The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Department of Transport

    Ms Walley : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to abolish the Department of Transport or merge it with another Government Department.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Disability

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers have been given a specific responsibility for disabled people within their respective departmental portfolios.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People has a cross-Government remit for all issues affecting disabled people. The Cabinet Office produces a list of ministerial responsibilities which identifies the responsibilities of all Ministers, including those with specific, designated responsibility for matters affecting disabled people within their departments. The list was updated in May and copies placed in both Libraries. Copies can also be obtained from the Vote Office on request.

     

    Civil Rights (Disabled Persons)

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects ministerial consultation on legislation providing civil rights to the disabled will be complete; and if he will introduce a Government Bill before the summer recess.

    The Prime Minister : In reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on 10 May 1994, Official Report, column 153, I stated that consultation would take place within six months. Preparations are now well advanced on proposals to help disabled people. Consultation will start as soon as possible and is expected to last for three months. No legislation will be introduced in advance of consultation.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    The Prime Minister : 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.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 13 May to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will make an assessment of the background work and credentials of Mr. Max van der Stoel for making a report on Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : Mr. van der Stoel is the United Nations special rapporteur on Iraq. It is for the chairman of the Commission on Human Rights to appoint special rapporteurs, who must be impartial. Mr. van der Stoel’s international reputation and his wide experience of human rights issues make him an excellent choice as rapporteur on human rights in Iraq.

  • PMQT – 16 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Clappison : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

    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. Clappison : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months this country lost the lowest ever number of days to strikes? Is it not sad that that record is being spoilt by a trade union which, in pursuit of an 11 per cent. pay claim, yesterday inflicted hardship and inconvenience on thousands of travellers and commuters, including many of my constituents in Hertfordshire? Is it not conspicuous that that is not being condemned in any quarter by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : Overall, our industrial relations record is extremely good, and the number of days lost in strikes is lower than it has been for more than 100 years. We now lose fewer days to strikes than Germany, France or the United States per head of population. As for yesterday’s strike, the disruption that was caused to millions of people was inexcusable. Most of the public sector has settled on increases around the rate of inflation. The dispute is over a bid for an 11 per cent. increase before negotiations have even begun about productivity. It is unacceptable, it cannot be right and it should be condemned by every Member of the House.

    Mrs. Beckett : Can the Prime Minister confirm that when yesterday his Chancellor ruled out tax cuts he was admitting what the Prime Minister refused to admit on Tuesday–that a second round of tax increases will go ahead next year and will cost a typical British family £800 a year more in tax?

    The Prime Minister : I suppose that there must be some occasion on which the right hon. Lady will address the current issue of the strike and not wriggle away from it. If she is so concerned about tax, perhaps she will now withdraw all the public expenditure promises that she and her colleagues have made, and which inevitably would lead to higher taxation in future. If she will not withdraw those public expenditure promises, will she please indicate how they will be paid for and by what amount tax will rise?

    Mrs. Beckett : That is twice in one week that the Prime Minister has refused to answer the question. Let us try again. Taxes will go up next year, won’t they? Just say yes.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady knows the contents of the Budget and knows also that she is wriggling and hiding behind promises that she cannot substantiate. Our tax position is clear and open and people know what it is. We have set out a position that is right for this country and which has brought this country back to better economic circumstances than it has known for many years. That is an honest and straightforward position, unlike the position of the right hon. Lady who makes promises of increased expenditure with no indication whatever as to whether she will borrow to meet them and put up interest rates, or tax to meet them, or break those promises.

    Mrs. Beckett : But does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor that those tax increases, and the threat of interest rate increases, are a direct result of the Government’s economic failure and their track record of boom and bust? Whom does he think the Chancellor was condemning–Lord Lawson as Mr. Boom, or the Prime Minister himself as Mr. Bust?

    The Prime Minister : That was very well rehearsed, but it will not win the right hon. Lady very many votes. As for interest rates, I wonder if the right hon. Lady can remember a time when interest rates under a Labour Government were as low as they have been under this Government for the past 15 months. I wonder if she can remember a time when inflation was as low as it is under this Government now. I wonder if she can remember a time when our growth rate was twice as high as that of our European competitors. The answer is that she cannot–and, under any Labour Government, that would never be so.

    Mr. Butler : Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Labour party has voted against every single tax reduction that has been introduced, over many years, by Conservative Governments, and has voted against every tax increase? Does he consider that to be consistency or stupidity?

    Madam Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the Executive that is responsible to the House, and the Executive that must answer questions, not the Opposition. That is the basis on which our democracy is built.

    Mr. Butler : I apologise, Madam Speaker. It was because I was so surprised to be called.

    Would my right hon. Friend consider such conduct on the part of his party to be consistent or stupid, had it taken place?

    The Prime Minister : The Opposition’s position is certainly consistently stupid, and stupidly consistent.

     

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

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

    Mr. Mackinlay : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the people are often much more sensible than politicians? If so, has he reflected that last week–not only in Essex, but in a continuous, uninterrupted line from Dover to Oban–his policies were rejected and Labour’s were endorsed? Does he not recognise that he is increasingly seen as the captain of the Titanic–carrying on regardless, blaming the iceberg and determined to rearrange the deckchairs while he puts people’s lives at risk with his own reckless policies?

    The Prime Minister : Well, that was quite an effort. There are certainly occasions on which the public are much more sensible than politicians. They were much more sensible than Opposition politicians in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, and they will be more sensible than Opposition politicians again at a later date in 1996 or 1997.

    Mr. Butcher : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the administration of law in this country now protects the civil liberties of yobs, bullies, violent criminals and drug barons so effectively that the civil liberties of the law-abiding majority are endangered ? The Conservative party never wanted that, the people never wanted it and the Cabinet never wanted it. If the legal structure is being undermined, should we not find out who the termites are before introducing further criminal justice legislation?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is necessary to look at the interests of the majority of the people in the country. I share my hon. Friend’s view : our present criminal justice legislation was formulated with that very much in mind, as were some of the ideas that I have outlined to the House on other occasions.

