The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Minimum Wage

  • PMQT – 7 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th November 1996. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    This morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. My right hon. Friend has now departed for Bordeaux to attend the Anglo-French summit.

    Mr. Garnier: May I commiserate with my right hon. Friend on the damage recently caused to his property by a gang of criminal thugs, which included two Labour councillors? Will he take this opportunity to contrast the Government’s record on law and order with the pathetic performance of the smarmy army on the Opposition Benches? That smarmy army has not even criticised, let alone disciplined, those two Labour councillors.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I must say that, when I looked out of my window, it seemed like old times–the winter of discontent, with the Labour party on the streets; the mobs of the 1980s, with the Labour party on the streets; and then, in the 1990s, Labour councillors on people’s private property, causing damage and disruption: and the characteristic of all three? Not a word of protest from the parliamentary Labour party. Labour Members talk about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but they do not even have the energy to walk through the Lobbies when we are fighting crime.

    Mr. Prescott: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why, 50 years ago this week, the Tories voted against the creation of the national health service?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, after 50 years, the health service has been administered and supported by Tory Governments for longer than by Labour Governments. Because of that, we have made it one of the best health services in the world.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand that the people simply do not believe the Tories on health? Does he not remember that, before the last election, the Prime Minister promised to cut taxes year on year? They went up year on year. Now the same Prime Minister is promising to increase health spending year on year. Is that not like the tax promise? Should not all Tory pre-election promises carry a Government health warning?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, under this Government, health expenditure has gone up every year. If he really cares about the health service, why will he not, on behalf of his party, now give a commitment to match our pledge to increase, year on year, real-terms expenditure on the health service?

    Mr. Prescott: The Deputy Prime Minister fails to understand that our national health service, set up by a Labour Government 50 years ago, was the greatest peacetime achievement of any Government this century. Is not the simple truth this: the British people know that the only way to safeguard our health service for the next 50 years is to elect a Labour Government, and the sooner the better?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The British people know that the Labour party will not give the pledge that the Conservatives have already given. After all, we hear all about windfall taxes. If they are so profitable and so available, why cannot windfall taxes finance the health service? The reason is, of course, that there is not an easy killing of a windfall tax any more than there is a genuine commitment from Labour to the health service.

    Mr. Pickles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a seminar in my constituency, the chief economist for the National Westminster bank predicted that small businesses would be particularly vulnerable to a minimum wage? He warned that a minimum wage would cost thousands of jobs in Essex. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will never introduce a minimum wage?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Any fool knows that a minimum wage costs jobs. After all, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the shadow leader of the Labour party, has already said so.

    Mr. Prescott: Don’t get too excited.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am always excited by the right hon. Gentleman. The whole House is excited by him. He is an exciting person. Never has someone been so wrong, so often, on so many subjects.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago, before my observations about the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.

    Mr. Gunnell: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in welcoming the support given by players of Leeds United, of Leeds rugby league club and of Yorkshire county cricket club to the urgent appeal for funds by Leeds general infirmary for essential equipment, which, it says, it cannot afford because of the national health service funding level? Is it not an absolute scandal that, after 17 years of this Government, that hospital, having closed 40 beds only last month, is forced to beg to survive?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I would overwhelmingly support anyone who sought to raise funds for charitable purposes for the health service. One of the most exciting additional supports to health funding in Britain has come from the idea of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensure that part of lottery proceeds go to charities in Britain. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members are prepared to sneer at charitable giving in Britain. I realise that they would rather tax people into a position where charity was compulsory, as opposed to relying on people’s natural instinct to give, but I cannot believe that the purpose of such a generous decision by the various players to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred is designed to turn the health service into a party political matter.

     

    Q3. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend have a chance to speak to the Prime Minister while he is in France preparing for the summit and get him to bring back a few souvenirs for Opposition Members? I have in mind in particular some recent issues of Le Figaro newspaper, which extolled the virtues of what had happened to French companies that had come to the United Kingdom to invest in British firms, highlighting particularly the low cost base here and the stable, growing economy.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw to the attention of the House the remarkable article in Le Figaro. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew my attention to it earlier today. The House will be pleased to know that copies of the article are on their way to this country. For the benefit of many Labour Members, translations will be freely available.

     

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

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bayley: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House of the new rules that were introduced to curb the abuse by former Conservative Ministers such as Peter Walker and Norman Tebbit, who left the Government and moved to the boardrooms of companies that they privatised while in office? Does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Minister who privatised London’s buses–the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)–has moved from his boudoir at the Department of Transport to the profitable and sweet embrace of Capital City Bus?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will want to take that question extremely seriously because a most serious allegation has been made against my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). My hon. Friend has not accepted any job with Capital City Bus or any other company. He has consulted the advisory committee on business appointments and, of course, he will follow any advice that that committee gives.

    I want to stand back from the regrettable nature of the question asked by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) and say that the only reason why no Labour ex-Ministers are in a similar position is that there have been no Labour ex-Ministers in recent memory. However, when there were Labour ex-Ministers, what was Lord Marsh doing–[Hon. Members: “He was a Tory.”] When he was at the Dispatch Box, he was a Labour Minister. He only became a Tory when he realised that we were right and he was wrong. What have Labour Members to say about Edmund Dell, who became head of Guinness? What do they have to say about Lord Varley, the former Energy Secretary? What about Lord Barnett, who is on the boards of a raft of different companies? It is one rule for them and one rule for everybody else–hypocrisy from start to finish.

     

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

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jessel: As next year will be the 50th anniversary of the independence of India, and as relations between India and Britain have never been better, do the Government intend to supplement the Queen’s visit to India, the visit of our Prime Minister to India as guest of honour on Republic Day and my right hon. Friend’s visit to India to launch the Indo-British partnership initiative, with events in this country to mark the jubilee? Will he bear in mind that a large proportion of Indian people who are resident in Britain are natural supporters of the enterprise economy?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has left out of his list the distinguished role that he has played for 25 years as an officer and chairman of the all-party Indo-British group. He will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited my noble Friend Lord Cranborne to chair the group to determine how we can progress with such an important anniversary.

    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have rejected the recommendation of the Employment Committee that, in the unemployment statistics, the Government should include details of the 12 categories excluded from those figures? In those circumstances, does he recognise that the true number of unemployed is not just over 2 million, but nearer 4 million, and that the Government’s present figures are a complete sham and a fiddle?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I seem to remember the hon. and learned Gentleman producing reports saying that 100,000 jobs would go in the aftermath of the closure of the mines. Unemployment has fallen every month since.

     

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

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Lidington: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent reports that about 40 per cent. of those leaving the jobless register are now setting up as self-employed to provide work not only for themselves but for other people? Does he agree that that augurs well for the present and future competitiveness of the country, enabling us to look forward to levels of unemployment continuing to fall in my constituency and throughout the nation?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is, of course, right. We have the highest proportion of our population at work of any major European country. The forecasts are that our position will continue to improve. I am delighted to recognise the announcement this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment of a significant extension of project work to concentrate particularly on those who have been unemployed for more than two years.

     

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

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Michael: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen advertisements for articles such as the Vindicator knife and the Rambo short sword? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to make it illegal to advertise or offer for sale such weapons in a manner that appears to condone or encourage violence?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: As the whole House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is in discussions with Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, but those discussions have not led to a simplistic definition that would have enabled the law to be changed. In other words, my right hon. and learned Friend was correct to say that this is a complex matter to which a satisfactory legal outcome has not so far been found. The whole House will be glad of my right hon. and learned Friend’s announcement yesterday about strengthening police powers of stop and search, particularly of those people who are likely to be carrying knives.

  • PMQT – 4 July 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 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 be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, in the next two or three days, Members of Parliament and Ministers will be voting to set a new and increased national minimum wage for Members of Parliament and Ministers? If it is good enough for them, why can we not have a national minimum wage for everyone else? If those increases go beyond the pay barrier, will the Government give a guarantee that workers, including nurses and others, and pensioners will all receive the same?

    The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman carried every Opposition Member with him with that particular remark.

    The point about a minimum wage, of course, is the impact that it would have on the capacity to employ people. That is the point that we have repeatedly made. That is one of the reasons why unemployment is falling in this country, whereas it is rising in other countries. We intend to continue to see a downward trend in unemployment, which is why we do not favour the policies that the hon. Gentleman advocates.

    As for the report that will be published this afternoon, let me say first to the hon. Gentleman that it is worth remembering precisely why the review was set up. It was for two reasons essentially: first, it was necessary to devise a new formula for determining Members’ pay as the old one had broken down and, secondly, 300 Members of the House, of whom 200 were Labour Members, had called for such a review–not the hon. Gentleman, I concede that–in a motion before the House.

    Following the consultation that I have had with leaders of other political parties, it is clear that they do not wish to express a view and that they believe that it is a matter for the House as a whole to decide. The Cabinet decided this morning to offer the House an opportunity to vote for the recommendations as they stood, but the Government will be recommending and also voting for restraint.

    Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence exports earn this country billions of pounds every year and guarantee thousands of jobs in Lancashire and elsewhere? Is it not, therefore, an absolute disgrace that Labour Members now oppose the sale of British defence equipment to Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and, some of them, even to the world’s largest democracy, India? Does not that show that workers in the defence industry face a real danger from the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: Defence is a very important industry in this country and one that plays a very important part in our economy, both in export earnings and, of course, in job provision in many parts of the country–the north-west, the west country and many parts of the home counties as well–so it is extremely important. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the policies of the Labour party. It is also right for the House to note that the further defence review promised by the Labour party promises to cut sufficient from the funds to ensure that there would be no money at all for the Royal Navy.

    Mr. Blair: Are this morning’s newspaper reports correct that the selective slaughter scheme for beef is now to amount to 120,000 cows, which is a higher figure than previously thought, and that an additional £100 million, £200 million or possibly more will have to be paid in compensation on top of the £2 billion that the Prime Minister has already mentioned? Are those reports correct?

    The Prime Minister: It is not possible to be entirely clear precisely how many animals will be slaughtered. What is clear is what was set out in the 30-months-plus scheme, with which I think the right hon. Gentleman is familiar. Beyond that, we are asked from time to time to make estimates of precisely what the figures are, and an estimate of about 120,000 is the best that we can make–that figure has been around for some considerable time. The cost is the cost that we have set out on previous occasions.

