The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Northern Ireland Peace Process

  • PMQT – 18 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister explain why a Treasury document shows that, under this Government, the economy is set to decline to the level of those of Brazil, Thailand and Mexico? Is not that a telling indictment of the Government’s policy?

    The Prime Minister: One of the attractions of the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that it looks forward to the possibility of what may happen 10 years ahead, whatever the policies followed and whoever the Government may be. I have no doubt that some of the matters in the document that the hon. Gentleman would consider barmy are policies that the Treasury considered might be adopted by a Government other than this one.

     

    Q2. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning today’s postal strike, which is causing widespread disruption to my constituents and throughout the country, and costing businesses many thousands of pounds? Does he agree that any proposal to give new rights to trade unions would merely encourage the incidence of such strikes? Is not this yet further proof that new Labour brings new dangers to the British people?

    The Prime Minister: Today’s strikes cannot and should not be justified, and I roundly condemn them. They are costing the country millions and causing great inconvenience to many people who are not part of the dispute.

    Mr. Skinner: Why?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks why–he supports the strikes and I am pleased that he acknowledges it. I am happy for the instincts of the Labour party to be laid bare by the hon. Gentleman; the House will be pleased to hear what he has to say.

    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the education spokesman, I understand, for the Opposition, said that the strikers should go to arbitration, which self-evidently must be right. I hope that we shall hear the same call from the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, and the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is sponsored by one of the striking unions. I should also hope to hear the same call from the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. New Labour laws to make strikes easier are exactly what the country does not want–and the Government will ensure that it does not get them.

    Mr. Blair: Given that, as we speak, talks are taking place both here between the British and Irish Governments and in Belfast in respect of the peace process, after what, by common consent, must be judged the most damaging two weeks in the affairs of Northern Ireland since August 1994, does the Prime Minister agree that there are three essential foundation stones for rebuilding support for peace? The first is that the two Governments renew their relationship of trust, based firmly on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing street declaration and the other negotiated agreements between them that remain intact and valid. Secondly, all sides must demonstrate their complete commitment to the rule of law and the Government their even-handedness in its application, whether in response to the threat of violence by those engaged in marches, or the evil punishment beatings that claimed their latest victim last night. Thirdly, all parties to the talks on Northern Ireland should move from matters of procedure to matters of substance as soon as is humanly possible, so that we can show the people of Northern Ireland that the constitutional path to peace has life in it, hope in it and, indeed, is the only sane route to the future.

    The Prime Minister: The past 14 days have certainly been extremely difficult for everyone in Northern Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I shall try to respond to his three points. During the past few years, the British and Irish Governments have worked very closely together. It is important for the success of the talks that that co-operation continues, and it is this Government’s intention that that co-operation shall continue. The Irish Government and the British Government do not, of course, agree about every issue under discussion, but I believe that our relations are strong enough on Government-to-Government and personal levels for those talks to continue, even while we seek a solution to the disagreements before us. That is what we are seeking to do.

    Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the rule of law needs to prevail in Northern Ireland, as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The scenes that we have witnessed over the past few days–the violence, the intimidation and the aftermath of those scenes–are wholly unacceptable and should have no place in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

    As to the future and the talks, I entirely agree that progress so far has been inadequate. It is our intention to try to ensure that the talks move forward rapidly from talks about procedure to talks about substance.

    Our intention will be to try to turn the setbacks of the past couple of weeks into a positive advantage as the talks resume, and we will bring all our strength to bear to achieve that.

    Mr. Yeo: In view of the remarkable transformation of Britain’s competitive position, which has been brought about by our opt-out from the European social chapter and the virtual elimination of strikes, does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that a political party that claims to be seeking office should not only boast about its intentions to burden British business with the European social chapter obligation but cannot even unite its Back Benchers in condemning today’s strike on the London underground?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the United Kingdom’s competitive position at the moment. It is very important that we remain competitive in the areas to which he has referred, as well as others.

    I think that I heard the deputy leader of the Labour party say a moment ago, “What about your social conscience?”–

    Mr. Prescott: His social contract.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem roundly to condemn today’s strikes, which are damaging our competitiveness, as I believe he should. No doubt his relationship with his sponsors prohibits him from doing so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Hughes: On the day when the Cabinet has apparently decided to start a new campaign to clamp down on public expenditure, beginning once again with freezing the pay of public sector workers, which it has no doubt done to try to pave the way for tax bribes for its supporters before the election, what does the Prime Minister say to parents in my borough who find that the secondary school that their children attend is having to go to the British American Tobacco company for sponsorship to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds? Is it acceptable that the Government have so underfunded public services to try to produce tax cuts that schooling has become dependent on profits from tobacco sales, when under-age smoking is at its highest level for 10 years?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is making a silly point. He also knows about the growth in expenditure on, and provision for, education over recent years, the dramatic increase in spending per pupil and the improved educational opportunities that now exist. As for pay in the public sector, our view remains that set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor last September–that pay and price increases should be offset by efficiency savings. That has been our policy for some time, and we renewed it this morning.

    Sir Michael Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what information Her Majesty’s Government have received about the crash of the Trans World Airlines airliner last night? Will he take the opportunity to express the sympathy of the House to all involved, and to reaffirm that, if terrorism is involved, international co-operation must be accelerated and that this country will play a full part in that process?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm my hon. Friend’s last point. As yet, we have received no solid information about the cause of the dreadful crash that occurred a few hours ago. A great deal of examination is taking place, and as soon as I have further information I shall ensure that the House is aware of it. I have of course conveyed the sympathy of the House to the American Government, and told them that if they feel that we can assist in any way, we shall be happy to do so.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Ainsworth: To return to the leaked Treasury document, is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)–I believe that he is the Prime Minister’s right hon. Friend again–said this morning on the radio that some of the ideas in the leaked document would be included in the manifesto? Can the Prime Minister tell us which ideas–the privatisation of roads, cuts in post-16 education, the scrapping of old-age pensions, or the complete dismantling of the welfare state?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman stood up to ask that question immediately behind a shadow Chancellor who proposes to cut child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds and take about £1,000 from every family with two children of that age who want to go into further education. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about manifesto pledges, he should worry about his own side’s manifesto pledges, which would take child benefit away from people, raise extra taxes in Scotland and increase trade union rights so that there can be more strikes–and no doubt more sponsorship for the Labour party. Instead of talking drivel about policies that are not Government policies, he should concentrate on the drivel that is the policies of the Opposition.

