The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 June 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Referendums

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

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

     

    Finance

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

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

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

     

    Cash Limits

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

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 June 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Convention on Human Rights

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

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

     

    Student Awards

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

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

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

     

    Government Information

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

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

     

    Pan Am 103

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

     

    European Union

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

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

     

    Correspondence

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

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

     

    Post Office

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

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

     

    Climate Change Conference

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

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

     

    Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)

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

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

    Job applications under the business appointment rules

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

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

    By Grade

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

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

    By Function

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

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

     

    Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill

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

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

     

    Beggars

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

    The Prime Minister : I have received numerous representations.

     

    Third-party Claims

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 14 June 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Madam Speaker : Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

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

    Mr. Ashdown rose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference – 13 June 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (John Pienaar):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    ELINOR GOODMAN:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    ADAM BOULTON (SKY NEWS):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    GEORGE JONES (DAILY TELEGRAPH):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    ANDREW MARR:

    Have these election results changed your mind on anything?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    ROBIN OAKLEY (BBC):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    ROBIN OAKLEY:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    DON McINTYRE:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    COLIN BROWN:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    PETER BURR (REUTERS):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No.

    PETER BURR:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (“TODAY”):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    JOHN CRAIG (DAILY EXPRESS):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    MICHAEL BRUNSON (ITV):

    When is the next one?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In due course, Michael.

    MICHAEL BRUNSON:

    Every month?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

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

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

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

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

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Speech with Bill Clinton – 4 June 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s joint speech with President Bill Clinton, held at the Cambridge American Military Cemetery in Madingley on Saturday 4th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are here today to remember the Servicemen from America and Britain, from Canada and other Commonwealth and Allied countries who gave their lives for Europe’s freedom. As Winston Churchill reached the end of his own long life he encompassed their achievement with these words: “Our comradeship and brotherhood in war were unexampled, we stood together and because of that fact the free world stands”.

    Brotherhood was a word Churchill often used for friendship between the English-speaking peoples. On the very eve of D-Day he wrote to President Roosevelt of an absolute brotherhood between the forces. That spirit has served our countries valiantly over the intervening 50 years, in war and in peace. It is rooted in trust. And to quote Churchill again: “In common conceptions of what is right and decent, a marked regard for fair play, especially to the weak and poor, a stern sentiment of impartial justice, and above all the love of personal freedom.”

    It is especially the brotherhood of airmen to airmen, soldier to soldier and sailor to sailor that we commemorate at this time. Here in Britain 50 years ago approaching D-Day there were over 1.5 million Americans on active service under the command of General Eisenhower.

    For a while every 30th person in Britain was an American Serviceman. In the European theatre more than 150,000 Americans, including 57,000 airmen, lost their lives. Nearly 4,000 of them, mostly young men who flew extremely dangerous missions, lie here in this Garden of Remembrance in the midst of the English countryside. Over 5,000 more are commemorated in the Wall of the Missing. Among them are a few who achieved fame, some who surely, had they lived, would have been destined for fame, many who were less well known and some who are unknown warriors. All their lives were cruelly cut short and to them all of us owe a debt too deep to pay.

    Some of you here today will have come to Madingley to remember close relatives, you will have endured the life-long pain of losing those that you loved. Some here today will be honouring the memory of wartime comrades, you too ran the same risks, you too were ready to make the same sacrifice. To all of you I offer the very warmest of welcomes.

    We remember today why those lives were given. Those who came here from America were not as we were, protecting their homes and families, America was not under direct threat from Europe, they did not come here for national glory, not for profit, not for material gain, they came, many of you here today came, above all to defend the values which Britons and Americans hold sacred, to defend freedom and democracy, justice and human rights, to help liberate the people of Europe from tyranny and to seek to build a better world thereafter.

    President Franklin Roosevelt wrote out for Churchill some lines from Longfellow which summed this up: “Humanity with all its fears, with all its hopes of future years, is hanging breathless on my fate.”

    Throughout the joint efforts of all the allies, the fate of Western Europe was resolved for the better in 1944 and 1945. But that mission did not end in 1945, we have continued since to work together for our common values in the United Nations and in the Atlantic Alliance. We have had to make further sacrifices, some very recently. In the Gulf War, for example, among those buried here is an American Serviceman from that combined action; or in United Nations peace-keeping operations, in many parts of the world; and the courage and the selflessness which you and all of your wartime comrades showed half a century ago are still vital in today’s troubled world.

    Mr President, there could be no more fitting time, or I believe place or company for your first official visit to the United Kingdom. On behalf of all my fellow citizens I would like to thank you and your fellow Americans for your friendship and your unstinting support throughout the last 50 years and more.

