The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Rail Privatisation

  • PMQT – 28 November 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November.

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

    Mrs. Ewing: Although I recognise the significant role that the Prime Minister has played in the Northern Ireland peace process, he will understand that there is now widespread concern at what appears to be an impasse. In those circumstances, does he feel that it is now time to establish an international commission to help the matter on?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said in her opening remarks. Naturally, I hope that we will soon be able to launch what has become known as the twin-track initiative. I had a further conversation with the Irish Prime Minister earlier today. I expect to speak to him later this afternoon. Some important points are still outstanding. It is too soon to say whether and when we might reach agreement, but some progress has been made.

    Mr. Trotter: Might I, on Budget day, remind my right hon. Friend of the massive Siemens plant which is being built on Tyneside? Is he aware that, at £1.1 billion of German money, it is the biggest investment in Europe? Is he aware that, with its planned exports of £700 million every year, the plant could have gone anywhere in the world? Is not the decision to put it on Tyneside, with the thousands of jobs that result, a tribute to and proof of the attractiveness of Britain, the soundness of the economy and the success of Government policies?

    The Prime Minister: It is certainly a very welcome investment as, indeed, is all the inward investment that we have seen over recent years. What is very refreshing is that we are receiving inward investment not just from outside the European Union, from which we have had the bulk of inward investment into western Europe for many years, but reinvestment from one part of the European Union to the United Kingdom. That reflects our tax structure, the opportunities in this country, the fact that we are not committed to very high social costs, and the skills of the British work force.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall giving a firm pledge that, after rail privatisation, fares would be capped? How is it then that we are now told that fares on only 20 per cent. of inter-city lines and only 40 per cent. of the rest will be capped?

    The Prime Minister: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that we remain committed to fares rising in line with inflation over the next three years, then falling by 1 per cent. below inflation for the next four years. That is capping of fares. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when Labour was last in government– [Interruption.] Yes, Madam Speaker, it was a long time ago. It is because Labour was so appalling in government that it is such a long time ago. When Labour was in government, rail fares rose by more than 22 per cent. over and above inflation. The fact is that fares would go up again under Labour to pay for its policy of renationalisation.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister did not answer the question as to why the pledge that he gave is no longer honoured. We now know that an extra £700 million of public subsidy is going to those rail networks after privatisation and hundreds of millions of pounds is being spent in the sale. A report today suggests that the network may be sold for a quarter of its book value, which is a loss to the taxpayer of billions of pounds. In those circumstances, is it not time that, if he cannot even maintain the pledges that he has given, the sale was dropped and the network kept as a proper public service?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong all the way down the line. I assume that he is getting advice from the deputy leader of the Labour party, but he is clearly wrong with all his facts. I made the point about fares rising in line with inflation and then falling. I have again made that perfectly clear to the Leader of the Opposition. As for the sale of Railtrack, there is no question of its assets being sold off cheaply–[Interruption.] A few days ago, we saw the Labour party briefing on a Budget that it has not heard. Now, we hear Labour Members scoffing at decisions that have not yet been taken. How do they know? They do not. They are in the business of trying to smear this privatisation, as they have tried to smear every other privatisation.

    Mr. Gale: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will welcome the news that the videotape made from recordings culled from clandestine cameras has been withdrawn from sale. Will he ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider prosecution, as the tape was illegal and uncertificated? Will he consider confiscation of the proceeds of the sale? Will he also prevent further similar events, so that closed circuit television cameras, which are a valuable weapon in the fight against crime, are not brought into disrepute?

    The Prime Minister: I will see that my right hon. and learned Friend considers my hon. Friend’s remarks.

    Mr. Ashdown: Having been fooled by tax promises before the last election, followed by record tax hikes after it, why does the Prime Minister believe that the British people will be taken in twice by his Government on taxes?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman finds himself in a rather curious situation. He has consistently opposed tax increases and now opposes the possibility of tax reductions. Of course, it is a typical Liberal position to oppose one thing and oppose the precise opposite. What the right hon. Gentleman–whom we welcome safely to his place today–neglects to mention is that since I became Prime Minister take-home pay after inflation has risen by more than £600 a year in today’s prices, real disposable income is £400 a year per head higher in today’s prices and, in addition, average mortgage costs have fallen by £140 a month.

    Mr. Dykes: Further to the first supplementary question, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s careful and meticulous policy on the Northern Ireland peace talks has the full, bipartisan support of all parties in the House, but none the less that there is a strong collective desire for further progress from now on? Following his previous answer, can he say a little more on the prospects following the American President’s visit to Britain and the island of Ireland tomorrow?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend had to say, further to the remarks of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). As I said, I hope to speak with the Irish Prime Minister again later this afternoon. I am not certain whether we will be able to reach full agreement on that occasion, but, if we do not, we shall continue at a later stage to see whether an agreement on acceptable terms is possible.

    I emphasise to the House that the agreement has to be on acceptable terms. It has to be an agreement that will lay the groundwork that would enable all parties to get together and talk in due course. There is no purpose in an agreement that will not work and will not achieve that, so we have to deal with the matter carefully. We have to consider the position of all parties who have expressed views on the matter and I will deal with it as speedily as is practicable, but only with the determination of reaching a satisfactory settlement. As soon as we can reach one, we will announce it. If we cannot, we will continue to seek one.

     

    Q2. Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November.

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

    Mr. McAvoy: A moment ago, the Prime Minister mentioned mortgage payments; but, to deal with other statistics, can he confirm that, in the five years since he took office as Prime Minister, no fewer than 320,000 families have lost their homes through repossession and that the repossession rate is running at over 1,000 per week? Is that a record of which he is proud or will he take this opportunity to apologise to those families for the misery that he caused them–or is it all their own fault?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly reconfirm the point I made earlier and also confirm the point that repossessions are falling. What is most necessary for the housing market is stable inflation and the lowest possible interest rates. We have achieved a better position on inflation than we have seen for generations and a better position on interest rates than we have seen for very many years. That bodes very well for the housing market.

    Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend share a sense of intrigue with me at the speech yesterday of Commissioner Kinnock in which he said that major events in Europe were unlikely to happen until well after 1999? Does he agree that this was not so much a statement of the policy of the European Commission as an indication of the state of nerves of the British Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend draws attention to a very intriguing speech and, like every other Member of the House, I read it with a great deal of interest. I believe Commissioner Kinnock is approaching this matter with a greater clarity of vision than right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench. I think what he has had to say is to have had the audacity to admit what we have been saying for ages: that Europe may well not be ready for a single currency in 1999 and that, if it is not ready to proceed without Europe being ready, that would be disastrous not just for individual countries but for every country in the European Union.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November.

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

    Mr. Davies: How can our nation be at ease with itself, an ambition that the Prime Minister set five years ago, when one in five non-pensioner households have nobody working?

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I think that what one needs to ensure that a nation is at ease with itself is a range of different factors that we are now producing. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what they are: first, the smashing of the inflationary psychology and the protection of pensioners’ savings; secondly, the best economic outlook for generations, which we now have; thirdly, the largest fall in recorded crime for over 40 years, which we now have; the lowest rate of unemployment among large nations in Europe, which we now have; and a range of other factors which this Government have put in place and which no earlier Labour Government matched in any way.

     

    Q4. Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November.

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

    Mr. Coombs: Has my right hon. Friend seen the news today that the Honda motor company is proposing to create 500 new jobs at its plant in Swindon? Is this not excellent news for the motor industry in this country, which was on its knees under the last Labour Government? How would the prospects for investment such as this be affected if Britain were to sign up for the European social chapter, as advocated by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming this news. I think it is good for Britain and I have no doubt that it is good for my hon. Friend’s constituents. They join the workers of Black and Decker in Sedgefield, they join the workers of NEC in Livingston, they join the workers at BSkyB in Dunfermline, all of whom have benefited as a result of that sort of investment, and that sort of investment would not have taken place but for the success of this Government’s economic policy and this Government’s other policies.

    The reality is that signing up to the social chapter will add unnecessary cost to employers and put our record for inward investment at risk. [Interruption.] Opposition Members shake their heads, but they know that the social chapter is not a pick-and-mix option, as the Leader of the Opposition says. Once we have signed up to it, we have it; and if we have it, we might well not have those sorts of investments.

     

    Q5. Mr. Spellar: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November.

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

    Mr. Spellar: On the fifth anniversary of his premiership, how does the Prime Minister justify having doubled the national debt during that period?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record of successive Labour Governments, he may wish to withdraw that question. He will see that we have financed our borrowing properly. The last Labour Government increased debt by an unprecedented amount.

