The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Bill Clinton – 24 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Bill Clinton, held in Washington on Wednesday 24th February 1993.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I want to formally welcome Prime Minister Major to the White House of the United States, we are delighted to have him here. As I am sure you know, he has already met earlier today with people on the Hill and with members of my Cabinet. We have just finished the first of two meetings, we talked for about an hour and then this evening we will have a working dinner.

    About the conversations we have had so far, I would just like to make two points: first we covered a wide range of topics, we talked about Bosnia, as you might imagine we would, we talked about the Middle East. And then the rest of our time was spent virtually exclusively talking about economic matters, about the upcoming meeting of the G7, about the importance of trying to get an agreement under GATT and my commitment to that, about the absolute necessity of the United States, Europe and Japan working together during this difficult time to try and prevent a contraction of the global economy and instead hopefully to promote growth not only here at home but throughout the world. And we talked about that in some considerable detail.

    The Prime Minister, as you know, has been in office a lot longer than I have and I asked him for his advice about a number of things and his opinion about others and we had a very very good meeting and I am looking forward to our dinner tonight.

    The second point I would like to make is to reaffirm something that some of you asked me during the photo op, and that is whether the United States will continue to have a very special relationship with Great Britain. The answer to that, from my point of view, is an unqualified ‘Yes’. I think that only two Presidents ever lived in England, I think I am one of only two, there may have been more somewhere in past centuries, but it is a very important relationship to me and I think it is off to a very good start. And I would like to say again how much I appreciate the candour with which the Prime Minister has approached the issues on which we discussed our mutual interests.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, firstly thank you for your welcome today and I have found out meeting extremely useful and I look forward to continuing this evening. And I certainly had some very useful meetings this morning on the Hill and with other members of your Cabinet earlier this morning, with Lloyd Bentsen and of course over lunch as well with some of your colleagues. It is nice, having had a number of telephone conversations over the last few months, to actually see a face across the table rather than just hear a voice across the ‘phone and I look forward to continuing that dialogue this evening.

    You set out some of the things that we were able to discuss over the last hour or so. I was particularly pleased we were able to reach such a meeting of minds on the importance of reaching an agreement to the Uruguay Round as speedily as possible. I think we share the view that for a raft of reasons it is important to get a satisfactory and fair agreement to the GATT Round, not just because of the impetus that will give to trade growth and hopefully to prosperity and job growth as well, but also because of the very remarkable advantage that will give not just to the industrialised but to the non-industrialised world with the many difficulties that are faced economically at the moment. So I was particularly pleased at our meeting of minds on that particular subject.

    We found also a complete agreement about the need for the Security Council resolutions that have been imposed in respect of Iraq to be fully met and to be fully honoured in the future. I had the pleasure of being able to welcome the President’s initiative in humanitarian air drops in Bosnia. The United Kingdom have got a number of thousands of troops actually delivering humanitarian aid in central Bosnia, they have been doing that for some time. I think as a result of their activities many people who otherwise might not have lived through this winter have done and I think this new initiative by the President is thoroughly welcome.

    So it has been a very worthwhile and a very enjoyable meeting thus far and I look forward to continuing it this evening.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Let me answer that first question. If the United States can in some way make a constructive contribution to a political settlement, of course we would be interested in doing that, but that is not a subject we have discussed in any way so far and I think I would rather wait to make further comments until after we have had a chance to discuss it.

    As far as the campaign is concerned, the campaign is over, you are a good one to answer that question since you know that compared to previous campaigns I have been in this was just sort of another day at the office and once you achieve the responsibilities of office, this is what you have to do. I told the Prime Minister today that I was just grateful that I got through this whole campaign with most of my time in England still classified.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Let me deal with the air drops first. General Powell came over here last weekend and we talked for a very extended period of time about this operation and about how we can maximise the safety to United States’ pilots and other personnel on the planes who would be involved in this and to minimise the prospect that any humanitarian relief operation could be drawn into the politics and the military operations of this area. We know that if we are high enough to virtually assure the complete safety of the people who will participate in the airlift that a percentage of the packages we drop will be outside the more or less half mile circle that we will be trying to hit. We also know that if we leaflet the area in advance, if we notify the people about what we are dropping and how to use the medicine and what kind of food will be there, to whatever extent the people need it they will be on the look-out for it and if they have to walk a mile instead of half a mile for it, we think they will. So we believe that (a) there is a need in some of the remote areas and (b) we can do this with quite an effective but safe mission.

    Insofar as other actions, I think there are a number of things that we are looking at. I am encouraged by the United Nations’ interest in the war crimes issue, I am encouraged by the conversation the Prime Minister and I had about the importance of trying to make the sanctions that are now in force actively be more effective. But I would remind you that our policy is that we want to try and have a good faith in negotiations with all the parties there, we are committed to doing what we can to encourage the Bosnians to engage in negotiations within the Vance/Owen framework and President Yeltsin has been very forthcoming on his part in trying to help get the negotiations back on track too.

