The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Statement on Salman Rushdie – 12 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on Salman Rushdie.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is now five years since the late Ayatollah Khomeini, Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, issued a death threat against Salman Rushdie and others associated with the publication of his book, “The Satanic Verses”.

    I met Salman Rushdie last May to demonstrate the Government’s full support for his fundamental rights. I have been heartened by the way in which many governments around the world have demonstrated their support both by meeting Mr Rushdie and in their discussions with the Iranian government. We all want to make clear to the Iranian government that they cannot enjoy full and friendly relations with the rest of the international community unless and until we can be satisfied that there is no further direct or indirect threat from the Iranian authorities to Mr Rushdie’s life, or to that of others associated with his book.

    I hope very much that they will listen to the message.

  • Mr Major’s Speech Marking 25th Anniversary of Carparo – 11 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at a lunch to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Carparo.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to be here today as a guest in my own constituency on this very special occasion of the 25th anniversary of Carparo. It has during the last hour and a half or so provided the odd surprise or two. When I heard a motion from the House of Commons, or at least a message from the House of Commons. I have to confess to you, for a fleeting second there was a twinge of concern. I cannot think for the life of me why this should be, but it most certainly was. But it is a rare event to have a motion of that sort. Rare, but I think justified because the motion referred not only to the contribution of Dr Paul, not only to the remarkable success of Carparo, but it also referred to the success of a British manufacturing enterprise and I was delighted to have that motion put down by colleagues from more than one party in the House of Commons.

    Before I turn to other matters can I just say how pleased I am personally to see the High Commissioner, Dr Sindha. He is, in my own experience, and I think in the judgement of many better judges than I of these matters, an outstanding High Commissioner who served India’s interest with great skill. But in doing so remains a very close friend to this country as well and I am delighted to see him here today. What a remarkable achievement, to have built Carparo up in such a time, on such a scale, across such a wide range of different activities. When I heard that motion about the British manufacturing industry, what came immediately to my mind was this thought – too often in this country we underestimate what can be done in this country and what is done. As I go around the country and see what is actually happening in manufacturing and non-manufacturing enterprises alike. I see stories of success, of innovation, of skill, of far-sighted judgement -of which we hear far too little in this country. We hear the bad news so frequently. It would be of more use to all of us – in industry, commerce and private citizens alike, if we were to hear a little more of the remarkable successes of so much of the British manufacturing industry.

    I have taken the opportunity in the last few weeks and I will return to this in a few moments, of going around the country, having a look at some of these remarkable examples of success, and I propose to do that again in the future. Because the success that Dr Paul has achieved, is a remarkable example of what can be achieved by hard work and enterprise. The success of Carparo is symbolic of what is happening in a large part of the British manufacturing industry more generally, and I’d just like to say this about manufacturing. There is more than one school of thought about manufacturing. There is a school of thought that regards it almost as marginal to the success of British industry, and there is a second school of thought that regards it as fundamental to the success of British industry. I take my stand with the second school of thought. I don’t regard manufacturing as a Cinderella part of British industry. Making things matters in this country and we must make it clear to everyone that all of us believe that making things matters. It has changed manufacturing. Changed in a remarkable way. Both in image and content, over the last 20 years or so. What we need in manufacturing is more of the best brains, the best skills, that our young people can produce. We need to build up those skills. We need to change the culture in this country, in the way in which typically we look at the manufacturing industry specifically and commerce more generally.

    I saw with some interest, just a day or so ago, a remarkable survey published by the CBI and I’m delighted to see Howard Davies, the Director General with us this afternoon. It was a survey of a wide ranging series of aspects of manufacturing. It showed manufacturing orders rising strongly, right across the United Kingdom. It showed business optimism increasing. It showed companies expecting output and demand to rise. Business optimism, at its highest level for 4 years. Orders up, exports up, exports even up in difficult markets as an increasingly competitive British industry penetrates even markets currently in recession on the continent and elsewhere. It showed costs under control, unit labour costs down over the last 12 months, and for the first time since the recovery slowly and painfully began in June, getting on for nearly 2 years ago, 20 months ago now. We began to see more companies expecting to increase investment over the next year, with engineering perhaps doing particularly well. That was from the industrial trends survey, which over the last 30 years has perhaps shown itself to be the most reliable indicator of what is going to happen in our economy. The prospects for the future look even brighter and for those who believe that the tax changes will perhaps put a break upon the recovery, as Howard Davies said just a few days ago, looking, and I quote directly, looking at the experience of previous tax increases in the late ’60s, the early ’70s and the early ’80s, that shows that tax increases will not halt the recovery. The key is confidence and we should not talk ourselves into pessimism which is not justified by the facts. I believe that is absolutely and entirely right. Because potentially at the moment, if you look across the range of economic indicators and the increasing competitiveness that British and commerce, we have potentially, the best circumstances for sustained growth with low inflation that we have known in this country for very many years.

