Author: admin

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 13 May 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference in Inverness on 13th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Today of all days I want to talk not of partisan politics, but of our country and its prospects.

    There are occasions when it is right to turn aside from the clamour of political differences.

    Yesterday, this conference adjourned to mark its respect for one of our country’s political leaders. An opponent, yes. A gifted and an honourable opponent. Undoubtedly. But a partner, too. A partner in that mission which is central to politics. The guest to build a stronger democracy, a better country, a richer life for all.

    All of us here are people to whom our families matter deeply. John Smith was a family man. And our thoughts and prayers go out, above all, to his family in their grief – in a time of loss for which no words suffice, and into which no-one should seek to intrude.

    The reaction to John’s death tells us much about our country. It showed the priceless asset of the essential decency of the British. We can weep for a good man – even an opponent – because we recognise his qualities.

    This reminds us that there are things higher than politics and, across all divisions, common bonds of humanity that unite us all.

    I liked John Smith. The nation saw us set up in artificial confrontation twice a week in the House of Commons. That was part of our political process – and I make no complaint of that.

    But people did not see behind the scenes. There is friendship in politics, there is decency, there are private relationships across all Parties, there is principle and there is respect and understanding for the beliefs and the convictions of others. What a shame it is that that becomes apparent so rarely.

    Mr President, I must confess to you that I often have little taste for the politics of point-scoring or for the belittling of others. I have none today. I care passionately for what I believe in. But I don’t care passionately for damning what other people believe in. If we could attack the policies of others, but respect their motives, then politics would have a fresher feel than it does today.

    Let us be truthful with ourselves. Across all Europe there is a lower regard for politics than I can ever remember. And, as democrats, we should worry about that.

    Politics isn’t just about power. As you grow more experienced you see the limits on the power of action, limits set by the need to persuade others and carry them with you. Limits set by the capacity of our country to create the wealth and resources needed to fulfil our ambitions.

    No, it isn’t just about power. It’s about ideals. Hopes. Ambitions.

    In politics you never lose the ideals of youth. You always travel in hope. And you never forget your long-term principles.

    There are twists and turns, moments of exhilaration and achievement, and times, too, of disappointment and despair. But you pick yourself up, take on the next task, and go on forward. Because you always have a long-term aim in view.

    Mr President, I sometimes wish that side of politics was more evident. I know politicians of all Parties. And they are not the cynical, power-hungry, self-servers that fiction so often portrays. There is such a thing as public service in this country. And our politicians generally subscribe to it.

    Too often our politics is rooted in old battles, not new opportunities.

    Of course we differ greatly in our philosophy; in our beliefs as to how to do the best for Britain. But sometimes, too, we share a common purpose.

    The War-time coalition and the Labour and Conservative Governments that followed all worked to strengthen the welfare state, develop the Health Service, put in place the modern system of education that Rab Butler had worked to create, and which culminated in his great Education Act of 1944.

    The achievement of Conservatism in the present generation has been to redress the balance between the state and the individual. To extend choice and ownership, to build the right climate for industrial growth and expansion, to set the ambitions, the hopes, and the capacity of every family free.

    I don’t believe those achievements either will ever be challenged or changed. We have created a special British cocktail of free enterprise, tempered with social justice. A wider ownership of homes, shares and pensions than almost any nation in Europe, but a free health service which those overseas envy and admire.

    That will never change. When my parents were old and unwell and without any money, they were well treated. It made an abiding impression on me that they had the security and comfort of mind to know that. While I am Prime Minister, that will never change.

    All of us in politics – national or local – have our role to play. Whether we are players on the stage, or supporters in the wings, or commentators in the front of house, we all have our responsibilities.

    Sometimes I feel – and I don’t only mean in the reporting of politics – that there is too much knocking, too much carping, too much sneering. Too much setting up of Aunt Sally against Aunt Sally.

    Being negative can be an addictive drug. It’s easy. Because we all know how easy it is to do something, if you don’t have to do it yourself. But like any drug it corrodes and destroys the body in which it exists. And one body it runs the risk of corrupting is the body politic of the nation itself.

    If politicians fight – in Party and across Party – like ferrets in a sack on every issue, is it surprising if the public turns away?

    Let’s not be negative here today. Let’s be positive. And look at what’s happened in Britain in the last two years alone, and at our prospects for the future.

    We have achieved an impressive revival from recession – well ahead of the rest of Europe.

    We have the lowest inflation and interest rates for a generation.

    We have growth in the UK – twice as high as anywhere in Europe, and set to continue next year.

    We have public services forced by the Citizen’s Charter to tailor their performance to the needs of the public and to raise their standards year by year.

    We have a National Health Service, in which local doctors have more say than ever, and in which we are treating more patients than ever before – and treating them better.

    We have set reforms in place to raise standards in our schools and to improve the quality of training for young people.

    One third of our young people are now going on to university.

    And crime is now falling in Scotland and throughout the UK.

    That is the reality of what’s happening.