    Whenever the going has been hardest, Britons and Americans have stood together in unity of belief. The peoples of Europe owe their freedom and their peace to those we honour this weekend, both the living and the fallen. Here today at this tranquil memorial and a thousand more generations to come will give thanks for all that they did to give us this peaceful today.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Mr Prime Minister, Mrs Major, Mr McLean, Chaplain, Secretary Bentsen, thank you for your fine remarks, to our British hosts and to all the distinguished Americans who are also here, members of the Congress, the administration, the armed forces, we have come here today, all of us, on a journey of remembrance.

    For some, as for Secretary Bentsen, it was a journey to replace time, to go back fifty summers and more, when they took to airfields like these. For others it is a journey to honour those who fought and those who died for the world in which we came of age.

    At this moment all of us are joined in a sense of pride, in a sense of indebtedness, a sense of wonder and a sense of determination to carry on that work and never to forget. On these ancient grounds 3,812 Americans are buried, airmen, soldiers and sailors. More than 5,000 others are remembered on the Wall of the Missing. The names of some we honour echo still in our nation’s memory, names like Joseph Kennedy Jr, the brother of our late President, a young man for whom a distinguished political career was predicted but who gave his life for our country. Or Glen Miller whose wonderful moonlight serenades soothe the savage world and still make us tap our feet.

    In death all these people on the wall and buried behind us were equal, they came from every state of the union, they were of many races and religions, they had names like Koreo, Kaufman and Wood, they were all of them American. They fought to defeat a great evil which threatened to destroy our very way of life, what Winston Churchill called the great principles of freedom in the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English speaking world. For long months Britain bravely carried that fight on alone. In the Battle of Britain, night after frightful night, the people of this besieged island withstood the fierce attacks of Nazi bombers, it was their finest hour.

    Amid the horror the British looked West for help. Then the Yanks came, deepening one of history’s profoundest bonds. Overnight it seemed tens of thousands of GIs filled the streets and cafes across southern England. All these years later we find the memories of many of them still very vivid – smiling GI’s tossing packs of spearmint gum to British schoolboys, new faces and funny accents at the corner pub, lindy hops in London, kids from Milwaukee invited in for high tea, allied uniforms filling the pews at British churches.

    America gave to England an infusion of arms and men and material. The British gave our troops the feeling that they were not so far from home after all. The British gave us inspiration, the Americans gave in return hope. At every level Yanks and Brits worked together like family.

    American intelligence services built on Britain’s brilliant successes which were here chronicled in breaking the German codes; General Eisenhower chose British Marshals to be his deputies, of course Montgomery and Ramsay and Tetter. Roosevelt and Churchill, even as they led the assault on tyranny and rallied their own people to support the crusade encouraged each other with personal notes. All shared a sense of kinship that sustained them through the darkest moments of the war, all shared a faith that our people, nurtured on freedom, would rise to the call of history.

    Nowhere was our bond more important than in the air war launched from the green fields like this one. The Royal Air Force and the Army Air Corps joined in countless sorties to cripple the Luftwaffe, to desolate the Nazi war machine, to soften the Atlantic wall. One British citizen remembered for 1,000 days the sky was never still.

    It was some of the most dangerous work of the war and the tales of valour still amaze us all. Pilots going down with burning flames to give all the rest of the crew just a few more seconds to get out, or the two crew members who shared the only parachute left on board as they jumped together from their burning plane over England. The Marauders, Liberators, Mustangs and Flying Fortresses, the Halifaxes and Mosquitos, they were all sturdy, but as one American remembered, the flack sometimes seemed so thick you could walk on it, the wild blue yonder above Europe could quickly turn cold and grey and lethal.

    In just the two months before D-Day the allied forces lost over 2,000 planes and over 12,000 men. Because of their sacrifice by 6 June 1944 the allies owned the air. Under the shield of that air supremacy our ships cross the channel, our men crossed the beaches. A few days after the Normandy landing General Eisenhower stood on the beaches of France with his young son, John, recently a graduate of West Point, and told him: “If I did not have the air supremacy, I would not be here.” After D-Day the Air Corps continued to fly towards freedom’s horizon until the entire continent was reclaimed and a world was set free.

    The victory of the generation we honour today came at a high cost, it took many lives and much perseverance. After D-Day it took freedom another year to reach the Elba, it took another 44 years to reach Warsaw and Prague and East Berlin. And now it has reached Kiev and Moscow and even beyond. The mission of this time to secure and expand its reach further.

