The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Lee Clegg

  • PMQT – 6 July 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    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 have further meetings later today.

    Mr. McGrady: After the Prime Minister’s success in his little local difficulty, congratulations would normally be in order, if it were not for the very great disadvantage caused to the communities of Northern Ireland by the introduction of the Clegg factor and the damage that it has done to the peace process. However, in the aftermath of that, could I ask the Prime Minister now to devote himself wholly to the pursuit of the cause of peace in Ireland, in view of the increasingly volatile situation there? Will he consider the appointment of an independent international arbitrator or negotiator to break the current logjam, rather than rely on his Northern Ireland ministerial colleagues, who have many departmental and other ministerial duties to attend to? There is a precedent for that in the inter-party talks.

    The Prime Minister: I am looking at ways of breaking the logjam, but I do not think that it would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I were to discuss those this afternoon. I remain as committed to proceeding with the peace process in Northern Ireland as I have been since the moment I walked into Downing Street. A great deal of progress has been made. It is crucially important that that progress is sustained. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and all hon. Members from Northern Ireland, will join me in that search. I know that it is what they wish for and I am absolutely certain that it is what their constituents most wish to see.

    Mr. Redwood: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his win? May I assure him that, like him, I wish to see a Conservative election victory? Would he agree with me that some of the ideas and policies that I set out in the past two weeks could make an important contribution to that victory?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his words. I hope that he will agree with me that we had a fair contest last week. I am grateful both for the way in which he has spoken this afternoon and for the way in which he conceded the result of the election. Let me say to my right hon. Friend that there is a great deal that the Government will be doing in the months ahead which I know that he will wish to support enthusiastically. I will welcome his support, as will all my colleagues.

    Mr. Blair: I offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister on his re-election with, I suspect, rather more sincerity than the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and, of course, I also congratulate him on his new deputy.

    Last year, the Prime Minister gave what he called a cast-iron commitment to nursery education for all four-year-olds. Is that still the case?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. I think that he congratulates me in the same spirit that Mr. Neil Kinnock did on one occasion. I am equally grateful and I look forward to the same result at the subsequent general election.

    I confirm that, on a phased basis, I look for the introduction of nursery education for all four-year-olds and my right hon. Friend will announce this afternoon our plans and the phasing.

    Madam Speaker: Mr. Peter Luff.

    Mr. Blair rose —

    Madam Speaker: I am sorry. Mr. Blair.

    Mr. Blair: I know, Madam Speaker, that rather a lot has been going on on the Government Benches recently, so it is perfectly understandable.

    If that is the Prime Minister’s commitment, and we know that 90 per cent. of four-year-olds get pre-school education at present–indeed, the majority of those get it free in the public sector now–can he guarantee to make good his commitment, first, that he will provide the extra places that are necessary but, secondly, that nobody who now gets and qualifies for free public sector education will be forced to go private and top up the voucher?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find the answers to his questions very satisfactory and that he will find them very speedily. It is perfectly clear from events a moment or so ago that not only is the right hon. Gentleman following most of our policies but it would seem that he may actually have joined the Conservative Benches.

    Mr. Blair: It is Labour local authorities that have provided nursery education.

    Never mind the Prime Minister telling us to wait for his right hon. Friend- -this is his idea; his scheme. Can he give those guarantees or not? If not, many people will think that this is a con trick, not a genuine scheme for nursery education. Would not it at least be better to consider whether we could not obtain better value for money spending these hundreds of millions of pounds improving present provision for four-year-olds and bringing within the system three-year-olds who are shut out of the Prime Minister’s scheme altogether?

    The Prime Minister: No, the right hon. Gentleman will see that what we are proposing this afternoon will meet the points that he has in mind and meet them better than he could. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of choice in education since he exercises it. We said that we would deliver pre-school education for all four-year-old children and this afternoon he will see that we will meet that policy. The parents of all four-year-olds will be given a voucher for pre-school education in the state, private or voluntary sectors, and we will put that purchasing power where it belongs. I had thought that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of exercising rights of choice. We will see this afternoon whether that is true.

    Madam Speaker: Now we will have Mr. Peter Luff.

    Mr. Luff: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Everything comes to he who waits.