    Mr President, I have not come here to hide the challenges we still face. On the back of a world-wide recession Government is a tough business everywhere. We often have to do things that seem perverse today because we believe they will be right tomorrow.

    Our job is to look long-term, plan long-term, achieve long- term. Set a framework for lasting prosperity. To ensure we don’t go through such difficulties again.

    Some people may not like some of the action we’ve had to take – but our duty is to make the right choices for Britain’s future. It isn’t our job to do things to court short-term popularity, if they have a long-term cost.

    Obligations are painful things. So are difficult decisions. But often they are necessary for the sake of future generations. So that their prospects are not just as good, but better than ours.

    But that is what we’re in Government for.

    “The elevation of the condition of the people”. That’s how Disraeli once put it.

    “The elevation of the condition of the people” – Mr President, that is why I am a Conservative – why we are all Conservatives. And why this party must always frame its policies, not by the yardstick of ideology, but by how closely they touch the everyday lives of the people.

    We mustn’t live in a world of theory. Our theatre must not be the academic clique or the Party caucus. Our theatre is the home, the family, the business, the voluntary group. That is the world from which Conservatism grows.

    Our Party is at its strongest wherever it strikes a chord with the commonsense of the British people. When Conservative canvassers came to my door in Lambeth all those years ago they spoke a language I and the people I knew could readily understand.

    The things they cared about were the things we all care about – how to get on in life, how to take our own decisions, how to acquire new skills, save money, own a home and leave a better start for our children and grandchildren than we ever had ourselves.

    Even to the dependent Conservatism spoke the language of independence. Even to the insecure it offered security.

    It did then. And it must today. Somehow we must break through the artificial frenzy that so often masquerades as political debate and focus attention once more on the essential concerns of the people we represent. That, I believe, is what people want and what our political system needs.

    The Conservative agenda

    Last autumn I spoke of a malaise that I saw creeping across our country. A cloud of unease and uncertainty in the face of constant challenges to the standards that people hold dear.

    I said that our first duty was to dispel that anxiety, answer the worries people have, and draw deep at the well of commonsense instinct as we did.

    I set out there my programme for the rest of this Parliament.

    First, to see through – come what may – our policies for a strong stable economy. That we are doing – through low inflation, low interest rates and falling unemployment.

    It is easy to write off now the importance of the fight against inflation. That is a mistake that I will never allow this Government to make.

    I know from experience what inflation does. What it is like at the end of the week if you’re not sure you’re going to have enough money left over to pay the bills. I grew up in a hard part of London. We shared the house with all sorts of odd characters. Inflation wasn’t our only problem – but it was one of the worst. I know what it is like at the sharp end, what it’s like to struggle on fixed incomes. And so long as I am Prime Minister containing inflation will continue to be a cornerstone of our policy and a touchstone of its success.

    The second goal I set in Blackpool was to bring about a seachange in our approach to crime. Shift the balance in criminal policy decisively against the villain after a generation of liberal ideas. Put punishment back on the agenda. Reject forever the fatal idea that crime can ever be excused.

    If you don’t give young people guidelines and rules you are not helping them. Children who start with a small offence and are not brought up short will commit a bigger offence and then a bigger one, and, before you know it, they’re into serious crime. It is no good if when a young criminal gets caught all he gets is a slap on the wrist and sent on his way.

    We have embarked on a shift in policy on crime, not to turn back the clock – of course not, Dickensian attitudes have no relevance today – but to turn up the heat on the criminal. I make not a shred of apology for that. The British people are heartily sick of the apologists for crime. And the crackdown that’s needed has only begun.

    The third target I have set for the ‘90s is to raise standards in our schools. Without that Britain will not be able to compete in the world. We need to sweep aside the progressive dogma that has done so much damage. Extend parents’ choice. Insist on the basics. Make sure we get the best results for every child. And see that those results are reported, and, what is equally essential, tested.

    Mr President, I simply do not understand opposition to testing. I sent my children to school to learn – so do all parents. You can’t just wrap children in cottonwool. Life itself is a test – and you have to prepare them for it. Compete is what children do naturally. Just put four small children together and see what they do. They see who can run fastest or jump highest. So we will be introducing more competitive games and we will stick to our guns on testing.

    Mr President, in the last six months we have taken huge strides in carrying forward the agenda I set out in Blackpool. Inflation is right down. We have the biggest crime-fighting bill for years before Parliament. And, through teacher training reform, we are putting the last pieces into the mosaic of education reform.

    That is the road this country must follow – and that is the road down which I and this Party will lead.

    Mr President, the mandate we won from over 14 million people was a mandate which runs for 5 years. We are not yet half way through – and I intend to complete it. And then I shall say:

    “Judge me on my whole term of office. All of it. You can’t judge a house when only the foundations are laid”.

    A changing world

    If we are to achieve our social objectives we must have strong economic foundations on which to build.

    There are new and ever greater demands on our resources. But there’s only one way to create the wealth that we need. Through business success.

