The Prime Minister: As I indicated to the House on Tuesday, I am entirely determined to maintain our fair but firm immigration policies, and that means that we shall retain our border controls. European Heads of Government endorsed our right to do so in a formal declaration and we intend to see that it is honoured.

    I hope that we may have the support of the Opposition in this matter. The shadow Home Secretary has indicated that we will have the support of the Opposition on this issue, although he does not appear to have the support of the leader of Labour Members of the European Parliament.

     

    Q5. Mr. Heppell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Heppell: Even with the small but welcome fall in unemployment, there are still 20,000 long-term unemployed in the Greater Nottingham area. The proposed budget for Greater Nottingham training and enterprise council is such that only 800 or 900 of those 20,000 long-term unemployed can be assisted. Does the Prime Minister think that that is an adequate response to the problems of long-term unemployment?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that long- term unemployment–whether that is defined as six months, one year or longer–is falling and has been falling for a long time. I look forward to seeing it fall a good deal further.

    Unemployment, whether long-term or short-term, has dropped by more than 400,000 in the past 12 months. Britain is well on the way to having the lowest level of unemployment in western Europe. Our unemployment rate is substantially below that of other similar countries.

    In France–the country with the most comparative population size to Britain–unemployment is just below 13 per cent. and static; here, it is 8.5 per cent and falling and there is every indication that there will be further job creation. I hope that that will involve those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, although he may have mentioned–but neglected to do so–that unemployment in his constituency has already fallen by 11 per cent.

    Mr. Shersby: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the excellent report of the National Audit Office on grant-maintained schools? If he has, he will have seen that those schools are performing very well indeed. They are providing an excellent standard of education and many thousands of new governors have been drawn into the process of working with teachers and parents to provide good education for our children.

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt about the popularity of grant-maintained schools. There is no doubt about the fact that parents who have chosen grant-maintained status are pleased with the choice that they have made, and I think that that choice is exercised among many people, of all political persuasions.

     

    Q6. Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Fatchett: Given the widespread concern about corruption and bribery in sport and the rumours that games have been thrown for money, will the Prime Minister confirm that his regular poor performances at the Dispatch Box against my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) are simply a reflection of his ability and that he has not been bribed by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: The expression on the face of the Leader of the Opposition is as expressive as it needs to be and it expresses his view–as mine–of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Queen’s Anniversary Prizes Dinner – 9 February 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech at the Queen’s Anniversary Prizes Dinner on 9th February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Four years ago – as a matter of principle and for the sake of our national interest – I said I would put education – standards of education – at the top of my agenda.

    I did so because our future prosperity – and our own very civility – depends on a population that is well-educated and highly skilled.

    But there were other reasons, too. Good education is the key that unlocks the door to a better future for every child. It is the route by which people – throughout history – have risen from the bottom of the heap to the top.

    And literally millions of people have had their lives enriched by the sheer joy of learning; by the love of literature, the arts and the sciences.

    Yet, in the past, too many children – bright eyed curious, normal children – university might have been another planet, an impossibly remote place whose arcane activities never seemed to touch their lives. University, many felt, was not “for the likes of us”. So much talent and potential went to waste.

    I knew children like that; in some senses I was one myself. So when I became Prime Minister I wanted to see that change.

    The target I set for the ’90s was to make a move forward in further and higher education greater than anything we had seen for a generation.

    Everyone should have a chance to succeed on merit. Not because of who they are, but of what they are, and what they have proved themselves to be. That is what I mean by a classless society – and high-class education is at the very core of it.

    Tonight we are here to honour today’s prizewinners. And can I add my own – and warmest – congratulations to all those the winners have rightly received?

    The awards are given by the Queen’s Anniversary Trust. So it is reasonable today to look back 40 plus years to the time of the Coronation.

    Then – though it’s hard to believe – there were only 16 universities in England – and just over 100,000 students. Less than one in 20 of all young people went into higher education.

    Ten years later the Robbins report set out wider objectives for higher education beyond the purely academic. Those principles are still valid today.

    In particular, Robbins proposed significant expansion of higher education. So, in the 1960s, the 10 colleges of advanced technology became universities. New universities were created. And 30 polytechnics were set up to offer education with a vocational emphasis.

    Finally, the pioneering institution of the Open University was established to provide opportunities for those who wanted to study from home.

    By 1979, one person in 8 was entering higher education. Excellent – but still not alpha plus. For today’s world throws up constant new challenges. Patterns of work that had seemed settled since the Industrial Revolution have gone for ever.

    That was why, in 1991, I launched White Papers on education beyond 16 that set out a vision for the rest of this century.

    We promised to enable more young people to go on to Higher Education. To scrap the out-dated distinction between universities and polytechnics. And to provide the funding that made renewed expansion possible.

    As a result today more young people are going on to university than ever before. It took 25 years to double participation levels up to the 1980s. It took only five to double them again between 1989 and 1994. We now have the highest graduation rate in the EC.

    Nearly one in three young people now enjoy higher education. There are now over 1 million students following full-time courses and a further 500,000 studying part-time.

    We have abolished the binary line to enable our universities to offer wider choice and diversity. Today there are degree courses in universities in subjects such as art and design, and business studies, as well as in more traditional academic subjects.

    We need those new skills. At the start of The Queen’s reign twice as many people worked on farms as in financial services. Now seven times as many work in financial services as on farms.

    Look at some of our other great competitive strengths – pharmaceuticals, health care, telecoms, IT software, biotechnology, food processing, engineering, design, fashion, the media. The list is almost infinitely extendable.