    I have taken the opportunity of escaping from that Whitehall/Westminster nexus to go and look out in the real world at some of the things that are happening. Earlier this week in the East Midlands, I visited Triumph Motorcycles. Not all that long ago within the memory of everyone, every adult in this room, the British motorcycle industry just ceased to exist. They disappeared. An attempt to revive it as a cooperative failed. It seemed that another industry had fled the country and gone for good. But now Triumph have brought it back. Substantial capital investment and training is now growing and exporting to Japan, to Canada, to Germany, to New Zealand and to countries all around the world. A week earlier, in Yorkshire, to see in the textile industry Firth Carpets, again an industry that many people thought were in real difficulties and yet now, after suitable investment and good management, it’s competing with the best in the world and will take the advantages that spring from some of the changes in the Uruguay Round. The week before that, at Perkins Engines in Peterborough, another area where success for the future seems to be guaranteed and today of course, the truly remarkable success story of Carparo.

    Our host referred earlier to our joint date with destiny in 1968. I was elected to Lambeth Council and ended up here today, he had £5,000 and ended up where he is today. If only I’d had £5,000. In 1968, the success of the company is of course the stuff of dreams. But not only dreams, hard work, skill, aptitude, risk, application and yes luck, are the ingredients that have helped make the company what it is today.

    Perhaps a talisman of some of the other changes that have taken place. What I passionately believe is that at the moment people simply do not realise the transformation that is taking place in the British economy and it’s vital that they do so that they take the opportunities that that transformation is about to offer. We are in this country, frankly, not very good at talking about our successes. We should be. Because success will breed further success. It will breed confidence, it will breed investment, it will breed growth, it will breed tax revenue, it will breed jobs and it will breed a better quality of services that the tax yields that follow will enable us to fund.

    People abroad can recognise our successes and the changed climate. Why else would so much external investment from the European Community, from Japan and America, be coming to this country. Because they have seen the change with their perspective from abroad in the way that so many of us in this country have not yet recognised it. They know the opportunities here. They know what can be done by the right sort of investment over the long term in the United Kingdom economy and increasingly we should recognise it ourselves in this country. We should be more self-confident. We should say more about our successes and I hope we will. Exports at an all time high and Carparo playing its own part as a previous winner of the Queen’s Award for Export Achievement.

    We still have in the United Kingdom some of the best and some of the biggest companies in Europe. 14 United Kingdom firms in the top 25 in Europe. That inward investment I referred to from Japan, the United States and elsewhere. These companies don’t come here for the weather, they come here for the business climate. The low taxation climate, in terms of business. The increasing aptitude and willingness of people to seek skill training and I wish to turn to that in a moment. The number of companies moving from Europe to the United Kingdom. Black and Decker of course being a recent example, not just inward investment, but companies bringing their whole enterprise to actually establish it here in the United Kingdom and they come because the conditions are right. I wonder how many people in this room can last remember when we had inflation around 2 per cent for a full year. Certainly not since 1960. With interest rates at the lowest level since the mid-1970s, with productivity improved, with manufacturing output up, with unemployment having fallen in 9 months out of 11, while alas in so many of our competitive countries in Europe, it’s still rising sharply and with industrial relations wholly transformed. If I had stood here 12 years ago and said to you that we would have at the present time, the lowest number of days lost to strikes since records began and a relatively clement industrial relations attitude between workforce and management that exists in this country today, frankly most of you would not have believed that it would be possible. But it’s happened and it is of vital interest to manufacturing industry.

    But there is one other change that I wish to refer to and it relates particularly to industry. There is an artificial cultural distinction between blue collar and white collar workers that has existed in this country for too long and has done too great a damage over too long a period. We do need those people who work in industry to have the esteem they deserve and those artificial distinctions between blue and white collar workers are outdated, absurd, damaging and they should be put in the dustbin immediately and never taken out again. What we need, if we are to have the success in the future that I believe this country is capable of, that is going to be built on the right macro economic structure created by government and the right investment and vision undertaken by business. If we’re to achieve that, not just this year, next year, the year after, not just in good years but in difficult economic years as well, then we need to attract more of our brightest and best brains into industry.

