The text of Mr Major’s comments on Labour and the Trade Unions, made on 3rd April 1997.
PRIME MINISTER:
Can you wonder why the trade unionists are so silent? There is nothing more for them to ask for that they haven’t already been offered, if they pour their money into Labour coffers now, and they knock on the door of Downing Street afterwards to have their pay-back after the General Election.
Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd July 1996.
PRIME MINISTER:
Lichfield
Q1. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister what analysis he has made of the effect of the Government’s social and economic policies on the people of Lichfield; and if he will make statement.
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Lichfield has benefited fully from Government policies which have given the United Kingdom a stronger recovery than any comparable European country, the longest run of low inflation for 50 years and the lowest mortgage rates for a generation. Unemployment in Lichfield has fallen by 40 per cent. in the past three years.
Mr. Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that businesses in Lichfield are experiencing real problems due to the postal strike? Has he been deafened, as I have, by the absolute silence from Opposition Front-Bench Members, who have refused to condemn the postal strike? Might that be because the Communications Workers Union has contributed some £250,000 to Labour party coffers?
The Prime Minister: The strikes last week were completely unjustified, and I hope that future plans for industrial action will be called off before more damage is done. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the sponsored silence by Opposition Members continues on this matter. [Interruption.] The deputy leader does not have a sponsored silence this afternoon, nor did he last week when he apparently told his leader to backtrack on what he had said in public–which is no doubt what the right hon. Gentleman was doing when he met the unions yesterday.
Mr. Brian David Jenkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm for the 20,000 residents of Lichfield district who live in my constituency that, under the Tory Government, crime has risen by 147 per cent., education funding from central Government is the lowest in any shire district in England and residential mental health care is being closed for lack of funds? Moreover, when those 20,000 people were given the opportunity to vote in the recent South-East Staffordshire by-election they overwhelmingly turned to new Labour: new life for Britain.
The Prime Minister: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman make that devastating attack on the spending policies of the shadow Chancellor, who has made it perfectly clear that it is not his policy to spend any more money than the present Government. The hon. Gentleman had better discuss his own difficulties with his own Front-Bench spokesmen. As for crime, it is falling throughout the country and has been falling for some time–the first time that that has happened for a long period. No doubt it might have been easier to achieve that if we had occasionally had the support of Opposition parties for the measures that we adopted.
Engagements
Q2. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.
The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent call by the chief executive of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority for the teaching of modern British history to be reinstated for GCSE? Does he further agree that any open-minded student will come to the conclusion that over the years socialism has done this country a great disservice, and that history would be likely to repeat itself should new Labour ever get the chance to implement new dangers?
The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that young people should have the opportunity to study the history of this country, and I hope that the examination boards will be aware of the popular concern among many parents on that subject. Whether students study British history or world history, I think that they will see that policies of high regulation, high spending and high taxes have consistently failed, and that, when people are asked to make a choice between a party that believes in low taxes and one that believes in high taxes, they will choose low taxes yet again at the 1997 election.
Mr. Blair: With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I think that people will remember that they were supposed to have chosen low taxes at the last election, but then got the largest peacetime taxes in history. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the following question with an unequivocal yes? Does he agree with his Chancellor’s recent statement that he can see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament?
The Prime Minister: We have made the position on a single currency entirely clear. I shall make a judgment on what is in this country’s national interests, which means that we shall need to know the circumstances of the time, and precisely what a single currency would mean for this country. We need to be engaged in the debate right until its conclusion, whether or not we enter. If we did not enter, a single currency would still have an effect on this country, so it is still important that Britain’s voice be heard in the negotiations until they are concluded.
Mr. Blair: Why could the Prime Minister not simply answer yes to my question? After all, I am only asking him to agree with his own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does not his response show precisely the paralysis of policy? Let me offer him another chance. Can he, like his Chancellor, see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament–yes or no?
The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House whether he agrees with the argumentation in the pamphlet that I have here–a pamphlet produced by Labour Members of Parliament which led to Labour Members squabbling in public this morning and denouncing the shadow Chancellor. I have told the right hon. Gentleman what the Government’s position is. We have set it out in a White Paper. That is the position, and it has not changed.
Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister asked me whether I agreed with the pamphlet. The answer is no, I do not agree with it. Now let us have a clear answer from him. What sort of situation are we in when a Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot keep his own Ministers, and the Prime Minister’s closest political friends are saying that his party cannot row together or work together? Why should the country put up with another nine months of drift and decay? After six years of that type of weak leadership, are not people entitled to say that enough is enough, and that the only reshuffle that matters will be one that reshuffles the Government out of office and gives the country a fresh start?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may be prepared to commit himself to decisions without the facts that would affect this country. If he will not commit himself to a decision, he had better make up his mind whether he is in favour. He won’t because he can’t, because his party is split from top to bottom on the issue. The reality is that we shall consider the facts–not the prejudices, but the realities–and make a decision on what is right for this country.
Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this Michaelmas the Treasury will be receiving around £1.5 billion from the sale of the armed forces married quarters estate? What excuse is there for the Chancellor to delay the essential announcement on the procurement orders which we all expected before the House rose for the summer recess? He cannot have it both ways. First, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that we have the best armed forces in the world? Secondly, does he agree with our Secretary of State for Defence that they should also be the best equipped?
The Prime Minister: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of the armed forces. I also invite him to agree that we have provided the resources to ensure that our armed forces have the best equipment. He will recall the announcement a week or so ago and the £500 million committed. We are evaluating our assessment of the bids for the various pieces of equipment now due for replacement. When that evaluation is completed, but not before, suitable announcements will be made.
Mr. Ashdown: Let me put it to the Prime Minister another way. At the end of a Parliament which began with the farce of devaluation and ended with the fiasco of BSE, which has seen Tory Members leave their party and Tory Ministers desert their Government, and which has gone from cash for questions to cash for dinners in Downing street, is it not time for the Prime Minister to lead his exhausted and divided party out of power to fight their civil wars somewhere else?
The Prime Minister: I think that in his litany the right hon. Gentleman misses some facts of importance to the British people. He cannot recall an occasion in his political lifetime when the British economy has been in such good shape, when inflation has been so low, when unemployment has been falling so well, when growth has been at the top of the European league and investment is coming into this country as it is coming into no other country in Europe. That is happening because of the policies of this Government–policies that his tiny party has objected to throughout this Parliament.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As next Sunday, 28 July, happens to be the 25th anniversary of my resignation from the then Government over their decision to join the EEC, does the Prime Minister accept that there is growing contempt among the voters for people in all parties who pretend that there are any easy answers to the difficult and complex problems of the European Community? Will he think seriously over the summer recess about the possibility of seeking the advice of the voters of Britain as to which way they wish to proceed on Europe? Would not the best answer to the Opposition be to remind them that the country belongs to the people, not to the political parties?
The Prime Minister: There is no doubt from the Opposition’s European policies precisely what they would surrender in the European debate. However they try to hide it, the veto would go and qualified majority voting would increase. They signed up to the socialist manifesto, and the Leader of the Opposition cannot wriggle away from it now. In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, of course we shall consider what is in the interests of the United Kingdom. I do that and I shall continue to do that.
Q3. Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hain: Will the Prime Minister rule out any bid from Mr. John Beckwith for the £1.5 billion sale of defence homes and the £750 million sale of benefit offices, in view of his role in organising Premier Club dinners where business men pay £100,000 to bend the Prime Minister’s ear? Is there not a clear conflict of interest between being premier of Great Britain and the right hon. Gentleman’s position as patron of the Premier Club?
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all the facts. I saw the story that interested and misled him. No one can buy access to Ministers. [Interruption.] No one is promised favours. [Interruption.] There is one exception in public life: it is possible to buy access to Labour party policy through the trade unions; it is possible to buy votes; it was possible to summon the leader of the Labour party to explain his remarks about the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers last week; it is possible to change Labour party policy, but not ours. As regards Mr. Beckwith, any bid is independently assessed before being approved.
Q4. Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.
The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Baker: Will my right hon. Friend condemn from the Dispatch Box the politically motivated strikes by London underground drivers and postal workers? Will he confirm that he has no plans to introduce legislation to give trade unions increased powers or to increase the powers of strikers, which is precisely what is on offer from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. The deputy leader of the Labour party talks about £100,000. Perhaps he will remind the country how much the union that sponsors him pays to the Labour party year after year. Perhaps he will explain that that is why he will not condemn a totally unjustified strike. Perhaps he will explain that not one of the candidates in the shadow Cabinet elections will condemn the strike. If they were standing for election to a Trappist monastery, they could not have been more silent than they have been on the subject of the strike. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) knows that the Labour party’s relationship with the trade unions is a disgrace to British democracy: they rule, and the Labour party follows.
Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th July 1996.
PRIME MINISTER:
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister explain why a Treasury document shows that, under this Government, the economy is set to decline to the level of those of Brazil, Thailand and Mexico? Is not that a telling indictment of the Government’s policy?
The Prime Minister: One of the attractions of the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that it looks forward to the possibility of what may happen 10 years ahead, whatever the policies followed and whoever the Government may be. I have no doubt that some of the matters in the document that the hon. Gentleman would consider barmy are policies that the Treasury considered might be adopted by a Government other than this one.
Q2. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.
The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning today’s postal strike, which is causing widespread disruption to my constituents and throughout the country, and costing businesses many thousands of pounds? Does he agree that any proposal to give new rights to trade unions would merely encourage the incidence of such strikes? Is not this yet further proof that new Labour brings new dangers to the British people?
The Prime Minister: Today’s strikes cannot and should not be justified, and I roundly condemn them. They are costing the country millions and causing great inconvenience to many people who are not part of the dispute.
Mr. Skinner: Why?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks why–he supports the strikes and I am pleased that he acknowledges it. I am happy for the instincts of the Labour party to be laid bare by the hon. Gentleman; the House will be pleased to hear what he has to say.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the education spokesman, I understand, for the Opposition, said that the strikers should go to arbitration, which self-evidently must be right. I hope that we shall hear the same call from the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, and the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is sponsored by one of the striking unions. I should also hope to hear the same call from the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. New Labour laws to make strikes easier are exactly what the country does not want–and the Government will ensure that it does not get them.
Mr. Blair: Given that, as we speak, talks are taking place both here between the British and Irish Governments and in Belfast in respect of the peace process, after what, by common consent, must be judged the most damaging two weeks in the affairs of Northern Ireland since August 1994, does the Prime Minister agree that there are three essential foundation stones for rebuilding support for peace? The first is that the two Governments renew their relationship of trust, based firmly on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing street declaration and the other negotiated agreements between them that remain intact and valid. Secondly, all sides must demonstrate their complete commitment to the rule of law and the Government their even-handedness in its application, whether in response to the threat of violence by those engaged in marches, or the evil punishment beatings that claimed their latest victim last night. Thirdly, all parties to the talks on Northern Ireland should move from matters of procedure to matters of substance as soon as is humanly possible, so that we can show the people of Northern Ireland that the constitutional path to peace has life in it, hope in it and, indeed, is the only sane route to the future.
The Prime Minister: The past 14 days have certainly been extremely difficult for everyone in Northern Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I shall try to respond to his three points. During the past few years, the British and Irish Governments have worked very closely together. It is important for the success of the talks that that co-operation continues, and it is this Government’s intention that that co-operation shall continue. The Irish Government and the British Government do not, of course, agree about every issue under discussion, but I believe that our relations are strong enough on Government-to-Government and personal levels for those talks to continue, even while we seek a solution to the disagreements before us. That is what we are seeking to do.
Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the rule of law needs to prevail in Northern Ireland, as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The scenes that we have witnessed over the past few days–the violence, the intimidation and the aftermath of those scenes–are wholly unacceptable and should have no place in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
As to the future and the talks, I entirely agree that progress so far has been inadequate. It is our intention to try to ensure that the talks move forward rapidly from talks about procedure to talks about substance.
Our intention will be to try to turn the setbacks of the past couple of weeks into a positive advantage as the talks resume, and we will bring all our strength to bear to achieve that.
Mr. Yeo: In view of the remarkable transformation of Britain’s competitive position, which has been brought about by our opt-out from the European social chapter and the virtual elimination of strikes, does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that a political party that claims to be seeking office should not only boast about its intentions to burden British business with the European social chapter obligation but cannot even unite its Back Benchers in condemning today’s strike on the London underground?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the United Kingdom’s competitive position at the moment. It is very important that we remain competitive in the areas to which he has referred, as well as others.
I think that I heard the deputy leader of the Labour party say a moment ago, “What about your social conscience?”–
Mr. Prescott: His social contract.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem roundly to condemn today’s strikes, which are damaging our competitiveness, as I believe he should. No doubt his relationship with his sponsors prohibits him from doing so.
Q3. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hughes: On the day when the Cabinet has apparently decided to start a new campaign to clamp down on public expenditure, beginning once again with freezing the pay of public sector workers, which it has no doubt done to try to pave the way for tax bribes for its supporters before the election, what does the Prime Minister say to parents in my borough who find that the secondary school that their children attend is having to go to the British American Tobacco company for sponsorship to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds? Is it acceptable that the Government have so underfunded public services to try to produce tax cuts that schooling has become dependent on profits from tobacco sales, when under-age smoking is at its highest level for 10 years?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is making a silly point. He also knows about the growth in expenditure on, and provision for, education over recent years, the dramatic increase in spending per pupil and the improved educational opportunities that now exist. As for pay in the public sector, our view remains that set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor last September–that pay and price increases should be offset by efficiency savings. That has been our policy for some time, and we renewed it this morning.
Sir Michael Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what information Her Majesty’s Government have received about the crash of the Trans World Airlines airliner last night? Will he take the opportunity to express the sympathy of the House to all involved, and to reaffirm that, if terrorism is involved, international co-operation must be accelerated and that this country will play a full part in that process?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm my hon. Friend’s last point. As yet, we have received no solid information about the cause of the dreadful crash that occurred a few hours ago. A great deal of examination is taking place, and as soon as I have further information I shall ensure that the House is aware of it. I have of course conveyed the sympathy of the House to the American Government, and told them that if they feel that we can assist in any way, we shall be happy to do so.
Q4. Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Ainsworth: To return to the leaked Treasury document, is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)–I believe that he is the Prime Minister’s right hon. Friend again–said this morning on the radio that some of the ideas in the leaked document would be included in the manifesto? Can the Prime Minister tell us which ideas–the privatisation of roads, cuts in post-16 education, the scrapping of old-age pensions, or the complete dismantling of the welfare state?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman stood up to ask that question immediately behind a shadow Chancellor who proposes to cut child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds and take about £1,000 from every family with two children of that age who want to go into further education. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about manifesto pledges, he should worry about his own side’s manifesto pledges, which would take child benefit away from people, raise extra taxes in Scotland and increase trade union rights so that there can be more strikes–and no doubt more sponsorship for the Labour party. Instead of talking drivel about policies that are not Government policies, he should concentrate on the drivel that is the policies of the Opposition.
Q5. Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.
The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday’s welcome news that unemployment has hit a five-year low–[Hon. Members: “In Basildon?”]–is in part due to the Government’s reforms to curb trade union policy? Is not new Labour’s policy–[Hon. Members: “For Basildon?”]–to give privileges to trade unions, which no previous Labour Government would have done, further proof that new phoney Labour–[Laughter.]–would destroy the economic success of this country with dangerous new policies for Basildon, Southend and the rest of the country?
The Prime Minister: As ever, my hon. Friend speaks for the country as well as for Basildon and Southend, West. There is no doubt that yesterday’s news about jobs was extremely good. We are now into the fourth successive year of falling unemployment. There is also increasing growth in new inward investment.
Mr. Janner: They are fiddled statistics.
The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member shouts about statistics. They are new jobs. He may regard them as statistics, but I see them as new jobs. I welcome inward investment and new jobs, even in the hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency. I welcome them in any constituency. How he can refer to them as statistics when they are people’s hopes, livelihoods and futures, I cannot imagine. However, the policies to which my hon. Friend referred would damage the lives, opportunities and futures of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituents and everybody else’s.
Q6. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave a few moments ago.
Mrs. Campbell: Will the Prime Minister say in public what the Foreign Secretary told the positive Europe group of Tory Members last Monday: that there will be no toughening of the Government’s stance on Europe–the Prime Minister is shaking his head already–that there will be no ruling out of a single currency and that there will be no additional demands for the repatriation of powers from Europe?
The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Lady exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend told my hon. Friends. He set out the policy in the public document that determines our negotiating posture for the intergovernmental conference–precisely and in detail. If the hon. Lady has not yet read it, I invite her to do so as she will find it a clear-cut and excellent document.
Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay at the fact that a group of Opposition Members should publicly support the striking tube train drivers who are grinding London to a halt and costing Londoners and London commerce millions of pounds? Does he agree that the public must be deeply angered by the irresponsible action of union members and the last-minute pussyfooting by the Leader of the Opposition in not condemning the strike?
