The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Nolan Report

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Institute for Government Conference – 19 June 2025

    The speech made by Sir John Major at the Institute for Government Conference on 19 June 2025.

    THE NOLAN PRINCIPLES AT 30: WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE?

    I’m grateful to the Institute for Government for inviting me to address this Conference.

    For many decades, Britain enjoyed a global reputation for being free of corruption and bad practice. That is less true today. It is in our national interest to regain that reputation.

    It is now 30 years since I set up the Nolan Committee to make recommendations on Standards in Public Life.

    Nolan set out the seven principles of: selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty and leadership – and they remain as relevant now as then.

    The vast majority of elected or career public servants obey them. But a minority does not and, when that happens, there must be consequences. Too often, there are none.

    It is an immense privilege to serve in public life, but it carries obligations.

    Everyone – especially if elected – should be held to the highest standards of probity. Too often, they are not.

    The misconduct of a small minority has left trust in public life at too low a level: scandals in political funding; in the award of honours; in lobbying; in unsavoury behaviour; in bullying; in the saga of “Partygate” – all tell us that a re-set is essential.

    In recent years – in addition to individual lapses – we have seen governments break or bend the Law; ignore the conventions of good conduct; and shield their own colleagues from justified censure.

    Two very senior and distinguished Advisers to one former Prime Minister resigned due to their recommendations being ignored. Such episodes lead to a collapse in respect for politics and government.

    The point is simple: if public life deceives, or misbehaves – or is even thought in any way to be corrupt – this may be shrugged off.

    But, by tolerating bad behaviour, we invite its repetition: this demeans public life, betrays trust, and increases public cynicism.

    It has been our past practice to offer guidance on good conduct – and trust it will be delivered. That was the Nolan approach.

    But experience has taught us that no rules can deal with individuals prepared to ignore them and – sometimes – sanctions are required.

    The problem is that to rely on “convention” leaves loopholes for those with lax scruples. That being so, it is time to strengthen the safeguards around propriety, to ensure our public life is as free from fault as we wish it to be.

    It is a healthy British instinct to be sceptical of authority.

    But, today, scepticism does not fairly describe the public mood: a more accurate description would be a mixture of cynicism and disillusion that stretches across most of our public institutions ‒ The Church, Parliament, Police, Public Service and Press among them. That is not healthy.

    The Committee on Standards in Public Life has reported that social and political trends have coarsened standards. That is true, but put too gently.

    Standards have been undermined by being ignored, by being broken, by public figures who put personal or political interest before public virtue.

    This Committee specialises in evidence-based “enquiries” and “reviews” across all of public life. Over 30 years, its reputation has grown, but its reports ‒ like all the bodies that regulate the Executive ‒ have remained advisory.

    I have re-read those reports over a long period, and am full of admiration for the Committee’s work.

    Three thoughts occur: as an advisory body, without casework, it need not be statutory – although that status would strengthen its authority and be a safeguard against any temptation to abolish the Committee.

    Also, its modest budget is inadequate for its role.

    Most strikingly, I am baffled that more of its recommendations have not been implemented.

    One welcome change would add to the Committee’s authority: the Government should respond publicly and fully to Reports within a reasonable time: too often, it does not.

    The Ministerial Code is the Prime Minister’s document and, as matters once stood, he was the prosecuting Counsel, jury and sentencing judge of the standards expected of a Minister.

    That has now changed. The Prime Minister has an Independent Adviser who can initiate, investigate and report on questionable behaviour including, if necessary, even that of the Prime Minister.

    The Adviser can recommend sanctions on those who break the rules and if the Prime Minister demurs – either over culpability or sanctions ‒ the Adviser can ask for the Report to be published in full.

    This is a good discipline to ensure recommendations are taken seriously, and not brushed aside.

    I am conflicted on whether the “Independent Adviser” role should be statutory. On balance I think not ‒ even though two Prime Ministers have flirted with abolishing the role, or leaving it unfilled.

    However, I think their successors are likely to understand that an Adviser with powers can spare stress to Prime Ministers.

    The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards oversees the Code of Conduct for MPs, and the Register of their financial interests.

    He has a high operational independence to investigate complaints about Members of Parliament and, where necessary, refers cases to an Independent Expert Panel to determine sanctions – or to the Parliamentary Select Committee. These options should preclude the need for a statutory basis.

    In stark contrast, I hope ACOBA – the Advisory Committee on Public Appointments – can be put on a statutory basis, and given deterrent powers.

    ACOBA advises upon the propriety of former Ministers and senior civil servants taking jobs within two years of retirement, or leaving the Commons. The purpose is to avoid even the suspicion of mis-use of privileged information. But, as of now, ACOBA has no power of enforcement.

    High profile figures have ignored its advice. Lord Pickles, a former Chairman, has said: “There can be no credibility in a system that continues to have no demonstrable or tangible deterrent for non-compliance”.

    Lord Pickles is right: he named no names, but he could have implicated very senior figures who broke the rules without consequence.

    There is a secondary issue concerning middle-ranking civil servants who are below ACOBA’s normal eyeline. A steady stream are leaving public service for the private sector with little or no oversight.

    This may not yet present a serious problem, but does merit scrutiny of officials who may have been privy to sensitive policy.

    The Public Appointments Commission monitors appointments to large and small public bodies, to ensure they are made on merit alone and not by political bias.

    The Commissioner sets up independent assessment panels to vet potential candidates and – from time to time – they have stood their ground in rejecting high-profile candidates, even when favoured by senior politicians.

    But their role is not as straightforward as it may seem.

    The Commissioner can face excessive lobbying by Ministers and Special Advisers to add or remove names from the list of potential appointees.

    Typically, such representations are more about political preference than ability. This undervalues merit. Ultimately, Ministers make the final decision.

    It would be far better if lobbying from within Government were restricted to Ministers alone who, in case of controversy, could be called to defend their role publicly. Special Advisers are there to advise not enforce, although – from what I have seen and heard – some have little understanding of that distinction.

    I would also note that fewer Special Advisers – with more experience of their subject and less political ambition – might serve the nation better.

    I believe the remit of HOLAC – the House of Lords Advisory Committee – needs an upgrade. There is no way, in recent years, that the appointment of Peers passes any form of democratic “smell test”. Amidst worthy appointments, others seem eye-wateringly inappropriate.

    It would be reassuring if all candidates proposed by Party Leaders were privately referred to HOLAC to be investigated for suitability and ‒ crucially ‒ for a commitment to undertake the work of the Upper House. Their nomination should only proceed once HOLAC approval has been obtained.

    The present vetting system is haphazard. HOLAC examines the propriety and suitability of Cross Bench Peers, but examines only the propriety of Political Peers nominated by Party Leaders. This makes no sense at all.

    Suitability is important: the Lords is a working House and has an important role in our Constitution. I see no purpose in appointing Peers unsuitable for the work, or unwilling to do it. The tradition of doing so is longstanding, but it is time it stopped.

    Governments of both main Parties have resisted HOLAC’s remit to vet the suitability of political Peers – for fear it would limit the Prime Minister’s role in recommending them.

    Frankly, if candidates can’t or won’t do the job, they should not be given a seat in the Lords.

    There are also unscrutinised nominees to the Lords – regarded as the Prime Minister’s exceptions: they are senior civil servants.

    I welcome top civil servants going to the Lords, since they are likely to be valuable in revising legislation. I would, however, wish to be sure that HOLAC also scrutinises their suitability and commitment.

    There should be no free pass to becoming a legislator.

    The quality of public life has been examined, not only by the Committee on Standards, but by other interested bodies over recent years. More often than not, I find myself in broad agreement with their recommendations.

    I do note, however, that Governments do not. When they respond to Reports – often late – they do so with a gift for obfuscation. Recommendations are treated with the utmost respect, short of acceptance.

    Far too often – and with words of which any Circumlocution Department would be proud – recommendations are rejected, or watered down, or kicked into the future, or replaced by some muddy alternative.

    I hope the Prime Minister will accept that upgrading our armoury against abuse will safeguard propriety in public life. To do so will reflect credit on the Government, and be a boon to our international reputation.

    I would like to touch ‒ briefly ‒ on three other concerns.

    The Electoral Commission ought to be a wholly independent body.

    Our previous Government took legislative power to offer them so-called “guidance”. Yet “independent body” and “Government guidance” cannot co-exist.

    As yet, I can’t see that this has caused any great difficulty …. BUT …. one day it will.

    The present Government may wish to repeal that power in its forthcoming Election Bill. It would be reassuring if it did.

    A more serious issue is the funding of politics. This is always problematic ‒ and doubly so when politics is out of favour with the public.

    The first issue is foreign money. A few weeks ago it was widely reported that an American multi-billionaire was about to fund a British political party. It didn’t happen ‒ nor should it: the Party concerned would have been a wholly-owned subsidiary of foreign money.

    We need to refresh protections, and close off this pipeline before it becomes a problem.

    Domestic funding is an issue, too. The political Parties are only partly funded by their memberships. Apart from public funding, support comes from the Trades Unions; corporate or private donors; and, today, increasingly, by a very small number of very rich individuals.

    No-one who cares about democratic freedom can be comfortable about this development – however innocent the intent of some donors may be.

    This is not a new issue, but its salience is growing. Cicero warned of it 2000 years ago ‒ and the Trump Presidency with its billionaire chorus, reminds us that excessive influence of the mega-rich is incompatible with democratic politics.

    This is not easy to deal with. In principle, everyone should be free to dispose of their money as they wish. On the other hand, we must ensure that policy is not for sale to the highest bidder – nor a swift route to any sort of public preferment.

    No-one wishes to see a further increase in the public funding of politics, and so – in the absence of wider sources of income – a limit to individual donations per Parliament looms on the horizon.

    “One Man, One Vote” is an established principle: it must not be supplanted by “One Man and his Money”.

    I wish to see respect return to Parliament. It does not help when – time and again – policy statements are leaked in detail, or announced to the media, before a Statement is made in the Commons or Lords.

    Such disrespect to Parliament must stop.

    One final thought. With a few tweaks, the Nolan system can become an even more formidable protection against bad behaviour. I know our present Government promised a new Ethics Commission but, so far, this seems to be stuck in the long grass.

    Concerns about propriety are well made, but I see no need to reinvent the wheel.

    My very friendly advice to the Prime Minister would be to stiffen up Nolan, and leave the Ethics proposal where it is!

    * * * * *

    Earlier, I referred to our widely-envied reputation for being free of corruption and bad practice.

    I regret the slow erosion of that reputation – which we would once have thought indestructible.

    It is time for us to reverse this trend before the damage becomes beyond salvage.

    Let me finish where I started: we need to demonstrate to the people of our own country – and far beyond – that the Nolan principles of selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty and leadership in Public Life are effective and – where not – put measures in place to enforce them.