    The world is more competitive today that it has ever been. It is going to get more competitive. We’re not just competing with our friends and colleagues in the European Union, in France and Germany and Portugal and Spain. The competition comes also and here we must gear our competitive structure to meet it. The competition comes the Pacific Basin, from Japan, from the United States and unless we lift our eyes to make sure we can compete with those countries, then we will not remotely begin to achieve the success that is necessary in the future. That is why we need to keep our industrial costs down. That’s in a nutshell, why I myself thought it wrong to accept the provisions of the Social Chapter and decline to agree it in the Maastricht Treaty negotiations. That is why I myself believe that we must do all we possibly can to reskill Britain in manual skills of all sorts. We do need those skills to meet that more competitive world that lives out there, which you as businessmen must compete. We need more apprenticeships. We need to see the increasing thrust of our young people going into higher education. We had a target of one in three of our young people getting into further and higher education by the turn of the century and we have achieved that target this year, six years ahead of schedule. We need that to continue. We need to put an increasing weight and interest and acknowledgement of vocational qualifications of one sort or another. This is a revolution. A revolution in culture, a revolution in business management, a revolution in thought, about the way in which we look at business and industry.

    Those days will, within my political lifetime. But every shred of profit was looked at enviously are surely regarded as absurd by the overwhelming majority of people in this country today. Business itself is willingly accepting more and more social obligations of one sort or another. The generous donation to London Zoo by Carparo and the generous donation to some of the charities Norma works for today is an illustration of that. It stretches right across business, free enterprise, profitable, in increasingly accepting the obligation to assist in sponsorship of arts and other charities and good causes of one sort or another. The old artificial division that existed so many years ago, of hostility for private enterprise, has been steadily draining away over the last 15 or 20 years and in that climate we have to recognise what the underlying philosophy for the future must be. It is a perfectly simple philosophy. If business wins, Britain wins and we need to gear our policies to provide business with the greatest possible opportunity of winning. Business of course has the primary role. Government must provide the right macro economic climate. It can help in other ways. Help with exporters, help with export credit, help with taking trade missions abroad to use political clout to open the doors to businessmen to secure their deals. That is something that I believe is a legitimate responsibility of business and increasingly we will do that and we will use our Embassies and High Commissions abroad to promote the interests of British business. That is in all our interests in this country.

    Carparo has illustrated much of that. Carparo is winning. In many ways has won. Could move from a company with £500 to the multi-million pound concern with interests all around the world that it is today is a truly remarkable success story in private enterprise. I’d like to extend my congratulations to Sir Raj Paul and all his colleagues who have contributed to that success.

    A few moments ago at the conclusion of these remarks, our host invited everyone in Carparo to rise and drink a toast to their guest today. I, for my part if I may, would like to return the compliment. We’re here to celebrate the 25th anniversary of a success story well worth celebrating. I would like to conclude by inviting all the guests to join me in a toast to Sirraj Paul and all who have made Carparo such a remarkable success story.

    Dr Paul and Carparo.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 February 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from professors of law in Scotland about the issue of precedent, and the possibility of holding a trial of the alleged Libyan suspects for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have received no such representations.

     

    Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy at his forthcoming meeting with his Irish counterpart to discuss the Irish Government’s view of THORP.

    The Prime Minister : No.

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 2 February, Official Report, column 702, if he will raise with the Presidents of the European Commission and European Council of Ministers the possibility of making an exception to the convention of confidentiality covering correspondence between the Commission and member states in the case of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to establish from Lord Justice Scott whether he objects to the release by Government Departments of memoranda and other documents that they have submitted for consideration by his inquiry.

    The Prime Minister : No. Lord Justice Scott has discretion, subject to consultation on sensitive and classified material, to publish evidence submitted to his inquiry in his final report. The Government do not intend to anticipate his decisions.

  • PMQT – 10 February 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 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 have further meetings later today.

    Mr. Flynn : In a letter to me from the Imperial Tobacco Company, the corrupt practice is exposed that, in the general election, it awarded 1,000 advertising sites to the Tory party because the Tory party promised not to ban tobacco advertising. The Government have now delivered on that promise to their paymasters. The cost will be borne by the nation in several thousand avoidable and unnecessary deaths. Will the Prime Minister promise today that never again will the Tory party accept bribes, favours or money from the tobacco industry?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly overlooks the excellent record that this Government have had in reducing smoking–down from 45 to 28 per cent. He knows very well of the changes in taxation that have been necessary to achieve that. He illustrates that no company that was remotely sensible would support the policies of the Labour party.

    Mr. Waterson : Will my right hon. Friend consider making public funds available so that every business in the land can be sent a copy of the European socialist manifesto so that they may judge for themselves whether it is a constructive business plan or a fast route to failure?

