The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Rail Privatisation

  • PMQT – 20 March 1997

    The text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th March 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 March.

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

    Mr. Mullin: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he could, if he wished, without any impact on the date of the general election, extend the life of this Parliament by the few days necessary to allow Sir Gordon Downey to publish his report? If so, I suggest that as soon as he leaves here, he nips down to the palace, has a quiet word with Her Majesty and puts an end to this distasteful business once and for all.

    The Prime Minister: There has already been a Privy Council to determine Prorogation, and I have no intention of changing it. Prorogation always follows within days of an election announcement. When I announced the date of the election and Prorogation, the House was not surprised–[Laughter.] There was no surprise about the date of Prorogation, and when I announced it there was no representation then or at any time in the past, publicly or privately, from the Labour party about changing the date–not once. It was not until the unemployment figures were leaked that this became an issue.

    Sir Jim Spicer: During the campaign, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be coming to the south of England and, we all hope, to Dorset. When he comes to Dorset, will he pass on to the people there and all those in the area served by Southern Electricity the good news that, as from Tuesday, they will have had an 11 per cent. cut in their electricity bills during the past nine months, which amounts to £40 to £50 off their bills? Is not that proof that privatisation works, and would it have happened if we had had a windfall tax?

    The Prime Minister rose–

    Mr. Skinner: Do not travel by train.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bolsover says that I should not travel by train. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has indicated to his constituents that he may be retiring from the House now that he is 65–we shall miss him. If so, he will have plenty of time to travel by train and the fares will be lower, following privatisation, than they were before– just like water–

    Mr. Prescott: There will be no trains.

    The Prime Minister: The deputy leader of the Labour party says there will be no trains. As he is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, he knows a great deal about strikes. I did not notice him offering much condemnation of strikes last summer, when they were threatened. He stands for strikes; that is his whole history. The reality is that customers are benefiting from falling prices and the improved service levels created across the board by privatisation. From memory, I think that it was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who once said that, after electricity privatisation, there is no doubt that “prices will rise”. Since privatisation, prices have fallen.

    Mr. Blair: May I remind the Prime Minister of his firm and unequivocal promise, made last October, to do all that he could to have the report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges published? May I suggest to him two ways in which that could be done? The first is to seek a postponement of Prorogation. The second is to agree with the Labour party and other Opposition parties a one paragraph Bill to allow the Committee to sit from now until Dissolution, on 8 April. Will he co-operate and allow us to do that–to fulfil his clear and unequivocal promise to the people of this country?

    The Prime Minister: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman quotes partially, but I shall deal with the substance of what he said. Of course I would have preferred to have had the matter finished. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I said that months ago. I would have liked to have had all the inquiries finished. I would have liked to have had the inquiries into the funding of the Leader of the Opposition’s office and the deputy leader’s office finished.

    Sir Gordon Downey’s report is not finished, and it has not yet gone to the Committee. When it gets to the Committee–as the right hon. Gentleman knows–that will be the start, not the conclusion, of the process. It is obviously a complex report–[Interruption.] It has been made clear that there are thousands of pages of evidence; it is obviously complex, and it will obviously take time to consider. Those hon. Members who may be criticised will obviously wish to make representations and give evidence. The thought that that could be done fairly and properly in a few days is improbable in the extreme. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. He also knows that, based on what has happened on earlier occasions, parts of the substance of the report might leak in a prejudicial way before the matter is fairly concluded. That would not be in the interests of the House or of natural justice. I have no intention of changing the Prorogation date of the House.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister says that I quoted partially his comments of last October. Last October, in the “Breakfast with Frost” programme, he said:

    “Well I’ll tell you now, I will tell that committee I believe they should publish the report . . . I want it settled, I want it settled David.”

    After Frost asked him whether he hoped it was

    “reported and . . . published before the next election”,

    he said, “Absolutely.”

    Mr. David Shaw: £2 million blind funds.

    Mr. Blair: If the objection is based on time, may I suggest to the Prime Minister that he let the Committee sit? If it cannot finish its report for genuine time reasons, so be it. What is surely outrageous is for the Committee–

    Mr. Shaw: £2 million blind funds.

    Madam Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Shaw to order.

    Mr. Blair: The Committee is able to sit, and the Commissioner’s report will be ready on Monday. The hon. Members concerned want the report to be published. It is absolutely outrageous not to let the Committee have the time even to try. If the Prime Minister continues to stonewall, people will believe that the reason is not technicalities or can’t, but won’t.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is still quoting what I said selectively. I made it clear that although I wanted the report to be published speedily, and I did, it was a matter for Gordon Downey and he would have to take the time he needed to deal with the matter properly. Perhaps his task would have been easier if some people had not delayed handing over important evidence–but that was not the Government. The fact of the matter is that this needs to be dealt with impartially, not in an atmosphere in which it could be selectively leaked to damage people who may have nothing whatsoever to hide.

    The right hon. Gentleman had no interest in this on Monday; he had no interest in this on Tuesday; he had an interest only when he had the unemployment figures leaked to him–to try to hide what is actually happening. This is a matter that needs dealing with fairly in the interests of the Members concerned, not in the way the right hon. Gentleman wishes to deal with it. What he wishes is to let a smear stand, not let justice be done in its own time.

    Mr. Blair: Justice demands that this report be published. That is what justice demands. Any members of the public watching that interchange will conclude that the Prime Minister simply does not want it published because he fears its publication. Has not this Parliament ended as it began–[Interruption.] It has ended as it began, with the Government breaking their word. If the Prime Minister fails to have this report published, when everyone knows that he could, it will leave a stain on the character of his Government that will be erased only by a new Government with a fresh mandate, who will restore confidence in our public life for good.

    The Prime Minister: The stain, if stain there will be, is upon a Labour Front Bench that has smeared and smeared and smeared again. The Labour leader has traded in double standards from the moment he took up office. This is the Labour leader who sells policy to the trade unions for cash–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]; who refuses to comply with the code of practice on party funding–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]; who calls for party openness but will not publish the secret funds of his own office–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]; who attacks share options but takes money from millionaires for his own party–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]; who attacks business men and asks them to fund things for him, who flew Concorde and failed to declare it–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]; who has a deputy leader who spends a weekend at a five-star hotel and does not declare it–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]; and who flies to the other side of the world to do newspaper deals and never admits to them–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] If there are any double standards, they sit there–on the Opposition Benches.

    Mr. David Shaw: Game, set and match.

    Madam Speaker: Order. I would like to hear the next question and the next answer.

    Mr. Churchill: Before taking what I hope is only a temporary leave of the House, may I, on behalf of my Manchester constituents, thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for making the United Kingdom the best functioning economy in all of Europe, with half the levels of unemployment of France or Germany? Is it not precisely because those two countries have not had the benefit of a Thatcher-Major revolution that they are suffering from what, in Labour days, used to be known as the British disease?

    The Prime Minister: Before I respond to my hon. Friend, I should like to say that I noticed when I last sat down that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) is back in the House following his dreadful accident. My right hon. Friend will be retiring at the end of this Parliament, but he will leave behind him reforms to our procedures that have greatly improved the workings of the House. I am delighted to see him here and I wish him a speedy and full return to complete health.

    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) about economic conditions. We now have more jobs, better education, improving health and falling crime–that is our achievement. While the Labour party spends its time trying to disown its past, I spend my time improving our country’s future.

    Mr. Ashdown rose–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order–both sides.

    Mr. Ashdown: We raised this matter on Tuesday and I am raising it again now. Can I bring the Prime Minister back to the central question? There is clearly both provision and precedent to give the House the opportunity to clear up the cash for questions scandal once and for all next week if the Prime Minister wishes it, but he does not. Sir Gordon Downey regrets that, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges regrets it, Conservative Members who are still under a suspicion of sleaze regret it and the nation no doubt deeply resents it. Is the Prime Minister to be the only person who will use a technicality to stand in the way of truth? If he does, he should not be surprised that the country will conclude that he enters the election as he conducted his Administration–on a broken promise, on a slippery evasion and with his party mired in accusations of sleaze.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman ends as pious and pompous as he has been throughout this Parliament. If what he said were correct, why did not his member of the Committee ask for what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield asked for–for he did not? Why did not the Labour members of the Committee ask for what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield asked for–for they did not? This has been a political stunt by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield and the leader of the Liberal party and they both know that it has been a political stunt from the moment they learnt what the unemployment figures were.

  • PMQT – 25 February 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers who queued up yesterday to denigrate the reputation and character of the former Prime Minister and Father of the House? Does he agree that such attempts to vilify the Father of the House do great damage generally to the democratic process and particularly to the reputation of the Prime Minister and his Ministers?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has had a long and distinguished career. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We admire him and are fond of him.

     

    Q2. Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Sir Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of British Rail has been a great success story–so successful that it has confounded its critics? Is he aware that many of my constituents would like the same principles to be applied to London Underground, particularly if the proceeds were ploughed back into further investment?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement on that matter very shortly. The plans that he will announce will give London the world-class underground network that we wish it to have. We will expect standards and investment to rise while prices do not.

    Mr. Blair: Most people remember who has been in charge of London Underground for 18 years. May I lead on from the question to the Prime Minister asked by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby)? The Transport Secretary has said that any proceeds from selling London Underground will go back into transport investment. This morning, however, the Chancellor said that he is relying on at least some of those proceeds as greatly benefiting the Exchequer to pay off Government borrowing. Who is right?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement that will answer all the questions that he and his hon. Friends are likely to ask about the proposed future of London Underground, but I shall not anticipate his statement.