    Mr. Wilshire: Further to my right hon. Friend’s understandably cautious replies about Northern Ireland, can he confirm that a start to decommissioning remains a precondition of all-party talks in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister: Those who have read the “Building Blocks” paper which we published recently will see that it sets down specific requirements for the body’s report. It also says that the international body is not being established to recommend when decommissioning should start. That position has not changed.

  • PMQT – 31 October 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 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. Winnick: Why did the Prime Minister in his meeting with the French President not condemn French nuclear tests, which have deeply offended British and international opinion? Did the Prime Minister not take such action because the British Government have connived with the French in a dirty deal whereby information arising from the nuclear tests will be passed on to this country? If that is the case, it shows the dishonesty of the Government.

    The Prime Minister: It is not the case. As I have said before, no information from the French nuclear tests will be passed to us–indeed, given the nature of our weapons, it would not be of use to us. There is no deal; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that and withdraw his allegation.

    At least the hon. Gentleman is consistent in his views. He has been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and he is, and he saluted the courage and determination of anti-nuclear demonstrators at Greenham Common. [Interruption.] I trail my coat to find out where Labour Members’ hearts are, and now we know.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mrs. Lait: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement that one of London’s most popular grant-maintained schools, the Oratory school, will be able to build a choir school, thanks to its self-governing status in the public sector? While that may be music to the ears of the parents with children at the school, how does my right hon. Friend think that the rest of the Labour Front Benchers will react?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I welcome that news.

    Grant-maintained schools have a greater freedom to develop their strengths because power is put where it should belong: with the school head, the school governors and the parents who know best what is in their children’s interests.

    Mr. Blair: Is it– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Stop this barracking–particularly from Ministers.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm as a matter of fact that what the chairman of the rail users’ watchdog as well as the Transport Select Committee have said is true: that, as a result of privatisation, an extra £700 million of taxpayers’ money will be paid to the subsidised, privatised railways?

    The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that over the years we have increased resources to the nationalised British rail industry. Contrary to what has been said by some people, the Government have supported record levels of investment. We made it clear when we decided to proceed with privatisation that we would support lines that were socially necessary–partly at the request of Her Majesty’s Opposition. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe now that we should not do that.

    Mr. Blair: Is it not right that the Select Committee attributed the extra £700 million to privatisation, not to paying for socially useful routes, and that hundreds of millions of pounds of City fees are involved? Is it not also true that investment in the railways today is half what it was two years ago and that, as a result of privatisation, 5,000 manufacturing industry jobs have been lost and the unified railway network has been broken up into 70, 80 or 90 companies?

    When will the Prime Minister, just for once, stop pandering to the right wing of the Conservative party? [Interruption.] Conservative Members may want rail privatisation: the British people do not. When will the right hon. Gentleman stop pandering to the right wing of his party and, instead, listen to and speak up for the British people, who want their railways run as a public service?

    The Prime Minister: I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman would get round to his “lurch to the right” campaign, launched so inexpertly–one might almost say he made a hash of it–by the new shadow Chief Whip.

    If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the policies we are following, of bringing choice to parents and opportunity to children, are a lurch to the right, the country will not agree. If he thinks that spending more on patients’ health is a lurch to the right, the people will not agree. If he thinks that dealing with asylum abuses, or standing up for Britain in Europe, represent a lurch to the right, he is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the centre right of politics is our ground and there is no way a squatter like him can rest on it. He may regard himself as the Trojan horse of socialism, but he will find that it is our land on which he is parking and there is no room for him on it.

    As for the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point, and pushing aside the points on which he was inaccurate, I would tell him that there have been record amounts of investment in recent years–£1.5 billion in 1992-93, which was the highest for 30 years. Investment is still running at more than £1 billion in the current year, and every privatisation that we have introduced has provided better service. I see the new shadow Chief Whip in his place. It was he who once referred to the privatisation of British Airways as the pantomime horse of capitalism. It is now the most successful privatised air service in the world.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that positive discrimination in favour of women is both unnecessary and patronising? Will he comment on the policy of the Labour party, which has imposed by diktat from Walworth road–

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the attitude of the Labour party. I am sure that he has caught the first part of the hon. Lady’s question and is perfectly capable of answering it.

    Mrs. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will never impose women-only shortlists, as has been done by diktat of Walworth road in six constituencies in the north-west of England?

    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that I believe that we should seek equality of opportunities for everyone, for women in the House of Commons and elsewhere. It is certainly our policy to do so. My hon. Friends needed no special discrimination to get here. As to the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question, I can promise her–not only in this but in other matters–that we will not follow the policies of the Opposition, because, apart from anything else, daily they seem to be following our policies.

    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister consider these three dates? On 11 July, Srebrenica fell and 8,000 young men were taken away and massacred. On 31 May, I asked the then Secretary of State for Defence, in the House, to assure me that the policy on the defence of Srebrenica had not changed, and he gave me that assurance. It is now revealed, or claimed, that on 24 May, with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the British Government, the UN decided to abandon Srebrenica to its fate. Is that correct?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, just occasionally, might do the British forces and the British Government the credit of acknowledging what they have done. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is not correct. He has been wrong throughout the whole of this episode time after time. He has denigrated what the British Government have done and what the British armed forces have done. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman this: there are hundreds of thousands of people alive today in Bosnia because of what was done by the British Government and the British armed forces.

    Mr. Elletson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a successful conference this year in my constituency? Is he aware that next year the Labour party will be in Blackpool? Will he take this opportunity to reassure parents and police in my constituency that under a Conservative Government cannabis cigarettes will never be for sale?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance and I will tell the House why very clearly. The vast majority of people–between 80 and 90 per cent.–who move on to hard drugs graduate to hard drugs having first experimented with soft drugs. Any sensible person realises the danger of doing that and realises that any responsible person in public life would discourage the use of soft drugs because of the danger of moving to hard drugs. I am sorry that some Opposition Members with some responsibility in public life should choose to take a different view.

     

    Q3. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Dowd: Given the Government’s latest response to the recommendations of the Nolan committee, when will the Prime Minister stop his feeble backtracking on his alleged intention to improve the standards of conduct of Ministers and stop trying to defend the snout in the trough behaviour of so many on the Benches behind him?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows–or should know, if he took an interest in our matters–that the Nolan report is at present being considered by the Select Committee. It will very shortly be brought before the House, when we will have the benefit of the deliberations of the Select Committee and when the House can then vote on all the recommendations that emanate from it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter–the characteristically pompous letter–from the leader of the Liberal party, inviting Conservative Members of Parliament to back his party on education? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best response to that has come from a Harrow Liberal councillor, Bernadette Murphy, who says that the arguments for the Conservative education system are unanswerable and that every party should understand that? Will he congratulate her on reinforcing her message by resigning from the council and causing a by-election and giving such a clear steer as to how people should vote in that by-election?

    The Prime Minister: I did see the letter from the right hon. Gentleman, which he displayed so widely among my colleagues. I recall that the letter also said:

    “This is the moment to stand up for what is right and to put Britain first.”

    Clearly, Miss Murphy did.

     

    Q5. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that Britain requires a job skills audit? We have fallen from 21st to 24th in the league, according to the World Economic Forum’s report on skill shortages. Is that because the Government do not invest in education and training? Is it not about time that the Government recognised that education and training are vital to our economy?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated a skill shortage in answering questions. [Laughter] It is clear– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    The Prime Minister: It is clear that Opposition Members’ new standards of behaviour are only for certain occasions.

    Of course my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is right to examine the level of skills. He has done that to enable us to ensure that we can build on what has already been done to improve skills in the country. That is the purpose of the changes that have been made. That is the purpose of the training and enterprise councils; that is the purpose of investment. It is because of the increasing skills and increasing investment that our exports–not least in manufacturing–are performing better today than they have for many years.

  • PMQT – 6 June 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Prescott rose —

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Skinner: The Government leaked it.

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Prentice indicated dissent.

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 11 May 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

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

    Mr. Prentice: Today, with the publication of the Nolan report, will the Prime Minister take full personal responsibility for the tide of sleaze that has engulfed his Government? Will he now admit that it is quite wrong for Ministers to move seamlessly from the Cabinet room to the boardroom, lining their pockets in the process?

    The Prime Minister: I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the report before he comments on it. He will then see what Lord Nolan has to say about the great majority of men and women in British public life, their standards and their ethics, and he may just regret the way in which he and some of his hon. Friends have attempted, time after time, to issue general smears about specific matters.