    The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure that would be a proper use of public funds. I very much doubt whether anybody would really wish to read it. It is certainly clear that what is contained in that socialist manifesto, which was signed up to by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)–without, as I recall, reading it–would be desperately damaging for British industry. It is equally true that the decision in the past of Members of the European Parliament who support the Labour party to vote for ending single nation vetoes would in effect mean that we would not be able to sustain our rebate, at a cost of many billions of pounds to the British taxpayer.

    Mr. John Smith : Given the widespread concern throughout the country at the arbitrary and unfair decisions that are being produced by the system operated by the Child Support Agency, why are the Government so opposed to allowing an independent review of its decisions?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there will be a full debate on that issue later today. As I have said on previous occasions, we have made it clear that we shall keep the nature of the system under review and if it seems necessary to make changes we will do so. We are embarking on implementing a principle that is supported uniformly across the House. We need a little more experience of how it works. We will keep it under review. If it is necessary to make changes, we shall make them then, not now.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the Prime Minister aware that the phrase “keeping under review” has been the bromide response of bureaucrats down the decades? Why do the Government–despite all the evidence–stop the Child Support Agency from taking into account divorce or separation agreements involving the transfer of assets, which may be highly relevant to establishing justice between the parties?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously did not listen to what I said a moment ago. I made it perfectly clear that we would continue to evaluate the workings of the Child Support Act 1991 and the agency. We intend to secure a well-accepted, consistent mechanism to deliver a better child maintenance system than we have had in the past. That is why I said that we would keep the matter under review.

    This system is unlike anything that has been tried before. It is generally accepted to be right in principle–not least by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is nodding. It is right to consider it and, having considered it, decide then whether further changes are necessary.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister cannot be so complacent about the anger that is now felt throughout the country–and his Back Benchers certainly should not be so complacent about it. Does not 80 per cent. of the money recovered by the agency go straight to the Treasury? Did the Government intend that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman reveals instinctively that he thinks in terms of “big government”, rather than thinking of the taxpayer. The money is actually returned to the taxpayer who contributed it in the first place.

    Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain’s only interest in Bosnia is assisting in the provision of humanitarian aid? Can he assure the House that we will not prejudice that effort by attacking any of the combatants?

    The Prime Minister : The measures agreed yesterday at the North Atlantic Council are intended primarily to reinforce the peace process. There will be renewed diplomatic effort to encourage all sides to reach an agreement and stick to it.

    No course in Bosnia is free of risks; that has been the case from the beginning. I do not myself believe, however, that doing nothing would be the right option for the House or NATO to adopt in the circumstances that have now arisen. In the discussions at the North Atlantic Council, we urged our allies to look forward. We do not favour purely punitive action; force should not be used unless it is genuinely necessary, and increases the chance of a peaceful settlement.

    Another relevant point is the fact that NATO has warned all sides to cease their bombardment. It has taken specific and carefully constructed decisions to reinforce the efforts of the commanders on the ground, but the objective is to help the civilian population without changing the character of the United Nations’ role.

     

    Q2. Mr. Cousins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Cousins : Does the Prime Minister agree that, although private matters can be cruelly exposed within hours, issues of public accountability can sometimes lie dormant for years? Can he assure the House that British aid and export packages have never been used to cover the cost of large-scale commissions and backhanders?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of no circumstances in which that has happened. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I hope that he will show it either to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or to me.

    Mr. Cash : Has my right hon. Friend seen the manifesto adopted by the European Peoples party on 3 February? Is he aware that it contains a commitment to a single currency, a central bank, the social chapter, a common immigration policy and a constitution for the whole of Europe? Does he agree that Conservative Members could not possibly accept those proposals, and repudiate them explicitly?

    The Prime Minister : Neither do we have to accept them; nor will we. The Conservative party at the European elections is in agreement and will contest those elections on a distinctively British Conservative manifesto on the future of Europe.

     

    Q3. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Illsley : On the subject of the appropriate use of the taxpayers’ money, does not the Prime Minister agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Department of Employment can waste £59 million on unused computer equipment, when thousands of my constituents are facing cuts in unemployment benefit as a result of his mismanagement, or are bureaucratic waste, sleaze and corruption no longer his responsibility?

    The Prime Minister : The Government always study Public Accounts Committee reports carefully. The lessons in that have already been learnt and put into practice.