    Mr. Blair: I am not asking the Prime Minister to anticipate the statement–

    Hon. Members: You are.

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: I am asking him to comment on the Chancellor’s remarks this morning. The Chancellor said that some of the proceeds would be used to pay off the national debt, which he has doubled. Is that correct? If all the proceeds do not go back into transport, what will happen if they do not cover the investment requirement? Will the customer pay more, will the public pay more or will the service be cut? I think that the Prime Minister should tell us.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be told in detail and at length by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in just a few moments. The privatisation of any industry is always a complex matter. It deserves to be set out clearly, comprehensively and at length, which my right hon. Friend will do shortly.

    Mr. Blair: I assume that the Transport Secretary will tell us the precise percentage of money that will be reinvested in transport. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may shout, but is not London Underground worth £7 billion to £13 billion, and do not many people fear that, once again, a key public service will be sold off at a fraction of its true value so that a few people can make a vastly inflated profit with no guarantee of a proper service for the future?

    The Prime Minister: The answer to each of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions is no. He is wrong on almost every point, as will become clear in a few moments. I find it extraordinary that the only two places in the world where privatisation is reviled and state ownership preferred are the Labour party and North Korea. No wonder the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) called the right hon. Gentleman the Kim Il Sung of the Labour party.

    Mr. Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not the least of the advantages of the privatisation of London Underground would be the substantial capital receipts that could be reinvested in the system? How could any Government who voluntarily chose to deny themselves that capital receipt make good that funding other than through a substantial increase in public expenditure and the taxation necessary to raise it?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct, of course. I find it odd that the Labour party criticises the level of investment in London Underground when the shadow Chancellor is committed lock, stock and barrel to every penny of my right hon. and learned Friend’s spending plans, except that the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has a £12 billion black hole in his plans, as he has failed to understand ours.

     

    Q3. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I return the Prime Minister to what is clearly a central contradiction in his programme for the general election–the statement by a former Prime Minister, Mr. Edward Heath–[Hon. Members: “Sir.”] Forgive me, Madam Speaker. Sir Edward Heath–[Hon. Members: “Order.”]–a former Prime Minister, who said that he agreed with the Labour party. He said that we were right on the social chapter, the national minimum wage and devolution. He agrees with us. Who is now standing up for the tradition of the Conservative party? Is it the Father of the House, a former Prime Minister, or is it the current Prime Minister, who has been manipulated by a bunch of extremists on his Back Benches?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman sits beside a bunch of people whom I would never consider calling extremists, but who hold almost every possible view on Europe and every other issue, so I find his question distinctly rum. It deserves to be ignored, which I shall do.

    Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow, Her Majesty the Queen, in the presence of the President of Israel, will unveil a monument to Raul Wallenberg–a man whose bravery is an example to us all? Will my right hon. Friend also support the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to find out exactly what happened to Raul Wallenberg 50 years ago?

    The Prime Minister: I think that everyone will happily support my hon. Friend’s request. The unveiling of the statue tomorrow is a welcome development and a just recognition of a great man who saved many lives during the last world war.

     

    Q4. Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Home Robertson: Lady Thatcher said back in 1974 that the establishment of a Scottish Assembly was a top priority. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has now confirmed that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament poses no danger to the integrity of the United Kingdom. Can the Prime Minister remember the last time his two predecessors agreed with each other about anything? How has he got himself into a position in which he appears to disagree with both of them?

    The Prime Minister rose–

    Mr. Home Robertson: Wait for it. Is the Prime Minister sure that Britain’s fossilised constitution is the securest ground to choose for Major’s last stand?

    The Prime Minister: It really was not worth waiting for, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman. He is trying to pick out what my noble Friend Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said 20 years ago. What the leader of the Labour party said in 1983 is contradicted today by the leader of the Labour party in every particular. The proposals of 20 years ago that the hon. Gentleman referred to were not comparable with the tax-raising monstrosity proposed by the Labour party today.

    Mr. Butcher: My right hon. Friend will need no reminding that any objective assessment of economic trends in Europe shows that Britain is now winning. Does he share the bewilderment of a number of foreign commentators, who cannot understand the logic of saying that it is time for a change? “Does that mean that you want to be losers?” they wonder. Will my right hon. Friend use every effort to make sure that that weird logic is not accepted by the British people?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly undertake to do as my hon. Friend recommends. The economic criteria right the way down the board–growth, investment or the fall in unemployment–make it patently obvious to those who wish to examine the figures for a moment that the United Kingdom is out-performing most of its comparable continental rivals. That is because of the policies that we have followed. The policies that they have followed, which have led them into greater difficulty, are the policies advocated by the Opposition parties.

     

    Q5. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Prentice: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) referred to the alleged success of railway privatisation, whereby £19 billion of public assets went under the hammer for less than £2 billion. Is it not a disgrace that £13 billion of assets resting in London Underground could be sold off in a fire sale for less than £600 million?

    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, like his right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party, waits for the statement that will follow in a few moments.

    Mr. Prentice indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman produces all sorts of disparaging gestures. The interesting fact about the new Labour party is that it does not wish to know the arguments and it does not wish to know the facts; it just wants to parade the soundbites and prejudice invented by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).

    Mr. Allason: May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the commitment–which became a promise, which became a pledge, which then became a withdrawal–by the Liberal Democrats to scrap the Christmas bonus in favour of an extra week’s income? Does he agree that the best thing for pensioners, especially those in the south-west, is lower bills, which means no windfall levy on South West Water, whose customers are already paying far too much for their water?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree that a windfall tax would undoubtedly add to the cost of fuel, water and other utilities–how much, of course, we do not know, because the shadow Chancellor either does not know what his plans really are or cannot say. It was very unkind of my hon. Friend to draw attention to the consistency of the Liberal Democrats concerning the retired.

     

    Q6. Mr. Chris Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Davies: What discussions does the Prime Minister intend to have with Governments of other nations to ensure that there are adequate international controls over the cloning of animals and other life forms?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is examining what discussions may be appropriate.

  • PMQT – 18 February 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Scots and the Welsh were to be given their own Parliament there would be an overwhelming demand from my constituents in Essex, and elsewhere in England, for English Members of Parliament to be given exclusive control over English affairs? What consequence does he think that that would have for the integrity of the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the anomalies that would be thrown up were there to be a Scottish or Welsh Parliament. The shadow Foreign Secretary once said, when he was shadow Health Secretary, that he as a Scot could not be Health Secretary in England were health to be devolved to a Scottish Parliament. Clearly there are much wider applications than just health were such a Parliament to be established. That is just one of many anomalies thrown up by the policy of devolution which I hope that we will be able to examine this week.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall the promise that he made on “Panorama” a couple of years ago that the excesses that we saw in the water industry would not be repeated in the rail industry? Is he aware that, in the next few days, the second of the railway rolling stock companies, which was bought on privatisation for £580 million, is to be sold for £900 million? The first rolling stock company, having been bought for just over £500 million, was sold a few months later for more than £800 million. Does he agree that such profits are entirely unjustified?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall the right hon. Gentleman saying that he supported the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition. That seems to apply only in generality and not in the real world when companies are efficient and sold on. The right hon. Gentleman and his party are as opposed to private ownership and privatisation today as they have ever been at any stage. They know that that is so and take every opportunity that they can to try to denigrate the success across the whole range of privatisation.

    Mr. Blair: I certainly support the enterprise of the market. What I do not support is the incompetence of the Government. I believe that most people in this country will see the difference between making an honest profit and profiteering.

    Can I point out to the Prime Minister that, in the sale in the next few days, the managing director, who put in £110,000 a year ago, will make £20 million and the finance and engineering directors, who put in £80,000, will make £10 million each, and it is reported that the part-time chairman of the company privatised earlier, who worked for one day a month and put in £25,000, has walked away with £4 million? Does the Prime Minister believe that that is the enterprise of the market? Is it not simple profiteering?

    The Prime Minister: It is hard not to remember that the right hon. Gentleman’s private office is funded by the profits of privatisation. If such funds are so wrong, perhaps he will pay them back to those who provided them. It is not all that long ago that he was saying:

    “the pragmatic approach to privatisation is . . . correct. The key is . . . sticking to it regardless of the pressures.”

    Of course, he said that in South Africa; what he says here is quite different.

    Mr. Blair: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that, just for once at one of these Prime Minister’s Question Times, he tries answering the question put to him? Is there not the sharpest contrast between the massive windfall gains–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have a little order in this House. I can hear the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) shouting and bawling.

    Mr. Blair: Is there not the sharpest contrast between the massive windfall gains made on the sale of a public asset that is effectively run through public subsidy, and the misery of thousands of commuters yesterday at Waterloo station, who saw their trains cancelled and their services destroyed because the train company laid off one tenth of its drivers? Is not that the clearest example of a Conservative Government favouring the few at the expense of the many?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman remembers the bad old days of British Rail nationalisation–services were cut with no protection for the passenger. Now, penalties can be imposed and passengers have the right to apply for compensation. Clearly, from what he is saying, he is proposing new capital controls on the market. We look forward to hearing precisely what those are. He cannot deny that privatisation has been a success. Investment is at record levels. [Interruption.] It is interesting to see Labour Members’ opposition to private ownership. I shall let them hoot a little longer. New rolling stock is being introduced, extra services are being offered–new services, new investment and higher standards. That is through private ownership across the range of privatised industries. People recall what it was like when Governments tried to run them.

