Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Clinton – 28 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Clinton, held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on 28th February 1994.


    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, do you think granting a visa to Gerry Adams paid off in terms of progress toward peace in Northern Ireland?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    It’s too soon to say. I’m supporting, very strongly supporting the initiative that Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister Reynolds have undertaken in the joint declaration. I hope it will. It’s too soon to say. I’m pulling for them.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, you obviously saw it differently, or your government did, as far as Adams. — this weekend, Sinn Fein has not indicated any willingness to call for an end to the arms struggle. What is your reaction to that and what is the President’s reaction?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, we both want the violence to cease. That’s what the joint declaration is about. It provides an opportunity for the violence to cease and for Sinn Fein to legitimately enter the constitutional talks. Now, I think that is a sensible way ahead. It’s a highway ahead that wasn’t there before. It is there now. And I think when you look at the opinion expressed by Irishmen right across the whole island of Ireland, by an overwhelming majority, they believe that that option should be taken. You have to wait and see whether it is.

    Thank you.

    QUESTION:

    Do you like that, Mr. President? [referring to the microphone]

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I wish there were a hunting season on these. [Laughter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m going to wake up one morning and there will be one of those things on the pillow. [Laughter].

    QUESTION:

    And what will you say? [Laughter].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Whatever it is, it will be known to all of England. [Laughter]. That’s what I — I told the press once that there had been this raging debate for 12 years in America over the constitutional right to privacy and what it meant, whether we should keep it and what it should extend to, and all while, the boom mike had been abolishing it with no one noticing. [Laughter].

  • Mr Major’s Arrival Statement with President Clinton – 28 February 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s arrival statement in Pittsburgh, with the US President Bill Clinton, on Monday 28th February 1994.


    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you very much, Senator Wofford, Congressman Coyne, Mayor Murphy, Commissioners Foster and Flaherty and my friends, I am glad to be back in Pittsburgh and I want to thank the band for their wonderful music and the scouts for your fine salute and your fine work, thank you, and I want you to join me in welcoming Prime Minister John Major back to the United States of America. [Applause].

    You know, it is funny how this trip came about. Last July, in Tokyo of all places, John Major and I were sitting around at night talking and he said: “You know, my grandfather worked in the steel mills at Pittsburgh and my father lived and worked there a while in the late 1800s before moving back to England!” so I thought the next time John Major came to the United States he ought to see America and come to Pittsburgh. [Applause].

    I want to emphasise to all of you here in the heartland of America how important the relationship between the United States and Great Britain is. We work together to support reform in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, in Russia and in all those other former communist states to try to give democracy a chance. We work together for a new world trade agreement, to bring down trade barriers and open world markets to the products that American workers make. We work together to make NATO stronger and more adaptable, to reach out to all those nations in the former communist world and give them a chance to work with us to unify Europe in peace and democracy in ways that will make America a safer and more prosperous place for decades to come. We are working together today to respond to the terrible tragedy in Bosnia, to try to bring an end to the killing and to bring peace and to keep that conflict from spreading in ways that could threaten the interests of the United States and Great Britain as well as the conscience of the civilised world. [Applause].

    We do have a great partnership as Senator Wofford noted right here in Pittsburgh between British Air and US Air [Applause]; it has been a good thing for the people of this town. Tomorrow, we will have a chance to talk about that and talk about some of the other tough issues that we face: the state of reform in Russia; the Prime Minister and I have both been in Moscow in the last couple of months. A struggle over the future of reform in Russia is under way, we have a vital stake in the outcome. We have to continue to encourage democracy, respect for neighbours and real economic reform in that country, it is in your interests and mine.

    We also hope we can continue to press for peace in Bosnia. Britain is the second-largest contributor to the United Nations troop effort in Bosnia and over the last years I want to say to all of you that the British have saved thousands of innocent civilians’ lives there by their presence. [Applause]. We intend to continue working with them until we get a just and fair peace in Bosnia.

    We are going to discuss what we want to do with NATO, we are going to discuss the political courage and the vision shown by Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister Reynolds of Ireland in working for peace in Northern Ireland together. [Applause]. Their historic Joint Declaration offers new hope for that goal of peace and as the President of this country, a country full of Americans of British descent and full of Americans of Irish descent, I again urge an end to the use of violence as a means of solving political problems and achieving political aims – it has no place in that effort. [Applause].

    The next time I see John Major after this trip I will be visiting Britain in June to commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-Day and to affirm for a new generation of Britons and Americans the importance of our enduring partnership. We must continue to build on it economically, politically, strategically. We have benefited immensely from our ties to Britain and they have benefited from their ties to us. we are working together in ways that I think will benefit children in this audience. The agreement on world trade concluded at the end of last year is perhaps the most concrete recent example of what we are trying to do for future generations.

    In the months and years ahead, we will have to continue to work on our issues of common concern. Not very long from now, we are going to have a jobs conference with Great Britain and other European powers in Detroit to discuss the difficulties that the United States and all the powers of Europe and Japan are all having in creating new jobs in this difficult global environment and what things we can learn from each other to create more opportunities for all of our people.

    Now I am going to introduce the Prime Minister and say after he speaks we are going to look around Pittsburgh. [Applause]. When John Major’s father and grandfather were here, this city was the heart of America’s industrial might. Today, it is the centre of its high technology and economic innovation; it is a city of the future as well as a city of the past [Applause] and so in the spirit of renewal that is the story of Pittsburgh today, I ask you to join me in reaffirming the bonds between the American and the British people in welcoming to the microphone the Prime Minister of Great Britain, John Major. [Applause].

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Mr. President, Mr. Senator, Mr. Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:

    The President told you most of the story of how I came to be here this evening. It is perfectly true that we were discussing the matter at the G7 summit in Tokyo late at night, we were relaxed. The conversation went pretty much as the President said but think the critical factor he didn’t mention was that it was the second whisky that did it [Laughter] and I am jolly glad we had it because I am delighted to be here. [Applause].