     

    Q5. Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday’s welcome news that unemployment has hit a five-year low–[Hon. Members: “In Basildon?”]–is in part due to the Government’s reforms to curb trade union policy? Is not new Labour’s policy–[Hon. Members: “For Basildon?”]–to give privileges to trade unions, which no previous Labour Government would have done, further proof that new phoney Labour–[Laughter.]–would destroy the economic success of this country with dangerous new policies for Basildon, Southend and the rest of the country?

    The Prime Minister: As ever, my hon. Friend speaks for the country as well as for Basildon and Southend, West. There is no doubt that yesterday’s news about jobs was extremely good. We are now into the fourth successive year of falling unemployment. There is also increasing growth in new inward investment.

    Mr. Janner: They are fiddled statistics.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member shouts about statistics. They are new jobs. He may regard them as statistics, but I see them as new jobs. I welcome inward investment and new jobs, even in the hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency. I welcome them in any constituency. How he can refer to them as statistics when they are people’s hopes, livelihoods and futures, I cannot imagine. However, the policies to which my hon. Friend referred would damage the lives, opportunities and futures of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituents and everybody else’s.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Prime Minister say in public what the Foreign Secretary told the positive Europe group of Tory Members last Monday: that there will be no toughening of the Government’s stance on Europe–the Prime Minister is shaking his head already–that there will be no ruling out of a single currency and that there will be no additional demands for the repatriation of powers from Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Lady exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend told my hon. Friends. He set out the policy in the public document that determines our negotiating posture for the intergovernmental conference–precisely and in detail. If the hon. Lady has not yet read it, I invite her to do so as she will find it a clear-cut and excellent document.

    Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay at the fact that a group of Opposition Members should publicly support the striking tube train drivers who are grinding London to a halt and costing Londoners and London commerce millions of pounds? Does he agree that the public must be deeply angered by the irresponsible action of union members and the last-minute pussyfooting by the Leader of the Opposition in not condemning the strike?

    The Prime Minister: I have not seen a great amount of support for opposition to the strike from Opposition Members. No doubt the opposition to the strike will be clearly expressed by every Front Bencher over the next few days. Not only will there be a request that the parties go to arbitration–which is surely self-evidently right–but there will be a clear-cut condemnation of a strike that is causing a great deal of difficulty for many innocent people and damaging the industries concerned. When will we get that condemnation from the Opposition?

  • PMQT – 16 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 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.

    Mrs. Kennedy: Today marks the launch of the Gun Control Network by the families of the victims of Hungerford and Dunblane. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the strength of the case against the private ownership of handguns? Will he accept that such a measure to ban them would receive the support of the overwhelming majority of the British people?

    The Prime Minister: I am, of course, aware of the strength of feeling on this issue and of the recent petition calling for strengthened control over firearms. As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have been careful to consult the Opposition parties on this issue from the outset, and I am delighted that, thus far, we have received their firm support for the way in which we are proceeding. Since 1979, we have strengthened firearms controls. As soon as we receive the report from Lord Cullen, we will consider it with great care. I am happy to reiterate to the House that, in the event it is needed, we have preserved a legislative slot to take any action that is required.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

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

    Mrs. Lait: In the light of the great news that Lite-On and LG are bringing thousands of new jobs to Scotland and Wales, does my right hon. Friend agree that breaking up the United Kingdom, creating an extra tier of regional government, surrounding it all in bureaucracy and making the Scots pay more tax is likely to scare away potential new investors? Is this not new Labour being new danger?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to welcome these substantial new investments to Scotland and Wales. They are the latest of a large number of inward investments that we have seen not only in Scotland and Wales but in other parts of the United Kingdom. I certainly hope that we shall get more. They are coming here predominantly because of the economic environment–[Interruption.]–because this country is an economic success story–[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is chuntering in the back row. He seems to forget that they have been coming here for 15 years under Conservative policies, because we have created a combination of lower inflation, lower taxes and lower costs. That is attractive not just to companies in this country but to world investors seeking the right country in which to place their money. I am delighted that they place it here. It would be a tragedy if policies were followed that would prevent them from doing so in future.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall promising the country at the previous general election that he would balance the budget? How does he square that with today’s further disastrous borrowing figures which show that, leaving aside privatisation moneys, the Government’s overdraft this year is running at a higher level than at the same time last year?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman would look carefully at today’s borrowing figures, he would see that they are entirely consistent with the economic forecast and that they confirm the excellent state of the economy–sustainable growth, low inflation and falling Government borrowing. As for comparatives, since 1979, average borrowing as a proportion of gross domestic product has been just under one half as much as under the previous Labour Government.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister will just confirm that this Conservative Government have received more in North sea oil revenues and from privatising the nation’s assets than the borrowing requirement under the last Labour Government. That is what his Government have had. Is it not also a fact that, under his prime ministership, the public debt has doubled? Will he confirm this statistic and answer this question directly: is it not the case that, as a result of his Government’s borrowing policies, every family in this country now pays £1,000 a year in tax, not for better services in respect of health, education and law and order but just to service the debt that he has created? Is that right or is it wrong?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is completely misleading the House. He knows what resources have been spent in recent years. I will tell him where they have gone–they have gone on health, education, defence and public services. The right hon. Gentleman is the man who says that he wants to keep taxes down, yet he wants to put public expenditure up. The reality is that, whereas he may play games in opposition, we have to deal with the realities of producing a successful economy, as we have done in recent years and as we will do in the years to come.

    Mr. Blair: Not a single one of those figures did the Prime Minister dispute–£1,000 a year in tax just to service the debt. Let me tell the Prime Minister that, if he wants to have a better balance in public spending, why not tackle the problems of long-term unemployment which have put up the bills for people in this country? Is it not the truth–[Interruption.] That is the party that has spent on welfare and unemployment but lowered spending on investment for the country’s future. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, if an ordinary member of the public had run an overdraft as large as this, he would have been told that his time was up and his home should be repossessed? Is that not the fate so richly deserved by this Government and this Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister: Dear, oh dear. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about success in dealing with unemployment, perhaps he would care to acknowledge that we have the lowest rate of unemployment of any significant nation in western Europe; that unemployment has been falling for three years, which it has not been doing anywhere else; that every single Labour Government we have ever been cursed with have increased unemployment dramatically; that he has policies that would increase the costs of employers, which would create unemployment; and that one of his unions is asking for a minimum wage of £6.03 an hour, which would cost an enormous amount in unemployment.