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that a policy of withdrawal from the European Union, or a policy of immediate acquiescence in every idea that emerges from the Commission, no matter how damaging to the nation’s interests, would both be acts of political and economic folly? Does it surprise my right hon. Friend in the slightest that the Leader of the Opposition has espoused both such policies?

    The Prime Minister: I shall spare the Leader of the Opposition the quotes that I have used often enough in the House to indicate his changing view on Europe, from espousing withdrawal behind closed doors in 1983, to announcing subsequently that he had changed his mind, and then to wholehearted support for everything that happens in Europe without any reference to the British national interest. It is fudge, mudge and split the difference on every aspect of that policy. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the difference between competitiveness and the social chapter and between national interest and a national veto. He will learn if he stays as Leader of the Opposition–if he stays as Leader of the Opposition. I doubt that he will because after the election I look forward to addressing his successor while I stand here as Prime Minister.

    Mr. Ashdown: Why does the Prime Minister not realise that vouchers that only partly fund pre-school education are bound to be of more value to those who can pay the difference than to the poor whose children need help most? Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman put the whole nation first, he would put universal access to high-quality pre-school education for all before Conservative tax cuts at the next election.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman really ought not to be so silly. We are placing a substantial sum in the hands of parents so that they can make a choice of nursery school education for their children. Now we know the Liberal party’s position: no choice at all for parents. I do not know what happened to the Liberal party’s old philosophy, but gone it completely has. If people want choice–if they want universal nursery education–they will get it from the Government, and from no one else.

    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appropriate tenure of a Conservative Prime Minister is not four and a half years involving one general election victory, but at least 11 years involving at least three general election victories?

    The Prime Minister: There is certainly an honourable precedent to that effect, and I shall seek to follow it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 July.

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

    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister welcome the strong support that Lord Justice Taylor gave Sir Richard Scott at the distinguished Lord Mayor’s dinner last night? Will he, too, give his strong support to Sir Richard?

    The Prime Minister: I gave Sir Richard my support when I appointed him to head the inquiry.

    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware not only that the courageous decisions that he has made in the past week were wholly and absolutely justified, but that his Government are faced with the most inexperienced and fatuous Opposition whom I have seen in all the 31 years for which I have been in Parliament? Furthermore, I do not want a job.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has been examining Labour Oppositions for many years, and I have no doubt that what he says is entirely right. After the next election, he will have an opportunity to study another Labour Opposition.

     

    Q3. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 July.

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

    Mr. Flynn: Is the Prime Minister not appalled by the ungrateful treatment being handed out to the constituents of Basildon? Tory Members are reported to be seeking new seats and abandoning their loyal Tory voters in Eltham, Loughborough and, yes, even Basildon. Is the Prime Minister’s advice to all his hon. Friends with majorities of less than 18,000, “Retreat now: abandon your voters, because it is “No change, no chance’”?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall hearing rather arrogant remarks like that before the last general election.

    I seem to recall hearing rather a lot of them. Yet those who behaved in such an arrogant fashion long before the election are still sitting on the Opposition Benches.

    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern felt by so many of our constituents that the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights have a tendency to encroach far too much into areas that are properly within the sovereign authority of this Parliament and that if those institutions are to maintain the respect of the British people, they must exercise more self-restraint in future?

    The Prime Minister: As I indicated to the House when I reported on the Cannes summit a week or so ago, there are areas where the European Court of Justice ought not to tread, and it was on that basis that I refused to allow it to have any jurisdiction whatsoever over the Europol convention, which I agreed with our partners in Europe at the Cannes summit. I believe that because it touches on sensitive matters that are rightly the prerogative of the British courts and no other, and on that point the Government’s policy will remain as it is.

     

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

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

    Mr. Ainger: Given the description by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) of the Prime Minister’s leadership style as uncertainty based on indecision, is it the new job of the Deputy Prime Minister now to take the decisions, or has the Prime Minister not decided yet?

    The Prime Minister: In elections– [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman invites me to quote what was said during the Labour leadership election. There is often rough invective during elections. As the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said during the last Labour leadership election:

    “It would have been easier to pull out their teeth than to have received straight answers to my questions.”

    The right hon. Gentleman the present leader

    “enclosed 30 copies of his 20-page leadership election statement, which he said would answer most of my questions. On the most generous assessment, he touched on only ten of the questions”,

    and from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)

    “there was no reply whatsoever.”