     

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

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

    Mr. Flynn : Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in support of his campaign for a more civilised Question Time, which I hope is still continuing, and in the hope of a rational reply, 24 hours ago I sent him the following supplementary question : because of his own personal responsibility and his Government’s responsibility for introducing and promoting personal pensions, will he now give, in clear and simple language, a guarantee that the millions of people who opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and occupational schemes and who have been subjected to bad advice will have all their losses made up and their full pension rights restored?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may not be quite aware of the present situation. The regulator has made it clear that he will use his powers to ensure that anyone who was mis-sold a pension will have a remedy. There is no need for investors in personal pensions to be too concerned ; the hon. Gentleman should have understood that. Within the next few weeks, the Securities and Investments Board is due to publish a full report setting out the terms of redress which should be applied to investors who have been disadvantaged by that advice. They would be wise to wait for that report and not listen to the hon. Gentleman’s scaremongering.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that before the national health service reforms there was no such thing as equality of health treatment in this country and it depended entirely on where one lived? If one lived in Lancaster, one received good treatment, but if one lived in parts of the rest of the country, one did not. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following the reforms, best practice is spreading throughout the land?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that that is the case. The health reforms are spreading best practice in every part of the United Kingdom and removing many of the anomalies that existed previously. That, and the increased resources available to the national health service, are intended to ensure that we have the best possible national health service for our nation that we can possibly afford.

     

    Q4. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Ms Eagle : Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government are currently spending £121,800 a year of taxpayers’ money on the salary of the chairman of Railtrack, who works only a three-day week? Is that value for money?

    The Prime Minister : If he turns Railtrack into the efficient organisation that customers who use trains wish to see, yes.

     

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

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

    Mr. Duncan : Will the Prime Minister convey to the local government commission my constituents’ overwhelming gratitude for recommending the return of the ancient and valiant little county of Rutland? Will he hop across from Huntingdonshire and hang a horseshoe in Oakham castle to celebrate that sensible and popular decision?

    The Prime Minister : I know from my own experience how strong my hon. Friend’s campaign for the return of Rutland has been and I congratulate him on the outcome. He mentioned other counties. I am familiar with one near to Rutland, which I hope will also return. I believe that questionnaires are to be sent to every household, which means that local people will be able to express their views on the matter and on what they wish the outcome to be. That is the right way to proceed.

     

    Q6. Mr. Keith Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Hill : If the Cabinet is so bad that it needs a drastic reshuffle, as he promised on Monday, should not the Prime Minister take his fair share of the blame and reshuffle himself as well?

    The Prime Minister : In the interests of helping the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him, first, that whereas on Tuesday he told the House that unemployment was up in his constituency, today I can tell the House after yesterday’s figures that it is down–and I hope that he is grateful. The words that he metaphorically put in inverted commas–“drastic reshuffle”–have not crossed my lips.

    Mr. Lamont : May I urge the Prime Minister at the forthcoming summit in Corfu to reject firmly the candidature of the Belgian Prime Minister for the presidency of the Commission? Even if Britain did not have an excellent candidate with a brilliant negotiating track record, is it not true that Mr. Dehaene is a federalist of the old-fashioned type and that no Belgian candidate would resist the ever-increasing demands of the Brussels bureaucracy?

    The Prime Minister : At the moment there are only two declared candidates for the post–Sir Leon Brittan, whom we back strongly, and Dr. Ruud Lubbers. Both are highly respected in the European Community and are well known to all the member states. I have made no secret of my belief that Leon Brittan is the right candidate to be President of the Commission and he will have our strong support at Corfu. At this stage, I am not prepared to declare a position on any other candidate or possible candidate.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Referendums

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of the referendums on (a) membership of the European Community and (b) Scottish devolution.

    The Prime Minister : The cost to public funds of the 1975 referendum on membership of the European Community was £6,100,000. The 1979 referendum on devolution for Scotland cost £820,500.

     

    Finance

    Mr. Whitney : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are being made to finance No. 10 Downing street, the Whips Offices, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the ceremonial branch.

    The Prime Minister : Responsibility for No. 10, the Whips Offices, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the ceremonial branch has been transferred, within the Cabinet Office, from the Office of Public Service and Science vote to the other services vote, with effect from 1 April 1994.

    Parliamentary approval of this transfer of expenditure will be sought in a summer supplementary estimate for the Cabinet Office other services vote, class XIX, vote 1. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £7,365,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

     

    Cash Limits

    Sir Cranley Onslow : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to change the 1994-95 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office other services vote.

    The Prime Minister : Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for Cabinet Office other services, class XIX, vote 1, will be increased by £16,366,000 from £27,015,000 to £43,381,000. At the same time the running costs limit will be increased by £15,467,000 from £26,295,000 to £41,762, 000.

    The increase reflects the transfer of certain administrative functions and provision from the Cabinet Office Office of Public Service and Science vote, class XVIII, vote 1, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 June 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Convention on Human Rights

    Mr. Maclennan : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to ratify the 11th protocol to the European convention on human rights.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom signed protocol 11 to the European convention on human rights on 11 May 1994, the date on which it was opened for signature. We intend to ratify the protocol in due course.

     

    Student Awards

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if the Departments of Social Security and of Employment and the Department for Education will jointly address funding of students aged over 19 years on full-time courses following the reduction in availability of discretionary awards.

    The Prime Minister : Full-time higher education students at undergraduate level are generally eligible for a mandatory award, regardless of their age. The report of the independent survey of discretionary awards provision, published by the Gulbenkian Foundation on 8 April, estimates an increase of 20 per cent. in the total number of discretionary awards made between the 1990-91 and 1993-94 academic years.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is currently considering his response to the Gulbenkian report. My right hon. Friends and their Departments regularly consult on matters of mutual concern, including student support.

     

    Government Information

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to publish his office’s guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing his office’s guidance.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

     

    Pan Am 103

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Government of Germany about the attitudes of the legal authorities in Scotland and Germany towards those accused of perpetrating the crime against Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister : None. The case is in the hands of the prosecuting authorities.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

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

     

    European Union

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister whether continuing membership of the European Union is dependent on member Governments being opposed to all forms of authoritarian rule in their own country; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : It is a fundamental principle of the European Union, reflected in both the preamble and article F of the treaty on European Union, that its member states have systems of government founded on the principles of democracy.

     

    Correspondence

    Mrs. Roche : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 May, Official Report, column 470, if his office will seek to obtain a copy of the receipt and letter for the Ritz hotel in Paris referred to in the correspondence between the Prime Minister and Mr. Peter Preston, editor of The Guardian.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave on 18 May 1994, Official Report, column 470.