    Once we do that, we begin to restore trust and – with it – faith in politics.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Malcolm Rifkind – 5 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, held in Dublin on Saturday 5th October 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a word or two at the outset about the discussions we have had today. The purpose of today’s discussion was to look particularly at the Intergovernmental Conference and the progress that had been made thus far. As with any negotiation of course, the real substance of the negotiation is likely to be done pretty near the end. We agreed today that we would seek the end the negotiation in June next year under the Dutch Presidency. We have also agreed, on a suggestion that I had made some time ago, that it would be helpful to see a draft treaty, perhaps in many cases with alternatives clauses for examination, at the December meeting in Dublin.

    A number of purposes of the IGC: firstly, to prepare for enlargement; secondly, to make the European Union more accessible to its citizens; thirdly perhaps to improve the efficiency of the European Union. I am bound to say for different members of the European Union that tends to mean at the moment rather different things. For some of our partners that means more majority voting, it means more powers for the European Parliament and more powers for the European institutions at the expense of national governments. Others have a different view of what it means.

    Let me make this point to you. The British are good Europeans. By good Europeans I mean that our record in implementing European law, our dedication to a liberal trading policy and our leading role in European defence, in all of those ways, if we enter into a commitment, we deliver upon that commitment. But I think that “Look before you leap” is a far better watch-word for the European Union than “Leap before you look”. And I made the points this afternoon that upon many of the issues to be discussed, it is no good just simply saying what the aspiration is, and what people would like to achieve, it is necessary to examine how you would get there and what it would actually mean for the member states if you did.

    I have tried to attest some of the assumptions that our partners have made. Let me perhaps give you a couple of examples. There is some suggesting amongst some of our colleagues that we should have a European Employment Charter in the Treaty. I wonder whether that is a good idea? We already have in the European Treaties a commitment to a high level of employment. But a treaty isn’t just a declaration, it is not just a declaratory document. A treaty creates rights, it creates obligations, it is justiciable before the European Court. I believe it would be cynical to write in obligations that cannot be met, and I made that point to our partners this afternoon.

    The second example I will give you, there could certainly be others, but the second example I will give you is defence. We can have a European defence identity through the Western European Union and through NATO. And of course that is the only credible way in which we can use NATO defence assets to carry out European initiatives. If we made the Western European Union subordinates to the European Union – as some colleagues in Europe wish us to do – then those NATO assets would be denied to us. I must say, I want a real defence, not one on paper only. So clearly there are difficult hurdles to overcome in that aspect of the negotiations.

    There are also some issues, as I indicated to colleagues this afternoon, where we shall require solutions to very serious problems. We reached an agreement to Maastricht some years ago which means that British companies are not saddled with job-destroying burdens. I shall expect our partners to stick to the letter, and to the spirit, of that agreement. And if the European Court decides against us in the Working Time Directive, I shall require treaty amendment to return the situation to what it was at the end of the Maastricht negotiation.

    I made clear to our partners this afternoon that it is also necessary to resolve the very serious question of quota hopping. National fishing quotas are meant to benefit not just the fishermen who catches the particular catch, but the fishing communities of each member state. If the present treaties don’t allow us to correct the abuses that presently exist under the Common Fisheries Policy, then the treaties must be changed, and that is another subject for discussion in the weeks and months that lie ahead.

    In many of these areas I expect there will be quite a lot of tough negotiation. On some of the issues we will find allies; on others, perhaps at the outset at least, we may be alone. But I shan’t hesitate to say no to the ideas that I believe are wrong for Europe as a whole or wrong for the interests of the United Kingdom.

    I want to add another point if I may. There are more important matters at stake for the European Union than treaty changes. I prefer creating jobs than writing an employment chapter into the treaty that would not create jobs. I prefer real defence to defence on paper. I prefer practical cooperation on drugs and crime, not a theoretical arguments about Community competence. I know Community competence is a very fascinating subject for the cognoscenti, but competitiveness is a much better one for those people who don’t have jobs and would like to have jobs.

    When we had finished the discussions, and they were very much preliminary discussions, on the Intergovernmental Conference, we spent time, both over lunch and later in the afternoon, on the Middle East peace process and the Foreign Ministers spent some discussing that as well. The important issue essentially is that we continue to offer support to the Middle East peace process, vital we encourage people to negotiate, vital we ensure that nothing we can say can be seen as boxing people in corners and making it more difficult for them to try and reach an agreement with one another.

    I also took the opportunity of being here to have a brief discussion with John Bruton about the Northern Ireland peace process. We reviewed the position that we have currently reached in the Belfast talks. Both of us believe that progress is not remotely as rapid as we would have liked and we would like all parties to redouble their efforts in the talks. We clearly need to discuss the question of decommissioning further. We are certain that progress in the decommissioning talks should be made on the basis of Senator Mitchell’s report. We are agreed about that. We will of course keep in very close contact. Today wasn’t the day for making decisions, it was just an occasion to review the present state of play in those negotiations.

    So those are the matters we have touched upon today and the Foreign Secretary and I will happily answer any further questions you may have about any of those matters.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Hugh Pym, ITN):

    Prime Minister, did you register your disapproval of Dr Hansch’s remarks in his speech in Cork, and remarks after that that he made in a debate last night?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I did. Yes I did. I told him his remarks were offensive, and I think he knows that. I suggested in particular that it was apparent some members of the European Parliament, senior members, senior representatives of the European Parliament, clearly did not understand what British policy was. He took the point very clearly that I was talking about him and not other people. I think the points I made to him had some impact.

    QUESTION:

    Are there specific areas that you would like the Irish Presidency to deal with in the coming months that have not been addressed to date?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I think it has been rather a good Presidency. Having the Presidency of the European Union is not the most attractive job in the world, it is trying to reconcile 15 different competing interests across a whole range of subjects. I think they have done rather well. They assembled an agenda for today. I think there were mixed feelings about whether there was any practical purpose in having today, but the Irish had no choice but to proceed today.

    That was a decision that was taken some time ago, and they have done so. They are working extremely hard to produce a draft treaty, albeit with alternatives for December, and that is a pretty massive job and I think they are doing it pretty well. So I have no criticism at all to make of the Irish Presidency. I think they are doing well and I am sure they will continue to do well.

    QUESTION (Hosni Imam, Kuwait News Agency, London):

    I wonder if you could put some gloss on the decisions you have taken on the Middle East, particularly about sending an envoy to the region?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This was discussed both amongst Foreign Ministers and amongst Heads of Government. If I could make a general point about that first. Progress in the Middle East talks will be made between President Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu, or it won’t be made. Let us not believe that the European Union, or indeed anybody else, is going to determine that progress. What will happen is that Dick Spring, representing the European Union Foreign Ministers, will be going, probably on Monday I think and will meet Mr Netanyahu and also meet Mr Arafat to express the European Union’s concerns, and of course to offer any assistance that we can perhaps provide. But essentially we can do a little more than continue to assist in material matters, as we do very much with the Palestinian authority, quite a lot of cash from countries within the European Union and the European Union collectively, and quite a lot of important relationships with Israel through the Cooperation Agreement. So I think we are in a position to apply some pressure, but we ought not to let anyone misunderstand how much we can do. We can apply pressure but it is the Israelis and it is the Palestinians that will determine whether progress is going to be made or not. The Foreign Secretary may want to add something about his talks?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    No, I have nothing to add to that, Prime Minister.

    QUESTION.

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He is going on holiday.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    That is Dick Spring. Dick Spring will be going on behalf of the European Union.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And he is probably going on Monday, as I said.

    QUESTION (Polish News Agency):

    Both Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac said that enlargement to Eastern Europe would happen by the year 2000. Would you consider this date unrealistic and in what context was enlargement discussed during today’s talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first point, you will recall it was the United Kingdom and Germany who were the foremost advocates of enlargement to the East. I passionately believe that the most important thing that the European Union ought to be doing at the moment is not institutional change, which often takes so much time, but enlargement to the East. We have an historic opportunity in this generation of politicians to extend the European Union to the East, which I think has great security advantages and will have great advantages in removing the economic Iron Curtain that has also been set right across the middle of Europe. So I am very much in favour of that and we were one of the great advocates of Poland and the other Central and Eastern European countries coming in, and we still are. I would add we are also more enthusiastic to open European trade borders to the Central and East European nations than most of our colleagues as well.

    Can it be done by the year 2000? If it can, no-one would be more pleased than us. It is an ambitious target but it is not a target that would be delayed as a result of any policy inhibition on the part of the British government, we would welcome it.

    As to the context of enlargement, enlargement is going to involve institutional change and it was in that context predominantly that it was discussed.

    QUESTION (RTE News):

    On Anglo-Irish matters, you had a brief discussion with the Taoiseach, but in essence the peace process in Northern Ireland is dead in the water. For three and a half months nothing has been achieved at the Stormont buildings, how are you going to put new life back into the process between you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t agree with your assessment, with respect. I am something of a veteran over the past four years of being told that the peace process is dead. I have been told that on many occasions. But I don’t believe it. The peace process does often take two steps forward and one step back. If often gets into a phase where suddenly everyone is very optimistic because quite a lot suddenly seems to be being achieved and then suddenly it grinds to a halt while each of the respective negotiators goes back to their grass roots, assembles views, assembles feelings, and decides how they can move forward. We have been in a frustrating stop period for some time, it has got bogged down, I think that is absolutely true. But I don’t think, because it has been bogged down for a period, that one should assume that it is dead.

    And the reason I don’t believe you should assume that is not because there are not difficulties about, self-evidently there are, it would be foolish to deny that there were not difficulties. But the overwhelming wish, the overwhelming will, of the people in Northern Ireland, is to push the politicians further into making an agreement. And I think that is very important.

    The process was dealt a very savage blow indeed when the IRA returned to violence, there can be no conceivable doubt about that, not just because they had returned to violence, but because it fractured any embryonic belief that existed amongst any Unionists that they ever were serious about giving up on violence. So we must judge them on their actions. I hope we are going to get another ceasefire. There is no sign of it. We occasionally get talk of it from Sinn Fein/IRA circles, but that is all thus far it has turned out to be.

    But the peace process itself will continue and there will be set-backs. I have no doubt on future occasions people will say to me this is dead.

    But for so long as I can push it forward I will continue to try and do so and I believe that would be John Bruton’s view as well.