    The airmen who flew these skies had a ritual, as Secretary Vincent mentioned, for signalling to their comrades on the ground at the end of a mission. If they were coming in for landing, if they fired off a red flare it meant there were casualties aboard, and if they fired off a green flare it meant some lucky pilot had just completed his last mission before shipping out. Well the generation that won the Second World War completed their mission, whether they walk among us or lie among us today. And after looking down in sorrow at those who paid the ultimate price, let us lift our eyes to the skies in which they flew, the ones they once commanded, and let us send to them a signal, a signal of our own, a signal that we do remember, that we do honour and that we shall always carry on the work of these nights born on wings. May God bless them and all our people.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Arrival Doorstep with President Clinton – 4 June 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s joint arrival doorstep with President Clinton on Saturday 4th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Mrs Clinton. I would like firstly to welcome you here to the United Kingdom and to thank you for being here to commemorate the extraordinary operation of 50 years ago. Whatever the weather may turn out to be over this weekend I can promise you and Hillary and our very many other visitors from America the warmest of greetings throughout your stay, as warm and as friendly as the welcome that your Servicemen received in the dark days of the war.

    Just a few months ago I had the pleasure of being your guest at Pittsburgh, an area that has very strong links with my country. You fittingly this morning have landed in East Anglia, my home, and also a home to thousands of United States Servicemen for over half a century.

    In a short while, at a service near Cambridge, we will honour the memory of American Servicemen who fell in the Second World War, their courage will never be forgotten in this country by those they helped to protect and helped to liberate.

    Mr President, you arrive here this morning for your first official visit, but you arrive here as an old friend who has lived in Britain and who knows this country well. Over the next few days you and Hillary will see both the old and the new.

    At Chequers later today we will have the opportunity to renew our close dialogue that has taken place from the moment that you took office. During that period a number of international problems have consistently been with us, Bosnia being a prime example. Our negotiators are even today working intensively with the United Nations and the Contact Group to try and promote a settlement there. Some of the problems we faced have been resolved. Last year’s agreement in the world trade negotiations was an outstanding success and we are hoping to see it put in action as soon as possible. The remarkable progress in South Africa is another objective we have both strongly supported. But new problems inevitably arise and some of those we shall have the opportunity of discussing as well, North Korea this morning, for example, forces itself on the agenda.

    In all of this we know from long experience the immense value of working in close partnership as the United States and the United Kingdom have always done.

    Bill, this is a visit that we have been looking forward to for a very long time, you and Hillary are very welcome guests indeed and it is a very great pleasure to see you here.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you very much, Mr Prime Minister, Hillary and I are delighted to be here. I remember well the first time I arrived in the United Kingdom, I am deeply honoured to be here today representing my nation.

    Fifty years ago our two nations joined forces on the beaches of Normandy to turn back the Nazi army that had over-run Europe. This week I have come across the Atlantic to commemorate D-Day and the many other battles of the Second World War and to honour the sacrifices borne by the war generation in all the nations.

    Freedom continues to require our sacrifice and persistence and I would like to say on behalf of all the American people how very sorry we are and how we offer our condolences to the loved ones of those who died in the tragic RAF helicopter accident on Thursday. Freedom continues to require effort.

    When he visited the United States after World War II, Winston Churchill spoke of our two nations’s role in forging the post-war world, he urged the United States and Britain to walk together in majesty and peace. For he said: “It is in the years of peace that wars are prevented and that those foundations are laid upon which the noble structures of the future can be built.”

    I look forward to working with the Prime Minister and the British people as we work together to meet those challenges. The Prime Minister has already mentioned the many things that we will be discussing today. I am glad to be back in Great Britain, glad to be honouring the sacrifices and the triumphs of the World War II generation, glad to be about the work of honouring what they have done for us by trying to preserve the peace in the future.

  • US Background Briefing on Meeting with John Major and President Clinton – 4 June 1994

    Below is the text of the US background briefing held at Hartwell House on 4th June 1994.

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Why don’t we begin by — we’ll talk about the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister and sort of divide up the main topics the President and the Prime Minister covered, a list of things they talked about.

    They first did a meeting that they held together before lunch with just a couple of advisors on each side. And then they extended the conversation over lunch for another 15 minutes or so with just the President and the Prime Minister and their wives. And then they came out and spoke with you.

    I guess just a couple of other issues mentioned — one is to come back to Haiti. The British government was very helpful in helping to kick off the process that led to our now having reached an agreement in principle with the Turks and Caicos to establish a migrant processing centre there. We hope within a very short time now to have worked out all of the final details on it.