  • PMQT – 4 July 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

    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.

    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the decision of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen to strike? Does he agree that that decision will bring misery and frustration to millions of passengers? Is he, like me, astonished that the general secretary of ASLEF has not offered one word of apology to the travelling public?

    The Prime Minister: I am surprised at that and I regret it. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I shall have a little order from the Front Benches below the Gangway–on both sides. There will be one exchange at a time.

    The Prime Minister: I totally condemn the decision to seek a strike, which is likely to cause chaos and confusion for hundreds of thousands of passengers. I do not believe that there is any justification whatsoever for the strike. I condemn it and I very much hope that the leader of the Labour party will condemn it as well and make it clear that he, like me, will put the interests of passengers before militancy.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister share the anger and disgust of South West Water consumers– [Interruption.] Tory Members may find the subject boring, but while they continue to tear themselves apart we shall speak up for the people of this country on the issues that concern them. What is more, it is not 329 Conservative Members of Parliament who should decide the Prime Minister and Government of this country; it is the British people at the ballot box.

    Does the Prime Minister share consumers’ disgust that the managing director has received a 45 per cent. pay increase while water bills have risen by 70 per cent. since privatisation? Is it not high time that the regulator was given the power to curb such abuse?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my view has been that many customers of water companies will be concerned about the reported pay increases of directors, and I share their concern. I think that, like me, many people would have no objection to pay rises that are linked to company performance, but if they cannot be linked to company performance I think that they will rightly be condemned by many people up and down the country. I propose to watch the pay increases carefully, and when we have received the Greenbury report on executive pay and remuneration we will be able to decide whether any action is necessary.

    Mr. Blair: Instead of watching it, why does the Prime Minister not act to put a stop to the abuses now?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows, for I have told him before–he is clearly a slow learner on this point–that we will wait and see what the committee examining the matter reports. When we have the facts in front of us, we will be in a position to take a decision: I prefer facts before decisions.

     

    Q2. Mr. Streeter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of the House last night to extend the assisted places scheme for another year? What does he make of a party that voted yet again to deny the opportunities created by that scheme to hundreds and thousands of children throughout the country?

    The Prime Minister: I am unsurprised at the way in which the Labour party casts its votes. Labour Members may talk about opportunity but, time after time, they vote against extending opportunity, such as the assisted places scheme. I am in favour of that scheme because I want people to enjoy opportunities that earlier generations did not have. We act on issues–the Labour party talks about them but does nothing.

     

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

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

    Mr. Stevenson: Does the Prime Minister agree that today 329 Tory Members of Parliament will probably be taking the most important political decision of their lives and that it will affect every man, woman and child in the country? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the sense of outrage felt throughout the length and breadth of the land that such a decision will be taken anonymously and in complete secrecy?

    The Prime Minister: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman–echoing the thoughts of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) a few moments ago–that I recall Labour calling for a general election in 1985 and losing one in 1987. I recall Labour asking for a general election in 1990, and it lost in 1992. Labour may call for a general election in 1995 but it will lose it in 1997.

     

    Q4. Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the City of Chester– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. We need order in the House.

    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my percipient constituents welcome low inflation and sustained growth, relish rising inward investment and falling unemployment and require a Government who represent Britain’s interests at the heart of Europe–rejoicing in the literal decimation of new proposals from Brussels in the past five years? What does my right hon. Friend reckon has brought us in the direction of those happy phenomena?

    The Prime Minister: I welcome the advantages that have been brought to the people of Chester by this Government. I acknowledge that they will want to see such advantages in future, and I look forward to ensuring that they do.

     

    Q5. Ms Jowell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

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

    Ms Jowell: Will the Prime Minister apologise to the thousands of blood donors whose gift of blood was wasted last week, and to the patients whose operations were cancelled because the Government’s agent, the National Blood Authority, bought cheaper blood bags? Is not that another example of what the people of this country have come to expect from the Government, who know the price of everything but the value of nothing?