     

    Q4. Mr. Alan Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend agree that national health service trusts, general practitioner fundholding and the patients charter are yielding valuable improvements in efficiency and quality of service? Does he further agree that not only the patients, but those who work in the national health service do not want those reforms undone and everything turned upside down, as the Labour party proposes?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The test that we should apply to the health service and efficiency is perfectly straightforward. Is the health service treating more patients? Is it providing better care and is it treating people more quickly? The answer to each of those questions is yes. The national health service treated 2.5 million more patients last year than in 1979. By contrast, the ludicrous document launched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman this morning, contains nothing that would lead to a single extra patient being treated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would like to abolish trusts and fundholding. That is a recipe for inefficiency, upheaval and chaos.

    Mr. Jamieson : Is the Prime Minister aware that his education Minister in the other place announced last week that there would be no extra assistance to grant-maintained schools for their liability to pay value added tax on fuel? Is he aware that grant-maintained schools are now paying £2.50 in every £100 in taxation rather than on books?

    The Prime Minister : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more and more schools are seeking to become grant maintained and doing so week after week?

     

    Q5. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mrs. Gillan : In his very busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to look at the recent Confederation of British Industry survey, which shows that business confidence in Britain is at an all-time high? Orders are up and, in the words of the CBI survey, the recovery is deepening and widening. Does he agree that such good economic indicators and such good signs bode well for private investment in projects such as crossrail?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend refers to one of a number of surveys that have highlighted the improving economic circumstances. The survey to which my hon. Friend refers shows business and export optimism up in each and every region of the country. Orders are up, output is expected to rise and investment in plant and machinery is expected to rise. That is against a background of low inflation with unit costs falling in most regions. The prospects for British business are extremely good. By getting inflation under control, cutting public spending and bringing interest rates down, we have provided exactly the right economic circumstances for long-sustained growth with low inflation and the creation of employment.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Q6. Mr. Macdonald : To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the number of people killed in Sarajevo since the passage of the United Nations Security Council resolution of June 1992 authorising the use of force by UNPROFOR to protect the safe areas.

    The Prime Minister : We do not have reliable estimates for casualties in Sarajevo. The death toll has been high. The killing of 68 shoppers in the market last Saturday was a step change in a deteriorating situation. There can be no guarantee of peace in Sarajevo or in any other part of Bosnia. There is no feasible and certain means of resolving the problem from outside, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s decision yesterday will put the parties under heavier pressure to stop the bombardment and make peace.

    Mr. Macdonald : Does the Prime Minister accept that there can be no logical or moral justification for distinguishing between Sarajevo and the other UN-designated safe areas in Bosnia, and that about 2, 500 civilians have died in all those safe areas since June last year, when the UN authorised the use of force to protect those people? Will he, therefore, undertake to work to extend the ultimatum that has been issued in respect of Sarajevo to those other safe areas?

    The Prime Minister : We have to determine what is practicable. We are already working, as far as Srebrenica and Tuzla are concerned, to try and ensure that the situation improves. We are now doing that having seen the special difficulties in Sarajevo. To follow to its logical conclusion the concern that the hon. Gentleman set out would involve our becoming involved, very probably with troops on the ground, throughout the whole of the area of conflict. However strongly the hon. Gentleman may feel about the matter, or others, that is not a practicable proposition.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview with Russian Journalists – 10 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview with Russian journalists, held outside 10 Downing Street in London on 10th February 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I shall certainly go there with very warm feelings for the Russian people. I have enjoyed my past visits to Russia and I have enjoyed meeting Russian leaders here on a number of occasions. I have a fairly extensive agenda and I look forward to discussing with President Yeltsin both matters internal to Russia, bilateral matters and of course there are a wide range of international matters we will wish to discuss with him both economic and political. I expect them to be very wide ranging discussions indeed.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the change of Cabinet in Russia is a matter for the Russian people. My concern and that is the concern of all my colleagues in this country is to continue the success of the reform programme and the success of the movement towards economic prosperity in Russia. That is in Russia’s interests and it is very much what we wish to see as well.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, you will be the first western leader to meet the Russian leadership after the NATO decision in Yugoslavia which may seriously affect the Russian relationship with the western world. What do you think will be the main purpose of your visit in this concern?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I very much look forward to discussing this in Moscow next week. The objectives that the Russian Government have are the same objectives that we have in the west. We would like to see the fighting stopped, we would like to see a political settlement. Emphatically what NATO is doing is not taking sides in the conflict. That is not what we are doing. What we are concerned about is to stop the fighting around Sarajevo and the needless and senseless deaths that occur there. That is the purpose of what we are seeking to do but the objective is one I believe Russia shares and that is to find a negotiated settlement to the conflict. There is no other satisfactory outcome.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Russia is a very large and a very powerful nation. We are concerned to have very good relations with Russia. If there are any areas we can help then we are very happy to help. But of course Russia has a great deal to offer the rest of the world.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you might ask that question and get a better answer this time next week, but I will expect to be very warmly wrapped up for the Russian winter. We are quite hardy we East Anglians.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 February 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Rooker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

    The Prime Minister : The general practice of this and previous Administrations is described on page 292 of the current edition of “Erskine May”.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Bodies

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip’s Office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

    The Prime Minister : It is not the practice of Her Majesty’s Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) of 25 January, Official Report, column 152, if he will now make it his policy to give substantive answers to parliamentary questions on his testimony given at the Scott inquiry on 17 January.