    “Come and have a look at a bit of Pittsburgh!” said the President, “Come and see a bit of real America!” and here I am. [Applause]. It may be my first time here but Pittsburgh way back from its inception has had some pretty close connections with the British, Indeed, its very name after one of our greatest prime ministers is the clearest possible illustration of the longstanding relationship between my nation and your nation. And then of course, as the President said, as the Senator said, there is this remarkable airport, a pioneering retail operation managed by the British Airports Authority and a relationship that has worked extremely well.

    The President mentioned some personal connections. I know those only by family repute, the stories that have come down from my grandfather through my father to my brother and my sister and myself as small children many years ago, stories of how my father remembers my grandfather being here working in the Carnegie steel plant way back in the 1860s and 1870s and how my father spent a period of his youth here. Heaven alone knows where. He spoke of the place with great affection but he didn’t indicate precisely where it was.
    More recently in those connections between Pittsburgh and the United Kingdom I would like to express my thanks to the remarkable surgeons, doctors and nurses of the Pittsburgh Children’s Hospital. [Applause]. Not all that long ago, they treated a sick young English child in a way that no other hospital around the world could have done and I have to say to you when they did that they caught the heart of my nation and they haven’t let go of it since. [Applause].

    So this seems to me a pretty fitting place for our discussions this evening and then on our way back to the White House later on this evening. There is a lot to discuss. I won’t reiterate the agenda that the President set out. There is a great deal of common interest that exists between our two countries and a great deal that we will wish to talk about that will affect our future, your future and the future of people in other countries around the world; a huge array of business and personal contacts that bind the British and the American people together.

    The President spoke of Bosnia. We are agreed on Bosnia that firm action is right and we will be looking to see how we can increase the pressure for the peace that every sensible person wishes to see in that war-torn and troubled land [Applause] and we will be looking to see what we can do to try and play our part in ensuring that Russia is able to carry its reform programme forward. A Russia that is a good neighbour to the United States and the West would be one of the finest things that this generation could hand down to the next and something that we all care passionately about achieving.

    Earlier today, we sent a joint message to South Africa, to Nelson Mandela and Chief Buthelezi who are holding a crucial meeting tomorrow that may have great importance as the South Africans move towards their first multi-racial elections [Applause] and I think we might spend a bit of time talking as well about how to open up world trade even further and even faster because that is what is going to improve your living standards, the living standards of my people back home and other people all around the world. [Applause].

    So although I am looking forward first to seeing just a bit of your great city, we have got a lot to discuss tonight and a lot to discuss tomorrow and when we finish it, I will be able to look forward to my next meeting with the President at Chequers and perhaps at Oxford and certainly in the United Kingdom for the D-Day celebration in the middle of the year. I can tell you that when he comes over to the United Kingdom the President of the United States will be very welcome indeed. I look forward to returning the hospitality that you are giving me this evening. [Applause].

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Official Gifts

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) of 21 February, Official Report, column 32, if he will give his reason for declining to provide the information on official gifts requested.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a large number of such gifts, most of minor value. The cost of providing a list would be disproportionate. All the gifts have been handled in accordance with the provisions set out in “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 February, Official Report, column 162, if he will list those official gifts purchased by Baroness Thatcher on leaving the office of Prime Minister; and how their value is established.

    The Prime Minister : No. I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 22 February, Official Report, column 162.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in respect of official gifts received by his office.

    The Prime Minister : The arrangements set out in “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” are followed.

    Mrs. Clwyd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the items of jewellery given to the state which are at present housed at No. 10 Downing Street.

     

    Public Appointments

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of the public appointments he is responsible for making in addition to those identified in “Public Bodies 1993” including non-executive agency and other departmental management boards.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 17 January, Official Report, columns 367-68. The public bodies referred to in that answer, which are not listed in “Public Bodies 1993”, are the Kennedy Memorial Trust together with the Chequers Trust, the Chevening Trust and the Dorneywood Trust.

    I make no appointments to non-executive agencies and other departmental management boards.

    Mr. Alex Carlile : To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of public appointments was taken by women in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : On 1 September 1993, 28 per cent. of appointments to public bodies were held by women, compared with 26 per cent. in 1992 and 23 per cent. in 1991.

    All Departments have drawn up objectives and goals to achieve further progress in this area over the years to 1996 and beyond. A summary of the departmental plans was published on 16 November 1992, and a copy is available in the Library of the House.

     

    Council of Europe

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 21 February, Official Report, columns 32-33, if he will list those conventions of the Council of Europe to which the Government have refused to accede from 1964.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 17 January, Official Report, columns 354-55.

     

    Lady Thatcher (Foreign Visits)

    Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all visits made by Lady Thatcher, when Prime Minister, to Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, with a list in each case of all the business people who accompanied her on those visits.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and noble Friend, when Prime Minister, made the following visits to Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. My right hon. and noble Friend was not accompanied by business people on any of these visits.

    Indonesia

    9-11 April 1985

    Malaysia

    5-8 April 1985

    6 August 1988

    18-24 October 1989

    Thailand

    6-9 August 1988

     

    Malaysia

    Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions were held with Malaysians concerning the construction of military bases in Malaysia by British companies during his visit in September 1993.

    The Prime Minister : Commercial discussions were held by British companies on a number of issues during the course of the visit.

    Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister what offers of ECGD credits were made during his visit to Malaysia in September 1933 ; and for which purposes.

    The Prime Minister : No offers of ECGD credits were made during my visit to Malaysia in September 1993.

    Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all those who accompanied him on his visit to Malaysia in September 1993.