     

    Post Office

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 May, Official Report, column 102, what considerations he is taking into account in determining whether a leak inquiry would be justified.

    The Prime Minister : It is not the usual practice to give details about such matters.

     

    Climate Change Conference

    Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to attend the first conference of the parties to the Framework convention on climate change to be held in Berlin from 27 March to 7 April 1995; and what will be his targets for the conference.

    The Prime Minister : No decisions have yet been taken on attendance at the conference of parties in 1995. The convention requires that meeting to resolve a number of issues relating to the operation of the convention and the implementation of parties’ commitments. The United Kingdom will be looking for a successful resolution of those issues.

     

    Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)

    Mr. Milburn : To ask the Prime Minister how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by (a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14 ; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

    The Prime Minister : Information about job offers is not held centrally. For the areas covered by the Cabinet Office and Office of Public Service and Science votes, the number of applications to join companies is as follows :

    Job applications under the business appointment rules

    |1984|1985|1986|1987|1988|1989|1990|1991|1992|1993

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    By Grade

    Grade 3 and above |1 |1 |1 |3 |6 |3 |4 |7 |- |1

    Below Grade 3 |- |- |1 |- |- |- |1 |- |2 |4

    By Function

    People in contract/procurement sections (under section 15 of rules) |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |3

    People in other sections (under section 14 of rules) |1 |1 |2 |3 |6 |3 |5 |7 |2 |2

     

    Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlay the Government’s decision not to seek to amend the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill at Committee stage; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Although the Government share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people, we favour specific legislation. Despite concerns about the Bill’s clarity, affordability and practicality, we examined it in detail, in a considered way, at Committee stage to see whether any parts of it were appropriate and acceptable. Having decided that the Bill could not be accepted, the Government subsequently announced their intention to consult within six months on proposals for action in five key areas : employment, access to goods and services, financial services, access to buildings and the establishment of a new advisory body on disability.

     

    Beggars

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on the subject of beggars in the last three months.

    The Prime Minister : I have received numerous representations.

     

    Third-party Claims

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 15 March, what success Her Majesty’s Government have had in persuading eastern European countries, which are not yet members of the third-party liability regime, to join the convention system, and implement its provisions in their national law; and what agreements have been reached with recipient states on the indemnification of western countries for third-party claims in the event of an accident at a plant that they have assisted.

    The Prime Minister : Several eastern European countries, among them Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and Romania, already belong to the Vienna convention. The Czech Republic acceded to it in March. Estonia acceded in May.

    A number of other countries in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have still to accede. This is a matter of concern to all those interested in helping them to improve nuclear safety. Every opportunity, both bilaterally and multilaterally, is being taken to persuade them of the importance of acceding to the Vienna convention and implementing its provisions in their national legislation. The Government of the United States have concluded interim indemnity agreements with Russia and Ukraine. These cover material provided under the United States bilateral nuclear safety assistance programmes to those two countries. As an interim measure, the European Commission is continuing to negotiate an appropriate indemnity from the Governments of Russia and Ukraine for European companies involved in the European Union nuclear safety assistance programme.

  • PMQT – 14 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

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

    Mr. McAllion : The family of Andrew de Vries, the British citizen gunned down in Texas earlier this year, has been campaigning for a federal investigation into the misconduct of the homicide inquiry by the local authorities in Houston. So far, it has uncovered many inconsistencies and blatant lies in the flawed official version of events. Will the Prime Minister now overrule the Foreign Office which, until now, has steadfastly refused any Government support for the family’s campaign? Does he accept that if he, too, chooses to ignore the massive injustice inflicted on that British citizen travelling under the protection of a British passport, many people will conclude that those who travel under that passport in future will do so at their own risk, as they will receive no protection whatever from the British Government when they face the direst emergencies in a foreign land?

    The Prime Minister : That was a very tragic death in unusual circumstances and I should like to add my sympathy to Mr. de Vries’s parents and friends. It was an appalling incident and I know that the hon. Gentleman has given a great deal of help and comfort to the family. The trial was conducted according to Texan law and procedures and the grand jury decided not to proceed with an indictment. I believe that the best way forward at present is for Mr. de Vries’s parents to put their points to their US legal representatives and be guided by the advice that they receive from them. I will certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman and, of course, Mr. and Mrs. de Vries, are kept fully informed of any information that may come to the Government. We shall offer any advice that we can, but I do not think that it is for us to campaign. Advising is a different matter.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning tomorrow’s strike by railway signalmen, which will bring misery and inconvenience to millions of people trying to get to work or go on their holidays? Does he agree that those running for the Labour party leadership should condemn that selfish action with equal vigour?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend that the strike is unnecessary and very much regret that it is taking place. I hope that, even at this late stage, it will be possible for the two sides to negotiate on the package that is there to be discussed. If the strike is to go ahead, I assure my hon. Friend that action has been taken by the relevant Department to ensure that a substantial amount of parking space will be available in London to enable as many people as possible to continue with their normal work.

    Mrs. Beckett : Can the Prime Minister confirm that it is still his intention to increase VAT on gas and electricity from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent?

    The Prime Minister : It is very interesting that the right hon. Lady does not want to discuss the question of a strike. [Interruption.] I think that the whole country will have noticed that that is the case and will probably understand precisely why. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any changes in taxation plans, he will announce them in the usual way at the usual time.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is not it the case that next year, with VAT up– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is not it the case that next year, with VAT up and tax allowances–including mortgage interest relief–cut, people will be paying more VAT, more national insurance and more income tax and, as a result, a typical British family who are paying £500 more tax this year will be paying £800 more tax next year?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Lady is so concerned about tax, perhaps she would like to make clear, as she indicated that she would a day or so ago, what her own tax proposals are. Does she want to raise higher taxes– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and listen not only to questions, but to answers.

    The Prime Minister : Does the right hon. Lady want to raise taxes for those people earning more than £60,000, like the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), or for those people earning more than £50,000, like the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), or for those people earning more than £40,000, like the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)? Those are matters that the right hon. Lady ought to make clear to the House, if she is interested in taxation. She cannot hide from the results of her policies and her promises.