    The Prime Minister: One of the values of this Government’s health reforms is that well over 1 million extra patients are being treated every year. One of the other values of this Government is capital expenditure worth more than £1 million every single week since 1979. One of the other advantages of this Government is more and better treatment in every aspect of the health service. One of the other values is the greatest improvement in primary health care since the health service was established in 1948. It is about time that the hon. Lady took her head out of the sand and saw what is really happening to improve the health service.

     

    Q6. Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in negotiating our Maastricht opt-outs he proved that he is closer to the feelings of his people than any other leader in Europe? Is not the true test of leadership in Europe to trust the people to think and act for themselves? Is that not how he led us to victory in 1992 and how he will lead us to victory again at the next election?

    The Prime Minister: I did then as I do now, and as I will do in the future, and that is to take the decisions that I believe are in our country’s national interest and defend those decisions both abroad and here at home. It was for that reason that I set out and obtained the opt-outs. It was for that reason that I retained them. I believe that that is the right way for us to proceed.

    Dr. Hendron: The Prime Minister is probably aware that once again my constituency of Belfast, West was in flames yesterday evening. I am sure that he is aware that Mrs. Briege Gadd, the head of the life sentence review board, has resigned. In that regard, and in regard especially to the release of Lee Clegg yesterday, does the Prime Minister accept that the Northern Ireland Office has sacrificed the stability of the peace process for short-term political gains? Furthermore– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Member must be heard.

    Dr. Hendron: Furthermore, my constituents justifiably believe that there is one law for soldiers and another law for Irish prisoners.

    The Prime Minister: I must say to the hon. Gentleman, who has played a significant part in stilling the difficulties of Northern Ireland over recent years, that I believe that he is wrong to make that judgement. I hope that he will reflect again on what he said. The decision to release Private Clegg was a judicial matter, which was decided by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on its merits–that is both the decision itself and the timing. The decision was made by my right hon. and learned Friend and subsequently I was informed of it. It was a judicial matter and it must remain a judicial matter.

    As for the difficulties faced by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents yesterday, I think that he will know, as I know, and as the RUC is equally clear, that there was a high degree of orchestration in yesterday’s violent events in Northern Ireland. Prominent members of Sinn Fein were present at a number of those events. They are far from the only violent demonstrations organised by Sinn Fein in recent months. I think that everyone in Northern Ireland is aware of that fact.

    If I may say one other thing about Private Clegg in the light of what has been said, I say to the House and the country as a whole that it is patently absurd to equate Private Clegg’s case with deliberate acts of murder by paramilitaries– [Interruption.] The Lord Chief Justice, at Private Clegg’s appeal, stressed that when he, Private Clegg, commenced the patrol

    “he had no intention of unlawfully killing or wounding anyone.”

    One other further point may be of some comfort to many people in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I apologise for the length of my answer, but I think that this is a matter of importance for the peace of the streets in Northern Ireland. Of other cases recently considered by the life sentence review body alongside that of Private Clegg, five other prisoners were recommended for release on life licence. Four of those involved terrorist offences and they concerned both loyalists and republicans. All those cases, including Private Clegg’s, were reviewed on their merits. Private Clegg’s case was only one of a number that were considered.

    Mr. Matthew Banks: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the healthy scepticism that exists, especially on the Government Benches, about a single European currency. He is also aware that many of us would like to see a referendum on the matter, if it is appropriate, in future. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that to say no, never now to a single European currency would weaken Britain’s negotiating position with our EU partners for very many years to come?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I had observed over the past couple of years that there is the occasional case of scepticism about European policy–that has been evident. But I believe, as my hon. Friend said, that in the event that a British Cabinet decided to enter the single currency, it would be wise at that stage to consider whether or not to have a referendum. But to determine that matter at this stage would be premature.

     

    Q7. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Hughes: When the Prime Minister was previously elected, he set as one of his objectives the creation of a nation at ease with itself. If he is re-elected this afternoon, in a society and a country where the gap between the rich and the poor has become wider, not narrower, how will he show some commitment to that cause, so that under his premiership Britain is a country of social justice and greater equality, rather than one of greater social injustice and inequality?

