The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 December 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Honours System

    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister how many (a) peerages and (b) knighthoods have been awarded since May 1979 to (i) local authority members, (ii) civil servants, (iii) business men, (iv) business women, (v) Conservative hon. Members, (vi) ex-Conservative hon. Members, (vii) Liberal hon. Members, (viii) ex-Liberal hon. Members, (ix) Social Democrat party hon. Members, (x) ex-Social Democrat party Members, (xi) Labour hon. Members and (xii) ex-Labour hon. Members.

    The Prime Minister: The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Department of Trade and Industry

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what considerations led to the current ministerial staffing of the Department of Trade and Industry.

    The Prime Minister: Ministerial staffing levels are determined according to the responsibilities of each Department.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the purposes of his engagements today.

    The Prime Minister: To carry out my duties and responsibilities as Prime Minister.

     

    Lockheed

    Dr. David Clark: To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received from the general public in connection with the Hercules C-130 replacement; how many of these supported Lockheed; and how many have asked for the decision to be delayed until the future large aircraft feasibility study has been completed.

    The Prime Minister: I have received numerous representations on this subject.

  • PMQT – 8 December 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

    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. Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend convey my best wishes to the officials who will be leading the negotiations tomorrow with Sinn Fein-IRA? Will he also accept my congratulations on the way in which he has handled the peace process? Could he ensure that, on day one it is made crystal clear that there can be no real progress unless all paramilitaries give up weapons and intimidation? Will he also make it crystal clear that there can never be any question of an amnesty for murderers or bombers?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to feel strongly about these matters. Our position is clear: those people convicted of criminal offences will serve their sentences and an amnesty for murderers simply does not arise.

    Sinn Fein must accept unequivocally the rules of democratic politics. Guns and bombs need to be taken out of commission and intimidation must end– that is, of course, equally true for the loyalist paramilitaries. We have invited the loyalist political representatives to begin a separate exploratory dialogue with the Government on 15 December. I hope that both they and Sinn Fein will show a serious commitment to exclusively peaceful methods so that we can ensure that a peace remains and becomes stable in Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Blair: May I say how much I support what the Prime Minister has just said on Northern Ireland?

    Does the Prime Minister recall that last year he said that he was unequivocally against a referendum on Europe–a view that he has repeated this year–yet last night he said that he did not rule one out? What has changed?

    The Prime Minister: I continue to welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support on Northern Ireland. It is a strength to the peace process that it carries the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House. On the subject of a referendum, let me make clear the point that I made yesterday- -there are many people who see the referendum simply as a tactical device. I strongly suspect that that is true of many Opposition Members. But I do not see it in that fashion; we have to consider the constitutional implications for British democracy of referendums generally–there are advantages and there are disadvantages. What I have said and what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said is that we are not prepared to rule one out.

    Mr. Blair: Is not it clear that what has changed is not the Prime Minister’s belief about a referendum, but his ability to unite his party without one? Is that not his problem and that of the country– [Interruption.]

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

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Blair: I see that the yobbos are out in force today. Is not this the right hon. Gentleman’s problem? Whether it is the referendum, or VAT, or Post Office privatisation, or the Tory rebels, is not his problem the fact that the Government’s decisions are now being taken by a Cabinet of crisis managers, driven by each day’s headlines, making or unmaking policy according to the tyranny of the factions–when what this country is crying out for is a Government who will serve the national interest?

    The Prime Minister: Perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman feels that way about referendums, he will explain why he is committed to referendums for Scotland and for Wales. Perhaps it is to heal divisions among his right hon. and hon. Friends.

    As to the question of country and party, that is a sound bite which the right hon. Gentleman has been trailing around from studio to studio over the past day or so. Let me make it entirely clear to him: we shall put the country first, as we always do. It is precisely because we have put the country first that we have not shrunk from difficult decisions. This country is now in position for the longest, most sustained recovery for all its people that has been seen for many years.

     

    Q2. Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a number of important initiatives to combat crime in rural areas such as Suffolk, including the introduction of a rural inspectorate in addition to cluster neighbourhood watch schemes and parish constables? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that crime in the Bury St. Edmunds sub-division has fallen by 15.2 per cent. so far this year, and, in the Newmarket sub-division, by a full 22.2 per cent?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear those statistics on falling crime; they are mirrored in some other parts of the country. I understand that my hon. Friend was instrumental in setting up a drugs prevention initiative in Newmarket, and I hope that many other people will follow the same sort of idea in other parts of the country. The reduction in crime to which my hon. Friend refers demonstrates the effectiveness of a community-based approach.

    Mr. Ashdown: Let me remind the Prime Minister of his actual words, used in answer to me in June 1992. He said:

    “I am not in favour of a referendum in a parliamentary democracy”.–[ Official Report , 3 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 830.] Are we to take it that that was not a statement of principle but yet another flexible policy from our eternally flexible Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman accuses me one day of being inflexible and criticises me on the next for being flexible. I suppose that that shows that he himself is unsure whether flexibility is good or bad–just as he is unsure about every single policy that he advocates in one House one day or his hon. Friends advocate in another House another day. They change from hour to hour, from day to day, from House to House and from Question Time to Question Time.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Did my right hon. Friend have the chance to read yesterday’s Daily Mail , about what £60 would buy today? Does he agree that £60 for a haircut is a bit much, even for the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister: As it happens, I did not read the Daily Mail yesterday, so I was certainly not aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s haircutting exploits. Indeed, it would be indelicate of me to refer to them.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Prentice: Has the Prime Minister visited Dudley, West yet? If not, does he intend to do so? Is he aware that his candidate there said on television last night that he wanted to fight the by-election exclusively on local issues? Today of all days, are there no national issues on which to engage the electors of Dudley, West?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had cared to look even at today’s news he would have seen that there is another record set of export figures, that industrial production is rising yet again, that over recent months unemployment has been falling consistently, that there is a growth rate of over 4 per cent. and that there is an inflation rate of 2 per cent. He would see prospects for this country that his party in office has never managed to produce. I suggest that that is a good prospectus for people at any by-election at any time and certainly for the one at Dudley, West.

    Mr. John Marshall: As chairman of the all-party Friends of the Northern Line group, may I welcome today’s announcement of 100 new trains for the Northern line? That is good news for London and will be warmly welcomed. [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: There seems to be a voice of dissent–the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)–but I think that most people who use the Northern line will be pleased to see this substantial investment and the improved rolling stock that will be available for many millions of Londoners and others.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Gunnell: Given the Prime Minister’s claim to support small business, and recognising that over the past 10 years British Coal Enterprise has created or expanded 5,000 companies in coalfield areas, would the Prime Minister now guarantee the future of British Coal Enterprise?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, in the way that he posed his question, shows what an excellent record we have on small businesses, because he quoted the number of extra small companies that there are. That is true of other parts of industry and in other parts of the country, and I am sure that they will continue to grow.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is always welcome when parents exercise the right of choice in education for their children, a choice which only the Conservative party has introduced? Does he further agree that it is contemptible for most Opposition Members to seek to deny that choice from which so many of them and their children have benefited? Does he agree that this is a case of, “You’re all right, Tony, pull up the ladder”?

    The Prime Minister: I am always delighted to see people exercising choice in all areas, and it is certainly right to exercise choice in favour of one’s children to ensure that they get the best possible education. The point about education generally is that there is no choice where only bad schools exist. That is why we have introduced a range of measures, including regular inspection, and a range of education policies, to raise standards. I am delighted that, despite its past hostility to those policies, the Labour party is increasingly recognising that our education policies are right and is now following them. I recommend to the Opposition that they begin to follow some of our other policies on a whole range of issues.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

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

    Mrs. Jackson: Does the Prime Minister accept that last Thursday he misled the House in claiming that the disposable income of all people at every level had risen, and that the facts are that the bottom tenth of the population’s real disposable income has fallen by 17 per cent. since 1979 while the incomes of the top tenth have gone up by 62 per cent? Does not that demonstrate the unfair society that we shall be left with following this Tory Government? Will he now put the record straight?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is playing with statistics and she knows it. [Interruption.] The statistics that she quotes incorporate all sorts of people who run businesses and declare no income but whose spending pattern is way above the average. That is how she produces those statistics. The people at the bottom end of the scale are those who exist completely on social security payments. The hon. Lady knows that they have risen in value and she should not try and pretend otherwise.

