Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Group for Europe – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Group for Europe on 22nd April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Two years ago I said I wanted to put Britain at the heart of Europe. And the heart of Europe is where I still want us to be.

    It is now 20 years since we joined the European Community.

    Since then, a whole generation has grown up. A generation free of the legacy of the old animosities. A generation which takes for granted co-operation between the Member States.

    Yet in 1973 all you would take to the Continent was a limited amount of foreign currency and £25 sterling. Today, we go to France much as we might go to Yorkshire. Last year we made a trifling 24 million trips to Europe.

    It is no longer an oddity for British students to spend a year in France or to see a German student rowing in the boat-race for Cambridge. For the manager or the professional it is becoming as normal for a career to include two years in Mannheim as a posting to Manchester. Little England steps out. But as we have been stepping out for more than 20 years now we hardly notice that we do it.

    Economic benefits

    There is also the minor question of profit. We British are traders. Our trade with the rest of the Community has risen thirteen-fold. In 1973 we exported £800 million to Germany. Now it is over £15,000 million. We export as much to Germany as to the United States and Japan combined. That is the scale of our European self interest. Since we joined, our exports to our partners in the Community have grown 50% faster than have those of our old partners in EFTA. That amounts to £20 billion last year. That’s a lot of prosperity and a lot of jobs.

    Britain has looked at the world, understood that it must be competitive … and competes.

    And the fact that we do compete makes inward investors flock here. Two out of every five who come to the Community come to Britain. Now we export cars to Japan, television sets to Germany and computers to the world. We hear a great deal about the industries we’ve lost. I would like to hear more about the industries we have gained.

    Take an example I saw recently. A textile factory that has become the most modern in the world; a firm taking on and beating Far Eastern competitors is exporting two million garments every week, and is about to double its workforce: a factory in Northern Ireland.

    How had they succeeded? They had seized the European market, attracted investment and made it a success.

    That Northern Irish factory is emblematic. Investors like our welcome. They like our tax structure. They like our industrial relations. They know that our workforce is flexible and adaptable. And we have English, – English, the world language. We should do well with such strengths. But outside the Community? Doing our own tiny thing, splendidly adrift? It’s just not on. Outside Europe Britain can survive; inside we will thrive.

    Britain’s achievements

    We take from the Community. And we put into it. Europe needs Britain just as Britain needs Europe. We have just completed the biggest free trade area in the world. A British initiative, started by a British Prime Minister, driven by a British Commissioner, and brought to fruition under a British Prime Minister. A single market that makes full use of the Treaty of Rome as a charter for economic liberty. A single market that helps us capitalise on the things Britain does uniquely well – our financial services, our transport and aviation and our telecommunications companies.

    Europe is only one part of the world trading system. The prize, if we can successfully complete the GATT round is huge: 200 billion dollars of extra prosperity for our globe. The risks, if we fail, are equally immense. Our influence, together with our Northern partners, tilts the Community onto the side of success. Thirty years ago the economist, James Meade wrote a famous pamphlet. An outward-looking Europe was good, he said, an inward-looking Europe should make us flee to the hills. We are fighting and winning the battles he identified. Historically some of our partners are protectionist by instinct. But Britain with her outside links, American and Commonwealth, will always thrust Europe outwards.

    We have also led the way to bringing in our old EFTA partners and friends Austria, Norway, Sweden and Finland. They share our instincts as global free traders. Many of the traditions on which our Parliamentary democracy is based come from the Scandinavian part of our heritage. A rugged, independent-minded legislature can sometimes be uncomfortable. Believe me, it can. But it is a good and healthy thing. They share that with us.

    Like us, too, they will be net contributors. They will be watchful how the Community spends its citizens’ money.

    Only a cloud-borne idealist would deny the debits to our membership. We joined late. We didn’t make the rules. A lot of them didn’t suit us.

    There is a legend of ancient Rome to illustrate the British predicament. It tells how the Sibyl offered the Roman Senate 9 books containing the future of the republic. Shocked at the price, the senators refused to buy them. The Sibyl burned 3 books. She then offered the other 6 for the same price. The Senate still refused. She burned 3 more. Seriously rattled, the Senate hastily agreed to buy the last 3 books for the price of the original 9.

    Ted, you bought the books. We have read them; and thank goodness you did buy them.

    But of course, we keep bringing out new editions. That is what happens to successful books. We have reformed the Common Agricultural Policy after years of squabbling. At Edinburgh we put a ceiling on EC spending until the end of the Century. At Edinburgh too we reached out to the new member nations. The Scandinavians now; and in time the Central European nations – Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. We won agreement against all the odds that those old friends would join. Not tentatively or in the future conditional tense, but “join” meaning “join”. That was always Britain’s wish; and it will be fulfilled.

    Like Douglas Hurd, I know that the Community has become too intrusive in our national life. Where this is so we must correct it and the Maastricht Treaty provides a way of doing so. But some intrusion is necessary and is in our interests. For example, if we are to make the Single Market work, there has to be some body of common law. It is we, British, who have pressed hardest for a true common market – a slogan made flesh. If we are to have that, it needs to be enforced and someone must have the authority to do so. The Commission and the Court have that authority. For all its quirks and quiddities, when the Commission battles against vested interests and for competition, it is on our side.