    The Prime Minister : No. While Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry continues, it would be inappropriate to comment substantively on any of the evidence which has so far been taken.

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what powers Lord Justice Scott has to compel the attendance as witnesses before his inquiry of people who are neither civil servants nor ministers.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Justice Scott does not have powers to compel people to appear before his inquiry.

     

    Lockerbie Air Crash

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards the possible trial of Libyan suspects relating to Pan Am 103 taking place in The Hague, under a Scottish judge, with Scottish court rules.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s policy is to obtain justice for the 270 victims of the Lockerbie disaster. Part of this is to ensure the appearance for trial in a United Kingdom or United States court of those accused of the Lockerbie bombing. The two accused would receive a fair trial in Scotland. There is therefore no need to establish a special court to try them in The Hague. The Libyan Government should comply in full with Security Council resolutions 731, 748 and 883 without further delay.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

     

    Biwater Group

    Mr. Burden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the public engagements of Ministers held in connection with the Biwater group of companies since 1983.

    The Prime Minister : The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Charterline Pilot Scheme

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 January, Official Report, column 406, what proportion of the representations he has received on the Charterline pilot scheme have been (a) favourable and (b) critical.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 February 1994] : Recent surveys of Charterline users show that 87 per cent. are happy with the Charterline service and 93 per cent. would use the Charterline service again. I have received one representation critical of Charterline.

     

    Pergau Dam

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors led him to make a decision at Prime Ministerial level to over-rule an accounting officer in the case of the Pergau Dam.

    Mr. Goodlad [holding answer 3 February 1994] : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said to the House on this matter and to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State’s answer of 25 January 1994 at column 145-46 to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). have made it clear that if he feels a change in his powers or terms of reference is needed, the Government will be ready to consider that.

  • PMQT – 8 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dowd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

    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. Dowd : And very entertaining they were, I am sure. Will the Prime Minister admit that the Government’s proposals in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill for the measure of a pint of beer represent a total surrender to the interests of a big brewers, who are such generous backers of the Conservative party? Taken together with the craven submission to the interests of tobacco companies over advertising, does not that demonstrate conclusively that whenever the interests of the Tory party’s paymasters are involved, the customer is always the loser?

    The Prime Minister : On both counts, the answer is no. In the Deregulation and Contracting Our Bill we are concerned about removing burdens on business. The principal reason for seeking to remove burdens on business is to encourage their competitiveness, their profitability and their success and to encourage the creation of jobs. It is no good the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues parroting remarks about wanting jobs if they then oppose the measures that will help to create them.

    Mr. Cormack : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progressive destruction of a great European capital city and the extinction of a sovereign state that we recognise are unacceptable?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the problems of Sarajevo and he will know that I will be discussing those with my right hon. Friends this afternoon and that the North Atlantic Council will have a further meeting tomorrow.

    Mr. John Smith : On that point, does the Prime Minister appreciate that, if no action is taken to protect the people of Sarajevo from the pitiless shelling to which they have been subjected, the Serbs are bound to conclude that no action will be taken against them whatever they do?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the United Nations Protection Force contingent is in Bosnia to help the civilian population. The United Nations cannot end the civil war by force. That is a point which is generally understood and I am pleased to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that. That has never been a feasible option. Ultimately, peace will come only at the negotiating table, but the United Nations may need to use force for specific purposes– for example, to carry out its mandate and to protect its own people in Bosnia. It may need tactical air support from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We have always been prepared to see air power used for those purposes, provided that the commanders judge it appropriate.

    On the question of Sarajevo, I do not believe that we can wait for action to follow an overall settlement. I do not believe that it is right to tolerate the continued mortar and artillery attacks against the civilian population. UNPROFOR, with support from NATO, must apply immediate and strong pressure to halt those attacks.

    Mr. John Smith : I appreciate that we cannot end a civil war by military intervention, but should not we set ourselves some minimum objectives? For example, should not a political objective be set to remove all the weapons within striking distance of Sarajevo, with the threat that if that is not done, air attacks will be pursued? Why do the Government not say that that is one of our, and our allies’, political objectives?

