The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Former Yugoslavia (II) – 11 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the former Yugoslavia during an interview given in Brussels on Tuesday 11th January 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the threat of air strikes was useful as it had been used before].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think NATO have made threats in that sense. NATO has set out its policy in certain circumstances, they did that last August. What has happened today is we have set out two specific areas where we think action is needed: one is in Srebrenica where it is necessary to get the Canadian United Nations contingent out and the Dutch contingent in, and secondly, of course, at Tusla airport where it is very desirable to open the airport to increase the flow of humanitarian aid.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was now a mandate].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a number of people who have to agree with that. It isn’t just a question of snapping your fingers and then proceeding. There has to be a proper plan drawn up, it has to be agreed by a series of people, in some cases by the United Nations Secretary-General but it is agreed that we will prepare plans for those contingencies.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if this was likely to be the situation].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is not for me to determine. We have made it clear that if necessary it will happen and if necessary it may involve the use of air strikes.

  • Mr Major’s NATO Summit Statement – 10 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at the NATO Summit on 10th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    NATO’s fundamental role

    NATO has been the cornerstone of post-war Europe’s security. It has been by far the most successful collective security organisation in history.

    Now is not the time to weaken the cornerstone.

    But we cannot take it for granted. Keeping our security insurance up to date requires a continuing commitment from all of us.

    US Commitment to Europe

    President Clinton said yesterday that the core of American security remained with Europe.

    I warmly welcome the renewed commitment by the United States.

    NATO has been vital to the transatlantic relationship; and the American contribution continues to be vital to NATO.

    The need for change

    NATO must adapt to meet new challenges, while preserving its effectiveness.

    The main challenges are clear:

    – what relationships to develop with the new democracies to our East;

    – how to organise ourselves politically and militarily, to engage in new missions to promote and restore peace;

    – how to ensure that NATO adjusts to the emerging security and defence identity of the European Union.

    Enlargement\Russia\partnership for peace

    It must be our objective to consolidate democracy in all of the countries to the east now embracing it; to develop a closer partnership with them; and to help to enhance their security and stability.

    These countries are not all alike, and NATO’s relationships with them will differ. Partnership for Peace recognises that. It is, rightly, an evolutionary and transitional process without a predetermined end result.

    We must be clear about a number of points:

    The process could clearly lead to the admission of new members. The door is open.

    We cannot yet define who will be able to meet the obligations of membership, or when.

    Those who wish to join have much work to do, with our assistance, to prepare themselves.

    The Poles, Czechs and Hungarians are European peoples with fast-developing democracies and a strong claim to membership.

    There must be no new dividing line in Europe; no recreation of opposing blocs.

    We must show that NATO is a genuine partner for a democratic Russia, not an opponent. It is therefore essential for NATO to build a closer relationship with Russia, which acknowledges that country’s special status.

    Partnership for Peace will provide real and practical benefits to NATO and to Partners; through a non-discriminatory, gradual and incremental approach, with the prospect of eventual membership for some.

    Equipping NATO for new tasks\Combined Joint Task Forces\European Defence identity

    NATO itself needs further change to ensure we are better prepared and equipped for new missions such as peacekeeping, peace enforcement, humanitarian and sanctions operations.

    Combined Joint Task Forces are a sensible and imaginative concept, to supplement but not to replace the Integrated Military Structure.

    The UK will play a leading role in the Combined Joint Task Force in the NATO HQ at AFNORWEST in High Wycombe. We also have a strong contribution to make in AFCENT in Germany.

    These more flexible structures will also help NATO to be more responsive to the European Defence aspirations. Europe cannot afford and does not want separate forces, separate HQs or separate command and control structures.

    I support the idea of a further review of NATO’s military structures designed to promote adaptation to new missions and to facilitate a more specific European profile within the Alliance.

    Counter-proliferation

    I support the US approach on counter-proliferation. The defence-related aspects should continue to be seen in wider political context of non-proliferation policy. I am glad that NATO’s work can be carried forward by all Sixteen Allies, including France.

    Former Yugoslavia

    NATO has so far done efficiently what it has been asked to do: support for the United Nations, sanctions enforcement in the Adriatic, air operations in support of UNPROFOR and the no-fly zone, and planning for a peace implementation operation.

    As Bosnia struggles through another desperate winter of war, we face very serious questions which cannot be resolved today.

    On the one hand, the parties purport to be negotiating seriously while, on the other, they are bent on prosecuting the war, with UN humanitarian forces from my own and other countries operating with difficulty between them.

    We shall remain in close touch with our partners in UNPROFOR and NATO. We shall consider with them what realistic help we can continue to give to keep Bosnians alive and encourage the peace process.

    Conclusion

    Europe is still in flux following the end of the Soviet Union and of the cold war. A NATO which continues to change rapidly and relevantly will remain central to the Euro-Atlantic cause. Partnership for Peace, combined Joint Task Forces, the new focus on counter-proliferation, are important steps along the way. Follow up work will have full UK support. We were at the forefront of NATO’s creation and will be equally active in its transformation.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Brussels – 10 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Brussels on 10th January 1994.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what was your reaction to President Clinton’s speech yesterday?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought it was an absolutely excellent speech yesterday in every way, I think it set out many of the objectives of NATO. For the past 40 years NATO has essentially been the rock upon which our security has been based, over the next couple of days I think we are going to reaffirm the role of NATO, up-date it and make sure our insurance policy is in good shape.

    QUESTION:

    Some read alarming federalism into it, support for Jacques Delors’s ideas for a European super state?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I saw that but I think they did not read the speech very carefully. If you read the speech you will see that what President Clinton was talking about was integration of all Europe, he was talking about the relationship between Western Europe and Eastern Europe, not the tightly knit integration within the European Union itself. Some interpreted it that way I know, but they were mistaken.

    QUESTION:

    Is this summit going to do more about ending the conflict in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sure that is a matter that is going to be on our minds, particularly amongst those of us who have large numbers of troops there, I am sure it will come up during the summit and perhaps particularly over dinner this evening.

    QUESTION:

    Will there be a stronger line on Bosnia, there has been talk of possible bombing or new commitments?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    NATO has had a policy for some time that when the circumstances are appropriate, and we set that out some months ago, that we would go ahead with air strikes, that was the position and that remains the position today.