The Prime Minister: I have not seen a great amount of support for opposition to the strike from Opposition Members. No doubt the opposition to the strike will be clearly expressed by every Front Bencher over the next few days. Not only will there be a request that the parties go to arbitration–which is surely self-evidently right–but there will be a clear-cut condemnation of a strike that is causing a great deal of difficulty for many innocent people and damaging the industries concerned. When will we get that condemnation from the Opposition?
Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th July 1996. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.
PRIME MINISTER:
Engagements
Q1. Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is representing Her Majesty’s Government at an official function with President Mandela.
Mr. McNamara: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that it is no longer the Queen’s writ that runs in Northern Ireland but the Orange writ? The actions of Her Majesty’s Government in the past day compare most unfavourably with the actions of Lady Thatcher who, when she sat on the Government Front Bench, saw down the Orange threat at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the framework document is still the policy of Her Majesty’s Government?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific question–the framework document is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government. It is generally accepted across the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have done more to bring peace to the Province, albeit that it is sadly disturbed at the moment, than Ministers in any other Administration in modern times.
Q2. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend condemn unreservedly the disruption on London Transport being caused by members of the Associated Society Locomotive of Engineers and Fireman and, now, the National Union of Rail, Marine and Transport Workers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such action is a complete misuse of industrial power, causes hardship to millions of Londoners and threatens the tourist trade? Is my right hon. Friend surprised that some hon. Members have failed to condemn that disruption, and does he agree that, for Londoners, new Labour has come to mean hard labour?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises important and urgent matters. I am wholly sympathetic with his comments about the plight of Londoners faced with that unjustifiable action. As to persons who should condemn it, I put at the top of the list the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is sponsored by one of the unions concerned.
Mr. Prescott: Will the Deputy Prime Minister break with tradition and give a straight answer to a simple question? Over the next 25 years, how much rent will the Ministry of Defence pay to the purchaser of the married quarters estate in return for the £1.6 billion estimated sale price?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will have noticed that, faced with the question that I put to him, all that the deputy leader of the Labour party could do was laugh and refuse to answer. On the specific question he put to me, what the House will want to judge is whether it should listen to his strictures or to the advice of the chiefs of staff about what is best for the military services.
Mr. Prescott: Can the Deputy Prime Minister deny the press reports which state that the Government have agreed to pay far more in rent than they will receive from the sale? Is it not a scandal that the Government are keeping secret just how much taxpayers’ money they have guaranteed to pay to those property speculators?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has no understanding of how property deals are structured. If he had, he would realise that this negotiation will lead to improved standards for members of Her Majesty’s services and that the minimum guarantees are well below the occupancy levels assumed to prevail throughout that time.
Mr. Prescott: Will the Deputy Prime Minister now tell the House the truth? This is a bad deal for service families and for the public. It is selling off a national asset at a knockdown price. It is a typical smash-and-grab operation by a Government of spivs.
The Deputy Prime Minister: That is exactly what the Labour party has said about every privatisation measure that we have ever introduced. Every time we do it, we hear this ranting nonsense from the Labour party. Then, when we have done it, the Labour party cannot bring itself to reverse it.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: In the week in which the Father of the House has celebrated his 80th birthday and his 46 years of service to the House, will my right hon. Friend associate himself with the congratulations and good wishes of the House?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has provided me with a most welcome opportunity to pay a fulsome tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who has served the House and the country with great distinction for a long time. I say only one word of personal thanks, which is that I am grateful that he had the foresight to recommend my name for the Conservative candidates’ list some 30 years ago.
Q3. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Gunnell: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that both Houses gave a spectacular welcome to President Mandela because he personifies the struggle against the apartheid regime? Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating those who supported the anti-apartheid movement throughout President Mandela’s years in prison? Will he join me in hoping that President Mandela’s attitude towards his former oppressors will strengthen and build the new democracy? Does he agree that President Mandela’s attitude brings shame to those in this country who gave succour and support to the apartheid regime? [Interruption.]
The Deputy Prime Minister: I would have hoped that the House could have responded to the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are talking about one of the political giants of our time and I have no hesitation in paying tribute to a man who, in his behaviour since leaving prison, has made one of the most remarkable political contributions that I have ever seen. To have spent that part of his life in those circumstances and to have emerged with such apparent absence of any bitterness to set about the healing of the wounds in that country with the potential that that has for not just South Africa but the whole continent of Africa, must be regarded as one of the more remarkable political achievements of our century.
Q4. Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the downbeat assessment of Britain’s industrial involvements of late by the voice of Labour–sadly not with us today–investment by Lucky Goldstar in Wales, Unipart in England and Lite-On in Scotland demonstrates that UK plc is in very good heart?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I hope that the entire House would want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on securing not only the largest inward investment ever to come to this country, from Lucky Goldstar of Korea, but probably one of the largest inward investments ever attracted into the European Union. It is a huge tribute to the policies of the Government, which are transforming the United Kingdom into the enterprise centre of Europe.
If anybody wants to understand just how out of touch the Labour party is, they might remember the words of the deputy leader:
“I don’t see much inward involvement flooding in. I see companies flooding out.”
That is the Labour party keeping its hand on the pulse of what is happening.
Madam Speaker: Question 5. [Interruption.]
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am happy to answer the question, if only I can get a chance to hear it in the first place.
Q5. Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Welsh: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the Greenpeace campaign to stop industrial fishing for sand eels, which is destroying entire fishing grounds in the North sea, including Wee Bankie, near my constituency? Will he undertake to have this issue raised in forthcoming intergovernmental conference and common fisheries policy talks?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture take the matter extremely seriously and will raise it as appropriate in any international forum.
Q7. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country has the finest civil service in the world, and that any newspaper reports to the contrary today are entirely bogus? Will he–[Hon. Members: “Reading.”] Will he endorse the view that the civil service has more important things to do implementing the Government’s excellent policies than spending time on the wholly academic issue of a possible Labour Government in the future?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question, because–[Hon. Members: “Reading.”] That is perfectly true. I was aware that the question might be raised, because it had been extensively reported in The Independent as a result of the organised publication of suggestions that there had been politicisation of the civil service by a civil service union– coincidentally on the day when the Labour party is organising a Supply day debate on the subject, so I had done some research.
I understand that none of the cases involving allegations of improper conduct by Ministers has been substantiated, and that no further approaches have been made to the commission to investigate irregularities since its last report. The fact is that the Government created the appropriate machinery to allow civil servants the right of appeal if they felt that they were being asked to do things that were politically wrong. I understand that that machinery is working properly. I see no justification whatever for the civil service union report today when there is not a shred of verifiable evidence contained in it.
Q8. Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Canavan: On this historic day, when both Houses of Parliament had the privilege of being addressed by one of the greatest political leaders of this century, will the Deputy Prime Minister appeal to all political leaders in Northern Ireland to stretch out to each other a hand of friendship, peace and reconciliation–just as Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk did to ensure a better future for their country based on the equality of all the peoples, irrespective of race, gender or creed?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman speaks for the House. I would add only one thought, with which I am sure that he would wish to associate himself. It is that President Mandela has done all those things within the context of the rule of law.
Mr. Nicholls: At a time when commuters in London are being given a timely reminder of what life used to be like under Labour in a strike-ridden Britain, does my right hon. Friend recall that, even in the dark days of old Labour, there was never a suggestion that the firing of strikers should be outlawed? Does he recall that new Labour now proposes that it should be illegal to fire strikers? Does that not show that there really are new dangers in new Labour?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has raised a point that concerns us all. The new Labour proposals for trade union reform envisage changes to give unions powers that they never had under earlier legislation. Beyond any shadow of doubt, new Labour represents new dangers.
Mr. Skinner: With regard to the earlier reference to jobs for south Wales, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how much subsidy, in all its various forms, has been paid by the Government to attract those jobs? Was not the right hon. Gentleman responsible for refusing subsidies to the pits, which he then closed a few years ago? If he had kept open those pits by paying subsidies, south Wales would not need so many jobs now.
The Deputy Prime Minister: If I remember correctly–it is some time since I looked at the figures–the subsidies to the coal industry amounted to £19 billion, as a result of which jobs were not saved: they simply disappeared under Government after Government. The transformation now, which the hon. Gentleman cannot live with, is that the mining industry has just had its first ever strike-free year.
Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th January 1996.
PRIME MINISTER:
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Pearson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January.