    Britain is less than a quarter of one per cent of the world’s land mass; one per cent of the world’s population. But in the growth industries of the 21st century we are in the world’s top three.

    This is due not just to our native genius – but to one of the best education systems in the world.

    Look at what Britain’s higher education system has produced in the last 40 years:

    – Watson and Crick unfolding the beautiful symmetry of life in the DNA double helix;

    – Cesar Milstein and others at the MRC Cambridge who have created a whole new industry, biotechnology, on the back of their work;

    – Hawking and the physicists who plumb the secrets of our universe from the smallest particle to the infinity of space.

    Our universities continue to lead the world in research. No less than 30 Nobel Prize winners from the UK between 1957 and 1992 in physics, chemistry or physiology – nearly one in seven of the total.

    And let no-one say that pure research is not commercial. Faraday’s pure research led to our harnessing electricity. A discovery whose value is greater than the total capitalisation of London’s Stock Exchange.

    We must exploit the resource of intellect to improve the prosperity and the quality of life for all. I want to see our universities as world-leaders in forging links between the academic world and industry and commerce.

    Look at the growth of science parks in places like Cambridge, the close ties with industry of a Warwick or Salford, and the development of university companies to exploit new ideas. Approaching one-third of university income comes from private sources. All these things are good for the country and a boon to all those bright young people who will make our future.

    Young people are not the only gainers in today’s universities. Yes, lifelong learning does matter. The number of mature entrants has risen by 140% since 1979. They now account for over a half of all enrolments.

    People who thought the doors of academe were for ever locked against them are finding them open.

    But I am not complacent. I do not pretend all has – or will be – easy. Expansion inevitably brings problems in its wake. And change is ever the mother and father of insecurity.

    So we now need to pause and think how higher education should develop in the future. That is why we have launched a national consultation – and I hope that all of you here in higher education will have your say.

    We have to look at the competitive challenge that lies ahead. At the needs of society in the twenty-first century. We must ask ourselves. How best can higher education preserve and enhance all that is good from our past, while meeting the needs of the future? Can we, in today’s world, any longer equip people with all the skills and knowledge they will need in life in one initial dose of higher education?

    Above all, how best can we accommodate change without compromising standards?

    So an important debate lies ahead. But have no doubt. I see higher education as one of Britain’s great success stories. And, whatever unfolds, I am determined to keep it that way.

    It is now just under two years since we launched our reformed Further Education sector. Since then over 500 colleges have been given the freedom to run their own affairs.

    Visit an FE college today and you’ll experience the bustle and hum of learning.

    All human life is there – from eager young school leavers to retired people taking exams for the first time in 50 years. From full-timers with their eyes on university or top flight jobs, to part-timers brushing up their skills to get on at work or to start a business themselves. From apprentice hair dressers to apprentice historians.

    The last two years have seen dramatic changes. More students are staying on. They are getting better results. And they’ve been given more choice.

    Back in 1979 only 40% of young people were staying on in education after the age of 16. Now over 70% stay on in full-time education after 16 – most of the rest are in part-time training either in colleges or based at work.

    As a result, one awful British stereotype has virtually bitten the dust – the 16 year old with no qualifications, no ambitions and no intention of learning anything ever again.

    But still we need to do more.

    First, we want more people to benefit. Our target is to expand by 28% over five years. We are providing the funding for that.

    Second, colleges must work even more closely with employers to meet the needs of their own local labour market. Our new employer-led modern apprenticeships will help here too. By the year 2000 our target is for some 70,000 of these each year.

    Third, we have to do more to raise standards of vocational qualifications – so they truly earn the parity of esteem in which I profoundly believe.

    One of the curses of education in the ’50s and ’60s was that vocational education was often disparaged, and rarely admired.

    In seeking to address that, serious errors were made. We still live with some of the consequences. There is no place in education for tackling low standards by levelling down the high.

    I know it is not a fashionable view. But, for my own part, I believe that a high quality GCE A Level must remain at the core of further education in England. It has underpinned a 3 year university degree that is a benchmark for academic excellence. We remain committed to it.

    Our strategy is to level up, not down. That is our aim through the General National Vocational Qualification. GNVQs were launched a mere 2 years ago. But already this year over 150,000 students are beginning a GNVQ course in England – equivalent to a quarter of all 16 years olds. From a standing start to 150,000 in 2 years.

    That is astonishing.

    So there’s no doubt about their popularity with students. Nor about the enthusiasm and commitment of the teaching staff who deliver them. Good. But we can do better still.

    The Chief Inspector of Schools and the Further Education Inspector have done us a signal service in showing what more we must do to make GNVQs the equal to the best in Europe.

    Parity of esteem is vital. That means more hard edged, practical material. It means raising teachers’ expectations of their students. It means clarity for teachers on what they should cover and to what standard. But it also means less prescription about how they should do it.

    More external inspection to ensure rigorous standards. But a simple assessment system that does not leave teachers knee deep in paper at 3 o’clock in the morning.

    We are working on that. We’ve put in 25 million pounds extra to help course support, best practice and training. Ron Dearing’s work to extend GNVQ courses for 14-16 year olds in schools will feed through into existing courses. The prize, if we get it absolutely right, is huge.

    People ask why I care so much about standards in education. Well, picture, if you will, the small child setting out with shining morning face for the first day at school – her life before her – fearful yes, but full of all the limitless potential that is breathed at birth into every child. Then ask yourself how could you not care?

    That has been my child – and, no doubt, yours. And that child is being born today and tomorrow and the next day – in Brixton and in Borrowdale alike. A child whose chance in life will be decided by what they learn in school and in college and in university. For the sake of every one of those children, the best chances must be open to all.