    QUESTION (Spanish News Agency:)

    When you say that you are not happy with the quota fishing system, because it does not benefit the community, do you mean that it is necessary to change the treaty, do you mean that it is necessary to change the distribution within the treaty, do you mean that it is necessary to change the distribution with the quota, or you are completely against the system of quotas?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We discussed quotas in a different context at one stage in terms of asylum, so I wasn’t quite sure which element you were talking about. As far as quota hopping is concerned, the principal problem is this. When the Common Fisheries Policy was first determined, there were quotas determined for each national country. And the expectation was that the fish would be caught by the national fishermen, and then docked in the national ports, and create the growing employment for the fishing communities that results from the fish going back to its own domestic port. What has happened subsequently, with quota-hopping, is that national quotas have been purchased by another nation and that has had a very severe impact upon the fishing industry ashore, and upon fishing communities. And what I have said to my colleagues is that that was not what we intended when we agreed the Common Fisheries Policy and it has very severe effects on particular parts of Europe, and particularly particular parts of the United Kingdom, and it is no longer tolerable for the system to continue as it is.

    So we have tabled a Protocol to change the circumstances on quota-hopping and we will be looking at that, and other issues, to see what can be done to ensure that the original intention of the treaty becomes the current operation of the treaty.

    QUESTION (Tom Burrows, Market News):

    Although it was not on the official agenda, was in any shape or form EMU discussed; and secondly, was the EU’s trading relations with other blocs discussed, for example in the context of the work the Foreign Secretary has been doing on improving trade relations with [indistinct] and North America?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. On the second point, no, trading blocs were not discussed on this occasion. They are very important, but they just weren’t on the agenda today. As far as EMU was concerned, it wasn’t discussed. If I might say, it was mentioned but not discussed. People made passing references to it, I made passing references to it, but it wasn’t a subject of discussion. I hope that is not thought to be an odd difference to draw, but that is actually what happened, some people said we must go ahead with it; other people pointed out the timetable was at risk; other people said there are difficulties that haven’t yet been confronted. But that was all that was said, not discussed.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, Guardian):

    In common with a limited number of other senior Privy Councillors, you have received a letter from the Editor of the Guardian containing prima facie evidence alleging a government cover-up in reaction to the recent corruption scandals which are being investigated. What is your reaction to the evidence that you have been presented with and can you give a clear and unqualified assurance that no member of the government has been involved in any such cover-up or has in any sense misled the House of Commons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For some time the Guardian and other people have been running the most extraordinarily suggestive stories. Let me say to you absolutely clear that I am determined that the House of Commons investigates properly and fully the allegations that have been made. I might perhaps remind you that, against the opposition of many people, I was the person who set up the Nolan Committee. Many people didn’t like that, but I was determined that Parliament should be clean and above suspicion and I established the Nolan Committee. Sir Gordon Downey sprang out of the Nolan Report. I asked Sir Gordon Downey, I was not asked by Sir Gordon Downey, I said to Sir Gordon Downey that he might have all the documentation that he requires to carry out the inquiry that he needs to carry out.

    And I went further. I said he can also see all the documentation that was provided for the court case that did not take place, so that he – Sir Gordon – can satisfy himself he has every document that he needs to carry out his investigation. When he has investigated, he will report to the appropriate Commons Committee on members’ interests. I have no doubt they will follow their previous practice of publishing his report, and that is what I would expect them to do. What I am not going to do is to respond to a whole series of individual allegations, upon which a particular spin may be put, until this investigation is completed.

    I have made sure that the investigation has full cooperation, I am sure the investigation will be comprehensive, I have no doubt it will be properly considered by the appropriate House of Commons committee and I have no doubt the report, at their instigation, will then be published. And I would think that people, since they have such a comprehensive report, might wait for that report before they make comments or publish articles that may mislead and encourage other people to misunderstand.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 May 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lichfield

    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the effects of the Government’s policies on the people of Lichfield.

    The Prime Minister: Lichfield has benefited fully from the Government’s policies to provide the foundation for sustainable economic growth and improving living standards.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Sir Richard Scott, concerning the Government response in the media to the publication of his report into military exports to Iraq.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

    The Prime Minister: 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.

     

    Committee on Standards in Public Life

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the second report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The second report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under the chairmanship of Lord Nolan, is being published today as Command Paper 3270 and copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I should like to thank Lord Nolan and his colleagues for their continuing commitment and effort in discharging their important remit.

    The second report covers further and higher education bodies, grant-maintained schools, training and enterprise councils, local enterprise companies and registered housing associations. I welcome the fact that the committee found these to be

    “organisations in which very many voluntary Board members and paid staff work hard, maintain high standards and achieve good results.”.

    I should like to join Lord Nolan and his colleagues in putting on record the Government’s appreciation and admiration of the dedicated unpaid service of so many thousands of volunteers in these local public spending bodies. This inquiry confirms the continuing vitality of voluntary service as one of the great strengths of the British system. This voluntary local commitment, channelled through a clear policy framework set by central Government, provides a successful formula for delivering high-quality service to meet local needs.

    Naturally, the committee has identified some areas where it believes that improvements can be made and we shall now give the report the close study it deserves before making a considered response, particularly to those recommendations which are addressed directly on the Government.

     

    Armed Forces (Health Services)

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces.

    The Prime Minister: The Armed Forces pay review body has made recommendations on the pay of medial and dental officers in the armed forces in a supplementary report being published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

    The review body recommends that the daily rate of basic pay should be increased by an average of 3.8 per cent. from 1 April. Further it recommends that, along with other military personnel, the x-factor, which compensates for the balance of disadvantage of service life, should be increased by 0.5 per cent. to 12 per cent. The review body has also recommended increases in consultant pay, which are designed to improve retention in this area.

    The Government have decided to accept the review body’s recommendations but to stage their introduction in the same way as the earlier recommendations of the Armed Forces pay review body, and the recommendations of most of the other review bodies. The full award less 1 per cent. will be back-dated to 1 April, and the remainder will be paid from 1 December.

     

    Official Hospitality

    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995-96.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 9 May 1996]: My office spent £60,000 on official hospitality in 1995-96. This reflected twice as many receptions as in the previous year, primarily held to promote issues of importance. The details are set out below.

    Receptions in 1995-96

    Two General Receptions

    South African Sports Initiative

    Lord Lieutenants

    Motability

    Praemium Imperiale

    Chartermark Winners

    National Sports Initiative

    World War Two Commemorations

    Armed Forces

    Eve of Session

    Police

    Education

    London Fashion Week

    UK Science, Engineering and Technology.

  • PMQT – 7 November 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th November 1995. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Unemployment (European Union)

    Q1. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the implications of the level of unemployment in the EU.

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

    I can confirm that employment and unemployment in the European Union will be on the agenda for the next European Council in Madrid in December.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend insist that the Council gives urgent attention to the forgotten army of 18.5 million unemployed in the European Union, a total which has soared by 5 million in the past three years? In particular, could he tell our friends in France, who are at present creating extra unemployment on top of a 12 per cent. total by setting artificial exchange rates, that they could learn a great deal from Britain, which escaped from the exchange rate mechanism and the social chapter and has found that unemployment has been falling ever since?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a most valuable contribution, particularly when he points out that this Government will not accept the social chapter, and neither will we impose the overheads of a minimum wage on the competitive manufacturing base that we have here today. The whole House can welcome the fact that unemployment in this country is down by 713,400 since December 1992.

    Mr. Hutton: On the subject of unemployment within the European Union, does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise it as a fact that, since 1979, the United Kingdom has had the third highest unemployment rate within the European Union? When will he drop the damaging dogma of his party and start to work with our European partners to tackle the scandal and the waste of almost 20 million people unemployed in Europe?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is very convenient for the hon. Gentleman to choose 1979, when we had to start the process of undoing the stranglehold that the trade unions had on the British economy, of privatising the industries that are now leading the British recovery across the world and of creating in this country the enterprise centre of Europe, all in the teeth of Labour party opposition.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is travelling to New Zealand to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most significant vote last night was that passed by 587 votes to two, which bans paid advocacy, which was the recommendation of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life and went further than the Nolan committee, and contrasts sharply with the sheer stench of trade union-sponsored humbug on the Opposition Benches?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in pointing out the justification for the determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to set up the Nolan committee so that the House would have an opportunity to deal with the matter of restoring public confidence in the House. It was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who ensured that such matters were thoroughly and comprehensively considered. The work was carried out by an independent committee. As a result, the House was able to pass by an overwhelming majority the far-reaching change to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and the Prime Minister were completely out of step with public opinion in wanting to keep the outside earnings of Members of Parliament secret? Does he share my sense of outrage that some Conservative Members are already making it clear that they will not observe the decision of the House? Will he make it clear that that would be totally unacceptable to him and the Prime Minister?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman raises a most important question for the House. I can say unreservedly on behalf of the Prime Minister and myself, since he asked me specifically, that both of us believe that it is right for all right hon. and hon. Members to enter into the spirit of the letter of the decisions taken yesterday evening. That was the will of the House. As to what the House should determine to do in the event of any right hon. and hon. Member not making such a decision, that is properly a matter for the House of Commons.

    Mr. Prescott: In view of his reply, will the right hon. Gentleman now ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his rejection of Labour’s proposal to refer the funding of political parties to the Nolan committee? Is it not time that the Prime Minister came clean on where his party gets his money, or has the Tory party got something else to hide?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Of course, we all know that the Opposition want to pass the cost of party politics on to the taxpayer. They want one-track Members of Parliament with no outside interests and who are totally beholden to the party Whips, with all the draconian centralisation of power that that would represent. That would be a wholly alien development in the constitutional history of this country.

    Mr. Prescott: Why cannot the public know where the Tory party gets its money? Who has paid for a knighthood? Who has bought a peerage? And which foreign business men have bankrolled the party, fleeing the country? I ask him again, what has his party got to hide?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is up to the sort of sleazy politics characteristic of the Labour party. The fact of the matter is that his party has sold out hook, line and sinker to the trade unions–it always has. He is the first person to complain that he has to ring up trade union leaders to ask their permission before he takes a simple decision on behalf of the Labour party.

    Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however hon. Members may have voted in the Divisions last night, those who seek to gain party advantage from the issue simply demean the institution that they claim to honour?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, but he characterises the Labour party in too generous terms. It is undermining the credibility of this House by constantly criticising the performance of a tiny number of right hon. and hon. Members. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who come into this House are motivated by the highest standards of public service.

    Mr. Beith: Now that the House has made an important decision, with the votes of hon. Members in all parties, on the conduct of Members of Parliament, would the Deputy Prime Minister move the agenda on to the other things that would make Parliament more relevant to the lives of people, such as electoral reform–because that would make far more difference to the lives of people than even the decisions we made last night–or will he do as the Prime Minister did last night and attach his cause to the side which in the end will lose?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Member may see that as moving the agenda on; I would regard it as moving it back into a wholly unacceptable dark age.

     

    Social Chapter

    Q3. Sir Ralph Howell: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to rewrite the social chapter of the EU.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rejected a new social chapter at Maastricht because it would have reduced competitiveness and destroyed jobs. The Government will not accept it, or anything like it, at next year’s intergovernmental conference.