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Mr. Pearson: In view of the renewed speculation about the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership, can the Prime Minister tell the House what difference to his party or the country was made by his decision to precipitate a leadership contest last year?
The Prime Minister: We have this silly speculation almost every week in which there is a Thursday. It has been nonsense in the past and it is nonsense now.
Q2. Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January.
The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are more shareholders today than trade unionists? Indeed, many trade unionists are shareholders. Is he further aware of the Labour party’s cynical plans to introduce shareholding for workers? Is not that a case of attempting to justify a tired and meaningless slogan?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about the growth in the number of shareholders and the fact that they now exceed the number of trade unionists.
Mr. Galloway: Resign.
The Prime Minister: Well, the trade unionists seem to have been doing that–that is one of the reasons why there are more shareholders than there are trade unionists. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is equally right about the slogans from the Labour party. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said last night:
“It is amusing that Labour’s new slogan might be a long way round to rediscovering clause 4 and common ownership.”
If the Labour party really believed in stakeholding and personal ownership, it would not have opposed every privatisation we have had–privatisations that have dramatically increased share ownership. The only stakeholders in their society would be the unions–Mr. Edmonds, Mr. Monks and their colleagues.
Mr. Blair: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, on the latest statistics, since 1989, when the Government changes to the health service were introduced, the number of nurses has fallen by 50,000 and the number of senior managers has risen by 18,000? Is not that a mistaken set of priorities for the health service?
The Prime Minister: The mistake is the misleading way in which the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and now the right hon. Gentleman talk nonsense by distorting figures in the health service, as elsewhere. What the right hon. Gentleman clearly has not been advised about, or has chosen to ignore, is that there are more than 50,000 more nurses and 4,000 more midwives today than when the Government took office. They are providing effective health care close to where people live and work. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I take pride in the national health service and its achievements, and I very much regret that all that he and his colleagues can do is to take statistics, misuse statistics and try to run down the health service.
Mr. Blair: We take pride in the health service–we created the health service. We just do not like it being undermined by the Conservative party. The statistics that I quoted are from the Department of Health. The Prime Minister said that an extra 50,000 nurses had been created. Will he confirm that if one takes the full-time equivalent of nursing and compares like with like, there are fewer nurses now than there were in 1979? Furthermore, has not the decline happened entirely since 1989, when the changes were introduced? Does that not show that one is the consequence of the other and that there is a mistaken set of priorities in the health service?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is still distorting, and he overlooks the extra 1.5 million patients who are being treated. Patients statistics do not concern the Labour party. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a statistic that really shows what is happening in the health service–66 per cent. of health service staff are now involved in direct patient care, up from 60 per cent. only 12 years ago. That is because we have invested directly in front-line care and that is why more patients are being treated, and treated better and more speedily than ever before. I hope that, one day, the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the improvements in the health service, congratulate the people in the health service on making the improvements and acknowledge that we have repeatedly put more funds into the health service to enable those improvements to take place.
Mr. Blair: I notice that the Prime Minister did not dispute the statistics on nursing. If he wants an objective view, why does he not ask the doctors and nurses in the health service? Does he not understand that many people fear that money is being pumped into bureaucracy rather going to front-line nursing care, and that they are angry that the party that the Prime Minister calls a one-nation Conservative party is breaking the health service in two?
The Prime Minister: Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman distorts and twists reality to make his political point. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept what I say, I advise him to listen to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), who told the Fabian Society,
“Labour’s health policy will not look credible at the general election if we do not commit ourselves to matching the rate of growth delivered by the Conservatives.”
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will contemplate that. The truth is that his party has no health policy. Labour lurches from one headline to the next and from one distortion to the next. Labour downgrades and runs down the health service day after day, as it moves to the next soundbite.
Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why unemployment is falling is that British firms are now able to compete free from overwhelming union control? Does he further agree that that would all be thrown away under the Opposition’s plans for a stakeholder society, which would simply hand power back to the unions?
The Prime Minister: That certainly seems to be the view of the trade unions, as Mr. Monks, the general secretary of the TUC, has confirmed. He said:
“This country needs more influential unions”,
and added that the proposals for new rights to representation at work also rest on the stakeholder idea. He is not alone. Mr. John Edmonds said:
“I think ultimately we need changes in legislation.”
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said:
“Labour cannot govern without the support of the trade unions.”
Just to show that I do not always quote Opposition Back-Benchers, let me quote the deputy leader of the Labour party–who appears to be missing. He said:
“I am at heart a trade unionist before a politician.”
And he is right. We know Labour’s heart, we know who pays for the Labour party, we know who owns the Labour party and we know what the leader of the Labour party is now about.
Mr. Ashdown: When the Prime Minister’s predecessor, Mrs. Thatcher, said last week that his Government had lost touch with the hopes of ordinary people, whom does he think she was blaming?
The Prime Minister: It hardly loses touch with ordinary people if one removes what wrecked their savings by producing the lowest inflation levels for 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest unemployment rate of any major European country, the lowest basic tax rate for 50 years, and the biggest fall in crime for more than 40 years. That is what my right hon. Friend, when Prime Minister, sought to achieve; it is what we have delivered.
Sir Michael Grylls: When my right hon. Friend next meets his fellow Heads of Government in Europe, will he do all that he can to persuade them to make progress on liberalising the energy market within the European Union? Is not one of the Government’s great successes the fact that we have created a competitive market in the UK, and would not our firms benefit from a competitive market throughout the European Union?
The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is entirely right. While the single market has been an enormous success, both for us and for the rest of Europe, there remain areas across Europe where it is still not operative, and my hon. Friend mentions one of them. We shall continue to press to spread the single market to that area and others.
Q3. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Mullin: I am sorry to see that the bastards are plotting again. The Conservative party’s current difficulties are not the Prime Minister’s fault. He simply has the bad luck to be Prime Minister when the bills for the Thatcher decade are coming in. May I offer him a word of advice? He should offer members of his party not a leadership election but a general election. That would shut them up.
The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has some experience of leadership elections. If I remember accurately, he ran the leadership election of a losing candidate in a previous Labour party leadership election, so although I take what he says with some interest, I shall not follow it to the letter.
Mr. Mullin: He got 49 per cent., though.
The Prime Minister: Maybe, but it was not enough.
Q4. Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January.
The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Luff: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will respect the constitutional freedoms of this country at all times and will not seek to undermine them by entering into shabby, shoddy backroom deals, like those promised by the Leader of the Opposition with the Liberal party, British Telecom and the trade unions?
The Prime Minister: I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requires without reservation.
Q5. Mr. Ainger: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Ainger: Has the Prime Minister seen the figures produced by the Royal College of Nursing, which show that the number of nurses qualifying each year has fallen from some 37,000 in 1983 to only 13,000 last year? The resulting staff shortages have caused a crisis in our accident and emergency and intensive care units. Do not those figures confirm that the NHS is no longer safe in Tory hands, and never was, or is the Royal College of Nursing distorting the figures?
The Prime Minister: I will just give the hon. Gentleman the figures. There are 22,000 more doctors than there were in 1979, and 34,000 more qualified nurses. It is not the Conservative party or the Government who have cut back on the health service. The only time that that has occurred was when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in office. He should recall that and bear in mind that the Conservatives have delivered increased investment to the national health service, which means better service, more front-line care, which is better and earlier, and a wider range of care.
Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend will no doubt recall the excitement and pride shared by millions of children, including him and me, at the Festival of Britain, part of which for me meant visiting the capital city for the first time. May I, as a non-Londoner, assure him that it is unthinkable that the millennium celebrations should be held anywhere other than in our capital city, and that the best possible place would be Greenwich?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches on a matter that may be controversial in the west midlands and elsewhere. The reality is that the decision will be taken by the Millennium Commission, independently of the Government, and it is therefore not appropriate for me to comment on particular bids or to speculate about the outcome. I am sure that many others will do so, but I will await the decision of the Millennium Commission.
Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th October 1995. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.
PRIME MINISTER:
Engagements
Q1. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the commemorations for the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in New York.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yet another fall in the unemployment figures, which are now below even those of Germany for the first time in recent years? Is this not a resounding vindication of the Government’s policies and is it not about time that the Labour party explained how a minimum wage would help young people to get jobs?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The latest unemployment figures are quite excellent. He raises an important point in directing the House towards the minimum wage. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, said:
“Some Party Colleagues have advocated such a wage without having the courage of their convictions to state an amount that would make the commitment meaningful.”
Will the deputy leader of the Labour party now break the habit of his party and answer the question? What is the figure that would give meaning to the policy?