    While the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about economic performance, let me mention the things that he neglected to mention: the lowest level of inflation for 50 years; the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years–[Hon. Members: “More.”]–four years of falling unemployment and increasing employment–[Hon. Members: “More.”]–the lowest rate of basic tax for 50 years–[Hon. Members: “More.”]–disposable income rising way above inflation–[Hon. Members: “More.”]–No. 1 in Europe for investment–[Hon. Members: “More.”]–in the interests of other questioners, I shall stop there, but there is far more to the success of the Government’s policies.

     

    Q3. Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

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

    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no responsible Prime Minister would weaken Britain’s veto in Europe by giving Brussels more powers to determine matters that should be voted on and discussed in the House? Does not new Labour wish to surrender Britain’s veto in Europe? Does not new, phoney Labour mean new, real danger for residents in Basildon, Southend and the whole country?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend should not suggest that the dangers from those policies are in only Basildon and Southend. They are in every constituency around the land. He is quite right.

    The Government are not prepared to see our veto eroded, as the Labour party apparently is. On issues of national and constitutional significance, any Government should be prepared to protect British interests, if necessary by using the veto and saying no. I regret that the Opposition are committed to undermining the veto. If they say that they are never going to be isolated in Europe, what they are saying is that they would never use the veto whether it was in this country’s interests or not. They would follow the line determined by our European partners. That is their policy out of their own mouths, and upon that let them be judged.

    Mr. Ashdown: But Britain’s national debt has doubled since the Prime Minister took office. Britain’s annual debt has doubled against what the Prime Minister said that it would be two years ago. Is the Prime Minister prepared to confirm the words of his own Chancellor of the Exchequer in spring this year when he said that, when public borrowing was around £30 billion a year, tax cuts were irresponsible?

    The Prime Minister: As to the Budget, the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see. It is some months away. We will deal prudently, as we have always done, with that aspect.

    I seem to remember the right hon. Gentleman’s party supporting the largest public borrowing that we have ever seen at any stage in this country. Under this Government, the economy has gone from strength to strength to strength. If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about public borrowing, as I am, I invite him and the leader of the Labour party to support the Government in the public expenditure decisions that we will have to take in the forthcoming public expenditure round. We will judge by their words whether they support the decisions that we will take in the public spending round. If they support restraint, it will be the first time that they have done so.

    Sir John Gorst: In view of the industrial relations unrest in the Post Office, will my right hon. Friend give consideration not merely to the suspension of the monopoly but to the application of a law of contract to all parties in the Post Office?

    The Prime Minister: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend about the likely dangers of a Post Office strike. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is giving consideration to suspension of the monopoly, and I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend’s further point.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

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

    Mr. Hall: The Prime Minister will be aware that last year’s tax revenue fell short by a staggering £7 billion. Likewise, last year’s public sector borrowing requirement was £10 billion greater than forecast 16 months previously. Does he agree that, if a managing director in the private sector made such an overestimate of a company’s income and plunged it into such huge debt, he would be sacked? What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows very well the degrees of difficulty in determining tax revenue. Of course, his way of determining tax revenue would be to support his leader in increasing taxes, with the large range of extra taxes that the Labour party is already planning. He might as well admit it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Brazier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

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

    Mr. Brazier: In considering the very sad events in Ulster and welcoming the deployment of extra troops there, I should like to ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the overwhelming priority must be the restoration of security, which must involve whatever resources and legal powers the security forces require.

    The Prime Minister: Self-evidently, the overwhelming need is to restore normal law and order to the Province so that problems are solved by dialogue and not by violence and confrontation. We must continue to do whatever we can to ensure that the bomb in Enniskillen–whoever turns out to be responsible for it–does not relaunch the cycle of violence that has so scarred life in Northern Ireland in recent years. I particularly welcome the restraint that has been shown by loyalist groups and I very much hope that they will continue to show that restraint in future. The security forces have our full support. They will continue to have our full support in the Province and in the rest of the United Kingdom.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

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

    Mrs. Roche: Given that 21 Conservative Back Benchers have signed an early-day motion expressing serious concern about the sale of Ministry of Defence homes and that one of them described it as a half-baked scheme, deeply upsetting to service families, how do the Prime Minister and the Government justify the sale and the £900 million a year rent bill to the British public?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is mistaken in what she says and in her judgment. The service chiefs support the sale. They have recognised and said publicly that it will raise £1.5 billion in public revenue. The Labour party has said a great deal about public borrowing. Will they vote against the £1.5 billion that the sale will bring into the public revenue and cut borrowing, or will it be another occasion when the leader of the Labour party says one thing and votes in a quite different way?

  • PMQT – 11 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th July 1996. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is representing Her Majesty’s Government at an official function with President Mandela.

    Mr. McNamara: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that it is no longer the Queen’s writ that runs in Northern Ireland but the Orange writ? The actions of Her Majesty’s Government in the past day compare most unfavourably with the actions of Lady Thatcher who, when she sat on the Government Front Bench, saw down the Orange threat at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the framework document is still the policy of Her Majesty’s Government?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific question–the framework document is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government. It is generally accepted across the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have done more to bring peace to the Province, albeit that it is sadly disturbed at the moment, than Ministers in any other Administration in modern times.

     

    Q2. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

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

    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend condemn unreservedly the disruption on London Transport being caused by members of the Associated Society Locomotive of Engineers and Fireman and, now, the National Union of Rail, Marine and Transport Workers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such action is a complete misuse of industrial power, causes hardship to millions of Londoners and threatens the tourist trade? Is my right hon. Friend surprised that some hon. Members have failed to condemn that disruption, and does he agree that, for Londoners, new Labour has come to mean hard labour?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises important and urgent matters. I am wholly sympathetic with his comments about the plight of Londoners faced with that unjustifiable action. As to persons who should condemn it, I put at the top of the list the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is sponsored by one of the unions concerned.

    Mr. Prescott: Will the Deputy Prime Minister break with tradition and give a straight answer to a simple question? Over the next 25 years, how much rent will the Ministry of Defence pay to the purchaser of the married quarters estate in return for the £1.6 billion estimated sale price?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will have noticed that, faced with the question that I put to him, all that the deputy leader of the Labour party could do was laugh and refuse to answer. On the specific question he put to me, what the House will want to judge is whether it should listen to his strictures or to the advice of the chiefs of staff about what is best for the military services.