    Sir Ralph Howell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the fact that the social chapter has few friends in the House except on the Labour Front Bench, would it not be constructive for the Government to produce a more acceptable alternative social chapter? Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister urge the Government to make the Right to Work Bill the cornerstone of that new social chapter to eliminate involuntary unemployment and save £5 billion per annum in this country alone?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend brings a particular expertise to this subject and there is a great deal to which we should listen in what he has to say. I know that he will welcome the introduction of the earnings top-up scheme, which is designed to help people move into and stay in work without the burden of a minimum wage, and he also will look forward to the introduction next year of the jobseeker’s allowance.

    Mr. Keith Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the absence of the social chapter, Britain has the longest working hours, the fewest holidays, the poorest pensions, the lowest wages and the highest levels of job insecurity of all the leading nations of Europe? Which of those facts does the right hon. Gentleman deny, and do they not explain why the British people are longing for a Labour Government with our promise to bring in the social chapter?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman does not recognise is that Britain has one of the fastest falling levels of unemployment and one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. What he threatens by his proposals is that the flood of inward investment coming here, not only from north America and Asia but from Europe itself, would come to a halt if Labour threw away the competitive advantages that our economy possesses.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Alexander: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 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. Alexander: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that tomorrow the new Gas Act is likely to receive Royal Assent? I remind him that, by opening the market to competition, new entrants are likely to come in and that standing charges in that industry are likely to be a thing of the past in a couple of year’s time. As standing charges are widely resented by the elderly and those on fixed incomes, will he urge British Gas and the other utilities to start abolishing those charges now, before competition and a change in the law oblige them to do so?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the privatisation programme, and that includes British Gas, has, of course, been a triumph for British consumers. The fact is that competition has cut prices for gas consumers; standing charges are down by 29 per cent. since privatisation; gas prices are down by over 20 per cent. since privatisation; and the legislation to which my hon. Friend referred has already led to the possibility of experiments in the south-west. I read in this week’s newspapers that perhaps another 10 to 15 per cent. will come off the prices to the domestic consumer as a result of that enhanced competition. What that all stands for is that the Conservative Government, by privatising these industries, have not only created world-class companies but served the consumer in a way that nationalisation could never have begun to do.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 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.

    Mrs. Roche: Given that, in the United States of America, it is illegal for foreign nationals to make donations to political parties, why do the Government not introduce the same legislation here? Are the Deputy Prime Minister and the whole of the Conservative Government frightened to let the British people see how the modern Conservative party is funded?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I know of no restriction in this country that says that foreign nationals who are members of trade unions cannot give money to trade unions, which is then directed to the Labour party.

    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if investment is to thrive, costs must be kept down and business taxes kept low? Does he therefore agree that it would be a disaster for investment, and therefore for our prospects for growth and employment in the future, if the Labour party were able to implement its plans to allow local authorities to fix their own business rates?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Labour party in power has always put up costs, prices and taxes. Whether it is a national Labour Government or local Labour government, the same process is at work. In either case, it would be a disaster for Britain’s investment potential.

     

    Q6. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 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. Jones: Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister when he returns what is the precise role of the Deputy Prime Minister? It seems to be costing £40,000 a month for the Deputy Prime Minister to answer even fewer questions than his right hon. Friend.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Just the other day, people were complaining because I had brought £1 billion of Siemens investment to the north-east. I think that I am cheap at the price.

  • PMQT – 2 November 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

    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.

    Ms Eagle: If the disclosure of the amounts that are earned in parliamentary consultancies is such an unimportant detail, can the Prime Minister say why up to 100 Conservative Members are threatening to resign if the House forces them to share that information with their constituents? Is that why he will vote for secrecy? What do Conservative Members have to hide?

    The Prime Minister: With great respect to the hon. Lady, I say to her that she should not believe all the nonsense that she reads in some newspapers about the proposed actions of my hon. Friends or, indeed, about anything else. The Nolan report is extremely important. I set up the committee because I believed that there was a problem that needed to be looked at dispassionately. It has produced its report and the Select Committee has examined it. In a number of ways, the Select Committee has gone beyond the Nolan report. It has done so with my support, and I look forward to Parliament approving its recommendations.

    Mr. Lord: Thanks to the national lottery and the millennium fund, there is now a great deal of money available for good works. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could set ourselves two very worthwhile targets to achieve by the year 2000? They are, first, by that time every inner city ought to be a decent place for people to live in and secondly, every secondary school ought to have access to a good, proper cricket square.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend plays to my instincts, as I think he knows, in this case. There is no doubt that the national lottery has exceeded the success that even we had forecast for it. It has already raised in excess of £1 billion for good causes and a very large number of organisations are now able to put in place facilities that millions of ordinary people will enjoy and would not have been able to enjoy but for the lottery. The point about the lottery is that, because of it, some areas of importance to our national life that are never likely to receive total priority in any public expenditure round will now have a guaranteed stream of future income for many years ahead, and millions of people will benefit from that.

    Mr. Blair: Having set up Nolan and having agreed to implement it, what possible justification will the Prime Minister give when he comes to the House on Monday, along with the Cabinet and Government, and votes down its key recommendation–the simple honest requirement that Members of Parliament who have outside financial interests that are connected with their being Members of Parliament should disclose the amounts that they earn from them? Just what do he and his party have to hide?

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear, when I established Nolan, that I thought that there was a matter that needed independent investigation. Lord Nolan did that. He said, when he replied, that he thought that there were matters that needed some further clarification. The Select Committee has done that. I have made it clear throughout that I support the broad thrust of what the Nolan committee recommended and I have said so on more than one occasion. I still hold to that.

    Nolan made 55 recommendations, 45 to the Government, almost all of which are already being implemented, and I thoroughly agree with that, and 10 recommendations addressed to the House. The Select Committee has accepted nine of those, and has gone further than the Nolan committee in respect of the 10th, and I agree with that.

    What is most important in the midst of this is the Select Committee’s proposal to ban paid advocacy. That is entirely right, I support it, but if we do that, the income that hon. Members earn from other activities explicitly approved by Parliament seems to me to be a matter between them and the Inland Revenue tax inspectors.

    Mr. Blair: This has nothing to do with some detailed consideration of Nolan. It is to do with the squalid monetary interest of the Conservative party. That was Nolan’s key recommendation. If now, in weakness, the Prime Minister goes back on his word to implement the report that he commissioned, it will leave a stain on his prime ministership and on his Government that will not be removed until this rotten Administration is swept from office.

    The Prime Minister: I think that, one day, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there are serious matters about Nolan that deserve serious consideration, not the sort of short-term party political wrangling that we have just heard from him. On the substantive point, this is a serious matter for Parliament, with long-term implications, and it is a shame that he cannot understand that. I do not favour a wholly professional House staffed entirely by hon. Members who are professional politicians and nothing else. That is the route that the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party would wish to lead us down. He would then, no doubt, have his party thought police telling Labour Members what to do and issuing statements on their behalf, as he did last week. That is not the route for this House. He may find some short-term advantage in the line that he takes, but what he is proposing is bad for the future of the House of Commons.

    Mr. Blair: Madam Speaker– [Interruption.]

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

    Mr. Blair: The Nolan committee is not stopping people from having outside interests. It simply says that we should be open and honest about them. The Prime Minister is a man saying today what he knows to be wrong, and the question for him is this: when is he going to have the courage to stand up to his party and tell it what is right?

    The Prime Minister: We have gone further than Lord Nolan had on the matters that are undesirable. Rather than say simply, “Disclose income,” we have banned the things that we believe to be wrong. That is what I propose to do. The Select Committee is right in banning paid advocacy. If it is wrong, it should not be done. If it is right, it should not be impeded for party political reasons, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do.

    Lord Nolan considered whether hon. Members’ assets and income should be disclosed and that would, of course, include not only matters such as directors’ fees– [Interruption.] This is an important matter to the future of the House of Commons and it deserves to be seriously considered by the House, not just treated as Opposition Members are treating it.

    Lord Nolan considered the matter. He concluded, and I quote from the Nolan report:

    “No-one has put a convincing case to us as to why that”– that is, disclosure–

    “might be necessary.”

    Parliamentary rules already require all outside interests to be entered in the Register. That will continue. It will be published more regularly. The substantive point is clear. If it is wrong, it should not be done and the Select Committee proposes to ban the things that are wrong. If it is right, it should not be impeded, as the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do.

    Mr. King: May I correct my right hon. Friend in one respect, in that it was not Lord Nolan on his own but 10 members under his chairmanship who considered these matters and described in the report whether we should recommend a ban on paid advocacy? We said specifically at that time that we doubted whether it was practicable or whether it would be acceptable to the House. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be an immediate ban on paid advocacy goes significantly further than Lord Nolan and his committee recommended? It goes to the heart of the issue of public concern, and should therefore be strongly supported.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and I sought to make that point a moment ago. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is the case, but for his own party reasons, he and his colleagues are deliberately distorting the central aspect to be determined.

     

    Q2. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

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

    Mr. Banks: No one would accuse the Prime Minister of being a professional politician. If hon. Members have outside consultancies, what is the Prime Minister’s personal objection to them declaring how much they get? Why does he object to that transparency?

    The Prime Minister: I have told the hon. Gentleman why. I believe that it is right for the House to know what interests Members of Parliament have. It is right that they should register the nature of those activities, as is proposed, so that the House knows about them. It is right that things which are wrong should be banned. Beyond that, hon. Members are entitled to the same tax privacy as others.

    Mr. Faber: Will my right hon. Friend pass on the grateful thanks of those of my constituents who have written to me in recent days to describe the misery and torment that they and their families have suffered because of the activities of the Rev. Moon? Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday’s extraordinary court decision is yet another example of the contempt with which some members of the judiciary seem to treat the views of the House and of the general public?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was right to refuse the Rev. Moon entry into the country. I do not believe that his presence here would be conducive to the public good. If the Rev. Moon decides to make representations, of course they will be considered.

     

    Q3. Mr. William O’Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

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

    Mr. O’Brien: As recently as 23 May, the Prime Minister assured my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he favoured greater transparency in the affairs of Members of Parliament. He is now saying that he will vote for more secrecy. When will the Prime Minister, with all the dignity and authority of his office, lead the Tory party from the front rather than the rear?

    The Prime Minister: We all know the lines that the Opposition Front Bench have given to the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that we are making much tougher and much more transparent the interests of Members of Parliament and we are banning the things that are wrong. That is the key point. If it is wrong, it should not be done, and the Select Committee is right to suggest a ban. The hon. Gentleman referred to 23 May. My activities and views have not changed. I foreshadowed them clearly and at some length in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition on 22 May, to which he has not yet replied.