    The Prime Minister : As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) a few moments ago, the North Atlantic Council will meet tomorrow to consider, on the advice of military commanders, what pressure can most effectively be applied and how. If we use air power, we must be clear about the objectives of that action. The aim must be to reinforce pressure to end the bombardment of Sarajevo. To that end, the United Nations command must be able to set clear and specific conditions, knowing that tactical air support is available to back it up if necessary.

    Any use of force must be forward looking. It must seek to improve the situation in Sarajevo and contribute to the pressure on the parties to end the war. Those are not easy options and no one in the House believes them to be so. Any decision must take careful account of the importance of the humanitarian operation and the safety of the civilians and soldiers running the operation. Those are the objectives that NATO must consider tomorrow in determining how to proceed.

    Mr. John Smith : On the precise point about the threat to Sarajevo, will the Government support a proposition that an ultimatum should be issued to the Serbs to withdraw the weapons of attack from striking distance of Sarajevo?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday made a clear recommendation that

    “The aim should be to bring about the immediate lifting of the siege of Sarajevo, using all means necessary, including the use of air power”

    but it then went on and looked to the North Atlantic Council to carry forward that process. That decision was precisely in line with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Sir Donald Thompson : Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how he was received by textile workers at Firth’s in my constituency 10 days ago, what their assembled customers told him and whether he was able to reassure them about the future?

    The Prime Minister : It was a most enjoyable visit to Firth’s. It is perfectly clear that the company is very successful. Its order book and exports are expanding, and it has invested in the most modern manufacturing equipment for textiles. There was no doubt about the success of that firm in the minds of either its management and work force or its customers who were present on that occasion.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister’s new, more muscular mood on Bosnia is welcome, but may I remind him that it is now four weeks since he told us of his determination to open Tuzla airport as soon as possible, and probably five weeks since the launching of the Serb spring offensive aimed at obliterating what remains of Bosnia? Can he tell us of any progress in opening Tuzla airport to which he has set his hand?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that matter is under consideration within the United Nations and NATO. It is not a unilateral matter for the British Government. The United Nations, with NATO’s support, is taking a firm line over the roulement of troops at Srebrenica, the opening of Tuzla airport, confronting obstacles to road convoys, warning off the Croatian army and demanding an end to the bombardment of Sarajevo. All those important and difficult matters are being considered by the commanders on the ground on a day-to-day basis. They are receiving the full support that they need at a political level.

    I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would stop pretending, as he does so often, that there is some easy, magical and painless solution to a problem that is intensely difficult for the commanders on the ground and everybody concerned with the operation. The right hon. Gentleman has been consistent in one respect only : he has been consistently wrong on every course that he has advocated since this dreadful conflict began.

    Mr. Paice : When my right hon. Friend was a banker, before he came to the House, how would he have reacted if a business man had presented him with a business plan that concentrated on building up overheads, increasing jobs at the expense of output and maximising wages whether or not the business could afford them? How would he react to a business plan with the social chapter, a minimum wage and returning to all the problems that beset business in the 1970s?

    The Prime Minister : I suspect that I would have reacted to it in exactly the same way as business men will today. They are perfectly clear about the business environment that they want. They want minimum interference from the European Community, the Government or local government. They want low inflation, the lowest possible interest rates and the right business environment. They do not want a 1960s-style business plan.

     

    Q2. Dr. Lynne Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Dr. Jones : Has the Prime Minister seen the report in The Times today that John Cahill, the chairman of British Aerospace who has just sold Rover to BMW, is to get a pay-out of nearly £10 million after only two years with the company? How can that be justified?

    The Prime Minister : That is not a matter for me.

    Hon. Members : Resign.

    Madam Speaker : Order.

     

    Q3. Sir Peter Fry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Sir Peter Fry : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best business plan for Britain is an economy with inflation at 1.9 per cent., the lowest rate of corporation tax in the European Community and the lowest interest rate for many years? Does he also agree that the business plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition would put British business straight into the hands of the receivers?

    The Prime Minister : We all know of, and see regularly, the hostility of Opposition Members to business but the economic conditions that we have now put in place–low inflation, low interest rates and low corporation tax–are precisely what business wants. The Governor of the Bank of England said the other day that economic prospects today are better than at any time in his professional career. We have the basics of the economy right and British business needs the opportunity to build on those basics to create the prosperity, the growth and the jobs that everyone in the country wants.

     

    Q4. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Ms Eagle : If the Prime Minister does not believe that a £10 million pay-off to somebody who has just sold our last remaining car industry to foreign competitors is not a matter for him, will he please explain to the House precisely what is a matter for him?