    Mr. Blair: I think it is clear that the number is to be greater than originally anticipated. When the Prime Minister made his statement to the House earlier, he suggested that the reports of additional slaughter schemes were incorrect. Will he confirm whether, as a result of the Florence summit and the statement from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last night, the 1989 to 1990 cohort is to be included in the selective slaughter scheme, which will increase the number of cows involved? Last night, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food apparently said that it would take six to nine months for the scheme to be implemented. Does the Prime Minister still hold to November of this year as the date by which the ban will be completely lifted?

    The Prime Minister: Yes; on the information we have, we still hold to the dates that we set out, but, as I said at the time, those dates depend on our meeting the requirements, which I previously set before the House and which we believe we can meet in the time scale that I set out. Long before I went to Florence, there was a lot of discussion about the 1989 to 1990 cohort involving both my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture and me. There is a distinction between the compulsory slaughter and the voluntary scheme that exists for the 1989 to 1990 cohort–it has to be voluntary, because there is no means of determining precisely which animals would qualify for it.

    Mr. Blair: With due respect to the Prime Minister, the Agriculture Minister had said that the 1989 to 1990 cohort was not to be included and it is now clear that it is. The Agriculture Minister now says that the lifting of the ban may or may not take place at the end of the year. As more details emerge, is it not clear that the costs will be greater, the number of cattle slaughtered will be higher and the time scale will be longer–those prices are all to be paid by the British people?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have lost sight of the two fundamental reasons why the policy is necessary. The first is to ensure public health–a point that has not crossed his lips at any stage of the questions that he has bothered to ask me on the subject. The second reason is to ensure that the British beef industry will be able to recover and recapture the markets around the world for prime British beef. That is the point at stake: the livelihoods of 650,000 people. It would be helpful if, for once, instead of the pedantry that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, he acknowledged, first, the need to deal with the matter in the interests of the beef industry and, secondly, the need to deal with it in the interests of public health.

    Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will never introduce a policy which, as the price of a sell-out to Scottish nationalism, would bring in the compulsory dismemberment of England into regions? That latter policy would be purely to justify the continued presence of Scottish Members of Parliament in the House. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that such a policy would set in trend a series of developments that would be bad for the cohesion of England, bad for Scotland and bad for a Union that has served our people so well?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend speaks for millions of people in every part of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The dangers that arise from the Opposition’s policies are self-evident and many people are beginning to see them. [Interruption.] Why are the significant questions not answered? If Scotland has its own Parliament, why should there be continued over-representation of Scottish Members in the House? What about the position of hon. Members who represent Scotland? If they determine some issues in a Scottish Parliament, by what logic or equity should they vote for those matters as far as they affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland? If the Labour party has no interest in introducing new taxes, as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) says, why is he having a referendum to try to approve them in Scotland?

     

    Q2. Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Does the Prime Minister fully realise how much the Labour party in Scotland looks forward to his visit? Will he today, or at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Dumfries tomorrow, answer my question, which his deputy dodged last Thursday? Why is it all right to offer Northern Ireland devolution, with a Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Cabinet and no reduction in the number of Members of Parliament at Westminster, while denying the same to the people of Scotland? How does he justify treating the two countries so differently?

    The Prime Minister: How does the hon. Gentleman justify tax raising in Scotland and not in Wales? That is the distinction to which the hon. Gentleman must bend his mind. If he cares to read the speech that I made a week ago–I shall send him a copy–he will see in detail a series of reasons why there is a clear distinction between Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The hon. Gentleman had better bend his mind to his own policy: why a tax-raising power in Scotland but a non-tax-raising assembly in Wales? What has he got against the Scots, and why not not he trust the Welsh?

     

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

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

    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm his commitment to the assisted places scheme and to doubling it? Does he agree that, if the scheme were abolished, those children would still have to be educated in the state system, thus producing a small net saving? Does not that simple piece of arithmetic demolish the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer’s policy to abolish the scheme and spend the money in the primary sector?

    The Prime Minister: I fear that some of the figures issued by the shadow Chancellor this morning are shown to be wholly wrong, even on cursory examination. It was already clear before today that the windfall tax is unravelling before the Opposition’s eyes, and it certainly could not pay for the new pledges that they make. Sadly, the shadow Chancellor seems to have got his sums wrong. He has inflated the amount that he hopes to raise by forgetting to include the cost of sending the children who were in assisted places schemes back to the state sector. It can be seen simply from a cursory glance at the Opposition’s new plans that the sums do not add up. The new Labour party’s policies mean new taxes: taxes in Scotland; taxes on people with children aged between 16 and 18 who would lose child benefit; taxes for living in London; and taxes on jobs, with the social chapter and a minimum wage. That is what is offered by the Labour party. No wonder we talk of new dangers.

    Mr. Hoon: The Prime Minister has rightly condemned those who oppose the rule of law and those who fail to follow the courts’ decisions. Will he unequivocally condemn Governments who refuse to implement, or threaten to refuse to implement, the European Court of Justice’s decisions?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government implement the regulations. Where we think they are wrong–in some cases we do–we shall raise the matter at the intergovernmental conference to change the underlying European Community law. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so keen on ensuring that the law is obeyed. I hope that, in the interests of providing good, strong law enforcement, he will now apologise for the number of occasions on which he and his colleagues voted against law enforcement measures introduced by the Government.

     

    Q4. Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my Lincolnshire constituency, those who work in the seaside resorts and on the land are in the habit of working far more than 48 hours a week during the summer, although often less in the winter? If the Brussels Commission is to impose its directive limiting the number of working hours to 48 hours a week with effect from 23 November, will that not seriously reduce the standard of living of many of my constituents? If the European Court of Justice seeks to overturn that part of the social chapter from which we have opted out, will my right hon. Friend take steps to reassert it?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has neatly picked up the point to which I alluded in response to the previous question, which was asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). I share my hon. Friend’s concern on behalf of his constituents.

    The European Court has not yet given its final judgment on our challenge to the working time directive–although the Advocate General’s opinion was not encouraging. If we lose in that judgment, we shall seek treaty change at the intergovernmental conference to ensure that the social protocol is not undermined by presenting social measures in the guise of health and safety.

    I reached an agreement on ensuring that we were not covered by that at Maastricht, and I intend that that agreement shall be kept. Our colleagues in Europe need not expect that we will reach further agreements at the next intergovernmental conference unless, at that conference, they are prepared to restore the agreement that I reached at Maastricht. It specifically deals with the matter referred to by my hon. Friend.

    Mr. Salmond: The Prime Minister is coming to Dumfries tomorrow to speak at the Burns supper and to celebrate the bicentennial of Scotland’s national bard. Is he aware that the lines that he has twice quoted in the House from “The Dumfries Volunteers” were written when Burns was under investigation by the Government of one of his predecessors for sedition as a radical and a Scottish nationalist? Will the Prime Minister demonstrate his knowledge of all things Scottish–stretching from stones to poems–and remind the House of the first two lines of Burns’ most famous poem “Tam o’Shanter”?

    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of regaling the House with poetry. I enjoyed listening to “Tam o’Shanter” last time I attended a Burns supper–and, with a bit of luck, I will hear it again tomorrow night. Rabbie Burns had a varied political career during his lifetime. As the hon. Gentleman would know, Burns’ political career was varied as to where he gave his affections–and they were not affections that the hon. Gentleman would follow.

  • PMQT – 25 January 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th January 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 January.

    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. Sheerman: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who said today:

    “It is blindingly obvious that we must develop a framework”–

    Madam Speaker: Order. There should be no quoting during questions.

    Mr. Sheerman: The director general said that we must develop a framework for involving employees at every level–dare I say it, a stakeholder economy. If it is blindingly obvious to the director general of the CBI, why is it not blindingly obvious to the Prime Minister that the reason why his Government are so deeply unpopular is that they have failed to give the British people a proper stake in their own country?

    The Prime Minister: If I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, he should be cautious about quoting the CBI at me. The CBI opposes the social chapter, the minimum wage and most of the policies advocated by the Opposition. When we and the director general of the CBI talk about stakeholders, we do not mean what the hon. Gentleman means. We know who Labour’s stakeholders are. We know who owns 50 per cent. of the votes at the Labour party conference. We know who pays 50 per cent. of the money that the Labour party gets. We know what has been said by senior trade unionists. They have made it clear. While they continue to fund the party they will have a say. It is simple–no say, no pay. They are Labour’s stakeholders.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing campaign of violence by the IRA and Sinn Fein has betrayed the peace process? Will he urge them now to accept the Mitchell report’s recommendation and cease their heinous actions immediately? Furthermore, does he agree that if peace is to continue long term in Northern Ireland, the IRA and Sinn Fein have two clear options open to them? They can either begin immediately to decommission weapons or they can agree to take part in the democratic process, as outlined by my right hon. Friend yesterday.

    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, my hon. Friend is right in all she says. The point made by the Mitchell Commission about the decommissioning of weapons was that Sinn Fein-IRA would not decommission, not that they could not decommission. We still look forward to hearing from Sinn Fein-IRA whether they accept the other elements of the Mitchell report–whether they accept the six principles and the fact that they must condemn and stop for good punishment beatings and punishment killings. We still await a comprehensive response from them on those matters. I should like to start all-party talks as speedily as possible, but I cannot be clearer to the House than this–the impediment to all-party talks is and has been the unwillingness of Sinn Fein-IRA to begin the decommissioning of their arms. If they would begin the decommissioning of their arms, there would be no justification for any party not to attend and join in all-party talks leading to negotiations.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the test results for 11-year-olds in English and maths are appalling? May I put to him the following proposals for improvement? I propose an end to the delay in base-line assessment for five-year-olds, a reduction in class sizes for five-to-seven-year-olds, a register of national head teachers, the use of associate teachers in classrooms and a reinstatement of the reading recovery programme for primary school children which was so wrongly scrapped. Will the Prime Minister at least consider those proposals?

    The Prime Minister: Let me say first that we have looked very carefully at the test results. Those of 11-year-olds are disappointing; those of other age groups are better. The point that the right hon. Gentleman and the House need to bear in mind–I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has apparently changed his policy on this–is that, as he will recall, the Labour party opposed the introduction of the tests, and he personally voted against it. We introduced the tests precisely to throw up the shortcomings that we believed were probably in the education system. The test results are very useful: they tell us where the shortcomings are so that we may deal with them, and we shall consider a range of measures with which to deal with them.

    I do not intend to respond immediately to the ideas that the right hon. Gentleman has produced, but we established the tests so that we could identify shortcomings and then put them right. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman now acknowledges–better late than never–that we were right to introduce those tests.