    QUESTION:

    What is Partnership for Peace?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think partnership for peace is part of an evolving development of NATO, there is clearly a desire amongst many of the central and East European nations to have a closer role with NATO, partnership for peace offers that on an evolutionary basis, it will be a very wide invitation extended to the central and East European nations, to Russia, to Ukraine, I very much hope they will take it up.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy – 9 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy during an interview given in London on Sunday 9th January 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if inflation had been beaten].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think you can ever say inflation is beaten, I certainly would not say that. But if you look over the last 30 or 40 years, time and time again we have had a wave of inflation leading to stop/go policies and great damage to the British economy. What concerned me first and foremost, not just when I became Prime Minister but from the moment I became Chancellor, hence in many ways my enthusiasm for the Exchange Rate Mechanism at the time, was the need to get inflation down to the same level or lower than our principal international competitors and then make sure we can keep it there.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if inflation could be kept in the 1%-4% band for the rest of the Parliament].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is certainly our expectation and our ambition. One can never be certain because a certain element of inflationary impulse comes from abroad, but it will certainly be our intentions to keep it within those parameters. Provided we can do that we have the most solid and secure base for not just medium but long term sustainable growth both in employment in prosperity over the years immediately ahead and that I think is the central issue.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked for his economic predictions for the year ahead].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made a number of predictions last year, one was unemployment, I said that it would fall and it did; I said that we would get a significant amount of growth, it looks as though we have got growth; I said that exports would increase, they have increased; and I said we would carry our legislation, which we did do. So I think last year’s predictions worked out, upon reflection, rather well. This year I would certainly expect the trend in unemployment to go down, that does not mean there will not be a single month when it goes not go up, I cannot say that, but I think across the year there is no doubt that the trend in unemployment is now downwards, so certainly I expect that, I am reluctant to put a figure on it, but I think there will be quite a reduction in unemployment in the next twelve months. We will certainly see more growth, I think we will see a continuing growth in exports and we will see quite a reduction in the fiscal deficit. So I think many of our prospects are looking sharply better at the beginning of 1994 than they were at the beginning 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he thought the economy would grow by 3% in the year ahead].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it will be in the 2.5 – 3 percent bracket, it is a fairly inexact science forecasting, there are too many intangibles, but it will be in that sort of bracket and I would certainly expect growth at that level or a little higher the year after.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Crimestoppers Lunch – 7 January 1994

    Below is the Conservative Central Office Press Release following John Major’s speech to the Crimestoppers Lunch on Friday 7th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Press Release

    The Prime Minister today re-iterated the Government’s commitment to the fight against crime and spoke of the part everyone can play in aiding the police.

    The Prime Minister said:

    “The fight against crime lies at the heart both of our Back to Basics campaign and our legislative programme. Next Tuesday we will have the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill. It will:

    – crack down on juvenile offenders;

    – curb the abuse of the right of silence;

    – curb the abuse of bail;

    – give new powers to the police to take samples for DNA testing;

    – bring in new powers to help the police in the fight against terrorism;

    – crack down on squatters, ravers and new age travellers;

    – tighten the law against child pornography

    I am sure that it will have the support of all those in the country who want to step up the fight against crime – and I hope it has the support of all political parties in the House of Commons.

    I believe the climate is changing – changing against crime. People have had enough of some people seeming to put the criminal first and the victim second. They have had enough of airy-fairy theories. And I think they have probably had enough of some young offenders being sent around the world at the taxpayers’ expense.

    It flies in the face of commonsense that you cut crime by appearing to reward those who have committed criminal acts. I want to see punishments fitting the crime – and we need to have greater consistency across the country. That is why Michael Howard has brought forward his review of national standards of community sentences – and you can expect to see tougher guidelines emerging when those are published later this year. Just one more step in our Back to Basics campaign – one more notch upwards of the relentless pressure that we are bringing to bear against criminals and crime.

    People are coming increasingly to realise that this is a job for all of us – and not just something that we should leave the police to cope with on their own. We can help in our own homes by bringing our children up to know the difference between right and wrong. In our schools by tightening up on discipline and cracking down on truancy. And there are many ways in which individual citizens can help – as Specials, as Parish Constables, in a Neighbourhood Watch Scheme or simply by getting involved with initiatives like Crimestoppers.

    By working together we can fight crime. I simply refuse to accept that there is nothing that can be done about crime. That there is some iron law which says that it will always go up. That all we can do is shake our heads and blame it on society. The fact is that initiatives like Crimestoppers show that we can do something. Crimestoppers has meant that more crimes have been cleared up. That more criminals have been arrested. That more stolen property has been recovered. That is all good, solid progress in the crusade against crime. And it shows that the defeatists, the shoulder-shruggers are wrong.”

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Opening of D-Day Celebrations – 6 January 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s speech at the opening of D-Day Celebrations in London on Thursday 6th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think, frankly, that the film could have put it very much more clearly. D-Day fifty years ago began the deciding battle for the future of Europe. The veterans present today – and I very warmly welcome them – were among the over 130,000 who took part in the invasion, the largest amphibious attack in history and the greatest combined land, sea and air operation of the whole of the Second World War and they did it – and you saw a glimpse of it from the film – in pretty dreadful conditions with extraordinary courage and with extraordinary determination. If they had lost, our world today would be immeasurably different but they didn’t and their success turned the D-Day landings into one of the great events of history.

    We want to mark that achievement and to do so together with France and other countries which took part in the D-Day landings we intend to hold a massive programme of commemorative events both here and in Normandy between the 4th and 6th June this year.

    Those events are going to involve heads of state or government from most of the allied nations plus many thousands of veterans of the D-Day landings together of course with service widows. Our commemorations in that period will remember the sacrifice made by some 10,000 British, Canadian and American troops who were either killed or wounded on D-Day. By September, the Allied casualties were to rise to 210,000 of which 37,000 were dead but by then, of course, most of France had been liberated and Operation Overlord was well on its way towards the restoration of peace right across Europe. The events that we are planning naturally will give pride of place to the men who suffered both the fear and the fire of that very remarkable day.

    The final order to launch the invasion was issued by General Eisenhower at Southwick House outside Portsmouth. On the 4 June, therefore, at Southwick House we will entertain 1,000 veterans of the D-Day landings and we hope the guest of honour on that occasion will be Her Majesty the Queen Mother.

    Also on 4 June, Her Majesty the Queen will hold a dinner in the Portsmouth Guildhall for 500 people, including the heads of state or government of those countries that took part in the operation. Other guests will include members of the Armed Forces, the civilian services, voluntary organisations and those who designed and built the specialist equipment such as the Mulberry Harbours which you have just seen in the film a few moments ago.

    On the morning of 5 June, there will be an open-air commemorative service in Plymouth which will be open to all. That afternoon, a flotilla of ships will cross the Channel; it will be led by Her Majesty the Queen and heads of state or government from participating nations on board the royal yacht escorted by an armada of small craft. During the crossing, the flotilla will be overflown by an international fly-past including aircraft which took part either in the Battle of Britain or supported the D-Day landings from the air. Later that afternoon, approximately 1,000 paratroops, including servicemen from Canada, France and Poland, will parachute into the area of the Pegasus Bridge in Normandy.

    On 6 June, there will be a national service of commemoration in the British cemeteries in Normandy. This will be followed by a march-past of veterans in Arramanche.