    We have to lift our eyes from the short-term headlines. Look to the long-term. The world is changing faster than ever before. Just look at the changes there have been.

    Operations that 15 years ago were unheard of now happen almost every day. Young people today have opportunities that our parents’ generation wouldn’t have dreamed of. In future it will not be enough to learn just one skill at 16 and do the same thing all through a lifetime.

    People are living longer than ever before. More people are going into higher education than ever before. Those are all good changes, changes we’ve worked for, changes we want, changes that are making people’s lives better.

    But they all have a cost. We need to pay for them. But we don’t want high taxation. So the challenge for us is to make our economy as competitive as possible, so that we can generate the wealth that we need for the improvements we wish to bring about.

    For today we face a world more competitive than ever before. Not just from America and Japan but from new countries in the Far East, once our captive markets, now our active competitors.

    We must look forward to the world in which our children will live. In the 21st century we’re going to have a world dominated by Japan, the United States and China. The European Community has a choice to make – will it be with those players or will it not?

    The importance of Europe

    I hope it will be, but it is not certain unless Europe follows the right policies. I would give Europe this warning. Unless it makes the right choices about policy today – unless it adopts free market policies – and believes in them – Europe won’t be up there in the next century with the US, Japan and China. It will slide behind.

    That is why Britain must play its full part in Europe. Not just for our own sake, but for Europe’s too.

    Nearly 200 years ago William Pitt said Britain “has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”

    I know that the issue of Europe runs deep in British politics. It touches emotions more profoundly than routine political differences. It raises concerns and fears that are too often played on too readily. For too long Europe has been the poison in the well of British politics.

    Here, too, far too many people present the European debate in fundamentalist terms.

    People are “for it” or “against it”.

    We “must do this” or “mustn’t do that”.

    Everyone, to paraphrase Gilbert & Sullivan, is either “a little Eurosceptic” or “a little Europhile”.

    This approach misses the real debate. The real debate must be about how we make Europe a success; how to make sure it raises enthusiasm, not resentment; how to make sure it raises the quality of our life and is not seen as threatening the nature of our life.

    What we are talking about in the debate on Europe is our national interest. Our jobs. Our future. And yet far too many people on both sides of the argument miss this wider point. They focus on narrow arguments as though we were fighting a holy war.

    So let us remember the fundamental economic realities.

    British business depends on Europe. Well over half of what we export, we export to Europe.

    We need a place in European Community if we are to continue to attract inward investors to Britain.

    And we need influence in Europe, if we are to make sure that our businesses have the right conditions in which to trade.

    Europe is absolutely fundamental to this country’s national interest. We cannot turn our backs on that. It would be the ultimate abdication, a supreme folly. Limit our horizons and we limit our future. A little country in a lost world.

    I am a Euro realist. I look at Britain’s interests with a cold and clear eye. Britain has a special place in the world. Alone of all nations we live and move in three distinct circles – NATO, the Commonwealth, and the European Community. Each and everyone is a shaping factor in our long-term foreign policy and our own national interest.

    We have a special feeling about America. We are intimately bound up with its history, language and culture. I am one- quarter American. My father lived in America for a number of years. But Americans are realists, too. They want a good relationship with Britain. But, today, one of the main reasons they do is because Britain is in Europe. If Britain’s commitment to Europe was in question, have no doubt – the Americans would look elsewhere for their closest allies – to Germany or to France. They are no more dreamy-eyed about international relations than we are.

    Diplomacy is a calculation of where long-term advantage lies. And, for Britain, that advantage is in Europe.

    Mr President, I don’t accept the argument that a British government, fully involved in Europe, cannot win the battle to shape and mould the future of Europe.

    Who says we can’t win the argument against centralism in Europe? We can and we must.

    Conservative Governments won on the rebate.

    Won on the Single Market.

    Won on subsidiarity.

    And we are winning on deregulation.

    Britain should be confident in Europe.

    One final point. I don’t believe the prevailing orthodoxy that if you disagree with current fashionable opinions in Europe that you are anti-European.

    That is not true. The good European does not rush like Pavlov’s dog to every European fancy.

    He judges what is right for Europe. What will attract the support of the people of Europe. What will retain their liberties – their traditions. And then he fights for it – and that is what we will do.

    Why Conservative?

    Mr President, for the moment the world of politics pauses.

    But in a short while the people of this country will be called, with the rest of Europe, to take up the work of democracy again. And in the European elections we shall put our case to the country on the kind of Europe we want to build.

    You know what I believe in.

    I want to see a wider Europe, which spreads the protective mantle of peace, security and prosperity to the troubled countries of the East.

    I want to see an open Europe in which the weight of bureaucracy and regulation is reduced, and we embrace wholeheartedly the goal of a great single market open for business, competition and trade.

    And I want to see a people’s Europe. One that is not the remote preserve of a circle of planners. But a Community that addresses the concerns of ordinary people – and never seeks to interfere where it does not need.

    Our guiding lights are the principles of free trade, free enterprise and free association.

    Our aim is still to build closer co-operation between a growing number of nations.