    Maastricht

    Of course, there is too much regulation both in Brussels and Whitehall; and indeed too much done at Community level better done by individual nations. Maastricht is the focus of that concern.

    But let me tell you a story. A colleague at a constituency dinner asked everyone present to tell him what they didn’t like about Maastricht.

    Up went a jungle of hands. “Nobody else got a point? Everyone had their say?”

    “Yes”.

    “Well” he said “you have raised 35 different points against Maastricht. 33 of them date back to the Treaty of Rome or the Single European Act. And 2 of them are valid complaints against the Treaty of Maastricht.”

    Maastricht has been used as the scapegoat for the varied and nameless fears about Europe, most of them wholly unrelated to the Treaty.

    I have never pretended that Maastricht is perfect, but, warts and all, Maastricht makes Europe better.

    Take “subsidiarity”, which I call “national precedence”. Subsidiarity enshrines in EC Law the principle that the Community should not be permitted to do what Member States can do better themselves.

    But there are areas – many areas where the Community countries do need to work together. The member states of the EC face an ocean of problems beyond the capacity of any of us to solve alone: migration; environmental degradation; nuclear proliferation; international crime and especially drugs; political instability to our East; terrorism; and protectionism. I do not see our Nation as a cog in some centralised superstate. Maastricht does not solve all problems but it draws all of us together for the shared, common sense purpose of trying to solve them.

    Of course, the Brussels centralisers haven’t all gone away. But they are now running against the tide. A tide that will flow ever more strongly in the enlarged Community we ensured at Edinburgh. The idea of a centralised Europe had resonance in a Community of the 6. But for 12, soon 16 and eventually 20 plus nations it is a grandiose doodle. It is not what the people of Europe want. We Conservatives, must have the confidence and the sharp-edged determination to stay in the heart of the European debate to win a Community of free, independent members. The nations must be free-standing – a colonnade, not a set of bars.

    To opt out of that struggle would deny 20 years of British effort and achievement. How does the Community work? Europe is a small sea of perpetual negotiation. It shapes its future and its laws by alliances between governments and ministers. Many who fear and oppose Europe are like the fat boy in “Pickwick”. They want to make your flesh creep. They think we are always going to lose the argument in Europe. That is defeatist and wrong. We learnt to swim in that sea long ago.

    The Single Market was a British idea; breaking open state monopolies was a British idea. CAP reform and enlargement have been British goals. If we tried to huddle back into some private yesterday we wouldn’t have any alliances we could make. Others would make the rules. And they’d impose the rules on us. That’s what our EFTA partners have learned. It’s one reason why they are queuing to join.

    I know there are those who have many objections to the Community. But I notice they offer no satisfactory alternative. What are the theoretical options? There are three:

    – to leave altogether. Put that bluntly, they shrink away from that choice;

    – to form some kind of association with an American free trade area. That is a sugar coated turnip and the economic hole that leaving Europe would open up cannot be filled with turnips;

    – third, to stick at “a Common market and no more”. That’s such a narrow, unexalted vision. Britain has long argued for a more coherent foreign policy for the Twelve. Because it makes sense for us to work together as we did in providing safe havens for the Kurds of Northern Iraq.

    So what really moves the opponents of Britain’s full participation in the EC? As much as anything it is frustration. Frustration that we are no longer a world power. Frustration that nowhere is the nation state fully sovereign, free to conduct its policies without concerting with ruddy foreigners. There is frustration that some of the fixed and treasured aspects of our national life are subject to seemingly relentless change. They practice a sort of phantom grandeur, a clanking of unusable suits of armour.

    I understand these feelings but I cannot share them. The world has moved on. Britain has to take its rightful place in it. Though no longer a global power we still have global interests and we need to defend them with determination but also with subtlety. We cannot afford to subject ourselves to the despotism of nostalgia. We need to use cleverness and shared strength. We must operate a network of little threads to make most use of the influence we do have. And the European Community is a handful of threads for the pursuit of our domestic and foreign interests.

    We hear a lot about principled opposition to Europe. Let’s not forget that there is a great deal of principled support too. Looking around, I see a great many who have been principled supporters of our place in Europe for as long as I can remember.

    The sly argument that to be a principled supporter of Europe is somehow to put Britain’s interests second needs dismissing for the nonsense it is. It’s precisely because we put Britain’s interests first that we need to be in there shaping the new Europe. A new Europe that is larger, more open and less intrusive. That’s not throwing away history, that’s not knocking down traditions. We are digging straight ditches and putting layers of bricks into them – what builders call a foundation.

    A wider Europe

    Those who say Europe is only an economic entity, a tower of brass, forget one small gift to our age: two generations of peace.

    The peace we have had in the West was not reached by the turn of a card. The ancient hatreds were composed and the ancient enemies conciliated with fearful singularity of purpose.