    These events have been coordinated with the French government who are organising an international ceremony at Omaha Beach on 6 June and as in 1944, cooperation and joint planning will be the key to success. We therefore established close links and coordination with all the nations intending to commemorate D-Day in Normandy.

    It is at the moment a little too early for us to have a full list of all those participating but we are expecting President Clinton, Prime Minister Chretien and of course President Mitterrand who will be hosting the events on French soil, to take part in many of the events and other heads of state or government, including President Walesa and King Harold of Norway will also be present.

    I would like to emphasise to you that the events I have just spelt out are merely illustrative of many others that are being organised to commemorate the D-Day landings. During them, we will not forget the effort and the sacrifice of men and women throughout the forces, throughout industry and throughout our nation who contributed to that remarkable military success.

    The 50th anniversary of D-Day is a huge national event and we intend that it should be celebrated on a national scale. Many towns and villages right across the United Kingdom are already organising their own commemorative events. We expect very many more will do so. Events are already planned in all parts of the United Kingdom and we will be announcing further events in the months to come.

    Everyone, of course, under fifty will have no direct memory of these great events but it is to the success of D-Day that they owe the peace, the security and the freedom that we have enjoyed since 1945 and which all of us take for granted so we hope and we intend to stir the imagination of everyone at what was done.

    In our film a few moments ago, you heard General Montgomery say: “In the better times that lie ahead, men will speak with pride of our doings!” Next June, fifty years on, we will redeem that promise and do exactly that.

    I would now like to invite Robert Cranbourne to elaborate on some of the arrangements and then in a few moments Field Marshall Lord Bramall will speak on the involvement of the veterans.

    LORD CRANBOURNE:

    Prime Minister, you have explained why D-Day matters and why we should commemorate the events of June 1944, you outlined the programme of national commemorative events that will take place in June later this year. You asked me, Prime Minister, last year to take overall responsibility for planning the commemoration and to bring our plans to fruition. I hope and believe that on 7 June next the nation will be able to say D-Day has been properly remembered and those that fought, whether they died or survived, have received the honour that is their due. I suspect, Prime Minister, unless the nation can say that you will be looking for my resignation – quite right too!

    Ladies and Gentlemen, there is still a great deal to be done. We will have to rely on the help and cooperation of many organisations to make sure that we remember this great event of fifty years ago in the way that it should be and I would like to give you an instance of the sort of difficulties that we will face and overcome and how other organisations can help us do that.

    The Royal British Legion, the Royal Naval Association, the RAF Association have kindly agreed to act as agents for our ticketing organisation, to help us ensure that there is a fair representation of veterans particularly attending all the national events, but of course space is a difficulty. It seems difficult to believe this but Normandy, particularly that particular piece of coast, is going to be extremely crowded on the 5th and 6th of June this year and of course the events at the Guildhall in Portsmouth and at Southwick House will only accommodate a limited number of veterans. I think this makes the drumhead service on Southsea Common at Portsmouth all the more important. It will be open to all but of course particularly to veterans of Normandy who have not managed to book a ticket for other events and there will be a special veterans centre there to try and make sure that their needs are looked after as well as possible.

    There will also be, as you yourself have said, Prime Minister, a very large number of other events nationwide, not the official national events. They are growing every day and we produce a large wadge of paper every week which grows as people use their own initiative to try and make their contribution to these national events. We would encourage people to continue with this and we will do whatever we can to cooperate to make your own local events as successful as we can.

    Prime Minister, I have been very lucky in my team who so far have done a magnificent job. However, in order to make this event a truly national affair, we shall above all be relying on the media – the press, television and the radio. We will be looking to you to unite the nation and do honour to the veterans as they deserve.

    I would like to say how extraordinarily grateful I am to all of you so far who have been prodigal in your suggestions and in the cooperative and constructive way in which you have approached this very substantial project. I look forward very much to your suggestions and your help over the coming months and particularly on the 5th and 6th of June this year. I hope you will be able to use the D-Day team’s press office as fully as possible and that if you have beefs or worries that you will come to us so that we can address them because one thing is absolutely certain, we will not be able to think of everything and with your help we will try and make sure as little falls between the cracks as possible.

    If I may, Prime Minister, I would now like to hand over to one of my advisory team. Field Marshall Lord Bramall is our host here today and more important perhaps, he landed in Normandy himself in 1944. He has been a most valuable link with the veterans and their organisations in our planning so far, helping us to make sure that we get it right as far as they are concerned.

    FIELD MARSHALL LORD BRAMALL:

    I would just like to say that I think that the veterans, that is those of us who in one way or another fifty years ago took part in this great enterprise which, as the Prime Minister said earlier, forged the course of history, will feel I believe that all the events planned are very fitting ones to commemorate this special anniversary.

    The emphasis, rightly I think, starts in the south of England – Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton, the Solent – where although the whole country of course was involved in some way, so much of the vital planning and mounting of Operation Overlord took place and which was of course the launching pad for the great armada of ships which was to cross the Channel and I remember myself I sailed in a United States-manned tank landing craft from what is now the present Southampton ferry terminal to the Isle of Wight.

    Seven of the events, including the drumhead service of commemoration and remembrance on Southsea Common, do appropriately symbolise those build-up phases, the actual embarkation and generally I think the feeling of great adventure which we all felt with a mixture of apprehension and excitement as the committed forces set sail across the Channel and headed for Normandy. In 1994, of course, fifty years afterwards, this armada will be represented by an international flotilla with the royal yacht and the Sovereign.

    Then, the focus – and I think we would feel again appropriately – turns to Normandy itself where so many men fought and so many died to seize and secure the vital bridgehead and this, as you have heard, will be graphically and very movingly recalled first by twelve hours before the actual time a parachute drop by 1,000 British, Canadian, French and Polish parachutists onto the general area of the Pegasus Bridge across the Caen Canal and then by commemorative services in all the various war cemeteries where stand the graves of tens of thousands of British, Canadian, American and Allied forces who died on that day and in the subsequent very bloody battles of Normandy which lasted another three months.

    Finally, Ladies and Gentlemen, there will be that proud march-past of representative Normandy veterans at Arramanche, Gold Beach, where 50th Tyne & Tees Division landed and where the Mulberry Harbour was installed, as you saw in the film and they will be watched over by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as indeed they were on that longest day.

    I do believe that these events really will stir the hearts, swell the pride and most particularly remember the fallen not only in respect of the veterans who I think will be more than satisfied particularly when you take all the other events of commemoration which the Minister has mentioned which will take place all over the country but also for all the people throughout the land who watch and listen through the various wide range of the media and so I believe the nation will be remembering and expressing its gratitude and thanks to all those who helped to make Operation Overlord possible and will be doing it in a truly fitting and proud manner.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    MARK LAITY (BBC RADIO):

    Prime Minister, will there be any official German presence and how would you respond to unofficial Germans turning up if they so desire?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is essentially an occasion for the wartime Allies. I discussed this matter previously with Chancellor Kohl and he said that he wouldn’t be attending those commemorations. What will be the case in future is that Germany will be invited to play a full part in the continuous programme of commemorative events leading to those marking the end of the Second World War but I do not envisage an involvement in these particular celebrations. I am not anticipating an unofficial presence of Germans.