Mr. Prescott: This is an historic moment. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his first Prime Minister’s questions. It has been a long time, but he has finally made it.
Given the Prime Minister’s belated but welcome concern with waste and mismanagement abroad, can we now expect him to show the same concern for waste and mismanagement at home? Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how much money was wasted on the poll tax? How much money was wasted on the new bureaucracy in the health service? While he is at it, can he tell us how much it cost to set up and run his own new empire?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box today in this position. Of course, I reciprocate in welcoming him to the position he holds. But I cannot help but notice that, while my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has trusted me to come alone, the right hon. Gentleman has had a minder appointed to look after him. The curious point about the minder is that he has not even had the courage to turn up to help with the minding process. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well– [Interruption.] Do I gather that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has crossed the Floor and is now sitting on this side of the House, or is he scouring away in the basement somewhere relaying what is going on in the House to the leader of the Labour party, who, of course, will never be able to get a first-hand account from the deputy leader because they do not talk? It really is ridiculous– [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. This is very time-consuming. I want brief questions and brief answers now.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that we shall get a brief answer, Madam Speaker, because the hon. Member for Hartlepool has now turned up.
Mr. Prescott: As the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us a proper answer, may I help him? According to the Government’s own figures, £14 billion was wasted on the poll tax and £1 billion on the new bureaucracy in the health service. Is not the real truth that the Government’s press and publicity machine costs the taxpayer £1 million every working day? Is that not the real cost to the country of the right hon. Gentleman’s new title? Is it not clear that something so expensive to sell must be a pretty shabby product?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, when a Government have as many good policies as we have, it is our duty to draw them to the attention of the people who will benefit from them. Our first obligation is to point out that, for every £1 spent on the health service in 1978-79, we spent £5 last year.
Q2. Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister–
Mr. Skinner rose —
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will resume his seat.
Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the BBC and Channel 4 on transmitting live the whole of last week’s debate on the Prison Service? Does he agree that that provided viewers with the opportunity to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary demolish the Opposition’s unworthy and unsuccessful attempt to smear his reputation?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. It was excellent that the House and a wider public had the chance to see the vacuum that lies behind Labour’s allegations. They also had the chance to hear the excellent speech by my right hon. and learned Friend. If the BBC continues to show the Opposition in that light, it will not be Alastair Campbell who rings up to complain but the League Against Cruel Sports.
Q3. Ms Lynne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Ms Lynne: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, because of financial constraints, Rochdale health authority proposes that elderly, critically ill patients should not be allowed into nursing homes funded by the national health service unless they will die within four weeks? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that that is ultimately the responsibility of the Government?
The Deputy Prime Minister: It is the ultimate responsibility of the Government to provide the excellent health service that we do. I would not be prepared to discuss at the Dispatch Box the sort of case that the hon. Lady put to me without a chance to examine it in more detail. However, the health service is attracting increasing funds and the results are increasingly attractive to the public. Public assessment of the quality of the health service is rising consistently.
Mr. Brooke: After the warm-up bout last week, will my right hon. Friend arrange, after the manner of the Ryder and Walker cups, a series of singles matches between members of the Cabinet and their opposite numbers, not least so that we can see whether the captain of the other side, in a manner unusual in international golf, continues to intervene to help his hon. Friends out of bunkers?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is a past master at coming to the heart of a matter. I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition will not want to reveal his shadow Cabinet too conspicuously because it is self-evident that the parliamentary Labour party has elected a shadow Cabinet diametrically opposite to the direction in which the Leader of the Opposition wants to go.
Q4. Mr. Purchase: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Purchase: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that investment in manufacturing is lower than it was six years ago, despite a recent and welcome improvement? Does he accept that the lack of investment–widely acknowledged as a British problem–is directly responsible for the loss of 520 jobs in my constituency at the British Steel plant which is the only supplier of specialist seamless tubes in the United Kingdom? Will he undertake to intervene–preferably before breakfast–and ask for a rethink on the closure? Does he recognise that, if the plant closes, we shall have an even bigger balance of trade problem than we have at present?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would help his constituency if he got up earlier in the morning, as he would discover that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 30 per cent. in the past two and a half years.
Sir Michael Marshall: On United Nations day, will my right hon. Friend reflect that the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference at the General Assembly in New York a month ago agreed unanimously that the problems of the UN are our problems and that, if we did not have the organisation, we would have to invent it?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made a valuable contribution to the subject, and particularly to the work of the IPU, and the House is indebted to him for that. Our support of the UN is second to none, but that is no justification for the organisation wasting money and not collecting its proper dues.
Q5. Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Ms Hodge: We seem to have some difficulty in eliciting direct answers from the Deputy Prime Minister. Following what my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition said, an article in The Independent yesterday asserted that the Deputy Prime Minister had spent £80,000 of public money on a desk diary. Did the Deputy Prime Minister receive permission from the Prime Minister to spend that money in such an extravagant manner?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will find that, if she relies on the national press for the basis of her research, she will be consistently wrong-footed. I spent no money on a desk. The hon. Lady would be better employed praising the Government, who have presided over a 22 per cent. reduction in unemployment in her constituency.
Q6. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer my hon. Friend– [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I want to hear the answers to the questions, whether the House does or not. [Interruption.] Order. Do be quiet.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no less a luminary than the director of the Fabian Society has come out in support of grant- maintained schools, much to the relief of the Leader of the Opposition, whose party is opposing him on the matter? With almost cross-party support for the measure, can we count on the Government to proceed with all speed to make all our schools grant maintained, thus bringing a choice of school to every parent?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to this critical matter. The fact is that, in putting forward the proposal, the Fabian Society is once again looking to the Conservatives for the ideas which are taking us forward into the next century. For all the rhetoric of the left, what the Opposition are about is abolishing grant-maintained schools, abolishing grammar schools, abolishing city technology colleges and abolishing simple performance tables and simple tests–everything is for dogma and rhetoric, and nothing is for quality in education.
Mr. Foulkes: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realise that all this knockabout opposite will be taken very badly by starving millions in the third world who are already fearful of the proposed cuts– [Interruption.] Conservative Members are laughing, as usual. Now we have the Prime Minister at the United Nations talking about abolishing UNESCO, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. That will go down extremely badly because everyone knows that, like the cuts in overseas aid, the proposals are to fund the pre-election tax cut bribes of the Tory Government.
The Deputy Prime Minister: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman refer to knockabout Opposition when he first intervened? It cannot be explained in any other language. This country has the fifth largest aid programme in the world. How can the Labour party decry that? When one adds to that our inward investment in other people’s countries and the remarkable contribution that we make to peacekeeping, one has just one further example of the way in which, whatever this country does, the Labour party seeks to decry and destroy it.
Q7. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Bruce: Did my right hon. Friend welcome the protestations that we have heard, particularly from the Opposition parties, that all of us in the House are in favour of increasing investment in our railways? Does he believe that those protestations are consistent with, first, the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that the railways will be renationalised and, secondly, the statement by the new shadow spokesman on transport that she would not pay for it?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House is interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, but it is also interested in what the deputy leader of the Labour party has to say to the union that sponsors him. Is he in favour of it taking strike action and imposing hardship on very large numbers of Londoners trying to get to work, or is he not in support of that?
Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th July 1995.
PRIME MINISTER:
Engagements
Q1. Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Sir Peter Tapsell: May I urge, yet again, the withdrawal of British troops from Bosnia–particularly because Bismarck’s wise advice, quoted yesterday by our right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), was ignored by his successors, so that eventually the road to Sarajevo was paved with the bones of Pomeranian grenadiers? We do not want that road to be paved with the bones of our young men.
The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has held a consistent view about the difficulties that we face in Bosnia, and that some others share that view. There can be no certainty about what will happen in the present circumstances, but I hope that I can tell my hon. Friend why I believe that it would be unwise for us to decide to take that action now.
I believe that, if UNPROFOR withdrew, a number of things would be at risk. We would certainly put at risk the peace that remains in central Bosnia, not least because of the presence of British troops; and we might put at risk the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been saved as a result of the presence of United Nations troops. Let me touch on the wider point on which my hon. Friend also touched. One of the primary reasons why I felt it right to send British troops to the area in the first place, and why I would be reluctant to remove them unless it became imperative to do so, is the danger of a wider Balkan war. That risk exists, and it is for that reason that I felt it right to ask British troops to go to the area in a peacekeeping capacity and try to ensure that such a war did not occur.