    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is excellent news that no one in Somerset need wait more than 12 months for non-urgent treatment? Does that not show the success of the Government’s health reforms? Will my right hon. Friend take time today to persuade the Leader of the Opposition to drop his objection to fundholding?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the partisan proposals of the Opposition to turn back the clock on the NHS reforms are to be regretted, given the clear evidence of the success of those reforms. More patients are being treated, they have greater opportunities for treatment and they are treated more speedily. The Opposition’s plans to scrap GP fundholding in the face both of the overwhelming evidence of its success and the opposition of GPs who are providing a better service because of it will be unacceptable to people up and down the country.

     

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

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: As Tory Members of Parliament fight to save their second and third jobs, many people in my constituency want their first jobs. Is it not true that if Members of Parliament act as consultants, the public have the right to know whether they earn £50 or £5,000?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to touch upon the important issue of unemployment. However, he might more usefully have mentioned that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 21 per cent. from its peak– [Interruption.] it is interesting to note that Labour Members do not like hearing about the fall in unemployment–yet two years ago the then Leader of the Opposition raised the matter week after week. It is months since Labour Members have raised it, because they do not like the fact that it is going down in this country because of our policies, yet it is going up in other countries that follow socialist policies.

  • PMQT – 26 October 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    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. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to reaffirm his opposition to terrorism and, in doing so, make it his policy to condemn unreservedly the selection by the Labour party in Exeter of a self-confessed terrorist as its candidate? Does not that action illustrate most clearly that the Labour party is utterly unfit for government?

    The Prime Minister: I am wholly opposed to any act of terrorism, and I have no doubt that the majority of people in Exeter will feel the same.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the changes in housing benefit revealed today will mean that thousands of vulnerable people–pensioners, disabled people and families with young children–will lose help and be confronted with poverty or eviction? How can that possibly be fair? Is it not the clearest evidence of the Conservative party’s lurch to the right and the death of one nation conservatism?

    The Prime Minister: Indeed it is not. My party remains in the centre of politics, and that is where it will always be. The right hon. Gentleman’s outrage is rather artificial because he obviously believes that this morning’s story was a leaked document: in fact, it relates to measures approved by the House last July.

    Mr. Blair: The question is whether the measures are right. If the problem is the soaring housing benefit bill, does the Prime Minister accept that that bill has increased under his Government as a result of Government policy? Housing benefit has increased as housing investment has been slashed.

    If the problem, as was suggested by the Secretary of State for Social Security, is private landlords charging excessive rent, is not it sensible to tackle that problem head-on instead of using vulnerable and innocent tenants as pawns to clear up a mess of the Government’s own making?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he had spent one single day in government, he would know that the Government have to take difficult decisions to control expenditure throughout the budget. This is the Labour leader who said that he was in favour of hand-ups, not handouts; this is the party that has said that it wants to take a very radical look at the whole system of social security to try to ensure that money is spent in the best possible way; yet, whatever Labour Members may say about fiscal control, whenever there is a difficult decision to be taken they will oppose it. That is why they will spend on every occasion and tax on every occasion. If they had had their way, public spending would be half national income and tax would be where it was when they left office.

    Mr. Blair: If we had had our way, we would not have slashed housing investment, which has produced the rise in housing benefit. The Prime Minister is perfectly justified in saying that, if there is a problem, it should be tackled. I have given him a specific way of tackling it. Why does not he tackle directly the excessive rents being charged by private landlords rather than make tenants the victims?

    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman commit himself–I hope that the whole country heard it–to rent control. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done–

    Mr. Blair indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: Yes, he has–he cannot shake his head. What he has just said is a Labour commitment to rent control–presumably in the private sector, which would mean no more available lettings. Presumably, in the public sector he would hold down rents artificially and push up the amount of borrowing and tax. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know how to deal with housing and matters of that sort he should look at some of his own boroughs such as Hackney, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Southwark and Islington, which among them have 6,000 empty council houses. They are all in good repair and ready to be let out, but none is available because of the chronic inefficiency and stupidity of Labour local authorities.

    Mr. Viggers: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to see the report of the chief inspector of constabulary which, for the first time, includes some national indicators of the performance of the local, county police establishments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report contains some useful ideas, including the use of advanced technology, the increased use of community resources and better targeting of resources? Does he agree that that is a matter on which we can assist the police to be more efficient?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I have no doubt about that. I have not yet seen that report in detail, but I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to study it and report to me on its contents.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that the number of primary school pupils in classes of more than 40 has risen by 30 per cent. in the past year? Does he understand why parents and governors are deeply concerned about that? Does he still believe that class sizes do not matter?

    The Prime Minister: Of course every aspect of education matters, but what matters most is the quality of teaching, which we are seeking to improve. We have introduced a series of measures to do that in recent years, most of which have been visibly and volubly opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his party.

    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme and grammar schools are immensely popular with parents? What conclusions does he think parents should draw from the fact that, although the Labour party is committed to the abolition of the assisted places scheme and grammar schools, 19 out of 24 members of the shadow Cabinet attended grammar schools or exclusive fee-paying schools?

    The Prime Minister: Extending choice and opportunity is central to our education policy–it is what we believe parents want and we are delivering it. The Labour party’s policies are yet another case of double-think: Labour Members go to good schools, but want to abolish them; they send their children to good schools, but want to abolish them. I read that the shadow Cabinet is now going to Templeton college for the weekend–it had better watch out for its future.

     

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

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

    Mr. Gerrard: How can the Prime Minister justify his earlier answers, which defended housing benefit cuts that will attack some of the most vulnerable and poorest people? Does he believe that they should be forced to make up the short-fall in their rent from money that they need to survive–even using money such as their war pensions? Does it not show the Government’s complete abandonment of any sense of social justice or priority?

    The Prime Minister today attacks poor people, but only two weeks ago he stood at the Tory party conference promising to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax.

    The Prime Minister: The cheap insults from the Labour party are becoming increasingly silly. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman something about protecting the vulnerable: low-income families with children have received extra help–now worth more than £1 billion a year–since 1988. Extra help for poor pensioners has increased to £1.2 billion since 1988. In the past two years we have introduced help with child care worth up to £38 per week for the least well-off in work. We have introduced jobseeker’s agreements that are tailored to individual needs and a package of work incentives worth £700 million. All those initiatives are targeted to the people who are most in need in this country. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman saw what is really being done to help those in need and recognised that that sort of help is possible only if Governments resist some other elements of expenditure.

    Mr. David Evans: May I tell my right hon. Friend that, unlike Labour Members, we on this side are totally united behind our leader? Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether in five years at the Dispatch Box he has ever had to bail out one of his Front Bench spokesmen for total incompetence? Is he aware that last Thursday Bambi, the leader of the Labour party, showed the nation on live television what Conservative Members have known for years: Labour Members are all totally incompetent? In other words, they are men of straw.

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not have the same gift for understatement as my hon. Friend. We all noticed the Leader of the Opposition trying to rescue the shadow Home Secretary last Thursday–and we all noticed that he failed.

     

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

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

    Mr. Watson: The Prime Minister will be aware of the recent announcement by the Secretaries of State for Health and for Scotland of the ban on general practitioners prescribing the drug Temazepam in gel-filled capsules. Contrary to the advice of almost all statutory and non-statutory agencies, including the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse and the Scottish drugs forum, the drug remains available in other forms simply to save about £15 million in public expenditure–the cost of prescribing alternatives.

    Does the Prime Minister believe that the loss of young lives, which will continue to occur–particularly in Glasgow, but also in every other major city in the country–as a result of the availability of Temazepam, is a price worth paying for the short-term advantage of the Government’s desperate search for pre-election tax cuts?

    The Prime Minister: The depths to which some Labour Members sometimes sink in their questions helps me to understand why the public have such a low opinion of politicians generally. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland acted on the medical advice that he received and he will continue to do so in the future.

    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proportion of asylum seekers who come to Britain is rising, whereas the number is falling in other European countries? Is that not precisely because this country is not the clapped-out, impoverished nation that the Labour party pretends it is? Is it not time to strengthen our protection against those who have no right to be in this country?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend is right about the proportion of asylum seekers in this country. Other countries have tightened their asylum procedures and we think that we should re-examine them as well. However, some of the stories that I have seen in the last 24 hours and some of the comments that I have heard from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are entirely absurd. They are inaccurate and misleading and they would better not have been made. There is no doubt that we will honour our United Nations convention obligations and there is no doubt that claims will be considered individually. I hope that the activities of the shadow Home Secretary have not raised too many fears.

     

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

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

    Mr. Winnick: Can the Prime Minister explain the purpose of setting up the Nolan committee if one of its main recommendations–the disclosure of outside financial interests–is rubbished and rejected by Tory Members of Parliament? Does not the Prime Minister understand that the general public will contrast the rejection of the Nolan committee’s very important recommendation with the way in which Tory Members of Parliament vote time and again to undermine the position of the poorest people in our society?

    The Prime Minister: As I told the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), we set out innumerable ways–and I will give the hon. Gentleman a much longer list if he wishes–of helping people in great need in this country, and that will continue to be the case. The Nolan committee was established to report to the House and did so. A Select Committee is considering its report, and we will consider and vote on the Select Committee’s report shortly.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Having known Sir John Templeton well for many years, and having attended the launch of the Templeton college in Oxford, I share my right hon. Friend’s sentiments about the dangers of a visit by Labour Members to that college. Does not my right hon. Friend think it extraordinary that the Labour party should accuse the Conservative party of being uncaring when, with unemployment dropping in this country — unlike in most other countries in Europe– we are increasing our social security year by year? Is that the sign of an uncaring Government?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point most forcefully. Unemployment has dropped more dramatically here than in any other major country of western Europe. Unemployment is also below the level of other countries and our degree of social security protection is above it. As my hon. Friend said, Templeton college is a centre of excellence. Therefore, with this Labour party, it must be in danger.

  • PMQT – 18 July 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 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.

    Mr. Hill: Does the Prime Minister share– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I must hear the question. Hon. Members must stop shouting.

    Mr. Hill: Does the Prime Minister share the public’s concern about hon. Members who peddle political influence for private gain? If so, why is he rejecting Lord Nolan’s plan that earnings from such activities should be declared? Where does he stand on the matter? Why, for once, does not he give a lead?

    The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman began, I thought that he was going to comment on the rail strike. The fact that he is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers might explain why he did not. The House will have an opportunity to discuss the matter that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and I look forward to that.

     

    Q2. Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Sumberg: Now that we have seen the quite ridiculous spectacle of the Labour leader travelling around Australia passing himself off as Margaret Thatcher, is it not time that my right hon. Friend reminded the House that while he was actively working in support of Margaret Thatcher’s policies of low taxation, a strong national defence and moderate trade unionism, that very same Labour leader was actively and consistently opposing every single one of those policies?

    The Prime Minister: It seems to be the case that the Labour party in opposition today supports the policies that it opposed so vigorously in the 1980s. I have no doubt that the Labour party in opposition in the future will support the policies that it so vigorously opposes today.