    QUESTION:

    This is largely to Lord Bramall, there has been considerable correspondence in I think both the “Times” and the “Telegraph” from various veterans and the argument seems rather generously split. Some veterans are saying that the Germans did fight very gallantly and died gallantly and they were a proper foe and were recognised as such by many veterans; others are very strict and say they do not want any representation official or otherwise. What are your personal feelings, Lord Bramall, as a veteran yourself, of any unofficial German representation because I feel sure many would want to turn up to mark that day themselves?

    LORD BRAMALL:

    I think the general question has been answered by the Prime Minister. I have no feeling against the Germans but this is a rather special thing. Remember, this was an invasion of an occupied country and you have got to take very much into consideration the feelings of the French in this matter and I think that, as the Prime Minister said, the proper time to get together and forget war and just look to the future is the ending of world War II in the following year, that is when I hope the Germans will play a very large part.

    I don’t think this comes from the veterans themselves; I think if they saw a German there they wouldn’t take offence but I think because the landing was in an occupied country it makes it slightly different.

    QUESTION (THE INDEPENDENT):

    I notice that Polish servicemen will be taking part in the drop on Pegasus Bridge. Until recently, of course, we would have expected them to be on the other side. Could perhaps the Field Marshall tell us how cooperative the Polish government has been in this matter?

    LORD CRANBOURNE:

    Perhaps I can argue from the specific to the general here. All the Allied governments have cooperated together in planning these events and that has been not only one of the pleasures because it leads to extremely good lunches in Paris quite apart from anything else – you weren’t supposed to hear that, Prime Minister! Sorry! It has also been one of the things that has convinced me that it is going to be a success.

    All the Allied governments who have taken part in the run-up to the commemoration so far have been extremely constructive and cooperative and that of course includes the Poles.

    IAN MENNIX (THE AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION):

    You kept saying “all the Allied governments”, Lord Cranbourne. Does that include the former Soviet Union?

    LORD CRANBOURNE:

    No. They weren’t involved in D-Day. They didn’t provide formed bodies of troops and that is the criterion we have used. I think we have to try and draw the line somewhere. I think we could probably find people from almost every nation on earth who took part but it is the nations who provided formed bodies of troops that we have concentrated on.

    BRIAN HAMILTON (BRITISH FORCES BROADCASTING SERVICE):

    What plans do you have for war widows to attend the celebrations and secondly, fifty years on from D-Day, what will be the next big celebration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Shall I take the first part and Lord Cranbourne will take the second?

    As far as war widows are concerned, amongst the things that we are doing – I don’t suggest that this will be exclusive but it will give you an illustration – any widow whose husband is buried in Normandy and who has not visited her husband’s grave before will be able to claim the cost of a visit under a scheme financed by the Government and apart from that, any widow will be eligible to take part in the events just like the widows of the veterans but there will be a whole range of things that widows will of course be entitled to attend and I have no doubt will wish to attend.

    LORD CRANBOURNE:

    That is absolutely right, Prime Minister. Perhaps I could just underline the importance we attach to widows participating in this event. They made a tremendous sacrifice and it is important that we should pay them as much honour as the people who took part.

    As far as the next great celebration is concerned, I think it all rather depends on what you define as a “great commemoration”. There will be a series of commemorative events mirroring the events of the liberation of Europe fifty years ago. They will not by their very nature perhaps be as great as this one until we reach next year when we commemorate the end of the War. As the Prime Minister has said, we have taken the view – and I think our allies agree with us wholly – that this should be an opportunity for us really to make an act of reconciliation with all combatants and we very much look forward to all the allied nations taking part in a series of events which we are just beginning to plan and which we are not ready to talk about yet but also to make sure that our former enemies are well represented and that we can make the point that we are all in the world boat together and that the events of 1939 to 1945 are well and truly in the past.

    QUESTION:

    The flotilla of ships that will be sailing across the Channel with “Britannia” in the van, will they be warships?

    LORD CRANBOURNE:

    There will be some warships and some civilian vessels as well and they will come from a number of allied nations. We are not absolutely certain what the final composition of this flotilla will be but very broadly it will reflect [Inaudible].

    QUESTION:

    With reference to war widows, when will this information be trickling down to my level which is a branch level of the Normandy Veterans? What is the drill?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are launching what we are proposing to do today. Thereafter the information will be disseminated as speedily and as comprehensively as possible. The arrangements are under constant examination. Lord Cranbourne and Lord Bramall are both part of the arranging committee and I think I can give you an assurance that as soon as we have more detailed information we will make sure that that is very widely disseminated. We do so essentially for two reasons: firstly – to pick up the point that Robert Cranbourne made a moment or so ago in respect of widows – they made a very great sacrifice indeed and we wish to make sure they are fully involved but secondly – to revert to the point that I made earlier – we do intend that this should be a truly national celebration and commemoration of what happened. That war was the largest war that the world has ever seen. We will never again see a war of that sort fought again. At the moment, fifty years on, very large numbers of the people who fought in that war, who helped win that war and the wives and widows of the people who fought and helped win the war will wish to take part in those commemorations. After 75 years, there will obviously be less; after 100 years none so this is the great occasion when we can both express our thanks and commemorate what was achieved and if it had not been achieved I very much doubt that any of us would have been here today so please have no doubt that we will do all we can to disseminate the information and make sure that there is the widest possible participation in the commemorative events between the 4th and 6th June.

    QUESTION:

    Is there any possibility of cash assistance for the areas of the country, particularly Portsmouth, who have to meet the cost of the commemorations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    A large amount of the costs of the commemorations are actually being met centrally. I am not sure what costs will be borne by Portsmouth but some parts of the country will add to the celebrations with their own commemorative arrangements. That will be true not just in Portsmouth but is already evidently going to be true in places right up and down the United Kingdom and those costs I anticipate they will meet themselves.

    QUESTION (FINANCIAL TIMES):

    Can I ask what figure the Government is contributing to the commemorative events this year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The overwhelming costs will fall upon the Government. It will be a figure of some millions, precisely how many millions it is almost impossible to tell. I don’t suppose it is going to be a huge and outrageous sum but it will certainly be a sum in the low figures of millions and it may rise a little but this is a unique event. Certainly it will be in the millions and it will be contributed by the Government.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on Northern Ireland – 4 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement issued on 4th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Joint Declaration which Albert Reynolds and I agreed in Downing Street nearly three weeks ago sets out a clear challenge to the provisional movement, If they renounce violence – for good – and show they mean it, then Sinn Fein have the clear prospect of entering into the talks process with the other constitutional parties. But the onus is on them. They must choose whether they have the courage to end violence and enter into democratic politics. If they decide to continue their campaign of violence, they will do so in the knowledge that they are isolated and will face opposition from the two governments, from all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, and from the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

    I very much hope that the provisional movement will see sense and renounce violence. Regrettably, they have not yet done so. They continue to seek “clarification” of the Joint Declaration – a tactic which should be seen for what it is: an increasingly desperate attempt to avoid facing up to the clear choice that confronts them. And, after a brief pause over Christmas, the IRA have continued their campaign of violence, as the murder of a young soldier in Crossmaglen last week reminded us only too clearly, together with the attempted murders and firebombs over the weekend.