    The local problem there I believe has proved — so we’re all ready to go. We would expect that it would be established by early July. We also, as I told a number of you on the plane, have reached an agreement with Jamaica for such a centre and it should be up and well started before early July.

    So we think we’re making a lot of progress there, and we are grateful to Her Majesty’s government for having supported it.

    Somebody asked me on the plane how many could be processed through, and in Jamaica, at least, we would expect it would be about 500 a day. We don’t know yet in Turks and Caicos. On Jamaica, as you’ll recall, it will be on ships. In Turks and Caicos it would be on shore.

    Ireland — the President praised the British government’s response to the questions that were put forward by Sinn Fein. The President said it remains our view that the IRA should put an end to violence and we hope that we can see progress towards a political settlement in Ireland.

    What else? On Bosnia, just one other detail. The President — there was a discussion of the role of UNPROFOR and the President expressed how important he thinks the work has been and will be in this continuing very difficult humanitarian as well as political and military crisis —

    QUESTION:

    Is it correct to construe from what the President told us earlier today that the United States government does not take the North Korean claim that sanctions would be deemed an act of war seriously? Is that correct, you do not take it seriously?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    No, I don’t think he put it quite that way.

    QUESTION:

    Well, that’s what I was asking you to —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Right. This is not the first time that the North Koreans have made statements like this. And in a situation as potentially serious as Korea, of course, one does not take such statements lightly. At the same time, they have been made before and there is no question that statements like this will not deter, intimidate the international community from proceeding at the Security Council.

    And as the President said, sanctions are not an act of war and we do not consider them to be so.

    QUESTION:

    What is the current state of play on consultations that have been going forward? Yeltsin said is that they’ll go on, sanctions is a last resort, he’d like an international conference first. Are we amenable to that? And what about the Chinese veto — do we think that they’ll at least abstain from —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Well, as you know, the President and Yeltsin did speak yesterday afternoon. Yeltsin laid out his ideas on an international meeting. They agreed that Secretary Christopher and Foreign Minister Kozyrev will now be in touch with each other to discuss the issues that are involved in holding such a meeting.

    The President said that we believe that such a meeting could be useful at some point, but that the first task before us is to pursue the issue of sanctions at the Security Council. And that is what we are doing.

    As I said the other night, the Chinese have been unenthusiastic about sanctions and have said so on a number of occasions. But to our knowledge, they have not said publicly or privately that they would veto sanctions at the Security Council. Last weekend when we consulted among the Permanent Five members on what to do about Korea, the Chinese joined the consensus behind the President’s statement. And in that resolution it said that the Security Council — and these aren’t the exact words, but the Security Council would remain engaged on the issue, which implied for the consideration of issues like sanctions. So I think it would be both premature and possibly wrong to assume that the Chinese would veto. We’ll simply have to work it through with them, and we’ll be doing that.

    QUESTION:

    The President said that this is not a subject – – the President said he didn’t want to sabre-rattle on this issue, but the strategic situation in Korea is such that there is no margin for error. Will the United States quietly be doing things to increase the capabilities there in terms of air power —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    I always love it when people ask me if we’re going to really do something from your side of the house. [Laughter]. No. We have been constantly reviewing what we should do prudently to make sure that we are doing everything necessary both to protect our forces in Korea and to help defend South Korea itself. And we have taken a number of measures, as you know, over the recent months, including the — most notably, the sending of the Patriots. And what I can tell you is that we will continue to review the issue as we go along.

    QUESTION:

    You were unable to or unwilling to say the other night what you thought might be or ought to be in the sanctions. Are you in anymore of a position now to say what sanctions ought to look like?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Not yet. I think we have to do a little in the way of consulting — or a good bit more, perhaps, in consulting, especially with the Japanese, South Korea — they’re being allies; the Russians and others to see what form the sanctions can most usefully take.

    There are two issues here: One is how do you design sanctions that will bring — convey the maximum amount of leverage with the North Koreans. And the other is that we have to build a consensus behind the sanctions at the Security Council and we’ve got to negotiate both at once, and we will be.

    QUESTION:

    Why is the U.S. not as enthusiastic about a conference as Yeltsin seems to be?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Clearly, the first focus has to be on the Security Council and the issue of sanctions. And it could well be that a meeting at some point can make a useful contribution there in pushing the North Koreans back towards the international community. But whether it’s a meeting like this or anything else, we want the focus to be right now on the Security Council and the pursuit of the issues.

    QUESTION:

    As a strategic matter or because of some principle having to do with not being willing to meet with them at this point?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    As a practical matter, seeking every — seeking the maximum leverage with the North Koreans that we can find to try to resolve the nuclear issue.