    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the premise upon which the hon. Gentleman frames his question. The greatest destroyer of ease of mind in Britain is inflation. Inflation is now at a lower level and under more secure lock and key than at any time for the past quarter of a century. That is not just a matter of concern to people with savings; it is a matter of concern, above all, to the people about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned–the people who, at the end of the week, wonder whether they can pay their bills and are grateful that the prices have not gone up. To protect them, we must keep inflation down. I have, I am proud of that and I intend to keep it down.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Paris – 9 June 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Paris on Friday 9th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just, before I take a few questions, say a word or two about this evening’s meeting. It was a very businesslike meeting indeed, we covered a very great deal of ground and I am looking forward very much to the bilateral with President Chirac tomorrow morning. We have a lot to discuss tomorrow but we traipsed a little over some of the ground we will look at in our discussions with colleagues this evening.

    Three principal areas that we discussed this evening: the forthcoming European conference at Cannes and a range of issues that are on the agenda; the European Union/American summit where President Chirac will represent the European Union in a few days time; and the G7 summit at Halifax.

    We spent a long time in the midst of those discussions also looking at the present and future policy on Bosnia, what had happened, the chance of a diplomatic settlement, the role of the International Rapid Reaction Corps and the British Rapid Reaction Corps when it arrives there in due course.

    If I can run through those different items. Insofar as the European/American summit was concerned, there were a range of matters discussed, the possibility of improving trade relations, the European attitude on a number of matters where we have a mutual interest with the Americans, Bosnia of course being the most obvious example. Not a great deal there I think to talk to you about.

    As far as the G7 summit was concerned, we had quite a significant discussion about the prospect of reform of United Nations institutions, clearly something that President Chirac feels strongly about, as indeed do the United Kingdom. A number of other colleagues expressed fairly strong views about that as well and that is clearly going to be an important subject when we get to Halifax.

    Also some discussion about unemployment generally both in relation to Halifax and in relation to the Cannes Summit. Most of our time was spent on various elements of what will be discussed at Cannes. The Commission will table their Green Paper on Economic and Monetary Union. No decisions were taken about that this evening and no decisions are expected to be taken at Cannes. What will happen, I think is a fairly thorough discussion of the Green Paper to set, if I can use the European phrase, an orientation for the Study Group that will continue its work, well we frankly don’t know how long, perhaps up to Christmas, perhaps in time to report at Madrid, perhaps not.

    We discussed the progress we were making towards being able to establish Europol and a range of other issues that are likely to come up in Cannes.

    A number of people stressed in the discussions that we will have at Cannes that whilst of course they were looking at the Green Paper on Economic and Monetary Union, it was important to make sure that the European Union became a good deal more relevant to people right across Europe. In that respect I think it was perhaps the most down to earth and practical discussion of this sort that I have heard amongst European Heads of Government for quite a long time. There was considerable interest about what might be done practically to assure people across Europe that the European Heads of Government were concerned about the levels of unemployment.

    There was quite a discussion about the relative lack of speed with which the Trans-European networks had proceeded and some irritation that not more had happened. I am sure at Cannes a firm impetus to those will almost certainly be given.

    That is a fairly sketchy outline of what was a fairly vivacious two and a half hours and one I very much enjoyed.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, did you commit your government tonight to link all the EMU convergence targets that have been agreed, and whether you think at Cannes there will be discussion about the name of the single currency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the latter point, I am not expecting discussion on the name of the single currency. Most certainly if anyone is planning to raise it at Cannes there was absolutely no mention of it this evening, either directly or implicitly with somebody hinting that might be on the agenda. It certainly was not discussed at all this evening. As far as the convergence criteria was concerned, there was a lot of discussion about the convergence criteria, I think almost everybody mentioned their importance, and indeed it was the British who were instrumental in having the convergence criteria written into the Maastricht Treaty. Nobody this evening re-committed themselves to the Maastricht criteria, we have all committed ourselves to them in the past. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we committed ourselves to them because we think they are sensible economic criteria in any event, quite separate from their necessity if anyone proposes to move forward to Stage III of EMU. But there was no commitment by anyone especially tonight but there was a great deal of discussion about how important they are.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia, have there been sufficient offers of extra troops from other countries to the Rapid Reaction Force, and those offers that there have been, do they mean that Europe as well as Britain is prepared to get in deeper in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There was a great deal of support this evening. This evening was not the occasion for people to offer extra commitment, though the Dutch certainly have and I expect that others will do so. But nobody was in the business of doing that this evening, it was not that sort of discussion. What I should have mentioned to you earlier, and neglected to do so, was that we did agree this evening that Carl Bildt should be appointed as the single negotiator for the European Union. Whether he will represent the whole of the Contact Group is a matter still to be decided, that has not been determined among the Contact Group. It may be that that will be what happens, it would be a perfectly acceptable outcome from my point of view were that to be the case, but that is not agreed yet. But we did agree unanimously, and with some enthusiasm, that Carl Bildt would become the single European Union negotiator in future.