    Mrs. Beckett : I can certainly tell the Prime Minister that we will vote against any such increase in VAT, but is not it still more evidence of the Government’s sheer dishonesty that they are speaking about tax cuts at a time when the only things in the pipeline are tax increases for every British family? Does not the Conservative party realise that it is that sheer deception and dishonesty which have led directly to the biggest defeat suffered by the Conservative party in any national election?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady knows very well that day after day she and her hon. Friends make promises, with no indication of how those promises will be paid for. The shadow Chancellor then denies that there are promises. The right hon. Lady never indicates what the impact of her own promises and her own policies are. As the Government, we have to make decisions and carry them through ; she makes promises and runs away from them.

    Mr. Brazier : Will my right hon. Friend give his personal attention to the threatened prosecution of a number of Falklands war veterans? Is not it wrong that a civilian court should hear a case, not to do with something that happened in a prisoner-of-war camp or a safe area, but arising from allegations about what happened in the heat of battle? We expect a great deal of our young soldiers and may have to ask it again of them one day. May I ask my right hon. Friend to give instructions to the Director of Public Prosecutions that that case should be speedily discontinued, in the public interest?

    Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

    The Prime Minister : I understand the strong feelings set out by my hon. Friend and the strong feelings of many people, but I do not think that it is an advisable principle for the Government to seek to instruct the DPP in that fashion. I do not think that that principle would be regarded as proper, whatever the circumstances.

    Mr. Ashdown rose

    Mr. Skinner : Yesterday’s man. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I know that Members are pleased to see each other, but this is going over the top. I want to hear Mr. Ashdown.

    Mr. Ashdown : I am glad that the Prime Minister agrees that these 15 minutes of Prime Minister’s Question Time need to be reformed to make them more intelligible to us and make them more like what the British people say they would like to see, but will he now tell us what specific proposals he has for the House to consider?

    The Prime Minister : As I have indicated to the House before, I believe that there is a widespread feeling that these 15 minutes could be more productively used, but I am conscious that on this occasion the Prime Minister of the day– [Hon. Members :– “Answer the question.”] I will come directly to the point as to my personal view. Let me make another point first. I believe that it is right for the Prime Minister of the day to be here to respond to whatever questions may be put to him by Members. If the right hon. Gentleman asks for my personal view on the subject, I believe that it would be more appropriate if contemporary questions were tabled the night before, so that the Prime Minister of the day can deal with relevant matters.

    I am prepared to answer whatever questions, in whatever fashion, may be put to me. However, I believe that there is a view among people in the country that we should be discussing more relevant matters than is sometimes the case during some of the exchanges that take place during Prime Minister’s questions.

    Mr. Nicholls : Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the survey by Manpower, which shows that job prospects are now at their best for the past four years? Is not the reason for that in large measure that we have not allowed the European Community to dictate our labour market policies? Is not it quite shameful that Labour Members of both this Parliament and the European Parliament are committed to destroying the very policies that have brought about that success?

    The Prime Minister : Thankfully, unemployment has been falling for the past 15 months–by some 300,000–and I believe that that trend will continue, unlike in other countries in Europe. The significant difference between us and them is that we do not have the additional costs on employment that prevent so many people on the continent from finding jobs. Some 20 million people across Europe are unemployed ; only in this country has there been a significant drop in the unemployment level.

    Madam Speaker : I call Mr. Robert Ainsworth. He is not here. Therefore, I call Mr. James Hill.

    Mr. James Hill : This is an unusual event, but I am fortunate to be called. Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the extensive canvassing over the past two weeks, the issues raised were not education or the national health service, but the ways in which we could protect the public through our police and defence forces? Should not the Treasury team make that a priority and put more money into the police and defence forces as and when it becomes available?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friends at the Treasury will have heard my hon. Friend’s plea. There is no doubt about the concern about crime that is felt throughout the country. We are seeking to deal with that concern through legislation and other means and we shall continue to do so. The matter cannot readily be solved at the stroke of a legislative pen. However, it does require legislation and that is being provided, together with other areas of assistance to improve the fight against crime.

     

    Q4. Mr. Keith Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

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

    Mr. Hill : If the Prime Minister can recall life before Labour’s triumph last Sunday, does he remember telling television viewers last Wednesday that we were through the recession and that he was glad that the rich had become richer? Can he explain why, in my south London constituency, unemployment is higher than it was 12 months ago? What comfort can he offer my unemployed constituents who have become poorer?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be in any doubt about the fact that the recession is over and we are back in mature growth. They would also have noticed the falls in inflation, in interest rates and in unemployment throughout the country. I very much hope that that fall in unemployment will soon extend to Streatham, an area which I know extremely well. The hon. Gentleman, who also knows it well, will be aware that the policies of inner London councils in recent years have forced many employers out of inner London. That is one significant reason why, for many years, unemployment in areas such as Streatham has been higher than it otherwise would be. If the hon. Gentleman is proud of Lambeth council, I would be very surprised.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ian Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

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

    Mr. Bruce : Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite large job losses in the Ministry of Defence, unemployment in my constituency fell 10 per cent. in the last quarter? Is not that a tribute to my constituents’ positive action on job creation and to their refusal to take strike action? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the enemy of full employment is the strike, and that pious words on “Panorama” about full employment come ill from people who refused to cross picket lines just a few days previously?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. Actions speak louder than words and, thus far, we have seen that Opposition Members will not cross a picket line although they are prepared to talk about unemployment. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman, as ever, say that the Opposition are on the side of the strikers, whatever the circumstances may be. I hope that the whole country noted that. The reality is that strikes are outmoded and unnecessary and they penalise innocent bystanders. I regret that the Opposition were prepared to do that last week and are prepared to do so in respect of tomorrow’s strike as well.

  • Mr Major’s Comments Following the European Elections – 14 June 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments following the European elections made during an interview given in London on Monday 13th June 1994 and broadcast the following morning on Tuesday 14th June 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what priorities would change following the European election results].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think I would put it in that way. The priorities we have are long-term priorities, they are not short-term ones, they are not changeable priorities like changing a shirt each day. We have some very long-term politics that we believe we must see through. Some of them are now coming to fruition, low inflation for example, lower interest rates to help industry, unemployment beginning to fall, exports beginning to rise, the economy back in growth. That is a long-term policy and we will stick with the policies that have brought that about. Equally with the health reforms, with the education reforms and with the policies in the Competitiveness White Paper to improve the working of the economy and create jobs, all those will continue.