    So I think we should look at it just from that point of view. It would be a great mistake to read this humanitarian relief operation as some initial foray towards a wider military role.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just add something to that, as you requested? We are able at the moment to deliver a substantial amount of aid in central Bosnia by land but the natural terrain of Bosnia as a whole means that is not practicable for a raft of reasons, not least geographical reasons, at the moment in all parts of Bosnia. I think therefore you do have to look at imaginative ways of actually getting food aid and medicine aid through and I think the prospect that the President is exploring is an imaginative one and I hope it will prove successful. On sanctions, one of the things we have been discussing in the last half an hour or so is the prospects of enhanced sanctions and I think there clearly are opportunities there that we will need to examine. I think we can improve the sanctions over the Danube, for example, I do not think they are being enforced very effectively.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think President Yeltsin is weakened by his present conflict to the extent that he is not going to continue, clearly there are difficulties in the disputes he has had with Congress and in particular the Speaker, but I expect President Yeltsin to be there and to continue, I think he is the best hope for the Russians and I think the policies and the movements towards reform that he has in mind and continues to have in mind are the right ways forward. I think there are two things we can do to help Russia in general and President Yeltsin, one is the economic assistance that has been provided, and there is a great deal of discussion to be had about whether we are directing that in the right way and in the right volume, and secondly I think also there are the political messages of support to the reformers and to the reform policies, personified at the moment in the person of President Yeltsin but the underlying purpose of the assistance is to assist the reformers and to assist the reform policies in Russia. I think we ought to give them political support as well as the practical and economic support that we have been giving them.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I believe that President Yeltsin has not been paralysed by what has happened, I support him and his role and he is trying to do. I have not established a definite date for a meeting with him yet but I do hope to meet with him soon, personally. I know he is having some trouble with his Congress but that is part of being in a democratic society with an elected President [indistinct] what it is like in our system. I do not want to minimise that but I think it is a grave error to assume that he cannot continue and do well, I believe he can. And I think that in terms of what we ought to be doing about it, I think the Prime Minister has pretty well laid out the kind of political and economic support we ought to be giving but let me say that as all of you know, I have placed a great priority on this. The State Department will now have an Ambassador at large whose job it is to coordinate a response not only to Russia but to all the republics of the former Soviet Union and we have a very distinguished American, Thomas Pickering, nominated to be our Ambassador. We have put in a lot of effort into trying to support democracy and trying to support economic recovery there.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We are going to ask for an extension of fast track authority and we are going to put a real effort into a successful conclusion of the Round. I advocated that in 1991 at the beginning of my race for President and I still feel very strongly that it is important.

    The press response around the world to the economic plan I presented to Congress has been very positive because our trading partners have been asking us for years to make a real effort to reduce the debt and so we are doing that. I think that sparks hope not only here at home but around the world and I think if we were to successfully conclude the Uruguay Round that would also spark hope that we will be expanding trade on terms that are fair to everyone so I am very hopeful that we can get a trade agreement.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We haven’t discussed Northern Ireland at all and after we do I’ll be happy to answers your questions.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    All I can tell you is General Powell has been asked to design the mission in such a way that we would minimise risk to our folks and we have obviously engaged in an extensive consultation, which is not over, [inaudible] has been asking me every day when I was going to make this announcement. The consultations aren’t over and one of the things that we want everybody to know is that this is a humanitarian mission and we are prepared to help anybody who needs the food and medicine and we want the broadest possible support for this and we want all the people on the ground and the various factions to know that this is not a political issue with us.

    We are very encouraged by the responses we have gotten so far from all the elements with whom we have discussed this plan. That is all I can tell you.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is a great deal to add. As I indicated earlier, there is a twin-track approach. We are providing aid by land, the President has in mind aid delivered by air to areas we can’t reach by land. I have no reason to suppose that that is going to put at risk the lives of the British soldiers in Central Bosnia.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but regarding fighter capability].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You asked the question. I have given the judgement I make.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We talked about the importance of adhering to the United Nations Resolution as they apply to Iraq in the aftermath of the Gulf War and about our general support for the peace process continuing. We didn’t deal with that issue and I think I ought to wait until the Secretary of State returns from his mission before I discuss it further.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but regarding consultations on Bosnia and any other countries becoming involved other than the US].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Yes, we might have some other countries involved. The Prime Minister has made his statement. I think he has done his part. His troops are on the ground there but I think there is a chance that we will have support from other nations.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    No.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter that has to be negotiated between the parties and I don’t think I’m going to express a view on whether that is the right map. I think the process of seeking a negotiated settlement and trying to reach by agreement between the three parties an agreement on the map that will enable a political settlement to be reached is the right way but I don’t think it is for me to judge whether the map is right. Clearly, the view of the participants at the moment is that the map isn’t right but that is the purpose of negotiations; that is why I was delighted to hear this morning that Karadzic and Izetbegovic will be joining talks again with Boban so that they can actually talk to Cy Vance and David Owen and see if they can reach an agreement.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    The only thing I would say just to add to that is that I agree with what the Prime Minister has said. As you know, the United States feels very strongly that this agreement must be just that – an agreement; it must not be shoved down the throat of the Bosnians or anyone else if it is going to work.

    We also feel strongly that all the parties should negotiate in good faith and therefore I agree with what he said about the map but I would make this further point: the United States has made clear in our statement of policy that if an agreement is reached in good faith we would be prepared to be part of a NATO or a United Nations effort to monitor or support the agreement and that map would be difficult to support I think but before we make any final judgements we need to give the parties a chance to reach their accord.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    What I said was that I have invited the members of the Congress to present them to me and instructed our people to continue to look for them and I presume as we define things that we are willing to put on the table we will continue to do it. We don’t have any orchestrated theory about how to do that now but I’d be surprised if there aren’t some more comments.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is an agreement over the degree of subsidies for projects like Airbus and that agreement continues until July and I think there is no proposition in what the President said to change that particular agreement.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, you said you may discuss Northern Ireland this evening. Would you expect to discuss both the peace envoy issue and the human rights issue and do you share the view expressed by some members of Congress that Senator [indistinct] suggested that there are abuses of human rights in Northern Ireland that need to be addressed and perhaps the Prime Minister would like to [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will address that point first. The real abuse of human rights in Northern Ireland is the abuse of human rights of people who find bombs in shopping malls when they are going about their ordinary everyday business. I think that is the abuse of human rights that is overwhelmingly the concern of everybody in Northern Ireland on both sides of the sectarian divide.