    Let’s not forget, that when we joined the Community, Spain Portugal and Greece were still governed by men in sunglasses and epaulettes. The dictators were booted out. Stability and democracy have been locked in – by membership of the Community.

    The tragedy in Bosnia on our borders is a terrible reminder of the loss of that blessing we here take too much for granted. It is an irony that many who protest most loudly that ‘Britain only joined a common market’ are the first to complain that the EC has not secured a political or military settlement to the conflict in Bosnia.

    Our long term purpose must be the whole continent of Europe with free democracies and without trade barriers. We are backing freer trade with more aid. A great swelling tide of humanitarian and technical aid flows to Russia and central Europe. The EC is by far the largest donor. £5 billion worth over the last three years. £5 billion to support democracy, and free market reform. Of course, we want it wisely spent. And who bangs on the most to insist upon that? Britain does.

    And it isn’t all governments, the big battalions who are helping. It is the small platoons too – volunteers and private benefactors, like those I was able to thank at Number 10 recently for their work in setting up the 1990s equivalent of Rhodes scholarships for young people from central and Eastern Europe.

    That is the best of Britain and it is part of our distinctive and unique contribution to Europe. Distinctive and unique as Britain will remain in Europe. Fifty years from now Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers and – as George Orwell said – “old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist” and if we get our way – Shakespeare still read even in school. Britain will survive unamendable in all essentials.

    Surely we trust our own integrity as a people quite enough to fear nothing in Europe. We are the British, a people freely living inside a Europe which is glad to see us and wants us. After 20 years we have come of age in Europe. One Conservative leader put us there. This Conservative leader means us to thrive there. So let’s get on with it.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy (II) – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 22nd April 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recession was over and the recovery started].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The economic indicators are looking a lot brighter. We’ve had a whole range of figures that were rather better than many forecasters imagined. I am very pleased to see that but I think we must wait until we see GDP figures in due course.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if this was just a modest rebound after a large recession].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it is a pretty remarkable “modest rebound” as you put it, when you see almost every indicator moving in the same direction and doing so quite sharply. Normally, when one emerges from a recession it tends to be rather more jagged and rather more uncertain so I think the trend is undoubtedly in the right direction.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if unemployment falling was just a one off].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will have to wait and see, won’t we? It is certainly very welcome to see for the last two months that unemployment has fallen and of course three months ago, if you remember, the unemployment rise was actually rather small so it is three months where the unemployment figures have been better than people imagined.

    The level of unemployment is still far too high and we need to get it down. That is why we said some time ago that need a base of low inflation from which we can have an expanding, growing economy. That is the only way to have secure jobs.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the high PSBR].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wonder what you or most other people would have said to me if I had actually cut public expenditure in the midst of the recession? I think many people would have thought that would have been a rather strange way to deal with it.

    A large part of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement is cyclical. It is a collapse of income during the recession: no house sales – no stamp duty; no high street sales – far less value added tax; fewer people in work – a loss of income tax. As that begins to correct itself, a large part of the deficit will itself disappear. There will be more. We shall need some growth. We shall need to look very carefully at public expenditure.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy (I) – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 22nd April 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recession was over].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a great deal more confidence among business, I think it is they who by their performance will show whether the recovery is with us. There is no doubt they are very confident indeed now and many of the indicators over recent weeks have been very positive, so that is very satisfactory.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he wasn’t prepared to say that the recession was over].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When the recession is over everyone will see that self-evidently. What I think one can see is happening, there is a much greater degree of confidence, exports are rising, one has seen with car sales and a whole range of other indicators that they are getting a good deal better. I want to see those indicators go on getting better, that has been happening in recent weeks, it is very welcome news.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how people knew that the recovery wouldn’t lead to Lawson type boom].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is exactly the right question that people should have in their minds and exactly the right concern that I have in my mind. We said two years ago that there was no short cut out of the difficulties we faced. I said that it would be a difficult period, we had to get inflation down, when we had got inflation down – and I knew it would be difficult, knew it would be unpopular – then we would begin to see recovery.

    We have got inflation down, we are beginning now to see the recovery, I think that is self-evident from what businesses themselves are saying. I have not lost my concern about inflation, I had it two years ago, I have it now, I want to make sure this is a long term sustainable recovery, not a short term boom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recovery was a candy-floss recovery with no recovery in manufacturing].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There has been a great degree of retraining but let us look at more substantive matters of what is actually happening. You refer to a candy-floss economy. The reality is the fact that our exports, a key element in continuing economic recovery, are now penetrating very deeply into both European and markets way beyond Europe. That export growth is at record levels, it is continuing, and that shows several things, that British firms are manufacturing, that they are competitive, that they are prepared to look for markets abroad and that they are successfully doing so. All that is very welcome. The unemployment drop is very welcome, I am delighted about that, most for the unemployed who have found jobs and for their families, but the level is still too high, we need to see a much wider manufacturing base, I shall be talking about that in the next few days and I wish to see that we have the right circumstances to engender confidence so that business can produce the growth we need. Governments cannot do it, they can set the framework, then business can do it, that is what we are seeking to do.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 April 1993

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lichfield

    Q8. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to pay an official visit to Lichfield and its cathedral.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Staffordshire among them.