    We will produce a new parliamentary programme for the next session, we will announce that later in the year. It won’t be as large as this year’s programme that has been very large indeed, but it will have a number of interesting measures in it and it will help move our reforms forward.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if unity in the Conservative Party would now end after the recent truce].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I think the political recovery is going to start. I don’t have a great deal of doubt about that. The party in the country is perfectly clear that it wishes a united party in Parliament, that message is unmistakeable. Most people expected that there would be disagreements during the European elections – they were disappointed.

    I think the parliamentary party on Europe has a message that overwhelmingly it can follow. Moreover, it is a message that I believe is right. To move substantially to the Euro-sceptic wing of the argument or the Euro-enthusiast wing of the argument doesn’t seem to me to be right for Europe or for this country. The vast majority of people in this country take a more practical, more pragmatic view. That is my view and I believe it is the view of the overwhelming majority of the Conservative party.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the arguments hadn’t already started].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Very low-key and I think if you were to go and ask the other parties and subject their views on Europe to the same searching telescope that has been put in front of the Conservative Party, you would get the same sort of responses. No-one believes that Mr Skinner and Mr Shore are enthusiastic for Europe and I think that is true of a large number of members of the Labour Party.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference – 13 June 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s on-the-record press conference held in London on Monday 13th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This press conference is on-the-record, and I think I should say at the outset that I have reached the conclusion that it would be useful, from time to time, to supplement the normal briefings of the lobby with a press conference of this nature that is on-the-record.

    Let me say something about current matters and the election results yesterday first. Let me acknowledge at the outset we had very poor results in the elections yesterday, very poor results but on a very low poll, two-thirds of the electorate simply did not bother to vote and the turn-out, not just in this country, but across Europe, was frankly derisory.

    Having said that our results were poor, they were of course a good deal better than almost anybody predicted. The opinion polls have been discredited again, the Conservative vote was not as predicted, 21 percent or 23 percent or 33 percent behind Labour.

    I believe it has been clear for some years that many people are simply not frank when asked questions by opinion pollsters, I suspect they resent the prying nature of the questions and it seems that the answers are not always accurate, perhaps a lower salience for opinion polls in the future would be welcomed by quite a lot of people.

    Let me say a word about some of the lessons I believe can be learned from this election. Firstly, it is apparent that many people are still both angry and bruised as a result of the recession, that has happened here in the United Kingdom, as indeed it has happened right across Europe. The governing parties in Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, have all won a much smaller share of the vote than they did in their last general elections.

    Here in the UK we are now firmly back into growth, but that is clearly not yet the general perception of the public. Many people simply declined to vote on this occasion, “Not this time” was a frequent message on the doorsteps. There was a general feeling of irritation amongst the electorate with all politicians, but certainly of course directed at the government.

    Having said that, Labour had a good result, even though during the campaign they neither produced nor discussed any policies, and it must also be said that this election was held at a time uniquely favourable to the Labour Party for reasons, some of them sad, that I believe everyone fully understands. Even so, in mid-term, after a deep recession, on a low turn-out, they barely beat the share of the vote that we achieved at the last general election.

    In the European elections it was only the Conservative Party that fought the elections on European issues, we mounted an effective campaign, a campaign that spelt out clearly the policy differences between the main parties. I believe that is one of the principal reasons why the Liberal Party failed to make the advances that had been so widely predicted for them.

    What is clear from the outcome of this election is that we are back into the politics of a clear choice, the only alternative to a Conservative government could be a Labour government, everyone I think can understand that, any other choice is simply a good spoiler but unreal.

    Let me just say a word or two about policy from now on, starting with the economy. We are now back into economic growth and that is going to continue, I am confident that we will meet our growth forecasts. We have the lowest inflation since the 1960s, I am confident we will meet our inflation targets. Unemployment is now falling consistently, I am confident that will go on and there is now more hope for the unemployed than there has been for a very long time.

    We are pursuing, and we will continue to pursue, long-term policies that we believe will lead to success for this country, that is the reason for our education policies, our training policies and the thrust of the competitiveness White Paper, those policies are right and they are important to me, they will continue in the future.

    We are also taking tough measures to fight crime in Britain, there is no doubt on the doorstep, not just during the election but in the travels around the country I have had in the last year or so, about the depth of public concern over crime. At present we are changing the law with the Criminal Justice Bill, reforming the policing system with the Police Bill, cracking down on drugs with more initiatives to come in the future. My priorities are to do more to protect the public from crime, more to bring criminals to justice and more to prevent crime in the first place.

    We have at the moment a full programme of long-term reform going through Parliament, it is going through Parliament this year and there will be more next year. Apart from our long-term vision for the economy we have a long-term programme for public services in the Citizen’s Charter, long-term reforms to complete in the Health Service, new ideas to create a better transport system for this country using private initiatives and private capital, ways of bringing together welfare, work and training to help and to encourage people back into work, and with the new national lottery, new ways of brightening people’s future.

    We have had a tough couple of years through the recession and beyond, government at any time is never easy, certainly not during a recession. There have been a large number of very difficult decisions to make and I have no doubt that is always the way of government and there will be difficult decisions in the future. But I intend to stick to what I set out to do because I passionately believe that is for the long-term benefit of this country.

    Let me just add one final point before I take any questions you may have. Going round the country I find a great deal of concern about the way in which Parliament does its business, I share that concern expressed to me. Parliament has before it an excellent report from Michael Jopling, I hope we can find ways of enabling the Commons to do its business in more sensible ways, in more sensible hours, without either unacceptably reducing the government’s capacity to carry its programme or reducing the Opposition’s flexibility in deploying and pressing its case against government legislation. I believe that this effort has very strong support on both sides of the House and very strong support outside the House from millions of people who follow our proceedings. The government is keen to make progress on this front, if the Opposition are equally keen I hope we should be able to map the way forward before the summer recess.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    May I put to you, since you said that we were now back to the politics of a clear choice, the point that the Labour Party makes this morning, it is twofold: one is they say that the mantel of trust, as they put it, has passed from the Conservatives to them, because of the actions you took over tax; and two, that if you try to go down the tax-cutting road in an attempt to win the country over you will not succeed because nobody will believe you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The clearest illustration from the Labour Party is that they certainly do not have tax-cutting in mind, that even when the opportunity for tax cuts may be there, they would prefer to spend your money, Michael, on things that they think are important rather than put it in your pocket for you to spend.