    Mr. Prescott: Can the Deputy Prime Minister deny the press reports which state that the Government have agreed to pay far more in rent than they will receive from the sale? Is it not a scandal that the Government are keeping secret just how much taxpayers’ money they have guaranteed to pay to those property speculators?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has no understanding of how property deals are structured. If he had, he would realise that this negotiation will lead to improved standards for members of Her Majesty’s services and that the minimum guarantees are well below the occupancy levels assumed to prevail throughout that time.

    Mr. Prescott: Will the Deputy Prime Minister now tell the House the truth? This is a bad deal for service families and for the public. It is selling off a national asset at a knockdown price. It is a typical smash-and-grab operation by a Government of spivs.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: That is exactly what the Labour party has said about every privatisation measure that we have ever introduced. Every time we do it, we hear this ranting nonsense from the Labour party. Then, when we have done it, the Labour party cannot bring itself to reverse it.

    Sir Gerard Vaughan: In the week in which the Father of the House has celebrated his 80th birthday and his 46 years of service to the House, will my right hon. Friend associate himself with the congratulations and good wishes of the House?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has provided me with a most welcome opportunity to pay a fulsome tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who has served the House and the country with great distinction for a long time. I say only one word of personal thanks, which is that I am grateful that he had the foresight to recommend my name for the Conservative candidates’ list some 30 years ago.

     

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

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

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

    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that both Houses gave a spectacular welcome to President Mandela because he personifies the struggle against the apartheid regime? Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating those who supported the anti-apartheid movement throughout President Mandela’s years in prison? Will he join me in hoping that President Mandela’s attitude towards his former oppressors will strengthen and build the new democracy? Does he agree that President Mandela’s attitude brings shame to those in this country who gave succour and support to the apartheid regime? [Interruption.]

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I would have hoped that the House could have responded to the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are talking about one of the political giants of our time and I have no hesitation in paying tribute to a man who, in his behaviour since leaving prison, has made one of the most remarkable political contributions that I have ever seen. To have spent that part of his life in those circumstances and to have emerged with such apparent absence of any bitterness to set about the healing of the wounds in that country with the potential that that has for not just South Africa but the whole continent of Africa, must be regarded as one of the more remarkable political achievements of our century.

     

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

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

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

    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the downbeat assessment of Britain’s industrial involvements of late by the voice of Labour–sadly not with us today–investment by Lucky Goldstar in Wales, Unipart in England and Lite-On in Scotland demonstrates that UK plc is in very good heart?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I hope that the entire House would want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on securing not only the largest inward investment ever to come to this country, from Lucky Goldstar of Korea, but probably one of the largest inward investments ever attracted into the European Union. It is a huge tribute to the policies of the Government, which are transforming the United Kingdom into the enterprise centre of Europe.

    If anybody wants to understand just how out of touch the Labour party is, they might remember the words of the deputy leader:

    “I don’t see much inward involvement flooding in. I see companies flooding out.”

    That is the Labour party keeping its hand on the pulse of what is happening.

    Madam Speaker: Question 5. [Interruption.]

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am happy to answer the question, if only I can get a chance to hear it in the first place.

     

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

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

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Welsh: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the Greenpeace campaign to stop industrial fishing for sand eels, which is destroying entire fishing grounds in the North sea, including Wee Bankie, near my constituency? Will he undertake to have this issue raised in forthcoming intergovernmental conference and common fisheries policy talks?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture take the matter extremely seriously and will raise it as appropriate in any international forum.

     

    Q7. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country has the finest civil service in the world, and that any newspaper reports to the contrary today are entirely bogus? Will he–[Hon. Members: “Reading.”] Will he endorse the view that the civil service has more important things to do implementing the Government’s excellent policies than spending time on the wholly academic issue of a possible Labour Government in the future?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question, because–[Hon. Members: “Reading.”] That is perfectly true. I was aware that the question might be raised, because it had been extensively reported in The Independent as a result of the organised publication of suggestions that there had been politicisation of the civil service by a civil service union– coincidentally on the day when the Labour party is organising a Supply day debate on the subject, so I had done some research.

    I understand that none of the cases involving allegations of improper conduct by Ministers has been substantiated, and that no further approaches have been made to the commission to investigate irregularities since its last report. The fact is that the Government created the appropriate machinery to allow civil servants the right of appeal if they felt that they were being asked to do things that were politically wrong. I understand that that machinery is working properly. I see no justification whatever for the civil service union report today when there is not a shred of verifiable evidence contained in it.

     

    Q8. Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

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

    Mr. Canavan: On this historic day, when both Houses of Parliament had the privilege of being addressed by one of the greatest political leaders of this century, will the Deputy Prime Minister appeal to all political leaders in Northern Ireland to stretch out to each other a hand of friendship, peace and reconciliation–just as Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk did to ensure a better future for their country based on the equality of all the peoples, irrespective of race, gender or creed?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman speaks for the House. I would add only one thought, with which I am sure that he would wish to associate himself. It is that President Mandela has done all those things within the context of the rule of law.

    Mr. Nicholls: At a time when commuters in London are being given a timely reminder of what life used to be like under Labour in a strike-ridden Britain, does my right hon. Friend recall that, even in the dark days of old Labour, there was never a suggestion that the firing of strikers should be outlawed? Does he recall that new Labour now proposes that it should be illegal to fire strikers? Does that not show that there really are new dangers in new Labour?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has raised a point that concerns us all. The new Labour proposals for trade union reform envisage changes to give unions powers that they never had under earlier legislation. Beyond any shadow of doubt, new Labour represents new dangers.

    Mr. Skinner: With regard to the earlier reference to jobs for south Wales, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how much subsidy, in all its various forms, has been paid by the Government to attract those jobs? Was not the right hon. Gentleman responsible for refusing subsidies to the pits, which he then closed a few years ago? If he had kept open those pits by paying subsidies, south Wales would not need so many jobs now.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: If I remember correctly–it is some time since I looked at the figures–the subsidies to the coal industry amounted to £19 billion, as a result of which jobs were not saved: they simply disappeared under Government after Government. The transformation now, which the hon. Gentleman cannot live with, is that the mining industry has just had its first ever strike-free year.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 10 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in London, held on Wednesday 10th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what is your reaction to LG’s decision to invest in South Wales?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is absolutely marvellous news for Wales and absolutely wonderful news for the United Kingdom. It is not just the fact that it is the biggest ever single investment into the United Kingdom – 1.7 billion pounds – it isn’t only the 6,000 jobs it will directly create, it will of course create over time a lot of extra jobs in order to service those. So it is remarkably good news for Wales and I am absolutely delighted that we have been able to encourage them to come here.