    The Prime Minister : I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and a party of senior business men representing BICC, Biwater, British Aerospace, British Gas, Cable and Wireless, GEC, John Laing, Johnson Matthey, the National Grid, North West Water, PowerGen, Rolls-Royce and Trinity Holdings, together with my wife, officials, support staff and members of the press.

     

    Thailand

    Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all visits of Government Ministers and officials to Thailand since 1979 with dates and their purpose of each visit.

    The Prime Minister : The information requested is not held centrally and could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Jewellery

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of all items of jewellery available for wearing by the Prime Minister and his family; and to whom such jewellery belongs.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the items of jewellery in the ownership of the state but kept at No. 10 Downing Street.

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the inventory of Downing Street jewellery, its source, a statement of ownership and who has the rights to wear such jewellery.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 February 1994] : Nearly all the jewellery available for wearing by my family belongs to my wife personally. I have no intention of providing the hon. Member with the details he seeks. There are, in addition, a number of items given to previous Prime Ministers and kept at No. 10 on the official inventory.

     

    Pergau Dam

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 21 February, Official Report, column 33, on what date in February 1991 he was first informed that the Foreign Secretary intended to issue a direction to the accounting officer in respect of the Pergau project.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 February 1994] : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs drew my attention to the concerns of the Overseas Development Administration accounting officer when he minuted me on 16 February 1991 recommending aid and trade provision support for this project on the basis of commitments previously given. The need for a direction to the accounting officer was reported in the subsequent ministerial correspondence.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bosnia – 28 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Bosnia, made during an interview given in Washington on Monday 28th February 1994.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the situation in Bosnia and the shooting down of planes].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The No-Fly-Zone Security Council Resolution has been there for a year. At any stage in the last year, if this sort of infraction had occurred those planes could have been expected to have been shot down. On this occasion, so far as one can tell from the early reports, it is a fairly clear-cut case; the planes were where they ought not to be, were there with ill-intent, they were given a warning, they ignored the warning and then they were shot down so they ought to have been in no doubt about how they would be treated.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Russia agreed with the military intervention].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It seems so certainly but then it is a Security Council Resolution to which they would have subscribed.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the Serbs had taken aggressive action].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It does seem almost inexplicable, it seems to be rather an odd thing for them to have done. I can’t make a judgement as to why they did it but why ever they did it they were there, they were there for ill-intent, they could well have attacked people, they could well have attacked the arms dump that was there and it was necessary to deal with the problem. That is what happened but as to why they did it, I have no more knowledge of that than you.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he fully support the military intervention].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have complete support for the action. The Security Council Resolution was quite clear and perhaps this will serve to warn people that Security Council Resolutions are important; not only are they important, people expect them to be obeyed and if they are not obeyed certain consequences will follow.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if his visit to the United States was one of reconciliation].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I read this report of it being a visit of reconciliation but that is not as I see it and I don’t think that is how the President sees it either. I think the talk of breach and difference is wildly overdone. We have a whole range of things to discuss, Bosnia, Russia, a whole range of other foreign policy and economic matters and that is what I am here for.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Vice-President Al Gore – 28 February 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Vice-President Al Gore in Washington on 28th February 1994.


    QUESTION:

    What did you think of the shooting down of four planes in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I expressed what I thought a little earlier and I may do later but not now.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, the British Government has very exposed intelligence cooperation with the CIA; how much damage to British intelligence was done allegedly by Rick Ames?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have nothing to say at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    Vice President have you heard a lot of American names down for Moscow, diplomats, for retaliation?

    VICE PRESIDENT GORE:

    No, we have no official word as of this moment.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but re bringing an end to this chapter of American-Soviet relations]

    VICE PRESIDENT GORE:

    The developments of last week were very serious and everyone understands that fact. The investigation is continuing, it will be extremely thorough. At the same time, the impact of the allegations against the CIA employee should be put in a larger perspective and the relationship between the West and Russia, between the United States and Russia, should not be determined by such an incident. We have our own self-interest in continuing the improvement of relations with Russia and we will seek that.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what is your reaction to the shooting down of Serbian planes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I expressed it earlier, it remains the same: the Security Council Resolution was passed nearly a year ago; what the Resolution said was perfectly plain; it established a no-fly zone. Here were half a dozen planes that were clearly infringing the no-fly zone, I think there is little doubt about that. They were warned, they didn’t desist, they were shot down. I think they could have expected nothing else.

    QUESTION:

    But does it damage prospects for peace in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe so. The no-fly zone was there for a purpose. It is now clear to people that the no-fly zone will be enforced.

    QUESTION:

    What about the impact possibly on British troops [indistinct] aid?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there will be an impact upon that. We have contingency arrangements to make sure British troops are secure.

    QUESTION:

    Vice-President, what is your reaction to the shooting-down?

    VICE PRESIDENT GORE:

    This has been a standing order for quite some time. Back in September there was one brief violation, this is the first violation since then and it was met instantly with the appropriate response. There is much we still need to learn about why these aircraft would attempt their mission but far from damaging the prospects for peace, it may actually improve the prospects for peace.

    QUESTION:

    How exactly?

    VICE PRESIDENT GORE:

    By sending the message very clearly and firmly that the no-fly zone is not to be trifled with and that strengthens the force of the other statements by NATO and the United Nations.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] these were Serb planes, not Croatian planes?

    VICE PRESIDENT GORE:

    Let’s await further [indistinct]. We know the type of plane and the type of plane is associated with bases in Serbian-controlled territory but we need more information before making any definite statement.

    I think that is a fair comment.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, have you had a reaction from the Russians on the shooting down?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not aware of one yet.

    QUESTION:

    Are you looking forward to going back to your roots?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am certainly looking forward to going to Pittsburgh. [Laughter].