     

    Q7. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Returning to the subject of education, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to commend the good work that is being done in independent schools throughout the country? Will he also confirm again the Government’s commitment to the assisted places scheme which has done so much for children from less well-off families? Is not it surprising that the new modern Labour party should once again attack freedom of choice in education and, indeed, make it more difficult for its leader to exercise choice for his own family?

    The Prime Minister: It is entirely apt that my hon. Friend should ask that question when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) has just been talking about people at the bottom of the income scale. The assisted places scheme is a way to help people at the bottom of the income scale and the hon. Lady opposes it, as do her right hon. and hon. Friends. Parental choice is a fundamental principle of our policy. We choose to exercise it for everyone, not just for some, and I fail to understand how members of the Labour party, which claims to pride itself on equality of opportunity, would deny the opportunities under the assisted places scheme to some of the poorest children in Britain. What it shows yet again is the gap between what they say and what they practise.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Business People at the Ritz Hotel – 7 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to business people at the Ritz Hotel in London, given on Wednesday 7th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me turn straight to contemporary events. I don’t propose to mince my words this morning. You wouldn’t expect it and frankly I’m not in the mood to do so. Last night we lost a vote on a tax measure. I don’t take that remotely lightly. Taxes tend to be unpopular. They usually are. The first popular tax has yet to be invented and I don’t think Norman Lamont or Ken Clarke have yet found it. But I know of no tax that has been so misrepresented in such lurid and emotional terms as the tax upon which we lost the vote last evening.

    What has been said about it, frankly, is a travesty of reality and I will tell you who the great gainers are from last night’s vote, it’s you. It isn’t the pensioners, it isn’t the people in particular difficulties, it’s people who will now not be paying the increased tax on energy. I think it was a mistaken vote last night. You’ll be unsurprised to hear me say that. I hope you will be unsurprised to hear me say also, that the Chancellor will come back to the House on Thursday and he will repair the fiscal position that was damaged by last night’s vote. There should not be a shred of doubt in anyone’s mind about that. We set out the fiscal position, we’re determined to bring down borrowing, we’re determined to sustain recovery, we are going to take no risks with the recovery whatsoever and so on Thursday the Chancellor will set out an alternative measure of ensuring that the fiscal position is unaltered as a result of last night’s vote.

    So let me tell you why I feel very strongly about that. If I may take you back a few years. On the first day I became Chancellor, I said at the time – looking at positions where we were clearly heading into recession, where inflation was still going up quite rapidly, where unemployment was clearly on a very rapid rise and we were clearly on the top of a hill that was undoubtedly going to head down – that if it isn’t hurting it isn’t working. What I had in mind was the problem that we had repeatedly faced since the early 1950s. Time and time and time again, we see the economy looking set fair for some time and inflation has just driven us off course. The consistent low inflation economy that we’ve seen in Germany for so many years with the industrial and other benefits that have necessarily followed it.

    I am sick and tired of time and time again seeing us driven off course by inflation. Not just the social consequences. It’s all very well for economists and statisticians to regard inflation as a phenomenon. An economically interesting phenomenon. For ordinary people, if you have to pay bills at the end of the week and you can’t pay them, that is what inflation means and that is the misery that lots of individuals face when inflation remotely begins to get out of hand. From your point of view it means you aren’t going to be able to compete with the French, the Germans, the Japanese, Pacific Basin countries and the United States unless our inflation record as a nation is at least as good as those of our competitors abroad. We are determined that that is the bedrock upon which economic policy is to be built. A bedrock of low inflation. And once people understand that that is the basis of what we are about, they may understand a great deal else that’s happened in the last four years or so.

    I remember very well the period running up to the last General Election. All those seductive voices saying to me, well the economy’s clearly in a downturn. Bring interest rates down speedily. A little extra help here, a little extra help there. Well maybe. I can see the short term attraction for that. But would it have delivered a position where conceivably we might break the inflationary psychology that has damaged this country for so long? That was the prize that we have been pursuing and that was right up to and during the General Election. We ignored the voices encouraging us to buy a little popularity by reducing interest rates and loosening economic policy.

    So I hope no one doubts the determination of the Government to obtain an anti-inflationary strategy and to ensure that the opportunity that I now believe lies out there in the economy, is not an opportunity that is thrown away. Let me just say a word or two about the recovery. Where I think we are. What I think is happening. Some of the down sides of what’s happening and where I think we’re going. I don’t have a shred of doubt that, providing we continue to pursue the right policies we have a series of unprecedented opportunities in front of us.

    Growth over the last twelve months is higher than we expected. Higher, I think, than is sustainable. 4 per cent is not sustainable and our forecasts are for lower growth in the years immediately ahead. But it isn’t only the 4 per cent growth. We have 4 per cent growth with 2 per cent underlying inflation. Some would argue even less in reality. Now, not for decades have we seen a position where growth is double the rate of inflation. Now that is extremely attractive in many ways. Certainly extremely attractive for Great Britain plc. I think there’s not a shred of doubt about that. Greatly attractive for industry.

    Less attractive I think for the retail sector. I don’t think there’s any doubt that the retail sector often is more buoyant when it has an inflationary position. When people are getting large wage increases. When they can see prices rising, then there’s a propensity to spend and spend quickly before prices go up. That is undoubtedly the case. How long that tradition, that transitional instinct, will occur amongst the British purchaser I can’t say. But I am clear that for the country as a whole, a low inflation and high growth strategy is the right strategy for this country.

    We’ve seen unemployment fall quite dramatically over the past twenty months or so. If I can draw a parallel, I suppose the European economy closest to ours is the French economy. They have unemployment at around 12.8 per cent. We have unemployment at just under 9 per cent and falling. Unemployment has fallen, is falling and I believe will continue to fall.

    But not only is it coming down, but the proportion of our adult population in work is second I think only to Denmark, maybe third behind Portugal. Right the way across Europe and certainly far better than our natural comparators in Europe, Germany and France. We have a remarkably changed circumstance. Particularly in manufacturing industry. Exports are hitting record levels. If not quite every month, certainly on a regular basis. If one looks back over a few years. British Steel, a basket case ten years ago. I recommend anyone who hasn’t been to the Port Talbot works to go there and have a look for themselves at the remarkable change there has been there. Anyone attending the Motor Show would see again, an industry if one goes back a few years to Red Robbo, Long Bridge.

    Go and look at what is actually happening to the British motor industry and if you had meetings with a large number of Heads of Government in Budapest, what they had to say about the British economy, British exports and the British capacity to perform, then you would wonder what sort of world many of the critics of British industry and of this Government are actually living in.

    You see the determination they have to attract British investment into their countries, to attract British skills. The belief that they want British products because they are delivered on time. They are as good as anybody else and at the moment we are probably the most competitive industrial nation in Western Europe. They understand that out there and I think it is about time some of those people who seem to pervade a pall of gloom over everything that happens in the British economy began to recognise it in the United Kingdom as well. Is this just a normal recovery? I don’t believe that it is because there are elements of this recovery that are sharply different from those we’ve seen on previous occasions.

    Now it isn’t all that long ago since those wise and gloomy people were telling me, that when you come out of recovery, you’re going to have to balance the payments crisis. If I heard that once, I’ve heard it a thousand times. We are patently out of the recession, have been for two years. We have not got a balance of payments crisis. The balance of payments is actually narrower. You’re going to go straight into an inflationary spiral they said. Well of course we must keep our thumb on inflation and we will. Of course, the natural laws of economics aren’t suspended as you recover. You’re going to have keep a firm hand on inflation.