    Mr. Blair rose — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: I would have slightly more respect for Conservative Members who say how shameful it is to have dealings with the Murdoch press if they had said that at the time of the 1992 general election.

    I have given the Prime Minister notice of this question on Bosnia. After the appalling events in Srebrenica and Zepa, does the Prime Minister agree, first, that rather than talk of withdrawal, having designated safe areas and encouraged people to enter them, it is our duty to pursue all practical means to uphold the United Nations mandate and prevent further ethnic cleansing; secondly, that we should use UNPROFOR to open up the supply road to Sarajevo; thirdly, that we must impress on our American colleagues the absolute necessity of practical support for our actions rather than just rhetoric; and, finally, that, as threat after threat has been made to the Bosnian Serbs but not carried out, over the next few days we must work out our bottom line and this time stick to it, otherwise the consequences for the United Nations and for the resolution of conflicts everywhere will be lasting and disastrous?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman and I spoke at length about Bosnia earlier this morning and I am grateful to him for saying at that time that he would raise the general question this afternoon.

    Let me say to the House on the back of the right hon. Gentleman’s question that there are, in reality, only three options for the future in Bosnia. The first is to see events escalate from the present circumstances into full-scale war, which would need a huge NATO force, including American ground troops, if that were remotely practical. The second option is to try to continue the United Nations humanitarian and peacekeeping work. That is becoming more dangerous and hazardous as day succeeds day, and carrying on that work does not guarantee prevention of the sort of attacks that we have seen at Srebrenica and are seeing at Zepa at the moment. Against that, however, the activities of the United Nations are still saving a great number of lives and the activities of British troops in central Bosnia in particular have brought peace to an area where we saw bloodshed and carnage on a massive scale only two years ago. The third option is to withdraw UNPROFOR and then lift the arms embargo. It is possible that events will head in that direction but I believe that, if that were to happen, it would be a course that we would regret, and that the Bosnians would come to regret as well.

    There are no magic answers. What is clear–we need to be entirely clear about it–is that it is not practical to mix war fighting with peacekeeping. Of those difficult options, I am sure that the right way is to go on trying to keep the peace, trying to provide help and trying to promote negotiations, until or unless that becomes impossible.

    It is to deal with matters such as the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman raised that we have taken the lead this week in international efforts, including the meeting of chiefs of defence staff on Sunday, the visit of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary to Bosnia, the visit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to Washington, and the conference that we have called for Friday this week to try to deal specifically with questions such as those raised by the right hon. Gentleman and to determine a viable way forward for the protection forces and the diplomatic process. I hope that such a way can be found because, if it cannot, the alternatives for Bosnia and the whole region are potentially catastrophic.

    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, thanks to the Government, the police and the courts, crime has been falling throughout the country for the past two years? In Staffordshire, crime has fallen by 14.5 per cent. and in the City of London it has halved. Does that not show that we are the party of law and order? As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) would say, by opposing every toughening measure that we have introduced, that lot over there are nothing but wind and soundbites.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I agree with his analysis and the accuracy of pointing out that the crime statistics are indeed falling and have been falling for some time. Neither the Government nor the police are complacent about the task that lies ahead and I commend a number of police constabularies for the innovative moves that they have made–Operation Bumblebee is but one example–to target particular types of crime. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary believes that it is important to continue in that fashion. We intend to do so, and to continue to give top priority to the battle against crime.

    Mr. Beith: If there is not to be a total and irreversible humiliation of the United Nations and all that it stands for in this desperate situation, do not clear and achievable objectives have to be identified and followed through? Would not one of those objectives be the maintenance and defence of a clear humanitarian route over Mount Igman to Sarajevo to relieve and supply that city?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may be right about that. It is one of the matters that is being examined at the moment with the commanders on the ground. A route over Mount Igman would be suitable in the summer but perhaps less suitable in the winter. What is necessary for Sarajevo is an access and egress route in both summer and winter, but I do not deny the importance of having proper access and egress over Mount Igman.

    The right hon. Gentleman and others should appreciate that it is necessary to look at the wider question as well as individual snippets of policy, such as the proposed route, in order to get a proper view of what is practicable and what it is possible to ask the forces to do and to maintain. I repeat that one cannot mix war fighting with peacekeeping. It is important for the safety of our troops and protection forces for that to be recognised. There is an element of action that can be taken, but we must leave it to the commanders on the ground to determine precisely where that line is drawn, unless the western democracies are prepared to cross that line entirely towards a war-fighting role. I see no indication that those powers are prepared to do that.

    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic orchestra and its management on the completion of a highly successful summer pops concert programme that has given pleasure and enjoyment to 25,000 people? Will my right hon. Friend also reflect on the fact that it was held in the Merseyside development corporation area, which represents a continuing commitment to the Government’s wish to regenerate the inner-city areas?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate everyone concerned on what was clearly an attractive and worthwhile event. My hon. Friend is right to point out the proposals that we have carried out for some years to regenerate the inner-city areas. There is a good deal more to come, and I believe that people up and down the country will welcome it.

     

    Q3. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Winnick: Do the Prime Minister and the leaders of other western democracies understand how deeply betrayed the people of Bosnia feel? They live, or did live, in so-called safe areas, but they have been given no protection in the face of Serbian aggression. If it was right, as I believe that it was, for the House to pass legislation about alleged Nazi war criminals living in Britain, what are we and the international community going to do about those war criminals in Bosnia today who are ethnic cleansing, mass murdering, raping and committing other such war crimes? Will any action be taken to bring those war criminals to justice?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that because it has been given in the House on a number of occasions–he knows that the answer is yes. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels deeply about this matter, but he should not underestimate the work done by the aid agencies and United Nations troops, who have aided those agencies to carry out work that otherwise would have been impossible to complete. Many people are alive today who would not have been but for that action, which was largely led by this country and British troops.

    Mr. Churchill: I fully appreciate the difficulties confronting my right hon. Friend in the decisions that he must take with his fellow national leaders over Bosnia. Is he aware, however, that the honour of Britain is engaged in the defence of the safe haven of Gorazde, which the Government established, and which is guarded by 200 Royal Welch Fusiliers? Is it not now incumbent on us to ensure the safety of those tens of thousands of the civilian population who have flocked there? Will he make sure that we and our allies, together with the United States, do all in our power to ensure that Gorazde does not fall?

    The Prime Minister: I am conscious of that, but my hon. Friend would be the first to realise that it would not be appropriate for me to expand on that matter.

     

    Q4. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Illsley: Does the Prime Minister realise that the recommendations of the Greenbury committee will do nothing to curb the obscene pay rises that have been awarded to the directors and chief executives of privatised utilities? Does he further realise that the announcement yesterday about taxation will affect the half a million ordinary employees who have share options? Is it not time that the Prime Minister took action to curb excessive pay awards in major companies rather than increasing the tax burden on ordinary employees?

    The Prime Minister: I know that it is coming to the end of term, but that is pretty rich from the hon. Gentleman. The Labour party has been calling for share options to be taxed as income for some time. Just as some Members now appear to be calling for a 50 per cent. tax rate on earnings, here is the hon. Gentleman talking about reducing taxes. There seems to be a lack of conjunction between the Front Bench and the Back Bench.

    As far as other matters are concerned, I believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said yesterday, some way away,

    “There is, believe it or not, still prejudice against success”.

    Well, there sits the prejudice–right along the Labour Benches.

  • PMQT – 13 July 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 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.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I urge, yet again, the withdrawal of British troops from Bosnia–particularly because Bismarck’s wise advice, quoted yesterday by our right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), was ignored by his successors, so that eventually the road to Sarajevo was paved with the bones of Pomeranian grenadiers? We do not want that road to be paved with the bones of our young men.

    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has held a consistent view about the difficulties that we face in Bosnia, and that some others share that view. There can be no certainty about what will happen in the present circumstances, but I hope that I can tell my hon. Friend why I believe that it would be unwise for us to decide to take that action now.

    I believe that, if UNPROFOR withdrew, a number of things would be at risk. We would certainly put at risk the peace that remains in central Bosnia, not least because of the presence of British troops; and we might put at risk the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been saved as a result of the presence of United Nations troops. Let me touch on the wider point on which my hon. Friend also touched. One of the primary reasons why I felt it right to send British troops to the area in the first place, and why I would be reluctant to remove them unless it became imperative to do so, is the danger of a wider Balkan war. That risk exists, and it is for that reason that I felt it right to ask British troops to go to the area in a peacekeeping capacity and try to ensure that such a war did not occur.

    I concede to my hon. Friend that the situation is serious. As I have told the House before, circumstances could arise in which it would be impossible for United Nations troops to remain; but until and unless those circumstances arise, I believe that it is right for them to do so, and to contribute to peacekeeping in the way in which they have so far.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that his leadership election pledge to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax would amount to £3 billion a year, and that almost half that £3 billion would go to just 5,000 people?

    The Prime Minister: I understand that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has been dancing around with all sorts of fraudulent and distorted quotations. I will make it quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman–as I have done, both publicly and privately, for some time–that when it is appropriate and we can afford to do so– [Interruption.] That is what I said. When it is appropriate and we can afford to do so, I wish to abolish both capital gains tax and inheritance tax. I repeat the point for the right hon. Gentleman: I have made that clear and it must wait for when resources allow. I make no apology for that. The distortion of capital gains tax will need to be tackled. Unlike the Labour party, I believe in trying to pass wealth down between generations, whereas it squirms and wriggles whenever we talk of any tax reduction.

    Mr. Blair: I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that, during the leadership election, he said that he wanted to do that at the earliest opportunity. I do not know whether No. 11 Downing street or No. 10a has now changed the line, but, in any event, would it not be the most mistaken sense of priority to cut inheritance tax or capital gains tax when we know today that, as a result of Government cuts in spending, we are short of teachers and that classroom sizes are rising? Should not the interests of the many in a decent education for their children come before the Tory obsession with the interests of a privileged few?

    The Prime Minister: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that home owners right across the country, increasingly hit by inheritance tax, are a privileged few. They will be interested to hear that they are a privileged few. It is true that they were a privileged few when the Labour Government were in power and many former council home owners, now home owners, would have remained without that privilege had we been left with a Labour Government. The reality is that the people of this country would like to see changes in those taxes and, when it is prudent to do so, we will change them.

    Mr. Blair: As a matter of fact, the vast majority of people do not pay inheritance tax or capital gains tax and the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute that more than half the benefit would go to 5,000 people. As for tax, let me remind him that he pledged to cut tax at the last election, that he increased the standard rate of income tax by 7p and that only one tax cut has been introduced since the 1992 election: a cut of VAT on fuel by Opposition Members.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that he and his colleagues have voted against every tax reduction that we have introduced throughout most of the past 16 years. Even at the suggestion of tax cuts, one sees the instinctive reaction of Opposition Members. They hate the thought of leaving money in people’s pockets. They would rather have it themselves to spend for themselves. I have made it clear that it is my ambition to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax as and when we can do it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that clear, too. It remains our ambition, and we will pursue it.