    But we shall stand always for individual choice.

    Cherish always national diversity.

    And never deviate for one instant from defence of Britain’s own national interest.

    Our vision remains as it ever has been – a strong Britain in a strong Europe. That vision is supported by all but a handful of the people in these islands.

    Conclusion

    Mr President, I am proud of what Conservative Governments have achieved for our country. And I am full of hope and confidence in what this country still can and will achieve.

    Over the last 15 years we have helped change Britain.

    When I entered Parliament Britain faced real and visible threats.

    Our economy was ravaged by inflation.

    Our industrial strength was sapped by trade union power.

    Our country was threatened by the armed might of the Communist bloc.

    Together we have seen that great external threat dissolve.

    And we have seen many of our internal problems so successfully resolved that many have forgotten the dragons that once stalked the land.

    Of course, in the modern world, new challenges constantly arise. And the pace of invention lays new opportunities and new ambitions in our path.

    But it is all too easy to forget how remarkably the face of our country has changed for the better.

    Today, a child growing up in Scotland is twice as likely to go to university, twice as likely to become a homeowner, and has far better job prospects. Not jobs in declining state owned industries, but jobs in growing industries – profitable businesses with better pay and better working conditions than we’ve ever known before.

    So whenever the storm blows, remember the successes we’ve had – and why we had them.

    We had them because, even when the going was toughest, we stuck to our last, stuck to our guns; we kept cool and we kept faith.

    Throughout all the ups and downs of the last 15 years – and together we’ve seen a few of them both – fashionable opinion has carped and criticised.

    I know many of you were with me in Edinburgh two years ago at that great rally in our General election campaign.

    We didn’t bow then to fashionable opinion. We took it on, shook it by the scruff of the neck, and turned it on its head.

    That Election was about something more profound than many before it. About the very structure and fabric of the nation state our ancestors fought to create. People saw clearly two great threats to our Kingdom – the siren songs of separation at home and surrender abroad.

    It was here in Scotland that we drew the line in the sand. We declared that we could not – we would not – whatever the cost, whatever the risk – compromise our deepest core beliefs, and put our nation at risk.

    We stand – by gut instinct – in defence of the ancient Union between four great nations. For one strong, united country whose voice is heard and respected abroad, as four small nations – however proud – could never be.

    The values we care about are the values that generation after generation in this country have lived for and lived by. I believe that Britain needs those values now, more than ever before.

    So, when the work of politics begins again, let us go out and campaign positively for what we believe in – with pride in our principles, confidence in our future, and faith in our country, the United Kingdom – that unique and special country – that means so much to us all.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister how many employees have worked on a full-time or part-time basis with the Scott inquiry liaison unit set up within the Cabinet Office; when the unit was established; and when its work will be completed.

    The Prime Minister : The Scott inquiry unit in the Cabinet Office was established in December 1992 with three full-time members, increased to five in April 1993. I am unable at this stage to say when the work of the unit will be completed.

     

    Veterans

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will reconsider his decision not to appoint a veterans’ Minister.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 9 May 1994] : Responsibility for matters affecting war veterans, their widows and dependants, forms part of the departmental remit of a number of Ministers, as appropriate. There are no plans to change this arrangement.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    United Nations Security Council

    Q6. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister if, when he last met President Clinton, they discussed the structure, functions and membership of the Security Council of the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The structure, functions and membership of the United Nations Security Council were not discussed during my visit.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q9. Dr. Liam Fox : To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to pay an official visit to Woodspring.

    The Prime Minister : I have no immediate plans to do so.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 May.

    Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 May.

    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.

     

    Tigris and Euphrates Valleys

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what latest assessment Her Majesty’s Government have received from medical sources of the latest disease position in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, related to defective water-pump and water-filtering equipment.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 April, Official Report, column 599. We have not received any subsequent assessments or reports.

     

    Savings Disregard

    Mr. Eastham : To ask the Prime Minister what the reasons were for the discrepancy between his oral answer of 5 May, Official Report, column 843, and the answer of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 14 March, Official Report, column 480, in respect of the uprating of the savings disregard.

    The Prime Minister : There is no discrepancy between my answer on the lower savings disregard and my hon. Friend’s answer, which explained the basis of the formula affecting savings held between £3,000 and £8,000. There is no statutory requirement to increase the capital limits as part of the annual uprating of benefits. We keep the limits under review, but there are no current plans for change.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister how many current and former officials and Ministers in his Department, including the Cabinet Office, have been asked to give written or oral evidence to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister : My predecesor and I have both given written and oral evidence to Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry. In addition, one serving and one former official have given written and oral evidence relating to their respective service within the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Office, and two former officials have submitted written evidence only.

  • Mr Major’s Tribute to John Smith – 12 May 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s Commons statement made in tribute to John Smith, the Leader of the Opposition, who had died that morning, 12th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

    When I heard the tragic news of John Smith this morning, I thought it right that the House should meet this afternoon to pay tribute to a distinguished parliamentarian and then adjourn. I do not believe that there would have been the stomach for any other business in the House today.