    But there’s no risk of spiralling inflation wrecking this recovery and they were wrong again about that. And then there were the people who said after the ejection from the Exchange Rate Mechanism that all this devaluation is going to work through the competitiveness advantage. It’ll go straight into wages and as ever the British economy will see it all slip away after devaluation. I do actually see that devaluation having worked its way through into profits, not necessarily all distributed in dividends. The profits going back into reinvestment and it certainly has not gone straight into wages and out to the people. If it had the Government might be a bit more popular.

    I can tell you one thing, anybody who thinks that low inflation is politically popular, wants their political bumps felt. It may be right for this country and I passionately believe that it is. But it certainly doesn’t make the Government popular. People like large wage rises. They like large rises in social security benefits. They don’t like it when they get 2 per cent or 3 per cent or less. They don’t like it because there’s an instinct after years and years of high inflation and having large money increases in their pockets, and the fact that prices aren’t going up is little political consolation to them. How many people out there in the country actually realise that energy prices have been falling and falling consistently? Go out there and ask them. They will look at you if you say that as though you are stark staring bonkers. So low inflation is right, but it isn’t popular politically and you can very clearly see that.

    Now let me turn to another matter that I think is fundamental. Fundamental because to the difficulties the Government has been facing and fundamental to the prospects of this country. There are three views about our membership of the European Union. There is the view that it is the best thing that ever happened and nothing that can happen in Europe can be wrong. There is the view that it is the worst thing that ever happened and nothing that happens in Europe can ever be right and then there is a sane and logical view, which is where in reality 90 per cent of the British nationals truly lie. And that is the belief that our economic and other interests mean we must be in Europe. We must play a central part in Europe. We can only build the sort of Europe that we feel comfortable with if we are in the middle of it pitching for the sort of Europe we want. It is about time we stopped having the argument conducted at extremes with the viewpoint of the vast majority of the people apparently being swept aside as though it was of no consequence.

    I find it immensely frustrating that the argument on Europe only seems to be carried out by the people on either extreme of the argument. You don’t have to be an extremist to have conviction and passion about what is right for this country is Europe. And I don’t have a shred of doubt that our interests are for us to be in the European Union, building the sort of European Union we want. Where would so much of your trade be if we were not? What would be the position if we found ourselves outside real influence? What would happen in terms of the regulations and directives is that they will have taken place and affected us whether we liked it or not. If we were not in there pitching.

    Would you have had a single market across Europe? But for the British you would not. Would you have had a reform, of the common agricultural policy? But for the British you would not. Would you have had the beginning of large scale deregulation across Europe? Emphatically you would have not. Would you have had subsidiarity and a repeal of one quarter of unnecessary European legislation if we hadn’t fought for it at Maastricht and afterwards? You would not. Would you have known about fraud in Europe if we hadn’t demanded extra powers from the Court of Auditors in Europe and got them and published their report so people could see what was happening? You would not. But why do we not get these things presented in a practical and honest way?

    I saw these reports about 6 billion pounds worth of fraud in Europe and the Court of Auditors. But I’ll tell you this, that 6 billion pounds figure wasn’t in the Court of Auditors. I think it was some professor in France who dreamed that up some time ago. How it crept into the Court of Auditors report I don’t know. Of course there’s fraud there. We’ve known there’s fraud there. No Government has done more than this Government to attack that fraud problem in the European Union. I reached an agreement with Mitterrand and Balladur at Chartres, three days after all those headlines about fraud. How much publicity was there for the agreement we reached to take further action on fraud starting with discussions at Essen this weekend? Well, you needed a very long telescope to find it in newspapers of any colour.

    But let us look at the argument as it really is. Should we be in Europe? Yes. Should we fight against some of the things that happened in the European Union? Emphatically we should. Every other nation does and so should we. It’s only because of the absurdities of the way the argument is carried out in this country, that we are deemed to be anti European when we express our view in Europe – though I’m bound to say Mr Balladur’s grand new gesture sounds remarkably like my Leiden speech of some months ago and I’m delighted to see that that is the case.

    Look at what is at stake. I have to say to you here, Peter was talking about the sheer size and scale of the industrial and commercial enterprises that you know. Well, I doubt there’s more than a handful, if even a handful of people in this room, who don’t believe that our interests lie in Europe, and emphatically lie in Europe. If I may say so at the risk of infringing your hospitality Peter, it is about time some of you got up and said that. It is about time you started saying that loud and clear. It is about time you stopped having this debate run by a handful of people who are fundamentally opposed to Europe and who will seem to turn every part of the debate against what is happening in Europe. Of course, we argued about the things that are wrong and we must, but it is about time we looked at their real interest. Why do we get so much investment in this country from abroad? Is it the Government’s popularity do you think? Is it our climate? Is it the excellence of the management of British industry or perhaps men of charm, skill, discretion? Wonderful businessmen no doubt.

    But it just might possibly have something to do with the fact that we are the most deregulated on trade to the richest market the world has ever seen. Ask Robin Cook what he would have done without NEC in his constituency. Prescott said the other day, holding up his telescope to his Nelsonian eye “I see no companies rushing to invest in this country”. He should have had a word with Tony Blair sitting next to him and ask him where Black and Decker had gone, and why they’d gone there. If he sees no investment running into this country, I just wonder precisely what he can see. Because there’s a vast weight of investment coming into this country. We’re getting more United States and Japanese investment than France and Germany added together. NEC, Samsung, Black and Decker. The list rolls on. Not just the list of some years ago, but the list of actual contemporary inward investment as a result of our domestic policies here and the fact that we are the most attractive market in Europe for those international companies who want to be part of the European market.

    Now let’s be in no doubt about the importance of that. And let us be in no doubt about the fact that the Government’s policy is to remain a full and complete part of Europe, but that we will be determined to fight against the things in Europe that we believe are premature or wrong. It’s because I believe the Social Chapter was wrong that I refused to accept it at Maastricht. It’s because I believe a single currency is premature – I believe will remain premature for many, many years to come – that I am also determined that we should not be committed to that in the Maastricht Treaty and I believe that that is right. Were we right on the Social Chapter? Self-evidently right. When Jacques Delors said it would make this country a paradise for inward investment, I could have hugged him. I didn’t. But he was absolutely right.

    Let me just touch on the Budget. Just elaborate on some of the things I’ve been saying. We need to safeguard the recovery we’ve got. That’s why we need to keep public finances under very tight control. That’s why the public spending plans were cut by, more I think on this occasion than any time since the Conservative Government has been in office since 1979. That’s why there were a whole series of supply side measures to help people out of dependency and back in work. Particularly those who’d been unemployed for a long time. And that’s why within the resources available, there was more help for business and industry. But frankly I don’t think you need a lot more help. I think we just need us to produce the right macro economic framework and the minimum amount of regulation so you can get on with your own work. We’ve at last got through the House of Lords the Deregulation Act. The Act gives the capacity to deregulate in many areas by secondary legislation rather than by primary legislation. Now, don’t let me fool you. Deregulation isn’t easy to achieve. For every piece of deregulation we want, there is a lobby determined to oppose it. That has been the position and will remain the position in the future, but I think it is absolutely vital that we deregulate and we intend to.

    I said some time ago, that I regarded education as being right at the top of the priorities. I don’t just see it as a social matter. It’s a supply side measure for industry as well. That is the raw material upon which you would build your enterprises in the next 20 or 30 years. And I’m not satisfied with what is emerging from British schools. It is getting better. But while we find ourselves still behind in qualifications, still behind much of what is happening in South East Asia, we can’t possibly be satisfied. That is why we put the reforms in place, long term reforms, not short term reforms, not day to day management, but long term reforms on testing, on performance tables, on a slimmed down national curriculum, on inspection. To make sure we really know what is going on in the education system, because without that how can we put right the things that don’t seem to be going right.

    We wanted one in three in further education. We had one in eight in further education in 1979, we anticipated one in three by the turn of the century. We will reach that this year, nearly one in three of our young people going into higher education. Now these are remarkable changes. Bit by bit our political opponents, who opposed us bitterly, have clambered on board the sledge and acknowledged that those education reforms are right and those education reforms will continue and entrench, because we need to ensure the best possible education in future.