     

    Mr. Stephen Kock

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what the official duties of Mr. Stephen Adolphus Kock have been since 1990.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Incomes Policy

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce an incomes policy.

    The Prime Minister : The Government have no such plans.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

    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.

     

    Serbia (Sanctions)

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister to what extent the new sanctions against Serbia Montenegro prevent or limit British nationals, or public relations consultancies based in the United Kingdom, from promoting or representing in the United Kingdom the interests of (a) the Government of Yugoslavia, (b) the Government of Montenegro, (c) the Government of Serbia and (d) the Bosnian Serb leadership.

    The Prime Minister : United Nations Security Council resolution 820 of 17 April 1993 prevents British nationals or public relations consultancies based in the United Kingdom from promoting or representing in the United Kingdom the interests of the Governments of Serbia and Montenegro.

     

    Western Goals Institute

    Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister which Downing street policy advisers have spoken at meetings of the Western Goals Institute (a) from 1979 to 1990 and (b) since 1990; and what meetings Government Ministers have had with officers of the Western Goals Institute since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : The activities of the Western Goals Institute are wholly incompatible with the policies of the Government and the Conservative party. I am not aware of any contacts between Government Ministers or officials and the Western Goals Institute.

     

    South African Conservative Party

    Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions Ministers have had with representatives of the South African Conservative party since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited South Africa in September 1992 as leader of the EC troika. He met leaders of all major groups including the Conservative party. The Government have kept in contact with all the main parties in South Africa in the context of encouraging progress towards a democratic, non-racial constitution.

     

    Bosnia

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what is his current assessment of the results of the London accord on Bosnia of last summer ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The statement on Bosnia resulting from the London conference on the former Yugoslavia in August 1992 set out a number of provisions to be included in a peace settlement and called upon the parties to resume negotiations. The international conference on the former Yugoslavia, under the co-chairmanship of Lord Owen and Mr. Vance, has since worked tirelessly to establish a peace plan building on these principles. The Bosnian Muslims and Croats have signed all the elements of the peace plan. But the Bosnian Serbs continue to refuse to agree the interim government arrangements and the maps. The United Nations Security Council has now adopted a further resolution setting out extremely tough sanctions which will be imposed on the Serbs if they remain intransigent.

     

    Dixon-Bate Ltd.

    Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit the company headquarters of B. Dixon-Bate Ltd.

    The Prime Minister : I have at present no plans to do so.

     

    Mr. Ghazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister what further information he has received about court proceedings in Pakistan concerning Mr. Ghazanfer Ali.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 21 April 1993] : The two murder charges facing Mr. Ghazanfer Ali were heard on 13 and 14 March and adjourned until 8 and 12 April. We have been informed that they have been further adjourned until 27 April and 10 May.

  • PMQT – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Clifton-Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

    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. Clifton-Brown : Will my right hon. Friend welcome today’s unemployment figures, down for the second month running and coming on top of an increase of 1 per cent. in manufacturing output and 2 per cent. in the retail sales figures–proof that the economy is growing in confidence? Does he agree that it is about time Opposition Members stopped prophesying gloom and doom about the economy?

    The Prime Minister : This is only the second successive month, but today’s fall in unemployment will be seen as very good news by everyone, especially the families of people now back in work. Especially welcome is the fact that the number of unemployed people has fallen in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and in each and every region in England. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are signs of growing business and consumer confidence. I hope that in the future that will bring further good news on jobs, which everyone who wishes this country well will surely welcome.

    Mr. John Smith : While welcoming the fall– [Hon. Members :– “Hear, hear.”]–in the official unemployment total announced today, is it not the case that a total of over 2,900,000 is still far too high and should never have been allowed to reach anything like that level? If the Prime Minister seeks to take credit for a fall of 26,000 in the official figures, is he equally prepared to accept responsibility for the million people who have lost their jobs since he became Prime Minister, the vast majority of whom are still unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : Grudging might be an appropriate word for that welcome, but I at least welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has this month, unlike last month, welcomed the fall in unemployment. Perhaps he might mention to the shadow Chancellor–who said even yesterday that unemployment would go on rising–that he should look more carefully in future.

    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares with me a wish to produce permanent, long-term jobs in a growing economy, perhaps he will also join me in the right policies to achieve that, including welcoming limits on public sector pay, welcoming caps on council spending, welcoming our trade union reforms, dropping his equivocation over strikes and welcoming our reforms to improve education. If he really cares about future long-term employment, will he welcome those? Yes or no?

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister appreciate–[Hon. Members– : “Answer.”]–that unemployment at this continuing high level is in large part a reflection of the underlying weakness of an economy bedevilled by persistent under-investment in manufacturing and skills and menaced by a dangerously high balance of payments deficit? if the Government’s economic policies are satisfactory, why are we suffering a multi-billion pound deficit in our balance of payments at a time of recession? What does the Prime Minister propose to do about that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should lift his eyes. I know that he has to encourage his Back Benchers, but he should know that across Europe, 17 million people are unemployed and it is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone except the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is the result of the international economy over many years. There are also 3 million unemployed in France. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants the answer to the question he should look at what is now happening in the economy. Car production figures last month were the highest for 19 years, a survey by the British chambers of commerce shows that business confidence is up, there has been the biggest growth in manufacturing exports for three years, surveys by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors all show good news. In addition, there are extra jobs at Toyota in Derbyshire, Ford in Dunton and Kimberly-Clark in Humberside. Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman welcome what everyone else but him can see?