    I know that the whole House would wish me first to express my deep and warm sympathy for Mrs. Smith and for John Smith’s family, his wife and his daughters. In the House, we have lost a formidable senior Member of very rare ability.

    To the Labour party also, I offer my deep sympathy. After some serious hammer blows that they have faced among their colleagues in recent months, they have lost a leader and, I know, for many of them a deep and close friend of many years’ standing. But above all, Elizabeth Smith, Sarah, Jane and Catherine have lost a husband, a father and a part of their lives which can never be replaced. John Smith was one of the outstanding parliamentarians of modern politics. He was skilled in the procedures of this House, skilled in upholding its traditions, a fair-minded but, I can say as well as any Member in the House, tough fighter for what he believed in and, above all, he was outstanding in parliamentary debate. As one would expect of a barrister and Queen’s counsel, he was always master of his brief, however complex and however detailed it might be. But beyond being master of his brief, on good days–and for him there were many good days–his speeches could shape and move the will of the House in the way that few Members are able to do.

    Over recent years, both as Prime Minister and as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I had the pleasure and the privilege of facing John Smith across this Dispatch Box. I learned on those occasions to acknowledge the skill and the wit with which he mastered his arguments. He had that rare ability to switch with speed from irony to sarcasm to invective and to fact, and sometimes, in the heat of parliamentary debate, to half fact, on every occasion knowing exactly how and when to move from one mood to the other for maximum parliamentary and political effect. Those are formidable skills, they are rare skills and, even for those against whom those skills were deployed, it is hard to bear that we will never see or hear those skills in this House again.

    He had no malice. There were things that he cared for passionately. He lived for them; he fought for them; he cared for them. But he carried his fight fairly, without malice, without nastiness. The bruises that existed soon faded after a dispute with John Smith. In our parliamentary democracy, it is the fate of party leaders to dispute, to scorn, to disagree. We have an adversarial system of politics–the best in the world, I believe, but adversarial. So it was in the nature of my political relationship with John Smith that we frequently clashed in public and in the House, yet afterwards, in private, we met often and amiably–again, no bruises.

    Inevitably, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have to conduct business in private and on confidential matters. Whenever we did, I always found him courteous, fair minded and constructive, but also tough for what he was seeking and what he believed in. We would share a drink– sometimes tea, sometimes not tea–and our discussions on those occasions ranged far beyond the formal business that we were transacting. To the despair of my private office and, I suspect, sometimes of his, the meetings extended far beyond the time that was immediately scheduled for them.

    Under our constitution, the role of the Leader of the Opposition is unique. It is a vital role–not in government, but vital to the determination of the way in which we conduct our affairs and to the protection of people who oppose the Government on a range of issues. The Leader of the Opposition is in the anteroom of power, yet not in the seat of power itself. In that position–perhaps for a short time, perhaps for a long time–he must maintain his party’s hunger for government and never let that appetite diminish. He must remain confident and never let the years of waiting sour or embitter him or the nature of public life. He must keep alive hope and ambition and must keep sharp the cutting edge of his own party’s beliefs. If I may judge him from this side of the House, it seemed to me that John Smith trod that path for his party and its supporters in the country with skill and assurance that few have matched.

    Political differences are not the be-all and end-all of relationships for Members of the House. When I think of John Smith, I think of an opponent, not an enemy; and when I remember him, I shall do so with respect and affection. When I think of his premature death, I shall think of the waste that it has brought to our public life–the waste of a remarkable political talent; the waste of a high and honourable ambition to lead our country; the waste of a man in public life who, in all his actions, retained a human touch; and, in some ways above all, the waste of the tranquillity and happiness that his past endeavours would have so richly deserved in the years to come.

    Let me end where I began. In the weeks that lie immediately ahead, John’s family will need all their courage. Let us show by what we say and do today that, while we cannot bear for them their pain, we can offer them the comfort of shared respect and shared grief.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty’s Government are making to the report by Willem C. Smit and Dr. Jean Pierre Revel for the regional office in Amman of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, a copy of which has been sent to him, on their assessment mission to Iraq from 11 January to 11 February covering the health and nutritional status of the Iraqi people, the extent of the increase in the cost of a food basket between 1990 and 1993 and the extent of marasmus, kwashiorkor and other water-borne diseases.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 10 May 1994] : I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 25 April, Official Report, column 31. The appeal by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies was to a large extent based on the Smit/Revel report. The British Red Cross is clarifying one or two issues, following which a final decision on a possible contribution from the Government will be taken.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    ANZAC Day

    Mr. Cummings : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) of 28 April, Official Report, column 244, if he will consider the banning of traffic in Whitehall during the period of time taken on ANZAC day for the laying of wreaths and the silent tribute.