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Washington – 28 February 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Washington after a meeting with Vice President Al Gore, held on Monday 28th February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Just let me say a word or two about the discussions now and earlier this morning with Secretary of State Christopher and others.
    We had the opportunity both over breakfast and now with the Vice-President to look at a range of issues and there is no doubt that our policies on Bosnia and on Russia are very closely aligned now. Some of the difficulties that existed in the past I think have substantially been put behind us. We had the opportunity of discussing those this morning and a range of other issues. I won’t go into details at the moment but I will take a few questions if you have any.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia, Prime Minister, the fact of what happened this morning, doesn’t that increase the risk to British ground troops and wouldn’t it increase perhaps the pressure you would like to bring on the Americans to put ground troops in too because it might concentrate their minds when it came to air strikes in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think what happened in Bosnia this morning was always likely to happen at some stage. We passed this Resolution a year or so ago now. I think what it does illustrate is that United Nations Security Council Resolutions can’t be ignored with impunity. That might be a very useful lesson. I am absolutely sure that Admiral Border [phon] was right to take the decision that he took this morning and I hope the lesson has been learned from it.

    QUESTION:

    How will any Serb retaliation be greeted now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have no reason to suppose there is going to be any Serb retaliation. The last I heard – and I may be out-of-date as this was an hour or so ago – the Serbs hadn’t even conceded they were their planes. We are still waiting for further information on that.

    QUESTION:

    Did you discuss Russia at all?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did discuss Russia this morning. There is no doubt we both remain very strongly supportive of the reform process. There is a great deal happening in Russia at the moment and I look forward to discussing those in further detail with the President later; I would prefer to comment after that.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On Partnership for Peace, we haven’t yet heard from the Russians whether they are proposing to take part in that, I very much hope that they will. I expressed that thought to President Yeltsin when I was there. I think Partnership for Peace will be enhanced by the Russians taking part in it. I think it is in the West’s interest that they should do so and I think it is in their interest as well but as yet we haven’t heard from them.

    QUESTION:

    What are you hoping can now achieved at the United Nations with fresh Resolutions related to Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know yet what fresh Resolutions we are going to get.

    There is a good deal of discussion. What we really have to determine is how we carry forward two separate things: firstly, the political peace process; it does seem that the discussions here in Washington between the Croats and the Muslims over the last 24 hours have looked very hopeful, we will know a little more by the end of the day but they certainly seem to have gone pretty well so far. And secondly, of course, what actually happens on the ground; whether it is possible to negotiate ceasefires in an increasing range of areas.

    Those two events both need to be carried through in parallel. That is what is happening at the moment. I believe that is the right way to proceed and I think there is a unity of view about that.

    ELINOR GOODMAN:

    On Bosnia, was there anything particular you wanted out of the Americans, for example a commitment to more troops and what was their response?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we were discussing strategic matters this morning and I will continue that discussion with the President later on today.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference – 26 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference on 26th February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    “Making Councils Work for You”

    Making Councils Work for You is the theme of this year’s Conference. In those five words is the very essence of local government.

    It is something Conservative councils have always sought to do. It was what I tried to do here in Lambeth – what is it now, a quarter of a century ago.

    Present today will be people here who have served in local government all that time. That’s something to be proud of: a record of service that many have reason to be grateful for.

    There’s one lesson I learned in local government. Politics is about people. About their lives. That is why our policies are based on individual choice, individual opportunity, individual responsibility.

    That is the message we need to carry. Street to street, house to house, face to face. Tell it to people on the doorstep. After all, it’s their communities, their choices, their freedoms, their children, their future.

    So tell me tell it how it is – without the gloss of intermediary comment. That’s the way to hammer home our message and make sure it is received.

    In this we have an advantage. Our strength comes from the ground up. More than any other Party, our message is carried to the country by our local supporters, local councillors, local candidates and local party workers.

    This year, many of you will be fighting in the local elections. We’re going to have to fight hard to win. Mid term elections are never easy.

    But I’ll tell you one thing. We’re not going to win if we stay on the back foot. We must be positive. We must be confident. We must be united.

    THE ECONOMY

    And, Mr Chairman, we have reason to be. These elections will take place against an economic background that seemed impossible a year ago.

    Unemployment is falling. Growth faster than predicted. Business confidence rising. Exports up. Retail sales on the up. And British industry going from strength to strength.

    We can’t expect our opponents to say all this. Indeed, we can be pretty sure they won’t.

    So we must say it. And when we’ve said it – say it again, and again, and again.

    Make sure everyone notices it. Don’t let the good changes that are taking place be hidden. Gloves off. Punch the good news home. Build up the confidence that will build up our prosperity.

    When were interest rates last this low? 16 years ago. When was inflation last this low for so long? 25 years ago.

    When were mortgage rates last this low? 25 years ago.

    When was the number of strikes last this low? Over a century ago.

    When did we last have such good news on all these fronts together? Not in my lifetime. Not in anyone’s.

    I don’t intend to see the Conservative Party on the defensive.

    What we’ve done is right for the country.

    And what we’ll deliver is good for the country.

    So help spread that message wherever you are.

    For the last two years politics has all pointed in one direction. The issue has been the recession. No-one takes our opponents seriously. No-one pays much attention to what they say. They’ve had a free ride. They’ve talked complete drivel – and got away with it.

    But that won’t last. In due course people will notice the vacuum that is their policy. While we’ve been working to put Britain back on its feet, their only concern has been to put the boot into Britain.

    So – remember. While your main job is to explain our policies, just – occasionally – take a moment out to expose theirs.

    TAX

    Meanwhile, let us take all the key issues head on. Tax – for a start. Let me come straight out about where we stand on tax. All our instincts are to get tax down. There’s no other Party in British politics that can say that.

    Yes – taxes are rising in April. Why? Because tax income fell during the recession. And because public spending had to rise.

    Yes, but why did public spending have to rise? Mainly to help those people who were vulnerable during the recession – a recession we can now see was not – as advertised then – a British phenomenon, but one that has spread right across Europe and beyond.