    Parents lay the foundation of every young life. But it is you in our colleges and universities who finally top out the edifice of learning. Yours is a high and honourable vocation – among the first in this or any land – and it is my privilege to salute you, and above all, the prizewinners tonight.

  • PMQT – 9 February 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

    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 have further meetings later today.

    Mrs. Roche: Given the news that Eastern Electricity has made millions of pounds by billing its customers up to three weeks early, that seven of its directors now have share options of £3 million, and that the salary of its chairman has more than doubled since privatisation, is not it about time that the Prime Minister intervened, or will he just let them get away with daylight robbery?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what has been said about the undesirability of early billing, and no one should have the slightest shred of doubt that I do not approve of that particular mechanism. I understand that the company has indicated that it will not occur again, and I am delighted that that is the case. We have debated extravagant awards in the House on previous occasions. I have made it clear that that is a question for peer pressure in the private sector. I look forward to the recommendations of the Greenbury committee and to examining them, but it is best dealt with in that manner.

    Mr. King: Does my right hon. Friend recall the attack on Tuesday by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about being forced to sack teachers? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Gentleman is, at this moment, supporting the Liberal Democrat leadership in Somerset, which is insisting on sacking teachers, even though Conservative councillors have put forward proposals so that those jobs need not be lost, and for ways in which the education in the county can be protected? Is not that symptomatic of the Liberal Democrat party, which is more interested in scoring political points than in genuinely seeing how the education of children can be protected?

    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the point about the Liberal Democrat council to which my right hon. Friend refers, and, frankly, I wish that I had been aware of that when the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked his question on Tuesday. It is important that, in the question of priorities in all local authority budgets, and particularly in education budgets, education authorities look carefully at the right education priorities for the children in our schools. That may well apply to Somerset county council, to which my right hon. Friend refers. It applies equally to many other education authorities.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister accept it as a responsibility of Government to reduce inequality?

    The Prime Minister: Yes.

    Mr. Blair: Then, if the right hon. Gentleman accepts that– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: If he accepts that, is not it a matter of shame that Britain is today more unequal than at any point in time since the second world war?

    The Prime Minister: If people were relatively less well off, then I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The primary concern of all Governments must be to ensure that those people who are most vulnerable and those who are most in need are not ignored by the legislation of the day and that special care is taken to look at their particular interests. If the right hon. Gentleman examines the record, he will find that that is what we have continually done. It is the right way to proceed and it is the way in which people develop policies, not just through the social security system, but right the way through the whole gamut of Government responsibilities. That is persistently what we have done and will do.

    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman has not contradicted the fact that inequality is greater than at any point in time since the second world war. Now, if the Prime Minister wants a fact, let me give him one. Is not the most telling fact of this week that, at the same time as the Government are doing nothing about the head of a privatised utility awarding himself 70 times as much as a teacher and 100 times as much as a nurse, the Cabinet has today devised a strategy that may see teachers sacked and classroom sizes rising? Is not it the case that, far from reducing inequality or creating a nation at ease with itself, after 16 years the Government have created a Britain that is divided, inefficient and unjust?

    The Prime Minister: That is an extremely good soundbite, but it is not true. There are two ways in which one can deal with the sort of people about whom the right hon. Gentleman and I are concerned. One is by ensuring that their chances and opportunities are greater so inequality falls; that is the right way and that is what the Government are doing. The other way is to try to restrain success and that is what the right hon. Gentleman strives to do; that is the wrong way. What must concern people is that action is taken to improve the opportunities and living standards of the people who face the greatest difficulties. That is consistently what we have done and I believe that, in respect of that, we deserve not the kind of carping comments that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, but his support and that of every other Member of the House.

    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend accept that thousands of women agree with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London? When they travel on public transport and happen to sit beside a drunk, someone high on drugs, or young thugs, they feel intimidated. They feel much safer in their motor cars and they will not give up those cars purely as a gesture of environmental tokenism.

    The Prime Minister: I believe that the need to ensure that everyone, whether a lady or anyone who is vulnerable, can travel on public transport or on the streets with proper protection, is a point that everyone will readily understand. The point made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London yesterday, which was widely misinterpreted by some, was that motorists’ attitudes need to be changed and few will disagree with that.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Campbell: The Prime Minister will be aware that Trafalgar House is making a bid to take over Northern Electric plc. Is he also aware that if that bid takes place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury stand to lose £223 million–the equivalent of £8 in every taxpayer’s pocket? Will the Prime Minister assure me that he will stop that merger and stop ripping off the taxpayer?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that I am not remotely likely to respond to something of that sort happening in the private sector. I am not likely to respond to it now, but if he wishes to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, he should contact him.

    Mr. Tracey: Has my right hon. Friend caught sight of the letter in today’s edition of The Times , signed by 17 of Britain’s senior business men, in which they say that their firms would see no discernible benefits from a single European currency? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that gives great force to the policies of Her Majesty’s Government–now and in the foreseeable future?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I have taken the view that we ought not to contemplate a single currency until and unless we are convinced that that would be right for the country. That is the only basis on which we can make that judgement. We need to know the circumstances of the day and they cannot possibly be known now. What is in the interest of this country must be paramount.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Michie: Following the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Prime Minister’s reply, how can the Prime Minister reconcile supporting a financial policy which is depriving our children of a good education, taking away remedial help and cramming children into overcrowded classrooms, with waving the flag in Europe and saying that he is defending the future of this country? The future of this country is with our children.