    The Prime Minister : Under the terms of the sessional orders, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is required, during the Session of Parliament, to keep the streets leading to and from the Houses of Parliament free and open. Any proposal to amend the sessional orders would be a matter for this House and another place.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

     

    Privatisation (Consultants)

    Mr. Milburn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which the Cabinet Office has been engaged since 1980.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 May 1994] : The Cabinet Office has undertaken no privatisation since 1980 and consequently has incurred no expenditure on consultants in connection with it.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister what have been the costs incurred by his office in (a) providing legal advice to witnesses appearing before the Scott inquiry, (b) drawing up evidence to be submitted to the Scott inquiry, (c) officials and legal advisers attending the Scott inquiry and (d) any other related costs.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 May 1994] : The costs under (a) to (c) are unquantifiable. No legal or other help was provided from outside the Government. The costs therefore consisted in the time of myself and Sir Robin Butler, who appeared as witnesses, and of the officials who gave support as part of their normal duties. Under (d), the cost of the Cabinet Office liaison unit since December 1992, including the cost of supplying documents from 10 Downing street and the Cabinet Office to the inquiry, has been approximately £230,000.

  • PMQT – 10 May 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Colin Shepherd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

    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. Shepherd : During the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that over the past year, industrial output in the United Kingdom rose– [Hon. Members :– “Oh.”] Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that industrial output in this country rose by 3.7 per cent.– [Interruption.] –while in Germany, Japan, France and Italy industrial output fell? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is but one of a large number of good news stories abounding in this country at this time that deserve wider currency? Will my right hon. Friend confirm– [Interruption.] Will he confirm that it is still permissible to publish good news in this country?

    The Prime Minister : As far as I could hear my hon. Friend over a fairly turbulent House, I believe that he was referring to the good news about the economy that has been evident over recent weeks. Good news is certainly allowed, but I fear that it may often be masked by less important matters these days. The fact is that the British economy is growing, has been growing for some time and is expected to continue to grow. Thankfully, unemployment is falling and is expected to continue to fall.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the cry for a referendum on Europe further and compelling evidence that the Prime Minister’s Cabinet and party are hopelessly divided? Is not it astonishing that battle is permitted to rage even within the Treasury? Does the Prime Minister support his Chancellor or his Chief Secretary?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and as I have made clear to the House on many occasions, I am sceptical about referendums. I made that clear during the Maastricht debate, and I have not changed my mind. There is not even a specific agenda for the intergovernmental conference yet. I do not believe that the question of a referendum arises now, and it certainly does not need to be decided now. It is not yet possible to say what the outcome of the conference will be, and I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not intend to come back to the House with a package that the House would find unacceptable.

    Mr. John Smith : On the question of referendums, does the Prime Minister recall saying something to the House on 6 May last year? His exact words were :

    “We are a parliamentary democracy, and I am not in favour of referendums.”- -[ Official Report , 6 May 1993 ; Vol. 224, c. 284.] Today he expressed scepticism. Is the movement from opposition to scepticism because he is running in front of the anti-Europeans?

    The Prime Minister : If he had listened carefully, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have also heard me say a moment or so ago that I have not changed my mind. As to a single European currency, as I have said before, decisions on that are a long way off. That will not be determined in 1996. No one expects that this Parliament is going to be asked to decide on a single European currency. That would be a matter for a future Parliament, in circumstances that no one can predict. It was my negotiating at Maastricht that made it clear that this Department would have the right to decide on that matter at a future date. Even if I wish to, I could not bind a future Parliament on its decisions.

    Mr. John Smith : If that answer by the Prime Minister is to be construed as ruling out a referendum in the future, can we be assured that every member of his Government will be asked to support it or will be asked to resign?

    The Prime Minister : I have just set out the position clearly for the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have made it entirely clear to him that it would not be appropriate to make a commitment now about a future Parliament’s decision. Even if I wished to, I could not bind a future Parliament. My personal decision on referendums has been made entirely clear on other occasions and again today. I reiterate that I have not changed my mind.

     

    Q2. Mr. Trotter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

    Mr. Trotter : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a fact that if we were to have a Labour Government, we would inevitably have higher taxation and weaker defences, and that our policy on Europe would be destroyed by socialism? Is not that a message that all of us on the Government Benches should be constantly conveying?

    The Prime Minister : I am glad to say that a Labour Government would be a very improbable premise. Even last Thursday, which appears to have buoyed them, they secured a lower share of the vote than we secured in the last general election. My hon. Friend is entirely right. A Labour Government would mean substantial defence cuts, higher expenditure and higher taxation, and would also mean signing up as part of a federal European state. That is no future for this country and will not be accepted by the people of this country at the next general election.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that his answer on the question of a referendum will serve only to confirm his reputation as the maybe man? How can the British people be asked to vote on the question of Europe by a Government who are so divided on that issue and a Prime Minister whose answer on the key questions cannot get further than “perhaps”? Will he now tell us whether his answer is supposed to construe the meaning that he is opposed to a referendum, under any circumstances, as a result of which there might be a substantial change in Britain’s relation with Brussels–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is at his own game as a veritable opportunist for all seasons. I made perfectly clear a few moments ago what is my personal position on referendums. I also made it clear that, in 1996, I am not going to bring back anything remotely likely to be unacceptable to the House and I made it clear that on a far future date, the decision on a single European currency must be made by this House. I cannot bind the House and I do not intend to try to bind the House at this distance in time.