    It was right to help people during that recession. We could not have done otherwise. No Conservative Government could turn its back on those most in need. Nor did we.

    That’s mainly why spending went up. But we’re through recession now – the first nation in Europe to be able to say that. Now we need to rebuild income and control spending. This country has been through many sacrifices to get to this position. We are not going to throw it away now.

    The first task of any responsible Government must be to balance the books. And, even though we’ve now cut spending, this still means that taxes have had to go up.

    We didn’t put them up because we wanted to. We did it because we had to. What we need now is to build a recovery that lasts. That is what responsible government is all about.

    But there’s something else you can tell them on the doorsteps. We remain by instinct a tax-cutting Party -the only tax-cutting Party. And when it is possible to cut taxes again, we will.

    So don’t just defend our record. Remind people of this…. Every time the Conservatives have voted for lower taxes, Labour have voted for higher ones. And the Liberals have voted with them.

    Every time the Conservatives have voted for lower public spending, Labour have voted to spend more. And the Liberals have voted with them.

    And when did Labour or Liberals call for spending cuts? You’re right – never. They called for more spending – as they always do.

    Nor do they stop at high tax and high spending in Britain; they want high tax and high spending from a high and mighty Brussels too. Yes – we’re in Europe. Because that’s where our interests lie. But not the Europe Labour and Liberals want.

    Just look at Labour’s plans for Europe. Sheer madness.

    Higher taxes on business. Extra burdens on business through the Social Chapter. Extra costs on business through a 35 hour week.

    In the European Parliament Labour have even voted for taxes on investment income – the old axe on savings and pensions. How extraordinary to propose a tax surcharge on savings income, just when interest rates are low. What damage that would do to the elderly and the prudent. The politics of envy are alive and well – and living in Labour policies.

    And if that’s not enough, they and their Socialist friends actually want to double the money that Europe spends. Double your money. Double the Community budget? That means doubling our net contribution.

    Hands up all those who want to double our net contributions to Brussels? No hands up? – the observer from the Liberal Party must have slipped out to lunch.

    How does that square with keeping your tax bills down? It doesn’t, does it? You can’t give more money to Europe unless you take more tax at home.

    In Whitehall, in Brussels and council chamber, too – it’s taxes, taxes everywhere. Remind the people – with every Labour promise, the taxing meter clicks upward.

    That’s the key difference between the Parties. And that’s the lack of difference between our opponents. Labour and the Liberals: two halves of the same tax demand.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW

    Mr Chairman, when I spoke to you last year, I said I wanted to produce an enduring structure for local government. I meant it. I come from local government. I have an affection for it. I want it to be successful.

    And it’s always been my belief that structures will only endure if they reflect the traditional loyalties and identities of local people.

    Local government is at its best when people know what its responsibilities are and who is responsible. When they know to whom they should look for help on particular issues.

    At the moment in many places that isn’t very clear. There are blurred responsibilities. People often don’t know who to turn to. There’s scope for better integration of services and savings from improved efficiency. Achieving that would not only be good for the structure of local government, it would be good for its prestige.

    In many cases unitary authorities will deliver advantages. Where that is so I believe we should have them. But the argument for unitary authorities may not be so strong everywhere. Where that is so, we have made it clear that we will not change for change’s sake. There is no national blueprint.

    And I promise you this. All through this process government’s doors will be open. John Gummer and David Curry will take your views fully into account before coming to any final decisions.

    We share a common objective of which this process is only a small part. To get back to the time when the big figures of local government were invariably big figures on the national stage as well.

    I want to see that happen again. You play a vital part in making your communities better places. I want your work to be recognised and your voice to be heard.

    IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL DECISIONS

    Mr Chairman, debates on structure will no doubt continue. But immediately ahead of us lie elections which will decide what matters far more: who runs the council.

    We’re realists. We know many people will vote on national as well as on local issues. That is why good news on the economy matters so much.

    But don’t think that what you do isn’t noticed. It is. Or doesn’t count. It does. Because most people’s day to day lives are affected by local government just as much as central.

    Many problems are best solved locally. Sorted out by thousands upon thousands of decisions and actions taken at council level. And, whatever the local problem is, I know one thing for sure. It’ll be tackled best, if it is tackled by Conservative councillors.

    On almost all the key issues of local government, there are sharp differences between the parties. And time and time again it is the Conservatives who are most in tune with the people.

    EDUCATION

    Take education. We can all agree it’s vital. Words are cheap. But only we Conservatives have produced a clear policy for the future. And we have done it against the flat opposition of the other parties, national and local.

    Children have only one chance. If schools fail to teach the basic skills, then pupils lose the opportunity to make the most of their lives.

    Every child needs the basic equipment for success in life. The three Rs do matter. And so too does confident command of standard English. If you can’t write a clear application, you may never even get an interview for the job you want.

    We Conservatives have a clear strategy for a better future.

    We’ve given parents the right to choose which school they want their child to go to.

    We’ve brought in a new National curriculum.

    We’ve insisted on testing – checking progress in every school.

    We’re taking on those trendy theorists who have done so much damage in teacher training.

    We’re giving more power to the schools.

    We’re giving parents and public more information about our schools than ever before. School reports, full prospectuses, truancy records and performance tables.

    And who is it that opposes us – on all these critical commonsense policies? Why, Labour, of course.

    They are the abominable no-men of education. They think they know better. So they say “no” to choice in education, “no” to information about how our children are doing in school, and “no” to more say for parents.

    How completely, how absurdly, time and time and time again the Labour Party has misjudged the mood of the people of this country. Not just in the council chambers – but in the Shadow Cabinet, too.

    Hundreds of thousands of parents have voted for Grant-Maintained schools – but John Smith and co still want to scrap them.

    Millions of parents want to see our school performance tables – but Labour still want to scrap them.