    The Prime Minister: I cannot imagine anyone possibly disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman about that. Of course, that is the reason why funding for education has dramatically increased over the years; it is the reason why more of our children are getting O and A-levels than ever before; it is the reason why one in three of our children now go on to further and higher education, rather than one in eight when the Labour party was in power; it is the reason why we have introduced new vocational qualifications; it is the reason why we are extending nursery education; it is the reason why I abolished the binary divide. If the hon. Gentleman looks, he will see the greatest revolution for good in education in the past five years that we have known for generations.

     

    Q4. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that to govern effectively in the long-term, the Prime Minister and the Government of the day must understand and reflect the concerns of the people of the country? Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), is not my right hon. Friend increasingly encouraged by the fact that his robust and realistic stand on a single currency and his opposition to any further political integration in Europe is increasingly supported by the people–in business and elsewhere–of this country?

    The Prime Minister: There comes a moment when consensus becomes unanimity.

    Mr. Soley: Why does the Prime Minister think that a free market operating between countries that has got rid of all our trade barriers will not inevitably lead to a single currency?

    The Prime Minister: I see no reason to suppose that it should. [Interruption.] We have had free markets in many parts of the world for a very large number of years. I see no evidence that a single currency is inevitable as a result of that, nor do I share the view of the hon. Gentleman, which he clearly holds as it becomes more apparent that the Labour party is already wedded to a single currency, whatever the economic circumstances may be. That is the only implication which can possibly be drawn from the hon. Gentleman’s question. I simply have to say to him that I disagree with him.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the all-party Eurim group’s report on wealth creation through technology? Will he lend his name– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must calm down. This is using up our precious time.

    Mr. Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend read the all-party Eurim group– [Interruption.] –of which many hon. Members are members– [Interruption.] –they might not know it, but they are–report on wealth creation through technology? Will he lend his name, as Al Gore and Jacques Delors have, to promoting information superhighway technology projects such as SuperJANET, the cable network and Internet, and make sure that the Government become a major customer of those technologies?

    The Prime Minister: The direct answer to my hon. Friend is no, I have not read it, but I have to say that it sounds irresistible. I will make it an early priority over this weekend to read it and discover the information contained therein about superJANET and other aspects of broad- band networks.

    Madam Speaker: An excellent question on which to end.

  • PMQT – 7 February 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

    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.

    Mrs. Ewing: Since the Government’s policy has virtually destroyed the manufacturing base of the north of Scotland–including industries such as our pulp mills, oil fabrication yards and a smelter–and, more recently, led to the mothballing of three distilleries, is the Prime Minister prepared to allow the Cabinet to sit back and watch the destruction of our tourist industry as a result of the axing of rail services, both sleeper accommodation and Motorail facilities, to the north of Scotland ? Will he, as a courteous man, now instruct the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland to afford the representatives from the north of Scotland a meeting–a request for which was submitted some six weeks ago–tomorrow to discuss those vital issues?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I shall look carefully at what the hon. Lady has to say. We are keen to see a successful tourist industry in the north-east of Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Lady looks right across Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom, she will see that manufacturing industry is expanding, doing extremely well, making many things that just a few years ago were simply not made in Britain, and exporting at record levels around the world. In the past year there have been eight successive new monthly records in exports alone.

    Mr. William Powell: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government’s support for British agriculture in order to assert that farmers are as entitled as any other of Her Majesty’s subjects to earn their living under the law, and that includes selling their young veal calves at a proper market price if they so choose? Will he confirm that causing mayhem at British ports and airports is no way to stop practices in other countries that we have banned here, and that those who do so should take their cause to other countries in the Community and to the European Parliament, not pursue it here?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the farming industry and entirely right to stress the fact that farmers have a right to carry on their trade within the law, as does everyone else. I think that my hon. Friend and the House know our opposition to veal crates and of the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to try to ensure that they are taken out of commission not just in the United Kingdom but right across Europe.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister state clearly whether he agrees with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has said that he would wait an eternity before joining a single currency?

    The Prime Minister: I set out in detail the conditions for a single currency, originally as long ago as 1990. I reaffirmed them in some detail last Friday. I made it clear last Friday that not only must the specific Maastricht criteria be met, but that in addition we would require other criteria to be met before we thought it appropriate to consider a single currency. Some years in advance of those being met, it is unwise to say either, “Yes we will proceed,” or, “No, we will never proceed.”

    Mr. Blair: On Friday, of course, the Prime Minister was generally facing both ways. Indeed, Conservative central office was briefing one message on Friday and Downing Street another yesterday. If he will not slap down his Chief Secretary, will he say whether he agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a supporter of monetary union, and who can foresee circumstances in which Britain would join and wants to do so by the end of the century?

    The Prime Minister: I have just set out in great detail precisely the circumstances in which we would find it appropriate to consider whether we should proceed to a single currency. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet indicated that for his own party at all. As to unity, we know that 50 of his Members of Parliament defied the Whip on Maastricht, 40 of his Members of Parliament defied the Whip on the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995 and the Labour party has had seven twists and turns over recent years as to whether or not it is in favour of the European Union. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as a single currency later this year is concerned, we would first require all the specific Maastricht criteria to be met. In addition, we would require other criteria to be met- -for example, relative flexibility of employment markets. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will set those out later this week. When those other matters are set out, we shall then consider whether it would be appropriate economically or constitutionally to proceed. I hope now that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, having learnt what the right answer is to that question, will fashion his own policy.

    Mr. Blair: Let me put it specifically, then. If those circumstances are met, will the Prime Minister join?