    As far as trust is concerned, we said a number of things at the general election that we sought to do: we put education at the top of the agenda and we have left it there; we have said we would continue with the health reforms, and we have done it; I said we would get inflation down, and we have done it; interest rates down, and we have done it; unemployment down, and it is happening. We had to take the decision on tax, not because we wished to, not because we expected to have to do so, but because the position of the economy was such that it was necessary for us to do so. We therefore took the decision that we judged was right for the country and I think the impact of that can be seen in the economic circumstances we are now reaching. If and when it is prudent to cut taxes in the future, our instinct will be to cut them, I cannot tell you when that will be, but if the circumstances arise where we think it is right to cut taxes I would rather let people decide themselves how to spend their own money than we should decide on their behalf.

    QUESTION (John Pienaar):

    Are you ready and waiting for any challenger to your leadership and since then you have appealed to be allowed to finish the job that your party was elected to do. After these elections, how do you assess the chances of a challenge and your own chances of leading your own party at the next election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will be leading the Party at the next election, John.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] given that these results, though perhaps not as bad as expected ..

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I keep hearing this, John, I keep hearing this, I am still here, we have a mechanism if people wish to challenge me in the autumn, that is a matter for them, I do not expect one, I will be here waiting for it if there is one, I will beat it and I will be here to and through the general election.

    ELINOR GOODMAN:

    Do you think you can recover given that no previous Government has ever recovered from a trough like this and isn’t there then a case for changing leadership under those circumstances?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You say no-one has recovered from a trough like this. I wonder whether that is right. When I became Prime Minister, at the start of the campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party at that stage we were 19% behind in the opinion polls. That looks exactly the same as the position that emerged from yesterday’s results.

    That was self-evidently wrong in the past because we did recover; not only did we recover from that 1989 trough, we recovered to win the general election with more votes than any party has ever had at any stage in our history so can we recover? Of course we can. Will we recover? Of course we will. Will we win the next election? Yes, I believe we will.

    ADAM BOULTON (SKY NEWS):

    I wonder if I could ask you if you are finally going to get a grip on the civil war which has broken out once again in your own party with those MEPs who lost their seats almost unanimously attacking the divisions in the parliamentary party while Eurosceptics or whatever they want to call themselves are saying you have got to bow to the silent majority who didn’t vote, take on Europe which they say is now going to be dominated by Helmut Kohl and the Germans?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am glad you asked that question because let me make it clear yet again I am not bowing either to the Euro-enthusiastics or the Eurosceptics. I am saying and doing precisely what I believe is right for Europe.

    I believe what I set out in the election campaign is the right way ahead for Europe if it is to succeed. I have made that clear on innumerable occasions. I wish to see the European Union succeed. I think one can see from these results right the way across Europe, not just in this country, that people are concerned at the way the European Union has developed. The turn-out was rotten in other countries as well as here, people are frustrated. All the governing parties did badly.

    I think, therefore, we have to think afresh about how to make Europe a success and I don’t believe myself that the idea lies on either extreme – tearing down what exists or building it up to some unreasonable federalist centre. There is a middle way, a practical way, for Europe; it is the way that I believe in and in stating that I am not nodding in a Eurosceptic direction or in any other direction, I am nodding in the direction of what I believe is the right way ahead for the future.

    GEORGE JONES (DAILY TELEGRAPH):

    Prime Minister, your Party Chairman, Sir .Norman Fowler, has spoken this morning about the need for a reshuffle and some new faces at the top of the Government. Can you give us any indication of your thinking on that and when the time might be? Are you going to do it this week, next week or never?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you can rule out this week, you can certainly rule out next week and I am absolutely positive you can rule out never.

    Yes, there will be a reshuffle. I can’t tell you when it will be, I think I owe that to the people who are concerned with it, to let them know first when we have a reshuffle. There will be one, it isn’t imminent. I think there are appropriate times to hold a reshuffle both in terms of good management and in terms of man management and when I reach the appropriate time then I will make the changes I think are necessary.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Have these election results changed your mind on anything?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    These election results are disappointing. No Conservative leader, no prime minister, likes to lose seats. I don’t think it has changed my mind as a result of these elections. It has made me more determined to pursue the things that I think are right and try to explain them more adequately so that people can see what we are doing and why we are doing it rather than labour under some of the misapprehensions that perhaps are about now. I don’t think it has changed my mind; it has reinforced my view that we concentrate on the things that are of long-term importance to this country.

    If you are concerned with matters that are long-term, you often have to take a good deal of short-term pain and short-term unpopularity. If I may give you a practical illustration of that, the first thing I said, not when I became Prime Minister but when I became Chancellor, was that we needed to get inflation down.

    That is easier said than done. I stuck to a firm anti-inflationary policy right the way through the general election. There were many people saying: “Cut interest rates, it will make you more popular at the time of the election!” I didn’t do so because I judged it wouldn’t put us in the best disinflationary position for the future. I have taken the same view on other matters. If something is right, it is better to see it through even if it is unpopular and difficult to explain in the short-term so nothing has changed.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (BBC):

    Prime Minister, why do you believe you are still being punished by Britain’s electors in the face of economic recovery when Chancellor Kohl appears to have escaped a similar degree of ire from the German electors after a much shallower recovery?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I saw Boris Johnson’s report this morning; I think he misses the most important ingredient in explaining that phenomenon.

    The phenomenon you have seen in all Western countries during the last twenty years is of a mid-term dip in governments’ popularity and people returning to their natural and instinctive preference as they near a general election. We are not near a general election, we are up to three years away from a general election. In Germany, they are only months away from a general election and so the normal impact of politics, the normal way it has tended to work for twenty years, is that people tend to protest less and move back to their natural home as they get near a general election. I think on this occasion the CDU in Germany, Chancellor Kohl’s party, has benefited from that. Their vote fell but not by as much as that of other governing parties in Europe and I think that is the principal reason.

    ROBIN OAKLEY:

    As a supplementary to that, what are the results in the European parliamentary elections which would have led you to contemplate resignation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I did not believe the opinion polls this time any more than I did last time and I was right again so the question didn’t cross my mind.

    DON McINTYRE:

    Prime Minister, some of your Ministers have been pretty dismissive of Tony Blair but David Mellor said yesterday that he was an exceptionally gifted politician and that the Conservative Party should take note and get its act together. Where are you in that expression of opinion?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In the spirit of good nature to someone who may become the leader of the Labour Party but isn’t yet, I would, if I may, offer Tony Blair a piece of advice: Don’t believe what is said about you today, Tony, and don’t believe what is said about you in eighteen months’ time.