    Assisted places for poor children? They’ll scrap them, too. Their attitude is all so negative and out of date.

    And this week Labour have even revived their old blind prejudice against independent schools. They are talking of ending charitable status. What hope for our children’s future, when Labour’s spokesmen trek back into a discredited past?

    Mr Chairman, there seems no attitude on education so vindictive that Labour won’t back it.

    In some Labour-run authorities, young children in CTCs have been picked on and stopped from playing music or team games with children from other schools.

    I don’t know about you – but I don’t think you can sink much lower than that. What a spiteful policy. It is educational apartheid, and it should stop – now.

    Team sports are vital. They are part of childhood. And they are part of life. I am determined to see them played far more in our schools. And I don’t want to see classroom wars or perverted political ideology stand in the way.

    LAW AND ORDER

    Mr Chairman, as I go round the country one subject resonates more clearly than any other – concern about crime. This year in Parliament, we have the most comprehensive legislation for years to crack down on crime. To give the courts and the police the powers they need.

    But all of you can help us – and I’ll tell you how. For no-one should ever think that local councils can’t help in the fight against crime. The war on drugs and the war on crime involve us all. And you in your councils can play a big part in winning that war.

    Here’s an example. I recently visited a Conservative council in London. Ealing. I found they were leading the way in new projects for fighting crime on the streets.

    You didn’t need a degree in criminology to see the sense of what they were doing. It was simple practical action. Just fitting gates in the alleyways of estates. In just one year it cut domestic burglaries by a third.

    Not expensive. Not difficult. Just plain common or garden sense. Back to basics you might say.

    And that’s just one of many things councils should do.

    You can set up neighbourhood watch schemes.

    Work with the police and local businesses under our Safer Cities programme.

    And don’t underestimate what better planning can do. To help you and to pull threads together we’re publishing new guidance today on planning that will help councils cut out crime.

    Better lighting, entry phones in tower blocks, better street design. Simple things like these can make life more difficult for the mugger, the burglar and the ram raider.

    So, too, could more closed circuit cameras in City centres. We’re out to stop the criminal – and the best way to do that is to spot him before he strikes. Closed circuit cameras have proved they can work. So we need more of them wherever crime is high.

    Yes, no doubt we will hear some protests about a threat to civil liberties. Well, I have no sympathy for so-called liberties of that kind. The one liberty that concerns me is the liberty of people to go out in the streets without fear and to know that they and their property are safe.

    Anything that helps them and hinders the criminal is fine by me.

    PARTY DIFFERENCES

    Mr Chairman, in ten weeks time people will be voting up and down the country on what council will run their area in the years ahead. The choice they face couldn’t be clearer.

    What was it Jack Straw said the other day about Labour councils? He said he was “proud of what Labour councils have achieved”. Well, if he is, he must be easily satisfied. He went on to say, “The facts speak for themselves.”

    Yes, they do. But I wonder if he realises what they say.

    Seven out of the ten authorities with the highest Council tax arrears? Labour.

    Eight out of ten with the worst rent arrears? Labour.

    Nine out of ten with the worst exam results? Labour.

    Ten out of ten with the highest council taxes? Labour.

    “The facts speak for themselves”. They do indeed. And what they tell you is to vote Conservative – unless you want a council that puts up your taxes because it doesn’t collect the rents, and doesn’t teach your children.

    Thanks Jack for reminding us. Although I have a feeling that’s not what you wanted us to hear.

    And since I’m in the mood to let facts speak for themselves, here are a few more that positively scream out.

    Who runs the ten councils with the highest debts? Yes. Labour.

    And did you know those ten councils collectively have borrowed so much money that the latest figures show they owe more than Nicaragua?

    And if you think that’s unfair because there are ten councils and only one Nicaragua, let me tell you what else those figures show.

    After ten years of Socialism, Birmingham’s debt is almost three times the size of Albania’s. And it took Albania forty years of communism to build up her debt.

    And in case you think that’s a freak, then Hackney owes more than Haiti. Hackney’s Labour.

    Camden owes more than Chad. And Camden? Labour.

    And Sheffield owes more than the Seychelles. Sheffield – since we’re talking about elections today, that brings back some happy memories. Perhaps Labour would like another rally there – it might even be worth us paying.

    Week after week John Smith talks about competence in government. Well, that’s fine. But he should take a close look at incompetence in Labour local government instead.

    No wonder he calls for the cancellation of Third World debt. He thinks he might need the IMF to bail out third-rate Labour councils instead.

    LIBERALS

    Before we leave the third-rate, let’s spare a word for the fourth-rate also. Here’s one last question about council debt. Who runs the council with the eleventh largest debt? No, not Labour. Yes, you guessed it. The Liberal Democrats.

    Wherever Labour leads, the Liberals follow, tails wagging, right at their heels.

    We’ll confront Labour head-on. But don’t let’s forget the Liberal threat.

    Do you remember the Liberal posturing at the last Election? All that fuss about PR? Paddy’s patent remedy. People soon saw through that piece of quackery.

    The Liberals said PR was the key to a new style of politics. And that was half true at least. Because it was a key alright – a Liberal key to a Labour Britain.

    And events have proved that. Just look at what’s happened up and down the country. Wherever people have voted Liberal in protest, the Liberals have used that key to open the Town Hall door for Labour.

    In Berkshire, Essex, Hereford, Lincolnshire, Shropshire, Suffolk and Kent, what do we see? Liberals touching their cap and opening the door for Labour. Lib-Lab pacts putting up council taxes and snuffing out common sense.

    I hope everyone remembers that this May.

    There’s only one way to vote Tory. But there are two ways to vote Labour.

    A hung council is a swung council. And it always swings to the Left.

    The only consistent policy the Liberals have is to let in Labour wherever they can. Backstairs deals. Selling their principles for a few committee chairmanships.