    The Prime Minister: I have just told the right hon. Gentleman. When and if those circumstances are met, we shall look to see whether it is appropriate and in the British interests to join. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now whether he would join, yes or no? Does he know whether it would be in the British interest? No, he does not. All that he is concerned to do is to trail along the path behind the Euro-federalists, where he feels most happy.

    Mr. Blair rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had three questions. I really cannot call him again. I am sorry.

    Mr. Blair rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has had his third question. If he wants to reply– [Interruption.] The Prime Minister has asked him to reply. In that case, I call the Leader of the Opposition.

    Mr. Blair: I think– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. It is most unusual for Prime Ministers to ask the Opposition questions at Question Time.

    Mr. Blair: I think that it is excellent that the Prime Minister is getting into the habit of asking us questions rather than answering them himself. Can I tell him this, though? Until he decides where he stands on that issue as the Prime Minister of the day, his leadership will remain weak, his Cabinet divided and Britain effectively disabled in Europe.

    The Prime Minister: It is interesting to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions. It would be more interesting if he ever provided any answers.

    I have set out for the right hon. Gentleman the conditions in which it would be right for us to consider the interests of the United Kingdom. I will not make a judgment that is crucial to the constitutional and economic future of this country until I see the economic circumstances of the day– and, frankly, only a dimwit would ask me to. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is very time-consuming.

    Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his concept of a European Union of nation states co-operating and working together for their common interests is in touch with the majority view in the country? Does it not contrast starkly with the policies of the Opposition parties, which can be described as a total sell-out to Brussels?

    The Prime Minister: I think that this country has a very deep attachment to the nation state. The European Union that it seeks is a European Union based on nation states–a wider European Union, a free market European Union, a decentralised European Union, and not the federal European Union that the Opposition wish for and their Members of the European Parliament clamour for.

    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister asking us to believe that it is none of his business, and not his Government’s responsibility, that school governors across the land are being forced to cut school budgets and sack teachers? Or is he saying that that is a price that our children should be prepared to pay so that he will have room for tax cuts at the next election?

    The Prime Minister: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. If he looks, he will see the increased spending on teachers, support staff, books and equipment. He will also see that the Audit Commission regularly identifies significant scope for savings by local authorities–not least Liberal Democrat-run local authorities–and their freedom to transfer more resources to education. The right hon. Gentleman may also learn that authorities are maintaining some 1 million surplus school places. Perhaps next time he asks a question, he will have ascertained some of those facts before doing so.

    Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of new guidance relating to appointments to quangos is an extremely positive and welcome advance? Is not the constant criticism directed at members of such bodies bound in time to become a disincentive, and to prevent public-spirited persons from putting their names forward for membership?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that the review will prove extremely useful. It also emphasises that both the number and the real cost of non-departmental bodies have fallen significantly since 1979. As everyone who has examined the matter knows, the Opposition’s criticism of such bodies is really based on their dislike of parent choice in schools, their dislike of patient choice for fundholding general practitioners and their dislike of patient choice in hospitals. That is local choice, but they call it quangos. They wish to retain choice centrally now, as they always have.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

    Mr. Prentice: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Education, who believes that a teachers’ pay increase could be funded only at the expense of between 7,000 and 10,000 teaching jobs and a spiralling increase in class sizes? How does that square with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at lunchtime today–that extra cash is not available and is not needed? Who speaks for the Government on this matter? More important, who speaks for the children in our schools?

    The Prime Minister: We speak for the children in the schools. That is why we have given their parents choice, why we have given greater choice in schools, why we have produced performance tables, and why we have produced testing. That is why our crusade is for choice not to close city technology colleges, not to close grant-maintained schools, and not to close every element of choice that parents want and children need.

    Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Scots favour the Union between Scotland and England and the rest of the United Kingdom because the Scots, with less than 9 per cent. of the UK’s population, enjoy far more positions of importance–for instance, in the Cabinet, the proportion is in excess of 20 per cent., whatever the Government–in the military, in trade unions and in industry? That is what the Scots will not give up.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks in a tone that many people will recognise. There is no doubt about the advantages, both to the UK and to Scotland, of Scotland being a full part of the UK. I do not believe that anyone who has studied the problem doubts that for a single second. The talents– [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) clearly has not studied it because he does doubt that. That is because he wants an independent Scotland disunited from the UK, in the middle of a European Union where it would have little or no influence, and that would damage the interests of Scots, the interests of Scotland and the wider interests of the UK. That is why his party must never be put in power in any way in Scotland or elsewhere.

  • PMQT – 31 January 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend read the remarks by the chairman of Daimler-Benz in Germany, who has warned that he will move his firm out of Germany if the social chapter continues to pile costs on his business? Does not that show that my right hon. Friend’s stand in safeguarding the British opt-out is absolutely right and beneficial to British business? If Daimler-Benz decided to come to this country, would my right hon. Friend welcome it? May I suggest that there are many suitable sites in north-west England?

    The Prime Minister: I did see the remarks by the chairman of Daimler-Benz. I would, of course, be delighted to welcome Daimler-Benz to the United Kingdom, just as we welcomed Honda, Black and Decker, Samsung, Toyota and many others. My hon. Friend may not yet know that a survey today found that job prospects in Britain are better than in any other country in the European Union. Ironically, on this day of all days, socialist Members of the European Parliament, including Labour MEPs, have called for an end to our opt-out of the social chapter. I suggest that they speedily seek an audience with the chairman of Daimler-Benz.

    Mr. Blair: On rail privatisation, does the Prime Minister accept that it is a necessary consequence of setting a guaranteed level of service below the existing levels of service that private operators will have the right and the power to cut existing services, and that he will be powerless to stop it?