    Let me just summarise briefly. We will take no risks, whatever the political unpopularity may be, with the recovery that I believe is now firmly established. We want a consistent, sustained, low inflationary recovery with growth at trend or above trend level. We wish to see unemployment continue to fall and I believe it will. We wish to continue to deregulate, to clear the ground for business and industry to maximise their penetration of world markets. There’s no doubt out there across the world there is a great demand, great opportunities for British goods. We may never be certain, we may be on the way to cracking the inflationary psychology that has done us so much harm in the past. Look at the opportunity that is beginning to become apparent in this country. It can be thrown away if we’re forced off course. It can be thrown away if you have policies of minimum wages. As John Prescott engagingly said “any silly fool knows that it will cost jobs”. The Social Chapter, with all the dangers, would do. If you look at costs in this country and compared them to costs in the rest of Europe, you see a significant competitive advantage because we are not piling extra costs on employers and as a result of that we have had more people in employment.

    I see no morality in providing extra benefits to people in work and condemning those out of work to stay out of work. If there’s a moral argument about unemployment between ourselves and our political opponents and ourselves in Europe, I believe we have the moral high ground in terms of trying to price people back into jobs, rather than electorally by favours from those in jobs and to hell with those who are out of jobs who would then never get back in. You of course want the lowest possible tax structure and I have to say to our opponents that a training tax, a windfall tax, a carbon tax – it sounds astonishingly to me like that VAT I have to say – those taxes will do precious little good to British industry. Nor would levelling out corporation and other taxes across Europe which our political opponents regard as their policy.

    Development tax, extra regional assemblies. I cannot think of a policy more irrelevant and more stupid and more damaging and more dangerous than to say you’re going into large scale constitutional change just at the moment when we ought to be concentrating on entrenching for good the economic and other changes that have taken place in this country. And as for closing massive tax loopholes, Howard Davies said they’re not closing loopholes, they disguise fresh taxation on business and nobody should be in any doubt about that.

    So the choice is clear. For those people who think there is no difference. There may even be some journalists here who think there’s no difference between the Parties. I suggest they lift their eyes and actually look at the clear distinct differences in economic and industrial policy between the two major Parties. I’m happy to fight on that. It isn’t always a popular message to preach prosperity in the long term, but I’ll tell you this. It is the right message. It is the message that is actually going to improve our living standards, not just tomorrow, but for a long period ahead. I believe it is the right policy. I think industry knows it’s the right policy and if industry wants to protect that policy, I hope industry will take the opportunity and speak out and say that it’s the right policy.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on European Policy – 7 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on European policy, made during an interview given in London on Wednesday 7th December 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the whip was withdrawn from some Conservative MPs].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you have to realise precisely why that happened. I reached an agreement – not me as an individual but as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – in 1992 on future finances of the Community. That agreement was endorsed by Cabinet, it got very wide support in the House of Commons, almost nobody criticised it across the floor or behind me. In 1994, we have to keep our word, we have to match the agreement with the legislation that enables that agreement to carry forward. Now suppose we have welched on that, suppose I had reached an agreement in 1992 and welched on it in 1994. How could I possibly have gone back to Europe and negotiated for 1996 in the intergovernmental conference? I simply couldn’t have done it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the decision had caused a split in the Conservative Party and if the MPs would have been more loyal if they still had the Conservative whip].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hear what you say about what they say. If the British Government gives its word, a British Government must keep its word and if a British Government is unable to keep its word then it cannot continue in office. That is not a very hard principle to grasp but it must be apparent to everybody that that was the position. We made it perfectly clear to our colleagues that that was the position and some of them chose not to support us. Clearly, that couldn’t be left where it was.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if this would be damaging to him].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I acted in the only way one could. If Members of Parliament vote against the Government on an issue that they know to be an issue of confidence, an issue that if we had lost it could have created a General Election, then you have to indicate that that isn’t satisfactory behaviour. If I had taken no action, you would have been asking me a quite different question; you would have been saying: “Why are you so weak as to let people vote against the Government on a three-line whip and perhaps wreck an agreement you had reached internationally?”.

    You know very well that if governments reach an agreement internationally, British Governments must keep their word. There can be no doubt about that, not now, nor at any stage in the future.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was in a no-win situation].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We had a second reading of the Bill in front of us. Let us suppose we had lost that second reading because people were not aware that this was an issue of confidence. We would now be facing a General Election. That would be the position we were in. I think my colleagues would have said to me: “Why didn’t you tell us that was the position?”, we did tell them that was the position. Most of them accepted that that was the position, they supported the Government and as a result the British Government has kept its word and in future when we negotiate people know that our word will be honoured. There is no doubt that that was the right thing to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he agreed with some back-benchers that he had created this problem].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is patently absurd, isn’t it? I didn’t decide to vote against the Government. People knew precisely what this deal was, when I came back from Edinburgh they endorsed this deal, nobody complained about it then. The people who voted against us the other night, they haven’t complained in the interim. They knew very well what this deal was in 1992, they supported it in 1992. You cannot conduct government if you come back with an international agreement and your own party do not support that agreement. It was necessary to make that clear and when some chose not to support the Government it was inevitable that action was taken.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the CSCE Summit – 7 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Commons statement on the CSCE Summit from 7th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) I represented the United Kingdom at the summit meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in Budapest on 5 to 6 December, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    The meeting adopted the Budapest summit declaration; and separate declarations on the 50th Anniversary of the termination of world war II, and on Baltic issues. It also adopted 10 decisions on different aspects of the CSCE’s work.

    These decisions embraced strengthening the CSCE; regional issues; further development of the capabilities of the CSCE in conflict prevention and crisis management; code of conduct on politico-military aspects of security; further tasks of the CSCE forum for security co-operation; principles governing non-proliferation; a common and comprehensive security model for Europe for the 21st century; the human dimension; the economic dimension; and the Mediterranean.

    Copies of all of these documents will be placed in the Library of the House.

    The CSCE is no longer just a conference. Its role has widened since the end of the Cold War. Under the Budapest decision on “Strengthening the CSCE”, its title will change from 1 January 1995 to “The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, CSCE”. This change of title has been accompanied by some structural changes which are set out in the relevant decision.

    Among its other decisions, the summit:

    –initiated planning for a CSCE-led peace-keeping operation in Nagorno- Karabakh. Deployment of a multi-national CSCE peace-keeping force will depend on progress towards a political settlement, on United Nations Security Council backing, and on the requisite military preparation;

    –adopted measures to strengthen the CSCE in its central role of conflict prevention;

    –reinforced, as a result of a British initiative, the CSCE’s arrangements for dealing with the problem of minorities and other human rights questions;

    –set out standards for the democratic control of armed forces, in a new code of conduct;

    –added to military confidence building measures, including provisions for the exchange of information on all conventional forces.

    At a separate ceremony in Budapest on 5 December, Ukraine acceded to the non-proliferation treaty. On behalf of the United Kingdom, I extended to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine the nuclear security assurances which we have given in the past to other non-nuclear weapon states. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin extended the same assurances on behalf of the United States of America and the Russian Federation.

    In the margins of the conference, I had discussions with many of the CSCE heads of Government, including the Presidents of the Czech Republic, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine and the United States; the German Federal Chancellor; and the Prime Ministers of Hungary, Norway and Turkey.