    Three chairs for the Libs – and, hey presto, you have a Labour council.

    CONCLUSION

    Mr Chairman, I’ve spelt out for you today some of the challenges we face. But also the opportunities – and today we have opportunities better than we’ve had for years to take our country forward.

    At this conference we have set out our shared beliefs. And told the world how strongly we hold them. Our commitments on education and crime strike a chord in every household in this country.

    We in this Party are not in politics to advance a narrow political ideology. We are there to do what we can for the people we serve.

    Over the last two years, I admit, we’ve taken a fair amount of stick. But now is the time to give some back.

    We’ve been on the defensive. But now is the time to go on the attack.

    It will take time before our policies work through. Time before all their benefits are seen.

    But one thing I do know. We won’t convince anyone if we stay at home indoors. In all the years of service on your councils, in all your actions, you have helped to build the reputation of this Party.

    Now go out and sell it. You deserve to win. Make sure you do.

    So get on your coat. Get on the doorstep. And get stuck in.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Advertising

    Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by his office (a) in the current financial year and (b) planned for 1994-95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

    The Prime Minister : No advertising has been incurred in my office on promotional or advertising campaigns in the current financial year. None is planned for 1994-95.

     

    Royal Family

    Mr. Frank Fields : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those areas with regard to the royal family, on which it is his practice to answer questions.

    The Prime Minister : I will answer questions which are within the conventions of this House and raise issues of public policy, where appropriate.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 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 further meetings later today.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 21 February, Official Report, columns 33-34, if Russia would be consulted and its approval need to be given before NATO air-strikes in Bosnia-Herzegovina were carried out.

    The Prime Minister : United Nations Secretary Council resolution 836 authorises the use of air power in support of UNPROFOR in and around the safe areas in Bosnia-Herzegovina. There is no need for further decisions by the Security Council.

    We nevertheless regard consultation with Russia as of the utmost importance. We welcome the Russians’ positive contribution to lifting the siege of Sarajevo, which demonstrated their commitment to bringing the conflict to a peaceful end.

    Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 21 February, Official Report, columns 33-34, if he will give President Yeltsin’s response to his description of the specific terms of the North Atlantic Council’s response to the United Nations Secretary-General’s request for NATO assistance at Sarajevo; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 21 February at columns 33-34.

     

    Gifts

    Mrs. Clwyd : To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances gifts made to the Prime Minister which are state property may be used; and, in the case of gifts of jewellery, who is entitled to wear it.

    The Prime Minister : These are matters for the Prime Minister’s discretion.

  • PMQT – 24 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 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 further meetings later today.

    Mr. Connarty : I thank the Prime Minister for that interesting information. Is he aware that the independent living fund appears not to be working properly, and that only £500,000 out of the £4 million allocated is likely to be disbursed by the end of the financial year ? That means that £3.5 million will go back to the Treasury. If those figures continue for next year, £9.6 million out of £11 million will go back to the Treasury, and only £1.4 million will go to those who need it.

    Can the Prime Minister confirm that the problem with the trigger mechanism is that a social service department must spend £200 per week on someone who is applying, and that 57 authorities have not submitted a single name ? Will he give an assurance that he will look seriously at that trigger so that the poorest and most disadvantaged in society are not denied the help that they require ?

    The Prime Minister : The independent living fund exists to help people who face particular difficulties. If there is a mechanism that creates particular difficulties–I am not aware of the particular point that the hon. Gentleman raises–I will examine it, and see what the situation is.

     

    Q2. Mr. Moss : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 February.

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

    Mr. Moss : Does my right hon. Friend agree that schemes that attract private investment for public projects are enormously valuable? Will he join me in completely rejecting a scheme that was launched early this week which would leave all the risk on the back of the taxpayer? Is not it typical of Labour that its scheme is unbelievable, badly thought through and fundamentally dishonest?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly keen to see the public and the private sectors working closely together. That is desirable and attractive, and it is something which we have sought to do for some time with considerable success. It has to be made clear that if the private sector does get involved, it needs a degree of freedom and it ought not to be a way of effectively disguising what are, in reality, public expenditure increases.

    Mr. John Smith : On Tuesday this week, the Prime Minister, in answering a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), told the House that the net disposable income of people of all ranges of income had increased since 1979. The Prime Minister must know that that was not correct. Will he now withdraw that remark?

    The Prime Minister : No, I shall not withdraw it. The latest edition of “Social Trends”– [Hon. Members : Reading.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House is obviously not aware that Ministers may read from the Dispatch Box.

    The Prime Minister : In fact, I was about to quote, as it might be helpful to the House if I do. The latest edition of “Social Trends” found that

    “before housing costs, the real median income of the bottom fifth increased…between 1979 and 1990-1991”.

    Those figures, of course, were taken at the bottom of the recession before there was a distinct improvement in the economy and in the position of most people.

    Mr. John Smith : Did the Prime Minister look at the publication issued by the Department of Social Security–by his own Government–which made it clear on page 1 that the real income of the bottom 10 per cent. decreased both before and after housing costs were taken into account? Which is correct–the Prime Minister’s assertions or what his own Department has published?

    The Prime Minister : I responded earlier by quoting what was actually said in “Social Trends”. I will say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Since 1979, real incomes have gone up sharply for vulnerable groups ; more than 40 per cent. for pensioners ; up for the unemployed and up for those in work but on relatively low pay. There is an improvement in living standards at all levels, even among those who are the least well off.

    Mr. John Smith : Can I take the Prime Minister to the precise point on which we are in dispute? Does he maintain that the real income of the bottom 10 per cent. of the population increased between 1979 and now?

    The Prime Minister : I quoted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman– [Hon. Members :– “Answer.”] I will answer the question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman put the question in his own way. I will answer the question in my own way. I refer him to “Social Trends”, which relates to the original question. The figures for the poorest 20 per cent. relate to a time when we were in recession and mortgage rates were high. I stick to the points that I made a few moments ago.