    Mr. John Smith : Why does the Prime Minister not answer the question that I asked him? Why was it predicted in the Budget that the balance of payments would deteriorate from £12 billion to £17.5 billion? Is there any other country in the European Community with such a miserable prospect?

    The Prime Minister : The European Community as a whole has a deficit, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly does not know. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is yet again changing horses. Every month he used to ask me about inflation, until it fell when he stopped talking about it. He then started talking about unemployment until it began to level off and fall. Now he has changed horses again. I have bad news for the right hon. and learned Gentleman : he is going to run out of things to whinge about.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pickles : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

    Mr. Pickles : In replying to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend referred to the report of the British chambers of commerce. Did he see in that report that business confidence and business activity are both at high levels? Did he also note that the amount of export orders is at an all-time high? Given that trade union leaders, commentators and even economists now see an improvement– [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Opposition do not like improvements. Does my right hon. Friend, like me, look forward to the time when all hon. Members will welcome good economic news and talk Britain up rather than whinge?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend, of course, is right. Any good news for the economy is bad news for the Labour party. There has been a range of encouraging economic news, but we wish to see far more–to that extent, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition. There has been a range of encouraging economic information- -retail sales are up, exports are up, manufacturing output is up, car production is up, house sales are up and business confidence is up. That is leading to a position whereby Britain will be on the up.

    Mrs. Roche : Given the appalling record of Group 4 prison escort services, will the Prime Minister urge his right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is the chairman of the Tory party, to resign from another Group 4 company?

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

    Mrs. Gillan : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the overwhelming vote in Italy against proportional representation– [Interruption.] Does it not reinforce my right hon. Friend’s view that the first-past-the-post system is the best one, and delivers decisive, democratic and honest government? Will he join me, 32 million Italians and the deputy Leader of the Opposition in recommending the first-past-the-post system to the Leader of the Opposition and the Front-Bench team?

    The Prime Minister : This is, of course, a divisive issue, which divides, not least, the Labour party as to whether it is in favour of proportional representation. I have never made any secret of my views on proportional representation. It is one of the few matters on which I share the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. While others have tried to dance on the head of a pin during the election, the Conservative party campaigned four- square for the existing system. It has brought us over many decades stable and secure government. I hope that it will do the same for the Italians. The Italians are right to scrap the backstairs deals that inevitably come with PR.

    Mr. Salmond : Talking of back stairs, does the Prime Minister believe–

    [Hon. Members] : Back stairs

    Madam Speaker : Order. All these interruptions are very time- consuming.

    Mr. Salmond : Does the Prime Minister believe that the provisions of the social chapter are popular or unpopular with the general public? Does he intend to include in his European speech this evening a passage expressing thanks to the leader of the Labour party for saving his political bacon in the referendum vote in the early hours of this morning?

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Gentleman will, as he always does, read my speech with great care.

    Mr. Hood : Send him a letter.

    The Prime Minister : I will not promise to send the hon. Gentleman a letter on this matter but, at the risk of leaking my own speech, he may not find the sentence that he seeks in it this evening.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ward : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

    Mr. Ward : Will my right hon. Friend speed up the efforts being made to prevent British industry and commerce being stifled by over-regulation? Is he aware that there is still much evidence that officials are being over-zealous in the interpretations of health, safety and fire regulations, with the resulting damage to British commerce and industry?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right that unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy–I emphasise the word unnecessary– stifle industry and enterprise. I also agree with him that we have to beware of over-implementation of regulations whether from Whitehall, Brussels, county hall or town hall. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my other right hon. Friends are all examining regulations to see what might satisfactorily be diluted or scrapped. This will be a continuing programme and I hope that we shall be able to bring measures before the House before too long.

    Mr. Hood : Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to restate his confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Would he like to describe his position as unsellable?

    The Prime Minister : I know that I am keen on exports, but there is a limit.

     

    Thurlestone Hotel, South Devon

    Q5. Mr. Steen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the Thurlestone hotel in South Devon.

    The Prime Minister : Although I have no current plans to do so, I will certainly bear the possibility in mind for my next visit to the west country. I understand, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage met the proprietor, Mr. David Grose, when he visited the area last Friday. I gather that the hotel has been in the same family since the 1890s and even in difficult times has been expanding its business.

    Mr. Steen : When my right hon. Friend does come to the hotel, I think that he will be fascinated to take a look at the decor, because every room in the hotel is covered in a plethora of red tape. I suggest that the Prime Minister should get hold of the new officials who are zealously interpreting the rules and regulations and make sure that they do not destroy hotels and small businesses. In particular, he should have regard for the undercover operations of the hygiene police.