     

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

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

    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that grammar schools and high schools exist in Dartford and in a further 60 constituencies across the country as a result of the election and re-election of Conservative Governments since 1979? The only guarantee of their continued existence is the Conservative party, and not the nightmare coalition of Opposition parties.

    The Prime Minister: That must be right. The message to parents is quite clear: Labour in office would wipe out grammar schools. Labour local authority leaders have made that absolutely clear. As the shadow education spokesman said some time ago,

    “Watch my lips. . . . With Labour there will be no selection.”

    There would be no selection, no choice, no improved standards, no opportunities and, if Labour had had its way, no tests, no information to parents and no improvement in education across the board. The worst 20 education authorities are all long-term Labour education authorities. That is not an accident; it is inevitable, given Labour’s policies and instincts.

     

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

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

    Mr. Winnick: Does the Prime Minister take the same view as I do: that the Daily Mail was right to campaign for the murderers of Stephen Lawrence to be brought to justice, and to name names? All law-abiding citizens are pleased that the murderer of Philip Lawrence, the headmaster who was knifed to death, is in prison–for a long time to come, I hope–but it is a matter of deep and continuing concern that the murderers of the 18-year-old lad who was knifed to death almost four years ago have not been brought to justice. Should not the authorities explore every avenue to ensure that his murderers are brought before the courts?

    The Prime Minister: The whole House is united in offering its sympathy to the parents of Stephen Lawrence, and in condemning this unpunished racist attack. There is total unanimity on that point. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that there is no question of statutory contempt as a result of the activities of the Daily Mail. As the House is aware, it is not through lack of effort that no successful prosecution has yet been brought. I hope that, even at this stage, it will be possible to mount a successful prosecution. If evidence is forthcoming, it will be examined. There is no lack of will to prosecute.

    Mr. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, unlike Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), he is not

    “at home with the European social model”?

    Will he also confirm that if we were to adopt that habit in this country, 23 million households would immediately face a £2,300 tax hike, which they would otherwise not need to pay?

    The Prime Minister: Unlike the shadow Foreign Secretary, who alas is not present, I am self-evidently not at home with the European social model. It is evident why no one should be. The head of European operations at one of Britain’s most successful companies was quoted in one of yesterday’s newspapers. He referred to one European country, and said:

    “The costs were absurd and everything we wanted to do was blocked by the unions . . . Whenever we wanted to do anything to improve the business, their first reaction was to call a meeting of the works council.”

    The senior executive of Grundig said:

    “No employee or business is safe.”

    That is the reality of the way in which these well-meaning ideas work in practice. The second reality is the 4.5 million unemployed in Germany, the 3 million unemployed in France and the 2 million plus unemployed in Italy.

     

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

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

    Mr. Loyden: Does the Prime Minister agree that we owe a debt to those people who fought in the second world war and who, in their working lives, created the wealth of this nation, and that they should be treated with the greatest respect? Is he aware that in my constituency two elderly people’s homes are to be closed? The age of the people in those homes ranges from 70 plus to the 90s. Does that reflect a civilised society, and will the Prime Minister speak to the Minister responsible to ensure that some action is taken to avoid breaking up what is now a family of people in their dotage?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I agree with the general proposition with which the hon. Gentleman started his question. I do not know the details of the case that he raises, but I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to examine it. When he has done so, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Robathan: In the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the form for the 5 o’clock race at Market Rasen? If so, has he noted a sporting chance at 8/1 called “Pause for Thought”? While welcoming any convert to Conservative principles, does he agree that “Pause for Thought” might be a maxim to the recent converts to privatising the Tote?

    The Prime Minister: The plan to privatise the Tote, apparently floated by the shadow Chancellor, seems to have been shot down very speedily by the shadow Foreign Secretary. One might say that it fell at the first fence.

     

    Q6. Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Martin: On the question of a Scottish Parliament, I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland says one thing and the Secretary of State for Health says another, but it would be petty, mean and spiteful if any future Tory Government tried to dismantle the Parliament that the Scottish people want.

    The Prime Minister: I hope that we shall have the opportunity of a detailed and sensible debate on devolution proposals–

    Mr. Skinner: What? In here?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I had hoped in here on Thursday, and beyond here thereafter, because, despite the passions and convictions felt about this issue by people on both sides of the argument, we can all, I hope, agree that it is an issue of crucial importance to the future of Scotland, of Wales, of the House and of other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope therefore that we can deal with it in detail. There are many questions to be asked and answered. I hope that that is the nature of the debate that we will have in the weeks ahead.

  • PMQT – 4 February 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Davidson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Davidson: Will the Prime Minister give a clear, unequivocal commitment that he will allow the Wirral, South by-election to proceed?

    The Prime Minister: The Wirral, South by-election is proceeding.

     

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

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

    Mr. Rowe: The Lib-Lab coalition that runs Kent county council has said that it requires a grant increase of no less than 10 per cent. merely to stand still. Does the Prime Minister know of any other councils that are making a similarly absurd demand?

    The Prime Minister: I do not yet know what other absurd demands may come, but I have no doubt that the natural appetite for spending of so many Labour and Liberal-controlled local authorities will mean that there are quite a number of substantially above inflation demands for increased council tax. When the shadow Chancellor talks about Labour’s plans for public spending, he clearly does not talk for the Labour local councils, which spend and spend and must then tax and tax.

    Mr. Blair: In respect of the Ofsted report, does the Prime Minister agree that the inspectors found much to praise and many competent and hard-working teachers, but that they also found severe problems in literacy, numeracy and, in particular, with a significant minority of head teachers? Given the central importance of leadership by a head in a school, does he agree that it is sensible at least to consider making the new national competence qualification a requirement for all new and aspiring head teachers, so that, over time, this weakness can be remedied to the benefit of our children?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said. Undoubtedly there has been an improvement in the past year–that is clear from Mr. Woodhead’s report, and I am delighted to see that. It shows that the quality of teaching is satisfactory or better in the majority of schools, and I am pleased about that. I particularly congratulate those schools singled out for special praise by the chief inspector on the basis of the inspection evidence. I believe that they will provide a real example.

    As the right hon. Gentleman said, the professional qualification for headship will be available nationally from September. It will equip aspiring heads with the skills necessary to lead and manage a school and it may, over time, be desirable to make it a requirement. I would like to see how it works in the short term, but I certainly would not rule that out.

    Mr. Gale: I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my desire that transport safety standards across and under the channel should improve. Does he agree, however, that proposals from Brussels to make cross-channel ferries list the names and addresses of every man, woman and child travelling backwards and forwards on day trips is a bureaucratic nonsense and wholly unnecessary? Will he resist it, please?

    The Prime Minister: I agree, both about taking whatever action is necessary to assure safety and about ensuring that action is not taken that will not help on safety grounds but will simply add to costs, the price of tickets and bureaucracy.

     

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

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

    Mr. Janner: Has the Prime Minister seen the findings of the Employment Policy Institute, which show that some 4 million people in this country are seeking work? In those circumstances, will he use his speech in Brussels tonight to explain to our European partners why the Government’s so-called unemployment figures are rigged, inaccurate and deliberately misleading, and that the only people in this country who deserve to be unemployed are the clapped-out, stale and fag-end Government?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman gives me the opportunity to tell the House that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 39 per cent. In due course, perhaps, the Labour candidate will add one to the figure at the general election. In reality, unemployment in this country is 6.7 per cent. and falling, compared with more than 4 million in Germany, 3 million in France and nearly 3 million in Italy. Indeed, 18.5 million people are unemployed in the European Union, and we have created more jobs in this country in recent years than the rest of the European Union added together. I shall send the hon. and learned Gentleman a copy of the speech that I shall make this evening, so that in future he may be better informed.

    Mr. MacGregor: As rail privatisation completes its final stages, does the Prime Minister agree that it already demonstrates substantial benefits for both passengers and taxpayers? Is not its success one of the main reasons why the Labour party, which bitterly opposed rail privatisation through all its parliamentary stages, as it did with nearly every other privatisation, is all at sea over its policy?

    The Prime Minister: It is undoubtedly the case that the Labour party has not supported a single privatisation until it has proved to be a success, at which point it pays lip service to it. Under Labour, none of the privatisations would have taken place. It certainly bitterly attacked rail privatisation, which has now increased investment, increased rolling stock, improved services, provided extra service and saved the taxpayer a substantial amount. [Interruption.] It is, in short, a success, and no doubt that is why the Labour party wishes to shout it down.

     

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

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

    Mr. MacShane: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Chancellor is proposing so to increase air passenger duty that a family of four will pay an extra £80 on a family holiday? How does he justify that increased tax on children and family holidays?

    The Prime Minister: It will be interesting to see which of Labour’s expenditure proposals it will ditch to keep within the spending and tax plans that the shadow Chancellor has apparently endorsed. Is it not remarkable that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has had from the shadow Chancellor the most remarkable endorsement of his economic policy that any Chancellor has ever received? On every single tax and spending decision, this year and next, the shadow Chancellor agrees that my right hon. and learned Friend is infallible.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is no such thing as a stable currency, except for relatively short periods, and that any political party that sought to base its policies on such a misconception would merely demonstrate its complete ignorance of the way in which foreign exchange markets operate in practice?