    The provisionals face this choice at a time when there is increasing determination among the people of Northern Ireland to end 25 years of violence and see peace restored. Over recent months, both Patrick Mayhew and I have had many talks with political leaders from Northern Ireland, with churchmen, with community leaders, with businessmen and with many others. I have had an opportunity in three recent visits to Northern Ireland to meet a wide variety of people. All these contacts will continue. I have been impressed and heartened by the support we have had for our efforts to work for peace and for a political settlement. That encouraged me in the negotiations with the Irish government over the Joint Declaration. If we all continue to work together, we can keep the momentum going.

    The Joint Declaration sets out the framework for bringing about peace and reconciliation. In the name of both governments it restates in unequivocal terms the fundamental principles and guarantees that mean so much to all sides of the community in both parts of Ireland. In terms more comprehensive than ever before it sets out the philosophy which underpins the actions of both governments. It places great emphasis on the need to respect the different traditions of the communities in Northern Ireland.

    I understand the concerns of those in Northern Ireland who are cautious when faced with an initiative of this sort. But I strongly believe that when they read the Joint Declaration – as I hope everyone will do – they will find that the interests of all communities are fully recognised and protected. Suggestions that the document is a sell-out to one set of interests or another are nonsense. Not only does the Declaration repeat in the clearest possible terms the British Government’s commitment to Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee – that no change can come about without the consent of the greater number of people of Northern Ireland – but it also sets out the Irish Government’s acceptance of that principle, while no less importantly recognising nationalist ideals.

    The fact that the Declaration has the full support of the British and Irish Governments should make it clear to all that there is no way forward except through the democratic process. There is no place for terrorism, whether loyalist or republican. There is nothing that the men of violence, whatever cause they may claim to represent, can seriously believe they are able to achieve. They have achieved nothing worthwhile in 25 years of violence, and would achieve nothing worthwhile if it were to continue for another 25 years.

    But with a permanent end to violence, and a commitment to the democratic process, Sinn Fein can enter into exploratory dialogue within three months. Without a permanent end to violence, the terrorists and their supporters will be isolated, with the British and Irish Governments and all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland united against them.

    Isolated, while the rest of us get on with our agenda for bringing about a political settlement via the talks process I am determined that, come what may, we will pursue those talks with renewed vigour. The Taoiseach and I have already reaffirmed our support for the objectives of the talks process, involving political dialogue between the two governments and the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. That is the three stranded approach which made such progress in 1992: we must now make it a priority to reach agreement in 1994.

    Strand 1 of the talks is concerned with setting up new forms of government within Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland needs a form of government that people can identify with, and where they can participate. A form of government that is fully accountable and commands support in all sections of the community. We are determined to restore properly based local democracy in Northern Ireland.

    Strand 2 of the talks concerns relations between Northern Ireland and the South. I know there has been fear and suspicion that these parts of the talks involve giving the South a direct role in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. They do not. It would be extraordinary if, as part of an overall political agreement, two countries sharing a border on an island did not look for ways to work together where that made sense to both. We each have so much to gain from co-operation across the border. That is what paragraph 9 of the Joint Declaration means when it talks of the two governments and the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland creating through a process of political dialogue “institutions and structures which, while respecting the diversity of the people of Ireland, would enable them to work together in all areas of common interest”.

    I am under no illusion that it will prove easy to reach agreement on all these issues. But there is now a clear will on all sides to try to do so. And there is a positive benefit in the large task we have set ourselves. It is that once agreement is reached, it will be comprehensive, leaving no room for uncertainties or concerns about hidden agendas – uncertainties that can breed doubt, fear and instability. The prize at the end of the process is great: so great that we are all determined to succeed.

    The prize lies not just in a political solution. But also in the economic transformation that that in turn would bring. Northern Ireland is already well placed to benefit from the economic upturn that is taking hold throughout the United Kingdom. But the prospect of long term political stability would bring renewed confidence in Northern Ireland as a site for inward investment, as a destination for tourism. Confidence that would itself encourage existing firms to invest and to expand. Confidence that would help accelerate a reduction in unemployment. There are huge opportunities, and great international goodwill.

    So the British Government will continue to work towards achieving both peace and political reform in Northern Ireland. The opportunity is there. But at the same time, while terrorism continues, we will use every means we can to defeat it and bring those responsible to justice. The police and armed forces in Northern Ireland perform a difficult job with great skill, courage and sacrifice. They will continue to have our full support and backing in upholding the law and protecting the community.

    We will continue to work for peace. But not peace at any price: there will be no departure from the fundamental principles we hold to – in particular that change in Northern Ireland can only come about with the consent of the greater number of the people. The Joint Declaration makes it clear that it is above all for the people of Northern Ireland to shape their future. There is now a framework which reflects the concerns and aspirations of both sides of the community. It is a framework that can shape a better future for Northern Ireland in 1994. Peace is there for the taking.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 December 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Policy Objectives

    Mr. Tracey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the policy objectives of the Government which have been fulfilled since the general election of 1992.

    The Prime Minister : Among the more important objectives fulfilled since the last general election have been getting inflation down and keeping it down so that it now stands at 1.4 per cent., the lowest level for 26 years; the continuing fall in unemployment, for the eighth month running this year; the achievement of a successful GATT deal which will benefit industry and consumers alike; the continuing rise in retail sales and manufacturing output; reforms of the education system to provide children with a better education and a wider choice of qualifications and parents with more information; an intensified fight against crime; the continuing progress with the citizen’s charter, with resulting improvements in public services; and further progress with NHS reforms and an increase in the number of patients treated.

     

    Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister when he received a copy of the letter signed by members of the United States Congress, the Japanese Diet and right hon. and hon. Members appealing for a public inquiry on and review of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

    The Prime Minister : A copy of the letter was received in my office on Monday 13 December and has now been passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for consideration.

     

    Regional and Urban Policy

    Mr. Stern : To ask the Prime Minister if he will detail the duties of sponsor Ministers in relation to regional and urban policy.