     

    Q2. Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

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

    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the size and scale of public rejoicing on Monday stoutly reaffirmed the love that the British people have for this country? They were waving Union Jacks, not tatty-looking red roses. Is it not appropriate to remind people that Labour’s devolution policy would split this country more irrevocably and fundamentally than all Hitler’s armies could possibly have done?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend makes clear, last week’s celebrations were a remarkable occasion. They struck a perfect balance between commemoration and celebration, and I think that they brought a great deal of pleasure to the many men and women whom we were honouring for their service during the war so many years ago. I believe that they also showed that the sentiments that unite us as a nation are far stronger than those sometimes presented as though to disunite us. That is very healthy for the nation as a whole: it is an enormous strength for this country–a strength that should not be put at risk by misguided policy.

    Mr. Blair: People of all political persuasions enjoyed VE day, and I do not think that political capital should be made out of it. Now–is 2.5 per cent. still the Prime Minister’s inflation target?

    The Prime Minister: We set out our inflation target some time ago. It is between 1 and 4 per cent., and in the lower half of that range by the end of this Parliament. It remains the same.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister then disagree with the Bank of England, which says that he will not meet that target?

    The Prime Minister: The Bank of England has made it perfectly clear that it supports the policy that we are carrying out. If the right hon. Gentleman had read the speech by the Governor this morning–I will quote it to him if he wishes, for clearly he has not–he would have seen that the Governor makes very clear the importance of maintaining a strong control of inflation, saying that in recent years we have been very successful in that.

    I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the nearest that the last Labour Government got to low inflation was 8.4 per cent. on rigged figures over one quarter. We have had inflation below 3 per cent. for more than a year.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that the Government are in any position to talk of rigged figures–no, indeed. The Bank of England clearly does not agree that the Prime Minister will meet his target. How does a public rift between the Government and the Bank of England do anything other than damage the credibility of the economy? Does not the fact that rises in interest rates are even being contemplated at the moment, when for millions of people they have barely moved out of recession, show the fundamental weakness of the economy that the Government have never addressed?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the Governor of the Bank of England thinks that it is a weak economy, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he reads the Governor’s speech. The reality is that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are playing both sides of the same policy. They criticise when interest rates go up and they criticise when interest rates do not go up. They simply do not know what they wish to do, except, whatever happens, to criticise it and to make short-term party political capital out of it; they do not give a fig for the long-term health of the British economy.

    Mr. Churchill: Is it not clear that the French people– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard in the House.

    Mr. Churchill: Is it not clear that the French people have no greater love of socialism than the British? Will my right hon. Friend neglect no opportunity to expose the fact that, behind the innocent cherubic face that the Labour party seeks to present to the world, is a party which, every time it has been in government, has wrecked the economy, destroyed business confidence and boosted taxes to very high levels on ordinary working people?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about that. There is one matter in which Labour Governments have always been consistent: unemployment has always gone up, interest rates have gone up, taxes have gone up and prospects have gone down.

     

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

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

    Mr. Simpson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, under the regulations governing the national lottery, the fingers crossed symbol is the property of the Secretary of State for National Heritage? Does he appreciate that it has come to represent the symbol of his party in that it is all that remains of his strategy for winning local government elections, his guarantee of emergency care beds for the people of London and his own prospects of leading the Conservative party towards its next electoral catastrophe?

    The Prime Minister: During the past four years we have taken decisions that are in the long-term economic and social interests of Britain. Many of them have been difficult and unpopular, but as a result we have inflation lower than we have seen for a long time, unemployment falling faster than anywhere else in Europe, investment showing that British industry is growing and exports which show that in eight or nine months out of the past 14 we broke new records. When did the Labour party ever preside over an economic circumstance remotely like that?

    Mr. Thurnham: When my right hon. Friend next meets Mr. Chirac, will he congratulate him on his presidential victory and remind him how much better it is to be outside the social charter, especially now that unemployment in France is 50 per cent. higher than in this country?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the problems of the social chapter. There is no doubt that right across the rest of the European Union the social chapter costs jobs. Here it does not cost jobs, because we are not part of it. I can reaffirm to the House that neither in the short term nor in the long term will we become part of it.

     

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

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

    Mr. Beith: Is the Prime Minister aware of the announcement within the last hour that the Asea Brown Boveri train building works at York is to close with the loss of 700 jobs? Does he recognise that that is a demonstration of the dreadful chaos of rail privatisation and that investment in the railway industry is grinding to a halt as a result? What chance is there that our rail system will have investment and that trains will be built in this country at all?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I know of the job losses at ABB, and I very much regret them. But privatisation is no more responsible for those job losses than it is for an outbreak of measles. The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong to blame privatisation. It was the Government’s private finance initiative which gave ABB the opportunity to bid for contracts such as the Northern line, the Heathrow express rail link and the Jubilee line extension. Unfortunately, ABB did not win any of those contracts, and that is the problem.

    Sir Michael Neubert: As unemployment has come down by 632,000 since the last general election, is continuing to come down by an average of 1,000 per day and is below the European Union average, would it not be absolute folly to reverse that progress by adopting a national minimum wage? If such a policy is to be offered to the British people, do they not have an unchallengeable entitlement to know the level at which it will be set and how many hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost as a result?

    The Prime Minister: There seems to be some dispute among Opposition Members about whether they should proceed with the minimum wage and what its level would be. Certainly, despite their clarity that they wish to have a minimum wage, they are less clear about the level at which they would set it, and I find that rather odd. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is keen enough to tell us that he would enter a single currency in many years’ time, which is a major decision, yet he cannot tell us, even perhaps two years ahead, were he to win the election, what he would do on a relatively minor decision such as the level of the minimum wage.

    The reality is that the Opposition know that a minimum wage would cost jobs and they know that if we knew its level we would be able to calculate that loss. On any reasonable assumption, more than 750,000 people would lose their jobs as a result of Labour dogma.

     

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

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

    Mr. Flynn: Is the Prime Minister not shocked by the news that the number of children who were hit and killed by road vehicles increased last year by a staggering 28 per cent.? Is he aware that that was mainly because the fronts of some vehicles are designed for appearance and not safety, with the addition of rigid bull bars which concentrate and multiply the force of accidents at the level of a child’s head? Does he agree with his Ministers that those bars are useless, macho fashion accessories, and will he move swiftly today to avoid future tragedies by banning these deadly bully bars from all public roads?

    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the statistics that the hon. Gentleman mentions or the reason that he ascribes to them. However, in view of what he says I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to examine the matter and, having done so, provide me with his advice. If the hon. Gentleman’s statistics are right, it is of course regrettable. I am glad to say that, overall, the position on road accidents is improving, and I hope that that will continue.

    Mr. Hendry: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the positive reaction in my constituency and throughout the country to yesterday’s White Paper, “Tackling Drugs Together”, which contains the most comprehensive anti-drugs strategy of any Government? Does he agree that the key message to young people should be that all drugs are wrong? Does he also agree that any move by the House to legalise even soft drugs should be rejected because it would fundamentally undermine that message?

    The Prime Minister: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend on the question of drugs, and I take the view that the legalisation even of soft drugs would be a very substantial mistake, not least because soft drugs are so often the route towards people seeking to experiment with harder drugs. It is very unwise for people to experiment with any drugs and we have no intention of legalising them. The proposals that we set out yesterday on tackling drugs have been very widely welcomed. Many experts have commented not only on the comprehensive nature of our proposals, but on the fact that no country in western Europe now has such a comprehensive plan in hand to deal with the desperate problem of drugs.

     

    Q6. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay: Who is to blame for, and what is the cause of, all the negative equity that is blighting hundreds of thousands of households and families? What will be the consequences for the economy and for business if negative equity continues to grow, and what does the Prime Minister intend to do about it?

    The Prime Minister: Fortunately, the amount of negative equity is now half the level it was at its peak and it continues to fall. Clearly, while there is negative equity, it is acting as a drag on the housing market. The more the economy grows, the more unemployment falls, and the more confidence begins to return, the sooner we shall begin to see the complete elimination of negative equity. When that occurs, it will be a very welcome development.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 April 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Members of Parliament (Contacts)

    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister what central record is kept of requests by groups of hon. Members seeking to discuss issues with Ministers.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. So far as my right hon. Friend is aware, none.

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Government policy on official contact between civil servants and spokespersons in Her Majesty’s official Opposition.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. Opposition spokesmen may request briefings on departmental organisation or policies, or in advance of overseas travel. Ministers would expect to be asked to give their authority for such meetings, and to be present if sensitive matters of public policy are to be discussed. Civil servants may also on occasions have dealings with Opposition spokesmen on Ministers’ behalf; again, Ministers would expect to authorise such meetings.