    The future development of the North Atlantic Alliance was one of the subjects mentioned in many speeches to the conference, and also during my bilateral meetings. It was a point of particular concern to the Russian delegation. I explained to President Yeltsin that our aim, which was widely supported by our partners in NATO and the European Union, was to extend to the east the prosperity and stability which members of the European Union and NATO now enjoy. That was why both organisations were developing their links with the countries of central and eastern Europe. NATO had commissioned a study of the principles of enlargement, but had taken no decisions yet on which countries might join the organisation or when. It was very important for NATO to build up its relationship with Russia, and we therefore hoped that the Russian Government would soon sign their agreement with NATO on the “Partnership for Peace” programme. It was common ground that there should be no new dividing line across Europe. The dominant political issue at the summit was the conflict in Bosnia. CSCE decisions are adopted by consensus, and because of differences of view between certain participants, a draft declaration on Bosnia was not adopted. However, the chairman of the conference spoke for many delegations in issuing, in his personal capacity, a call on all warring parties in Bosnia, and particularly in Bihac, to end the fighting, declare a ceasefire and allow free access of humanitarian assistance throughout Bosnia. My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, will be making a statement separately to the House on Bosnia, taking account of discussions during the Budapest summit.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 December 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EU Anti-fraud Budget

    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the size of the European Union’s anti- fraud budget.

    The Prime Minister: As I made clear following my meeting with the French Prime Minister at Chartres, I will insist that discussion of all aspects of fraud and irregularity against the Community budget is given a high priority at the Essen European Council.

     

    Security and Intelligence Services

    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the staff counsellor for the Security and Intelligence Services.

    The Prime Minister: Sir Philip Woodfield KCB CBE has served as staff counsellor for the Security and Intelligence Services since November 1987. He will retire from the post on 31 March 1995, and I express the Government’s gratitude to him for the way in which he has established this very sensitive post and fulfilled the duties of it. Sir Christopher France GCB, currently permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, will succeed him as staff counsellor from 1 April 1995.

     

    Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe

    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe summit in Budapest.

    The Prime Minister: I represented the United Kingdom at the summit meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in Budapest on 5 to 6 December, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    The meeting adopted the Budapest summit declaration; and separate declarations on the 50th Anniversary of the termination of world war II, and on Baltic issues. It also adopted 10 decisions on different aspects of the CSCE’s work.

    These decisions embraced strengthening the CSCE; regional issues; further development of the capabilities of the CSCE in conflict prevention and crisis management; code of conduct on politico-military aspects of security; further tasks of the CSCE forum for security co-operation; principles governing non-proliferation; a common and comprehensive security model for Europe for the 21st century; the human dimension; the economic dimension; and the Mediterranean.

    Copies of all of these documents will be placed in the Library of the House.

    The CSCE is no longer just a conference. Its role has widened since the end of the Cold War. Under the Budapest decision on “Strengthening the CSCE”, its title will change from 1 January 1995 to “The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, CSCE”. This change of title has been accompanied by some structural changes which are set out in the relevant decision.

    Among its other decisions, the summit:

    –initiated planning for a CSCE-led peace-keeping operation in Nagorno- Karabakh. Deployment of a multi-national CSCE peace-keeping force will depend on progress towards a political settlement, on United Nations Security Council backing, and on the requisite military preparation;

    –adopted measures to strengthen the CSCE in its central role of conflict prevention;

    –reinforced, as a result of a British initiative, the CSCE’s arrangements for dealing with the problem of minorities and other human rights questions;

    –set out standards for the democratic control of armed forces, in a new code of conduct;

    –added to military confidence building measures, including provisions for the exchange of information on all conventional forces.

    At a separate ceremony in Budapest on 5 December, Ukraine acceded to the non-proliferation treaty. On behalf of the United Kingdom, I extended to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine the nuclear security assurances which we have given in the past to other non-nuclear weapon states. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin extended the same assurances on behalf of the United States of America and the Russian Federation.

    In the margins of the conference, I had discussions with many of the CSCE heads of Government, including the Presidents of the Czech Republic, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine and the United States; the German Federal Chancellor; and the Prime Ministers of Hungary, Norway and Turkey.

    The future development of the North Atlantic Alliance was one of the subjects mentioned in many speeches to the conference, and also during my bilateral meetings. It was a point of particular concern to the Russian delegation. I explained to President Yeltsin that our aim, which was widely supported by our partners in NATO and the European Union, was to extend to the east the prosperity and stability which members of the European Union and NATO now enjoy. That was why both organisations were developing their links with the countries of central and eastern Europe. NATO had commissioned a study of the principles of enlargement, but had taken no decisions yet on which countries might join the organisation or when. It was very important for NATO to build up its relationship with Russia, and we therefore hoped that the Russian Government would soon sign their agreement with NATO on the “Partnership for Peace” programme. It was common ground that there should be no new dividing line across Europe. The dominant political issue at the summit was the conflict in Bosnia. CSCE decisions are adopted by consensus, and because of differences of view between certain participants, a draft declaration on Bosnia was not adopted. However, the chairman of the conference spoke for many delegations in issuing, in his personal capacity, a call on all warring parties in Bosnia, and particularly in Bihac, to end the fighting, declare a ceasefire and allow free access of humanitarian assistance throughout Bosnia. My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, will be making a statement separately to the House on Bosnia, taking account of discussions during the Budapest summit.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Douglas Hurd – 6 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, held in Budapest on Tuesday 6th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like first to express my thanks to the Hungarian government for the hospitality and organisation of this conference. It is a very large conference by almost any reckoning and I think the organisation has been absolutely excellent and I am most grateful for that.

    During the whole of the summit I think it is fair to say that two issues have dominated: Bosnia, of course, as it was always likely to do; and the future enlargement of NATO. On Bosnia I set out in my speech yesterday what was at stake and frankly I have very little to add to that. The British troops in Bosnia are there to help the protection forces discharge an humanitarian mandate, they are there to save lives. In the period that they have been there I believe they have saved many thousands of lives and they are there to keep the peace where there is a peace to be kept. They are emphatically not there to fight a war or to take sides.

    But if the events deteriorate to the point where United Nations troops and the British contingent can no longer carry out their mandate without unacceptable risk, then of course they will have to leave, and that is simply to state a matter of fact.

    I very much hope that it will not come to this, it certainly does not have to come to this. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Serb, Bosnian and Croat leaders in the last 48 hours and all of them, without exception, have said they would like the protection forces to stay. Now if that is a view sincerely held, the conclusion to be drawn is self-evident. The warring parties must, without delay, cease fire, allow the free passage of United Nations troops and aid and make it possible to re-start the peace negotiations.

    On the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation there has frankly been rather a lot of excitable comment this morning about an East-West rift. I think it is worthwhile looking at precisely what our aim should be. Our aim must be to spread eastwards the prosperity and the stability that members of the European Union and NATO now enjoy, and that is precisely why both organisations are currently developing ties with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, in a number of cases with a view to eventual membership of those organisations.

    We wish obviously to move gradually and carefully towards enlargement, building on the Partnership for Peace programme. I spent some time discussing this yesterday with President Yeltsin and this followed an earlier conversation on the same subject when he visited Chequers last September. And it is perfectly apparent from that discussion that President Yeltsin’s concern is that NATO would enlarge swiftly to Russia’s Western border, possibly starting as early as next year. I said to him in our conversation that in fact NATO’s proposals were to move cautiously and without deadlines. NATO’s study into future membership is about the how and the why of enlargement, not the who and when of future membership. I made it clear to President Yeltsin that the United Kingdom wanted the outcome of the study to be discussed openly with all Partnership for Peace partners, including Russia, and there should be no surprises and there should be no secret deals about the enlargement of NATO.

    I formed the impression that President Yeltsin was entirely satisfied with that approach. He is concerned with the pace and the scale of NATO’s enlargement, he does not want to see a new dividing line drawn across Europe and neither do any of the members of NATO or the would-be members of NATO wish to see such a dividing line. It is therefore very important for NATO to continue to build up its relationship with Russia and that is why I hope that Russia will soon be able to sign its Partnership for Peace agreements with NATO.

    The talk we have heard over the past 24 – 48 hours of a relapse into the Cold War ignores I think yesterday’s very substantial achievements – the strengthening of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty through the accession of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, the entry into force of START I, and a clearing of the way towards the ratification of START II. And I think what those agreements, signed yesterday, show, is that a great prize is still very much within reach between East and West, a partnership between Russia and the West from which the sharp hostilities of the Cold War will be absent.