    Will my right hon. Friend, in his deregulation initiative, make sure that he gets rid of a number of public officials and puts a moratorium on the implementation of rules and regulations–and lifts the burden of such rules and regulations off the backs of the hoteliers?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is well known as a champion both of the south-west and of deregulation. I know how important both are to him and I will take careful note of what he has to say. We certainly wish to cut as much red tape as possible.

    Mr. Hume : When the Prime Minister visits this hotel in Devon, will he give consideration to the fact that this generation of human beings is living through the greatest economic revolution in the history of the world –a technological, telecommunications and transport revolution? Will he bear in mind that it means that the wealth of society is being created by far fewer people and that that in turn has great implications for the role of the state in the social and economic welfare of people? The Government should therefore be paying far greater attention to the role of the state in that capacity, instead of heading in the direction in which they are going : privatisation, survival of the fittest and, ultimately, the law of the jungle.

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right about the fact that this is likely to be one of the most rapidly changing decades in peacetime in the lifetime of even the most venerable Members in the House.

    Technological change is inevitable and should be welcomed. It brings with it great benefits. I know that many people always fear that any technological change will have an adverse effect on jobs. I am sure that that argument was advanced when the wheel and a whole series of other inventions were thought up. We must live with technological change ; we must advance it ; we must make the most of it ; and we must lead it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 April 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Iran and Iraq (Weapons)

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what was the policy of Her Majesty’s Government towards export of lethal weapons for Iran and Iraq from 1979 to 1985; and if he will list each occasion on which changes in the policy were announced to the House.

    The Prime Minister : Restrictions on the export of lethal weapons to Iran were introduced following the seizure of the American hostages in 1979. Restrictions were introduced on Iraq following the outbreak of the Iran/Iraq conflict in 1980. Guidelines applying to all deliveries of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq were introduced in December 1984. They were announced to the House on 29 October 1985 by my noble and learned Friend, Lord Howe of Aberavon, then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The guidelines were as follows :

    (i) we should maintain our consistent refusal to supply any lethal equipment to either side;

    (ii) subject to that overriding consideration, we should attempt to fulfil existing contracts and obligations;

    (iii) we should not, in future, approve orders for any defence equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict;

    (iv) in line with this policy, we should continue to scrutinise rigorously all applications for export licences for the supply of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq.

     

    Liverpool

    Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Liverpool in the near future.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him yesterday at column 178.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 April 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Council of Ministers

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister what were the details of the last formal vote that was taken in a meeting of a Council of Ministers in the European Community; and if he will list the date of each subsequent meeting at which no formal votes were taken.

    The Prime Minister : The last formal vote in the Council of Ministers was that taken on the proposed arrangements for bananas in the single market during the Agriculture Council on 13 February. Details were given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 3 March at column 192. No formal votes were taken at the following Councils : ECOFIN on 15 February, Consumer Affairs on 2 March, Foreign Affairs on 8 and 9 March, ECOFIN on 15 March, Transport on 15 March, Agriculture on 16 and 17 March, Fisheries on 18 March, Environment on 22 and 23 March, Foreign Affairs on 5 April, Employment and Social Affairs on 6 April, and ECOFIN on 19 April.

     

    49 Whitehall

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those Government Departments having offices at No. 49 Whitehall, London SW1.

    The Prime Minister : There is no Government occupation of 49 Whitehall. I assume that the hon. Member refers to 49/53 Parliament street, SW1 which is occupied by the Office of Public Service and Science–major occupier–the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security.

     

    Derbyshire

    Q10. Mr. Hendry : To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to pay an official visit to Derbyshire.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Derbyshire among them.

  • PMQT – 20 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

    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. Parry : Will the Prime Minister today decide when he intends to visit Liverpool, where he can meet local trade union leaders to discuss the very high level of unemployment? Incidentally, he might visit Liverpool, Riverside, which has the highest level of unemployment in England, Scotland and Wales–32 per cent. Will he also consider visiting Liverpool next month for the commemoration of the battle of the Atlantic and western approaches? Her Majesty the Queen is coming and, in 1940, Mr. Winston Churchill, the then Prime Minister, came several times, as did King George VI. Will the Prime Minister consider coming there?

    The Prime Minister : I have indeed received an invitation to attend the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, in which Liverpool and its people played such a significant part. I have accepted that invitation and I look forward to that event very much indeed.

    I am aware of the very high level of unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It has fallen over recent years, but it is still far higher than in many areas in the United Kingdom and is one of the worst pockets of unemployment anywhere in the country. I will not be able to visit Riverside on this occasion, but I understand the particular problems faced by the hon. Gentleman and if he, with a small delegation of his constituents, wishes to come to see me to discuss the problem, I will be happy to meet them.

    Mr. Ottaway : Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of Norway’s largest ship owners, Gearbulk, has recently decided to relocate to London, giving as its reason that it wants to be at the centre of things? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates that Britain, with a low corporate tax structure and a Conservative Government, remains the best place in the world in which to do business?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of that piece of welcome news and I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has said. We very much welcome inward investment from both within and beyond the European Community. We are determined to maintain in this country the economic circumstances and the relatively low on-costs to employment which will continue to attract inward investment.