    QUESTION:

    Turning to Northern Ireland, with the extra troops being sent in and the violence overnight, is the peace process effectively at an end now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it isn’t. At the moment we have to deal with the immediate problem that exists. The confrontation we have seen, the mob violence we have seen, does nobody any good in Northern Ireland. And I think the best way that that is going to be resolved is by negotiation at local level between the communities and I very much hope that is what is going to happen over the next day or so. But the RUC will seek to ensure that there is proper law and order there, that is essential. But I hope over the next couple of days that everyone with any influence will use that influence to encourage the communities to talk at local level and to bring this present impasse to an end. That is what we very much hope will happen.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that MPs are going to support you call for pay restraint this evening?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope so. We have had to ask other people for restraint over the last few years and we will have to do that again in the future. It is changing the face of the British economy, what has happened over recent years, and today’s announcement, for example, is another illustration of that. So was the announcement last week of Lite-On’s investment in Scotland of a thousand jobs.

    So the Government have set out its priorities. We believe restraint is appropriate and I very much hope that is what we will be able to achieve tonight.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Osnabruck Mortar Attack – 29 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Osnabruck mortar attack, made during an interview in Lyon held on Saturday 29th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the IRA were behind the Osnabruck attack].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The presumption must be that it is the IRA, but that is not yet confirmed. But the nature of attack – mortar from a small van – suggests very strongly that it was them. Thankfully no-one was injured. I think what this does yet again, if it proves to be the IRA, as I suspect it is, is indicate that they are becoming more and more isolated.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had information from the security services or his own instincts about such an attack].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we unsurprised that there has been more, and it is conceivable there will be yet more. But one can never be certain quite when and how they will attempt this sort of exercise.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sinn Fein/IRA had given up on the peace process].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is very difficult to say. The psychology of the way they work is always very difficult to judge. Certainly there are different views prevailing within the IRA, of that we are certain, and at the moment the predominant view seems to be that they believe they will make some progress by this sort of terrorist attack. That is a fatal misjudgement on their behalf, it is a misjudgement of the British Government, it is a misjudgement of the British people and it is a misjudgement of international opinion as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether internment would be considered].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a range of alternatives, I don’t wish to run through them and I am sure you will understand why not. But as far as matters like internment have been concerned, we have never ruled those out.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sinn Fein could still re-enter the peace talks at this stage].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Every activity, every single attack divorces them further from the mainstream political parties and their willingness to accept them into the talks process. So the concept that they could enter into a range of bombing atrocities of the sort we have seen at Manchester, and now I think at Osnabruck, and then walk in the talks is plainly nonsense, nonsense because it wouldn’t be acceptable to the British and Irish governments, and nonsense because it would not be acceptable to the other parties either.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he felt personal despair at the situation].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not despair, certainly not, because the gains that have been made I think are very real. For the first time, the IRA are really becoming isolated in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland, they have lost the support that they had internationally, that certainly means they will losing a very large part of the funding. They are shrinking in the view of many people who previously supported them. That I think is extremely good news and from the IRA’s point of view they must be extremely worried about that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sinn Fein and the IRA needed to be separate].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Sinn Fein take a rather curious position. On one hand they say we are nothing to do with the IRA – well that is patent nonsense – there is a great intermingling of membership right at the top, they are both sides of the same coin and anyone with the slightest knowledge of Northern Ireland and the whole affair knows that they well. If Sinn Fein say they are nothing to do with the IRA then really they are a very small part of the Northern Ireland political process and have no real influence. Their important is the fact that many people believe they do have influence over the IRA. Well if they do have influence over the IRA, they had better use it, and if they don’t use their influence then it is most unlikely that anyone is going to wish to see them enter into the talks.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Florence – 22 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Florence, held on Saturday 22nd June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, bar getting your deal on beef, is this summit all over apart from the usual shouting?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, there are quite a few other things still to be determined, but I don’t anticipate any real difficulties on any other issues.

    QUESTION:

    On the jobs question, do you believe that politicians really can do much to create jobs?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Essentially business creates jobs, not politicians. But I think the economic policies that politicians follow, whether they place extra burdens on business or not, clearly makes it possible for business to create jobs, or inhibits business in creating jobs. So politicians don’t create them directly, but indirectly their policies have a dramatic effect.

    QUESTION:

    And does that mean you support the proposals on jobs that are going to be discussed here in Florence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Some of them yes, I mean some of the proposals, some of those discussions that we had at Essen for example on supply side reforms, I very much support those. Some of the others are I think less worthwhile.

    QUESTION:

    What about the agenda on further European integration and EMU, do you think much progress is going to be made here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think there is going to be any practical progress made here, that is going to be in the negotiations that have now begun and will carry on throughout the next year or so. We have set out our position in a White Paper, and everyone is aware of that, but there will be no decisions made today.

    QUESTION:

    The big arms find that has been made in the Irish Republic, have you been able to have discussions with Mr Bruton here and to take the process forward?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I spoke to John Bruton about that yesterday, it is extremely good news. It clearly is a very big arms find and very worthwhile and I congratulate the Irish on having achieved it. It also seems that there is now such distaste for Sinn Fein and the IRA that the public are increasingly inclined to give information, and I think that is very helpful.

    QUESTION:

    Does it suggest that the ceasefire is well and truly over?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is very difficult to understand the psychology of the IRA. They don’t judge matters in the same way that anybody else does. So I think it is very difficult to make a judgment about what they will do. Certainly their actions recently are despicable, there is no other word for it. What they did at Manchester was inhuman. That bomb was left there in a shopping centre, on a day when it could have been expected to have been crowded, and it is astonishing that very large numbers of people were not killed.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to be able to watch the football today, which is the best thing for 30 years?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well they certainly played magnificently earlier in the week. I hope the European Council will finish in time to watch the whole match before we leave, I doubt that it will, but I hope to watch the second half before we leave, certainly.

    QUESTION:

    And you wish them the best of luck?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I most certainly do. Like everyone else in England I shall have my fingers crossed for them.

    QUESTION:

    You have said that the non-cooperation policy has shown itself to be successful, does that mean you have got an appetite for blocking now, that you might use this tactic again?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were special circumstances, weren’t there? This wasn’t a question where there was just an agreement or a disagreement. This was a question where we had tried for some weeks to make progress, where progress had not been forthcoming, where one nation state was facing a particular problem and did not to me seem to be getting the cooperation from our partners that we should have deserved. But I hope that no such circumstances will arise again.