    Mr. Tracey: What message would my right hon. Friend send to the people of Wales, whose Labour Members of Parliament boycotted the House and Welsh Question Time at the beginning of this week? Would he suggest a forfeit for them, because surely their behaviour jeopardises the future representation of the Principality in the House?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that those hon. Members’ behaviour was juvenile–sufficiently juvenile, no doubt, to qualify for nursery vouchers as soon as we fully introduce the scheme. When the Labour party thinks up ill-judged stunts such as that, it would do well to remember that two of its past five or so leaders have been Englishmen sitting in Welsh seats.

     

    Q2. Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

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

    Mr. Llwyd: Following the rather dramatic departure of the Prime Minister’s very good friend, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the right hon. Gentleman has appointed someone to the Welsh Office who, nominally at least, is from the same planet as the rest of us, but in so doing he has appointed the fourth successive Member of Parliament to that office who has no interest at all in Welsh affairs. Has the Prime Minister not shown that he has no confidence in Welsh Conservative Members of Parliament and is it not really a pathetic reflection on them?

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose his question before listening to what might have been asked earlier. He might bear in mind the fact that we are one United Kingdom. It is perfectly proper for a previous leader of the Labour party to be a Welsh Member of Parliament seeking to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly proper for two English Members to sit in Welsh seats, one of whom became Prime Minister and one of whom tried to do so. It is only the Welsh nationalists who wish to wrap themselves up in a little country and damage that country and its prospects within the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Charles Wardle: If the new directive to abolish internal frontiers is the Commission’s response to the action it faces in the European Court for not having dismantled the frontiers under existing treaty law, what credible defence is there for Britain in talk of a veto, or the worthless Luxembourg declaration? If my right hon. Friend means to protect our sovereign borders against unchecked immigration, will he get the treaty amended? If not, he will face the wrath of not just the Euro-sceptics in the House but virtually the entire British electorate.

    The Prime Minister: The European Commission has produced three proposals. It made it clear that the proposals must be taken together and must be agreed unanimously. Unless those proposals are agreed, there is no matter upon which the European Court can adjudicate. I can tell my hon. Friend that there must be unanimity and that that will not happen. The United Kingdom will veto the proposals.

     

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

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

    Mr. Battle: Following the leadership election and his new-found determination to stamp his views and authority on the Cabinet, will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he agrees with the proposals of the Nolan committee on sleaze that amounts earned from consultancies by Members of Parliament should be openly declared?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear to the House on a number of occasions since the outset that I favour greater transparency. I have made it equally clear that we will wait until we have the Select Committee report before I say any more.

    Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning tomorrow’s rail strike, which will bring massive disruption to the country? Is it not revealing that, when it comes to standing up for the consumer and criticising the trade unions, new Labour remains totally silent?

    The Prime Minister: That follows neatly from the previous question. There has been absolute and total silence from the Opposition Front Bench when it comes to looking after the interests of passengers. We have not heard a word about the RMT or ASLEF or about the inconvenience to passengers. All I can say is that it is a good job that one does not go to Australia by train.

     

    Q4. Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

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

    Ms Corston: In the light of today’s report from school governors that teachers are being sacked and that class sizes are increasing, despite the Prime Minister’s repeated assurances that neither of those things would happen, will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise to the British people?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady might well acknowledge the increase in resources to education year upon year: it is 50 per cent. up on the level that we inherited some time ago. She might also acknowledge the improved examination performance, improved teaching, improved choice and the improvement in the number of our youngsters going to university. All those things have magically waved by the hon. Lady without her apparently noticing them.

    Lady Olga Maitland: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in today’s newspapers, including The Daily Telegraph, that 100 terrorists could be released from gaol early? Does he agree that that is totally untrue and that there are no plans to release terrorists early into the community until they have served their full and rightful sentences?

    The Prime Minister: The position is as it has always been and as the House knows. There is no question of an amnesty for prisoners in Northern Ireland. There are no political prisoners anywhere in the United Kingdom. We keep remission rates under review. That has been the case and it will remain the case for some time. Remission rates were introduced some time ago and, as I have said, we keep them constantly under review. I do not think that the time is yet right for a change.

    Madam Speaker: We now come to Question 5.

    Ms Church: Question 6–no, Question 5, Madam Speaker.

    Madam Speaker: Yes, Question 5.

     

    Q5. Ms Church: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

    The Prime Minister: Whichever question number it may be, the answer is the same.

    Ms Church: Does the Prime Minister agree that external regulation of the insurance market, as desired by both Lloyd’s and the Select Committee, would increase the global credibility of the London market? Will he amend the Lloyd’s Act 1982 to bring that about?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I necessarily accept the hon. Lady’s premise. It is clear that, because of the difficulties at Lloyd’s over the past couple of years, we need to look carefully at the methods of regulation. However, until we have examined them properly, I am not inclined to make any suggestion of a changed regime.

    Mr. Rowe: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the moment the opinion polls give even the illusion that there might conceivably be a Labour Government some time in the future, the trade unions queue up to threaten the customer and the patient with industrial action? Does not it frighten him as much as it frightens me that new Labour will be as much a pawn in the hands of the trade unions as old Labour used to be?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the pre-emptive obeisance shown by the Labour party on the minimum wage, the social contract and a range of other issues. Of course, we do not have to fight with the trade union movement if we offer it exactly what it wants, when it wants it and even before it has asked for it.

  • PMQT – 13 June 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

    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. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what the Government’s attitude is towards reports that socialist-controlled Essex county council is expecting parents to pay the costs of the transport of their children to grammar schools? Does that not show that, despite the warm words about choice and opportunity, Labour and the alliance in action are as malicious and vindictive as ever? So much for hung councils–so much for new Labour.

    The Prime Minister: The vote by the Lib-Lab pact to deprive grammar school children of free bus passes seems to me to be mean-spirited and petty, and it does damage to the notion that the Labour party stands for choice and opportunity. It seems to show the true face of Labour in local government, and gives a warning that many people would be wise to take on board. Perhaps the leader of the Labour party will ask his local government colleagues to think again on this matter, as he has on other issues.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister still say–as he did three months ago–that it would be folly to close our options on joining a single currency, including in the next Parliament?

    The Prime Minister: I set out the Government’s position perfectly clearly before the House on 1 March. I made it clear that we had an opt- out, and that we would decide whether to join when the time for the decision came. We would then decide whether to exercise our opt-out. Nothing has changed.

    Mr. Blair: Nothing has changed? Does that include in the next Parliament–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when the matter will come for a decision? He cannot. I just said perfectly clearly that when the matter comes for a decision– [Interruption.] It is perfectly clear–even for the right hon. Gentleman. When the matter comes for a decision, we will decide whether to exercise that opt-out.

    Mr. Blair: Does that include in the next Parliament? Baroness Thatcher got it wrong. The Prime Minister is not the yes, yes man–he is the don’t know, don’t know man. When will he learn to give the lead on this issue, because it is too important to be the plaything either of the rival ambitions in the Cabinet or of the warring factions in his party, of whom increasingly he is the prisoner and not the master?

    The Prime Minister: I have been observing the faces of some of the members of the Labour safeguards committee, who do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s view on any aspect of his European policy. As for giving a lead, it was I who negotiated the choice that this country and no other country in Europe has, to make the decision that is right and in the interests of this country–whenever the matter may come up, as I have told the right hon. Gentleman twice.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Evans: I am proud to be Welsh and I am also an unashamed, Union Jack-waving Brit. Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1235, signed by 75 hon. Members, which shows that the vast majority of people oppose bureaucratic assemblies, and that half the people who say that they will vote for the rabble opposite oppose devolution? Will my right hon. Friend continue his policies to protect and keep this kingdom united, and not sell out the vital interests of this country to sectional and divisive interests, as the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats would do?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Opposition proposals that we have seen on devolution are ill thought out and incomplete. On all the substantial questions, after many years of talking about their policy, the Opposition have made no decision on how to deal with the main questions that arise. If they know the answers, they are keeping quiet and, if they do not, it is about time they produced them, before seeking to inflict such a disastrous policy on the United Kingdom.

     

    Q3. Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Miss Hoey: The Prime Minister will know that I have been a strong supporter of the national lottery from the beginning, but does he realise that there is now growing concern about the way in which it operates, especially the huge profits that Camelot is making? Will he set up a small independent inquiry to examine those profits– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will be heard.

    Miss Hoey: Will the Prime Minister set up a small independent– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I am hearing some remarks that are rather derogatory and, I might say, very personal. Miss Hoey has the Floor.

    Miss Hoey: Perhaps the hon. Member concerned would like to repeat those remarks outside.

    Will the Prime Minister agree to set up a small independent inquiry to examine the profits of the national lottery, the fund distribution and the prize distribution? In particular, can such an inquiry consider ways of allowing some revenue funding, so that in my constituency, for example, school sports facilities can stay open during the summer and take children off the streets?

    The Prime Minister: There were several different parts to the hon. Lady’s question. I welcome the support that she has given to the national lottery from the outset, but I do not find any real need for an independent inquiry. The profits are governed by the legislation that the House passed, and the lottery has so far raised well over £600 million for good causes. I should like to consider the distribution between capital and revenue at some time, but it would not be right to do so until we have had rather more experience of the lottery. Although many people are concerned about the size of the prizes when the lottery has been rolled over and there are very large sums indeed, I must tell the House that, whenever that has happened, contributions have risen dramatically, and with them the available funds to be distributed to the five good causes–arts, sport, charities, the millennium fund and heritage- -so I do not think it right to revisit that question at present.

     

    Q4. Mr. Streeter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Streeter: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent disturbing reports of fraud and corruption in Hackney council? As independent inquiries appear to be the flavour of the afternoon, is it not now time to set up an independent and open inquiry into the growing number of cases of alleged malpractice and corruption in Labour councils all over the country?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the flavour of the afternoon and also about the fact that there seem to be a number of cases where there are difficulties within Labour local authorities. There has been no suggestion from the Labour party of any inquiry, except one by the party behind closed doors. I know that Lord Nolan may be considering investigating local government generally. Personally, I hope that is where he will turn his attentions next, and I hope that the official Opposition will give him their support when he does so.

     

    Q5. Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Ms Eagle: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity this afternoon to reject unequivocally the malicious criticisms made of his record on television last night by Baroness Thatcher, or will he be setting up a committee of inquiry to establish the facts before he decides to take any action?

    The Prime Minister: I worked with my right hon. and noble Friend for many years and I wish her well with her new book. I did not see the broadcast to which the hon. Lady refers, but, if there are misconceptions in it, no doubt in some years to come I shall correct them in my memoirs.