    Sir Terence Higgins : Is not it the case that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of a Government who introduced a referendum–an alien concept, inconsistent with our system of representative parliamentary democracy? Is not it absurd for those who argue that the authority of this House is being usurped by Brussels to advocate the use of a device that would undermine the authority of the House?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend points to something with which the House has become familiar–the selective memory of the Leader of the Opposition about what he has stood for in the past. The points made by my right hon. Friend are undeniable and I agree with them.

     

    Q3. Mr. Wicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

    Mr. Wicks : Has the Prime Minister been told that since his campaign visit to Croydon, the wise people of Croydon threw out the Tory council after more than 100 years and elected a majority Labour council for the first time ever?

    We thank him for that visit. Whom does he blame for the Croydon Tory disaster : the local Conservatives or his own Government?

    The Prime Minister : Let me mention that I visited Westminster and Wandsworth as well. I congratulate the new Croydon councillors on their success in the elections and I sympathise with the Croydon electors who will have higher bills to pay and a less efficient administration.

     

    Q4. Mr. Deva : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

    Mr. Deva : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom attracted the highest level of foreign investment of any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1991 and 1992? Would the Labour party’s proposed increases in business taxes, enunciated in the European socialist manifesto, add encouragement to that vote of confidence in Britain?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right. We have built up a position over many years as a favoured country for inward investment. That is apparent in Scotland, the north-east, the north-west, Wales and many other places. There is no doubt that that position would fall away if we followed the policies advocated by Opposition Front-Bench Members. A social chapter would inhibit inward investment, as would the 35-hour week, a minimum wage and plans to harmonise taxes upwards, all of which the Leader of the Opposition has signed up to in the socialist European manifesto. That manifesto is binding on the Labour party as, I hope, the Labour party will make clear to every elector in the forthcoming European elections.

     

    Q5. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

    Mr. Connarty : Does the Prime Minister accept that there are hundreds of thousands of pensioners who are now genuinely concerned that, should they fall ill, their pensions and savings will be used to pay for care that they thought they had paid for through their taxes? Will he take on the bloodsuckers in the Treasury and in the Department of Social Security who are threatening the last vestige of compassion in the national health service?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are increasing resources in the national health service and increasing the provision of assistance to people in the national health service. Indeed, the national health service is the one service in Government that is guaranteed a real- terms increase, year on year, as we examine the relative proportions of public expenditure. There is no doubt about the growth, both for the elderly and for other people, in the national health service, and that growth will continue.

    Mr. Lester : I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend’s wise words on the subject of a referendum. Will he reflect on the fact that when the Labour party had a referendum to provide party unity, that not only created the Social Democrat party but kept it in opposition for 14 years?

    The Prime Minister : So far; there are more years of opposition to come.

     

    Q6. Mr. Mudie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

    Mr. Mudie : Why, only two weeks after expressing support for the aims of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, did the Prime Minister allow the cynical, Government-inspired sabotage of the Bill last Friday?

    The Prime Minister : No one could have accepted a Bill, as drafted, with a cost compliance calculated at £17 billion and a yearly on-cost of £1 billion. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People made clear in the debate on Friday, we intend within the next six months to consult on proposals to eliminate unjustified discrimination in employment, access to goods and services, financial services and access to buildings. We also intend to consult on the establishment of a new advisory body on disability. Those consultations will take account of the views of everyone with an interest in disability. At the end of that process, we shall consider assisting in the drafting of practical and workable legislation that will help the disabled.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery : Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the great problems facing not only this country but the rest of the world is the increase in drugs and the terrible effect that that has on crime? Can he give an assurance that the Government and the police will give top priority to tackling the drug barons and their vile trade?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The sum total of expenditure to tackle the drugs menace exceeds something like £500 million a year. We are seeking, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord President, to bring together all the action that exists across Government so that we can most effectively target the drugs programme. We are also consulting our European partners–notably Germany–to see what can be done at the European level to assist in preventing drugs from coming to this country in the first place.

     

    Q7. Mr. George Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

    Mr. Howarth : As the leader of the most unpopular Government this century and with a divided shambles of a party beside and behind him, does the Prime Minister think that it would be better to clear the air and have a general election now?

    The Prime Minister : At the last election, we received the highest number of votes that any party has ever received in a general election, and we received a five-year mandate to carry out our policies. I intend to exercise that five-year mandate. Then the hon. Gentleman will get his election and then if he personally is re-elected, he can continue to sit where he sits now.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 18 April, Official Report, column 365, for what reason no records of correspondence received by his office prior to April 1989 any longer exist.

    The Prime Minister : It is not cost-effective to retain full records of all correspondence received by my office. However, from April 1989 onwards brief records of selected correspondence–and from 1992 brief records of all correspondence–have been entered on a computer database.