    QUESTION:

    Some of your fellow Prime Ministers say that this demonstrates the national veto must be limited at the Intergovernmental Conference for all future decision-making. This strengthens their hand, doesn’t it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it doesn’t because the Intergovernmental Conference is by unanimity. And there is no question of us giving up the national veto. It would not be appropriate for us to do so and I have no intention of doing so.

  • PMQT – 18 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Berry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 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. Berry: Is the Prime Minister aware that he spoke for the whole nation on Friday when he said that he had had “a bellyful” of the Tory party?

    The Prime Minister: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that his quotation is inaccurate, but it could certainly be applied to questions such as that.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more and more people in Germany wish that their economy was run like ours–with low inflation, steady economic growth, flexible labour markets and falling unemployment? Will he take an early opportunity to invite the leaders of the German opposition parties to Britain so that they can see what can be achieved with Conservative policies?

    Mr. Faulds: More, more.

    The Prime Minister: I am glad to see that it evokes such approval on the Opposition Benches.

    It is certainly true that we have at the moment the most competitive economy in western Europe, that we are in a very good position on inflation, and that unemployment is a good deal lower–and we are at the top of the growth league. That, as my hon. Friend says, is an enviable position, and I know that it is envied by many of my European partners.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the appalling outrage of Saturday in Manchester and send our thanks to the emergency services and our sympathy to the victims? Is this not a moment of truth for Sinn Fein? Does it not show the wisdom of demanding a ceasefire before Sinn Fein participates in any talks? Does not the responsibility now lie squarely on it if it is to play any part in the future progress of peace?

    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. Saturday’s bomb in Manchester was a callous and inhuman act. It is a miracle that many more people were not injured and that many people were not killed. What is so startling is the total indifference of the people who left that bomb to what could well have happened to many people who have no connection whatever with the disputes in Ireland or the disputes that the IRA may have with the British Government or others.

    The right hon. Gentleman is right. The time has come for Sinn Fein to make up its mind. Either it will be a democratic organisation taking part in democratic politics or it will stay side by side as the reverse side of the coin to the IRA, with intermingled membership, in which case it has no part in democratic politics whatever. I believe that, when the right hon. Gentleman says that the moment of truth is here, it is for Mr. Adams and his colleagues, and everybody wishes to hear precisely what their views are–and let us have no more of the measly nonsense that we have had from them in recent years.

    Mr. Blair: I join with that entirely.

    Does the Prime Minister also agree that there has been progress in Northern Ireland? The British and Irish Governments are agreed on the way forward; all nationalist parties in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, apart from Sinn Fein, are agreed on peaceful means to achieve their ends; and the United States and others abroad may have been given a telling lesson on the realities of the IRA. Is not the only course now open to Sinn Fein to ensure that the IRA ceases its violence? If it cannot–or will not–the process should proceed with the democratic parties, and an agreement should be reached and put to a ballot of the people.

    The Prime Minister: It is entirely right that the talks must continue. We have no intention of allowing the search for a political settlement for Northern Ireland to be derailed by the activities of the IRA and Sinn Fein. I hope that all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will continue to demonstrate the leadership and courage necessary to make rapid progress, and to show the IRA that it cannot stop the process with bombs in Manchester, London or anywhere else.

    If the IRA and Sinn Fein wish to have any future interest in this process, they will clearly need to declare an unequivocal ceasefire. They will need to declare it immediately. They will also have to show that that ceasefire is credible and lasting, and is not just a tactical device to enable them to enter the talks until such time as it is convenient for them to leave. It is now up to them to demonstrate their credibility; it is not up to us or anyone else. They must demonstrate their credibility–but the talks will continue.

    Mrs. Roe: In the light of falls in unemployment, interest rates and inflation, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is now one of the most competitive economies in Europe? Does he accept, however, that much more still needs to be done to raise standards in our schools? Although things are improving, far too many children still leave school without the basic skills.

    The Prime Minister: Both the premise of my hon. Friend’s question and her substantive point are important. She knows that the British economy is in very sound shape; we intend to keep it so. As for education and basic standards, the Government have introduced a programme of reforms that is more comprehensive than any that we have seen at any stage in the past, designed to raise standards in schools, build on the national curriculum and ensure regular inspection and the publication of performance information.

    We have made substantial progress in recent years in raising standards, but there is no doubt that there is a great deal more that we wish to do to ensure that the quality of education for all our children is the equal of the quality of education anywhere else in the world. That is our intention, and we will continue to pursue it, despite the failures of so many Labour-controlled education authorities whose records have held back many children in inner London and elsewhere. [Hon. Members: “Seventeen years.”] It is no good hon. Members below the Gangway muttering in this fashion, when it is their party, in control in local government, that could act now to improve education, but does not.

     

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

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

    Mr. Livingstone: Given the funds that the Government have made available to the Russian Government and organisations in Russia in recent years to help to establish democracy, has the Prime Minister had time to read today’s statement by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe expressing the CSCE’s regret and concern at the extensive bias in the coverage of the presidential election? Will the right hon. Gentleman now use his contacts with President Yeltsin to point out to him the value of the British precedent of television and radio providing equal time for candidates, to legitimise this final stage of the Russian election?

    The Prime Minister: I have not yet seen the particular statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In view of what he says, I shall certainly consider it, but the very fact of the Russian presidential elections, and the way in which they have been carried, out would have seemed inconceivable just a few years ago. It is a welcome sign that Russia is settling into the normal pattern of democracy, and we must give great credit to President Yeltsin for that. I hope that the second round will be conducted well and that there will be a clear-cut and satisfactory result.

    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the control of business rates under the Government has been of immense benefit to businesses, large and small, throughout Britain and, therefore, to jobs? Will he ask the relevant Government Departments to analyse the consequences for jobs and for prosperity of taking off these controls and handing decisions back to loony Labour councils, as is advocated by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider any mechanism that tries to restrain on-costs on British business. It is clear that the fact that British business as a whole pays less over and above wages in on-costs is one of the principal reasons why are more citizens are in work in Britain than in any other country of similar size throughout western Europe.

     

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

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

    Mr. Welsh: Did the Prime Minister see last night’s “Panorama” programme, which catalogued 10 years of evasion and incompetence by the Government on the BSE issue? What does he have to say to Scotland’s hill farmers, now awaiting being dragged into the general economic catastrophe created by the Government, while he postures to no effect in Europe?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I did not waste my time watching “Panorama” last night–[Interruption.] I have much more productive things to do with my time than waste it watching nonsense from “Panorama”. We have taken account of the scientific advice that we have had throughout this affair, and that is what we will continue to do in the interests of British agriculture and of the British beef consumer.