    The Prime Minister: With the growth in importance of exchange markets and the growth in currency passing daily across exchange markets, my hon. Friend’s point is undeniable.

     

    Q5. Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Loyden: On several occasions, and again today, the Prime Minister has told the House that the economic policies pursued by his Government have been responsible for inward investment and job creation in Britain. How does he square that claim with the fact that 1,300 jobs at Ford on Merseyside, as well as many others, are threatened? Is it not time that the Prime Minister woke up to the fact that jobs are being lost daily throughout the country? As far as I know–I have checked with the Library–Merseyside is still part of Britain.

    The Prime Minister: It is Conservative policy to keep every part of the United Kingdom within the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not support policies that might force an important part of the United Kingdom out of the United Kingdom.

    Of course I am concerned about the implications of the job losses at Ford as a result of the rationalisation of its business in the United Kingdom and abroad. However, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that, despite those job losses, unemployment has fallen by 130,000 in the past two months.

    Mr. Skinner: Fiddled figures, and 4 million out of work.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) seeks to deny the reality of falling unemployment. He lives in his own dream world, where he may best be left. The reality is that unemployment is falling throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) will know that people from areas such as Merseyside, where Ford has withdrawn its jobs, have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to see what assistance may be provided.

    Mr. William Powell: Will my right hon. Friend make available three days of Government time next week to give the whole House the opportunity to discuss a Government motion congratulating the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on his candour in admitting that the Opposition have ample scope for huge tax increases? Such a debate would also allow the House to discuss Opposition Members’ widespread hopes and expectations that there will be a £30 billion increase in public expenditure, even though that is denied by Labour Front Benchers. Does my right hon. Friend believe that we should discuss the Opposition’s extraordinary agreement to Government economic targets as laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I can immediately offer three days for debate, but we would certainly require three days to explain the distinction between the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West and those of the shadow Chancellor. It was an outburst of candour from the hon. Member for Oldham, West and also from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, who presumably has some idea of Labour’s tax and spending policies. I cannot promise a three-day debate, but I can promise to mention that point on every necessary occasion.

     

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

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

    Mr. Hain: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his assurance to the chairman of the Japanese equivalent of the CBI that he supports a single currency and would take Britain into it, with his assurance to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that he opposes a single currency and would block British entry? Which of those views–personally expressed by him–is correct, or are they both “infallible”?

    The Prime Minister: No, they are both incorrect.

     

    Q7. Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate a firm in my constituency, Technic Holdings, which is now the world leader in manufacturing tyre re-treads? [Laughter.] Will he note the laughter from Opposition Members about a firm that has increased its work force from four to 450 in nine years, and that uses 70 men to produce the tyres that 300 men are needed to produce in its German competitor, which it has now seen off? Its managing director and chairman have given three reasons for its success: first, the excellence of its workers; secondly, the enterprise culture created by the Government; and, thirdly, the throttling effect of Euro-legislation and German state taxes.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend illustrates clearly where the new jobs are coming from. No doubt the hon. Member for Bolsover would say that those fresh jobs created in my hon. and learned Friend’s constituency were fiddled jobs, but they are real jobs. They are jobs that would not have been created but for the Government’s policies.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 October 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Rail Privatisation

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement of 10 October in Bournemouth concerning improvements to rail passenger services from privatisation, if he will (a) give specific examples and (b) show that criteria he used for coming to this general conclusion.

    The Prime Minister: Rail franchising is leading to extra investment, additional train services, better passengers charters and improved passenger care. The new franchisee on South Eastern, for instance, is committed to replacing its existing trains with modern rolling stock, at a cost of up to £400 million. The franchisee for Midland MainLine plans to introduce an extra 22 weekday services each day between Leicester and London, and InterCity East Coast intends to invest some £17 million in improvements to rolling stock performance, passenger security and disabled access. These are just some of the improvements which franchising will bring to the passenger rail network at less cost to the taxpayer.

     

    Royal Travel Expenditure

    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have for the future funding of royal travel by rail and air.

    The Prime Minister: The Government propose, with Her Majesty the Queen’s agreement and following consultation with the Leader of the Opposition to invite Parliament to approve next year a single grant in aid on the Department of Transport’s vote for official royal travel by rail and air. The royal household will use this to purchase the services of the royal train, of No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron or suitable commercial providers.

    At present, these costs are met by the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as part of their general expenditure. The aim of the change is to have one focus–the royal household–responsible for securing the best value for money from this public money and to improve accountability to Parliament through the Department of Transport.

    The grant in aid from the Department of National Heritage, under which the royal household takes on first line of responsibility for property services on the occupied royal palaces, provides a suitable model. It has enabled savings in excess of 25 per cent. in real terms to be achieved since it was introduced in 1991. An annual report on the new grant in aid for royal travel will be presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Transport. Once the new system is established, targets for savings will be agreed and performance against them published in this annual report.

    The new grant in aid will not cover expenditure on the royal yacht, which is due to be decommissioned in 1997.

    I am confident that these measures, which are consistent with modern financial management, will improve the cost-efficiency and public accountability of this expenditure.

  • PMQT – 15 October 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th October 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

    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. Campbell: As a fellow working class warrior–I will take my coat off–will the Prime Minister confirm that he sent his children to a private school?

    The Prime Minister: I believe in choice. I do not seek to deny choice to other people.

     

    Q2. Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

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

    Mr. Congdon: Which party controls the council with the worst GCSE results in England? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will take tough measures to tackle failing schools, rather than spouting about the family from thousands of miles away?

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure which authority it is, but I know that the authorities with the poorest records are all run by the Labour party. That is undoubtedly true. As my hon. Friend intimated, we have now taken powers to deal with failing schools, and, when necessary, we shall use those powers.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the spate of reports of crisis in the national health service, culminating in a hospital refusing even emergency referrals of elderly patients because of a shortage of beds, are a disgrace? Will he accept the judgment of the head of the British Medical Association that that crisis is directly due to the Conservative Government’s internal market reforms, which have undermined the health service?

    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that for a second–nor do a large number of people in the health service up and down the country. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to travel up and down the country within the health service, where he will see in hospitals and in primary health care services the advantages that the reforms have brought about and will continue to bring about in the future. In particular, he may care to look at some of the group general practices that I have visited recently.

    Mr. Blair: What I am putting to the Prime Minister is precisely the view of the doctors and nurses who work in the national health service. Perhaps he will confirm that, since he became Prime Minister, there have been 20,000 more senior managers and 50,000 fewer nurses. Since he became Prime Minister, in London alone there have been 2,500 fewer acute beds, and half the casualty departments in London have closed. When even doctors and nurses with a lifetime’s experience in the health service say that that is due to the Government’s internal market reforms, can the Prime Minister not see the fundamental damage that those reforms are doing to the very principles of the national health service?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. If he wishes to test whether the reforms are working, I offer him the one that was suggested by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) when he was shadow Health Secretary: he said that the acid test was whether more patients were being treated. More patients are being treated; patient waiting lists have fallen; 1.5 million more patients are being treated than before the reforms; health expenditure has risen and been provided for by the Government; there are more doctors and more dentists; and waiting times have decreased dramatically. That is a health service providing a wider and better service. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman cherry-picks in order to criticise the health service when he should be supporting it.

    Mr. Blair: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute a single word I said. Furthermore, I do not know how he dare mention dentistry in the national health service after what his Government have done to it. He asked me to talk to those who work in the NHS. Does he recall what the chair of the consultants committee of the BMA said, just in the past few days? He said:

    “I fear the hospital service will be close to collapse this winter.”

    Do not people know from their experience that waiting lists are getting longer, people are still lying for hours on end on trolleys in casualty departments, acute beds are scarcer and staff and nurse morale is lower? The right hon. Gentleman simply washes his hands of it. If that is the experience–[Hon. Members: No.”] This is the experience of people in the Tory national health service. If that is their experience, is it any wonder that people today know that the Tories cannot ever be trusted on the national health service?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that most of what he has just said about the health service is completely misleading and, in many parts, totally inaccurate. Waiting lists are falling. Since 1979, the health service has had the largest sustained building programme of any stage in its history. There are more doctors–that is a matter of fact. There are more dentists–that is a matter of fact. There are more nurses and midwives–that is a matter of fact. I regret very much that he chooses to run down a service that the people who use it know from experience is a better service, which is improving day after day. Treatments that were never before available are provided more speedily and are improving. That is a record in the health service of which we can be proud. Unlike his party, we have not cut building and nurses’ pay.

     

    Q3. Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

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

    Mr. Banks: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the tremendous news announced today by Vauxhall at its plant in Ellesmere Port in north-west England of £300 million-worth of new investment and 200 jobs? Does he agree that that not only is good news but will create a raft of new opportunities for the region–opportunities that would not be there if a minimum wage and the social chapter were thrust on us?

    The Prime Minister: Today’s announcement is certainly more good news on top of a range of inward investment in different parts of the country that has brought a great deal of hope and employment to many parts of the United Kingdom. If we continue to pursue the same policies in future, I believe that we shall continue to attract very large-scale inward investment, partly using the United Kingdom as the base for operations in Europe and beyond, which I very much welcome. That will be lost if we follow the wrong policies. If Labour Members are so certain that the minimum wage will cause no harm, perhaps they will tell us what the minimum wage level will be, so that a judgment may be made.

    Mr. Ashdown: May I ask the Prime Minister a simple question of general principle? Is it right for a Government to seek to interfere in or manipulate the outcome of a Select Committee of Parliament?