    QUESTION:

    Do you share the same point of view of President Chirac concerning Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have worked very closely over the past few weeks on the question of Bosnia. Britain and France have very large troop contingents either there or going to be there and we have had right from the start. The proposition that Carl Bildt should replace David Owen was very much an Anglo-French proposition. So I think it fair to say that the relationship between France and the United Kingdom on this issue could scarcely have been closer. We will both be offering logistical help to Carl Bildt, both in terms of military advice and other logistical back-up, France will be doing that and so will Britain, and we will continue to work very closely together.

    QUESTION:

    Does that mean that Mr Stoltenberg steps aside?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is not entirely clear yet.

    QUESTION:

    When will you be considering using strength in order to free the hostages in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think anyone is imagining the Rapid Reaction Force are to be used in that fashion. They are there to protect troops and they are there in case they are needed. I think sometimes there is some dispute about how robust they are going to be. Perhaps I should say to you now that the rules of engagement that the troops have been operating on ever since they went there have been pretty robust. If the British troops are attacked the British troops will respond and they will respond vigorously. But they are not there as an aggressive force, they are there to protect people and they are there to protect their own troops. They are not there to make war, they are not there to wage war, they are not there to be aggressive, but when attacked they will certainly robustly respond and that will not be new on the British side, that has been the position right from the outset. I think we have probably had more robust rules of engagement than anybody else from the moment our troops have been there.

    QUESTION:

    The Irish Prime Minister has made representations to you about the possible freeing of Private Lee Clegg, what has been your response to what he said?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not had the opportunity to discuss that. I hope to have the opportunity of seeing the Irish Prime Minister very shortly and I hope certainly, if we have not met before, that we will have the chance of a bilateral at Cannes, but we have not had the chance to discuss that. In any event, there is a proper procedure that is now under consideration as far as Private Clegg is concerned and that procedure must go through its normal procedures, there is nothing more that can be done other than that. It is in course of examination at the moment. In due course a recommendation will go to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and he will then make a decision but that is not something that anyone else can interfere with, it is for him.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Bruton says that he would like the remission procedures to be reviewed with a view to accelerating releases?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it is helpful to anyone to make those sorts of points at the moment, it is not helpful for me to go into those points at the moment and I am not proposing to. I have not had a chance of discussing these matters with John Bruton tonight, when we have discussed them no doubt we will come and talk to you all about them, as we usually do, but not tonight.

    QUESTION:

    Jacques Santer has proposed setting up a working group as a sort of fledgling State Department for the whole of Europe, what is your position on moves towards a common Foreign Office for Europe at this stage?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are certainly not in favour of subsuming the independent pillars in to the central pillar of the European Union, that has certainly been the case, the two inter-governmental pillars we propose should remain intergovernmental, we don’t foresee them being subsumed under central Commission control. That was and is our position and that is most unlikely to change. In terms of making a common foreign policy more effective, well we are very much in favour of making common foreign policy more effective but it has to be on an intergovernmental basis and on no other basis.

  • PMQT – 26 January 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Spellar: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

    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. Spellar: Does the Prime Minister think that Cedric Brown of British Gas is worth his huge pay increase–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: I think that is a matter for the shareholders.

    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since his answer in this House on Tuesday, public bewilderment and, indeed, outrage over the fate of Private Clegg has increased? Will he give the House an assurance that he and his Ministers will do all in their power to bring this injustice to a speedy end?

    The Prime Minister: I set out the position in the House on Tuesday and how that should be developed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have to consider any new evidence put to him and decide first whether that is sufficient to warrant a further reference to the Court of Appeal. In the meantime, the proper procedures–which I outlined at length on Tuesday and, with my hon. Friend’s permission, will not repeat –have now begun.