    The Prime Minister : The duties of sponsor Ministers in relation to regional and urban policy are set out in a note placed in the Library of the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 4 November, Official Report, columns 515-24, when he announced the package of urban and regional policy measures. A copy of that note has been sent to my hon. Friend. In carrying out their duties, sponsor Ministers will liaise as necessary with hon. Members.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards the correction of answers given to Parliament where civil servants responsible for drafting, or Ministers or former Ministers have told the Scott inquiry that they were inaccurate.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry is still in progress : his conclusions will be published in the inquiry’s report. The Government will respond to the report when it is published and hon. Members will then be able to table questions on the report and on the Government’s response.

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what contact, either by written communication or telephone or telefax, his office has had with Mr. Frank Machon of Glasgow in regard to matters raised at the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister : Mr. Machon wrote to my office once during 1991, and once in 1992. In addition, the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) wrote on three occasions on Mr. Machon’s behalf during 1992.

     

    Ex-Ministers

    Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to this answer of 7 December, Official Report, column 143, if he will name (a) the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office who received a severance payment on 14 April 1992 (b) the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office who received a severance payment on 27 April 1992.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Belstead’s appointment as Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, ceased on 14 April 1992. On 27 April, Lord Cavendish resigned as a Lord in Waiting, but was erroneously referred to as Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office.

     

    EC Directives

    Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral statement of 13 December, Official Report, column 686, if he will publish a list of the 17 directives which the European Council agreed should be repealed, withdrawn or amended.

    The Prime Minister : The 17 directives are listed in an annexe to the Commission’s report on subsidiarity, which has been made available to the House. The Brussels European Council on 10 and 11 December called for early action to put the report into effect.

     

    Home and Justice Affairs

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister what matters were agreed in principle at the European Council in Brussels on 10 to 11 December concerning home and justice affairs; when such matters were debated in the House, or any of its Standing Committees; and when he expects publication of conventions of the European Union incorporating these matters.

    The Prime Minister : The European Council expressed its determination to use the new provisions of the Maastricht treaty on co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs to the full. It noted the work which had already been done in these areas and approved the action plan prepared by the Interior and Justice Council, in particular in relation to a number of specific areas. The Government followed the practice adopted for the former immigration/Trevi ministerial meetings and deposited in the Library of the House documents approved by the Interior and Justice Council on 29 and 30 November. The action plan and work programmes sent to the European Council have now also been placed in the Library. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has made proposals for future parliamentary oversight of title VI work, which will include sending to Parliament important documents before they go to the Council. We look forward to the House’s reaction to these proposals and to putting an effective scrutiny procedure in place. Any conventions that are found to be necessary to achieve the aims of the interior and justice programme of work will be dealt with in accordance with this procedure.

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. Meacher : To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of correspondence received by (a) his office and (b) each of his office’s agencies receives (i) an acknowledgement within five days and (ii) a substantive reply within 15 days.

    The Prime Minister : My office aims to acknowledge correspondence within five days and provide a substantive reply within 15 days.

     

    South Africa

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if it is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy to encourage South Africa under a majority Government to join the Commonwealth.

    The Prime Minister : While it will be for the new democratically elected Government in South Africa to decide on whether it should seek to return to the Commonwealth, Her Majesty’s Government and their Commonwealth partners look forward to welcoming a non-racial and democratic South Africa back into the association at the earliest opportunity.

     

    Civil Servants

    Mr. Steinberg : To ask the Prime Minister what Civil Service rules or guidelines exist in relation to contact between civil servants and hon. Members and their personal staff; whether there have been any recent changes to any such rules or guidelines; and if he will place copies of any such rules or guidelines in the Library.

    The Prime Minister : There have been no recent changes in guidelines concerning briefing of MPs by civil servants.

    It is an established principle that civil servants should not engage in activities likely to call into question their political impartiality, or to give rise to criticism that people paid from public funds are being used for party political purposes. Accordingly, the following rules apply :

    (a) civil servants in their official capacity are prohibited from attending conferences arranged by political parties;

    (b) they may not attend meetings of policy or subject groups of the parliamentary parties;

    (c) they may not attend all-party subject groups or committees except to accompany a Minister and to respond to factual questions;

    (d) these rules need not inhibit factual briefing by officials of MPs on overseas or regional visits;

    (e) Ministers may also arrange factual briefings by officials, for MPs of one party provided that a Minister attends the meeting and similar facilities are offered to MPs of other parties;

    (f) Ministers should always be present when MPs are to discuss sensitive areas of public policy with officials.

    Written briefing material provided by officials to Ministers may be distributed to Back-Bench Members provided that it would be released to any bon fide inquirer and that hon. Members of all parties may have access to it.

    The rules do not prevent agency chief executives and managers of local offices, with the Minister’s approval, from communicating with hon. Members about problems of individual constituents.

    The convention governing pre-election contacts between senior civil servants and Opposition leaders was set out in my reply to a written question by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 27 November 1991, at column 527.

     

    Post Office Privatisation

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister when he received the report from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on the privatisation of the Post Office; and if he has now completed his consideration of it.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of papers from colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry arising from the review of the structure and organisation of the Post Office, both before and since the departure from the Government of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. No decisions on the outcome of the review have been taken.

     

    Northern Ireland

    Mr. Marlow : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out his views on the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    The Prime Minister : I support it and will uphold it for so long as it remains the democratic wish of a greater number of the people in Northern Ireland.

     

    Subsidiarity

    Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the European Commission’s lists of (a) proposals which fail the subsidiarity test and will be dropped or changed and (b) Community laws which the Commission believes must be simplified or abolished, to which he referred in his oral statement of 14 December 1992, Official Report, column 24, on the European Council at Edinburgh; and what progress has been made in the past year on each of those directives.

    The Prime Minister : The lists referred to by my hon. Friend were included as an annexe to the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council, copies of which were made available to the House. Details of progress are contained in the Commission’s report on subsidiarity, which has been made available to the House.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 December 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th December 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Homeless People

    Q10. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet representatives of London’s homeless people.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so at present. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction frequently meets staff of voluntary sector bodies working with homeless people in central London; and he regularly visits projects managed by these agencies.

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names and job descriptions of each special ministerial adviser employed in his Department showing any particular outputs for which each adviser is responsible.

    The Prime Minister : My special advisers are Sir Rodric Braithwaite KCMG, Mrs. Sarah Hogg, Mr. Nicholas True CBE, Mr. Damian Green, Lord Poole and Mrs. Katherine Ramsay. Their duties vary.

     

    Norwegian and German Prime Ministers

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2 December, Official Report, column 687, if he will give more specific details on the range of issues he discussed with his Norwegian and German counterparts.

    The Prime Minister : My discussions with Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway on 16 November covered the European Community, Norwegian accession and Norway’s whaling policy. In my talks with Chancellor Kohl on 25 November, we discussed problems of unemployment; growth and competitiveness within the EC; enlargement; subsidiarity and the fight against terrorism; drug trafficking and organised crime; GATT; the forthcoming NATO summit and other foreign policy issues, including Bosnia.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 December.