    The conventions relating to confidential pre-election contacts between senior civil servants and opposition parties are described in a memorandum submitted to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee by the Cabinet Office in November 1994, printed at page 29, vol II of the Committee’s Fifth Report, Session 1993 94. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has agreed that such contacts should be permitted from early 1996 in advance of the next general election.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that all of the documents (a) seized by Ministry of Defence police from the offices of British Manufacture and Research Company in April 1990 and (b) held by the receivers of Astra Holdings and British Manufacture and Research Company are made available to the Scott inquiry.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. All the documents taken from the offices of the British Manufacture and Research Company were sent to the receivers for Astra on 22 June 1993. The question of the provision of any of these documents to the Scott inquiry is one for the receiver and the inquiry.

     

    Chemical Weapons Convention

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to introduce legislation to ratify the chemical weapons convention.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. The legislation needed to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the chemical weapons convention will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time and the Government’s other legislative priorities permit.

     

    Rail Privatisation

    Mr. Meacher: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 28 March, Official Report, column 823 , which other countries he had in mind as pursuing the same model of rail privatisation as Her Majesty’s Government; and what were the points of similarities he was referring to in each case.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. A number of other European countries including Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland have restructured or are restructuring their railways to split responsibility for track and infrastructure from the operation of services. Both Germany and Holland plan to privatise some or all of their railways on this basis.

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister how many times in each year since 1979-80 his Department has written to an hon. or right hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. The information as requested is not available.

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979-80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence;

    (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other official of a non- departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979-80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. None.

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979-80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer;

    (2) To ask the Prime Minister how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979-80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. The information requested is a matter of public record, but it could be provided in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister how many times in each year since 1979 80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report.

    The Lord President: I have been asked to reply. The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Publicity

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list, for 1992-93 and 1993-94 separate figures for the spending by his Department on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotions materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. For this purpose, the Prime Minister’s Department is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

  • PMQT – 28 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March.

    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. Barnes: Will the Prime Minister tell us how education authorities such as Derbyshire can have millions cut off their education budgets in real terms and be expected to manage? Will he tell them how they can do that without sacking teachers, destroying education or increasing class sizes in the area? Many angry parents, teachers and governors in Derbyshire would like to know the answer to that. It is time now for the oracle to speak.

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first one to acknowledge that the amount spent per pupil has risen over and above inflation by 50 per cent. since the hon. Gentleman’s party was last in government and looking after education. I think that he would also concede that if local authorities were prepared to make education more of a priority than they do at present and if they were determined to make teachers a priority within their education budget rather than other matters, they would be able to meet the obligations that they were required to meet.

    Mr. Walden: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the interest shown by Manchester grammar school in returning to the state sector? Will he give imaginative thought to the way in which such moves could be financed, bearing in mind that building bridges across our two-nation education system is a national priority?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the question of bridges across the education system. I certainly agree with him about the need for quality in education. I must say that I am not so enthusiastic about the Manchester proposal as my hon. Friend.

    Mr. Blair: When Sir Bob Reid, who, after all, is a supporter of rail privatisation, says that the Government’s plans are intensely bureaucratic and inordinately expensive–in short, a nightmare–should that not make any sensible Government who consider the public interest think again?

    The Prime Minister: Sir Bob has expressed these views on previous occasions.

    Mr. Meacher: Is he right?

    The Prime Minister: I shall come in a second to whether he is right. Sir Bob has always argued for a monolithic, vertically integrated railway, but he was unable to persuade us that that was the right way to proceed. As the right hon. Gentleman presumably does not know, a number of other countries that have privatised their railways have adopted precisely the same model that we have adopted, and not the model proposed by Sir Bob.

    Mr. Blair: Should not Sir Bob’s words carry compelling argument with the Government as he is a supporter of privatisation? Is this not just another item on the bill for Tory dogma? With prescription and water charges up at the weekend, taxes up next week and now the fiasco of rail privatisation, is it any wonder that the British people believe, and know, that they are worse off under the Tories?

    The Prime Minister: The soundbite came earlier this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman refers to dogma. The Labour party has tried to smear every privatisation we have had, just as it is trying to smear this one. As it has been wrong on every occasion in the past, it is wrong again. The reality is that the Labour party is philosophically opposed to private ownership and, while Labour remains in the pockets of the railway unions, it will continue to put the unions first and the passengers last.

    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities, far from complaining about what they call cuts in education, would do far better thinking carefully about the money that they have failed to raise from the rates, the community charge and the council tax? Councils such as Lambeth have arrears running at over £100 million which they have failed to collect. Are not such councils punishing pupils as a result of their incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Leader of the Opposition referred a few days ago to truancy. What the right hon. Gentleman neglected to say was that the highest level of truancy occurs in education authorities run by the Labour party, and that the only reason we know the truancy figures is because of the performance tables which we introduced and to which the Opposition objected.

    Mr. Ashdown: In the light of the Prime Minister’s previous answers, will he nevertheless confirm that he has heard of the widespread concerns of parents about their children from governors who have been forced to sack teachers because of education cuts? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, in the face of cuts in the Government’s allocation for education amounting to £50 per primary school pupil and £200 per secondary school pupil, he simply cannot dump the whole blame on to councils? Does he not realise that the country wants him to think again? Will he do so?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I understand the concerns of parents that education is properly funded, and that is why I made the point to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) about the increase in resources under the Government in recent years. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny the Government’s achievements in benefiting parents, pupils and teachers by changing the curriculum. Equally, he cannot deny that local authorities could do far more than they have done to seek savings without turning directly to the teacher in the classroom. What the right hon. Gentleman should be saying to people–not least his own education authority–is, “What other savings have you sought before you have gone directly to the teacher in the classroom?”

    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Would my right hon. Friend allow any member of his Front-Bench team to visit convicted IRA terrorists in English prisons and to campaign to have them returned to Northern Ireland? Would he consider such action to be tough on crime, and on the causes of crime?

    The Prime Minister: The direct answer to my hon. and learned Friend is no, I would not. He makes his case clearly.

     

    Q2. Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March.

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

    Ms Hodge: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is the first duty of a free media to report the truth irrespective of Government bullying? [Interruption.] Clearly, Conservative Members do not agree. Is it not time that the Prime Minister and his colleagues took heed of the advice of the Daily Mail and Sir Bernard Ingham and stopped whingeing?

    The Prime Minister: I wonder whether the hon. Lady would like to tell us on how many occasions Mr. Alastair Campbell has complained to the BBC in the past few weeks. As to her substantive question, of course I welcome truthful reporting. I always welcome it and I like seeing it.

     

    Q3. Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March.

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

    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Maldon district council, which yesterday received nearly £22 million following the transfer of its housing stock to the Plume housing association? Is he aware that that will enable the council to improve services and to continue to set the lowest council tax in Essex? Does that not demonstrate once again that Conservative councils deliver better services at a lower cost to the council tax payer?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend refers to Maldon, but he could equally well have referred to a very large number of Conservative authorities, which, on balance, provide a council tax that is far lower than that of authorities run by the Labour or Liberal parties. Equally,

    I congratulate Maldon on taking advantage of the policies to bring in private finance and to provide better services generally to its council tax payers. I believe that runs right the way across the gamut of local authority services. For those people who talk about the homeless, I note the very large number of empty properties in Labour-controlled authorities in inner London and in the middle of many of our great cities.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March.

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

    Mr. Bayley: When will the Prime Minister unequivocally back Canada in its stand against unfair and ecologically disastrous Spanish fishing practices?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a statement immediately after Question Time.

     

    Q5. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March.

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

    Mr. Townsend: During my right hon. Friend’s recent and successful visit to the middle east, did he have time to talk to Prime Minister Rabin about his country’s unwillingness to declare that it is now a nuclear power and to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Recalling my right hon. Friend’s excellent work in getting the United Nations Security Council to approve resolution 687, which called for a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the middle east, how will that be achieved if Israel cannot be persuaded to change its mind?

    The Prime Minister: We did discuss that and a range of other matters, and I made it clear in my meetings that we believe that the future of the non-proliferation treaty is extremely important and we hope that everyone possible will ensure that it can be extended indefinitely. The indefinite and unconditional extension of that treaty at the conference in April and May would be in the best interests of everyone, not only in the middle east but in other parts of the world where there is equal difficulty in persuading participants to sign up to the treaty.

     

    Q6. Ms Church: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March.

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

    Ms Church: Would the Prime Minister like to take this public opportunity to confirm that the position of the chairman of his party is unassailable?

    The Prime Minister: I have told my right hon. Friend to take no notice whatever of the current hubbub and that it goes with the job, as do silly questions like that.

    Mr. Alexander: As we are marking the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war this year, will my right hon. Friend look sympathetically at the amendment that was recently passed to the Pensions Bill in another place and restore to war widows the right to a war widows pension, even though they have been widowed or divorced from a second husband?

    The Prime Minister: We are considering the amendment that was passed in another place the other day and a second amendment that was also passed there and will make our decisions known when the matter returns to the House.