    Mr. Blair: Was that not a complacent reply? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the problem does not relate merely to 11-year-olds? The GCSE results a few weeks ago also showed a decline. May I put it to the Prime Minister that, although the Secretary of State for Education and Employment may boast about the results for 14-year-olds today, those results still show an appalling level of failure in key curriculum subjects?

    May I remind Conservative Members that these are children who were born under a Conservative Government, sent to school under a Conservative Government and educated under a Conservative Government? The failure is not theirs, but the Conservative Government’s.

    The Prime Minister: If it is the Conservative Government who have failed, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could explain why some of his right hon. Friends remove their children from Labour education authorities and have them educated under Conservative education authorities. While we are on the subject of the 16 years, perhaps he would also register the fact that in 1979 fewer than a quarter of pupils obtained five GCSEs; today the figure is 43 per cent. In 1979, 14 per cent. obtained two A-levels; now the figure is twice as high. In 1979, one in eight young people went to university; now, one in three do so.

    The right hon. Gentleman referred to class sizes. I will tell him about class sizes. The Office of Standards in Education has itself recognised that the quality of teaching is the important issue. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but parents agree. I shall give him an illustration. For example, for children up to the age of 16, the average class size in secondary schools in Islington is lower than at the London Oratory. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: There it is. The Government do not want to answer questions about the test results, and now we see the reason why they want to focus attention on one 11-year-old child–[Interruption.] The reason why they want to focus attention on one 11-year-old child is to conceal the damage that they have done to millions of our children.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will really have to learn to keep cool under pressure. If he casts his mind back, he may remember the episode of Jennifer’s ear before the last election, and if he wants to talk about records and standards in education, he may remember that his deputy leader said that school performance tables are “political propaganda”. Test results are “virtually worthless”, said the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Tests encourage “a climate of failure” said the hon. Member for Dewsbury. They say that grant-maintained schools are wrong, but they are perfectly happy to use them. The fact of the matter is that Labour Members enjoy choice themselves, but they wish to deny it to other people.

    Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend aware, which I am sure he is, that today is the anniversary of the birth of Robert Burns who lived the latter part of his short and remarkable life in Dumfries? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I cannot hear the right hon. Gentleman, nor can the Prime Minister.

    Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, this year, Scotland and countries further afield will be commemorating the 200th anniversary of the great poet’s death? Will he send to Scotland, to the Burns Federation and to his drouthy cronies in the House a message of good will on his important bicentenary?

    The Prime Minister rose–[Interruption.] The deputy leader of the Opposition is heckling again. I must explain to the House that, despite occasional differences between us, the Leader of the Opposition and I have one thing in common: neither of us invites the deputy leader to meetings.

    As to the remarkable anniversary referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), he is wise to mention it. I am a great admirer of Rabbie Burns and I should like to explain why by quoting what he said. His view on the constitution, for example–to be wrecked by the Labour party, if it came to power–was clear:

    “As to Reform Principles, I look upon the British Constitution . . . to be the most glorious Constitution on earth, or that perhaps the wit of man can frame.”

    That was Rabbie Burns’s view. The Scottish National party might remember that and so might the Leader of the Opposition and his party.

     

    Q2. Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 January.

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

    Mr. Jamieson: During national empty homes week, in a fortnight’s time, what advice will the Prime Minister be giving to the Ministry of Defence about the 552 empty married quarters in his own Huntingdon constituency?

    The Prime Minister: At the moment, I should tell the hon. Gentleman two things. First, we shall be looking at the ways in which we can dispose of empty Ministry of Defence properties–we are determined to do that. Secondly, if the Labour-controlled authorities in London filled up their empty accommodation, they could wipe out homelessness in London at a stroke. In Southwark, Islington, Hackney and right across London, Labour-controlled authorities have an appalling record of keeping homes empty and then complaining about homelessness–as the hon. Gentleman has done. That is another illustration of Labour’s hypocrisy. They make claims about something–they have the power in their hands to put it right, but don’t.

    Mr. Sheerman: On the ropes again, John.

    The Prime Minister: I now have a definition of hope over optimism.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 January.

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

    Mr. Hendry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that GP fundholding has brought enormous benefits to doctors and patients alike, especially in my constituency, in which they cover some 90 per cent. of the population? Is not it typical of the say one thing, do another Labour party that, while many of them take advantage of GP fundholding for themselves and their families, at a moment’s notice, they would abolish it? Is not that typical of the hypocrisy of the modern Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: I think that there is now overwhelming evidence that fundholders are able to get a better deal for their patients from hospitals. It makes sense to build on what has been achieved and induce more and more GPs to join the system–[Interruption.] I am sorry to hear cries of objection from the Opposition Benches. Those are not my words but the words of the vice-president of the Fabian Society and former adviser to Barbara Castle.

  • PMQT – 24 October 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th October 1995. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the commemorations for the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in New York.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yet another fall in the unemployment figures, which are now below even those of Germany for the first time in recent years? Is this not a resounding vindication of the Government’s policies and is it not about time that the Labour party explained how a minimum wage would help young people to get jobs?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The latest unemployment figures are quite excellent. He raises an important point in directing the House towards the minimum wage. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, said:

    “Some Party Colleagues have advocated such a wage without having the courage of their convictions to state an amount that would make the commitment meaningful.”

    Will the deputy leader of the Labour party now break the habit of his party and answer the question? What is the figure that would give meaning to the policy?

    Mr. Prescott: This is an historic moment. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his first Prime Minister’s questions. It has been a long time, but he has finally made it.

    Given the Prime Minister’s belated but welcome concern with waste and mismanagement abroad, can we now expect him to show the same concern for waste and mismanagement at home? Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how much money was wasted on the poll tax? How much money was wasted on the new bureaucracy in the health service? While he is at it, can he tell us how much it cost to set up and run his own new empire?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box today in this position. Of course, I reciprocate in welcoming him to the position he holds. But I cannot help but notice that, while my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has trusted me to come alone, the right hon. Gentleman has had a minder appointed to look after him. The curious point about the minder is that he has not even had the courage to turn up to help with the minding process. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well– [Interruption.] Do I gather that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has crossed the Floor and is now sitting on this side of the House, or is he scouring away in the basement somewhere relaying what is going on in the House to the leader of the Labour party, who, of course, will never be able to get a first-hand account from the deputy leader because they do not talk? It really is ridiculous– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is very time-consuming. I want brief questions and brief answers now.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that we shall get a brief answer, Madam Speaker, because the hon. Member for Hartlepool has now turned up.

    Mr. Prescott: As the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us a proper answer, may I help him? According to the Government’s own figures, £14 billion was wasted on the poll tax and £1 billion on the new bureaucracy in the health service. Is not the real truth that the Government’s press and publicity machine costs the taxpayer £1 million every working day? Is that not the real cost to the country of the right hon. Gentleman’s new title? Is it not clear that something so expensive to sell must be a pretty shabby product?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, when a Government have as many good policies as we have, it is our duty to draw them to the attention of the people who will benefit from them. Our first obligation is to point out that, for every £1 spent on the health service in 1978-79, we spent £5 last year.

     

    Q2. Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

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

    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister–

    Mr. Skinner rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will resume his seat.

    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the BBC and Channel 4 on transmitting live the whole of last week’s debate on the Prison Service? Does he agree that that provided viewers with the opportunity to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary demolish the Opposition’s unworthy and unsuccessful attempt to smear his reputation?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. It was excellent that the House and a wider public had the chance to see the vacuum that lies behind Labour’s allegations. They also had the chance to hear the excellent speech by my right hon. and learned Friend. If the BBC continues to show the Opposition in that light, it will not be Alastair Campbell who rings up to complain but the League Against Cruel Sports.

     

    Q3. Ms Lynne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Lynne: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, because of financial constraints, Rochdale health authority proposes that elderly, critically ill patients should not be allowed into nursing homes funded by the national health service unless they will die within four weeks? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that that is ultimately the responsibility of the Government?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is the ultimate responsibility of the Government to provide the excellent health service that we do. I would not be prepared to discuss at the Dispatch Box the sort of case that the hon. Lady put to me without a chance to examine it in more detail. However, the health service is attracting increasing funds and the results are increasingly attractive to the public. Public assessment of the quality of the health service is rising consistently.

    Mr. Brooke: After the warm-up bout last week, will my right hon. Friend arrange, after the manner of the Ryder and Walker cups, a series of singles matches between members of the Cabinet and their opposite numbers, not least so that we can see whether the captain of the other side, in a manner unusual in international golf, continues to intervene to help his hon. Friends out of bunkers?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is a past master at coming to the heart of a matter. I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition will not want to reveal his shadow Cabinet too conspicuously because it is self-evident that the parliamentary Labour party has elected a shadow Cabinet diametrically opposite to the direction in which the Leader of the Opposition wants to go.

     

    Q4. Mr. Purchase: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Purchase: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that investment in manufacturing is lower than it was six years ago, despite a recent and welcome improvement? Does he accept that the lack of investment–widely acknowledged as a British problem–is directly responsible for the loss of 520 jobs in my constituency at the British Steel plant which is the only supplier of specialist seamless tubes in the United Kingdom? Will he undertake to intervene–preferably before breakfast–and ask for a rethink on the closure? Does he recognise that, if the plant closes, we shall have an even bigger balance of trade problem than we have at present?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would help his constituency if he got up earlier in the morning, as he would discover that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 30 per cent. in the past two and a half years.

    Sir Michael Marshall: On United Nations day, will my right hon. Friend reflect that the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference at the General Assembly in New York a month ago agreed unanimously that the problems of the UN are our problems and that, if we did not have the organisation, we would have to invent it?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made a valuable contribution to the subject, and particularly to the work of the IPU, and the House is indebted to him for that. Our support of the UN is second to none, but that is no justification for the organisation wasting money and not collecting its proper dues.

     

    Q5. Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Hodge: We seem to have some difficulty in eliciting direct answers from the Deputy Prime Minister. Following what my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition said, an article in The Independent yesterday asserted that the Deputy Prime Minister had spent £80,000 of public money on a desk diary. Did the Deputy Prime Minister receive permission from the Prime Minister to spend that money in such an extravagant manner?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will find that, if she relies on the national press for the basis of her research, she will be consistently wrong-footed. I spent no money on a desk. The hon. Lady would be better employed praising the Government, who have presided over a 22 per cent. reduction in unemployment in her constituency.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer my hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I want to hear the answers to the questions, whether the House does or not. [Interruption.] Order. Do be quiet.