    COLIN BROWN:

    Prime Minister, on the subject of the single European currency, will you be moved off your policy of leaving it until after 1996 for the House of Commons to decide and what will you do about disciplining those Ministers who break that line?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well they won’t. The line is perfectly clear, clear in the manifesto and it is perfectly clear that it is both logical and the right line. The answer is I won’t be moved off it and I don’t expect people not to agree with it.

    PETER BURR (REUTERS):

    There has been some nervousness in the market today after Sir Norman Fowler’s comments about the possible need for early tax cuts. Are you a little bit concerned that you might be pushed into an early move in that direction?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No.

    PETER BURR:

    As a supplementary to that, there has been a lot of talk, murmurings and briefings saying that the next movement in taxation is likely to be downwards. Clearly, you were punished by the electors for the tax increases. Can you say that the next movement in taxes will be downward?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will decide upon taxes at the time of this year’s budget, next year’s budget and the budget in the year after that. I am not going to anticipate what that is going to be.

    When and if it is prudent to cut taxes, we will perhaps make a decision to cut them but not until. It is impossible to say at this stage when it will be. All that can be said is that our instincts are to be a tax-cutting party when it is prudent to do so – not recklessly but when it is right – and I don’t know at this moment when that will be.

    QUESTION (“TODAY”):

    After a series of rather poor election results, your voters seem to be turning their back on you. Do you ever get fed up and really feel as though you want to turn your back on it, walk away and maybe take up gardening full-time?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Do I look fed up? Do I look as though I am about to turn my back?

    The answer, Paul, is no and the reason the answer is no is that there are things I want to do in politics, things I have set out, and I don’t intend to be pushed off them. I intend to try and continue to complete them.

    JOHN CRAIG (DAILY EXPRESS):

    What do you think a Cabinet reshuffle will achieve? You seem to be acknowledging that the Government’s problem is one of personalities rather than policies.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t necessary acknowledge that. Politics is like a moving stream, it moves on. All the way through Government there are people of talent and ability who wish to have their opportunity to show how they can serve their country in Government. Those changes necessarily start at senior levels and move down the ranks. I think that is a part of politics that all politicians live with.

    QUESTION:

    Can you comment on your Party’s reverses in your own East Anglian backyard? Labour won in Norfolk and Suffolk and almost took your own seat of Cambridgeshire. Surely this is more than a mid-term protest?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think if you look at the size of the turn-out in Cambridgeshire you will see precisely what happened. The Conservative vote largely stayed home, the Labour vote recovered and the Liberal vote I guess – though I haven’t studied it carefully – is pretty much where it usually is.

    There are quite strong traditional Labour areas in some of the East Anglian areas, if you go back sufficient years you will find a lot of Labour seats there. Now that has changed. what has been evident on this occasion is that the Labour vote firmed in some areas and the Conservative vote didn’t turn out so you had the results that you saw yesterday.

    I don’t have any doubt about the results at the time of the next general election. People then will make a clear judgement on policy. They won’t be just voting against things they haven’t liked during a recession, they will have to vote positively for which programme they prefer, the programme of the Conservative Government or the alternative programme of the Labour Opposition. When the people of East Anglia, as elsewhere, have to make that choice I have no doubt in my mind whatever about the choice that they will make. At the moment they are operating in a vacuum. Nobody knows what Labour policy is, whether they have any, how it would work and how it would be implemented. At some stage between now and the next general election when they have a new leader presumably that leader will be asked what his or her policies are and how he or she would propose to bring them about. I would imagine that will be the case and when and if that happy event occurs then I think people will form a more secure judgement about the future. In any event I am confident about the election.

    I think that is it. Thank you very much indeed. I look forward to the next occasion.

    MICHAEL BRUNSON (ITV):

    When is the next one?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In due course, Michael.

    MICHAEL BRUNSON:

    Every month?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It will be on irregular occasions when I think it is appropriate.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Europe – 7 June 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Europe during an interview given in 10 Downing Street, London on 7th June 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Britain should go further towards European integration].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think, over the last few years, we’ve moved towards a consensus in Europe on the way in which it should develop. What I think many people misunderstand in the way in which the European debate has been moving. Too often it’s conducted in extremes – one is either a Euro-sceptic, wants nothing to do with Europe, or one’s a Euro-enthusiast and wants total federalist integration. Now, the reality is, the vast majority of people listening to this interview will want neither of those two things, they will want sensible cooperation with Europe and sensible decisions taken on the basis of changing circumstances, and that is what I want.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about John Gummer’s comments about Britain isn’t going slower than the rest of the Europe].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, what is meant by a slower speed? I think we have to determine precisely what is meant by that. Different people mean different things by it. The position of the British Government is quite clear – we need to be at the centre of the European debate, what I once called the “heart of Europe”. What that emphatically does not mean is that whenever an idea is suggested in Europe that we automatically agree with it and go along with it if we think it’s not in the interest of the British nation or indeed of Europe as a whole. And there have been many areas where we’ve taken a sharply contrary view to our partners and persuaded them that our view is right, the Single Market for example, reform of the Common Agricultural Policy for example, deregulation. Many countries were hostile to deregulation, Britain and Germany, in partnership now, leading the Community more towards deregulation. Subsidiarity – the concept of handing powers that ought not to be held by Brussels back to the nation state, pushed by the British because we are at the centre of Europe, adopted by others now producing their own lists. That’s what I mean by being at the heart of Europe.

    Now some people would have said, we were in the slow lane because we objected to what the majority view was, but in reality we were right and eventually they followed our position.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview at Chequers – 4 June 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s doorstep interview at Chequers with President Clinton, on Saturday 4th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I suppose I should begin by apologising to you for the D-Day weather, I am sorry about that. Could I also say at the outset that the President and I will be able to take a question or two afterwards but I need to be in Portsmouth fairly speedily and I know the President has a live broadcast so I am afraid the question time will be limited.

    We have had the opportunity this morning of discussions for nearly a couple of hours and we will take the opportunity over the next two days to pursue some other matters as well.