    The Prime Minister: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, this afternoon, the operators will make it clear that they do not intend to cut services. However, they do intend to exercise their freedom to increase services. Unless one is to sterilise the British rail system in its entirety, they need that flexibility. They will provide additional services and will say so this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman were serious about improving the service, he would not stand in the way of those reforms for his own ideological reasons but would join us in modernising a railway that can and will provide a better service for people in the future.

    Mr. Blair: First, on the point about additional routes that operators are seeking today, will the Prime Minister confirm that those who are making those bids today are wholly owned British Rail subsidiaries, and that that will not bind the private operators? Secondly, if he is so certain that they will keep or increase existing services, why not specify and guarantee that in their contracts?

    The Prime Minister: I made that point in terms of directing the improved services at the times and on the tracks that people want. The right hon. Gentleman might be reassured by what the chairman of Railtrack will also be saying today. He makes it clear that it is on the cards that the operators may want to increase their services still further and want additional track agreements with Railtrack to enable them to do so. It is becoming clear that those interested in running the service are interested, as are the Government, in improving the service and not leaving it in its present inadequate state.

    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman wants to improve the service, but is not it true that, under privatisation so far, some services have been cut, some are to be removed altogether, through ticketing is to be reduced and, today, he cannot even guarantee the existing level of service? In those circumstances is it any wonder that the public would prefer to keep British Rail as a public service, not break it up and sell it up to satisfy some faction in the Tory party?

    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to continue his political campaign against private ownership of British Rail. But he might make himself a little better informed about the existing situation before he begins to spread such scare stories. Under the present nationalised service arrangements, no service is protected–nor was it under any previous Labour Government–and never has been. The passenger service requirements to be unveiled today will, for the first time, underpin minimum contractual guarantees. The service provided will be in two components: the minimum guarantee to ensure that those services cannot be cut and the additional service that the private sector has already indicated that it will run in addition to the minimum guarantee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now look at the reality and stop spreading scare stories.

    Mr. Sims: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the responsibility for both the manner and pace at which the European Union develops lies with the Governments of the member states, individually and collectively, not with the Commission, which is the Union’s servant, not its master?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that to my hon. Friend. I think that there will be a number of members of the European Union at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference who will wish to ensure that the primacy of the European Council itself is enshrined and improved. I do not believe that the United Kingdom will be alone in seeking those particular changes. We all wish to see the European Union develop in a satisfactory way that is compatible with the interests of the people and the nation states across Europe. We have a number of positive proposals to make to that end, and we shall set them out in the weeks ahead.

     

    Q2. Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

    Mr. Clarke: Given that the American Congress and Senate have accepted that there is evidence to confirm the existence of Gulf war syndrome and given that 421 former British service personnel have been identified as suffering in a similar way, does the Prime Minister agree that there is an urgent need for an inquiry? Does he accept that, as those people were willing to give their lives when he asked them, he has a moral responsibility to ensure that such an inquiry takes place?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Medical Research Council has thus far found no evidence of Gulf war syndrome. We have told people who believe that they are suffering from any ailment as a result of the Gulf war to come forward and be examined so that we may determine the position for ourselves. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in the way that he refers to the American Government. I do not believe that they have made the statement that he attributes to them.

     

    Q3. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hendon school in my constituency was the first school in London to become a grant-maintained school? Since then, it has been transformed and is now heavily oversubscribed. Will my right hon. Friend welcome the increased popularity of grant-maintained schools, particularly among the Opposition? Does he agree that it is disgraceful double standards for those who seek to deny others the freedom of choice to then exercise it themselves?

    The Prime Minister: I think that we all look forward to the day when the Opposition preach what they practise–it is self-evident that that has not been the case with education in the past. Of course, all parents want what is best for their children, and they are right to do so. We wish to ensure that the freedoms which are exercised quite correctly by Opposition Members in the interests of their own children are not denied to other people by Opposition policies.

    Mr. Ashdown: Given that the Prime Minister has already said, quite rightly, that education is the key to the country’s success, how does he justify cutting –[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Just a moment, Mr. Ashdown. Order. I call Mr. Ashdown.

    Mr. Ashdown: Given that education is the key to the country’s future, how does the Prime Minister justify cutting the allocation for education to local education authorities by a sum equivalent to £50 less for every primary school pupil and £200 less for every secondary school pupil in the land?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows what the funding increases have been over recent years. I also give the right hon. Gentleman credit for appreciating that, quite apart from the increased resources that have gone into education in recent years, we have improved the quality and standard of education significantly through our reform of the curriculum; the opportunity that we have provided to schools to become grant maintained; the opportunity for testing children and for parents to know what that testing is; and through the publication of the performance tables, which ensures that there is peer pressure on bad schools.

    It would be more gracious for the right hon. Gentleman, who claims to be concerned about education–and I am sure that he is–to acknowledge those reforms which are now accepted in practice even by the official Opposition.

     

    Q4. Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

    Mr. Pawsey: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no plans to abolish grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, the assisted places scheme or the charitable status of independent schools? Can he further confirm that he has no plans to introduce a graduate tax? All of those ideas are being actively promoted by Opposition Members.

    The Prime Minister: I am certainly pleased to confirm that to my hon. Friend. In recent years we have set out a series of education reforms which have now been accepted by the trade unions and teachers and welcomed by parents and many others. I believe that we can now look forward to a period of improvement and stability in education. The changes proposed by the Labour party will recreate unnecessary chaos. We have stability in education and we must retain it. We do not want the denial of choice that is proposed by the official Opposition.