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

     

    Chemical Weapons

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if it is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy to ratify the chemical weapons convention before the convention enters into force.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom played an active role in the negotiations leading to the opening for signature of the chemical weapons convention and continues to play an active role in the preparatory commission in The Hague, which is working towards the establishment of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The United Kingdom signed the Convention in January 1993 and we intend to ratify the chemical weapons convention at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to put in place the necessary legislation to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligation under the chemical weapons convention in time for Her Majesty’s Government to ratify the convention by 18 July 1994.

    The Prime Minister : We intend to introduce implementing legislation for the convention as soon as parliamentary time permits.

     

    Press Releases

    Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister how many press releases his office has issued in each year since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : Since I took office in 1990, some 200 press releases have been issued each year. Figures for previous years would be obtainable only at disproportionate costs.

     

    EC Infrastructure Programmes

    Mr. Marlow : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out (a) the treaty powers and (b) other powers granted to the European Commission with regard to infrastructure programmes.

    The Prime Minister : Titles XII–trans-European networks–and XIV– economic and social cohesion–of part 3 of the EC treaty, as amended by the treaty on European Union, are those principally concerned with infrastructure. The regulations governing the structural and cohesion funds –EC2080-2085/93 and EC792/93–set out the role of the Commission in this field. Articles 198d-e of the treaty refer to the European investment bank which lends to investment projects, the greater proportion of which are infrastructure improvements.

     

    EC Official Languages

    Mr. Marlow : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to seek a reduction in the number of official languages in the European Community.

    The Prime Minister : We have no plans to seek a reduction in the number of official languages of the European Community. It is right that legislation and judgments which apply in each member state should be officially available in the language of the citizens of that country.

     

    European Commission

    Mr. Marlow : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy regarding the number of Commissioners appropriate to an EC expanded by the four applicant countries; and by what measures he seeks to achieve such a quantity.

    The Prime Minister : At the Brussels European Council on 10 and 11 December, all member states agreed that the EFTA applicants should be given one Commissioner each, with the question of the number of Commissioners to be reviewed at the 1996 intergovernmental conference. We have made clear our view that it would not be in the best interests, either of the Commission or of the Community as a whole, to maintain the present arrangements governing the number of Commissioners as the European Union continues to enlarge.

     

    Capital Markets

    Mr. Marlow : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Presidency conclusions as to how the capital markets can be made more efficient in order to encourage a flow of savings into productive job-creating investments.

    The Prime Minister : Implementation of a number of directives relating to banking and financial services should facilitate the development of efficient capital markets within the Community. Member states also need to ensure that domestic capital markets encourage the flow of savings into productive job-creating investments. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, recently announced that the Treasury is currently reviewing this area. The Economic Secretary is examining the role of banks and other financial institutions in channelling finance to industry. The Financial Secretary is examining the impact of tax and other Government policies on savings and the flow of funds through the economy. These reviews will make an important contribution to ensuring that policies in this area enhance our economic performance.

     

    Subsidiarity

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the EC directives which the Government have proposed so far should be abolished, modified or replaced on the ground of subsidiarity, setting out what has happened so far in each case.

    The Prime Minister : In Community discussions about putting the principle of subsidiarity into effect, the Government have put forward a large number of suggestions for the amendment, repeal or withdrawal of existing or proposed legislation. The Commission’s report to the European Council last week reflected many of our suggestions and, following the European Council’s endorsement, action will now begin in Brussels to put the report’s recommendations into effect. A copy of the Commission’s report has been made available to the House.

     

    New Jobs

    Mr. Marlow : To ask the Prime Minister what opportunities are available to the European Commission for the discovery of a source of new jobs which are not also available to national Governments.

    The Prime Minister : As the Government stated in their contribution to the Commission’s white paper, the Community’s central aim must be the creation of conditions for enterprise, innovation and investment to generate wealth and employment. To achieve this the Government recommended that the Commission should ensure that the single market works effectively, that the principle of subsidiarity is put into effect and that it should undertake an audit of community legislation to remove barriers to employment. All these proposals were reflected in the conclusions of the European Council.

     

    National Regulations

    Mr. Marlow : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the European Council on the request to the European Commission to audit national regulations.

    The Prime Minister : The European Council in Brussels on 10 and 11 December adopted a short-to-medium-term action plan to reinforce the competitiveness of the European economy, which the Council will monitor. The Council recognised the importance of a large European export-oriented market and proposed a number of measures to exploit this major asset.

    The Council recognised that legislation must be simplified and reduced in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, and that consistency between national and Community legislation must be ensured. The Council requested the Commission to examine ways of creating a more favourable business environment for small and medium-sized enterprises for example, by providing for an audit of Community and national regulations in terms of their consequences for employment. Any review of national regulation will respect the competences of Community and member states and the principle of subsidiarity.

    The Government have nearly completed a comprehensive review of 3,500 regulations which impact on United Kingdom business to ensure that they do not impede our potential for wealth and job creation. We welcome similar efforts at the Community level and at member state level systematically to review legislation which impairs the competitiveness of European industries and Europe’s potential for economic growth and employment.

     

    EC Voting Procedures

    Mr. Marlow : To ask the Prime Minister what powers he has to prevent any dilution of the blocking minority under qualified majority voting procedures; and to what extent such powers are constrained by the presidency conclusions.

    The Prime Minister : Any change to the qualified majority voting procedures must be agreed by all member states. The question of the blocking minority threshold in an enlarged Community was not resolved at the European Council held in Brussels on 10 and 11 December.

     

    European Investment Bank

    Mr. Marlow : To ask the Prime Minister to what extent additional loans from the European investment bank will be underwritten by other EC institutions.

    The Prime Minister : The European investment bank is required by its statute to lend only if it has a guarantee from a member state or other adequate guarantees, such as from a commercial bank. It is not the practice, nor is it intended, for Community institutions to guarantee EIB loans within the European Community.

  • PMQT – 16 December 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th December 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Callaghan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list official engagements for Thursday 16 December.

    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. Callaghan : Is the Prime Minister aware that, exactly one year ago, a man who was suffering from mental illness climbed into a paddock of a zoo and was savagely mauled by lion? Despite the public dismay and concern over that incident, there are still thousands of mentally ill people who are tramping the streets of our major cities. They often live in cardboard boxes and are unable to look after themselves. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a national disgrace? Will he tell the House what action he will take to get those people off the streets and into places of care and protection?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of action has been taken–most noticeably in London–to get many people, both those suffering from the ailment to which the hon. Gentleman refers and others, off the streets. That has been remarkably successful, and we will continue with that policy.

    Mr. Lamont : Does my right hon. Friend recall his admirable speech at the Conservative party conference in which he said that the Union between Ulster and Britain was of immense importance to the Conservative party? Did not that echo his comment during the election that he stood with passion and commitment for the unity of this country? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that stands a little oddly beside his statement that this country has no strategic interest in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend therefore declare today that he believes in the Union, that he wants it to persist and that he believes it has been in the interests of the people of this country?