    Mr. Blair: What does it tell us about the Prime Minister’s Government when his Secretary of State for Social Security says that Ministers should be paid more– [Hon. Members:– “Hear, hear.”] Conservative Members may agree with that, but precious few people in the country do. [Interruption.] There they are–the Tory yobboes. What does it tell us when the Secretary of State for Social Security says that Ministers should be paid more–

    Mr. David Shaw: Your pay has doubled. What about barristers and wives’ earnings?

    Madam Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) to order on many occasions before. I shall not be so lenient in future.

    Mr. Blair: What does it tell us, when the Prime Minister’s Secretary of State for Social Security says that Ministers should be paid more and that Back-Bench Members of Parliament should have more directorships and consultancies, while at the self-same time the same Social Security Minister is introducing a law that will savage mortgage protection for the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is taking a very puritanical view, in view of the number of special interests that so many of his right hon. and hon. Friends have, including a number of his hon. Friends on the Front Bench. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there is a proper procedure for setting ministerial salaries and the salaries of Members of this House. It is based on a widely accepted formula, it has been approved by this House and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is entirely happy with that formula.

    Mr. Blair: Is it sensible to cut mortgage protection when home owners are already facing rising interest rates and cuts in mortgage tax relief? Do the Prime Minister and his party not understand that we shall never build a strong and prosperous Britain by deliberately passing laws designed to make our people weak and insecure?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously forgotten the policy commitments of his own party. For example, in view of what he has just said, he may have forgotten that on MIRAS–mortgage interest relief at source–one of the Labour party’s own policy groups threatened to abolish the allowance entirely. The right hon. Gentleman clearly belongs to that species of politician which believes that the facts are for bending whenever convenient. With regard to mortgages, the right hon. Gentleman should be aware that the drop in mortgages from their peak, as a result of our economic policies– [Interruption.] The drop in costs from their peak since interest rates have been falling is £140 a week. If the policies on borrowing and spending that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind were carried out, mortgages would go straight back up by £140 a week.

    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fairer and more reasonable approach that we shall now receive from the Child Support Act 1991, the purpose of which was never in doubt, but the application of which caused very considerable concerns?

    The Prime Minister: There has never been any doubt about the principle that parents should support their own children, provided that they are able to do so. That principle is accepted widely in this House and beyond. The changes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has now put in place will enable the agency to work in the manner that we would all wish to see.

     

    Q2. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

    Mr. MacShane: The Prime Minister is well known as a fan of the Commonwealth and a supporter of India. He will therefore know Gandhi’s dictum that there is enough in the world for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed. I have that written here; if I give it to the Prime Minister framed, will he put it on the wall in the boardroom of No. 10 Downing Street?

    The Prime Minister: I think that everyone who heard that intervention, and the millions who may have watched it on television, will form their own judgement of its value.

     

    Q3. Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

    Mr. Luff: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Worcester Royal Infirmary trust on the significant improvement in the health care that it is delivering in my constituency? That is a tribute to the health care reforms, to the resources that the Government are making available and to the dedication and professionalism of all the trust’s staff. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to continue those improvements is by the early construction of a new district general hospital, using the private finance initiative?

    The Prime Minister: I am very pleased to hear from my hon. Friend about the excellent health services provided in Worcester. That is mirrored in many places across the country. Private finance certainly offers a cost- effective way of funding new hospitals and new developments. It is entirely right to explore that.

    Mr. Radice: As there is not to be a statement to the House today, will the Prime Minister confirm that the White Paper on the civil service proposes a civil service code and an independent appeals system and that it keeps open the Government’s mind about whether those should be backed by statute? Does he agree that the Government’s adoption of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee’s constitutional agenda is a vindication of the Select Committee system?

    The Prime Minister: I think that there is very wide support for the Select Committee system across the House and beyond it. The White Paper will command the very broad respect and support of hon. Members across the House on the points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and on several others.

     

    Q4. Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are about to place orders for support helicopters for the Royal Air Force? As the two contenders–the Boeing Chinook and the Westland EH101–meet the specifications required by the Ministry of Defence, does he agree that a mixed fleet solution would best provide for the needs of our armed forces and also be best for British industry as it would improve the already good prospects for the sale of the Westland EH101 helicopter in overseas markets both in its civil version and in the many military versions that will become available?