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

    Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no less a luminary than the director of the Fabian Society has come out in support of grant- maintained schools, much to the relief of the Leader of the Opposition, whose party is opposing him on the matter? With almost cross-party support for the measure, can we count on the Government to proceed with all speed to make all our schools grant maintained, thus bringing a choice of school to every parent?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to this critical matter. The fact is that, in putting forward the proposal, the Fabian Society is once again looking to the Conservatives for the ideas which are taking us forward into the next century. For all the rhetoric of the left, what the Opposition are about is abolishing grant-maintained schools, abolishing grammar schools, abolishing city technology colleges and abolishing simple performance tables and simple tests–everything is for dogma and rhetoric, and nothing is for quality in education.

    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realise that all this knockabout opposite will be taken very badly by starving millions in the third world who are already fearful of the proposed cuts– [Interruption.] Conservative Members are laughing, as usual. Now we have the Prime Minister at the United Nations talking about abolishing UNESCO, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. That will go down extremely badly because everyone knows that, like the cuts in overseas aid, the proposals are to fund the pre-election tax cut bribes of the Tory Government.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman refer to knockabout Opposition when he first intervened? It cannot be explained in any other language. This country has the fifth largest aid programme in the world. How can the Labour party decry that? When one adds to that our inward investment in other people’s countries and the remarkable contribution that we make to peacekeeping, one has just one further example of the way in which, whatever this country does, the Labour party seeks to decry and destroy it.

     

    Q7. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bruce: Did my right hon. Friend welcome the protestations that we have heard, particularly from the Opposition parties, that all of us in the House are in favour of increasing investment in our railways? Does he believe that those protestations are consistent with, first, the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that the railways will be renationalised and, secondly, the statement by the new shadow spokesman on transport that she would not pay for it?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House is interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, but it is also interested in what the deputy leader of the Labour party has to say to the union that sponsors him. Is he in favour of it taking strike action and imposing hardship on very large numbers of Londoners trying to get to work, or is he not in support of that?

  • PMQT – 11 July 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 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 Neubert: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study yesterday’s debate in Hansard –and not just my speech? Is he aware that, on the very day when the Leader of the Opposition was refusing to put a figure on a national minimum wage, his Social Security spokesman was assuming a rate of about £3 or £3.50 in the House?

    The Prime Minister: I have not yet read Hansard, but clearly I had better look at it very carefully, and I will. I did not know that which my hon. Friend stated, but if it is the case, I strongly suspect that the Leader of the Opposition knows that a minimum wage is economic nonsense but that he regards it as politically expedient. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make clear one day precisely the figure that he has in mind; he certainly owes it to the public to do so. Perhaps he will soon tell us.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree in principle that Members of Parliament should disclose their earnings from outside consultancies?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that a Select Committee is examining that matter. The Committee has reported, and I will do it the courtesy of awaiting its report.

    Mr. Blair: That was the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman’s own Committee. Does he accept the principle or not: yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: I told the right hon. Gentleman that I asked a Select Committee to examine the issue. When it has done so, I will deal with the matter.

    Mr. Blair: Is the Prime Minister really saying that the Committee cannot come up with an answer in eight weeks, or is it just a coincidence that the main recommendation on which it cannot agree a definition happens to be the main recommendation to which Conservative Members object? Is it not time that the Prime Minister asserted his authority? The Nolan report is the right hon. Gentleman’s report. He commissioned it and said that he accepted it, and he should ensure that the Government implement it in full without further delay.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s attempt to use this report as a political football is pretty transparent and pretty shabby. He knows that the Select Committee has made excellent progress. It has met 14 times in 14 days–more intensively than any Select Committee has met before. It is still considering these matters. It will report and then the House will make its decision, as I have said from the outset, on matters relating to Back Benchers.

     

    Q2. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that some 10 years ago the newspapers were obsessed with the money supply, trade figures and days lost through strikes? Is it not a tribute to this Government that the number of days lost through strikes last year was only 1 per cent. of the number lost in 1979? Is not the Leader of the Opposition somewhat naive to claim that the unions no longer have an armlock over his party, when old Labour is still waiting in the wings to support strikes and organise “boyocotts”?

    The Prime Minister: As a wise old policeman once said, there is no need for an armlock when the suspect comes along quietly. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has already offered the unions most of what they want–the social chapter, a minimum wage, new trade union rights–while his Front-Bench team enjoys the sponsorship of all trade unions. I think that, almost without exception, his Front-Bench team is sponsored in one form or another.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that, at this precise moment, the United Nations’ ultimate will is being tested by the Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica and that, on this occasion, if that will fails the United Nations’ mission in the front-line areas of Bosnia is likely to fail with it?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to the situation in Srebrenica. I can certainly confirm to him and the House that the situation is very serious. UN commanders on the ground have asked the Bosnian Serbs to release the UN protection force’s troops whom they have been holding and to halt their offensive.

    I can confirm to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman that that has not yet happened and that, at the direct request of UN commanders on the ground, close air support operations have been carried out by NATO aircraft near Srebrenica. It was in their operational judgement that air support was necessary for the protection of the contingent in Srebrenica as a result of the fact that the Bosnian Serbs had ignored the clear warnings given. I believe that the UN commanders on the ground were right. They deserve and will receive the full backing of this Government for their action.

    The situation in Srebrenica is certainly very serious indeed at the moment. Unless the warring parties are prepared soon to indicate that they are prepared to return to some form of discussion to reach a political settlement, there is no doubt that continuing fighting will put the future presence of the United Nations forces at risk.

    Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the widespread dismay among scientists and in universities at the transfer of the research councils to the Department of Trade and Industry? Will he confirm that his Government will continue to value fundamental research? Will he confirm that the research councils will continue to sustain the dual support system of university funding? Will he undertake to reconsider this decision, which abruptly overturns a policy developed after widespread consultation and announced in a White Paper only two years ago?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the role of the Office of Science and Technology is unchanged and that it will continue with the role that it has had over recent years. The transfer implies no reduction in our commitment to fundamental research or to the dual support system, and our policies remain as set out in the White Paper two years or so ago. That will continue, as will the technology foresight process.

    The purpose of the transfer is to strengthen–not weaken, but to strengthen –the contribution of science, engineering and technology to long-term wealth creation. With that in mind, the office is best situated in the Department of Trade and Industry.

     

    Q3. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

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

    Mr. Dowd: Following the sorry spectacle of the Tory leadership election and the worn-out ritual of the reshuffle, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on retaining his post in the Government now run by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? When are we to be told what the First Secretary of State’s responsibilities are? When are we to have an opportunity to ask the First Secretary of State oral questions? Why after five years has the Prime Minister decided that he needs a deputy? If he does need such an insurance policy, why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary will support me across the full range of Government policies. He will have direct control over Government policy on competitiveness and deregulation, and he will answer questions in the House. He has a reputation for straight talking, as has the deputy leader of the Labour party. Indeed, both my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have a reputation for robustly attacking the Labour leader, and I expect that to continue.

    Mr. Yeo: May I return to the crucial subject of the minimum wage? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who support it must be so desperate to suck up to their trade union paymasters that they do not care how many British jobs they destroy in the process? Does he also agree that any political party that advocates a minimum wage but cannot agree on what it should be is utterly unfit and unready for government?

    The Prime Minister: There seems to be some uncertainty and dithering about the minimum wage on the Opposition Front Bench. The Labour leader smiles; he may well smile, but I should rather hear an answer to the question “What will the minimum wage be?” than see him smile.

    The Labour leader has said:

    “Econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact.”

    What he means is that there will be job losses as a result of a minimum wage. The deputy Labour leader–engaging in the straight talking to which I referred a moment ago–has said there would be a jobs

    “shake-out . . . any silly fool knew that.”

    What he means is that there will be job losses. I know that; the right hon. Gentlemen know that; and the whole House knows that. As soon as we are told what the minimum wage will be–a point on which the Labour leader dithers and cannot make up his mind–we shall be able to calculate how many people will lose their jobs.

     

    Q4. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

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

    Mr. MacShane: Will the Prime Minister join our Commonwealth partners, Australia and New Zealand, in their opposition to the nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific?

    The Prime Minister: No, I will not.

    Mr. Dykes: If my right hon. Friend has time in the course of his busy day, will he send warm congratulations to the RUC in Northern Ireland on the sturdy way in which it has stood up to the wilder elements among the Orangemen? Is it not about time that these provocative and silly historical marches were banned?

    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the RUC on its restraint and professionalism in dealing with those incidents–and, indeed, with other recent incidents. I believe that it deserves the whole-hearted support of all hon. Members and all responsible leaders in Northern Ireland.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

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

    Mr. Jamieson: Does the Prime Minister recall making a solemn promise in March 1993 to take action in regard to spiralling water charges in the south-west, where prices have doubled in the past two years? After two years of pondering the problem, will he tell the House how he will help consumers in the south-west–or is that another matter that he has referred to the Deputy Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his right hon. and hon. Friends whether they will cease pressing the Government to maintain the high standards of cleanliness and improvement in those waters that is giving rise to the charges. Perhaps the support given by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for European directives will indicate that he does not wish us to disobey the directives with which we are dealing. We have sought to cut charges by rearranging the speed of the capital expenditure that is taking place to assist people in the west country; that is the only way in which it is practicable to help.

     

    Q6. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend contrast his policy of improving services on the Northern line through increased investment with that of Jimmy Knapp of disrupting those services?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but there is a wider point. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) spoke up for water consumers. Why do he and his colleagues not speak up for rail passengers? Why are Opposition Members happy to support strikes on British Rail while they parade around claiming to be in favour of the consumer? The reality is that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers’ call for a strike on the underground– [Interruption.] I do not know which Opposition Front-Bench Member shouted then, but perhaps he or she is sponsored by the RMT. The RMT’s call for a strike on the underground will damage the progress that has been made by London Underground and will cause unnecessary misery and disruption to passengers. I return to the central point. How can the Opposition claim to speak for consumers while they ignore rail passengers and leave them to face the strikes without a single word of condemnation from their Front Benchers?

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q7. Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit Ayrshire.