    Over the past two or three years, the British Government with the Taoiseach and the political parties in Northern Ireland have been engaged in talks to try and find a political settlement to a problem that has existed in Northern Ireland for generations. We are seeking that agreement. Those talks I believe it is fair to say have made more progress than most people believed was possible. The talks came to a halt with the general election in the Republic of Ireland and the forthcoming local elections in Northern Ireland but it is the policy of my Government to resume those talks with all the parties in Northern Ireland to try and reach a satisfactory political settlement and remove many of the disputes and hatreds that have existed for generations. Those disputes and hatreds are worsened by violence, whether it is the IRA violence or whether it is the response to IRA violence which has also been prevalent over the last year or so. I condemn both unreservedly and without any distinction.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I believe that obviously there has to be a political solution there or there will be no solution at all and that the human rights issues will have to be addressed in that context. Whether the United States can play any sort of constructive role is something that we want to discuss later this evening.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I think you have to expect that there would be some trouble and the Senate Minority Leader can say that but he was here during the last twelve years when other Presidents and the Congress quadrupled the national debt. I am trying to do something about it, turn it around and go in the opposite direction. The survey showed that a big majority of the American people support my initiative. The response from people in governments around the world has been almost uniformly positive that American is trying to change the nature of its economic policy, reduce its debt, increase investment in high-growth items and I never expected this to be easy. This is a fundamental change; I don’t expect it to be easy but I hope that I will be working with Senator Dole and with others to bring it to a successful conclusion.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Yes, I spoke to the Prime Minister of Canada. We had a very nice conversation which was mostly personal and I thanked him for his kindness to me and he assured me that his country would continue to work with me and that he would personally until his tenure in office was over. I wish him well. He seemed to be a person who had worked through this and was very much at peace with himself today.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just answer that point as well. I regard Brian as an old friend and a good friend. I shall miss him. He has been a very good friend of the United Kingdom and a very good friend of the Commonwealth so I am sad to hear of his decision today but it must be his decision. I wish him well in the future and I look forward to seeing him in the United Kingdom in a few weeks time.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think from time to time distinguished visitors from the United States in Northern Ireland have come back to the United States and they have actually explained the remarkable changes that have taken place in Belfast. There was a delegation that was there recently and the reality is that anyone who knew the place ten years ago and knows the place today will see there is an absolute and total sea change and I think there is a greater knowledge about the will for peace amongst people in Northern Ireland, especially the ordinary people of Northern Ireland on both sides of the sectarian divide. The more that is understood the better and what is actually needed in Northern Ireland to help speed that is more understanding of the process, more support for the talks, more investment for job creation and less money to fund terrorism and the more people know about that, the nearer we come to a solution.

  • Mr Major’s Pool Interview with the Media – 23 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s pool interview with the media, en route to Washington on Tuesday 23rd February 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I get the sense that on this trip you have got more to talk about and you are going to have a more crowded agenda than for very many meetings between President and Prime Minister for some time past?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is probably right, it is certainly going to be a very crowded agenda. It falls, I think, into two quite clear cut parts, firstly economic/trade matters, the need to get the GATT Round settled, and political matters, the problems in Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq. There will certainly be plenty to talk about.

    QUESTION:

    But I also sense that there are real differences between you which could cause trouble. Just take two: the whole business over Airbus, Ireland for example, little things which may be a real irritant between the two of you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think there are going to be matters that we cannot solve readily. There are certainly a whole range of things that we will want to discuss but the predominant matters are of course the trade matters, I think that will be in the centre of our minds.

    QUESTION:

    But have you not got more work to do with an incoming President like this, some of whose views do not seem to be quite what yours are?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I think you make a misjudgement when you say that. There is one thing that is absolutely clear, both the United States and the United Kingdom have a common outlook on a vast range of international problems. Most centrally of course we are both anxious to get the world economies moving again, we both know that that needs a satisfactory GATT agreement. We are both determined in international affairs, for example, to do what we can to contribute to helping Russia deal with its enormous problems, vital for the whole of Europe and the rest of the world that we do so. We are both keen to see a solution to the problems in Yugoslavia. We are both absolutely determined to make sure that Iraq obeys the Security Council resolutions. So the points that we have to discuss that you say are points of difference are tiny compared to the points where we wish to move the agenda forward from a mutual area of agreement.

    QUESTION:

    I know it is a hackneyed phrase – the special relationship – but I do get the sense that there needs to be a bit of rebuilding of that special relationship at the moment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The special relationship is not a term, frankly, that I use. There are huge areas of common interest between the United States and the United Kingdom, that has been so for many years and will continue to be so in the future. It is partly the instinct of a long-standing blood relationship but more important it is the fact that we have the common outlook on how to deal with many of the problems that exist, that has been so with administrations over many years, it is so now, and in my judgement it will remain so in the future.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it is important that you are the first European leader to go to see him?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have spoken on the telephone on a number of occasions already so we have a pretty clear idea of what our views are on a whole range of subjects. I am looking forward to seeing him, I very much hope that the other European leaders will see him very shortly.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Mordechai Vanunu

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to raise the case of Mordechai Vanunu with President Herzog of Israel during his visit to the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : This matter has been raised informally with the Israeli Government. I do not plan to raise it formally with the President.

     

    Road Casualties

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a table to show comparable data on road casualty rates for (a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales.

    The Prime Minister : The latest comparable rates for these countries is published in tables 1, 4 and 8 of “Road Accident Statistics English Regions 1991”, a copy of which is in the Library.