    The Prime Minister: Negotiations with the companies concerned in relation to support helicopters are still continuing. I hope that we will be able to make a decision as soon as possible, but all the information upon which to base that decision is not yet available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear in the past the potential advantages of a mixed fleet to meet the Army’s requirements for support helicopters. Of course, that will be borne carefully in mind when we are in a position to make a final decision.

     

    Q5. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as it is now over six months since The Sunday Times exposed the illegal activities of the so-called noble Lord Archer, Conservative peer–insider-dealing activities in Anglia shares–and in so far as it is quite clear that it is utterly impossible successfully to prosecute what we all know to be criminal activity, is there now going to be a review of the law in this area? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the last part of his question. He must not use that language and thus associate this House and all of us with what he has just said. I must ask him to withdraw it or rephrase it, please. [Interruption.] Order. Leave it to me. Will the hon. Gentleman please rephrase what he has just said?

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: As against what?

    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has associated all of us in this House. I heard it very clearly myself. I ask the hon. Gentleman to rephrase. I heard the words very clearly. [Interruption.] Order. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a moment to reflect. I am sure that he will do as I ask.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I always defer to you, Madam Speaker, as you would know. I refer to what many believe to be criminal activity, but in my view it is unacceptable activity.

    Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make those criticisms, I must now ask him to withdraw his remarks and to put them in an orderly substantive motion. I am asking him to rephrase what he has just said; otherwise I must ask him to leave this House for the remainder of this day’s sitting.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I believe that it is criminal activity, and I will leave. I will leave the Chamber voluntarily.

    Madam Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to widen the remit of the Nolan committee to examine sleaze in the media? Does he not find it unacceptable that three television executives, Mr. Greg Dyke, Mr. Barry Cox and Mr. Melvyn Bragg, should pretend to be objective in setting the agenda while they bankrolled the leadership campaign for the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? As First Lord of the Treasury– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down. I have just brought one hon. Gentleman to order and dealt with him. I intend to do the same in future with any Member who behaves in that way. There are perfectly respectable ways of putting questions in this House. I will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to do that; otherwise he must now sit down.

    Mr. Butcher: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker, but there may be a distinction between what I am asserting and what the gentleman– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will determine whether there is a distinction. The hon. Gentleman can put a substantive motion on the Order Paper if he is going to assert that. Will the hon. Gentleman re-think his question, or shall I call someone else?

    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the standards now being asserted as required of Members of this House on the sleaze question should also be applied to those in the media who may seek to influence events by means which should not be in their repertoire?

    The Prime Minister: I think, Madam Speaker, that there would be a general wish for high standards in every aspect of public life, whether those concerned are elected or not.

     

    Q6. Mr. Olner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

    Mr. Olner: Is the Prime Minister aware of the strong public feelings in regard to the animal welfare movement, especially in connection with the live transportation of animals for slaughter? Will he talk to his colleagues about giving parliamentary time to my private Member’s Bill, which seeks to make the practice unlawful? Does he agree that it is far better for our excellent British livestock to be exported on the hook than to endure the treacherous and hazardous journeys on the hoof to which they are currently subjected?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I made precisely the same point about the preference for export on the hook rather than on the hoof three or four Question Times ago. Beyond that, as he will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is making considerable progress, especially on veal crates in Europe. I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend clearly has the hon. Gentleman’s support.

     

    Q7. Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important thing in local government is high standards of competence? Does he also agree that the gaff has been blown on the Labour party’s activities in local government by the McKinstry memorandum?

    The Prime Minister: That was certainly an enlightening document to read, and I hope that it will have wide circulation. When the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) asked a question some time ago he said that if we wanted to know how Labour would look in government we should look at how it runs local councils.

     

    Q8. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

    Mr. Mullin: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the conversion of many of his Conservative colleagues to an interest in miscarriages of justice? Will he also join me in hoping that that interest will extend to people who are not members of the Parachute Regiment, such as the three innocent people in the 18th year of their sentences for the Carl Bridgewater murder?

    The Prime Minister: I do not propose to comment on the particular case; I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that it has been examined from time to time. On a more general point, I assure him that my hon. Friends are as concerned as he is to ensure that justice is faithfully and truthfully carried out.

  • 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.