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

    Mr. Donohoe: I am sure that the people of Ayrshire will be glad of that. May I turn the Prime Minister’s attention to the national health service and, in particular, to Ayrshire and Arran health board’s idea of taking all its services into the private sector and allowing companies from the United States to come in purely on the basis of profit? What has the Prime Minister got to say about that? How can he possibly say that the health service is safe in his hands?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows, or should know, of the increased resources for the health service, the 1 million-plus extra patients treated by the health service and the better services being provided by the health service. He seeks yet again to trade politically on a health service that he knows is improving and is providing a better service than at any stage in the past–and a better service than any Labour Government could provide for the people of this country.

  • PMQT – 15 June 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th June 1995. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently in Canada attending the G7 conference.

    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the release of the remaining members of the Welch Fusiliers and of the RAF flight lieutenant by the Bosnian Serbs shows clearly that the Government’s robust response to the taking of the hostages was the right one? Does he further agree that we now have an opportunity to reassess how our diplomatic and military efforts in Bosnia can best be taken forward?

    Mr. Newton: The whole House will want to join in my hon. Friend’s welcome of the release of nearly all of the remaining hostages, including the British ones, and it is essential in our view that the other 26 are released immediately. My hon. Friend was right to say that the Government’s policy has been vindicated. Indeed, by standing firm, the whole international community has shown that it will not submit to blackmail and terrorism of that kind. I share the view implicit in my hon. Friend’s remarks that it is vital that we redouble our efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the Leader of the House think that it is really wise for the Prime Minister to be out of the country at this time?

    Mr. Newton: At a time when it is widely acknowledged throughout the international community that this country’s economic performance in growth, increasing investment, improving our trade performance, keeping inflation down and reducing unemployment makes it a world leader in that respect, it is quite right that my right hon. Friend should be sharing our experience with our partners in the G7.

    Mr. Prescott: With Baroness Thatcher making it clear that the Prime Minister is not up to the job, the President of the Board of Trade professing loyalty while preparing to take over the Prime Minister’s job and the Chancellor attacking his Tory critics as right-wing xenophobes, is not it obvious that the Tory party is in a state of civil war and, like the Prime Minister, is clearly unfit to govern this country?

    Mr. Newton: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that–against the background of the account of our successful economic policies which I have just given–he will believe anything. He might also explain why his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took the risk of letting him ask questions from the Dispatch Box today.

    [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

     

    Q2. Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s trade union reforms reintroduced democracy into the Labour movement? Will he therefore ask the committee considering the Nolan report whether the 165 Members of the parliamentary Labour party who are sponsored by trade unions will resign if the long-overdue reform of the trade union block vote does not go ahead? In particular, if the Transport and General Workers Union gives that reform the order of the sharp elbow, will the Leader of the Opposition sever all his links with that union?

    Mr. Newton: I am not quite in a position to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks because the committee to which he refers has not yet met and, therefore, has not made a decision about who should be its chairman. In one way or another, however, I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s request is drawn to the committee’s attention. No doubt the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will draw the second half of my hon. Friend’s question to the attention of his right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition.

    Mr. Ashdown: Is not it absolutely clear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement last night that, when it comes to a policy on inflation, the Government’s policy is very clear–a target is a target, but only so long as it does not get in the way of a tax cut?

    Mr. Newton: What is clear from my right hon. and learned Friend’s speech last night is that the Government’s commitment to low inflation remains absolutely unshakeable and clear and that the commitment to low inflation is part of a range of policies, which I have already described and which will make it possible for us to consider tax cuts in due course when it is appropriate and responsible to do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Heald: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this week’s further fall in unemployment, which is down for the 21st month in a row and down 500,000 in the past two years? Does he agree that it is not coincidence, but the result of the Government’s policies and that if we had a guaranteed minimum wage as the Labour party suggests–it is no good the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) looking glum as he has admitted this–there would be a shake-out of jobs and any silly fool knows that? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of Britain, that policy must be reversed?

    Mr. Newton: Although it is sometimes difficult to glean from the observations of the Opposition, I imagine that the whole House will welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen by 350,000 in the past year and, indeed, that employment has grown by more than 170,000 in the year to March. I see the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) giggling in some way– it is especially ironic that, not so long ago, he forecast that unemployment would go on rising month in and month out. No doubt he will be reassessing his forecasting methods. At the same time, he might reassess policies such as the social chapter and the minimum wage, which would certainly push things in the other direction.

    Mr. Madden: May I ask the Leader of the House a question, of which I gave the Prime Minister notice on Tuesday; will he comment on the tragic events in Bradford at the weekend? In condemning without reservation those who commit serious criminal damage, does the Leader of the House share my deep concern about the large number of very young people who are so deeply angry, disaffected and alienated, not only in Bradford but in many other inner cities throughout the country? Will he support an independent public inquiry to establish what happened in Bradford– [Interruption.] If the House–

    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point as I have other questioners to call.

    Mr. Madden: But this is a serious matter to the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman support an independent public inquiry, which can identify the causes of the serious public disorder that took place in Bradford at the weekend and draw attention to the action that can be taken by all public agencies, including the Government, to bring back hope to young people, their parents and local communities?

    Mr. Newton: First, I am grateful, as everyone in the House will be, for the hon. Gentleman’s initial acknowledgement that, whatever arguments he or anyone else cares to adduce, we all agree that there can be no excuse for the kind of behaviour that we saw in Bradford at the weekend.

    So far as the inquiries are concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Police Complaints Authority is supervising the investigation of a number of complaints made against the police during the weekend. That authority is independent and will do a thorough job. The work will be undertaken by officers from another force–

    Mr. Madden indicated assent.

    Mr. Newton: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that. I think that that is the appropriate action to take.

    As for the rest of what the hon. Gentleman said, I am glad to know that discussions are now taking place between the police and members of the Asian community in Bradford. That is the way to explore other problems.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hendry: Has my right hon. Friend ever seen a shred of evidence that suggests that people in this country want more government rather than less? Is he aware that my constituents in High Peak would be horrified at the prospect of another tier of regional government based perhaps 100 miles away in Leicestershire? Is not it time for those people who advocate such a policy to admit that what they are really saying is that we should have more bureaucracy, more waste, more remoteness and more taxes?

    Mr. Newton: Labour’s plans for regional government would certainly end up simply sucking responsibility away from many existing councils that are closer to the people whom they represent. As one of Labour’s think tanks made clear yesterday, English regions would be “essentially artificial constructs”, which is true of more or less the whole of Labour’s policy in that area.

    Mr. Macdonald: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing anger, not just in Britain but on the continent, about the plan to dump the Brent Spar oil platform at sea, at a spot not more than 150 miles from my constituency? Is not it a disgrace that Shell should have tried to hide the true costs of recycling the oil platform on land? Is not it time that the Government intervened to halt the tow of the Brent Spar and allow a proper examination of the true benefits of recycling on land, which would be better for the environment and for jobs?

    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are following the principle of disposal on a case-by-case basis. In the Government’s view, the deep-sea disposal of Brent Spar is consistent with the UK’s international commitment, and all necessary approvals and consents have been obtained. It is also the Government’s view that it is the best practicable environmental option available.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend draw the Prime Minister’s attention to last week’s report by the Social Security Select Committee into the growth of social security, which vindicates the Government’s view that the continuing growth of social security spending is a cause for concern? Is it not time that we tackled that problem? Is not the test of the Opposition whether they start to support those reforms, otherwise they betray the fact that they have no commitment to dealing with the growth of public expenditure?

    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter. The increase in social security expenditure in its various forms, under various pressures including demographic trends, is a matter of concern throughout the western world and perhaps beyond. Against that background, it has been absolutely right for my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the social security system to ensure that the bill is constrained while at the same time meeting proper priorities. That is what he seeks to do and it deserves the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister whether, while considering what to do about the damage that his Government have caused to home owners with negative equity, he will consider the misery caused by the removal of mortgage interest relief to those who are unemployed and the damage caused to those who need social housing by the £600 million of cuts to housing associations?

    Mr. Newton: I shall always draw the hon. Lady’s questions to the attention of my right hon. Friends. However, she might have referred to the fact that negative equity and repossessions are sharply down since the 1991 -92 peak, and that average mortgage payments have fallen by £130 a month since October 1990. On the hon. Lady’s first point, a survey has shown that two thirds of lenders intend to buy block protection in the area to which she referred, and the majority of those, including the Skipton building society, to which my right hon. Friend referred last week, intend to make no charge.

    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the county of Gloucestershire, under the profligate Lib-Lab pact local government, the schoolchildren are being cruelly misused? Is he aware that, as a result of the historic overspending in Gloucestershire, the county council has decided to cut spending on education? Is he further aware that some of us are tired of being a whipping boy for Lib-Lab extravagance, and that it is time that we considered lifting the cap on local authority expenditure?

    Mr. Newton: I see that it has been reported in some parts of the press that the Leader of the Opposition has managed to persuade the Labour councillors of Mid-Glamorgan to reduce their demands for increased allowances from the exorbitant to the extortionate. I hope that he might now use his influence with some other Labour local authorities to persuade them to pursue sensible and proper policies.

  • PMQT – 18 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the reduction in unemployment announced yesterday? Is he aware that it is the 24th reduction in the monthly rate to be announced since the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said that unemployment would rise month after month after month? How does Britain’s unemployment rate compare with those in France and Spain, the Governments of which have adopted the policies recommended by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to welcome the fall in unemployment and, of course, the growth in employment, particularly in manufacturing. Unemployment has now fallen by well over 600,000 since 1992 and by nearly 19,000 in the past month–the 20th successive monthly fall. As my hon. Friend intimated, the unemployment rate is substantially higher in Spain and France. In France it is around 12.75 per cent. and in Spain around 20 per cent. It is no accident that they have policies like the minimum wage, the social chapter and other policies that damage employment.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has indicated that he accepts the broad thrust of Nolan. Does he accept the recommendation that Members of Parliament with consultancies should disclose the agreement under which they are paid and how much they are paid?

    The Prime Minister: I established the Nolan committee because I am determined to see higher standards in public life. I believe that that is important. It is important not only that we ensure high standards but that the people of this country see for themselves that this House adopts high standards.

    On the specific point which the right hon. Gentleman puts to me, we must wait to see what the House has to say about that. That is the purpose of the debate this afternoon. We wish to hear the views of the House and take those into account before we reach final decisions on those matters.

    On matters related to the Government, we made it clear that we broadly accept those recommendations, and my right hon. Friends will elaborate on that this afternoon.

    Mr. Blair: What is the Prime Minister’s own view about that recommendation?

    The Prime Minister: The Government will have to table motions on the Order Paper. Not least as a courtesy to the House, we should listen to the views of the House.