    Mr. John Smith : While it is essential that the sanctions against Serbia be intensified and properly enforced, as indeed they should have been months ago, is it not now necessary for a clear ultimatum to be issued to the Serbs that they will not be allowed to continue their aggression unchecked and that, if they continue that aggression, their lines of supply within Bosnia will be subject to air attack?

    The Prime Minister : We had a lengthy statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday in which he set out the present position and the discussions we are having with our partners in the United Nations. The House recognised yesterday that the road to further action, particularly if it leads to military action, which is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question implied, is fraught with peril. Once one goes down it, there is no turning back. We must first be confident that that is the right direction.

    Mr. John Smith : While there are risks in any course of action, and I would not seek to minimise them, do not they have to be weighed carefully against the possibly greater risks of non-action? Surely what is badly needed is a demonstration of United Nations determination. How will the Government respond, for example, if the Serbs proceed to take the crucial towns of Gorazde and Zepa? Should not they be warned now that such action on their part will not be tolerated?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend say again yesterday, we are not excluding those options ; we are considering them seriously and discussing them with our allies. I have spoken recently with both the French and American Presidents, but we have not yet reached a decision about the balance of advantage in those particular courses. They could cause fighting to escalate, civilian casualties to rise and an end to the humanitarian operation.

    On that last point, I remind the House that it was the expectation in the House some months ago that over the winter hundreds of thousands of Bosnians would die of starvation and lack of medicine. That has not happened because we have managed to sustain the humanitarian operation. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I would willingly throw that away.

    Mr. Dickens : Following the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of many British citizens who were members of a cult in the United States of America, will my right hon. Friend have conversations with the Home Secretary with a view to setting up a working party to see how we can best limit the recruitment of British citizens into those evil cults?

    The Prime Minister : There are a number of undesirable cults and I share my hon. Friend’s concern. It would be difficult to focus legislation to restrict the establishment of cults or religious movements because it would be difficult to determine what groups should be included in the legislation and what groups should be excluded. However, we have powers under the criminal law and we are prepared and willing to use them to regulate the behaviour of individuals when they may infringe the rights of other people. We also have powers under the immigration laws to prohibit the entry of people who may wish to establish such cults, if it is thought that they would be damaging to our interests.

    Mr. Ashdown : In the Prime Minister’s previous answer, he rightly referred to the importance of humanitarian aid. Has he noticed that today the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has called for the establishment of a United Nations protected safe haven in Zepa and Gorazde? How will he respond to that question?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will know that the UNHCR wants to set up safe areas by agreement with the parties in those areas and does not want the United Nations to be an active participant in the conflict. To that extent, it differs quite radically from the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to me about some days ago.

    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there has to be further military intervention in Bosnia, it should be done under NATO command with American participation, backed by United Nations resolutions supported by Russia?

    The Prime Minister : I see no other circumstances in which it would be practicable to expect any military authority to be there and to succeed. Anything short of action in the circumstances set out by my hon. Friend would be unacceptable and would be unlikely to be agreed. Those are only the circumstances, but I stress that that would be a very grave step and it is not yet the policy of any of the major Governments in the United Nations.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Ross : Has the Prime Minister had a chance to study the public sector borrowing requirement figure announced today? Does he realise that £9.5 billion is the highest recorded figure of any Government for any one month? It is £1 million more than the Chancellor announced in his Budget last month. Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many forecasters, who believe that that points to a real underlying problem about our economy? What is he going to do about it?

    The Prime Minister : It is an interesting question from the hon. Gentleman. I hope I can assume from it that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about borrowing that he will support our new controls on public spending. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in imposing limits on public sector pay and on keeping caps on council spending. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why he supported the Delors proposals for Community spending which would have cost us millions. He might explain why his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said that he was prepared to debate with the Community over our rebate. All those matters relate to our borrowing requirement ; upon none of them have we ever had the support of the hon. Gentleman or any right hon. or hon. Member in his party. Words from him about restraints on public spending are very hollow indeed.

     

    Q3. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that teachers have a moral duty to do their very best for their pupils and that that means carrying out testing this summer? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Britain spends a higher percentage of its GDP on education than Germany and Japan, but that in Germany children are taught and tested over 1,260 hours per year, whereas children in Britain are taught for as little as 850 hours per year and would remain untested if some teacher unions have their way, supported by the disruptive attitude of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : As a former head teacher, my hon. Friend speaks with particular authority on this matter. A boycott of testing would certainly not be in the interests of our children. We need tests–and need them this year–as Sir Ron Dearing, among others, has made clear. My hon. Friend is right that our principal competitors have national curricula and regular testing. Any attempt to sabotage our reforms could damage our long- term ability to compete and damage the education of our children.

     

    Q5. Mr. Llwyd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Llwyd : The Prime Minister will be aware of the recent integrated administration control system forms which have been issued at the behest of the European Community. These are a great headache to the farming community because they are time limited ; they have to be in by 15 May. Farmers also have to have plans mapped out in hectares. In my constituency, for example, only two thirds of land has been surveyed for that purpose. I urge the Prime Minister and his colleagues to ask the EC to extend the time limit and to consider defraying the expenses of those who have spent on survey fees privately for this purpose.