    The Prime Minister : I am intrigued at what the two hon. Ladies say. What intervention and control would the Opposition propose?

     

    Q5. Mr. Gill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Gill : The House will be aware of today’s announcement that British Telecom intends to extend its cheaper afternoon rate to peak periods. In welcoming those price reductions, will my right hon. Friend agree that they would have been impossible under a Labour Government because of the Labour party’s pathological opposition to privatisation and competition?

    Mr. Major : My hon. Friend is entirely right. Those changes have come about because we decided, against the opposition of Labour Members, to privatise the industry. I gather that many calls will now be 25 per cent. cheaper. That is very good news for everyone who uses the telephone. By privatising British Telecom, increasing competition and introducing a proper sense of regulation, we have helped to make the services more efficient, more reliable and better value for everyone who uses them. That is what happens when one leaves the private sector to run things, when one does not seek to over-regulate and over-control in every respect.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Investment Fund

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February, Official Report, column 734, concerning the accountability of the managers of the European investment fund, for what period funds at their disposal have been part of the annual budget of the European Community; what are the names of those who have the duty of appointing the managers of the fund and who appoints them and what are the names, experience, current employment and other relevant interests of the managers already appointed and the number of vacancies.

    The Prime Minister : The proposed European investment fund cannot be established until the necessary treaty amendment has been ratified by all the European Community’s member states. Only then can managers for the fund be appointed. Meanwhile, the situation will remain as follows :

    (a) No funds are at the disposal of the managers of the fund. The funding referred to in my answer of 1 February is the provision taken by the European Community for its planned subscription to the share capital of the fund. This subscription will be paid over four years. The Community’s 1994 Budget contains provision for the first tranche and was adopted on 16 December 1993.

    (b) The draft statute of the fund places the ultimate responsibility for appointing the managers of the fund with the fund’s general meeting. This meeting would comprise representatives of the fund’s shareholders : the European investment bank, the European Community and financial institutions from member states. The EIB and the EC would hold the majority of the share capital, and their representatives at the meeting would be accountable to the EIB’s board of governors, and the ECOFIN Council, respectively. (c) The draft statute envisages that day-to-day management would be in the hands of a financial committee. This would have three members, one of whom would be a representative of the EIB, one a representative of the EC, and one a representative of the financial institutions. No nomination to this committee can be made until the fund is established.

     

    Child Nutrition

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received from the National Children’s Home in regard to child nutrition; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a letter from the N.C.H. Action for Children. A reply will be sent in due course.

     

    Paper Shredders

    Mr. Rooney : To ask the Prime Minister how many paper shredding machines there are (a) in 10 Downing Street and (b) in the Cabinet Office.

    The Prime Minister : There are five paper shredding machines in 10 Downing Street, and five in the Cabinet Office.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Comments – 5 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep comments, made on Saturday 5th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Michael’s made a mistake; he has apologised; the matter is finished. What I propose to do is get us right back to the red meat of politics. That is that thing that counts at the moment. The Labour Party have a conference this weekend. Are we going to get any fresh policies out of them? Any ideas out of them? Any propositions out of them? The answer is absolutely no. If one looks at what is happening, the British economy is now back on the road to recovery. What the Labour Party are offering is a return to what is the imposition of a 35 hour week, moving to the Social Chapter and all sorts of propositions that will just keep people out of work. That’s what politics is about, employment and jobs.

    [Inaudible question].

    I have told you, we’re concentrating on the real issues of politics. That’s what matters, how to get Britain moving again, to make sure Britain gets back to work again, and we get back into secure, sustainable growth. That’s what’s happening. Those are the message that need taking out to the people in this country and that’s what we are going to do.

    [Inaudible question].

    There’s no distraction that’s going to push this government off the policies that are going to get us back into growth. We’re now in growth, we’re leading Europe out of recession, we’re going to persist with those policies and we’re going straight into the main items of politics. That’s what we are going to discuss with the people over the next few months. Jobs, growth, prosperity, how to keep inflation low. That’s what they are concerned about.

    [Inaudible question].

    It’s over, the matter’s over. We are concentrating on the matters that are really important to the British people. No side shows. We’ve had enough side shows in the last couple of years. What we now are going to concentrate on are the things that are of importance to the future of this country.

    [Mr Major was asked the Palace break-in].

    I have had a report of the incident. There is more work being done and we will see if there are any lessons to be learned from it. No member of the Royal Family was present at the time. I gather it is under further investigation. Security arrangements are not something I propose to discuss publicly. They are kept under very careful review all the time.