    Mr. Shore: In view of M. Santer’s speech at Davos last weekend calling for early progress toward a single European currency and for reducing the voting power of the larger member states, does not the Prime Minister agree that, far from being the right man in the right place at the right time, he is in fact the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time?

    The Prime Minister: It would be extremely difficult to find a Commission President candidate who, on those two points, would not take the same position as the present President. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to plough through the rest of the Commission President’s speech perhaps he will welcome the fact that the President said that many people perceive a

    “bureaucratic, byzantine, technocratic Brussels maze.”

    The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree with that. The President also gave top priority to tackling Europe’s declining competitiveness, completing the single market in telecommunications and energy, ensuring the proper performance of single market rules, free trade and a strong common foreign security policy. Each and every one of those are British priorities in the European Union and they have been endorsed by the President of the Commission.

     

    Q5. Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend find time this afternoon to have a word with Department of Social Security Ministers? They will tell him that since last August, 10,500 non-British residents have been refused income support. That is a great saving to the DSS, despite opposition from Labour and the Social Affairs Commissioner. Does not that vindicate Government policy of concentrating benefits on people who need them most, in stark contrast to Labour which, in respect of benefits, is prepared to turn a blind eye to fraud and abuse?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree about the nature of changes introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I do not believe that any British taxpayer is happy subsidising people who have no close ties with the United Kingdom but who have been receiving benefit payments without having made contributions. The changes we made bring the United Kingdom more in line with our European partners, whose safety-net benefits are not normally available to our nationals freshly arrived in their countries.

    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Is the Prime Minister aware that as the result of the botched introduction of reduced junior doctors’ hours, the accident and emergency unit at Broadgreen hospital in my constituency is being forced to close its doors sooner than planned? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that means patients presenting themselves for emergency treatment will suffer greater anxiety and pain, and that doctors and nurses will face greater stress? Will the Prime Minister accept that nothing less than the resignation of the Secretary of State for Health will satisfy the people whom I represent?

    The Prime Minister: I think that even the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends felt that she did not get the last part of her question right. I will not take lectures on health from the hon. Lady. As she is clearly aiming at what is happening in the health service, perhaps she will say whether she agrees with statements by Labour’s official health spokesman and other Labour Members as to the level of health spending. There are substantial differences. The Labour party is utterly split on that issue, as on so many others. One day, the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends will concentrate on the remarkable improvements achieved by people in the national health service, not carp and criticise week after week after week, and seek to undermine the service.

  • PMQT – 24 January 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

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

    Mr. Flynn: Was not top Tory John Maples right when he said that Tory Britain means the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor? Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor that the orgy of unashamed greed of top salaries is justified? How does the Prime Minister explain that the wage of one boss of a privatised industry is worth the same amount of money as that received by 20 doctors or 100 nurses?

    The Prime Minister: I have set out my views on board pay before and have made it clear that I do not agree with excessive and unjustified increases. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would agree. If he feels that the matter has been badly handled, he might discuss it with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who declares an interest in a company that advises British Gas and North West Water.

    Mr. Rathbone: When my right hon. Friend is making plans for the Tory manifesto for a Conservative victory at the next general election, will he pay particular attention to policies that touch on and support the encouragement of the family?

    The Prime Minister: Yes. I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend’s suggestion. We are embarking on perhaps the widest examination of the policies that will be right, up to the next century and beyond it, that any party has undertaken for many years. I look forward to contributions from my hon. Friend and many others.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister says that excessive pay awards are a matter for shareholders, and as the Government are the 40 per cent. shareholder in National Power and PowerGen, why will he not intervene?

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear from the outset that, having put the company in private hands, we are not going to retain control over detailed decisions within the company. Recently, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have been speaking about something that sounds much like the beginning of a pay policy.

    Ms Church: Yes.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady says yes. I am pleased to hear that she says yes. The right hon. Gentleman had better decide whether the new Labour believes in the free market or in controls and the politics of envy. The truth is that the language is new, but the prejudices are familiar.

    Mr. Blair: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what we believe in: public services run for the public and in the public interest. We can see whom the Tories represent. While they represent these excesses, the Labour party will speak up for the vast majority of ordinary people. People struggling to pay their bills and worried about their living standards are fed up with the same small group of people playing the boardroom equivalent of the national lottery and awarding themselves huge pay increases, hitting the jackpot week after week at the expense of the public.

    The Prime Minister: Well, now we see it: the right hon. Gentleman is becoming a slave to grievance politics. I shall tell him who is concerned about public services–the people who put the services that did not serve the public well in private hands. The result is that prices are falling, investment is rising and consumers are getting better service now, in the private sector, than before. The Labour party’s campaign shows just how unreconstructed and envious the Opposition still are. The right hon. Gentleman makes no reference to the improvements in services. All he is doing is milking prejudice and exposing the fact that the Labour party has not changed.

    Mr. Robert Banks: Has my right hon. Friend seen today’s most welcome reports confirming that the Samsung Heavy Industries Company from South Korea is to establish a manufacturing plant near Knaresborough in my constituency, ultimately providing up to 600 jobs? Does he agree that the United Kingdom beat off competition from eight European countries because our Government have managed the economy so well? We have an excellent infrastructure; more importantly, we have a brilliant work force in Yorkshire.

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that Samsung has decided to invest in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am only sorry that we did not hear the same sort of support for inward investment when NEC went to Livingston and Black and Decker went to Sedgefield. The fact is that more inward investment is coming to this country than to any other in Europe because of the policies that we have followed, and because we will not accept the social chapter. People can see that the economy of this country is doing better than any other major economy in Europe. That means jobs for people in this country–jobs that would be lost by the policies followed by the Labour party.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the life sentence handed out to Private Lee Clegg, although required by the law, is nevertheless shamefully inappropriate, and that this is the moment for him to be released under licence, and the law changed?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not for Ministers to comment on the actions of the court.