    The Prime Minister: As you, Madam Speaker, said yesterday, allegations ought not to be bandied across the House. If the right hon. Gentleman has a complaint, he should put it to the appropriate Committee, and he will see that there is no one in this House more concerned than I am that it should be properly examined.

    Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the Prime Minister care to confirm to the House a statement that he made in a letter to me on 1 October? The letter stated:

    “The Coronation Oath is indeed regarded as a solemn undertaking by the Sovereign which is binding throughout Her reign. Ministers would not advise Her Majesty to sign into law any provision which contradicted Her Oath.”

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that that is my view of the Coronation oath.

     

    Q5. Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

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

    Mr. McAllion: On the day the FTSE index of the top 100 UK companies soared to record new levels, will the Prime Minister spare a thought for the 12,000 Scottish teenagers and under-25s every year who register as homeless? Will he remember that they are but the tip of an iceberg that spreads throughout Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he resolve at least to stop preaching at them about decency, duty and responsibility, and instead begin to show a scrap of decency–a modicum of the duty and responsibility that his Government owe to them–by guaranteeing each and every one of them their human right to a decent and safe home to live in?

    The Prime Minister: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that an extra level of taxation in Scotland would help those people–I very much doubt it. Throughout the past 17 years, we have followed policies that will widen opportunity for people, whatever strata of society they may be in and whatever their personal circumstances may be. That is the policy that we have followed. It is the policy in which I believe, and it is the policy that we shall continue to follow.

    Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent examples of the way in which female victims are sometimes treated in court, particularly where sexual offences are alleged? Did he read of the cases in which one young lady was cross-examined for six hours by her rapist and another was cross-examined for 12 days by lawyers acting for six defendants? Should it not be a matter of urgency that court proceedings are reformed to spare female victims that cruelty?

    The Prime Minister: I think that there will be a great deal of sympathy for what my hon. Friend said. Certainly, the case in which the lady was cross-examined by the accused rapist struck deeply with many people throughout the country. I agree that it is something that we should examine.

     

    Q6. Mr. Brian David Jenkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

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

    Mr. Jenkins: Does the Prime Minister agree that the price review announced today by the Director General of Water Services shows that the Labour party was right all along and that consumers have been ripped off for years under weak regulation, weak government and weak leadership?

    The Prime Minister: The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no. It shows the Labour party to have been wrong all along. If the industries had remained in public ownership, we would not have had any regulator looking at price reductions, we would not have had a better service, and we would not have had the extra investment. We would still have had the massive amount of taxpayer subsidy to inefficient industries.

    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend disregard the London-based bleat of the Leader of the Opposition and come to my constituency, where he will find the best health service in Europe at all levels, as my postbag proves, week after week?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend speaks not only for himself and for his constituents but for the many millions of people who use the NHS each year and who know from their own experiences how well they have been treated in it.

     

    Q7. Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

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

    Mr. Martlew: Does the Prime Minister agree that, if we are to have a high-speed rail link on the west coast main line–with all its environmental advantages, including a reduction in road congestion, and with all the advantages for the western part of the British Isles–there will be a need for public money to upgrade that line? If so, have the Government given any consideration to this matter?

    The Prime Minister: We have put a great deal of public money into a number of rail lines–[Interruption.] I suggest that, if Opposition Members do not understand that, they go to look at the new services. I suggest that they also examine the extra investment after the privatisation of British Rail–a privatisation that they said could not be done, should not be done and would not be done. The fact is that it has been done, and that it is a great success. Investment is up, and the service is improving.

  • PMQT – 16 April 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. O’Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

    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. O’Hara: Has the Prime Minister yet had time to read the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), the mastermind of the Conservative campaign for the South-East Staffordshire by-election? Writing for the Rutland and Stamford Mercury just a few hours before polling, the hon. Gentleman observed that many people imagined that Labour would win the seat with ease, and he made the immortal comment that nothing could be further from the truth. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that that same hon. Member will be put in charge of all future by-elections and the general election?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would perhaps be wiser not to be quite so smug as he was a moment ago. I advise him to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), who will explain that by-election losses become general election gains.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) is perfectly free to pay more tax if she wishes to do so now? Has she not blown the gaff on what the Labour party would do if it were ever elected to office? It would put up taxes–income tax and everything else–as it always has.

    The Prime Minister: I welcome the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) to the Chamber and I am delighted that she has been untied and ungagged and has been permitted to attend this afternoon. It was extremely unfair to pillory her. Just as the deputy leader of the Labour party tells us that he has joined the middle classes the hon. Lady decides to increase their taxes.

    Mr. Blair: The last person in this country to lecture us about honesty in tax is the Prime Minister–people remember the pledge not to raise VAT before the last election. What reasons would the Prime Minister give for the Conservative party’s humiliating defeat in that by-election?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about taxes–[Hon. Members: “No.”] He raised it. Perhaps he would care to refer to the unattributable briefing that he gave on the plane, and subsequently denied, in which he made it clear that taxes would go up at £40,000 and higher. Subsequently, when challenged it was claimed that the conversation never took place. [Hon. Members: “Answer.”]

    Mr. Blair: It is interesting that they always want me to answer the questions: in a few months’ time they will get their wish.

    Is not one reason for the Conservative defeat perhaps the fact that people do not want their railway system broken into 100 different companies and sold on the cheap; they do not want the sale laced with sweeteners paid for from taxpayers’ money; and they do not want hundreds of millions of pounds spent on the sale? In fact, the vast majority of people want that money to be spent on improving the system as a public service.

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that paying a dividend to shareholders is a sweetener, it shows how little he actually understands about the private sector system. It is clear, for all his weasel words, that he simply does not understand how the private sector works. The sooner that he learns, the sooner people might take seriously the ludicrous suggestion that the Labour party understands the modern economy.

    Mr. Blair: What we do understand is that the public do not want their railway system broken up and sold. Is not an underlying reason for the Conservative party defeat the fact that people simply do not trust the Conservatives any more? They do not trust them on railways, on tax or on the health service. The sooner they get the chance to say so loud and clear, the better for Britain.

    The Prime Minister: I suppose that it is best to reprise the old favourites while one has the chance. When talking about the Labour party and the railway service, the right hon. Gentleman should recall that the Labour Government closed more than 600 stations; we have opened more than 220. Under Labour, fares rose by 20 per cent.; we have frozen them in line with the retail prices index and they will drop. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the costs of privatisation, he should bear in mind the fact that there will be £10 billion of new private sector investment to improve the services for rail users. That could not have happened in the public sector; it did not happen in the public sector–

    Mr. Prescott: We did it.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may say, “We did it”, but I can tell him what the Labour Government did–they closed station after station after station. We have opened them and I will not let the right hon. Gentleman forget that.

    Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the good news of the week–that retail beef sales in Britain are back to 85 per cent. of what they were before the beef scare?

    The Prime Minister: I am glad that the beef market is recovering. Even the Commission President and the Agriculture Commissioner now admit that British beef is safe. It is abundantly clear that, as we have always maintained, the export ban on British beef imposed by the Community was motivated more by the interests of other countries’ beef markets than by public health. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Agriculture Minister will announce shortly, we have decided to take legal action against the totally unjustified ban on British beef.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that the problem with the railways is not more competition but the way in which the Government have sought to go about it? Is he aware that that has resulted in 70 per cent. of passenger services in London and the south-east getting worse since privatisation started; in £69 million of taxpayers’ money being spent to make Railtrack shares saleable; and in a £900 million increase in the salaries of Railtrack directors? Is not it perfectly clear that if the Government get their way with our railways, passenger trains will take second place to gravy trains?–[Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) suggests from a sedentary position that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has the same scriptwriter as the Leader of the Opposition. That is true.

    The right hon. Member for Yeovil is wrong. Taking Railtrack back into public ownership would cripple the economy, as the Liberal Democrats said in their transport document. The right hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand that the £69 million is a dividend payment.

    As for the service that the industry offers, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider the extra 600 trains a week that South West Trains will be running. Would those trains be running if the industry was still nationalised? What happened to the special offers for senior citizens, including £1 travel days, when the industry was in the public sector? What about the programme of improvements to stations, passenger facilities, lighting, security and waiting rooms? Those improvements are being made when the industry is in the private sector. They were not made when it was in the public sector, when the attitude of those in the public sector disgracefully let down the travelling public. We intend to improve that attitude.

    Mr. Dover: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, under his leadership, Conservative Members will faithfully serve and look after the interests of the working class, in marked contrast to some Opposition Members?

    The Prime Minister: The deputy leader of the Labour party is blushing. It is such an agreeable and unusual sight that I shall not add to his embarrassment.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

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

    Mr. Michie: Does the Prime Minister understand the outrage that is felt when almost £1 million of profit from the publicly owned Railtrack is to go towards huge bonuses to just six directors of a privatised rail company? Is not that an example of taking from the many and giving to the few?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about taking from the many and giving to the few–[Hon. Members: “Answer.”] I will come directly to the hon. Gentleman’s question in my own way–he might, first, have a look at his own local authority, which might collect the £558 million of debt that it is owed.

    Mr. Michie: Rubbish.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says “rubbish”. Yes; in collecting its debts, Sheffield is rubbish. It does not collect its debts or make its interest payments, and it has massive council tax arrears. That is what Labour is like in power, in the phrase of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

    On the bonus payment, Railtrack is proposing precisely the type of long-term performance bonus that has been recommended by Greenbury and urged on us by Opposition Front Benchers.