    Mr. Clappison : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent news that output investment continued to grow in the last quarter of 1993? Is not that clear and compelling evidence that, despite the efforts of the Labour party to create gloom, Britain is on the road to recovery and leading the rest of Europe out of recession?

    The Prime Minister : There are very few people now who doubt the fact that the British economy has been growing for six or seven quarters, that we have a rate of growth at present larger than that of any comparable European Community country and that we are set to grow again throughout this year and through next year. Not only are we growing, but we are doing so with interest rates at a very low level–lower than they have been for very many years–and inflation also at a low level and likely to stay at a low level.

     

    Q3. Mr. George Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 February.

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

    Mr. Howarth : Is the Prime Minister aware that information supplied through parliamentary answers to me on 41 quangos shows that 127 members of those bodies are associated with firms that directly finance the Tory party? Can he tell me whether that is a highly unlikely statistical coincidence or yet another example of that lot over there getting their cronies’ snouts in the trough?

    The Prime Minister : I will tell the hon. Gentleman a little something about the membership of quangos. Perhaps I might mention some of the well-known contributors to the Conservative party and Tory supporters who are members of quangos. Margaret Hodge, for example, on the Local Government Commission ; Baroness Blackstone, for example ; Baroness Jay, for example. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is also on a quango–the British Film Institute. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : Not a single Government contributor or supporter among them.

    Mrs. Roe : Has my right hon. Friend seen the figures published today that show that new car registrations are rising strongly? Is not that further evidence of continuing economic recovery and a return of consumer confidence?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is becoming more apparent that consumer confidence is returning, not just in the figures for car sales and car registrations, but in the figures for retail sales and in several other figures. The depth and spread of the recovery are certainly continuing. It is steady and I believe that it will continue to be steady and grow throughout this year.

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister accept that I am very proud to be a member of the unpaid board of governors of the British Film Institute? Will he comment on the lack of Government action in helping to finance and develop the British film industry which is a very important industry, not only for the cultural representation of this country but because it both creates employment here by making films and develops Britain’s image abroad, which cascades down to British manufacturing industry ? Will he give a guarantee that he will support the industry in the future?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he does for the British film industry. [Hon. Members :- – “What about its future ?”] I shall come to that, if hon. Members will just relax. I am told that the hon. Gentleman does an excellent job on the board of the British Film Institute and that he has been appointed to it because of his personal abilities and not because of his political affiliations, as is the case with all appointments to such public bodies, without exception.

    As regards the future of the British film industry, I am keen to see it thrive. One of the areas that will benefit significantly from the establishment of a lottery is the arts in general, a part of which I hope will be the British film industry. It is likely over the years that it will provide considerably more resources for the arts as a whole, and very probably the film industry as well, than even the most benevolent level of Government funding is likely to do, whatever Government we may have. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman and his fellow members of the British Film Institute will fully support it.

    Sir Jim Spicer : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, following the break-up of the Soviet Union, all the former republics of the Soviet Union are entitled to be treated not as falling within the natural sphere of influence of Russia but as free and truly independent states?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. I can certainly confirm that that is the case. We are seeking to develop diplomatic, commercial and trading relations with a large number of them. In the past few weeks, the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have been here to discuss trading opportunities, and my right hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign Office and other Departments have been in contact with a number of the other new republics.

     

    Q4. Mr. William O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 February.

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

    Mr. O’Brien : Will the Prime Minister, during the course of the day, read the independent report, published today, on the murder of Jonathan Zito in December 1992? It condemns the community care programme under which the murderer was receiving treatment and from which he was discharged because of lack of resources. It also condemns the way that the Government have underfunded the social services programme in London. Less than an hour ago, I was talking to Jayne Zito, his widow, and she asked me to request the Prime Minister to meet her and explain to her why her husband should have been murdered because of lack of resources provided by the Government.

    The Prime Minister : Everyone must be deeply sympathetic to the dreadful murder of Mr. Zito and the appalling effect that it has had on Mrs. Zito’s subsequent life. No one will dispute that. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentlemen do me the courtesy of listening to the reply ? It was a dreadful incident and we must seek to learn what we can from it. It is significant that the report supports the principle of community care and specifically concludes that most mentally ill people, including those suffering from schizophrenia, are living safely in the community. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the principle of community care is widely accepted in each and every part of the House, and has been for a long time. He may be aware of the remarks of Professor Norman Sartorius who confirmed only yesterday that :

    “Our recent developments in improving mental health services will ensure that the UK continues to lead the world in this area.” I believe that to be the case, and we will continue to do that.

    I will consider the hon. Gentleman’s request, but it would perhaps have been better, if he were genuinely concerned, if he put the point to me privately and not in the way he has.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ottaway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 February.

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

    Mr. Ottaway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with retail sales up, productivity up and confidence in the small business sector sharply up, the last thing that British business needs is so-called “business plans”, which are nothing but a failed Opposition policy that does nothing to help the British economy?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly believe that what is most needed for the health of business is to ensure that we have a low inflation economy, the right business tax structure to encourage investment, and interest rates as low as we can keep them. Those are the ingredients which will encourage investment within this country, and from abroad, which continues at a high rate.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    School Teachers Review Body

    Mrs. Roe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the current membership of the School Teachers Review Body.

    The Prime Minister : The membership of the School Teachers Review Body is as follows :

    |First appointed|Expiry date

    ————————————————————————-

    John Gardiner (Chairman) |1993 |1995

    Mrs. Brigita Amey |1991 |1995

    Alan Cox CBE |1991 |1995

    Philip Halsey CB LVO |1991 |1995

    Mrs. Gill Rostron |1993 |1996

    Mrs. Anna Vinton |1992 |1996

    Mr. Michael Harding |1993 |1997