I concede to my hon. Friend that the situation is serious. As I have told the House before, circumstances could arise in which it would be impossible for United Nations troops to remain; but until and unless those circumstances arise, I believe that it is right for them to do so, and to contribute to peacekeeping in the way in which they have so far.
Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that his leadership election pledge to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax would amount to £3 billion a year, and that almost half that £3 billion would go to just 5,000 people?
The Prime Minister: I understand that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has been dancing around with all sorts of fraudulent and distorted quotations. I will make it quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman–as I have done, both publicly and privately, for some time–that when it is appropriate and we can afford to do so– [Interruption.] That is what I said. When it is appropriate and we can afford to do so, I wish to abolish both capital gains tax and inheritance tax. I repeat the point for the right hon. Gentleman: I have made that clear and it must wait for when resources allow. I make no apology for that. The distortion of capital gains tax will need to be tackled. Unlike the Labour party, I believe in trying to pass wealth down between generations, whereas it squirms and wriggles whenever we talk of any tax reduction.
Mr. Blair: I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that, during the leadership election, he said that he wanted to do that at the earliest opportunity. I do not know whether No. 11 Downing street or No. 10a has now changed the line, but, in any event, would it not be the most mistaken sense of priority to cut inheritance tax or capital gains tax when we know today that, as a result of Government cuts in spending, we are short of teachers and that classroom sizes are rising? Should not the interests of the many in a decent education for their children come before the Tory obsession with the interests of a privileged few?
The Prime Minister: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that home owners right across the country, increasingly hit by inheritance tax, are a privileged few. They will be interested to hear that they are a privileged few. It is true that they were a privileged few when the Labour Government were in power and many former council home owners, now home owners, would have remained without that privilege had we been left with a Labour Government. The reality is that the people of this country would like to see changes in those taxes and, when it is prudent to do so, we will change them.
Mr. Blair: As a matter of fact, the vast majority of people do not pay inheritance tax or capital gains tax and the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute that more than half the benefit would go to 5,000 people. As for tax, let me remind him that he pledged to cut tax at the last election, that he increased the standard rate of income tax by 7p and that only one tax cut has been introduced since the 1992 election: a cut of VAT on fuel by Opposition Members.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that he and his colleagues have voted against every tax reduction that we have introduced throughout most of the past 16 years. Even at the suggestion of tax cuts, one sees the instinctive reaction of Opposition Members. They hate the thought of leaving money in people’s pockets. They would rather have it themselves to spend for themselves. I have made it clear that it is my ambition to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax as and when we can do it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that clear, too. It remains our ambition, and we will pursue it.
Mr. Tracey: What message would my right hon. Friend send to the people of Wales, whose Labour Members of Parliament boycotted the House and Welsh Question Time at the beginning of this week? Would he suggest a forfeit for them, because surely their behaviour jeopardises the future representation of the Principality in the House?
The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that those hon. Members’ behaviour was juvenile–sufficiently juvenile, no doubt, to qualify for nursery vouchers as soon as we fully introduce the scheme. When the Labour party thinks up ill-judged stunts such as that, it would do well to remember that two of its past five or so leaders have been Englishmen sitting in Welsh seats.
Q2. Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Llwyd: Following the rather dramatic departure of the Prime Minister’s very good friend, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the right hon. Gentleman has appointed someone to the Welsh Office who, nominally at least, is from the same planet as the rest of us, but in so doing he has appointed the fourth successive Member of Parliament to that office who has no interest at all in Welsh affairs. Has the Prime Minister not shown that he has no confidence in Welsh Conservative Members of Parliament and is it not really a pathetic reflection on them?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose his question before listening to what might have been asked earlier. He might bear in mind the fact that we are one United Kingdom. It is perfectly proper for a previous leader of the Labour party to be a Welsh Member of Parliament seeking to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly proper for two English Members to sit in Welsh seats, one of whom became Prime Minister and one of whom tried to do so. It is only the Welsh nationalists who wish to wrap themselves up in a little country and damage that country and its prospects within the United Kingdom.
Mr. Charles Wardle: If the new directive to abolish internal frontiers is the Commission’s response to the action it faces in the European Court for not having dismantled the frontiers under existing treaty law, what credible defence is there for Britain in talk of a veto, or the worthless Luxembourg declaration? If my right hon. Friend means to protect our sovereign borders against unchecked immigration, will he get the treaty amended? If not, he will face the wrath of not just the Euro-sceptics in the House but virtually the entire British electorate.
The Prime Minister: The European Commission has produced three proposals. It made it clear that the proposals must be taken together and must be agreed unanimously. Unless those proposals are agreed, there is no matter upon which the European Court can adjudicate. I can tell my hon. Friend that there must be unanimity and that that will not happen. The United Kingdom will veto the proposals.
Q3. Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Battle: Following the leadership election and his new-found determination to stamp his views and authority on the Cabinet, will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he agrees with the proposals of the Nolan committee on sleaze that amounts earned from consultancies by Members of Parliament should be openly declared?
The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear to the House on a number of occasions since the outset that I favour greater transparency. I have made it equally clear that we will wait until we have the Select Committee report before I say any more.
Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning tomorrow’s rail strike, which will bring massive disruption to the country? Is it not revealing that, when it comes to standing up for the consumer and criticising the trade unions, new Labour remains totally silent?
The Prime Minister: That follows neatly from the previous question. There has been absolute and total silence from the Opposition Front Bench when it comes to looking after the interests of passengers. We have not heard a word about the RMT or ASLEF or about the inconvenience to passengers. All I can say is that it is a good job that one does not go to Australia by train.
Q4. Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Ms Corston: In the light of today’s report from school governors that teachers are being sacked and that class sizes are increasing, despite the Prime Minister’s repeated assurances that neither of those things would happen, will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise to the British people?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady might well acknowledge the increase in resources to education year upon year: it is 50 per cent. up on the level that we inherited some time ago. She might also acknowledge the improved examination performance, improved teaching, improved choice and the improvement in the number of our youngsters going to university. All those things have magically waved by the hon. Lady without her apparently noticing them.
Lady Olga Maitland: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in today’s newspapers, including The Daily Telegraph, that 100 terrorists could be released from gaol early? Does he agree that that is totally untrue and that there are no plans to release terrorists early into the community until they have served their full and rightful sentences?
The Prime Minister: The position is as it has always been and as the House knows. There is no question of an amnesty for prisoners in Northern Ireland. There are no political prisoners anywhere in the United Kingdom. We keep remission rates under review. That has been the case and it will remain the case for some time. Remission rates were introduced some time ago and, as I have said, we keep them constantly under review. I do not think that the time is yet right for a change.
Madam Speaker: We now come to Question 5.
Ms Church: Question 6–no, Question 5, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Yes, Question 5.
Q5. Ms Church: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.
The Prime Minister: Whichever question number it may be, the answer is the same.
Ms Church: Does the Prime Minister agree that external regulation of the insurance market, as desired by both Lloyd’s and the Select Committee, would increase the global credibility of the London market? Will he amend the Lloyd’s Act 1982 to bring that about?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that I necessarily accept the hon. Lady’s premise. It is clear that, because of the difficulties at Lloyd’s over the past couple of years, we need to look carefully at the methods of regulation. However, until we have examined them properly, I am not inclined to make any suggestion of a changed regime.
Mr. Rowe: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the moment the opinion polls give even the illusion that there might conceivably be a Labour Government some time in the future, the trade unions queue up to threaten the customer and the patient with industrial action? Does not it frighten him as much as it frightens me that new Labour will be as much a pawn in the hands of the trade unions as old Labour used to be?
The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the pre-emptive obeisance shown by the Labour party on the minimum wage, the social contract and a range of other issues. Of course, we do not have to fight with the trade union movement if we offer it exactly what it wants, when it wants it and even before it has asked for it.
Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th June 1995. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.
PRIME MINISTER:
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently in Canada attending the G7 conference.
Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the release of the remaining members of the Welch Fusiliers and of the RAF flight lieutenant by the Bosnian Serbs shows clearly that the Government’s robust response to the taking of the hostages was the right one? Does he further agree that we now have an opportunity to reassess how our diplomatic and military efforts in Bosnia can best be taken forward?
Mr. Newton: The whole House will want to join in my hon. Friend’s welcome of the release of nearly all of the remaining hostages, including the British ones, and it is essential in our view that the other 26 are released immediately. My hon. Friend was right to say that the Government’s policy has been vindicated. Indeed, by standing firm, the whole international community has shown that it will not submit to blackmail and terrorism of that kind. I share the view implicit in my hon. Friend’s remarks that it is vital that we redouble our efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement.