    I think therefore that much of the talk about difficulties between NATO and Russia has been grotesquely overdone, there are concerns and I think those concerns can readily be met.

    During the period we have been here both I and the Foreign Secretary have had the opportunity of a large number of bilateral discussions with other Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government and that also has been a very useful adjunct to the conference as a whole.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC):

    How can you explain how the situation has arisen where you are talking of withdrawing troops when the Security Council resolution clearly gives you the right to use all necessary means to carry out the humanitarian mandate?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I explained that rather clearly yesterday, I think, Paul. The troops are there for an humanitarian purpose, for so long as they can safely carry out that humanitarian purpose, they will stay. I am not anxious for the troops to leave, quite the reverse, we were one of the first countries to send troops there in large numbers and we did so because of our humanitarian concern for what is happening there. But those troops are not equipped to fight a war and they are not there to fight a war and we have to have concern for the safety of those troops, as indeed to other troop contributors. And the point that I have been making is that if they cannot safely undertake their task then it is not credible for them to remain. I hope that will not occur but I have to warn that it could.

    QUESTION:

    Is the British government thinking in terms of time to withdraw their troops from the former Yugoslavia and to get a peace plan approved by the various sides?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we have not got a particular timescale in mind and as I indicated just now, I very much hope that it will not be necessary to withdraw troops. But if they cannot satisfactorily undertake their task, and it is not safe for them to remain, then we may have no choice. As far as seeking diplomatic conclusion is concerned, the Foreign Secretary has had a range of meetings over the last weekend with Foreign Minister Juppe, he met Mr Milosevic and others, the Contact Group are resuming and we very much hope the peace plan can move forward, the Foreign Secretary may wish to add to it. Certainly we wish to explore more diplomatic moves to see whether a settlement can be reached, that infinitely is the prize that we must all aim for.

    QUESTION (Nik Gowing, Channel 4 News):

    How much, if a withdrawal has to happen, will be dictated by what is happening on the ground, how much of it in the end will be dictated by your military advice which says Prime Minister if we do not go now, it is going to be increasingly difficult to withdraw. And secondly, is the withdrawal likely to take the 165 days which the UN mentioned at the beginning of last week or can it be done much quicker?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The points you raise are interlinked, of course. But the other point that needs to be made, it is not just a question of the British, it is a question of the other troops who are there as well, they are there as United Nations troops, of course we are particularly concerned about the British contingent there, but the United Nations themselves will be concerned about all the troops. We have to look both at what the situation is at present and what it looks as though it is going to become. Withdrawal is not an overnight affair so of course we must have contingency plans for that, but if you will forgive me I will not go into those in depth.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask if from the British point of view can we expect any concrete steps forward from the participants of this summit in connection with the Bosnian problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure what concrete will emerge from this particular summit except the frustration that everyone feels, there is a universal desire to end the fighting and reach a negotiated settlement and repeatedly that universal desire is frustrated on the ground by one party or another. So I think undoubtedly there is a huge amount of frustration about that. What in concrete terms may emerge from this summit, I am not sure that this summit is going to produce anything that will definitively move the process forward and I am not sure it was ever likely that it will be able to do so.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I think the sequences of what needs to happen is now increasingly accepted, the order of things, though some of the substance of them is difficult. First, there has to be a ceasefire and a cessation of hostilities, beginning in Bihac. There is an argument about how long it should be for, arguments about how it should be worked out, and that is really for the UN on the ground to negotiate, as Mr Akashi is trying to do. Then there needs to be acceptance of the Contact Group plan. As you know, it is accepted by everybody except the Bosnian Serbs and even some of them yesterday in Belgrade said they should accept it, that is a new development, foreshadowed to Alain Juppe and myself by Mr Milosevic when we saw him the night before last. But that plan is not yet accepted by the Bosnian Serbs. Then there can be talks about territorial adjustments, about land swaps, among the parties to see if such swaps can be agreed. At the same time there can be talks about Constitutional arrangements, as set out in the Contact Group document. And then there needs to be a Bosnian Serb withdrawal to the 49 percent which under the Contact Group plan they would be entitled to occupy within Bosnia Herzegovina, the integrity of whose frontiers is stated by the Contact Group plan.

    So that is the sequence of events. As I say, there is argument at several points of it, but everyone I have talked to, all members of the Contact Group, President Milosevic, President Izetbegovic, President Tudjman, accept that that is the sequence, that is the order in which these things ought to happen.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As the Foreign Secretary sets out, the route map to peace is perfectly clear. The question at issue is whether the leaders of the opposing groups will actually march down that route, we very much wish to see them do so.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, the Baltic States is considered during all the European structures as a security question but at the same time in Western countries sometimes we hear about some neutrality or special status of the Baltic States because of the neighbourhood of Russia. What is your opinion about these things?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    NATO itself is developing a Partnership for Peace proposal which stretches straight through to Russia and includes Russia. We very much wish Russia to take a full part in the Partnership for Peace. That is a stepping stone. We need to deal with the realities of what needs to be done to avoid awakening old fears across Europe.

    Of course NATO is going to enlarge – that is no longer in question – but NATO is going to enlarge cautiously and carefully and I think no-one should be in any doubt about that. There is a great deal to be done. It isn’t just a political point, it is a military point as well. One needs to ensure that the circumstances are satisfactory for a cautious but worthwhile and continuing enlargement of NATO. That will take some time. In the meantime, Partnership for Peace is a very attractive and very worthwhile stepping stone.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    We certainly see the Baltic States as part of the European family, a welcome part, and we British are very active there, for example with the Nordic countries training the Baltic peacekeeping battalion and last Monday we agreed in the Foreign Affairs Council on a mandate to open negotiations for the next agreement between the European Union and the Baltic States. As the Prime Minister has said, they are part of the Partnership for Peace; they have all three agreed to the Partnership for Peace and are working out the actual content of each Partnership agreement for each of the three countries so things are on the move and I think they will make steady progress.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I had the opportunity of meeting the Baltic leaders not very long ago in Vilnius and we had the opportunity of discussing all this and how the progress forward might come and I think they are very realistic about what can be achieved and in what time-scale.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant , BBC TV):

    Prime Minister, can I ask you a question on the burning domestic issue and that is can you confirm that if the Government were to lose on the VAT issue you wouldn’t try to make up the shortfall by increasing borrowing and are you prepared to make a last minute appeal to potential rebels not to carry out their threat because if they do so at the very least the Government would be seriously embarrassed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope we are going to win the vote this evening on the Budget resolution, I very much hope we are going to win; I shall no doubt learn more about that when I return to the United Kingdom later on this afternoon but the Chancellor set out the circumstances yesterday and I am going to say no more in Budapest this afternoon.

    QUESTION (RAI ITALIAN TV, CHANNEL 3):

    Mr. Prime Minister, do you believe an arms sale embargo should be lifted in Bosnia and in your talk with President Yeltsin what has emerged as an obstacle to developing a common document on Bosnia which is not coming out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me deal with the first point of lifting the arms embargo. We don’t believe lifting the arms embargo would be a wise development; we don’t believe that would aid peace. We do believe that lifting the arms embargo would make it impossible for the United Nations humanitarian mission to safely continue and if the humanitarian mission were to leave that is going to have very profound effects for a lot of people and I think it highly appropriate for people to think what would be the position on the ground if the arms embargo were lifted and the United Nations troops were to move. The single simple question to ask oneself is does that bring peace nearer or does that bring peace further away and I think the answer to that question is self-evident; it takes peace further away, it puts more people’s lives at risk, many more people would be killed and who knows to what extent the war then would spread.

    I don’t believe it is appropriate to have a situation where United Nations troops have had to go, the arms embargo has been lifted and one then sees a much wider war perhaps spreading southwards. Who can tell what precisely would happen? It is conceivable that events will force us down that path but we will not go down it willingly because we think it will add to the bloodshed and not end the bloodshed and it has been our determination to end it from the start of this conflict.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    On the second point, efforts were made to agree a separate document on Bosnia and our delegation tried to reconcile different points of view so there could be a document. My understanding, unless there has been some breakthrough in the last ten minutes, is it has not been possible to agree such a document. Our guidance is therefore the decisions of the Contact Group, the Security Council and indeed under the Security Council of the North Atlantic Council.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t speak for the last ten minutes but it certainly wasn’t agreed fifteen minutes ago.