     

    Q7. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 March.

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

    Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that when he and his Ministers decide, in the next few days, about the future of Guy’s hospital, they will take account of current circumstances, which are that a building that has just cost £154 million to build, Philip Harris house, is waiting to be used for the benefit of the health service? Will they decide to use that building and not to close an accident and emergency unit in less than four years’ time, because the circumstances that justify its continuing existence may be just the same then as they are now?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of the question that he proposed to ask this afternoon. As he said, there has been a consultation about the future of services at Guy’s and St. Thomas’s, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to make her decisions known shortly. I know that she will take into account the views of everyone concerned and what the hon. Gentleman said, including his remarks about Philip Harris house.

  • PMQT – 16 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 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. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence of Labour councillors personally benefiting from fraud, corruption, nepotism and inefficiency is such that people should be informed about it before they vote in the local government elections?

    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that there are many cases of waste, inefficiency and malpractice in Labour councils; increasingly, one has seen that in auditors’ reports. It is right that the auditors should investigate and make those matters public.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm, as a matter of fact, that in a few weeks’ time two new tax rises will be introduced–the cutting of mortgage tax relief and of the married couples allowance–which will add about £250 a year to the average family’s tax bill?

    The Prime Minister: I will certainly confirm the tax changes to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I will also confirm for him that, as a result of the measures taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are now well into the most sustained recovery on the most secure basis that this country has seen for many years, with the economy growing at almost 4 per cent., exports at record levels, the current account in surplus, investment rising and unemployment now having fallen by 600,000–a set of economic circumstances that we have not seen for many years. That is largely due to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend took the right decisions at the right time.

    Mr. Blair: Are not those tax rises, on top of the existing ones, one reason why people feel so angry about this Government? Is not the truth that, with taxes up, mortgages up and living standards falling, all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done is confirm what the vast majority of the British people already knew: that unless you are one of the favoured few at the top, you are worse off under the Tories.

    The Prime Minister: Which taxes would the right hon. Gentleman cut? Which pieces of expenditure has the right hon. Gentleman opposed? How many times has the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) sought extra expenditure of one sort of another? When is he going to understand the most basic economic fact–that he cannot promote expenditure and call for tax reductions and expect to be taken seriously? We have taken the measures necessary for this country’s economy. That is why our economy is more effective, more efficient and more competitive than any other economy in western Europe.

    Mr. Blair: I will tell him what I understand, that– [Hon. Members: — “Oh.”] Since he asked me the question again, let me tell him what is wrong. What is wrong is to fight the election promising to cut taxes then raise them by 7p in the pound.

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about what is right for this country, why does he not for once acknowledge the changes that there have been in this economy? Why does he not for once acknowledge what once he used to say–that his plans for a minimum wage would cost jobs? Why does he not acknowledge what a large number of business men are now telling him across Europe–that his plans for the social chapter would cost jobs? Why does he not acknowledge that this country now has an economy that Labour could never have achieved if it had followed the advice of the shadow Chancellor, who on every conceivable occasion has guessed wrongly about what should happen with this economy?

     

    Q2. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate those parents who have set up an organisation called PASS to defend the right of parents to send their children to grant-maintained schools? Will he arrange for an application form to be sent to the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister: I fancy that the right hon. Gentleman does not need one, but his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who speaks on education from the Labour Front Bench most certainly does, for he would still destroy the chances for parents to send their children to grant-maintained schools, even though the vast majority of hon. Members in this House, including the right hon. Gentleman, know that that choice should be available to every parent.

    Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister’s comments on waste and inefficiency, how does he justify an increase over the past four years of 36 per cent. in the amount of public money spent on Government entertainment? What would he have to say to a council which was forced to sack teachers and which responded by raising by more than a third the money that it spent on its own entertainment?

    The Prime Minister: I think what I would say to any council which was contemplating that sort of action concerning teachers would be: how many administrators in education is it looking at, why are there two administrators for every three teachers in education and why do county councils like the right hon. Gentleman’s seek to look at teachers before they look at other areas of savings?

    Mr. Faber: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity in the past couple of days to discuss Anglo-Belgian relationships with his counterpart the Prime Minister of Belgium, and in particular what must have been a disappointing visit for him to west London on Tuesday night? At what is undoubtedly a difficult time for British football, would my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Chelsea football club on a stunning victory on Tuesday night, its fans on the good-natured manner in which the game was watched, and the Metropolitan police especially on the firm but sensitive way in which the game was policed?

    Madam Speaker: I should just inform the hon. Gentleman before the Prime Minister attempts to answer that question that, nice as it may seem, the Prime Minister has nothing whatsoever to do with the success of Chelsea football club.

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to pass credit for the success to the players. May I simply say that I am delighted at how well they did?

     

    Q3. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Mullin: Did the Prime Minister read this morning’s comment by Lord McAlpine that a spell in opposition would be a good thing for the Tory party, and does he agree that this is one of the rare occasions on which the interests of the Tory party and of the nation coincide?

    The Prime Minister: I did see the comments in the New Statesman and Society . I understand that Lord McAlpine is promoting his book, which is a work of fiction.

     

    Q4. Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend share the pleasure of my constituents in Basildon at the first visit to this country of a President from the Philippines, Fidel Ramos? Will he tell the House whether any trade agreements have been reached as a result of the visit? Finally, will my right hon. Friend do all in his power to assist and encourage the President to try to alleviate the plight of street children and to take forward the social reform programme?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, I am delighted to welcome President Ramos to the United Kingdom. He will find a very warm welcome here and would clearly find one in Basildon also, were he able to visit it. I am not sure whether the President is here long enough to do so on this occasion, but when I meet him later on this afternoon I will be happy to pass on the invitation. I understand that it has been a successful trade visit and a number of contracts have been signed with substantial British companies.

    I know that President Ramos is achieving a great deal with his social reform programme and I know that the whole House would welcome all that can be done to help street children, both in the Philippines and elsewhere.

     

    Terrorism

    Q5. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty’s Government have received from Sir Colin Figures and Sir Peter Marychurch concerning knowledge of an impending attack on airlines at Frankfurt airport in December 1988; and what response he has sent.

    The Prime Minister: We have received no such representations.

    Mr. Dalyell: In that case, could Sir Colin and Sir Peter be invited to shed light on the very specific jictels–Joint Intelligence Committee telegrams–giving clear information about the downing of an aircraft in October, November and December 1988? Could they shed light on the agreement reached by western intelligence with terrorist elements in the middle east about the downing of just one airliner, rather than 10 or 12, in what was described by Mohtashemi as “the rain of blood”, and also on what they know of statements by United States agencies about Major Charles McKee not being able to return to the United States alive?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that detailed question so that I might examine the matter before responding.

    As he knows, the Lockerbie investigation is the largest criminal investigation ever undertaken in this country. I have to reiterate to the House that the Lord Advocate has discovered credible evidence against two people only, and they remain the only two accused. If concrete new evidence were brought forward, it would of course be fully investigated. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman, of which he was kind enough to give me prior notice–that western intelligence agencies would enter into a deal with terrorist groups to allow the destruction of an aircraft–is utterly and completely unfounded. It did not happen and the hon. Gentleman can be assured upon that point.

     

    Engagements

    Madam Speaker: The next question is from Mr. Skinner.

    Mr. Skinner: Question 5.

    Hon. Members: Question 6.

    Mr. Skinner: All right; Question 6.

     

    Q6. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Skinner: Has the Prime Minister seen the reports today that if the Tory party loses more than 1,000 seats in the local government elections in May, which it undoubtedly will, senior Tory Members of Parliament are going to kick him out like a dog in the night? Last year, the Prime Minister said that he had got three bastards in the Cabinet: I do not think that he can count.

    The Prime Minister: As for counting, I shall answer the hon. Gentleman’s Question 5 and Question 6 at the same time.

    The substantive part of the hon. Gentleman’s question might well have been asked of me last year, the year before last, and the year before that. It almost certainly was, and it will very probably be asked of me next year, the year after and the year after that.

    Sir Graham Bright: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in this morning’s newspapers suggesting that he is considering plans to change how state education is funded? Will he confirm to the House that that is not so?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I did see the report to which my hon. Friend refers and I can tell the House categorically that it is absolutely without foundation. I do not know whether it is incompetence or malice, but it is certainly inaccurate.

     

    Q7. Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister seen today’s statement by the rail regulator that decisions on sleepers and Motorail are a matter not for British Rail but for the Government? Will he therefore confirm today that there will be a full and formal consultation before any decisions are taken on those vital services?

    The Prime Minister: I assume that the hon. Gentleman refers to the Fort William sleeper. Representations on that can be made during consultation on the ScotRail public service requirement. In the meanwhile, British Rail will retain the assets.