    Mr. Blair: Of course. But is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the debate may lead him to overrule the independent recommendation of his own committee? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say whether he supports the disclosure of payments to Members of Parliament, and as he is refusing point blank to allow the committee to investigate payments to political parties, may I tell him that his support for Nolan will ring more than a little hollow?

    The Prime Minister: As far as political parties are concerned, I repeat the point that I made earlier this week. When the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party meet those points set out by the Select Committee on Members’ Interests, a Committee of the House, then, perhaps, they might be in a position to lecture other people on political parties.

    As for matters relating to Back-Bench Members, I repeat the point that I made a moment ago. It is right to listen to the views of the House before reaching a conclusion on the House. If, after such a brief period of Front-Bench authority, the right hon. Gentleman is so arrogant that he no longer wishes to hear the views of the House, he will live to regret that.

    Mr. Cash: Given my right hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for consultation with regard to Government policies and given that the European Commission and Mr. Santer have just published the Commission’s White Paper regarding the future of Europe in so far as it affects the intergovernmental conference, can my right hon. Friend give an absolute assurance to the House that in good time and as soon as possible–before the summer recess– we can have a White Paper on European policy as it affects the United Kingdom in relation to that intergovernmental conference?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear to the House on a number of occasions that we are now examining in detail, in Cabinet sub-committees, the British position as to how we will approach the intergovernmental conference. When we have concluded that detailed consideration, it will, of course, be a matter for discussion in the House. That was the case before the Maastricht treaty and it will be the case before the next intergovernmental conference.

     

    Q2. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Winnick: In view of the latest developments on sleaze in the House, is it not now clear that the recommendations of the Nolan committee are the very minimum that need to be put into effect as quickly as possible in aid of the reputation of the House of Commons? Does the Prime Minister accept–perhaps he does not–that Members of Parliament are not elected to be hired as paid lobbyists or consultants and that it is about time the practice was put to an end?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, the House will have the opportunity to debate the Nolan committee this afternoon. As I said to the House a few moments ago, and as I have said on previous occasions, I set up the Nolan committee because I am determined that the House not only has the highest standards, but is seen to have those standards. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the highest standards in politics as a whole, I hope that he will also support the suggestion that the Nolan committee should subsequently look at the position in local government. I hope that he will support that. Since the Opposition are so keen on openness in local government, perhaps the leader of the Labour party will hold in public those inquiries into Labour party activities that he is now holding in private.

     

    Q3. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

    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 a minimum wage, whatever the level, would destroy jobs? Does he have any intention of proposing such a policy, not setting a level before the next election and wanting to pass the buck to a union-packed quango, as the Labour party proposes?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I can confirm that a minimum wage would destroy jobs. The House has that on the excellent authority of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who said on one memorable occasion, “Any silly fool knows that.” There is no doubt about it, so of course I can confirm that. For the Labour party these days, a quango a day keeps policy away, because it has announced three so far this week. [Interruption.] Yes, a new quango on Monday, a new quango on Tuesday and a new quango on Wednesday. We await today’s developments with some interest.

     

    Q4. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Jones: Given that the Prime Minister’s objection to publicising the source of Tory party income is that he would not like to expose anonymous donors, what is to stop him publishing the list of non-anonymous donors and also the list of donations and their amounts?

    The Prime Minister: I sometimes wonder whether some Opposition Members understand the importance of privacy in any way on any occasion. In a free and open society, people have the right to donate anonymously if they wish. What is potentially corrupt is when donations buy favours or determine policy. That emphatically does not happen in my party. It emphatically does happen in the Labour party as a part of its constitution.

     

    Q5. Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Sir John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my Devon constituency area, unemployment has dropped by more than 20 per cent. since 1992, that crime figures have decreased by 10 per cent. this year and last year, that a new hospital costing more than £50 million is nearing completion and that hospital waiting lists have been reduced to a maximum of nine months? Does not all that, combined with the growing economy, show that Conservative policies are working well in the west country?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend refers again to the minimum wage, with good reason. There is no doubt that the minimum wage costs jobs. I now see that the Labour party proposes to keep the minimum wage, but not set the level of the minimum wage until after the general election. That will be devolved to someone else.

    The House might recall the deputy leader of the Labour party saying– [Interruption.] I do not know why they laugh at the deputy leader of the Labour party. We are rather fond of him. He said:

    “Some party colleagues have advocated a minimum wage without having the courage of their convictions to state an amount that would make the original commitment meaningful”.

    I wonder who the right hon. Gentleman might have had in mind.

    Mr. John Evans: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of acknowledging that what has fallen in this country is the number of unemployed benefit claimants, that the number of people in this country who are without a job remains as great as ever, and that it is impossible to compare unemployment statistics in Britain, France, Spain or any other European country, because they use entirely different methods of counting?

    The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman would not like the Government to have any credit for anything, even the fall in unemployment, but the fact is that not only has unemployment fallen more dramatically in this country than in any other country in western Europe–far more dramatically than any Opposition Member proposed when the Opposition were talking about unemployment increasing to 5 million–but the number in work has increased.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q6. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Cirencester and Tewkesbury.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If my right hon. Friend were to visit my constituency, he would discover that a large majority of people would prefer a Europe of nation states rather than a European super-state. Will he therefore undertake, at the intergovernmental conference next year, to resist vigorously giving up our opt-outs and the restriction of our veto, which both the President of the European Commission and the Labour party would like to give up?

    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is for national Governments, not the European Commission, to take decisions on Europe’s future at the intergovernmental conference. We will certainly maintain the national veto and we will certainly not accept any attempt to end the opt-outs that I negotiated in the Maastricht treaty.

    I look to see the European Union succeed, but on the basis of close co- operation between independent sovereign states. I do not believe that, in the long term, the European Union could or would succeed on any other basis. I believe that the proposition for a substantial amount of further centralisation in Europe would do great damage to Europe. It would split it asunder and it should be resisted.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Hughes: In this 50th anniversary year of VE day and VJ day and in view of the widespread support across the House, will the Prime Minister meet soon with a deputation from the Royal British Legion to hear the case as to how, at very little cost to the public purse, the four remaining injustices for war widows or service people may be corrected this year? War widows and service people often lose housing benefit or council tax; they may be ineligible for legal aid to pursue claims for injury; they may be unable to hold on to their pensions if they remarry following the death of their spouses who were killed in active service in the past 20 years; and, if they marry someone subsequent to that person’s war service, they cannot inherit their spouse’s pension.

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the extent to which we have taken care over the years to ensure that war widows and others who faced particular difficulty during the war are treated fairly. In 1979, the Conservative Government corrected many of the anomalies that the previous Government had left untouched for a very long time. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of those four points, I shall examine them.

  • PMQT – 15 December 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

    Mrs. Roche: Given today’s news that British Gas retail staff, who earn an average of £13,000 a year, will be asked to take a pay cut while the chief executive will receive a pay rise of 75 per cent., does the Prime Minister share the opinion of the deputy chairman of the Conservative party that, under the present Government, the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest?

    The Prime Minister: I am a little surprised that the hon. Lady should mention that matter, in the light of what her hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor had to say on the radio a couple of hours ago.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

    Mr. Hawkins: In the light of this week’s welcome further fall in unemployment, has my right hon. Friend met a single business man who supports the Labour party’s demand for a minimum wage, which would destroy so many jobs in constituencies such as mine in Blackpool?

    The Prime Minister: I cannot be sure that there is none who would, but certainly the overwhelming opinion is to the contrary. Even the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has in the past used the expression that there would be some jobs “shakeout”, or words to that effect. That means, of course, that people will lose their jobs. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has said that a minimum wage would have a potential jobs impact. He can hardly believe that it would be a favourable jobs impact. I think, therefore, that hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench tend to agree that jobs would be lost by that policy.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, by next year, the chief executive of British Gas will earn in one week what his employees, who are now confronted with job cuts and pay cuts, earn in one year? Is it not time that he took a grip on those privatised utilities and put a stop to excesses that are offensive to the British sense of justice?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have to decide whether he wishes to have a private sector with rigid Government controls over every aspect of it, in which case it is not a private sector, or to renationalise industries such as gas, in which case he should make his position entirely clear. He might also clear his lines with his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) because my answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) applies also to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Blair: Since these industries are regulated, why could they not be regulated to put a stop to those excesses? Is not the point one of efficiency as well as justice because, if we want a modern motivated work force, we can have it only on the basis of investment, partnership and fairness, not on the old Tory notion of greed at the top and insecurity for the rest?

    The Prime Minister: A couple of hours ago the shadow Chancellor was asked:

    “Surely there is nothing you could do, could you, about wage rates within an industry? You are surely not going to start interfering with that again, are you?”

    To that, the hon. Gentleman said:

    “No, these are matters for negotiation between the unions and the employers.”

    They should sort their lines out themselves before they criticise us.

    Mr. Blair: The issue is not the market conditions of British Gas but the contrast between the treatment of the chief executive and those ordinary staff who are facing pay cuts. I understand that the Cabinet has its own committee looking into these matters. If the Prime Minister has such a committee, why will he not accept the suggestion put forward from the Opposition Benches that where there are excessive pay increases at the top the regulator should act to stop them?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the regulator. He is being wholly inconsistent. One day he complains about the British Gas monopoly, the next day he complains when British Gas faces competition and cuts its cloth accordingly. In one sense he opposes monopoly, in another sense he opposes competition. The reality is that he just opposes the private sector. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is what he and his colleagues have done so often–find a grievance, whatever it is, and use that grievance for partisan interest in the interests of the Labour party.

     

    Q3. Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

    Sir Anthony Durant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that today is the anniversary of the Downing street declaration. I congratulate him on the progress that is being made in Northern Ireland towards a lasting peace and the announced inward investment and on the atmosphere that has improved so much in Northern Ireland, which he found in Portadown yesterday. Conservative Members believe that unless we get rid of the explosives and the firearms of the IRA, the UVF and the UFF, we will not be able to make the progress that we should.

    The Prime Minister: I share that view. Firearms, explosives and detonators, whether held by the IRA or by the loyalist paramilitaries, need to be decommissioned. As I said yesterday, I am not concerned whether they are surrendered; I am concerned that they are decommissioned and destroyed so that they can no longer be used to disrupt the democratic life of Northern Ireland. That is the important matter. That does have to be discussed and it does have to be acted upon during the preliminary discussions that are taking place at the moment. If progress is not made on that, not only, in my judgment, would the other democratic parties in Northern Ireland politics not sit down with those who retain those weapons, but nor should any British Government.