Mr. Prescott: Does the Leader of the House think that it is really wise for the Prime Minister to be out of the country at this time?
Mr. Newton: At a time when it is widely acknowledged throughout the international community that this country’s economic performance in growth, increasing investment, improving our trade performance, keeping inflation down and reducing unemployment makes it a world leader in that respect, it is quite right that my right hon. Friend should be sharing our experience with our partners in the G7.
Mr. Prescott: With Baroness Thatcher making it clear that the Prime Minister is not up to the job, the President of the Board of Trade professing loyalty while preparing to take over the Prime Minister’s job and the Chancellor attacking his Tory critics as right-wing xenophobes, is not it obvious that the Tory party is in a state of civil war and, like the Prime Minister, is clearly unfit to govern this country?
Mr. Newton: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that–against the background of the account of our successful economic policies which I have just given–he will believe anything. He might also explain why his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took the risk of letting him ask questions from the Dispatch Box today.
[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Q2. Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.
Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s trade union reforms reintroduced democracy into the Labour movement? Will he therefore ask the committee considering the Nolan report whether the 165 Members of the parliamentary Labour party who are sponsored by trade unions will resign if the long-overdue reform of the trade union block vote does not go ahead? In particular, if the Transport and General Workers Union gives that reform the order of the sharp elbow, will the Leader of the Opposition sever all his links with that union?
Mr. Newton: I am not quite in a position to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks because the committee to which he refers has not yet met and, therefore, has not made a decision about who should be its chairman. In one way or another, however, I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s request is drawn to the committee’s attention. No doubt the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will draw the second half of my hon. Friend’s question to the attention of his right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Ashdown: Is not it absolutely clear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement last night that, when it comes to a policy on inflation, the Government’s policy is very clear–a target is a target, but only so long as it does not get in the way of a tax cut?
Mr. Newton: What is clear from my right hon. and learned Friend’s speech last night is that the Government’s commitment to low inflation remains absolutely unshakeable and clear and that the commitment to low inflation is part of a range of policies, which I have already described and which will make it possible for us to consider tax cuts in due course when it is appropriate and responsible to do so.
Q3. Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.
Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Heald: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this week’s further fall in unemployment, which is down for the 21st month in a row and down 500,000 in the past two years? Does he agree that it is not coincidence, but the result of the Government’s policies and that if we had a guaranteed minimum wage as the Labour party suggests–it is no good the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) looking glum as he has admitted this–there would be a shake-out of jobs and any silly fool knows that? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of Britain, that policy must be reversed?
Mr. Newton: Although it is sometimes difficult to glean from the observations of the Opposition, I imagine that the whole House will welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen by 350,000 in the past year and, indeed, that employment has grown by more than 170,000 in the year to March. I see the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) giggling in some way– it is especially ironic that, not so long ago, he forecast that unemployment would go on rising month in and month out. No doubt he will be reassessing his forecasting methods. At the same time, he might reassess policies such as the social chapter and the minimum wage, which would certainly push things in the other direction.
Mr. Madden: May I ask the Leader of the House a question, of which I gave the Prime Minister notice on Tuesday; will he comment on the tragic events in Bradford at the weekend? In condemning without reservation those who commit serious criminal damage, does the Leader of the House share my deep concern about the large number of very young people who are so deeply angry, disaffected and alienated, not only in Bradford but in many other inner cities throughout the country? Will he support an independent public inquiry to establish what happened in Bradford– [Interruption.] If the House–
Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point as I have other questioners to call.
Mr. Madden: But this is a serious matter to the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman support an independent public inquiry, which can identify the causes of the serious public disorder that took place in Bradford at the weekend and draw attention to the action that can be taken by all public agencies, including the Government, to bring back hope to young people, their parents and local communities?
Mr. Newton: First, I am grateful, as everyone in the House will be, for the hon. Gentleman’s initial acknowledgement that, whatever arguments he or anyone else cares to adduce, we all agree that there can be no excuse for the kind of behaviour that we saw in Bradford at the weekend.
So far as the inquiries are concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Police Complaints Authority is supervising the investigation of a number of complaints made against the police during the weekend. That authority is independent and will do a thorough job. The work will be undertaken by officers from another force–
Mr. Madden indicated assent.
Mr. Newton: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that. I think that that is the appropriate action to take.
As for the rest of what the hon. Gentleman said, I am glad to know that discussions are now taking place between the police and members of the Asian community in Bradford. That is the way to explore other problems.
Q4. Mr. Hendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.
Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hendry: Has my right hon. Friend ever seen a shred of evidence that suggests that people in this country want more government rather than less? Is he aware that my constituents in High Peak would be horrified at the prospect of another tier of regional government based perhaps 100 miles away in Leicestershire? Is not it time for those people who advocate such a policy to admit that what they are really saying is that we should have more bureaucracy, more waste, more remoteness and more taxes?
Mr. Newton: Labour’s plans for regional government would certainly end up simply sucking responsibility away from many existing councils that are closer to the people whom they represent. As one of Labour’s think tanks made clear yesterday, English regions would be “essentially artificial constructs”, which is true of more or less the whole of Labour’s policy in that area.
Mr. Macdonald: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing anger, not just in Britain but on the continent, about the plan to dump the Brent Spar oil platform at sea, at a spot not more than 150 miles from my constituency? Is not it a disgrace that Shell should have tried to hide the true costs of recycling the oil platform on land? Is not it time that the Government intervened to halt the tow of the Brent Spar and allow a proper examination of the true benefits of recycling on land, which would be better for the environment and for jobs?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are following the principle of disposal on a case-by-case basis. In the Government’s view, the deep-sea disposal of Brent Spar is consistent with the UK’s international commitment, and all necessary approvals and consents have been obtained. It is also the Government’s view that it is the best practicable environmental option available.
Q5. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.
Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend draw the Prime Minister’s attention to last week’s report by the Social Security Select Committee into the growth of social security, which vindicates the Government’s view that the continuing growth of social security spending is a cause for concern? Is it not time that we tackled that problem? Is not the test of the Opposition whether they start to support those reforms, otherwise they betray the fact that they have no commitment to dealing with the growth of public expenditure?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter. The increase in social security expenditure in its various forms, under various pressures including demographic trends, is a matter of concern throughout the western world and perhaps beyond. Against that background, it has been absolutely right for my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the social security system to ensure that the bill is constrained while at the same time meeting proper priorities. That is what he seeks to do and it deserves the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Q6. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June.
Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mrs. Campbell: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister whether, while considering what to do about the damage that his Government have caused to home owners with negative equity, he will consider the misery caused by the removal of mortgage interest relief to those who are unemployed and the damage caused to those who need social housing by the £600 million of cuts to housing associations?
Mr. Newton: I shall always draw the hon. Lady’s questions to the attention of my right hon. Friends. However, she might have referred to the fact that negative equity and repossessions are sharply down since the 1991 -92 peak, and that average mortgage payments have fallen by £130 a month since October 1990. On the hon. Lady’s first point, a survey has shown that two thirds of lenders intend to buy block protection in the area to which she referred, and the majority of those, including the Skipton building society, to which my right hon. Friend referred last week, intend to make no charge.
Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the county of Gloucestershire, under the profligate Lib-Lab pact local government, the schoolchildren are being cruelly misused? Is he aware that, as a result of the historic overspending in Gloucestershire, the county council has decided to cut spending on education? Is he further aware that some of us are tired of being a whipping boy for Lib-Lab extravagance, and that it is time that we considered lifting the cap on local authority expenditure?
Mr. Newton: I see that it has been reported in some parts of the press that the Leader of the Opposition has managed to persuade the Labour councillors of Mid-Glamorgan to reduce their demands for increased allowances from the exorbitant to the extortionate. I hope that he might now use his influence with some other Labour local authorities to persuade them to pursue sensible and proper policies.
Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th May 1995.
PRIME MINISTER:
Engagements
Q1. Ms Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 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.
Ms Hoey: Has the Prime Minister any understanding of the deep anger that will be felt in the country at the way in which the directors of the privatised National Grid have used tax avoidance measures to ensure that their wives will have hundreds of thousands of bonus shares? What message does that send to pensioners in my constituency who are struggling to make ends meet?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady may not be wholly aware of what has happened. I have made inquiries to clarify the position. I understand that the only share options granted by the National Grid have been granted to its own directors and staff; but, having exercised those options and purchased the shares, directors have then given them to their wives. As the hon. Lady may know, it is a fundamental principle that transfers of property between husband and wife are free of tax, as they have been for a long time.