    We looked at a wide range of issues, we looked forward firstly to the Naples Summit, we anticipate the emphasis there will be on employment following the Detroit Jobs Conference, and we discussed some of the preliminary work that is now in the course of preparation for that conference. We will of course at Naples be welcoming President Yeltsin, we both agree that the more stable, economic and political situation in Russia at present, a better foreign policy partnership than perhaps there has been at any stage in recent years, and we had the opportunity of looking at the responsible handling we have seen thus far by both Russia and Ukraine of the problems that exist in the Crimea.

    Self-evidently today, we spent some time discussing our joint interests in Bosnia. We are at the middle in the midst of crucial negotiations in Geneva, the United Nations continues to seek a cessation of hostilities. At present, as you will know, the Contact Group is still meeting, pressing for settlement of territorial questions, and it is my view and that of the President as well that it is vital for all three parties in Bosnia to recognise that continued war will not advance their positions but would continue to strain international patience.

    Saying that, we must recognise what has already been achieved in Bosnia. Many feared the war would spread beyond those borders, it has not done so, and I think there is some satisfaction we can draw from the peaceful developments in much of central Bosnia as well. We have a ceasefire there, in Sarajevo, in Gorazde, and the conflict has been contained. So far that is good, we hope we can achieve more at the end of the Contact Group discussions. The joint initiative the President and I launched in Washington seems to be successful and the reconstruction of Sarajevo is now in the United Nations’s hands.

    We spent a while on looking at the hideous conflict in Rwanda. From our perspective we are looking to support with logistics the Secretary General’s proposals for an expanded United Nations force and of course the pre-eminent need for humanitarian aid.

    We spent some time expressing our joint concern about the nuclear programme in North Korea and looking at the scope for effective action by the United Nations. I took the opportunity of briefing the President on the present state of discussions in Northern Ireland.

    I also took the opportunity of thanking the President for his welcome decision on renewing MFN status for China, that is of course important for Hong Kong. But quite apart from that, I believe it is the best way to pursue a proper dialogue with the Chinese over human rights because it is more important to have a dialogue that will achieve results than simply to make gestures that may entrench the problem without satisfactorily advancing it. We have taken much the same view with human rights missions that have gone to China and I think there is a joint determination to continue the pressure on the Chinese in this respect. Nonetheless, I believe the decision on MFN was entirely right and I am extremely pleased that it was made.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I would like first to thank the Prime Minister for his hospitality, even though it is raining a little bit, Chequers is still a magnificent place, a welcome walk through history and a great opportunity for a good visit.

    In addition to the items mentioned by the Prime Minister, I would like to also say how much I appreciate the support the United Kingdom has given, through NATO, to the idea of the Partnership for Peace, we now have 19 nations signed up to be part of our Partnership for Peace with NATO, giving us the prospect of having a Europe that is not divided politically and military perhaps for the first time since nation states dotted the continent, so we are very encouraged by that.

    I would like to reaffirm what the Prime Minister said about Bosnia. We are heartened by the fact that the conflict has been limited, by the fact that the Croatians and the Bosnian government have worked out an accord, but we believe that we need to continue to push for an agreement here, I think it unlikely that either side in anywhere in the near term and with anything like acceptable losses can look forward to any kind of significant alteration in the parameters of the agreement that they were on the verge of making before the unfortunate incidents in Gorazde. So we are determined to redouble our efforts to try to achieve a settlement in whatever way we can.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    How do you take the threat from North Korea that they would regard sanctions as an act of war and would this deter you in any way or is it even worth risking a war to pursue sanctions in the Security Council?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    First of all, North Korea’s actions have in my view made it virtually imperative that the Security Council consider the question of sanctions. They did that, they freely undertook obligations as a part of the NPT, they repeatedly said that they did not wish to be a nuclear power and that they were committed to a non-nuclear Korean peninsular. We have offered any number of inducements or support to try to achieve that goal and nothing has been forthcoming, the IAEA inspections were not allowed to proceed, and so I think we have to proceed in the Security Council. There is still time for North Korea to avoid sanctions actually taking effect if we can work out something on the nuclear inspections, but this is in their hands. I think that clearly sanctions are not any sort of act of war and should not be seen as such.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but asking about American military forces in South Korea].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    As you know, we have taken some steps to support the capacity of our troops to fulfil their mission there already and I have had continuing talks, as you would expect I would have, with Secretary Perry and General Shalikashvili, and when we had the Commanders and Chiefs in recently General Lock and others talked with me extensively about this. We are prepared to do our duty, I do not want a lot of sabre rattling over this or war talk, this is a peace talk, this should be about peace. We are trying to enforce the requirements of the NPT, to which North Korea voluntarily pledged its allegiance, all we want them to do is to keep their word and we are going to try to give them the chance to do it.

    QUESTION:

    What is it like to be back in Britain after all this time?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Just like old times. Actually it is wonderful to be back. I have been back several times since I was a student here and I have come often but I never tire of coming and I always look forward to it. And today, having the opportunity to fly in the helicopter fairly low across the beautiful countryside was a very nostalgic trip for me, I was very grateful to have that chance.

    QUESTION:

    The Prime Minister was talking about employment, have you got any words of advice for the Prime Minister considering that your administration is presiding over one of the greatest falls in unemployment that we have seen for a long time?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Well we had a tough 1980s so we changed some policies, we changed our direction, and we have been bringing down our deficit, we have been increasing investment in areas critical to job growth, we have been trying to work on greater flexibility in our workforce. These things are not easy to do. I will say this, Great Britain is having a quite impressive run of growth and eventually the growth rates you have enjoyed in the last few months will bring low unemployment, there is no question about it. I think the question though that we all have to face is how low can we get it in a global economy and then how can we deal with those people who want to work but are isolated, either isolated in geographic areas where there has been disinvestment, in the United States that is mostly big inner city areas and rural areas, or they are isolated because they do not have sufficient skills to compete in a global economy in a wealthy country. Those are the challenges that we have to face.

    One of our big policies is how do we target the people that are left off? We have been very fortunate that our policies have paid off so handsomely, we have got about 3.3 million new jobs in the last 16 months but we too have a long way to go and I think we can all learn from each other. But I will say this, if your growth rates continue the way they have been you will have a drop in unemployment, it is unavoidable, you cannot absorb all this growth without hiring more people.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will have to stop there. I know he will be pleased to know our unemployment has been falling for 15 months and it will go on.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you.