     

    Manufacturing Initiatives

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister what further initiatives he is planning to rebuild the United Kingdom manufacturing base.

    The Prime Minister : The Government fully appreciate the part played by manufacturing industry in securing the United Kingdom’s long-term prosperity. I, and my Cabinet colleagues, will continue to pay close attention to manufacturing industry’s concerns across the full range of the Government’s decisions.

     

    Nuclear Weapons (Discussions)

    Dr. David Clark : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to discuss with President Clinton (a) collaboration on the safety of nuclear weapons, (b) the negotiation of a competitive test ban treaty and (c) article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : There will be no formal agenda, but I expect to have wide-ranging discussions with President Clinton and members of his administration.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

    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 this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others later today.

  • PMQT – 23 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Kim Howells : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

    Dr. Howells : Does the Prime Minister agree that it is one thing to blame the chairman of the Conservative party for having sent advisers to try to help undermine the Democrats’ presidential campaign, but that it is quite another for him to try to dodge the blame for illegal searches of Home Office files? Does he accept the blame for those illegal searches, and if he does not will he institute an investigation to find out who conducted them so that he can sack them?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is characteristically wrong on both points. Let me set out the facts for him. No one was sent by the Conservative party to take part in last year’s presidential election campaign. Two members of staff were invited privately by people in the Republican party. Their fares were paid by people in the Republican party ; they travelled in their own time ; and they paid their own personal expenses. Their expenses were not paid by the Conservative party. In contrast, the Labour party sent people, including its deputy leader, to the Democrat headquarters. It is not the least of the tributes to President Clinton that he won the election despite Europe’s most frequent losers giving him advice. The Home Office’s press office received inquiries in early October about whether Mr. Clinton had applied for British citizenship. Inquirers were told that, in accordance with normal practice, details about individual applications could not be disclosed to third parties. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now accept that that is the fact of the matter.

    Sir Terence Higgins : As, unlike the previous Labour Government, this Government are not obliged to do what the IMF tells them, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity in Washington to explain to the IMF that the economic recovery is still fragile, that the size of the public sector borrowing requirement is still due to a large extent to the recession and that an increase in taxation at this stage in the economic cycle would stultify growth and be likely to increase rather than diminish the size of the fiscal deficit?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend, as a former distinguished Treasury Minister, will expect me at this stage of the economic cycle to take note of his comments rather than to respond in detail to them.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister appreciate the full significance of the latest figures showing 1 million long-term unemployed? Is it not appalling that 20 per cent. of the long-term unemployed in this country are aged between 18 and 24, many of whom have never had a chance to work?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the number of long-term unemployed is too high– higher than anyone would wish to see. That is why we are seeking to reduce it. That is why we have put in place the most varied comprehensive programme ever to help people who have been unemployed for six months or more. Next year there will be more than 1,200,000 places on a number of schemes to help the long-term unemployed, including training for work, job clubs, business start-ups and restart courses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering how we might further help the long-term unemployed. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared to match his words with action and support any proposals that we may have.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it remotely satisfactory that a problem has to reach crisis proportions before it gets on the Government’s agenda? Is it not the case that, whatever the Government say or have been doing, unemployment goes up every month? Indeed, it has gone up every single month since the Prime Minister took office. I will give him one simple and practical suggestion. Why does he not let local authorities spend their own money which they have got from asset sales to build homes and put people back to work? He could do it tomorrow. Why does he not do it?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls the autumn statement, he will know that my right hon. Friend increased the amount of local authority assets that could be used and that local authorities underspend the amount that they are permitted to use. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so sure that it is this Government’s policies that cause unemployment, how can he explain the fact that unemployment is rising right across Europe and the world and that Governments of all complexions, including socialist Governments in France and Spain, face similar problems? If there is an easy answer, why is it that those socialist Governments and others have failed to find it?

    Mr. John Smith : Why is it that the Prime Minister fails to understand the deep concerns in this country? Is he aware that, in the context of high and rising unemployment and high and rising crime, it was reported yesterday in The Daily Telegraph that only 10 per cent. of the people of this country felt that we were a nation at ease with ourselves? Since the Prime Minister is so good at blaming everyone else, who does he blame for that sad state of affairs?

    The Prime Minister : I say categorically to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not fail to understand the problem of unemployment; I understand it very well. That is precisely why, over the last two years, we have put in place extra schemes–training for work, job clubs, job interview guarantees, business start-ups, workshops and restart courses–all to help people who are unemployed to get back into work. While the right hon. and learned Gentleman admits abroad that it is a worldwide problem, he does not have the courage to admit that here. He comes here with only sound bite politics rather than any constructive help.

    Mr. Ashby : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the way to improve the unemployment situation is to improve manufacturing industry, not, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, by allowing local authorities to spend their capital? Does my right hon. Friend accept, further, that in real manufacturing industry–the engineering industry–there are real signs of improvement and activity and that there is increased employment? Will my right hon. Friend see that that improvement continues by ensuring that we do not have increased taxation, that interest rates are kept low and that there is more capital investment and not so much tax on it?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend sets out a number of important points. Quite apart from the present inflation position and level of interest rates, there are a number of other signs that bode well for our competitiveness and for job creation in the future. United Kingdom unit costs are now growing more slowly than those in Japan and Germany. Earnings are growing more slowly than for 25 years, making us more competitive. Export volumes were at record levels at the end of last year. Our share of world trade has stabilised after decades of decline. Productivity is at all -time high levels. Those are the essential ingredients for growing prosperity and secure jobs in the future, and those are what we are seeking to provide.