    Madam Speaker: As we started late, I can allow one more question.

     

    Q8. Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the two Conservative- controlled district councils in my constituency–Forest Heath and St. Edmundsbury–plan no increase in council tax this year? Is he aware that the only reason why my constituents will pay more council tax this year is because of Lib-Lab controlled Suffolk county council, despite it having used up some £16 million of reserves so carefully built up by the last Conservative administration?

    The Prime Minister: Lab councils are a very expensive luxury indeed and I am not surprised to hear what my hon. Friend has to say. Last year, Conservative councils cost around £131 less at band C than Labour councils, and this year the difference looks as though it may be even greater – probably as much as £160 less. I hope that the electorate will bear that in mind in May.

  • PMQT – 28 February 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Rail Privatisation

    Q1. Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess the impact of rail privatisation on the economy of the Scottish highlands and islands.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): The franchising director will consult on his draft passenger service requirement for ScotRail. I am confident that the outcome will improve the quality of service enjoyed by the passenger.

    Mr. Kennedy: Given the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Scotland, he will be aware of the widespread concern about the future of rail services, not least the impact that the withdrawal of sleeper services, motorail, the steam engine on the West Highland line, and so on will have on the tourist-oriented economy of the western highlands in particular. Given that degree of concern, will the Prime Minister agree to a meeting at the appropriate time to discuss this matter further?

    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, I believe strongly that rail privatisation will improve the service, not least because a privatised service will have access to new sources of funds to increase investment in the rail service.

    On the hon. Gentleman’s direct question, of course I would be prepared to meet him at an appropriate time, but it might be more helpful in the first instance if he were to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who will, naturally, try to assist him.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

    The Prime Minister: 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.

    Dr. Jones: Does the Prime Minister recall that nearly three years ago he told the nation, “Vote Conservative on Thursday, and the recovery starts Friday”? [Interruption.] When will the recovery start for all those who have seen their real standard of living decline since then? When will it start for the people I saw in the Selly Oak jobcentre yesterday where skilled factory workers are being offered £150 a week, security guards are being offered £2.40 an hour and care assistants £2.25 an hour? When will they get the feel-good factor?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady cares to look at the published figures, she will see that we moved back into growth almost immediately after the last general election, precisely as I had forecast. If she is concerned about what is happening to the economy, she might bear in mind that it is now growing at about 4 per cent. a year, unemployment has fallen by 400,000 in the last year alone, exports have hit record levels in nine out of the last 13 months, investment is rising, manufacturing productivity is rising and, for the first time since records began, the number of people in work in manufacturing industry is rising. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell her constituents that.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend recall the speech that he made in Glasgow on Friday night to a cross-section of the Scottish business community? Does he recall that his comments were widely welcomed? Is he aware that the Scottish business community feels that a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers will cost productive jobs in Scotland and threaten the Union?

    The Prime Minister: I do, indeed, recall speaking to 1,000 Scottish business men in Glasgow on Friday. I am in no doubt that they believe that a tax-raising assembly in Scotland would not be in the interests of Scottish business, not be in the interests of Scottish prosperity and not be in the interests of future investment in Scotland. That is strongly my view. I believe that it was also theirs.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister share the anger at the latest multi-million pound pay package awarded to heads– [Interruption.] Does he share the anger– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not barrack from sedentary positions.

    Mr. Blair: Does the right hon. Gentleman share the anger at the latest multi-million pound pay package awarded to heads of privatised utilities–this time, the National Grid Company–and will he at last act to stop such abuses?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do find these payments as distasteful as the right hon. Gentleman–as do, I dare say, many other people as well. Where they cannot be justified, I believe that they bring the system into disrepute. I believe that directors have a duty to consider that, and I hope that they will. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Greenbury committee is examining those matters. Its recommendations will be addressed, of course, to companies and to shareholders. When its recommendations are available, I shall be ready to consider any proposals that may require legislative back-up. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is all very time consuming.

    Mr. Blair: But, Madam Speaker, he has the golden share in this company. Why will not he then use it?

    The Prime Minister: There are a wide number of issues to be addressed, not just this, and the right hon. Gentleman may find it interesting to examine what they are. First, we must address how best to promote complete and open disclosure of the remuneration of directors–that is necessary so that shareholders can have the full facts–and, secondly, how to ensure that bonuses and share options are firmly based on the performance of the company, and not provided as windfall gains. I believe that that is rightly where the greatest public concern is now concentrated. I believe that that may require stricter criteria for the price at which the shares are issued and the circumstances in which they are exercised. All those matters will need to be examined.

    I share the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that it is not the job of Government to substitute their commercial judgement for that of individuals. When we have the judgement that is now being provided, we will examine it with great care.

    Mr. Blair: For these privatised utilities, why will not the right hon. Gentleman use the golden share or give the regulator the power? Does he not realise that, until he acts to stop these abuses, he will be seen as a willing partner in a public scandal, where monopoly millionaires are paying themselves monopoly money?

    The Prime Minister: People who have listened to these exchanges may suspect that the right hon. Gentleman had prepared that question before he had listened to the earlier answers. If he had listened to the earlier answers, he would have known that there was no point in asking that question.

    Mr. Lamont: Is the Prime Minister aware that the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland over the weekend about decommissioning and the surrender of arms were as welcome as they were necessary? May I encourage the Government to stick to their word on that matter, otherwise the so-called choice that the people of Northern Ireland face will not be a real choice? It will be a choice subject to blackmail, intimidation and abandonment of a community that deserves our support and protection.

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend will know, the community has had our support and protection, with a large number of troops there, for the past quarter of a century. I can tell my right hon. Friend and all right hon. and hon. Members in the House that those British troops will stay there to protect people in Northern Ireland for so long as it is necessary. My right hon. Friend need have no concern but that we will keep to the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

     

    Q4. Mr. Soley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mr. Soley: Has the Prime Minister made up his mind yet whether he agrees with his Chancellor that monetary union is not a threat to the nation state?

    The Prime Minister: I shall be addressing in detail all the matters that relate to our European position, and the right policies for this country, tomorrow. I shall do that tomorrow, and the hon. Gentleman will then be in no doubt.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mrs. Gorman: Unless my right hon. Friend has even half a mind to pull Britain out of Europe, could he explain to the House, and more particularly to the fishermen of Britain, how else they are to recover their Dover soles?

    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend will know, since she refers to the common fisheries policy, that there would be many parts of the seas from which British fishermen would be excluded were it not for the provisions of the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend and the fishing industry may not like every aspect of that policy–I am aware that they do not–but if we were to cut ourselves adrift from Europe in the way that she suggests, not just the fishing industry but a very large part of the commerce and other interests of this country would be put at risk.

    Ms Glenda Jackson: As the Prime Minister has already announced one U -turn in his policy, can he confirm or deny reports in today’s papers that the Government have abandoned their policy with regard to rail safety with the abandonment of automatic train protection? There has been a firm commitment to ATP by the Government and previous Secretaries of State since 1985. Can the Prime Minister confirm or deny that it is still part of his Government’s policy?

    The Prime Minister: On these matters, of course, we act on the advice that we receive from the Health and Safety Commission, as we have frequently been advised to do by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have received some advice from the commission and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering it.

     

    Q6. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the Belgians have recently exercised border controls in a most effective manner in relation to alleged football hooligans? Will he ensure that he lobbies Belgium hard for support in the European Union so that we can maintain adequate border controls at Dover?

    The Prime Minister: I welcome the action taken by the Belgian police to ensure that tonight’s game passes off without incident. I hope that the only action will be on the pitch–not off it. With regard to my hon. Friend’s second point, I have said in the past that I am determined to maintain the fair, but necessary, immigration controls at the border that we have at present, and we intend to do so.

     

    Q7. Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Prime Minister recall that, about a year ago, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury announced an investigation into the impact of dividend payments on investment, but that was dropped after the intervention of Lord Hanson? Since then, investment as a proportion of gross domestic product in Britain has declined to 14.6 per cent., which is the lowest figure since the first quarter of 1955. Given that the increase in dividends since the Tories came to power is £22 billion, which is money that has been dragged away from investment, is it not time to resuscitate that investigation?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would do better to see what is actually happening both to manufacturing industry and to wider investment. If he does that, he will see the growth in manufacturing industry and see that industries that were dead or dying are now strong again, and exporting. He will see that British Steel has just increased production at its Llanwern plant by 30 per cent. He will also see a motor industry which was on its knees which will be a net exporter of motor cars before too long, and he will find that this country exports fibre optics, cameras and a whole range of products that were not available some years ago, all as a result of fresh investment in this country.