     

    Internet

    Mr. David Shaw : To ask the Prime Minister what plans his Department has (a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

    The Prime Minister : My office’s press releases are accessible, through the Central Office of Information, to users of the Internet via Data-Star Dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/Nexis. They are also available to subscribers to FT Profile, Reuters Textline, POLIS and through the Central Office of Information’s fax retrieval service.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Friendly Governments

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty’s Government introduced the practice of not commenting on the policies of other friendly Governments; and if he will list those Governments Her Majesty’s Government regard as friendly.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 31 March, Official Report, column 908.

     

    Health Service Visits

    Ms Primarolo : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each hospital, general practitioner practice or other national health service site (a) he has visited since 1 April and (b) which he plans to visit before 9 June.

    The Prime Minister : I have made one visit, to Basildon hospital on Tuesday 5 April. No other visits are planned before 9 June.

     

    Civil Servants (Business Appointments)

    Mr. Milburn : To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since 1986 through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment (a) as an independent consultant, (b) in a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 3 May 1994] : The information for the areas covered by the Cabinet Office and the Office of Public Service and Science votes is set out in the table.

    ————————

    1986 |2|-|-|2|1|1|1

    1987 |3|-|-|3|3|3|-

    1988 |6|-|-|6|6|-|6

    1989 |3|1|-|2|1|3|-

    1990 |5|-|1|4|3|4|1

    1991 |7|-|1|6|5|7|-

    <1>1992 |2|1|1|-|-|2|-

    1993 |5|2|2|1|-|5|-

    <1> In 1992 the Cabinet Office took on responsibility for the science functions of the former DES and the Treasury businesses (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; Central Office of Information; Chessington Computer Centre; and the CCTA.

     

    Pakistan

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the Prime Minister of Pakistan to discuss matters of interest to Pakistan and the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 May 1994] : I hope to meet the Prime Minister of Pakistan again later this year.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 6 May 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held in London on Friday 6th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought it might be useful before I departed for the Channel Tunnel opening today to say just a word or two to you about last night’s elections.

    There is no point whatever in whingeing when you have had a set-back and I certainly do not do that. Last night was a poor result and it is very clear that many of our natural supporters decided on this occasion that they would stay at home. What I would like to do first is to congratulate those Councillors who won seats last night, whatever party they may represent. They have important responsibilities on local councils and I look forward to working with them in discharging those responsibilities.

    May I also express my thanks to those Conservative Councillors, many of them who have served the local community for a long time, who last night were defeated in their bid to be re-elected to their own local authority. I think it is the case that they were defeated because of a national feeling and not because of a local feeling against their performance. What we must now do is work to ensure their return to office at the first possible occasion.

    The Conservative Party that I care about is a good deal bigger than any election set-back. We must now pick ourselves up and fight back and that is precisely what I intend to do and I invite every Conservative to join me in that fight. I do not believe in present circumstances that the Party will forgive anyone who stands on the sidelines or utters a discordant note. Frankly we cannot afford that luxury, we have important elections immediately in front of us for the European Parliament and we must now turn all our efforts to winning those elections.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister, in case there should be any misunderstanding, can you confirm that you will stay as leader and that you will fight any challenge that may come along?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can confirm that.

    QUESTION:

    And you know this morning that [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I know this morning, I can confirm that. The Conservative Party have a mechanism for a challenge to the leadership of that party, that mechanism can quite properly be used by Members of Parliament. If anybody choose to engage in that fight they will find me standing there waiting for them.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are a range of issues. I think the bruises from the recession are very deep and I think people have not forgiven us for that. The economy now, I believe, is moving into a more buoyant phase that we have seen for many years, most people in business recognise that but it certainly has not rippled through to people in the High Street and in their own homes yet. I think that certainly was a very important factor. And frankly I think natural Conservative Party supporters are distressed when they see discordancy in the party.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I regard public office not as a matter of personal pride ambition, I regard public office as a responsibility and a duty. At the last general election 14.5 million votes were cast for the Conservative Party with me as its leaders to see this country through the next few years, that is an important responsibility. We have set in place many of the policies that are now showing signs of bringing us out of recession and back to growth, I wish to see those policies through.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are wholly wrong about that. The economy is moving I think more speedily than many people imagine and I believe that that will become increasingly apparent in the weeks and months ahead.

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman):

    [Indistinct] if the Euro-elections are as bad as these?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will meet a challenge whenever it comes.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] if so, would it be of a Euro-sceptic party or as a part of Europe party?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have agreed our manifesto, it was agreed yesterday in Cabinet, there was total agreement about the manifesto upon which we will fight the European elections. It is very clear cut, it is a distinctively British Conservative manifesto. I think it will find an echo in every part of this country, it is very, very different from the sort of manifesto that the Labour and Liberal parties will contest the election on. I relish that election campaign, there are issues of great national importance to be decided, I believe we have the right policies for that campaign and I believe we will do well in it.