     

    Q2. Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

    Mr. Fraser : Is not the Prime Minister appalled by the fact that when the Conservatives took office in 1979, unemployment was just over 1 million and that now the number of people unemployed for more than 12 months is over 1 million? May I suggest that, as he crosses the Atlantic this afternoon, he dips into “Bonfire of the Vanities” and contemplates the extent to which economic trends in this country are beginning to replicate the horrors of cities in the United States, and perhaps he could resolve to give up making excuses during Lent?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might do well to reflect on the levels of unemployment throughout the Community, now at 17 million. He might show his concern better if he and his party did not oppose every job training scheme that we produce. While he invites me to look into “Bonfire of the Vanities”, he might look into affairs in his borough, where there is the highest poll tax in Britain, the largest number of uncollected rents, the largest number of empty properties and where he and his party have brought despair year after year after year.

    Mr. Gallie : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the actions of French fishermen today in destroying £10,000 worth of fish en route from Ayr to Germany? Does he recall similar incidents last year, when £30,000 of produce was lost in a similar manner? May we have an assurance that he will approach the French Government to make sure that the culprits are brought to justice and that compensation is paid to all in Britain who lose out in such circumstances?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes the point. Officials have already lodged protests with the French authorities about the incidents in Roscoff during the weekend. We shall continue to leave the French Government in no doubt that we expect them to act where necessary to safeguard free trade, to pay compensation when losses have occurred and to bring the perpetrators to book. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

     

    Q3. Mr. Enright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

    Mr. Enright : If a principal duty of a Government is the prevention of crime, have not the present Government failed spectacularly? Should not the Prime Minister immediately announce the establishment of a royal commission to make urgent proposals on the subject? Or will he just watch the downward spiral continue with the gaze of the dog that does not understand?

    The Prime Minister : As I arrived today, the Under-Secretary of State for Health was setting out a list of measures designed to deal with crime that the Opposition had opposed. To illustrate its depth of concern about the matter, the Labour party had 155 words on the subject of crime in its election manifesto. By contrast, since 1979 we have increased the maximum penalty for trafficking in hard drugs to life imprisonment ; introduced a power to confiscate drug traffickers’ and other criminals’ assets, against the opposition of the Labour party ; increased maximum penalties for carrying firearms to life imprisonment, for cruelty to children to 10 years and for insider dealing to seven years. I will take Opposition Members seriously on matters of crime when they support, for example, the prevention of terrorism Acts, and we shall give them an opportunity to do that within a few days.

    Mr. Luff : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the plans by Jaguar Cars to invest £500 million in the production of a new car at Coventry and of the increases in production planned by Rover Cars, including the excellent Land-Rover Discovery car, which many hon. Members are proud to drive? Does he agree that that is excellent news for the west midlands and the whole British motor vehicle industry?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend and I am–of course –aware of the large investments by Jaguar and Rover. Not only is that excellent news for the motor industry and the west midlands, but it demonstrates the continuing commitment to the United Kingdom as a key manufacturing base by Jaguar’s parent company, Ford. The British motor industry was a relic of an industry 15 years ago. It is now profitable, expanding and exporting as a result of our policies.

     

    Q4. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

    Mr. Beith : Why does the Prime Minister think that the long list of measures that he has just read out, and which his Government have successfully carried through the House to deal with crime and juvenile crime, has simply not worked? Could it be that crime has become too easy, that violence has become too much the theme of television and videos, that respect for other people has gone too much out of fashion and that too many young people see no stake for themselves in society but see more of a future in crime and the black economy? Does the Prime Minister not have to reach out beyond any one party in order to tackle such issues?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say a moment ago, and I addressed a good deal of that in a speech a fortnight or so ago. There is a responsibility that spreads far beyond any Government. It most explicitly includes a responsibility within the family circle. It most expressly includes the churches and it most expressly includes the schools to ensure that there is no truancy. Those children who truant are far more likely to be involved in juvenile crime. It is for those reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing measures to deal with juvenile crime very shortly.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministers’ Homes

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister in how many cases improvements made at public expense in the past five years to the private homes of Ministers, for reasons of personal security, have not been used wholly or mainly for those purposes.

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of no such case. Since November 1990, responsibility for the provision of security measures for public figures at threat from terrorist attack has rested with the Home Office. Before November 1990, the provision of security measures was the responsibility of the accounting officer advised by the police and the relevant departmental security officer.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister how many houses or buildings attached to homes belonging to Ministers or their families which have been converted or improved at public expense for reasons of personal security have been the subject of professional fee payments out of public money in the last five years.

    The Prime Minister : Where security measures are provided at public expense to a person at threat from terrorist attack, professional fees will be paid if this offers the best value for money. It is not possible to identify every case where such fees have been paid.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out those matters in regard to exports to Iraq on which Ministers are prepared to give substantive answers while the Scott inquiry is sitting.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Justice Scott has terms of reference which allow him to look into all the issues which he regards as relevant to his inquiry. Ministers will continue to answer substantive questions where to do so would not prejudice the issues being investigated by the inquiry.

     

    Law and Order

    Mr. Llwyd : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to transfer responsibility for law and order concerns within Wales to the Secretary of State for Wales.

    The Prime Minister : The Government always keep departmental distribution of functions under review.

     

    Polly Peck

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what activities were undertaken in northern Cyprus and the east Mediterranean directly or indirectly by Polly Peck for the United Kingdom Government between 1985 and 1990.

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of any such activities having been undertaken. A full trawl of all Government Departments and agencies could not be carried out without incurring disproportionate cost.

     

    N M Rothschild

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the work obtained and the fees paid to N M Rothschild in the course of the Government’s privatisation programme since 1983.