    QUESTION (Ian Black, Guardian):

    Can I ask you, Prime Minister, whether you are not becoming increasingly concerned about the possible damage to relations between Britain and the United States over the situation in Bosnia? We have had the argument within NATO about bombing and we had Senator Dole in London last week. Is this not going to get worse and worse as long as this situation continues?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think when people look at differences between the United Kingdom and the United States these days they are confusing differences between Congress and the British Government rather than the American Administration and the British Government.

    The American Administration I think now very largely shares our view about the dangers of unilateral lift and what in practice would happen as a result of unilateral lift, so there are no strains of the sort that many people were forecasting some time ago between the British and the United States administrations about this. If I may borrow the word I used a few moments ago, we are both frustrated about the lack of progress, we both want to see a negotiated settlement. I think we both now recognise the dangers of unilateral lift.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I had a long talk last night with Warren Christopher before he went off to Damascus and I must say I felt quite strongly at the end of this talk that we and the United States, after a period of disagreement, were now actually moving in outline and in detail in the same direction. Since the Contact Group agreement on Friday night, the United States has had its contacts with some of the parties, we have had our contacts with some of the parties, we have compared notes, we were all saying the same thing so this is now an effort which we and the Administration are pursuing together. There are voices outside the Administration just as there are voices in Britain who take a different line but the two governments are working closely together.

    QUESTION (Peter Oborne, Evening Standard):

    Mr. Major, at the weekend your Cabinet colleague, Peter Lilley, said that the group of nine should have the whip reinstated at once. Do you share that view?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He didn’t say that. What Peter Lilley said was that there was no choice but to withdraw the whip and he hoped colleagues would return in due course. He didn’t put a time-scale that. I hope colleagues will continue to support the Conservative Government. In due course, therefore, they will no doubt wish to return to the Conservative whip but I think you are putting words into Peter’s mouth.

    QUESTION (Peter Oborne, Evening Standard):

    Secondly, what will you do to those who vote against the Government or abstain tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made it clear that I hope colleagues will support us tonight. I don’t propose to go further than that, you would be surprised if I did. I think that comes into the category of “Very good try, Peter!”

    QUESTION (National Review):

    Back to Bosnia for a minute, Sir. In your speech yesterday you emphasised that no side in the conflict there can expect to gain a military victory. Isn’t that precisely what is happening at the moment with the Serbs occupying 70% of the land there? If, therefore, the British contingent of the UN peace force is brought home, what danger remains, what justification exists for still not allowing the Bosnian government the right to defend themselves through lifting the arms embargo once that danger has been removed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are drawing two things together that don’t necessarily follow. I think it is very likely that if not the British but the United Nations protection forces were to withdraw, then very probably the arms embargo would be lifted but that is a separate proposition from lifting the arms embargo with United Nations troops in the middle of Bosnia and of course there are different things happening in different parts of Bosnia – there are Bosnian advances in parts of central Bosnia.

    One of the things that has bedevilled this whole enterprise from the start is that when one has moved close to what one thought might be a conceivable diplomatic settlement, one side or other has sensed some territorial advantage of the weeks or months that lie immediately ahead and at that stage the diplomatic settlement has slipped away and of course that has happened on a roller coaster basis time and time again.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary, what kind of message do you think it delivers to people living in Europe that this Conference apparently is unable to agree even on words that should be spoken about the greatest crisis on the Continent which is the war in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It would have been very agreeable, we may yet get an agreement but we hadn’t as at fifteen minutes ago; it would have been very agreeable to have had one. I think what they would be better advised to look at is the large number of people in Europe who are anxious for a settlement, who have been sufficiently anxious for a settlement not only to put diplomatic effort into achieving a settlement but troops and humanitarian activities on the ground to try and promote a settlement and ease the suffering until there is a settlement but there are people with sharply differing views here and that is why it has not been possible thus far to agree a form of words.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I don’t honestly think that many people are sitting up looking at their watches and saying: “When is the CSCE going to produce its document on Bosnia?” That is not what is preoccupying people really. The CSCE has to adopt everything by unanimity and that does put a limitation on what it can agree but what has happened – and quite dramatically – over the last few weeks is that all kinds of different ideas about how you can achieve peace in Bosnia have been examined and at least for the moment dismissed. There is no mention in the Contact Group document of the arms embargo; no government is now pressing for that to be lifted. There is no mention of a military victory, indeed it is excluded as a possibility and President Clinton was clear about that yesterday so everyone who is seriously engaged in this matter is now talking about a negotiated peace. Then you lead into how you achieve that and of course that is extremely difficult and has frustrated everybody up to now but then you get into the sequence of events which I mentioned before which I won’t repeat so there has been a lot of clearing out of ideas which don’t fit the present situation and that is helpful because if you are going to seek to do the things that are necessary you have to get out of your mind the things that aren’t possible.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In the best-organised circumstances unanimity is not always possible.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky TV):

    I was just wondering about the remarks the Russian Foreign Minister has made about the sanctions on Serbia wondering whether there can be agreement amongst the Contact Group at least that those sanctions are lifted so that you might get Mr. Milosevic to put some pressure on Mr. Karadzic to actually get them to the peace table.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Foreign Secretary met Mr. Milosevic the other day and spent an hour and a half with Mr. Kozyrev this morning so he is perhaps better placed than I am to give you an up-to-date answer.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    Both Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Kozyrev believe that the international community has not sufficiently recognised President Milosevic’s courage in accepting the Contact Group plan; they believe that it should be further recognised by further relief of sanctions. Alain Juppe and I have explained to both of them that that is not practicable unless there is further progress. There has been some relief as you know, there are now flights into Belgrade airport, certain events which fell under sanctions have been relieved and there is a provision for humanitarian relief but further lifting of sanctions will have to depend in practice on further progress and President Milosevic knows that.

  • PMQT – 6 December 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th December 1994. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    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 has been attending the Budapest summit of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

    Mrs. Prentice: What advice would the Leader of the House give to his hon. Friends who have made public commitments to vote against any rise in VAT on fuel? Should they stand by their principles and their constituents or should they abandon those principles, ditch their constituents and toe the Tory party line?

    Mr. Newton: My advice to my hon. Friends would be to recognise the importance of the vote tonight and the fact that it will be incumbent on those who wish to vote as the hon. Lady suggests–as she will, no doubt, vote herself–to show a credible alternative and not some cop-out like a windfall tax. The alternatives are other taxes, cuts in expenditure or additional borrowing, with all that that might mean for interest rates.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of the British people are opposed to any fundamental constitutional change? They do not wish to see a Scandinavian-style monarchy and they do not wish to see a socialist republic. They believe that any such changes would be highly expensive and totally unnecessary. They believe, “If it works, don’t fix it.”

    Mr. Newton: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for the large majority of people in this country in finding it almost unbelievable that the Labour party apparently thinks that its first priority should be to have a year of constitutional upheaval, involving all British institutions, including Parliament, and threatening the Union. I believe that Labour has greatly underestimated the strength and depth of public support for the monarchy.

    Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in tonight’s vote on VAT there will be two types of Tory Member: those who will abide by their specific promise made at the general election not to extend VAT on fuel and those who will make any promise to get elected with no intention of keeping to it even when some of the poorest people in our country will be affected?

    Mr. Newton: From what the right hon. Gentleman says, I suppose that we can assume that there will be only one kind of Labour Member–one who votes for an irresponsible cop-out.

    Mr. Blair: Is the Leader of the House really saying that there is no other way to restore the nation’s finances than through this most hated and unpopular tax? Why does he not look first at the executive share options, the abuses of inheritance tax and the windfall profits made by utilities rather than taxing families and pensioners?