If the hon. Lady and the deputy leader of the Labour party wish to change the position, are they saying that they want to make transfers of property between husband and wife taxable? Are they saying that the independent taxation of men and women should be abolished? Are they saying that widows should no longer be able to inherit property from their husbands free of tax? [Hon Members: –“Answer”.] That is the inevitable principle that follows from the point put by the hon. Lady. Once again, Opposition Members are trying to use a particular issue for their own advantage without understanding the implications of what they say.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Prime Minister has heard of the result of yesterday’s meeting in America between his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the leader of IRA- Sinn Fein. I am sure that he has noted what the leader of IRA-Sinn Fein said: that there can be no progress towards decommissioning until there is complete demilitarisation of everyone–that is, the surrender of arms by Army, police and those who have guns to protect themselves–and that all prisoners must be released. Are the Government prepared to negotiate with the leader of Sinn Fein on those terms?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend met the leader of Sinn Fein yesterday to make a point that was very important for both the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others in Northern Ireland: that the best contribution that Sinn Fein could make to the conference and to Northern Ireland’s prosperity would be to promote peace, and therefore to secure the decommissioning of the IRA’s arms and explosives. That remains the Government’s position.
Until, in these exploratory talks, there have been practical movements forward in the decommissioning of arms, it will not be possible for Sinn Fein to move to full-scale political talks either with the Government or, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman’s party or any other political party in Northern Ireland. That is the point that we have made repeatedly to Sinn Fein, and it remains our position. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our objective is to move towards taking the gun entirely out of the politics of Northern Ireland. In that, I believe that we have the support of all the mainstream political parties in Northern Ireland and all the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Blair: To return to National Grid, is the Prime Minister aware– [Hon. Members:– “Oh.”] They wanted us to answer the point and now they do not want us to raise it. Is the Prime Minister aware that the issue is not independent taxation between men and women, but remuneration being paid by way of share options so as to avoid income tax? That is what is actually happening in this case. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say that that abuse is wrong and is he prepared to put a stop to it?
The Prime Minister: Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I favour employee share options and I favour executive share options. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does too, because that is a direct quote from his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. There is no dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and I or between the two major parties about the desirability of share options.
In this instance, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) has raised a point that has been the subject of publicity today. Having exercised the share options and purchased shares, a husband passed his own property–the shares –to his wife. The leader of the Labour party seems to be saying that if, having done something of which the leader of the Labour party approves– accepted share options–the husband then does what has been done for many years and passes them to his wife, that should now be taxable. That is quite unlike anything that has happened in the past. If that is Labour’s policy, let the Leader of the Opposition please make it clear.
Mr. Blair: No, that is not the policy. The only reason why the directors transfer shares to their spouses is that the remuneration is paid by way of share options in order to avoid income tax. That is why they do it. That is the issue: it is not whether share options are wrong or right, it is whether they are taxed as income or as capital gains. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say that, where remuneration is effectively given by way of share options to avoid income tax and only pay capital gains tax, he will put a stop to it?
The Prime Minister: Capital gains are taxed at the marginal rate when the capital gain is realised. The right hon. Gentleman is effectively saying that he does not wish husbands to pass those rights on to their wives. The transfer of property between husbands and wives–be it shares, property or capital–is tax free.
Although the right hon. Gentleman is now wriggling because his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor changed his position mid morning because he realised what he had said and what he had done, the truth is revealed yet again by what the right hon. Gentleman has said: Labour hates privatisation and it hates profit. It cannot stand share ownership. Old Labour lurks there as clearly as it ever did. Labour Members cannot stand the fact that some people receive share options and exercise share options as part of their employment remuneration.
Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister does not realise that the National Grid has admitted that it used share options to avoid paying income tax. Why does not the Prime Minister stop defending the greed of a privileged few and stand up for the vast majority of decent British people?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had better decide whether he is really in favour of share options. The glaring divide between the shadow Chancellor and the leader of the Labour party becomes more apparent day by day. They may sit close together, but clearly they never speak.
Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today’s announcement of further measures to target taxpayers’ money on making state schools more effective and improving standards? Will he confirm that the Government’s objective is to ensure that all parents are entitled to a good-quality, high-standard state education for their children, not only if they happen to live a couple of boroughs away from a convenient grant-maintained school?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that point. I believe that the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will be widely welcomed up and down the country.
Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the deadlines in Sarajevo represent a critical moment for the authority of the United Nations and its commanders in Bosnia? Will he ensure that, if our commanders on the ground in Bosnia conclude that decisive action must be taken, they will receive the full and unswerving backing of not only the Government but the United Nations in New York?
The Prime Minister: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view about the importance of the present situation. I am happy to tell him that we have already given that assurance to our commanders on the ground. We made that clear in New York last night and they are aware of our position. The United Nations has also reiterated its full support–by that I mean our commanders will have support for whatever action they may consider necessary in the light of the events of the past day or so.
Let me add to that point in view of the present situation. We very much wish the United Nations protection forces to continue performing their role. They have saved many lives delivering aid and containing the fighting. I believe the reason for maintaining a force on the ground remains as compelling today as it has been in the past, but all the parties need to be aware that if they continue ground fighting and accelerate it, they may render it impossible for the United Nations protection forces satisfactorily to carry out the mandate that they have been given. I hope that point is fully understood. At present, General Smith and the United Nations forces are very much in our thoughts. They most assuredly have our total support.
Official Visits
Q2. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Southfleet, Kent.
The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so.
Mr. Dunn: What advice would the Prime Minister give the leadership of the trade union, Unison, which may be about to inflict a vicious national strike on the British people? The last time Unison inflicted a strike on the British people–
Mr. Mackinlay: What has this to do with Kent?
Mr. Dunn: People are concerned about it in Southfleet. The last time Unison inflicted a national strike on British people, hospitals were closed, schools were shut down, operations were cancelled and the dead were left unburied.
The Prime Minister: I believe that any form of industrial action in the health service would be bound to harm patients. It is difficult to see how it could do anything else. My hon. Friend has provided a graphic reminder of what happened on a previous occasion. I am perfectly certain that no professional nurse would wish to pursue such action, and I very much hope that that will be the overwhelming view. I hope that the few people involved will set aside the language of trade union confrontation, look at the fair offer that has been made to them by the vast majority of NHS trusts up and down the country, accept it and put the issue behind us.
Engagements
Q3. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Illsley: From the Government’s overwhelming defeat in the local elections last month, it is clear that the electorate totally rejected their local government policies. In particular, people rejected the Government notion that Labour authorities are high taxing and high spending. Will the Government now abandon plans to cap the expenditure of local authorities this year?
The Prime Minister: I have very great doubts about whether people have abandoned the notion that Labour means high taxes, both nationally and locally. If one looks band for band at local taxation last year, one finds that in band C, for example–I take the figures from memory, but I think that they are right–Labour councils taxed about £160 more than Conservative councils. That point will be understood increasingly as people examine their tax bills.
Mr. Robathan: In the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report on Islington’s social services? If so, he will have found that the Labour party in Islington put political correctness above the needs of the vulnerable and of the children in its care, and above common sense. Does he agree that, in the same way, the Labour party in general puts women-only shortlists and other forms of positive discrimination and political correctness above the interests of the nation–
Madam Speaker: Order. What other parties do is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I have told the House time and time again that Ministers at the Dispatch Box answer for their policies, not for what other people do. Perhaps the Prime Minister can give some answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I hope that the House will remember in future that Ministers are to be questioned about their responsibilities, not about anything else.
The Prime Minister: The substantive part of the question followed on nicely from the question asked by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) a moment ago. Like everyone in the House–I would hope–I read the reports about what apparently happened in Islington council and found them extremely disturbing. They show what happens when political correctness runs riot. I believe that tolerance, in that environment, becomes excess. It causes untold suffering for those in need of help. This was a sad example of what happens when the Labour party is in power. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central neglected to mention the activities that went on in Islington, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing them to my attention.
Q4. Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Ms Quin: Does the Prime Minister recall his prediction at the 1991 Conservative party conference that Labour would introduce eight new taxes if it took office? How does that claim look now in the light of the 20 new taxes that he and the Government have introduced?
The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Lady should glance at the list of new taxes to which Opposition Front Benchers have committed themselves if they come to government– [Hon. Members:– “Rubbish.”] Opposition Members are right: most of the taxes that they propose are rubbish. Labour is now and always has been the party of high taxation at national and local levels, and while the Opposition continue to commit themselves to more spending on every occasion, they always will be the party of high taxation.