    Mr. Ashdown: Given the damage that has been done by indecision and division over Bosnia in the past, will the Prime Minister tell us what his response will be to the French proposal to be put to NATO on Monday to secure Sarajevo airport and to open a route to the sea in order to reinforce the UN’s humanitarian operations and to make more secure the position of our troops there in the future?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, we consider carefully anything that would secure the position of our troops and the right hon. Gentleman should know better than to suggest that we would do otherwise. I wish that he would not repeatedly undersell and undermine what is done there by British troops, United Nations troops and the Government. He has done nothing but grandstand on this issue from the commencement of the matter. If he really understood a little more about it, he might say a little less about it.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that employees should be encouraged to take stakes in the companies that they work for? Does not he think it odd that the Labour party attacks share options, particularly bearing in mind the extent to which its leader and various of his “luvvie” friends seem to have benefited from them?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly think that it is right to extend share ownership as widely as possible. In the past 15 years, there has been a dramatic extension of share ownership. That has entrenched the private sector and private enterprise. It has done a great deal for the individual security of people owning shares. We shall certainly continue those policies. It would be welcome to have a cross-party consensus on it.

     

    Q4. Mr. McGrady: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

    Mr. McGrady: I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. Will he join me in congratulating the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland, and may I thank him personally for the great contribution and excellent launch of the Investment Forum drive in Belfast this week? He and, I hope, all hon. Members will pray that it bears immediate and urgent fruit. Having launched the Investment Forum, and having begun demilitarisation talks with the republican and loyalist paramilitaries, does he agree that the most urgent and pressing need in Northern Ireland is the recommencement of political dialogue, which must perforce await completion of the framework document? Will he assure the House today that, with the creation of the new Government in the Republic of Ireland under the new Taoiseach, John Bruton, the Government will act urgently to complete the framework document so that the two Governments and the political parties can negotiate a lasting political settlement in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the IDB, officials in the Northern Ireland Office and the investment conference held yesterday. No one who attended the conference has any doubt that it was a tremendous success not only in the new investments that were announced yesterday, but in the number of new investments that may arise as a result of the conference. The atmosphere was quite astonishing, as everyone who attended will know.

    On the second half of the hon. Gentleman’s question, clearly it is desirable to recontinue the political dialogue as soon as possible. I have written already to the new Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton, to say that I look forward to meeting him as soon as possible. I am confident that the new Irish Government will wish to sustain together the work that we have done over Northern Ireland. We wish to recommence discussions on the framework document and, I hope, conclude it as speedily as possible. But I would rather take a little longer over the document and get it right than deal with it too speedily and perhaps not have it right.

    Mr. Dunn: What advice will the Prime Minister offer to the people of Islington who are entitled to say that, if local education is not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition, it is not good enough for them?

    The Prime Minister: I suspect that it is not only the Leader of the Opposition who has not found the education system satisfactory in Islington, although the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head so perhaps he does find it satisfactory after all. We need the highest quality of education in Islington not just for the right hon. Gentleman, of course, but for every Islington resident whose children attend schools there.

     

    Maltese Double Cross

    Q5. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what is the outcome of the investigation, referred to in his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 29 November, of the scrutiny of the film “Maltese Double Cross” by those involved in the investigation; and who were those involved to whom he referred.

    The Prime Minister: The Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway police are still considering the contents of the film.

    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a matter of record that on 19 September 1989 the then Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Parkinson–in good faith, quite certainly–offered the British relatives of the victims of Lockerbie a public inquiry on the condition that it was agreed by his colleagues? Which colleague vetoed that, and why did she do it?

    The Prime Minister: My understanding of what I believe the hon. Gentleman has in mind is a little different from that implied by him. I am advised that in 1990 Lord Parkinson undertook to consider with colleagues the case for a confidential inquiry. When, subsequently, a decision was taken to hold the fatal accident inquiry, the case for a second inquiry fell away. I am advised that that was explained and accepted at the time by the relatives.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

    Mrs. Michie: Is the Prime Minister aware that the London to Crianlarich and Fort William and other sleeper trains are to be axed? That is no scare story. It signals the death knell of many vital rural services in Scotland and is due entirely to the Prime Minister’s chaotic and damaging privatisation scheme.

    The Prime Minister: Unless the hon. Lady is talking about a different service, I understand that sleeper services from London to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness will be safeguarded for the first time. If she has other detailed questions about other services, I suggest that she addresses them to the Secretaries of State for Transport or for Scotland.

  • PMQT – 2 December 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd December 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

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

    Mr. Jones : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the vital importance of the north Wales railway line to the economy of north-west Wales, an importance recognised by the European Community? Yesterday’s announcement about improvements to the west coast main line omitted to include any reference to the section to Holyhead. The Chancellor in his Budget statement did not even mention north Wales. May I impress on the Prime Minister the need to include the north Wales section in that programme, which should also include new rolling stock as well as track improvements?

    The Prime Minister : I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any immediate commitment to that section of rail. Of course, in due course that will be a decision for Railtrack in conjunction with operators on the line. They will have to determine whether a commercial case exists for upgrading, electrifying or whatever appears to be appropriate for the north Wales line.

    Our commitment to the west coast main line is now clearly stated. The introduction of private finance can play a very substantial part both in the improvement of the line and in the renewal of much of the infrastructure.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ian Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

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

    Mr. Bruce : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn the merciless way in which Opposition spokesmen tried to frighten pensioners–

    Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for Opposition policy or activities.

    Mr. Bruce : Indeed, Madam Speaker.

    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have fulfilled their commitments to pensioners? Will not the tough fiscal stance that we are continuing to take ensure that low interest rates and low inflation, which are the cornerstone of our recovery, continue to benefit both industry and the public?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly condemn scares, from wherever they may come. The Budget is delivering our policies to pensioners. We are delivering low inflation to protect their savings, we have uprated the pension to meet the cost of VAT on fuel, and we have introduced an income bond to give them a guaranteed income month after month. At the same time, we have been able to give a boost to business and to deliver sound public finance. The Budget is well on track to deliver, in due course, rising prosperity to all our citizens. I am glad to note that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) agrees with the Government that the proposed assistance to pensioners for fuel bills is adequate.

    Mr. John Smith : At a time of high unemployment, what is the moral justification for cutting entitlement to unemployment benefit from 12 to six months?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have made substantial contributions towards both training and getting the unemployed back to work, which is the priority. Through unemployment benefit and subsequently, where necessary, through income support, we are ensuring that there is assistance for those who remain unemployed.

    Now, thankfully, we are seeing unemployment beginning to fall in every part of the country, and that is beginning to affect the long-term unemployed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know also that the majority of people who become unemployed are back in work within the six-month period for which they will still be entitled to unemployment benefit.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister not begin to understand that it is a fraud on the public to raise national insurance contributions by a full 1 per cent. at the same time as cutting a benefit to which people have contributed all their working lives? Why do the Government not attack unemployment instead of attacking the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman had his own, rather more dramatic, plans for increasing national insurance contributions. At the same time, he has his own plans for unemployment– plans which would put it up. A new training tax on employers would put it up. A minimum wage would put it up. Businesses with new taxes levelled up to the higher rates in other European countries would put it up. Forcing employers to introduce a 35-hour week would put it up. That is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s prescription for the economy. It would make more people unemployed, and for longer.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that in the real world in which, unfortunately, unemployed people have to live, if their partners work more than 24 hours per week they move from unemployment benefit to nothing– [Interruption.] –No, it is 24 hours per week. It was changed by the Government, as the Secretary of State for Employment should understand. Does the Prime Minister not understand that, however low the income that the working partner earns, the unemployed partner will receive no benefit? Is that not disgraceful in a country with so many unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman grows indignant in his usual fashion. Will he drop the policies that would make people unemployed, which he parades month after month? If not, what does he have to say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who said of a national minimum wage : “I knew the consequences were that there would be a shake-out in unemployment. Any silly fool knew that”?

    Not quite any silly fool, it seems.

     

    Q3. Sir Thomas Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

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

    Sir Thomas Arnold : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for measures announced in the Budget to help small businesses? In particular, is he aware of the support for the announcement that the statutory audit for very small firms is to be abolished?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I am aware of the support from many small business men and every small business organisation for the measures in the Budget. They do in a substantial way take the burdens off small businesses, abolish the audit requirement, and make matters simpler for more than 500,000 companies in this country. We are also raising the value added tax threshold to take 75,000 traders out of VAT. Ours is the only party committed to taking such measures to help small businesses.

    Mr. Ashdown : As the country waits to back the Prime Minister if he will take further risks for peace in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to reaffirm that he has no difficulty with the principle of separate and parallel self-determination for the people of the island of Ireland–north and south?

    The Prime Minister : For us, there is one fundamental point. It is that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom will not change without the freely expressed consent of the people of Northern Ireland.

    Mrs. Gillan : Has my right hon. Friend had time to reflect today on the overwhelming vote of support that the other place gave the Government last night?– [Laughter.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is a waste of time. [Hon. Members :- – “Yes.”] Order. The House is using up precious time.

    Mrs. Gillan : Is not that great success and the overwhelming support for the Budget on Tuesday further proof that the Labour party is totally out of touch with the British people, both in the other place and in this House?

    The Prime Minister : I do not know that my hon. Friend’s last comment about the Labour party being as out of touch in the other place as here can possibly be true. The reality is that it is rather odd to table a motion of no confidence in the Government in the other place the day after failing to vote against the Queen’s Speech. I rather suspect that the outcome of the vote in the House of Lords, where fewer than 100 Labour Peers were prepared to support the Opposition, shows a great lack of confidence in the Labour party in this House and nationally as well as in the leadership in the House of Lords. That may be because it used to be a serious party, but it is no longer that because it has no policies.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

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

    Mr. Prentice : Will the Prime Minister admit to any embarrassment or even mild contrition at presiding over the biggest tax rises in British post-war history? Is it not a grotesque betrayal of the people who voted for his party 18 months ago that he should now be introducing these colossal tax rises?

    The Prime Minister : I did not notice a great deal of complaint from the hon. Gentleman over the expenditure to protect people who were vulnerable during the recession. I did not hear a great deal from the hon. Gentleman about that. Broadly, had the Labour party won the election and were its members sitting on the Government Benches having implemented their programme, the increase to the average taxpayer now would have been about £24 a week.