    The Prime Minister : The table shows the Government appointments made to N M Rothschild in privatisations since 1983. The fees paid are a matter of commercial confidentiality. Appointments for adviser to the Government are made following full competition. The Government’s consistent practice has been to select the firm offering the best value for money.

    N M Rothschild privatisation appointments

    Privatisation |Year |Appointment

    —————————————————————————————-

    BT |1984 |Underwriter

    Britoil |1985 |Underwriter

    British Gas |1986 |Adviser to Government Underwriter

    Royal Ordnance |1987 |Adviser to Government

    British Airways |1987 |Underwriter

    Rolls-Royce |1987 |Underwriter

    BAA |1987 |Underwriter

    British Petroleum |1987 |Adviser to Government Underwriter

    British Steel |1988 |Underwriter

    Water |1989 |Underwriter

    Regional Electricity |1990 |Underwriter Companies

    BT |1991 |Member of French syndicate

    Northern Ireland |ongoing |Adviser to Government Electricity

    British Coal |ongoing |Adviser to Government

     

    Matrix Churchill Trial

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 4 February, Official Report, column 472, how much of the evidence of the key witness was given in response to questions which referred to the disclosed documents.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 February 1993] : As I indicated in my answer of 4 February, I suggest matters relevant to the Matrix Churchill trial should await the outcome of Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry.

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister how he intends to monitor the commitment of the Prime Minister of India to respect human rights in Kashmir.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 February 1993] : During my visit, I encouraged the Indian Prime Minister to allow international human rights organisations and others to visit Kashmir. We shall continue to monitor the situation through our high commission in Delhi, through our contacts with human rights organisations and through media reports. We shall continue to raise human rights issues with the Indian Government.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Cayman Islands

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what are the statutory and administrative links between the Bank of England and the monetary authority for the Cayman Islands.

    The Prime Minister : There are no statutory links. Administratively, the Cayman Islands has since 1962 invited one of the Bank of England’s London-based staff to serve as a member of its board of commissioners of currency. The Cayman Islands inspectorate of banks and trust companies has also since 1978 engaged a succession of International Monetary Fund secondees who all have been employees of the Bank. Some training has also been given.

     

    Publicity

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2 June 1992 to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), Official Report, column 390, what is the Cabinet Office’s (a) current outturn estimate for publicity expenditure for 1992-93 and (b) budgeted publicity expenditure for 1993-94.

    The Prime Minister : The current estimate for press and public relations expenditure by the Cabinet Office for 1992-93 is £366,000. In addition, it is expected that expenditure on publicity and public information associated with the citizens charter in 1992-93 will be some £700,000. Budgets for 1993-94 have not yet been finalised.

     

    Unincorporated Bodies (Accounts)

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward proposals to require unincorporated bodies to produce audited accounts; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Charities Act 1992 requires the accounts of unincorporated registered charities with an income of over £100,000 per annum to be audited. I have no plans for extending to unincorporated bodies generally the Companies Act requirement to prepare audited accounts.

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to ensure that all bodies in the United Kingdom, with turnover over £5 million, produce full audited accounts.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to take such steps.

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure that all external funds received by unincorporated bodies in the United Kingdom from abroad are fully taxed; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Inland Revenue takes all reasonable steps to ensure that, where appropriate, funds received from abroad by unincorporated bodies are properly taxed.

     

    Political Parties (Finance)

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what steps he will take to investigate the origin of overseas funds paid to United Kingdom political parties; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) if he will introduce legislation to require all political parties to account for (a) all donations over £500 and (b) donations received from abroad;

    (3) if he will introduce legislation to require political parties to disclose to the public the full extent of overseas donations received; and if he will make a statement;

    (4) if he will introduce legislation to require all political parties in the United Kingdom to produce full audited accounts; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to take any such steps.

     

    Disabled Employees

    Miss Lestor : To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of employees in his Office are registered disabled.

    The Prime Minister : None. For recruitment purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. The percentage of registered disabled persons employed by the Cabinet Office is 1.1 per cent. The Cabinet Office is an equal opportunities employer and seeks to encourage the employment of people with disabilities.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Maastricht – 19 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Maastricht, made in London on 19th February 1993.

    [The Prime Minister was asked about Maastricht and the Conservative MPs who weren’t backing the Government’s policy]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t know what is in other people’s minds as to motives. I do know that if we are to be genuinely concerned about our future prospects, about the growth of the British economy, about jobs in the British economy and about everything that goes with that, we need to have an influential position in Europe. If we were to become isolated outside the European Community or isolated inside the European Community but without influence, it would do immense damage to our business, our commerce, our prospects for growth and our prospects for jobs.
    Maastricht to some may seem an obtuse treaty but what marches alongside that particular Bill is our influence in the European Community, our position to help determine the regulations of the European Community that affect our industry and our commerce and our prospects and we simply cannot turn our back on that if we are genuinely concerned about having the right economic structure for growth in this country. It isn’t just a question of one Bill; it is a much bigger question than that.

    There are some people who wish we were not in the European Community and honestly say so – I think they are wrong. There are other people who say: “well of course, we would like to be in the European Community of a large number of nations but we would like everything to be as we would wish and not as they would wish!” they are unrealistic.

    There are other people in the debate who really do not face reality at all and it is necessary to face the reality of what is right for our economy in the medium- and the long-term. Could it possibly be right for us to lose influence and let them set regulations that would affect our country, our industry, our commerce without us having allies in Europe that would enable us to frame those regulations in a way that is relevant to us? If we isolate ourselves, we may not be able to do that so what they are saying is leave the Community. What impact do they think that would have on our living standards in this country and our political, industrial and commercial influence? In two or three years time, people would be saying, when the impact of losing that influence in Europe or leaving Europe had struck home: “what on earth were people doing that they didn’t look at the effect that all this would have on our living standards?”