    Sir Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to study the evidence in the Nolan committee report that, over the past 30 years, average real incomes in Britain rose by 80 per cent.? In the meantime, the pay of Members of Parliament is only back where it was 30 years ago, and it has been below that level throughout the intervening period, while ministerial pay has gone down by 60 per cent. In view of that, will my right hon. Friend refer to the Nolan committee urgently the question of Members’ and Ministers’ pay?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend quotes some extremely telling statistics which are known to many hon. Members. I am not sure whether that is directly a matter for Lord Nolan; however, I shall myself take note of what my right hon. Friend says.

     

    Q6. Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Pickthall: Does the Prime Minister recall agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that it is the business of Government to help to reduce inequality? In that context, what is his response to recent reports that some Oxford colleges are warning young people not to bother applying unless their parents are rich enough to fund them? What can he do to prevent Oxbridge again becoming a preserve of the rich? How does he justify Oxbridge colleges getting £2,000 per student in extra top-up tuition fees?

    The Prime Minister: I do not accept the position set out by the hon. Gentleman in the case of Oxbridge or more generally. The reality for all people on low incomes across the country is that the average income of all family types has risen over recent years. Pensioner incomes have increased by more than 50 per cent. and average incomes have risen for those who are unemployed and others not in work. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Opposition Front Benchers to disagree, but if they cared to study some of the independent research, they would see that it shows that the least well-off have shared in the increase in prosperity. The Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that the standard of living measured by expenditure for the lowest tenth has increased by 14 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned poverty, he might be aware that the bottom income decile– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister will be heard in the House. I will have order.

    The Prime Minister: I know that the Opposition do not like their misconceptions corrected, but they are going to have them corrected none the less. The bottom income decile has experienced improvement in income, improvement in consumer durables and improvement of living standards, year after year.

     

    Q7. Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Bottomley: As my right hon. Friend was not able to watch television last night, may I tell him that one of the subjects covered in an interview with his predecessor was housing? May I suggest to him that people trying to get on to the housing ladder benefit by having low housing prices, relatively low interest rates and the opportunity to join in the property-owning democracy, and will he continue policies directed to that end?

    The Prime Minister: There has been, as my hon. Friend will know, a dramatic increase in home ownership in the past few years, and there was a further increase again last year. As the House should know–although perhaps not everyone will wish to acknowledge it–mortgage payments are about £130 a month lower than they were in October 1990. Perhaps more pertinently, as a proportion of average income they are now at their lowest for a decade. I think that shows very clearly the prospects for increasing home ownership in future.

  • PMQT – 6 June 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.

    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. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister take time off from his engagements to reflect on his fatuous remark that householders suffering from negative equity were responsible for their own plight? Does he not recall that, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he was the main architect of the inflationary Budget of 1988, which led to the dramatic rise in house prices? Instead of blaming those unfortunate householders, will he not for once accept that he is responsible for their calamity?

    The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to suspect that he knows that he has quoted me out of context. The remarks that he described as fatuous were actually made by the shadow Chancellor about what I said and were not in fact what I said. I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman should think that I was the main architect of the 1988 Budget, but I rather fancy that the then Chancellor might dispute it.

    Mr. Pickles: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at the decision of Essex county council to end bussing pupils to grammar schools? Is he aware of the great anger in my constituency about that decision? Is he further aware that the savings have now proved to be negligible? Does he agree that, unless the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats reverse their decision, education will go backwards in Essex and only the rich and privileged will be able to afford grammar schools?

    The Prime Minister: I have seen the press reports. I have not called for a detailed report of what has happened, but superficially, on the basis of the reports that I have seen, what has happened seems to be in fairly sharp conflict with the rhetoric of the Leader of the Labour party and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, both of whom have given me notice that they will be elsewhere this afternoon. I understand that the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has called on the Government to do something. He wants us to do something to protect the electors from the malice of Labour and Liberal councils.

    Mr. Prescott: Bearing in mind the fact that it was the Prime Minister who set up the Scott inquiry and appointed Sir Richard as chairman, can he now assure the House that Sir Richard Scott continues to enjoy his full confidence?

    The Prime Minister: I asked Sir Richard to carry out that report and I have confidence that he will do so thoroughly. When he has finished his report, I will consider it. When I have considered it, I will comment on it.

    Mr. Prescott: We welcome the Prime Minister’s support for Sir Richard Scott. May I remind the Prime Minister that it was his Chancellor, on the BBC’s “Question Time” last year, who said that he would resign if the inquiry found that he had acted improperly? Can the Prime Minister assure us that, if the inquiry finds that any Minister had knowingly misled the House, he or she must resign?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may wish to draw conclusions from a partial report not yet– [Hon. Members:– “Yes or no?”] I will reply to the question in my own way.

    The right hon. Gentleman may wish to draw his conclusions on the basis of a partial report; I will draw my conclusions when the report has been responded to by those mentioned in it, when a final report has been produced and when I have had time to study and consider that final report.

    Mr. Prescott rose —

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should contain himself a moment.

    At that point I will make my judgement on the basis of the facts, not now, as the right hon. Gentleman does, on the basis of his prejudices.

    Mr. Prescott: Will the Prime Minister make it clear that if the inquiry, in its final conclusions, finds that any Ministers have misled the House, they must be asked to resign?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear that I am making no judgements on what may be in the report until the report is complete. What we have seen thus far is a malicious leak of a part of the report– [Interruption.] I repeat, what we have seen thus far is a malicious leak of a part of the report. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to whom the right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring, has made it perfectly clear that he rejects the observations contained in the draft extract and has said that he is confident that he will persuade the inquiry that those views are wrong and inaccurate. We will await the final report.

    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disgraceful leak of the Scott inquiry proceedings and their subsequent exploitation by the BBC and the Opposition is a denial of natural justice?

    Mr. Skinner: The Government leaked it.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has clearly finally flipped if he believes what he is shouting out at the moment. [Hon. Members:– “Who leaked it?”] I wish I knew who had maliciously leaked this selective aspect of the report. But I do know who is seeking to take advantage of that leaked report in studio after studio. I wonder what people might make of someone who takes a partial extract of an incomplete report before it is responded to and appears in every studio in the land to smear someone. I know what I make of him. I make of him the shadow Foreign Secretary.

    Mr. Beith: If the Prime Minister has formed no conclusion about the judgements that will be contained in the final version of the Scott report, how was it possible for reports to emanate from Downing Street yesterday of full support for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his denial of the conclusions that have been leaked? Will the Prime Minister ever tell us the truth about all this or will the Government behave true to form and never take responsibility for anything that goes wrong?

    The Prime Minister: There was a time, a long time ago, when the Liberal party actually believed in waiting for the facts before it smeared, but that is not so these days. Like Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, at the first available opportunity it takes the worst possible construction, without facts, without right of reply, without consideration and makes its judgements. I will not do that. I will make my judgement on the basis of the facts when the people criticised have had the opportunity to reply and when they have replied. One day, the right hon. Gentleman might learn that that is the right way for anyone in the House to behave.

    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no public interest defence in what the BBC has done? To behave in the way that it has in respect of a report that will be published in full in any event can only be a subversion of the public interest.

    The Prime Minister: I said a few moments ago how much I deplore the malicious leak and that it appears to have been broadcast without any opportunity being given for the people named in it to respond. I believe that the people of this country will make up their own minds about that behaviour.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Prentice: Further to the Prime Minister’s wholly inadequate reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), may I remind him of what he said last week? He spoke of the crazy situation of spiralling house prices and silly borrowing. Will he never take responsibility for anything–or is he content to allow mortgage misery to continue for millions of people, shuffling responsibility on to anyone but himself?

    The Prime Minister: What the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) said–which the hon. Gentleman clearly did not understand–was that I had personally blamed the people who had taken mortgages for their difficulties. That is not what I said, as anyone who reads what I said–

    Mr. Prentice indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: Here again, the hon. Gentleman does not want to know what was said; he just wants to take the political opportunity to smear again and again and again. That is the single constant factor in the attitude of Opposition Front and Back Benchers: never mind the facts–let us live with the myths.

    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly welcome the Government’s robust approach to the Messina conference last weekend, but will my right hon. Friend remind Jacques Santer, the President of the European Commission, that, far from wanting to give up the opt-out or our national veto, the vast majority of the British people want the European Commission’s interference in the nooks and crannies of British life to be reduced? Is it not typical that the only people who do not appreciate that are members of the European Commission itself and members of the Opposition parties?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we certainly intend to retain the veto in regard to a range of important matters. The Labour party is wrong to seek to undermine the veto position: that will not be understood by people in this country, and it is wholly wrong.

    If Labour Members had taken the opportunity to read the OECD report or any of the other reports, they would also know that their policies on the social chapter can do nothing but harm to this country, while giving great comfort to our competitors.

    I confirm to my hon. Friend that we shall sustain the veto, continue our policy of seeking genuine subsidiarity and certainly try to ensure that the essential parts of British life are protected from external interference.

     

    Q3. Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Sheerman: Looking back on four and a half years in No. 10, what does the Prime Minister most regret? Does he most regret the loss of 800,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, the repossession of the houses of a third of a million people or his total failure to appoint a team of Cabinet colleagues who are honest, trustworthy or competent?

    The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what I am most pleased about that has been achieved in the past few years. I am most pleased that we now have the best opportunity for sustained recovery with low inflation and job creation that the country has seen for 30 years. The hon. Gentleman can name no western European country whose position has improved so much over the past four years; he can name no western European country whose unemployment has fallen so rapidly; and he can name no western European country with prospects such as ours. That is what I look back on having achieved in the past four and a half years.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I was in no way misled by our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he wrote to me about arms to Iraq on 4 May 1989? I was astonished, therefore, that the matter was raised at all in the Scott report. When I asked my right hon. Friend what the score was, however, he replied again that the guidelines were applied on a case-by-case basis, in the light of the circumstances of the day.

    Does my right hon. Friend accept that these are guidelines, not tablets of stone, and that it would be the height of insanity if they were not operated in the light of the circumstances of the day? Does he further accept that I know of no more honourable man in politics than our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

    The Prime Minister: I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend has had to say in the last couple of moments. My right hon. Friend has made those points to the Scott inquiry and I have no doubt that in the response to the preliminary report he will re-emphasise those points.

     

    Q4. Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Martlew: The Prime Minister will recall that in the Budget statement in November 1993 the Chancellor gave the go-ahead for the upgrading of the west coast main line. He said that it was the most important rail link in the country.

    Does the Prime Minister realise that to date there have been no contracts let and no work done on that line, the line is crumbling, the service is deteriorating and thousands of passengers are being inconvenienced by the delay? Will he give his Transport Secretary instructions to stop asset-stripping our national railways, and get on with upgrading the west coast main line?

    The Prime Minister: If the facts are as stated by the hon. Gentleman, I think he has made the most classic case for privatisation I have ever heard.