    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the city of Chester unemployment has fallen yet again? It is down by 2 per cent. on last month, by 14 per cent. on last year and by 42 per cent. on eight years ago. Does he recognise the fact that, as well as inflation being at its lowest level for a generation, in Chester inward investment is at record levels and year-on-year growth is up by 4 per cent., productivity is up by 6 per cent. and exports are up by 14 per cent? To what or to whom does he attribute that encouraging state of affairs?

    The Prime Minister: I am indeed encouraged by those statistics, both for Chester and for the rest of the country. It is not simply the growth, or the drop in unemployment, that is welcome. Also welcome is the fact that there is a physical growth in the number of people in employment, as well as a significant drop in the number of people who have been unemployed for a long time. I believe that that development is set to continue, and I imagine that everyone will welcome that fact.

  • PMQT – 16 February 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mrs. Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend join me and every other Member of the House in condemning the appalling scenes of violence and vandalism in Dublin last night? Does he agree that those people are a disgrace to the United Kingdom and an affront to football fans? Will he assure the House that he will do everything possible to prevent such behaviour from occurring again either at home or abroad?

    The Prime Minister: I agree that the behaviour of a thuggish minority at the match last evening was a disgrace and a great embarrassment. I do not believe that the people involved are sports fans, nor do I believe that they represent the true face of this country or British sport. The Football Association and the Irish Football Association have launched a full inquiry into exactly what happened and will discover what lessons can be learnt for the future. I have said that we will do everything we can to help to identify the people concerned and ensure that they face due punishment.

    Mr. Blair: May I, first, associate myself entirely with the Prime Minister’s comments about the scenes of violence? Those people are not proper football fans, but criminals and thugs and should be treated as such.

    In today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that a single currency was a threat to the nation state. Is that the Prime Minister’s view: yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be wise not to misunderstand what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is saying. If he is so concerned about matters– [Interruption.] I note that the shadow Chancellor is chortling, but I must say to the Leader of the Opposition that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has said:

    “I am not a fan of a single currency”

    and his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said:

    “I personally am in favour of a single currency”.

    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would care to adjudicate between the two of them.

    Mr. Blair: I am delighted that the Prime Minister keeps asking me questions; it will put him in good practice. Let me make him an offer: instead of the twice weekly Prime Minister’s questions, one day a week we will move over to the Government Benches and then the right hon. Gentleman can ask me questions.

    Let me just bring the right hon. Gentleman back to my question: it is his Chancellor of the Exchequer who has said in clear terms that a single currency is not a threat to the nation state. Does he agree or not?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman– [Hon. Members:– “Answer.”] I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman in my own way. He would be better advised to address himself to his own party and his own position. The right hon. Gentleman said in his own election address that he was opposed to British membership of the European Union. Then, later, he actually said:

    “I wasn’t actually opposed to membership”–

    and he went on to say–

    “I said . . . within the closed doors of the Labour Party, that I disagreed with that policy on Europe.”

    What is the right hon. Gentleman now saying within the closed doors of the Labour party and why will he not say it in public?

    Mr. Blair: I think we can see why the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet for a vow of silence on this issue. One simple question remains for him to answer: if he cannot trust his Cabinet or his Chancellor on these critical economic and foreign policy issues, why on earth should the people of Britain trust him or the Government to govern the country?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say in public what he said in private, why should anybody trust the Opposition? The Government have made it clear that we will decide in the light of the prevailing circumstances whether it is appropriate to join a single currency. The Cabinet is utterly united on that point and it reinforced that unity this morning, as the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interests of rail passengers, which were enhanced so much by the Government’s recent proposals, will be put at risk by the actions of the rail unions? Does he agree that those very unions are threatening to support clause IV against Opposition reformists, and does he have any confidence that the Leader of the Opposition will renounce those unions?

    The Prime Minister: I really do not know what he will do. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seems very keen to answer questions. I wish that some day he would try it, because if he did, it would be the first time yet in his career. I think that the aim of rail privatisation will undoubtedly be maintained, and it is to improve the quality of rail service. I hope that the need to improve the rail service does not escape the right hon. Gentleman for Kingston upon Hull, East, who has been summoned to his sponsoring union, the National Union of Rail Maritime and Transport Workers, to explain why the Opposition want to scrap clause IV.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Childish.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that that is rubbish. He says that they do not want to scrap clause IV. It is no wonder that he is sitting on the Back Benches.

     

    Q2. Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Watson: Given the unambiguous statements yesterday by the President of the European Commission on European Union internal passport controls and the creation of a single European currency, does the Prime Minister still hold to the view that he expressed in Brussels last July that Jacques Santer is the right man in the right place at the right time?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman reads what the President of the European Commission said yesterday, he will find a whole range of specifically British issues, where we have made it perfectly clear that we wish change and where he has indicated the need for change. To that extent the President of the Commission will prove far more amenable to the British position than any of the alternatives.

    Mr. Anthony Coombs: In the light of the recent fall in unemployment, is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent CBI survey that showed that exports from small manufacturing companies in this country are at their best level for 10 years? As they appear not to be having any problems with exchange control or exchange rate risks, is there not a further argument for saying that what Jacques Santer, the President of the European Commission, says about the need for a European single currency by 1997 is undesirable, unrealistic and unnecessary?

    The Prime Minister: I think that, in respect of the first point of my hon. Friend’s question, he is quite right to stress the growth in exports. He might have also stressed the extent to which manufacturing exports, in particular, are doing so well, and the fact that manufacturing employment has risen by 37,000 in the quarter to December. That is the fastest quarterly growth in employment in manufacturing at any stage since records began and shows clearly the extent to which manufacturing industry is undergoing a renaissance. As far as the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question is concerned, I have indicated clearly that I do not think that there is any prospect of a single currency in 1996 or 1997. At a later stage we will look at what is in the national interest in light of the circumstances.

     

    Q3. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: This year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war, in which many of today’s British pensioners were involved. Why do our pensioners lag behind the rest of Europe when it comes to pensions and benefits? Why have the Government never considered providing a veterans’ benefit, which has been introduced elsewhere in Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman would do well to look at the reality of what has happened.

    He would see that, since 1979, benefits to poorer pensioners have risen by 18 per cent. over and above the increase in prices. He would see that benefits to unemployed couples and others in difficulty have risen dramatically above the rate of inflation.

    The hon. Gentleman would also see that, among those people to whom he sometimes refers as the “poorest”, there has been a dramatic rise in the possession of consumer durables. That suggests that people have more net disposable income and it suggests also that their living standards are improving, which is demonstrated by every dispassionate survey that we have seen.

     

    Q4. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: When my right hon. Friend is next in touch with Mr. Santer, will he commend him for his words yesterday that, in matters of immigration and asylum, which affect many citizens in their daily lives, the Commission will seek to meet their expectations and to allay their concerns? Will my right hon. Friend tell him that the expectations and concerns of my constituents will best be met by upholding the British border controls that were agreed in Luxembourg 10 years ago?

    The Prime Minister: As I indicated to the House on Tuesday, I am entirely determined to maintain our fair but firm immigration policies, and that means that we shall retain our border controls. European Heads of Government endorsed our right to do so in a formal declaration and we intend to see that it is honoured.

    I hope that we may have the support of the Opposition in this matter. The shadow Home Secretary has indicated that we will have the support of the Opposition on this issue, although he does not appear to have the support of the leader of Labour Members of the European Parliament.

     

    Q5. Mr. Heppell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Heppell: Even with the small but welcome fall in unemployment, there are still 20,000 long-term unemployed in the Greater Nottingham area. The proposed budget for Greater Nottingham training and enterprise council is such that only 800 or 900 of those 20,000 long-term unemployed can be assisted. Does the Prime Minister think that that is an adequate response to the problems of long-term unemployment?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that long- term unemployment–whether that is defined as six months, one year or longer–is falling and has been falling for a long time. I look forward to seeing it fall a good deal further.

    Unemployment, whether long-term or short-term, has dropped by more than 400,000 in the past 12 months. Britain is well on the way to having the lowest level of unemployment in western Europe. Our unemployment rate is substantially below that of other similar countries.

    In France–the country with the most comparative population size to Britain–unemployment is just below 13 per cent. and static; here, it is 8.5 per cent and falling and there is every indication that there will be further job creation. I hope that that will involve those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, although he may have mentioned–but neglected to do so–that unemployment in his constituency has already fallen by 11 per cent.

    Mr. Shersby: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the excellent report of the National Audit Office on grant-maintained schools? If he has, he will have seen that those schools are performing very well indeed. They are providing an excellent standard of education and many thousands of new governors have been drawn into the process of working with teachers and parents to provide good education for our children.