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

    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 if he will make a statement on (a) the structure, (b) the number and civil service rank of personnel on the staff and (c) the timing of the inquiry under Lord Justice Scott.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Justice Scott is supported by a team of eight of which the civil service members comprise :

    1 Assistant Solicitor (Grade 5)

    1 Press Officer (Part Time) (Grade 6)

    1 Grade 7

    1 Executive Officer

    1 Administrative Officer

    1 Personal Secretary

    The timing and structure of the inquiry is a matter for Lord Justice Scott. He has made it clear that he wishes to report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as soon as possible.

     

    Salman Rushdie

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 12 February, by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Official Report, column 841-42, what plans he has to meet Mr. Salman Rushdie; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, met Mr. Rushdie on 4 February. He underlined our full support for Mr. Rushdie’s fundamental rights. The fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini and reaffirmed by senior figures in Iran is a serious violation of international law. The continuing failure of the Iranian authorities to repudiate this incitement to murder inevitably prevents the establishment of full and friendly relations with Iran.

     

    Terrorism

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances British citizens living in the United Kingdom are asked to contribute to the cost of police security when their lives are threatened by terrorists.

    The Prime Minister : It is for the chief officer of police to decide whether it is appropriate to provide police officers to protect individuals. The individuals concerned would not be asked to contribute to the cost of these officers.

     

    Housing Corporation

    Mr. Battle : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had concerning the future of the Housing Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I regularly discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the delivery of the Government’s housing policy, in which the Housing Corporation continues to play an important part.

     

    Chemical Warfare

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government towards the export of materials and equipment which could be or is thought to be suitable for making chemical weapons; what monitoring takes place; what assessment is made of end-user certificates in such circumstances; and if he will lay before Parliament regulations for the export of such items.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 12 February 1993] : The 54 chemical weapon precursor chemicals and the dual use chemical plant and equipment identified as of proliferation concern are specified in and controlled under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992. In addition, other, unlisted items, though normally of no proliferation concern, do require a licence if the exporter knows or suspects that they are intended or likely to be used in connection with weapons of mass destruction. All export licence applications are carefully considered : information on destinations and end users is always taken into account. Compliance by exporters with these controls is monitored by the compliance unit of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  • PMQT – 18 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Havercroft

    Q1. Mr. Enright : To ask the Prime Minister when he will pay an official visit to Havercroft.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Yorkshire among them.

    Mr. Enright : Is the Prime Minister aware that miners from Havercroft, who have been blackmailed into taking redundancy payments, do not count among the 3 million unemployed? Is he further aware that if the pit at Grimesthorpe were to be closed, male unemployment in the area would be one in three? Will he today, therefore, guarantee the future of Grimesthorpe, not least because it is commercially profitable?

    The Prime Minister : No one is blackmailed in the way the hon. Gentleman says. The position of Grimesthorpe, as with the other pits, will be covered in the review being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18 February.

    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.

    Mr. Jones : Does not Britain need a national strategy to combat the evil of mass unemployment? When will the indecision, drift and the weakness come to an end? Has not the right hon. Gentleman’s conduct of Her Majesty’s Government in recent times been a disgrace? If he cannot give a lead to our nation, should he not go?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is well rehearsed, but not well informed. If he had been well informed, he would have known, for example, that in a recent speech in Athens the Leader of the Opposition admitted that unemployment was a problem not only in this country but right across Europe. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that, why cannot the hon. Gentleman?

     

    Q3. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Oppenheim : Does my right hon. Friend agree that when it comes to the social chapter there can be no free ride, that such benefits have to be matched by increased productivity or they will add only to unemployment and that the best way to get sustainable long-term jobs is to continue with structural reforms, particularly improving education, rather than engaging in short- term bail-outs and subsidies for unsustainable industries? Would not policies like the social chapter, increased payroll tax, a statutory minimum wage and the repeal of trade union laws–all Labour policies–add to unemployment rather than improving the situation?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. There is no purpose in the Opposition saying that they care about unemployment when they are committed to policies that will put up unemployment and keep it up. Until they drop their support for the social chapter, the minimum wage and windfall tax, they are in no position to lecture anyone about job losses.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the country will never forget that it was his Government and his Chancellor of the Exchequer who told us that unemployment was a “price well worth paying”? On the day when unemployment has reached the tragic total of 3 million, will he now publicly repudiate that heartless approach?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that we have set in place–[Hon. Members : “Answer!”] We have set in place to assist people who are unemployed a comprehensive system of schemes unmatched in the history of this country and unmatched elsewhere in Europe–[Hon. Members : “Answer the question.”]–the training for work programme, the job clubs, the job– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I will not have hon. Members shouting down any other right hon. or hon. Member. I warn Members that I shall use the authority that this House has given if this continues.

    The Prime Minister : I was trying to inform hon. Gentlemen, who were shouting out, of the assistance that has been put in place to help people who are currently without work to be trained and to get back in work, which I should have thought was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I would wish to see done. I repeat for his benefit : the training for work schemes, the job clubs, the job interview guarantees, the business start-up schemes, the job plan workshops, the restart courses–constitute an unprecedented amount of help to deal with a problem which exists in this country and in every country in Europe.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that unemployment at this menacing level is not just a personal disaster for millions of honest and decent people who want to have the independence and dignity that employment can give them, but also an economic millstone around this country’s neck? Does he not understand that unemployment at this tragic level costs Britain £27,000 million per year and that we lose 780 million working days? Is that not economic madness as well as social tragedy?