     

    Q3. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a fair tax system is a low-tax system? Did he see the article in the Sunday Express, in which the leader of the Labour party told journalists that the top rate of tax would be raised for those on £30,000 or more? That figure was subsequently quickly amended to £40,000 and subsequently denied altogether by the Labour party’s spin doctors. Does he agree that the unscripted remarks by the Labour transport spokesman are a very useful contribution to the debate on the Labour party’s tax policy?

    Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, questions should be related to the Government’s responsibilities. We will now take the next question.

     

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

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

    Mr. Illsley: Is the Prime Minister aware that, as of 1 April, thousands of disabled people will lose up to £30 a week as a result of his Government’s decision to withdraw reduced earnings allowance and to replace it with retirement allowance? Will the Prime Minister reconsider that decision in view of the extreme hardship that that decision will cause to less-well-off members of our society?

    The Prime Minister: We have taken a number of measures to improve the particular circumstances of people who are disabled. That is clear across a range of disability benefits and in the Disability Discrimination Act that the House passed just last year. If the hon. Gentleman is advocating more expenditure, I hope that–

    Mr. Illsley indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is not advocating more expenditure than at present, I fail to understand what his question is about. If he is, I would like to know precisely how he is going to fund it and how much the tax increase will be for that and the many other areas where Labour wishes to spend more.

    Mr. Brooke: As the cricket season starts, does my right hon. Friend take encouragement from the fact that this summer at the Oval we shall see the 50th anniversary of the longest and largest stand for the last wicket in the history of English cricket? Does he recognise that nothing in cricket exasperates the Opposition or cheers up the batting side as much?

    The Prime Minister: As it happens, I was aware of that particular anniversary. I look forward at the Oval to seeing many performances like that by Surrey, and perhaps by England. I have absolutely no doubt that, politically, we shall see their equivalent.

  • PMQT – 19 December 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

    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. Jones: Will the Government rejoin the future large aircraft project urgently? Does the Prime Minister understand that the French and the Germans are increasingly sceptical of our approach to the project and may move to exclude us? Is he also aware that 2,000 Airbus workers in my constituency have lost their jobs and that the remaining 2,000 are desperate for Britain to rejoin the project? Given Britain’s pathetic economic growth prospects, surely the Prime Minister wants a strong aerospace industry.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me an indication of the subject that he intended to raise and I appreciate his concern to protect jobs in his constituency. On the substantive point, the Government are committed to joining the future large aircraft programme provided that our conditions concerning price, performance and affordability are met. That matter is under discussion with the United Kingdom industries concerned and with our European colleagues.

     

    Q2. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

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

    Mr. Shaw: In the next few days I shall be visiting the hospitals, the homes for the elderly and the retired and the nursing homes in my constituency. I shall visit many businesses and voluntary organisations. [Interruption.] All those people have benefited from additional resources as a result of the recent Budget. Can my right hon. Friend also give me some words to tell our customs officers in Dover, who are thoroughly against the policies that the Labour party would introduce in terms of the legalisation of cannabis and drugs? [Interruption.] Our customs officers have provided a valuable service in keeping Britain free from drugs. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he supports the customs officers in Dover in that action? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will give the hon. Gentleman an Adjournment debate next year.

    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has just had one, Madam Speaker. I very much agree with him about the excellent work carried out by customs officers at Dover and elsewhere in tackling drug trafficking. My hon. Friend can tell them categorically that we have no intention of legalising cannabis. We do not believe that it is the right way to proceed. As the chief constable of West Yorkshire said in the past,

    “Legalisation or decriminalisation just isn’t the answer.”

    He continued:

    “I’ve not yet met a heroin, or ecstasy or crack cocaine user that didn’t start on cannabis”.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister tell us what he has repeatedly refused to deny, which is that the costs of rail privatisation–the costs of the sale and of the extra subsidy–are set to amount to $1 billion over the next two years? Would not that £1 billion be better spent on improving a public rail service?

    The Prime Minister: No. Even with the spirit of Christmas, I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. On a like for like basis, overall Government funding for the railways after privatisation is expected to be broadly similar to the levels of recent years. The precise level will depend on the privatisation process and on the outcome of competition for the franchises. Instead of criticising the funding, the Labour leader would be better employed examining the £10 billion worth of investment that Railtrack plans, which would not occur in the public sector. If the right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to privatisation, will he tell us how he would replace the £10 billion worth of investment in British Rail? Which taxes would he increase? By how much would fares have to rise? Or will he at last realise that privatisation will produce a better service for customers?

    Mr. Blair: We could start by taking the £1 billion and investing it in the rail service. Let us see whether the Prime Minister can answer one simple question: will he guarantee that the level of service which now obtains will be the same after privatisation in the privatised services–not hope, not wish, but guarantee?

    The Prime Minister: I note that the right hon. Gentleman had no response whatever to the £10 billion worth of investment. He talks about £1 billion, but £10 billion is promised. As for future services, he can see what is already beginning to happen. The passenger service requirements provide a guaranteed level of service. That has never existed in the past. Services to the passenger are already improving–[Hon. Members: “Where?”] I will tell Opposition Members where. The operating companies are offering a range of new services. They are responding to their customers more quickly. There are new information services. To give Opposition Members a practical example, completely new train services are being provided–[Hon. Members: “Where”?]. I will tell Opposition Members where. For example, over 100 trains a day have already been added to SouthWest Trains’ timetables. When will the Leader of the Opposition realise what is happening and realise also the opportunities for improving a service that has been too bad for too long?

    Mr. Blair: We shall realise it when the Prime Minister guarantees that service levels will remain the same–[Interruption.] Yes, when he guarantees it. What is more, have we not just–[Interruption.] We shall listen to the Government when they guarantee that the service will remain the same, but they are not prepared to do that. Is it not right that at the end of the week–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The barracking is intolerable.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister keeps telling us about his plans for British Rail. Is he not the man who planned no increase in value added tax and then increased it? We are not interested in his plans. Have not his rail plans been overturned by the courts, his chief inspector of prisons walked out of his first prison inspection, members of his party are at each other’s throats over Europe and the Government cannot get the national lottery right? Has not the right hon. Gentleman’s year ended as it began–in weakness, chaos and incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: Whenever the right hon. Gentleman loses the argument, he changes it. He has lost the argument on privatisation. He had no response to the £10 billion and no response to the fact that there has never been a guaranteed minimum service until now. Now the service is being improved and he cannot bear the fact that we are winning the argument in terms of improving services right across the public sector. All that he can do is to run down everything that happens in this country on every conceivable occasion for his own partisan political interests.

    Mr. Garnier: As more than 13,000 British troops are deployed to Yugoslavia, will my right hon. Friend send the best wishes of the House to them? Does he agree that, had the Labour party won the last election, we would not have had one tenth of the soldiers to send to that place, given the savage cuts that Labour would have introduced?

    The Prime Minister: And would probably try to introduce were it ever given the chance again. We know the Opposition’s record on defence and we know their capacity to hide their long-term affiliation to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and we know that the armed forces know and the people of this country know that the armed forces would not be safe in their hands.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister understand why the possibility of a lone British veto tomorrow against a European subvention to help to privatise Irish Steel is regarded by the Irish Prime Minister as inexplicable? Will he explain? Will he assure us, in particular, that he fully understands the damage that could be done by that to British-Irish relations at a crucial moment in the Irish peace process?

    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should examine the whole matter; it is a very complex issue involving the interests of Irish Steel–very important to Ireland–and British Steel, and the matter is under discussion. We are seeking–and I hope that it will be possible to reach–an agreement that safeguards the United Kingdom’s interests. That matter is under discussion at the moment. It would not be productive for those discussions for me to pursue the matter now, but there is an interest both in Ireland and in the United Kingdom. We are seeking, and have done for some weeks, to reach an agreement which meets the interests of the steel industry both in the United Kingdom and in Ireland. I hope that we shall be able to reach such an agreement. If we cannot, it will not be for lack of trying on this side of the channel.

    Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the newspaper report that Labour Members of the European Parliament, in supporting the French strikers, blamed their plight on the fact that the French Government were supporting the single currency? Does he not find it surprising that Labour MEPs should be supporting his own sceptical point of view? Is he not even more surprised that their position differs radically from that of Opposition Front-Benchers, who support the European Parliament and all its works?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that the very wide and deep divisions in the Labour party on Europe were clearly apparent in the statement that I delivered to the House yesterday afternoon, when one Labour Back Bencher after another stood up and, in essence, flatly contradicted what the leader of the Labour party has been saying for weeks. As for Labour party policy, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that there was more than one summit in Madrid last week. The summit of socialist leaders, attended by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, must have been very amusing. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to a significant extension of qualified majority voting, support for a European strategy on immigration, the social chapter, and restrictions on how long people can work. What he did not discuss were the details of fishing policy–and he a Member from Hull.

     

    Q3. Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

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

    Mr. Pickthall: As the national lottery regulator was warned by the Ministry not to take free air trips on his visit to the USA, but nevertheless did so, and given that the Secretary of State for National Heritage knew about that but refused to comment on it at Question Time yesterday, does the Prime Minister not think that it is time that both of them were sacked?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is considering the matter and will make an announcement shortly.

    Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1979 only 30 per cent. of people in Scotland were home owners? Is he aware that the figure is now 57 per cent., and a Shelter report published today suggests that 77 per cent. of Scots aspire to home ownership? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Conservative party will drive towards that objective?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Surveys show that more than 70 per cent. of Scots aim for owner-occupation, and that is particularly true among younger age groups. Since the right to buy was introduced in 1980, well over 300,000 houses and flats have been sold to their tenants, and owner-occupation has increased from 35 per cent. to 57 per cent. The right to buy has been immensely successful–introduced by a Conservative Government, opposed by gut instinct by the Labour party then, and still, in truth, loathed by it now.

  • PMQT – 12 December 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 December.

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

    Mr. Michie: Does the Prime Minister share the widespread concern about the release to the press by the chairman of the Conservative party of the text of the Lord Chancellor’s speech, which the Lord Chancellor himself had no intention of delivering? Is not it about time that the Prime Minister condemned the action of the chairman of the Conservative party and made a public apology to the Lord Chancellor, to which he is entitled?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman knew the Lord Chancellor, he would not have asked such a silly question. The hon. Gentleman is mis-stating the Lord Chancellor’s view and the events.

     

    Q2. Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 December.

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

    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend confirm– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order in this House.

    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend confirm– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Try again.

    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the national health service is treating 1 million extra patients a year as a result of the Government’s courage in introducing their NHS reforms? That being so, does my right hon. Friend agree with the comments made by the Labour party think tank that Labour policy on the NHS is dominated by sectional trade union interest and is neither thorough nor well informed–a perfect description of new Labour?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that the national health service is treating 1 million more patients, and of course treating them better, with a wider range of services, and more speedily than ever before. I am aware of the Fabian pamphlet, though I have not yet had the opportunity to read it. Perhaps I shall enjoy doing so in due course. The conclusion that I draw from it is clear. Views inside the health service and about the health service have moved on. The Opposition’s views have not moved and are out of date and unsuitable for a modern health service.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister accept what Ministers have been denying for months–that the public subsidy paid to a privatised railway is set to rise dramatically after privatisation? What is the latest official estimate?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman tables a detailed question, I shall give him the estimate. I can tell him something else now–that rail privatisation will produce a better service for all passengers and, if he waits for the new franchise decisions, he will begin to see that for himself. He has been trying to smear privatisation when every previous privatisation has produced a better service for the customer. He will find out that that will be the case with British Rail as well.

    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman can tell that to the customers of Yorkshire Water.

    I am not trying to smear. I am simply asking for information. Even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot give me the exact figure, will he accept that the subsidy is set to rise?

    The Prime Minister: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that what is rising is investment in the railways and the standards of service to the passengers. As the right hon. Gentleman neglects to mention each time, the operating services are already offering a range of new services and responding to customers more quickly, and new information services are being provided. That is a sign of a better service under privatisation than we ever knew under nationalisation.

    Mr. Blair: I do not see why, as Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer a straight question about privatisation. If he will not answer it, we shall continue to expose the costs and the chaos of the system. The railway network should not be used as a plaything for bankers and speculators. [Interruption.] No. It should be run not for bankers and speculators, but for British business and the British people.

    The Prime Minister: Now we know the soundbite that we were working up to; it was not worth waiting for. If the right hon. Gentleman is as keen as we are on a modern railway service, he had better explain from where, under his plans, the finance to produce it would come. Will he spend more? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] Yes, they say. So by how much will taxes go up? Time after time, the right hon. Gentleman pretends that there can be more investment in the public service without higher taxes and a better service without higher expenditure. He pretends that he is a moderniser, but when it comes to trusting the private sector, he is as old Labour as any of his colleagues.

     

    Q3. Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 December.

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

    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are outraged that they are still threatened with the possibility of water cuts by Yorkshire Water in the new year? The problem is that some of the managers of Yorkshire Water still think that they are running a nationalised industry in which customers do not count. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. We have little time.

    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the circumstances in which the Government would allow drought orders sanctioning water cuts are almost unimaginable?

    The Prime Minister: I can tell my hon. Friend that Yorkshire Water plans to invest £2.5 billion over the next 10 years and more than £200 million this year for its customers’ benefit. That is a substantial increase on anything that we have seen in the past. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government will sanction rota cuts only if no other option is available. We have made it clear to Yorkshire Water that it should use every possible step, as it is seeking to do, to make rota cuts unnecessary. If, over the years, there had been proper management of the nationalised industry, the under-investment might not have occurred.

    Mr. Corbett: May I renew my request to the Prime Minister to take a personal interest in the plight of my constituent Ms Louise Stack, the mother of four young children, who applied 11 months ago to transfer from a prison in Spain to complete her sentence in this country? Will the Prime Minister now promise me that he will raise the matter when he meets the Spanish Prime Minister this weekend?

    The Prime Minister: I will certainly examine the papers again before Madrid, but I had better do that before I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment. I undertake to study the papers again, and I will let the hon. Gentleman know what action I propose to take.

     

    Q4. Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 December.

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

    Sir Fergus Montgomery: After the tragedy at a school in north Westminster on Friday, does my right hon. Friend agree that the letter written by the small son of Philip Lawrence to Santa Claus was one of the saddest and most moving letters ever written by a child? Will he assure me that the Government will do everything that they can to learn lessons from the tragedy in an attempt to ensure that it is never repeated?

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in sending sympathy to the family and friends of Mr. Lawrence after that dreadful event. The Government are considering what more can be done. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been consulting the Association of Chief Police Officers about whether harsher penalties and further police powers are necessary to deal with the problem of knives. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to announce the outcome of those discussions and, perhaps, new proposals in due course. In parallel with that, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is talking to teachers’ representatives about a range of issues covering the safety of staff and pupils in our schools.

     

    Q5. Ms Lynne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 December.

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

    Ms Lynne: Does the Prime Minister agree with the pensioners of Rochdale that the £10 Christmas bonus that they have just received is an absolute insult? If the bonus had risen in line with inflation, it would now be worth £68. Does the Prime Minister realise that £10 buys a small frozen turkey and a box of Christmas crackers–hardly a recipe for Christmas cheer?

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady and her colleagues took that view when they cancelled the Christmas bonus–the only occasion that that has ever happened.

    Mr. Redwood: I welcome the fact that, at his recent meeting in Italy, the Prime Minister raised the issue of European worries about a single currency. Will he be pursuing those points at Madrid?

    The Prime Minister: Yes. I shall be pursuing a number of the points that I raised in the last European Council meeting about the problems that might occur were a single currency to proceed with a small minority of countries in it and a larger majority of countries outside it. I believe that that raises a whole range of issues which have not yet been properly considered, and I shall be seeking further consideration of those points at Madrid this weekend.

     

    Q6. Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 December.

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

    Mr. Cohen: It has been estimated that, even allowing for the Budget settlement, schools could be £40 per pupil worse off next year. Despite an increase in the school rolls of about 116,000 children, the National Union of Teachers has estimated that there will be 9,200 fewer teachers this term. Does the Prime Minister think that that is clever?

    The Prime Minister: I notice that the hon. Gentleman was not one of the 10 Labour Members who voted to increase taxation and to increase expenditure. He wants increased expenditure without admitting that it would lead to increased taxation. We have made an extra £878 billion available for schools–an increase of about 5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that is above the level of increased costs and is an increase in real resources.

    Mrs. Lait: Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending sympathy to the millions of people in France who have been affected by the strikes? Is he aware that every Labour Member of the European Parliament has signed a resolution backing the strikers, thereby proving that Labour is still the strikers’ friend?

    The Prime Minister: It is certainly true that the Members of the European Parliament did that.

    Mr. Prescott: What do you know about it?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that the deputy leader of the Labour party just muttered, “Well, what do you know about it?” I hope that he knows that the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour Members of Parliament, never mind Members of the European Parliament, has also sent a message of support to the French strikers. I will quote from it.

    “The Struggle going on in France is one of critical importance to working people throughout Europe”,

    wrote the group secretary of the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour Members of Parliament. He went on:

    “Capitalism demands that we now dismantle employment rights, welfare benefits and the network of public services built up after years of struggle.”

    That is real Labour.

     

    Q7. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 December.

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

    Mr. Banks: May I thank the Prime Minister for his great kindness last night to members of Chelsea’s 1954-55 championship team? May I remind him that during the last war, thousands of civilians were killed in the blitz and that it is appropriate in this anniversary year that there should be a suitable memorial to commemorate those civilian dead? Will he give his support to the moves in the east end to build a suitable memorial to the civilian dead?

    The Prime Minister: First, let me thank the hon. Gentleman for a very enjoyable occasion with some guests last evening. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I would not wish to do harm to an old friend. Let me assure the House that when we discussed football, the hon. Gentleman played on the left wing and I played on the right.

    On the hon. Gentleman’s substantive point, I willingly join him in paying tribute to those Londoners, east Londoners perhaps above all, who endured the blitz. I will invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage to consider the hon. Gentleman’s proposal and advise further. The hon. Gentleman, I hope, will be aware that an application could be made to the national heritage memorial fund for consideration for lottery funding. That process is independent of the Government, but the idea that the hon. Gentleman suggests is certainly one that the fund could be prepared to entertain.

  • PMQT – 5 December 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    GP Fundholders (Lichfield)

    Q1. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet a delegation of general practitioners from Lichfield to discuss the future of fundholding.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Fundholders’ views on developing the success of the scheme are always welcome. Any detailed recommendations will, of course, be considered.