     

    Q4. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recall the exchanges that he and I had in the House last October, when I raised the question of closed circuit television for security purposes in our towns and cities? Is he aware that the initiative that he announced last year is one of the most practical ways of dealing with crime and of introducing crime prevention measures? Although he may not be able to confirm to me today whether my constituency of Cleethorpes is to benefit from the forthcoming announcement, will he guarantee that he will have a word with our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and advise him that we in Cleethorpes are very supportive of that initiative?

    The Prime Minister: Bringing closed circuit television to all corners of the United Kingdom is a practical effort to create a safer Britain in future. We are investing around £50 million, and our target is to fund 10,000 new cameras in the next three years. I am pleased to hear from my hon. Friend about the Cleethorpes bid. Knowing my hon. Friend, I would have been surprised if there had not been a Cleethorpes bid, but he is right–I cannot confirm to him today whether it has been successful, but I hope that announcements will be made before too long.

    Mr. Litherland: The Prime Minister will understand that there are no words to describe the loathing that Manchester people have for the perpetrators of the crime against our city last Saturday, but it has happened and we must now begin to rebuild Manchester. Mancunians are resilient people, but they require help. Will the Prime Minister today give the assurance to the House that the Government will offer every support, including financial aid, for the restoration of businesses, buildings, jobs and homes in Manchester? Sympathy will not pay the bills.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has commented on three matters of importance. I entirely share his initial remarks about Manchester, and I have no doubt about the courage and determination of the people of that city in recovering from last week’s incident. Individuals injured by the bomb are eligible to apply for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Government-backed terrorism insurance scheme will ensure that participating insurers can meet claims by companies that purchased full terrorism cover. Businesses that have not done so are likely to receive limited reimbursement and should contact their insurance companies.

    The financial implications for local authorities are not yet clear. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider carefully any application for assistance by an authority affected by the incident, and he will certainly do so. In Manchester in the past–and I am sure that this will be so in future–an effective partnership between the Government, the private sector and the city council has delivered remarkable regeneration in many parts of the city. That partnership provides an excellent basis for rebuilding, and we look forward to working with the people concerned.

     

    Q5. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to a great man now gone, the late Sir Fitzroy Maclean? Was there not much to admire in that soldier, diplomat, Conservative Member of Parliament and patriot, who had an enviable ability for getting out of tight corners?

    The Prime Minister: Sir Fitzroy Maclean was a remarkable man with many qualities to admire–from being a founder of the Special Air Services to a Minister of the Crown at this Dispatch Box. In all his many roles, Sir Fitzroy made a remarkable contribution. He also played a crucial role in work with Tito’s partisans in the second world war. People will think of Sir Fitzroy Maclean as a man who lived life to the full. From what I know of him, I believe that he would regard that as a satisfactory epitaph.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Manchester Bomb – 15 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s account, from his book, John Major – The Autobiography, relating to the Manchester bombings.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Confounding the sceptics, we were able to hold elections in 30 May [1996]. Having wavered over a boycott, Sinn Fein not only took part, but recorded its best-ever result, with over 15 per cent of the vote (against 24 per cent for Trimble’s UUP [Ulster Unionist Party], 21 per cent for Hume’s SDLP [Social Democratic and Labour Party] and nearly 19 per cent for Paisley’s DUP [Democratic Unionist Party]). Pundits were divided over whether Sinn Fein’s vote was an endorsement of the IRA’s bombing campaign or an encouragement for them to call another ceasefire and join the negotiating forum. The IRA gave their answer when they demolished the centre of Manchester with a massive bomb on 15th June [1996], only days after the opening of the all-party talks under George Mitchell’s chairmanship. They were evidently not applying for admission. John Bruton hardened his stance, and demanded an unconditional and irrevocable ceasefire before they could enter.

    The Manchester bomb, deliberately placed in a crowded city centre, injured two hundred people and provoked deep revulsion. It confirmed that the IRA was stuck in a groove. Even more depressing in its political message was a reversion to wider sectarianism during the July-August marching season, despite the talks. As in 1995, Drumcree was against the flashpoint. To avoid clashes, the Chief Constable of the RUC Hugh Annesley routed an Orange Order march away from the Catholic Garvaghy Road. This decision provoked a risk of even greater violence, and had to be reversed. The reversal then triggered riots, and heightened tension between the two communities over several weeks.

  • Mr Major’s Statement Following Manchester Bomb – 15 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on 15th June 1996 following the bomb explosion in Manchester.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This was a dreadful act. I condemn utterly those responsible. My first thoughts are with the injured and their families.

    This explosion looks like the work of the IRA. It is the work of a few fanatics and, as John Bruton has already made clear, causes absolute revulsion in Ireland, as it does here. This callous act of terrorism while the Queen was reviewing the colour of the Irish Guards is an insult to both nations.

    Sinn Fein have been clamouring to attend the Northern Ireland peace talks which began last week. If they are really serious about wanting peace, they must condemn this act and demand an unequivocal IRA ceasefire now.

    We shall spare no effort to bring those responsible to justice.

  • PMQT – 11 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 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. Mullin: Has the Prime Minister heard today’s admission by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that Sir James Goldsmith is helping to fund his faction within the Conservative party? Does it strike the Prime Minister as odd that a foreign-based millionaire–[Hon. Members: “Billionaire.”] Does it strike him as odd that a foreign-based billionaire who has set up his own political party and is running candidates against official Conservative candidates is also funding his own fifth column within the Conservative party? Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans to do anything about this extraordinary situation?

    The Prime Minister: I had not seen that statement by Sir James Goldsmith, but of course Sir James is a man of independent mind. Sir James is of course entirely free, if he wishes, to field his own candidates at a general election–I suppose that anyone with £20 million to spend can afford to do that–but he is not going to change our policy.

    Mr. Dykes: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his plans to put some backbone into some of our colleagues who seem to be irrationally obsessed with Sir James Goldsmith, and very scared about him as well? That, presumably, is why my right hon. Friend authorised the attendance of four members of the Government at last night’s bizarre proceedings.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may himself think that he requires authorisation to attend particular meetings, but I assure him that all my hon. Friends will use their own independent judgment about the meetings they attend, and about the judgments they take from those meetings.

    Mr. Blair: It may seem indelicate to intrude on private grief, but may I ask the Prime Minister what we are to make of the political party in government when a former Cabinet Minister hosts a reception for a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and his campaign manager, to advocate withdrawal from the European Union–in the presence of Ministers–to the leader of a different political party altogether, whose objective is to remove Conservative Members of Parliament at the general election?