    There are two points that I can make to the right hon. Gentleman about Private Clegg. The first is that there have been suggestions in recent days of fresh evidence that might cast doubt on Private Clegg’s conviction. If so, that evidence should be provided to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He will then consider it and decide whether it is sufficient to refer to the Court of Appeal.

    Secondly, after the recent decision, the question arises what should happen to Private Clegg now that his conviction has been upheld by the court. As the House will know, as for all life sentence prisoners there is a process to be gone through before a release date can be set. It will include consultations with the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and it will take into account the nature of the offence. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that that process is undertaken both effectively and with due care.

    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend remember that when the Government banned veal crates and introduced the strictest regulations governing the transport of animals, and when they recently introduced welfare regulations covering the rearing of pigs, they did so hoping that Europe would soon follow? Will he persist in that policy?

    The Prime Minister: We certainly will persist in that policy. We need a European-wide level of legislation if we are truly interested in animal welfare. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pressed that issue in Brussels yesterday. He secured agreement yesterday to advance the review of European Union requirements, which was scheduled for 1997, and found that there was considerable sympathy for the aim of phasing out the veal crate. I believe that the writing is on the wall for that production system, and there is no one in Europe who can take more credit for that than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

     

    Q2. Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

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

    Mr. Battle: As the Prime Minister and his Government hold the golden shares in the privatised water companies, why is he allowing Yorkshire Water to force people to have compulsory, expensive water metering, so that families, pensioners and the disabled pay the highest price for their water while Sir Gordon Jones and his directors hoard thousands of shares to themselves and skim off some £829,000 in boardroom remuneration?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my first answer, he would have known the answer about the golden share. What the hon. Gentleman illustrates, yet again, is that, whenever they can, the Opposition wish decisions to be taken by Labour Members of Parliament. They are in no sense interested in the private sector. They are not interested in putting decisions out to the private sector. [Hon. Members:– “Sleaze.”] Whatever they may say, they want centralisation and nothing but. [Hon. Members:– “Sleaze.”] Those Opposition Members who are chanting may well be directing their chants to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), but they need not chant at me.

     

    Prime Ministerial Visits

    Q3. Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited the Ruislip-Northwood Parliamentary constituency.

    The Prime Minister: I have not had the opportunity to do so.

    Mr. Wilkinson: Had my right hon. Friend been able to visit the Ruislip-Northwood constituency since 28 November 1994, he would have found strong support from local people, backed by their local Member of Parliament, for the view that RAF Northolt, which is frequently used by Her Majesty’s Ministers, should develop its services to the armed forces to the full. It welcomes the forthcoming arrival of the Queen’s flight, but local residents would not approve of any extension of civil movements to RAF Northolt beyond those already permitted.

    The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on one of the most effective pieces of coat-trailing that we have heard in the House for some time. I understand the points that he made and will draw them to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

     

    Taxation

    Q4. Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister what was the tax burden on an average income family in 1991; and what is the estimated burden on a similar family in 1995.

    The Prime Minister: The answer would depend on a number of factors, such as family size and expenditure pattern, which the hon. Gentleman does not specify, but I can tell him that real take-home pay after tax and inflation has risen by 4 per cent.–about £11 a week in today’s prices –since 1991 for a one-earner family on average earnings and is expected to rise further next year.

    Mr. Cohen: Despite the Prime Minister’s manifesto assertion, “I believe in low taxes,” since the previous general election an average family must pay an extra £15.50 a week in tax. Will he give the reason for that whacking increase, especially as public services have deteriorated or been privatised? Surely the Prime Minister should be referred to the Nolan committee for bringing manifesto commitments into disrepute.

    The Prime Minister: Were that to be so, after that question the hon. Gentleman would have to join me, for he will know that the Labour party proposes to introduce–in addition to existing taxes–a windfall tax, a payroll tax, a health tax, an entertainment tax and a development tax. That is on top of the intricate piece of accountancy by the Liberal Democrats, on which I congratulate them, which suggests that Labour party plans would already add 5p to the standard rate of income tax. While we head for 20p, the Labour party heads for 30p.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Legg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

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

    Mr. Legg: Will my right hon. Friend please assure those of my constituents whose children are at grammar and independent schools that he has no plans to abolish the assisted places scheme or charitable status, or to stop selection? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the Opposition wish to abolish such schools, many of their spokesmen have benefited from them?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. A large number of what I believe are called, in current Labour terminology, “sensible” parents have evacuated their children from Labour-controlled education authorities and sent them elsewhere, including the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms Harman), for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Barking (Ms Hodge).

    Mr. MacShane: Cheap.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is cheap, but that is what they have done.

     

    Indonesia

    Q6. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Indonesia.

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

    Mr. Corbyn: As the Prime Minister has no plans to visit Indonesia, will he convey to the Indonesian Government the British people’s abhorrence of the illegal occupation of East Timor and the death of 200,000 East Timorese people at the hands of the Indonesian army? Will the right hon. Gentleman halt all British arms sales to Indonesia, which have been used to suppress and oppress the people there, and specifically ban the export of the Scorpion personnel carrier which can be used to kill and injure people in East Timor in order to maintain that illegal occupation?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have not recognised the Indonesian annexation of East Timor. That has been our position for a long time and we continue to support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to find a lasting solution to the problem. However, there is neither a European Union nor a United Nations embargo on arms sales to Indonesia; nor do I believe that one would be justified.