    Mr. Newton: I have already described the windfall tax as a cop-out; by definition, a windfall must be a one-off and cannot replace a continuing stream of revenue. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s loopholes, I remind him of the words of the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who said that this

    “is not a loophole-closing exercise at all, rather a massive increase in business taxation”.

    That is the clue to the Opposition’s position. They prattle all the time about their desire to encourage employment, but every time they are pushed, they want to put up business taxes, raise social costs and damage investment and jobs.

    Mr. Blair: Is it really the nation’s finances that concern the right hon. Gentleman, or the Conservative party’s pre-election tax cuts? May I summarise the strategy for which Tory Members of Parliament will vote tonight? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order in this House. [Interruption.] Order–from all of you.

    Mr. Blair: May I summarise the strategy of Tory Members of Parliament for next year? The price of tax cuts next winter will be some of Britain’s pensioners freezing in their own homes this week.

    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman would have done better to stick to his recent practice of asking rather fewer questions. My priority and the priority of Her Majesty’s Government is to sustain an economic recovery, which is now giving us some of the strongest growth in Europe, low inflation, rapidly falling unemployment and the prospect of improving living standards. That is what we intend to maintain, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman would throw away.

     

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

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that any decision regarding the Royal Air Force’s future requirement for transport aircraft will not be taken until the spring, when all the alternatives, including the future large aircraft and British Aerospace’s commitment to maintain the existing Hercules fleet at 20 per cent. below the present cost, will have been fully evaluated?

    Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has made it clear that we hope to be able to make an announcement on tranche 3 of the Hercules rolling replacement programme shortly. All relevant factors will be taken into account and, I am sure, will include my hon. Friend’s representations on behalf of his constituents.

     

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

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Loyden: Does the Leader of the House recall a question asked during Business Question Time about the provision of a copy of the report of the marine accident investigation branch into the recent research done on the MV Derbyshire? Obviously, the Leader of the House made no impression on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport because, in fact, the report is not in the Library. I was also surprised today to see a letter telling the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which had asked for a copy of the report, that the report was a matter for the Secretary of State. Does the Leader of the House not think that the bereaved families, the House and the country are entitled to know what that report says about the investigation carried out and financed by an international union and the RMT?

    Mr. Newton: I well understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter and the continuing concern of bereaved families about the loss of the Derbyshire. The position is that the chief inspector of marine accidents submitted his assessment of the sonar and video material provided by the International Transport Workers Federation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 30 November–less than a week ago. My right hon. Friend is currently considering whether further action needs to taken. I shall, of course, bring to his attention the request that the hon. Gentleman has made.

    Mr. Walden: Does my right hon. Friend think that when a Member of this House makes proposals concerning the constitution it is grown-up politics or intelligent politics for Ministers to hunt him like a pack of demented corgis? How does my right hon. Friend think that we as a party can hope to reconcile the encouragement of indiscriminate deference towards well-born nonentities with our policy of encouraging and promoting social talent in this country?

    Mr. Newton: I would say to my hon. Friends what I said in answer to a previous question. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and some of his colleagues have significantly underestimated the strength and depth of public support for the monarchy, which is not the same as saying that there will not be continued evolution, as there has been during the past couple of years. More important than that, however, I believe that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have gravely overestimated the public’s desire to see constitutional upheaval, including the monarchy, all over the scene. I do not believe that that is what the British public want.

     

    Q5. Dr. Howells: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Dr. Howells: Does the Leader of the House agree that British troops in UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia are doing a superb job in difficult and dangerous circumstances, and that the attacks on General Mike Rose and on British troops by American Congressmen and Bosnian politicians are completely unwarranted and seem designed more to promote further bloodshed than to reach a peaceful situation in the area?

    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the way in which he put it. It is clear that it is widely supported in the House. For my part, and on behalf of the Government, I can say straightforwardly that we do not accept the criticism of General Rose. He and his small, courageous force are doing an excellent job in the most difficult and trying circumstances and they will continue to have our full support. I might add–I know that there is some concern in the House about the matter–that I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has been much involved with the contact group over the weekend, will wish to make a statement tomorrow.

    Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern and that of the several hundred people who have contacted me about the case of one of my constituents, the elderly pensioner Mr. Ted Newbery? Is he aware that Mr. Newbery was acquitted by a jury of the action that he took in self-defence against a burglar? The burglar was gaoled. Yet the cleared Mr. Newbery has been asked to compensate the guilty burglar. Does my right hon. Friend agree that justice has not been done, that Mr. Newbery’s case should be re-heard and that the law that is applied in such circumstances must be reviewed?

    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is present on the Government Front Bench and will have heard what she said. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand–she may even have anticipated what I am about to say–that I must make the point that the judiciary is entirely independent of Government and that it is not the practice for Ministers to comment on its decisions in quite the way that she invites me to do. On the other hand, she will have gauged, as no doubt others have also done, the reaction in the House generally to the events that she has described.

     

    Q6. Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Leader of the House aware that Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein claims to have no semtex in his hands? Will he assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government will not be misled by such blandishments? In the light of the Hamas parallel in Israel, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the guard will not be lowered, nor the entry requirement for talks?

    Mr. Newton: The handing over of arms and explosives is, as I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates, an important issue to be addressed in the exploratory dialogue which begins on Friday. I can give the hon. Gentleman a clear-cut assurance on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends that Her Majesty’s Government will not leave the people of Northern Ireland–or, indeed, of Great Britain–exposed.

    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party will always seek to protect those parents who rightly put the interests of their children first in making a choice about where to send their children to school, even if that means defending the Leader of the Opposition from the policies of his own party?

    Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend knows, the policy of Her Majesty’s Government is not only to defend the right of choice of parents in these and other circumstances, but, so far as possible, to enhance and increase them. What I would really like to hear from Opposition Front-Bench Members- -I can see several who have opposed this in the past–is a clear-cut commitment to call off their local authorities, which are trying to frustrate that choice throughout the country.

     

    Q7. Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Davies: As the chair of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has stated, the Student Loans Company Ltd. is in such chaos that students are being denied the resources which the Government say they require in order to live. What do the Government intend to do about that?

    Mr. Newton: What I will do on this occasion is to make the point that the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has just made appears inconsistent with the fact that, during this Government’s period in office, participation in higher education has risen from one in eight of the relevant group to one in three.

  • Mr Major’s Comments at the Signing Ceremony of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – 5 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments at the signing ceremony of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, held in Budapest on Monday 5th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [First section not recorded]

    … and I believe this will send a further positive signal about the strong commitment of these countries to European and global security and stability but these decisions of course do more than that: they open the doors for the entry into force of START 1 and the ratification of START 2 and both those treaties are significant milestones in nuclear disarmament and we need them to be successful if we are to see the safer world that all of us hope to see in the future.

    These developments illustrate the character of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is the only internationally-agreed framework for negotiations on nuclear disarmament and it is why we must all work together for the indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty in 1995. Against this background, the United Kingdom is pleased to join the United States and the Russian Federation in extending to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine the nuclear security assurances which we have given in the past to other non-nuclear-weapon states.

    I believe that it is appropriate that this ceremony should take place during the CSCE summit. By offering nuclear assurances we underline our commitment to work for the security, the peace and the prosperity of all the CSCE participating states and to do so on a continuing basis and on the basis of the principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris. I believe to say that today is an historic day is in no sense to overstate what has been achieved and what has been signed on this occasion. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bosnia – 5 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments during an interview on 5th December 1994 relating to Bosnia.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the possibility of early British withdrawal from Bosnia]

    ANSWER:

    I don’t think anyone can be certain about that at the moment. We very much do not wish to withdraw the British troops there. The UNPROFOR troops generally have done a marvellous job; there are huge numbers of people alive today who would not have been alive but for UNPROFOR but if the circumstances become impossible, if the sides are not prepared to reach an agreement, if the fighting goes on, then it might be necessary for UNPROFOR to withdraw. Certainly that possibility is greater now than it was a month or so ago.