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that it stands remotely oddly with the joint declaration which I set before the House yesterday. The joint declaration reaffirms in unmistakeable terms the commitment that we have consistently given to the people of Northern Ireland, and I reaffirm that again now.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer who told the Treasury Select Committee yesterday that the tax increases in this year’s Budget were the equivalent of an increase of 7p on income tax?

    The Prime Minister : What my right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday was that the aggregate sum of money raised after three years would amount to a crude equivalent of 7p. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that takes no account of growth in the economy and many other matters. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about taxes, perhaps he might contemplate some of his proposals for new taxes. He is committed to eight more taxes, without any indication of how he would fund his spending promises or meet the debts that occurred as we helped vulnerable people through the recession.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister realise that the Chancellor told the Select Committee yesterday that the increases would amount to between £15 billion and £17 billion? Is there anything more crude than promising not to increase taxes before an election and putting them up by £15 billion afterwards?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly does not realise that he is referring to the cost of Budget measures over the next three years. He is obviously deficient in understanding and has produced an entirely spurious one-off tax increase. I can understand why. I quote what the acting general secretary of the Fabian Society wrote about the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the “Labour Review”. [Interruption.] I hope that the Opposition will laugh in a moment because this is what was written about the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party :

    “If the characteristics being exhibited by the Parliamentary Labour Party were translated into the conduct of a single individual, she or he would certainly be in therapy.”

    Mr. John Smith : May I put a straight question to the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I know that his party does not want to hear it. Does he deny that before the last election, the Conservative party promised not to increase taxes?

    The Prime Minister : Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny- – [Hon. Members :– “Answer the question.”] Does he deny what his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said about unemployment? He has had nothing to say today about unemployment, nothing about inflation and nothing about the eight taxes to which he is committed. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down. I want to hear the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : The Opposition do not, because they will not like it. Let us hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman about his proposed taxes on tourism and development, his payroll tax, his education tax and the fact that he wants to have the same level of corporation tax as our competitors in Europe. What about his pollution tax and his windfall tax? The man does nothing but propose new taxes day after day.

    Mr. Richards : Is my right hon. Friend aware that small businesses in my constituency are absolutely delighted with the Chancellor’s Budget and that, together with low inflation, low interest rates and increasing confidence, they are looking forward to a period of steady growth in the foreseeable future?

    The Prime Minister : I have no doubt that that is the case. It is largely the growth and success of small businesses that are bringing down unemployment, and have been doing so month after month throughout this year. When unemployment figures go up, that is the only issue that concerns Labour Members. When those figures start coming down, apparently it is matter of no importance whatsoever.

    Mr. Ashdown : May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that 1.25 million people are close to starvation in beleaguered central Bosnia, many of whose lives will be further put at risk in the bitter cold yet to come if the local power station at Kakanj is allowed to cease operations? Is he aware that, without vital supplies, that will happen in 20 days’ time? Is he further aware the vital supplies provided by Britain are now being blockaded by the Serbs and Croats? Will the Prime Minister see what urgent action could be taken to make the provision of those vital supplies a test case for the Geneva convention on free passage of convoys so that those lives could be saved?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to the aid effort through the winter. We have made it clear, to pick up a point that will concern many hon. Members, that we still need to see the opening of Tuzla airport. We have so far provided more than £150 million-worth of assistance, and more than 2, 300 troops are delivering that assistance, day after day, under the most difficult conditions. We are examining what we can do to deal with the present difficulties in Bosnia. The co-operation of parties on the ground will be needed to enable us to deliver the humanitarian assistance that we are prepared to deliver and fund. Throughout the conflict, our record has been second to none, and we will continue to do all that we can to ensure that people receive supplies throughout the winter.

    Mr. James Hill : My right hon. Friend knows that the economy is beginning to emerge. We are reducing unemployment every day and there will be more money in the coffers by the time of the next Budget. Does he agree that more money must be allocated by the Treasury to the Home Office to enable the pledges given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to be carried out, not only on the neighbourhood watch security patrols but on the numbers of police required? In Hampshire, for instance, we asked for 120 extra police and were given only five this year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those measures are part of the Conservative philosophy and that, in the not-too-distant future, money will be available to fund them?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced measures not very long ago which, if carried out, will enable approximately 5,300 police officers to move from dealing with administrative work out to the front line to deal with the matters that my hon. Friend mentioned. That action has been taken within the expenditure levels agreed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Bridget Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 December.

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

    Mrs. Prentice : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor on the subject of stopping tax abuse? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said in his Budget speech that claims that more money might be found in that way were much exaggerated. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Public Accounts Committee, which found another £1 billion tax loophole for the aristocracy? Would not the Chancellor be better employed closing such tax loopholes than stinging every family in the country for an extra £10 a week as a result of his tax-raising Budget?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady should know that my right hon. and learned Friend closed a number of genuine loopholes in the Budget. That will yield about £2 billion over the next three years. The loopholes so beloved of the Opposition Front Bench are not loopholes generally but measures such as ending relief on capital gains inheritance–which would leave less for parents to hand down to children–and reforming the rules applying to non-domiciled status foreigners, which is the Opposition’s latest idea. All the main parties agreed, when that measure was reviewed in 1989, that the existing rules should remain because they made Britain an attractive business location.

    The Opposition’s loophole campaign is a smokescreen to hide the fact that they have no idea how to fund their policies. They are trying to convince people that they could do so by closing tax loopholes, but what they would do is take away measures that assist industry and introduce those that would cost jobs and assist our competitors.

    Mrs. Angela Knight : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the general agreement on tariffs and trade provides important trade opportunities, not just for countries such as Britain but for developing countries? Removal of the trade barriers will give them the chance of export-led growth to benefit their economies and bring about prosperity.

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I entirely agree with that. My hon. Friend will know that, at the Commonwealth conference, we agreed that a number of Commonwealth countries–including less-developed and developing countries– would send a mission to the main Governments around the world in the GATT negotiations, to ensure that there was a satisfactory settlement. I noticed yesterday that Malaysia, on behalf of the less-developed countries, had hailed the round as a victory for common sense.

     

    Q3. Mr. Worthington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 December.

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

    Mr. Worthington : Why have the Government put 7p on income tax, or its equivalent?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is clearly not very good at listening, or he would have heard the answer a good deal earlier, but I will tell him what the Government have done.

    The Government have got interest rates down to the lowest levels for 16 years; inflation at the lowest level for 26 years; unemployment falling, while it rises everywhere else in Europe; growth that is faster than in any other country in Europe; a GATT deal to benefit industry; retail sales up; and a whole range of other economic improvements. That is the Christmas message to bring a smile to people’s faces next year–not the misleading questions asked by the Labour party.