    The Prime Minister : Of course we appreciate that fact. That is why we are seeking, first, to help those who are unemployed, and also to create the circumstances to make sure that they have permanent, long-term, sustainable jobs in the future. We are determined to bring unemployment down, and we will–but with our policies, not with the lack of policies of Opposition Members. I repeat that we have put in place the most comprehensive training programmes ever to help unemployed people. We shall be introducing new training schemes with almost half a million new training and employment places in April. In terms of getting permanent, sustainable jobs, we have brought inflation down to its lowest level for 25 years, my right hon. Friend’s autumn statement put in place further policies for growth, interest rates are at their lowest level for 15 years and retail sales are rising. Those are the facts which bring positive hope for the unemployed, not the empty rhetoric of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Mr. John Smith : If those schemes were of any value, if they were successful, and if the Prime Minister really cares about bringing down unemployment, why has he stood idly by and allowed it to rise in every month of his period of office? Is it not rather contemptible, on this tragic day, to be seeking to blame others and to abuse his opponents? Is it not time that he accepted the responsibilities of his office and did what the country desperately wants him to do–put bringing down unemployment at the top of our national agenda?

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say at the outset of his remarks was very revealing : if, he said, these schemes are of value. Does that explain why the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party have opposed every training measure that we have put in place for unemployed people? The facts are that the Government have put in place nearly 1 million training and employment opportunities this year, and we plan to increase them by half a million in April. I would find the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s concern more convincing if he had just one decent economic policy to tackle unemployment. Instead, he has two bad policies. The first is the tax on excess profits : the old Labour party speaking again–they do not like profits, they want to penalise success, and they will never understand that profits fund investment and finance jobs. And now they want a training tax as well to put more people out of work. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have a word with his transport spokesman, who said of the minimum wage– [Interruption.] I know Opposition Members do not like it, but they had better listen. His transport spokesman said : “I knew the consequences were that there would be some shakeout, any silly fool knew that.”

    Madam Speaker : Has the Prime Minister completed his answer?

    The Prime Minister : I sat down, Madam Speaker, because you were getting up. I will repeat the quote from the Opposition transport spokesman. [Interruption.] They do not like it, but they are going to get it. I repeat the quote from the shadow transport spokesman, who said of a national minimum wage :

    “I knew the consequences were that there would be some shakeout, any silly fool knew that.”

    It is a pity that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) did not know that and did not oppose a policy which would lose jobs.

    Mr. Robert Banks : Has my right hon. Friend seen reports showing that not only is Nissan in Sunderland exporting cars to Japan, but Vauxhall is now exporting Astra cars to Japan? Is that not a remarkable turnround in the fortunes of British car manufacturers, good for jobs and good for exports?

    The Prime Minister : It most certainly is. We all recall the state of the car industry in the 1970s. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that this is welcome news for British car manufacturers, proving that they can compete with the world’s best on quality, price and productivity both in this country and in exporting.

    Mr. Ashdown rose–

    Mr. Skinner : You bailed him out.

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must resume his seat. Time is passing.

    Mr. Ashdown : Why does the Prime Minister always use his time to tell us what the Opposition said instead of telling us what he will do? Last night President Clinton gave his country hope through strong leadership and a clear programme for renewal. Is it not fortunate that the Prime Minister does not have to make a state of the nation address because it is clear that if he did he would have noting to say, not even, it appears, “Sorry”?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard a long list of action that the Government have taken. Since he did not listen, let me give him more information. The £2.5 billion spent on training measures is two and a half times as much as any previous Government spent. We had the package of measures in the autumn statement to boost the construction industry by releasing capital receipts, the assistance for manufacturing industry by introducing new capital allowances, and the extra help for exporters. The right hon. Gentleman is leader of his party. Where has he been that he knows none of this?

    Mr. Lidington : Is my right hon. Friend aware that businesses in the Thames-Chiltern area are reporting increased exports to the middle east, the far east and north America? Does he agree that in a world economy which is becoming more and not less competitive, permanent jobs and prosperity will depend on the enterprise and hard work of businesses like those and not on the meddlesome bureaucracy and cheap answers proposed by Opposition parties?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right. In a fiercely competitive world, it is only if we have the most competitive industries that we can look forward to job creation or to increasing prosperity. That is why it is necessary to get inflation down. That is why it has been necessary to get interest rates down and why the improvements in productivity which are becoming so remarkable are one of the best indications of our future prospects. They are good prospects as a result of the measures that we have taken and will continue to sustain.

     

    Q4. Mr. Trimble : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Trimble : I have here a letter from the Fair Employment Commission refusing assistance to one of my constituents with regard to his complaint that he had been discriminated against by the civil service. Incidentally, the letter is signed by the public servant who suggested recently that photographs of Her Majesty should not be displayed in a public building. The clear implication of this letter is that criteria, instead of being set objectively by reference to the nature of the job, should be manipulated in order to achieve the quota–

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question. We now have the background.

    Mr. Trimble : The Fair Employment Commission described this manipulation as affording equality of opportunity. Does the Prime Minister agree that such criteria should be manipulated for the purpose of achieving the commission’s job quota in every place of work?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman had let me see the letter, I should have been able to give him a detailed reply. If he does so, I will examine the letter and respond to him in detail. As I have not seen it, the hon. Gentleman cannot have expected a reply of any sort.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Sandringham

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement on 11 February, Official Report, column 1111, if Sandringham will be treated as a royal palace or as a private residence of Her Majesty the Queen.

    The Prime Minister : Sandringham, which has official as well as private use, is a private asset of Her Majesty the Queen.