    QUESTION:

    So then you’d lose leverage through a conference? I mean, there’s the President stressing he wants to work this out, he wants diplomacy; and Yeltsin says there should be a conference — if that’s a good forum for that.

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    I think the diplomacy could take many forms. But the first issue — and we’ve been pursuing the diplomacy for some weeks now. We think we pursued it consistently and with some skill even, but it hasn’t produced the results; yes, the North Koreans have made their decision. And what clearly is need now is to convey to the North Koreans the seriousness of the choice that they have made and the importance in terms of their interests to their moving away from the path of confrontation with the international community and back towards trying to work with them.

    QUESTION:

    How can the Security Council and the United States government be sure that it doesn’t provoke North Korea into doing something that nobody bargained for with sanctions?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    We will devise sanctions that we think are both effective and — well, that are effective.

    QUESTION:

    Let me ask the question another way.

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Yes, try again. [Laughter].

    QUESTION:

    Since the President began to convey the seriousness of the situation, have you seen anything in the last 48 or 72 hours to come from the North Koreans to suggest they’re getting the message?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    I don’t think we’ve seen from the North Koreans either that they’re getting the message or that they’re not. So we’ll have to see.

    QUESTION:

    The other question is, short of sanctions is there anything that can be done in terms of bilateral action among any of these countries?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Well, we have been talking to the Chinese, for example, both over recent weeks and even over the past week, urging them to convey to the North Koreans the seriousness of the situation and the choice the North Koreans need to be making. We hope that other governments are doing the same thing.

    And the President and other American officials have been finding opportunities to speak on the public record on the issue to convey exactly the same message to the North Koreans.

    QUESTION:

    The Chinese haven’t come back to you and said I’m getting the message, or no response from the Chinese about whether they’re —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    The Chinese are very careful to — not to tell us exactly what it is that they say to the North Koreans. They do tell us that they have been in touch with the North Koreans. If you look at recent Chinese public statements, there is no question that they are very unhappy with the position that the North Koreans are taking.

    If I can go now just off the record, because I don’t want to speak for the Chinese — but I would assume that the reason the Chinese won’t tell us what exactly they’re saying to the North Koreans is that once they tell us that then we can keep going back to them and saying, no, adjust your message this way, that way, and they lose a lot of their flexibility.

    But we, to come back on to background, we are quite confident that the Chinese have been urging the North Koreans to adopt a more constructive attitude.

    QUESTION:

    But if that’s true, how come they’re so resistant or seem so resistant to sanctions? I mean, what is it that I’m missing here? Why are they reluctant to take the step that you’re willing to take?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Well, because China — I think probably for two reasons: One, China is North Korea’s greatest trading power; and secondly, China has an historic relationship with North Korea that they probably find constrain them.

    I think the Chinese see here two basic interests. One is I am convinced that they do not want to see a nuclear North Korea; that they would prefer to see a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. And I think that is not only because North Korea is close to China, but also because if North Korea becomes an overt nuclear power, then the pressures in the region for other states to adopt nuclear weapons would increase. I am not — I repeat, not — saying the Japanese or others necessarily would develop nuclear weapons, but there would be that pressure. And that’s not in the interests of the Chinese.

    And the second major Chinese interest here is that they don’t want to see sanctions for the reasons I just stated.

    Therefore, it is and has been in the interest of the Chinese to try to persuade the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear program, thus avoiding sanctions and, thus, serving both of the Chinese interests at the same time.

    QUESTION:

    Quick one. How insistent was Yeltsin on this conference in his conversation with Clinton? Was it something that’s going to screw up his vote in the Security Council? I mean, is he looking at this as a diplomatic —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    No, he made the –I mean, clearly, he is very interested in the idea, but at the same time, if you look at the public statement he made three or four days ago, he has also been saying that in the end he believes sanctions are justified.

    QUESTION:

    Does it have to come after a conference like this?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    They would have to work out that timing. I don’t necessarily — I can’t speak for the Russian government.

    THE PRESS:

    Thank you.

    QUESTION:

    Does your Government [the British Government] favour sanctions?

    BRITISH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    We believe that you can’t design an — to sanctions that would be effective in this case. And as my colleague says, it’s important to get the design right and consult on it. But we are very supportive; we’re working together with the United Nations on precisely that.

    You raised the question about provoking. If you’re worried about not provoking people, then you’d never do anything. But you’ve got to construct a path that gives them the maximum opportunity to move away from the policies and approach that they’re doing now. And we think that can be done, using all the — and we’re just available to the United Nations Security Council.

    THE PRESS:

    Thank you both.