    Mr. Dykes : Does my right hon. Friend feel that on Northern Ireland we can do without the shifting and swinging influence and suggestions of the Liberal Democrats, in view of the utterances of that party’s leader at the weekend? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s policy is clear and well balanced and provides the only way forward to a lasting and durable solution? I wish my right hon. Friend well for the meeting with the Taoiseach tomorrow.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members who have indicated their support for the meeting tomorrow. I hope that we shall be able to make some further progress. There is an overwhelming feeling in Northern Ireland and elsewhere that we should seek to produce peace in Northern Ireland if we can, but there are parameters to those discussions and that must be understood. The first parameter is that to which I referred in answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, a moment ago.

     

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

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

    Mr. Milburn : Is the Prime Minister aware of my constituent, Michael Gibson, who died in August this year 16 months after being violently assaulted in Darlington town centre? Is he also aware that Michael’s killer is now free to roam the streets again because the current law stipulates that a charge of murder can be brought only if a victim dies within 366 days of an offence taking place? Will the Prime Minister join me and the Gibson family in urging the Home Secretary to review a law which not only takes no account of advances in medical technology, but which simply fails to deliver justice?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of the particularly tragic case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I should like to send my sympathy to the family. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is looking at precisely that matter now.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : Is my right hon. Friend aware that all of us who entirely endorse his total and complete commitment to peace in Northern Ireland believe that one way of solving that desperate problem is to integrate Northern Ireland completely and entirely in the United Kingdom? Will he give the matter some consideration because many Members on both sides believe that that could bring the problems of Northern Ireland to a speedy conclusion?

    The Prime Minister : Among the principles agreed last year was an agreement, accepted across the House, that we were looking for an agreement that would stretch right across Northern Ireland and all the individuals who live in Northern Ireland. It is for that reason that we are pursuing, as we are at present, the objectives that I set out earlier.

     

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

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

    Mr. Michael : Will the Prime Minister face up to the implications of his Government’s Budget? Does he accept that not only the car worker, for whom he cried crocodile tears before the last election, but the average experienced police officer will pay well in excess of £500 extra in tax on their basic pay? Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of presiding over the biggest tax bill ever for the British public?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might bear in mind that probably the car worker whom he is talking about is now exporting and making more cars than ever before and therefore has a more secure future, not least because of the policies that we have followed to get down inflation and interest rates.

  • PMQT – 30 November 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th November 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mark Robinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.

    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. Robinson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that contacts have played an initial part in bringing about the process in the middle east and in bringing people together in South Africa ; but contacts have always played an important part in bringing an end to violence ? Hon. Members want my right hon. Friend to continue his courageous search to bring an end to bloodshed in Northern Ireland.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend and I welcome the strong support yesterday given by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the efforts to promote peace and political settlement in Northern Ireland. I believe that contacts can play a useful part, for the reasons set out yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope that those contacts will have helped the IRA to understand that violence must stop before those who justify it can enter negotiations with the Government, and that the Government stand firmly by their public position.

    I regret very much that there has not yet been a permanent cessation of violence, as events in Northern Ireland over the past day have sadly demonstrated yet again. But if our present efforts do not succeed, we will not cease to explore opportunities for peace.

    Mr. John Smith : As a former Chief Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as Prime Minister for the past three years, does the Prime Minister accept responsibility for the £50 billion Budget deficit ?

    The Prime Minister : During the recession [Hon. Members : “Answer”] I shall answer in my own way. During the recession, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues were keen to see us increase spending to protect people who are vulnerable. It was the protection of people who were vulnerable and the collapse of income during that period that increased the size of the borrowing requirement. What is presently odious about the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that his party objects now to spending reductions, having previously asked for spending increases. They complain about the size of the borrowing requirement, they complain about tax increases and they still promise extra expenditure.

    Mr. John Smith : I will not bandy cheap insults with the Prime Minister. The House will notice that he did not answer the question as to responsibility. If he seeks to blame it all on the world recession, can he explain why Britain’s Budget deficit is significantly worse than that of Japan, the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Portugal?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can explain why our inflation position is better than that of all those countries, why our unemployment position is better, why our exports position is better, why we have unemployment falling and they have unemployment growing, and why we have the largest growth rate in the European Community this year and projected next year. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could reflect on that.

    Mr. John Smith : Perhaps the Prime Minister will reflect on why, if everything in the garden is growing as well as he suggests, we have a £50 billion deficit? Is not economic mismanagement the fundamental reason for that ? And is not that the fundamental reason why, quite apart from anything the Chancellor does today, the British taxpayer faces a major tax hike next April?

    The Prime Minister : I answered the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s third question in my first answer. If he cares to look at it again, he will see that that is the case. Once again, he is trying to face both ways at the same time and attacks us both on the level of the deficit and the level of taxation. If he thinks that taxes are too high and the deficit is also too high, what spending would he cut? He cannot go on living in an Alice in Wonderland world where taxes fall, the deficit drops and spending rises effortlessly upwards. Whenever the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks, the natural laws of economics are suspended.

     

    Q2. Mr. Stephen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.

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

    Mr. Stephen : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the most significant result of the survey of manufacturing industry published yesterday is that our consumer-led recovery is providing a significant and sustained boost to manufacturing industry right across the country?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. Consumer demand is rising, manufacturing output is growing, retail sales are at record levels, exports are up, and car registrations are up, which is all good news for British manufacturing. Opposition Members who continually knock the record of British manufacturing should ask themselves how, if it is not doing well, British exports have risen so dramatically. We were certainly the first to go into recession, but we are also the first to be clearly out of recession and we are set to grow faster this year than almost any other European nation.

    Mr. Ashdown : Should not those who hope for peace and wish the Prime Minister well in his pursuit of it in Northern Ireland nevertheless recognise that the events of the weekend, for whatever reason, have served to dent the trust of the Unionists, put the extremists centre stage and check the momentum of peace in Northern Ireland ? Does the Prime Minister recognise the absolute urgency now of taking action to restore the momentum for peace by proposing, after discussion with the Irish Prime Minister, actions that will unite the majority on both sides?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman, who made his own comments about the leaks over the weekend, might have been prudent to wait to hear what the Government had to say before he made those comments and to study the documents which the Government released to justify the position that they have taken, as those documents clearly do. I believe that when people in Northern Ireland have had a chance to study what was said, they will see that the Government have acted properly and done their duty throughout this whole affair. If there had been a terrorist tragedy of some sort on a massive scale this week and it then became apparent that we had ignored the message that we received earlier this year, that would have been unforgivable, and I dread to think what the right hon. Gentleman would have said in those circumstances.

     

    Q4. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Bearing in mind that there is strong and firm support for the Home Secretary’s recent proposals on law and order, particularly with regard to people on bail and remand reforms which have been urged on the Government over a period of years by the Norwich crime prevention panel will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will encourage business leaders and local councils in Norwich to support the panel’s campaign to install security cameras in the city centre, leading to the deterrence of crime and more convictions, as sure as night follows day?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is determined to make Norwich as famous as Basildon, and I suspect that he may succeed. I agree with him about closed circuit television and reject outright the views of those people who claim that it is in some way Big Brother. The public rightly want less crime, and closed circuit television has an important part to play in achieving that. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is strong support in the House and beyond for the anti-crime measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I hope that they will have the support of hon. Members across the House when they come before the House for consideration.

     

    Q5. Mr. Trimble : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.

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

    Mr. Trimble : May I refer the Prime Minister to the channel of communication with the IRA that was revealed yesterday? Is the Prime Minister satisfied about the reliability and accuracy of that channel in view of the denials now issuing from Belfast about the February statement to which the Prime Minister referred earlier? Was the dialogue with the IRA in any way prompted by events in England? Were any messages sent on that channel of communication by or on behalf of any Minister other than the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Were they in any way related to recent events in England?

    The Prime Minister : For the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend set out yesterday, it is useful to continue to have a confidential channel of communication which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and his hon. Friends said yesterday, has been available for many years. Any private communications on our part will, on all occasions, be consistent with the Government’s public position, as was the case with the documents published yesterday. On the reliability of the channel, experience has proved it to be extremely accurate and extremely reliable over many years. But the real test over time is action not words. We need to see what the final outcome is. The documents published yesterday set out a full record of the exchanges and I have no further exchanges to report to the House.

     

    Q6. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last month, not only was there a decrease in unemployment in my constituency of 7 per cent., but Brintons Carpets, my constituency’s largest employer, has just announced a year-on-year increase in exports of 86 per cent? Is not that indicative of the huge improvement in competitiveness in British industry, and would not that improvement be severely damaged by the social chapter, the minimum wage and the European super-state, with which the Labour party increasingly seems to be obsessed?

    The Prime Minister : I am pleased to hear the good news from my hon. Friend’s constituency, and to hear that unemployment is falling there, as it is now in all parts of the country. It is true that while I have no doubt that the Opposition wish to create jobs, their policies would, in practice, destroy jobs. A minimum wage would destroy jobs, a 35-hour week would destroy jobs and levelling up business taxes would destroy jobs. People will notice that unemployment is falling here with our policies, but rising in other countries that follow the policies advocated by the Opposition.

    Mr. Grocott : Can the Prime Minister confirm that, in the three years that he has been in the job, 1,300,000 people have lost their jobs, 250,000 people have lost their homes and 150,000 businesses have gone bankrupt? As he continues to draw a full salary, can we assume that, whatever else is in the Chancellor’s Budget, there will be no reference to performance-related pay?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm a lot to the hon. Gentleman. I can confirm that when I became Prime Minister inflation was 9.7 per cent. and is now at 1.4 per cent., interest rates were 14 per cent. and are now 5.5 per cent., unemployment was rising and is now falling, the economy has been in recession and is now growing, and 137,000 people have come off the unemployment register total this year. I can also confirm that last month alone nearly 500,000 people came off the register. The hon. Gentleman can name no other country in the western world currently in that position.

     

    Q7. Mr. Sims : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 November.

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

    Mr. Sims : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in all parts of the House about too-easy access to pornography produced on computers? Does he join me in welcoming the announcement last week by the Home Secretary of measures to curb these activities, which can be so harmful, especially to children?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, and I strongly share it. Parents feel particularly revolted by pornography involving children. The measures that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced will be included in the criminal justice Bill in this Session. They will make it quite clear to the pornographers that we are determined to defeat them, and we intend to crack down especially hard on the appalling trade in child pornography.