    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that every general practitioner in Lichfield will be a registered fundholder? The reason is that those GPs believe in the Conservative party’s crusade for choice: they believe that it is right for them to be able to choose the consultant and the hospital that are right for them. Does my right hon. Friend realise that they are appalled at the Labour party’s plan to abolish fundholding? Does that not give the lie to Labour’s crusade for schools, which is evidently empty rhetoric– just another empty soundbite?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that GP fundholding has improved patient care and increased patient choice up and down the country. An increasing number of doctors are choosing to become fundholders, and I welcome that, in Lichfield as elsewhere.

    There is, of course, all the difference in the world between a policy that genuinely believes in choice–as ours does in relation to both health and education–and one that believes in choice for marketing reasons. We saw an instance of that this morning.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

    The Prime Minister: 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. Morgan: Does the Prime Minister agree with me, and with all the other users of the Great Western main line from Paddington to south Wales and the west of England, that the signals for railway privatisation are now firmly stuck at red? Now that the consortium Resurgence Railways, led by the Prime Minister’s Huntingdon Tory crony, Mike Jones, has been rejected because it cannot raise the money, and the second-choice preferred bidders–led by the present management team at Western Region–cannot raise the money either, should we not be singing the old song “Let’s call the whole thing off”?

    The Prime Minister: That was rather contrived, I must say. Rail privatisation is going ahead, for one simple reason: it will deliver a better service for rail passengers. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends really think that, over the past 40 years, the public have had the rail service that they would like, I do not know where he has been.

    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend believe that, if he appointed Scottish-based Members of Parliament to key Cabinet posts such as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Chief Whip, and then proposed to set up a Parliament in Edinburgh that failed to address the West Lothian question, that would be good for the Union of the United Kingdom and for relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK?

    The Prime Minister: I do, of course, have a number of very distinguished Scots in my Cabinet and in my Government, but I certainly agree with the thrust– [Interruption.] Not at the moment, it is true. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is distinguished, but he is not a Scot. The thrust of my hon. Friend’s point is surely right–if the devolution plans proposed by the Opposition parties were to proceed, they would undoubtedly lead to conflict between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that, even at this late stage, the parties advocating those policies will consider what they would mean in practice both for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom and will decide that extra taxation for Scots alone is not a way to improve the prosperity of Scotland.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree, as the Government’s report “Lifetime Learning” which was published today confirms, that Britain’s skills and education attainments are nowhere near where they should be? Rather than encouraging a small number of children to leave state schools for the private sector, should we not be raising educational standards for the 7 million children who are educated in the state sector, many of whom do not get the education that they deserve?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have produced a whole series of plans to raise educational standards over recent years, many of which, alas, have been strongly opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know where in the education sector there is failure, he might look at Hackney for example. [Hon. Members: “Islington.”] I shall come to Islington. The right hon. Gentleman might look at Lambeth, where the secondary schools are so bad that the Office for Standards in Education has to inspect every one of them. He might, of course, look at Islington, which has just come absolutely bottom in the table of GCSE results. What is consistent among all those is that they are all Labour-controlled education authorities.

    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate SCM Chemicals in my constituency, a subsidiary of the Hanson Trust group, which yesterday announced a massive expansion of its titanium dioxide plant? Is that not clear evidence that international investment is making my constituency the chemical capital of the world?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is a formidable advocate for his constituency and his constituents. I hope he will agree that Government policy as well as his advocacy might have played some part in bringing that investment to his constituency.

     

    Q3. Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

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

    Mr. Taylor: Will the Prime Minister explain to the people of Cornwall and Devon why they should accept the Government’s conclusions today that Government spending in the region compares favourably with that in the rest of the country, when every independent report shows that spending in the region is 10 per cent. less Department by Department, education to industry, than that in the rest of the country, despite high unemployment, low wages and a high cost of living?

    The Prime Minister: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a number of measures to deal with those problems in the west country and elsewhere, and it is extremely important that those problems are dealt with. We are determined to address them and to improve the living standards and opportunities for people in the west country. That is what we have been doing and what we shall continue to do. It is pity that the hon. Gentleman seeks to denigrate every effort that is made.

    Mr. Devlin: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports of the disgraceful intimidation and browbeating that is going on in Hurworth in my neighbouring constituency where the Labour party is trying to prevent a local school from opting out? Apparently, the whole affair is being organised by none other than the Leader of the Opposition, aided by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn.)

    The Prime Minister: I believe that any form of intimidation of parental choice is to be condemned. Parents have a natural and a legal right to decide whether they want the school to which their child goes to opt out and they should be able to exercise that right without intimidation, either by the education authority or by anyone else. If there is evidence of that, I hope that those implicated in it will examine it without delay.

     

    Q4. Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

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

    Ms Quin: My question concerns the appalling human rights abuses in Nigeria, together with reports in the press today of confidential information from Home Office files being leaked to Tory central office and thence to the press. Will the Prime Minister order an immediate inquiry into those leaks and further assure the House that there will be no deportations to Nigeria of people at risk from that murderous regime?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, our position on Nigeria is clear and, in company with others, we set that out clearly at the Commonwealth conference. The case in today’s newspaper to which she refers was one where the applicant or his representative had chosen to make public details of their cases and allegations about their consideration. In those circumstances, the Home Office gave information that was necessary to set the record straight in response to telephone inquiries that it received and, subsequent to the information being given by the Home Office, it was also used by others.

    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the outstanding success of Operation Christmas Cracker? Is he aware that some 12,000 police officers in 40 force areas today made a number of staggered raids in which more than 2,000 suspects were arrested, and recovered property ranging from bicycles to reptiles? Does he agree that that is one of the best Christmas presents that people could have?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who touches on a matter that is of importance to everyone. I certainly welcome the priority given to today’s operation, which involves some 40 police forces and has occasioned more than 2,000 arrests. There is no doubt that, over the past couple of years, innovative policing methods have made a distinct impact on the crime level, and we are now beginning to see the crime statistics fall. It is policing of that sort that can give people considerable reassurance. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may scoff about crime falling, but it is a matter of importance to the public out there.

     

    Q5. Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

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

    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister seen the astonishing reports in the press that the official video of the party conference has been doctored to make the party chairman appear good, and to play down the popularity of the Secretary of State for Defence in the party? If the Conservative party cannot tell the truth about its own conference, is it any wonder that no one trusts it on tax?

    The Prime Minister: From the party that has more spending pledges and higher tax in the pipeline than anyone else, I find that ironic. On the newspaper reports, the hon. Gentleman should look at reality, not newspaper reports.

    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that high-quality textiles from Yorkshire were used in the new James Bond film? James Bond may be ruthless in what he does to his enemies, but he is also particular about what he wears. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the three west Yorkshire textile companies that were involved in that project?

    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to congratulate west Yorkshire and the textile industry and I hope that, as a result of that extra advertisement, they will sell far more of their textiles at home and abroad.

     

    Q6. Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

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

    Ms Corston: The Prime Minister describes himself as a one-nation Tory. Will he therefore tell us which is fairer–abolishing capital gains and inheritance taxes or implementing a starting rate of income tax of 10p?

    The Prime Minister: I see that the shadow Chancellor is here. One of his hon. Friends, also a Front Bencher a year or so ago, referred in very scathing terms to precisely the sort of proposition that the shadow Chancellor made. It is a gimmick and the shadow Chancellor knows it. What is fair is to lower the basic rate of tax to 20p, which is what we are doing by raising thresholds so that one in four people now pays tax at 20p, by cutting the tax on savings for all basic-rate taxpayers so that they only pay 20p, and by reducing the basic rate of tax.

    The hon. Lady reveals the deep innate distaste of the Labour party for cutting taxes. It is a spending party and a tax-raising party, while we cut taxes.

    Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which I gave you prior notice. You will have just heard the Prime Minister refer to what appears to be a major change in the long-standing policy of the Home Office not to disclose to a third party confidential information concerning anyone involved in immigration or asylum applications. In view of the disclosure by Conservative central office of information concerning a Mr. Igbiuidu, a Nigerian national seeking asylum in this country, could you, Madam Speaker, arrange for the Home Secretary to make an early statement about what changes the Home Office has made in its policy of not disclosing information about individual applications?

    Madam Speaker: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice of his point of order. I certainly heard the Prime Minister’s response today. I understand that the information was released by the Home Office. I, as Speaker, have no responsibility for the actions of Government Departments, but even so I took the opportunity this morning to look at the matter and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is precedented.

    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to look in the Official Report tomorrow at question No. 1 to the Prime Minister, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). He asked a closed question. We all understand the ground rules. A closed question prevents any supplementary from being asked, other than in relation to the subject matter of the question.

    My complaint is that the Prime Minister did not respond either in detail or by implication to the question, which specifically asked whether he would meet general practitioners from Lichfield. There was no mention of Lichfield in the Prime Minister’s reply, and certainly not in relation to general practitioners. If the rules are to apply, a Minister has to respond to a question, or it is unfair to Opposition Members.

    Mr. Fabricant rose–

    Madam Speaker: Sit down. I am taking no further points of order on this matter. Indeed, it was not a point of order anyway. I am not responsible for the answers given by Ministers. We shall now get on with the business of the House.

    Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Many of us could not hear what you said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). For clarification, could you tell us whether you said that the procedure was precedented or a precedent?

    Madam Speaker: It is precedented. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come to see me I will give him the information.