    The Prime Minister: I must say that the right hon. Gentleman has a very selective memory. He entered the House on a programme of leaving the European Union.

    Mr. Blair: The problem is that the right hon. Gentleman’s political party is now moving towards advocating that programme. [Interruption.] It is. Let us put it to the test. Will the Prime Minister now join me in saying that the real agenda of many of those who will support the Referendum Bill today is to push Britain to the point of withdrawal from Europe? Will he join me unequivocally in saying that the views of those people who will make that case today are wrong?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can invent his own policies: he should not invent policies for my party. I have made it clear in speech after speech and in the recent White Paper that this country’s role lies within the European Union, fighting for the sort of European Union that is amenable to this country. That remains the position. We intend to try to provide, within the European Union, a set of circumstances that is right for this country. That does not mean that we accept every element of policy that our European partners propose, and it does not mean that we would never be isolated, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. It does not mean that we would give up the veto, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. We are there to fight for British interests, not to follow the policy that the right hon. Gentleman would follow and surrender British interests.

    Mr. Blair: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman stand at that Dispatch Box as Prime Minister and say that the views of those people are wrong? If he carries on running from them, they will carry on chasing him and the losers will be Britain, our jobs, our industry and our influence. When will the Prime Minister finally stand up and take a lead?

    The Prime Minister: I have told the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is putting views in the mouths of my hon. Friends that are not theirs, and my hon. Friends have made that clear time after time. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to sort out problems on Europe, he might make it clear that he disagrees with those 50 of his Back Benchers who have issued their own manifesto disagreeing with every element of the leader of the Labour party’s policy on Europe. Perhaps he will make it clear that he disagrees with them. Our policy is to be within Europe, fighting for British interests, disagreeing with our European partners when we must, and agreeing with them when it is in the interests of this country.

    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement by the National Lottery Charities Board of £150 million of grants today, mostly to help young people? Does that not show that the House was right to make the charities board one of the recipients of national lottery funding and is that not the true image of the lottery in this country?

    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome many of the awards that have been made today. They cover a wide range, including money for Childline, the British Red Cross, an ex-service men’s association and the Samaritans. They will all have widespread support across the country. Having studied the list of all the awards made today, a small number of the awards do not in my judgment reflect the way in which Parliament and the public expected the lottery money to be spent. That is true of a minority of awards. The freedom to make those awards was given to the individual boards by the House and they have responsibility for the awards that they make. Overwhelmingly, they exercise that responsibility well. From time to time, they make awards that are ill founded and ill judged.

     

    Q2. Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Jones: I have given the right hon. Gentleman previous notice of my question. Will he revoke his policy on market testing as it affects military units such as the 1,800-strong RAF Sealand in my constituency, where large-scale redundancies are feared? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no level playing field when predator contractors compete against the in-house bid in RAF Sealand, such as GEC and Brown and Root?

    Will the Prime Minister give consideration to making my part of the world a market-testing-free zone on the basis that, if something is working, one should not fix it? Why put profit before the national interest? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the Falklands and Gulf wars, RAF Sealand gave magnificent service to Britain? That is all that it wants to continue to do.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the matter that he wished to raise. The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in his support for RAF Sealand and has raised it with a number of my hon. Friends in the past. Our intention is to ensure that the armed forces get the highest possible quality of support at the best value for money for the defence budget. An announcement on the winning contractor is expected towards the end of the year. I am not proposing to revoke our present policy in any way–it is the right policy–but I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the in-house bid will be evaluated against precisely the same criteria as the two external bids and that the judgment will be made on value for money.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I join the Leader of the Opposition in putting to my right hon. Friend some things that are wrong. Would it not be wrong to oppose the Family Law Bill, which has provisions on domestic violence? As to that measure’s marriage elements, is it not right to get rid of quickie divorces? Ought we not to tidy away the problems of first marriages before letting people get on to second marriages, and would it not be wrong to oppose the Bill because of that as well?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his purpose in asking that question entirely clear. I hope that we shall see some leadership on those issues from individuals who might, for spurious reasons, object to a Bill that I believe is in the interests of the people of this country.

     

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

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

    Mr. Davidson: Does the Prime Minister accept that drug dealing and money laundering are major difficulties in this country? Is he aware that a Scottish newspaper reported at the weekend that a journalist had approached a major Scottish organisation and offered it money as a donation, and was advised how that money could be laundered? Is that not a particular cause of concern for all of us? Is it not of particular concern for the Prime Minister, when the organisation involved was the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party?

    The Prime Minister: This Government have taken more action against drug dealing and money laundering than any previous Government, and we continue to do so. I doubt that the hon. Gentleman’s allegation has any foundation, but if he is prepared to give me details, of course I will have it examined–so that it can be repudiated.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the recent fall in unemployment, which is a sign of good economic management? Will he join me in congratulating Layeezee Beds in Batley, which recently recruited 60 new members to its work force because of demand for that company’s products?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that good news from my hon. Friend’s constituency, which is reflected in many constituencies throughout the country. The economy is in better condition than at any time for a generation, which is why we were able to reduce interest rates yet again last week–simply because we have been successful in keeping inflation under control. Our policies are working, inflation is falling, unemployment is falling, growth is beginning to accelerate and this country has better economic circumstances than for many years past–and they are better than in many of our competitor countries on the continent.

    Mr. Benn: How can the Prime Minister justify disfranchising 116,000 voters in the election that he called in Northern Ireland when they voted for Sinn Fein, which is committed to the six Mitchell principles? When there was a ceasefire nearly two years ago, no all-party talks were called for 18 months. Had other Governments followed that principle, there would have been no peace process in the middle east or settlement in southern Africa.

    The Prime Minister: Sinn Fein disfranchised itself. It had every opportunity to take part in the talks. Had there been an unconditional ceasefire by the IRA, Sinn Fein could have been a part of the talks process, as I had hoped it would be. Its representatives cannot sit down in a talks process with a bomb on the table and a gun under the table and the threat that, if they do not get their own way in negotiations, they will revert to type and the habits of the past 20 or 30 years. Sinn Fein’s exclusion from the talks is its fault. That is the position of this Government, the Irish Government and the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, and that situation will not change. It is in Sinn Fein’s hands. A ceasefire and the end of violence, which should have occurred anyhow, quite apart from the talks, and the way would be open for Sinn Fein to join the discussions.