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt about the popularity of grant-maintained schools. There is no doubt about the fact that parents who have chosen grant-maintained status are pleased with the choice that they have made, and I think that that choice is exercised among many people, of all political persuasions.

     

    Q6. Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Fatchett: Given the widespread concern about corruption and bribery in sport and the rumours that games have been thrown for money, will the Prime Minister confirm that his regular poor performances at the Dispatch Box against my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) are simply a reflection of his ability and that he has not been bribed by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: The expression on the face of the Leader of the Opposition is as expressive as it needs to be and it expresses his view–as mine–of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

  • PMQT – 2 February 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

    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. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the goal of a peaceful settlement in Ulster is worthy of the courage and patience that he has demonstrated? Will he continue to assure the people of the Province that any final decision will always rest with them?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that there is a communal will not to be distracted from the goal of a peaceful, permanent and agreed settlement in Northern Ireland. I am happy to repeat the assurance that I have given in the past–the outcome of the political talks, after the main constitutional parties have met and agreed the outcome, will be put to people in a referendum before further action is taken. It is they who will decide, and nothing will be imposed on them.

    Mr. Blair: On Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister has our full and continued support. On interest rates, however, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm as a matter of fact that after mortgage rises, the cutting of mortgage tax relief and the imposition of the new home insurance tax, the typical home owner will have been paying an extra £800 a year since last April.

    The Prime Minister: As to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, I appreciate the support of the official Opposition and of other parties as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. It is a strength of the process that there is such widespread support for it.

    Of course, I appreciate the impact of interest rates on home owners, but what would be most damaging to home owners would be for inflation to take off in the way that it did on past occasions. Interest rates are there to ensure that we have a recovery that curbs inflation. The policies repeatedly advocated by the shadow Chancellor would lead to inflation taking off–and the worst losers from that would be home owners. As a result of our policy on home ownership, the cost of mortgages has fallen dramatically from the peak in interest rates. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is the case.

    Mr. Blair: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman does not deny the figures. What type of recovery peaks when for millions it has barely even begun? The right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers will scrabble around in vain for the feel-good factor when mortgages, taxes and industry’s costs are up, and when people feel more insecure precisely because they know that they are worse off under the Tories.

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he has a cheek to deny history in the way in which he just did. The level of interest rates that we have reached today is the level that was the lowest achieved at any stage under the previous Labour Government in five years of Government. The average was far higher. They also had negative interest rates and were robbing savers of their savings by devaluing the currency. [Interruption.] It is because of that sort of irresponsibility that no one will ever again trust the Labour party to run the economy. It is determined to take the short-term option and to ignore the long-term interests.

     

    Q2. Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

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

    Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 40 per cent. of American and Japanese investment in Europe that comes to the United Kingdom is essentially dependent on our membership of the European Union? Does he further agree that if we cease to be at the heart of Europe those investors will rethink their European operations locations?

    The Prime Minister: Yes. It depends on two points: both our membership of the European Union and the conditions of our membership of the European Union. Certainly, the fact that we are members has helped attract a great deal of investment into this country, but it would be lost if the conditions of our membership were to include the social chapter. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) does not agree, perhaps he could ask the chairman of Daimler-Benz. He had something to say about the social chapter. This is the right hon. Gentleman on the social chapter who thinks that it will cost jobs. He admitted it at one stage. Now he denies it.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister accept that, for as long as he puts the peace of Ireland first, he will command the overwhelming majority of the House and the country? Does he also agree that those who would put in jeopardy the peace of Ireland in order to pursue either narrow sectarian agendas or internal party power struggles, will meet the opposition of the House and earn the contempt of the country?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. There is nothing in the peace process that any party in this House need fear. There can be no slippery slope in any process that first requires the agreement of all the parties and then after the agreement of the parties has been obtained subsequently requires the agreement of the people of Northern Ireland themselves. I think that that is a categorical safeguard for all those who are concerned about the development of this process, and I hope that it will be accepted as such by people across ever strand of opinion in Northern Ireland. I hope that everyone will join actively in the search for a lasting settlement, a better future for the Province and a certainty that never again will we go back to the sort of atrocities and horrors that we have seen in Northern Ireland over much of the last quarter of a century.

    Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, on Britain’s role in Europe, much of the debate currently in the media is simply sensationalist and trivial? Does he further accept that the time is right for the House to have a full debate on that particular topic, so that we can steer the country in the direction in which we believe?

    Mr. Blair: Which manifesto?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks which manifesto we will debate. He might well ask whether we will debate the policy on Europe of the Opposition Front Bench or the policy of Labour Members of the European Parliament. He might ask whether we will debate his policy or that of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East; the policy of the Labour Front Bench or the policy of the Labour Benches below the Gangway. There certainly is ample scope for a debate on Europe, but I say to my hon. Friend that we would need several days to debate the varied policies of the Labour party.

     

    Q3. Mr. Tipping: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

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

    Mr. Tipping: Will the Prime Minister ask his colleagues at the Department of Health why they have not yet resolved the case of Mr. Tony Ruffell, the former chief executive of the Nottinghamshire family health service authority? Following more changes in the health service, Mr. Ruffell has been sitting at home on a salary of £66,000 since last September. Should not there be more focus on patient care and less on bureaucracy?

    The Prime Minister: Of course there should, and that is why we are repealing a whole tier of bureaucracy in the health service–I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us–and why we oppose the devolution of so much health to unwanted regional authorities throughout the country which would add to bureaucracy. On the detailed point, of course I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to refer to the hon. Gentleman, but if he had really wanted an answer he would have contacted my right hon. Friend.

    Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in the newspapers that half the Treasury building is to be rented out to the private sector? Will he confirm, for a suspicious person such as me, that that has nothing to do with Mr. Santer’s call for the abolition of our national currency?

    The Prime Minister: I can undoubtedly give my hon. Friend that assurance. On the substantive part of her question, I think that the action taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor sets an example across Whitehall and beyond.

     

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

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

    Mr. Chisholm: Given that Lord Wakeham privatised electricity and then moved to the board of Rothschild, which had carried through that privatisation, what will the Prime Minister be saying to him following today’s news that Rothschild is to be the merchant banker for the sell-off of Railtrack? Will he be telling him to keep his seat warm for the Secretary of State for Transport as a pay-off for this disastrous and deeply unpopular privatisation?

    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that, over time, it will be as effective and popular a privatisation as those that we have had in the past. I know that the hon. Gentleman would still prefer to be subsidising the old industries by £50 million a week rather than taking in £50 million a week to the Exchequer for the good use of the public at large. That undoubtedly is what would have happened had we not privatised those industries in the past. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, it does not merit a reply.

     

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

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

    Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his Government’s commitment to preserving the front-line strength of our armed forces, and will he contrast that with the Opposition’s only defence policy, which is to cut, cut and cut again?

    The Prime Minister: We are committed to stability for the armed forces. I promised that at Camberley recently and I made it clear that the big upheavals in the armed forces are over. The level of front-line manpower has been set and we do not intend to reduce it. My hon. Friend can be reassured of that. Nor do we intend to adopt Labour’s policy of scrapping nuclear defence, or a fresh defence review bringing uncertainty to each and every area of the defence services.

    Mr. Home Robertson: What is the Prime Minister’s reply to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who has said that the Prime Minister’s Northern Ireland initiative is dead and buried? Would it not be an affront to all the soldiers and civilians who have been killed and buried during the past 25 years if that initiative were to be jeopardised as a result of a malicious partial leak of a draft document? Is the Prime Minister aware that all our constituents are becoming weary of the ancient refrain of “Ulster says no”, which is still being parroted by some Unionist members, but, thankfully, only some Unionist members.

    The Prime Minister: I believe that there is a wish right across the House–including among hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland–to find a satisfactory way forward. I have not a shred of doubt about that. We have all watched with dismay the activities of the past 25 years; hon. Members who represent Ulster have lived through that in a way in which the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and I have not.

    I have no doubt, from my contact with hon. Members from Northern Ireland– in regard to points on which we agree, and points on which we do not agree- -about their sincerity in seeking to bring to a conclusion the miseries of the past 25 years. What I would ask of all hon. Members is that they wait for the framework document; that they study that document in its entirety; that they examine what it will mean; that they recognise that it is there for consultation; that they then consult on it with other constitutional parties; and that if they agree, they then agree–as I do–to abide by the will of the majority of people in a referendum.

    Mr. Skinner: To what end?

    The Prime Minister: The end–the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) keeps shouting about it, as he did yesterday–is a very straightforward and simple one. It is to end the horrors of the past 25 years, and to ensure that never again are people killed month after month after month after month as they have been in the past 25 years. I would have hoped that even the hon. Member for Bolsover would support that enterprise.