    The Prime Minister : There are difficulties with this and I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Although I doubt whether it is feasible to extend the time limit, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture is seeking to help farmers in that situation within the rules of the terms of the scheme. Maps that can be used are available, but we have always recognised that some farmers may have difficulty getting maps of the right scale. Where maps cannot be obtained, farmers should provide the best alternative that they can.

     

    South Africa

    Q6. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has recently made to, or received from, the South African Government regarding political change in South Africa.

    The Prime Minister : We are in regular contact at all levels with the South African Government and other parties involved in the current constitutional negotiations. I shall be seeing Mr. Mandela and Chief Buthelezi in the next few weeks. I am also in touch with President de Klerk.

    Mr. Hunter : As the tragedy of South Africa unfolds and, for the time being, the men of violence have their way, will my right hon. Friend urge President de Klerk not to give ground to the enemies of democracy or mob rule, but, rather, to continue negotiations, especially with moderate black leaders, so that the new South Africa may be better than the old?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend knows South Africa well and I agree with him that negotiations are the only way to reach the goal of a non-racial, democratic South Africa. The concessions that the ANC is seeking, covering both the election date and the establishment of a transitional executive council, are matters for the constitutional negotiations. I urge all parties to address issues in that forum.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Connarty : Has the Prime Minister had, as I have, the shared joy of being present at the birth of his children? Does he share with me and the Royal College of Midwives deep concern at the massive increase in the use of Caesarian sections in all parts of the United Kingdom? Is he aware that I have been told in parliamentary replies that the rate has risen from 5.3 to 13 per cent. in England and to 14 per cent. in Scotland and that women are now threatened in one out of eight cases with surgery in what should be the pleasant experience of childbirth? Does he think that it is time that we had a childbirth charter to protect women from the scalpel when they should have a normal childbirth?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the first part of the question is yes, on two occasions. The second part is essentially a matter for the individual mother and her surgeon and doctor. I confess that I was not aware of the growth of Caesarian section births and it is a matter which, in the light of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 April 1993

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Honours System

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister how many individuals have written to him since his statement of 8 March proposing themselves as recipients of honours.

    The Prime Minister : Over 1,600 names have been put forward to the honours nominations unit since I made my statement to the House on changes to the honours system. Based on a check of a sample of the nominations, it is likely that about a dozen are self-nominations.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister how many staff were employed at No. 10 Downing Street to administer the honours system in 1992 : and what increase in their number is planned.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 15 April 1993] : The honours section in 10 Downing Street consisted of six staff in 1992. Numbers will be kept under review in the normal way to reflect changes in the work load.

     

    Sir John Cuckney

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what Government tasks are currently carried out by Sir John Cuckney.

    The Prime Minister : Sir John Cuckney is currently chairman of the Maxwell Pensioners Trust and adviser to the Department of Social Security’s Maxwell pensions unit. Both appointments were made by the Secretary of State for Social Security. In addition, Sir John serves as a trustee of the Royal Air Force museum, an appointment made by the Secretary of State for Defence.

     

    Pakistan

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Pakistan.

    The Prime Minister : I am keen to take up an invitation from the Pakistan Prime Minister to visit Pakistan, and will do so when time permits.

     

    Political Parties (Donations)

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to prevent the use of bank loans from offshore tax havens to political parties in the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 18 March, at column 357.

     

    BCCI

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received concerning compensation for the victims of BCCI.

    The Prime Minister : I have received numerous representations.

     

    Royal Bank of Scotland

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what Government Departments hold bank accounts with the Royal Bank of Scotland; and which of those accounts are at Drummonds branch.

    The Prime Minister : No central records are maintained showing which Departments use which banks. Government Departments may use the services of clearing banks without reference to the Treasury when the arrangements offer good value for money.

     

    India

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Indian High Commissioner following the bomb blasts in Bombay in March.

    The Prime Minister : I expressed my personal sympathy to the Indian high commissioner as soon as I heard of the explosions and loss of life in Bombay, and also sent messages to the Indian Prime Minister and the Governor of Bombay conveying condolences and offering practical help.

     

    Local Authorities (Private Capital)

    Mr. Blunkett : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to lift restrictions governing the use of private capital by local authorities, laid down in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

    The Prime Minister : We have no such plans. However, it is already open to local authorities to enter into partnerships with the private sector and draw upon private finance.

     

    Mr. Salman Rushdie

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister when he now expects to meet Mr. Salman Rushdie.

    The Prime Minister : I expect to meet Mr. Rushdie shortly.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 April 1993

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if the costs of legal and other advisers attending the Scott inquiry will be covered by the resources made available by Her Majesty’s Government to support Lord Justice Scott’s investigation;

    (2) what criteria will govern the repayment of costs for witnesses at the Scott inquiry; and what expenses will be regarded as reasonable.

    The Prime Minister : The inquiry will meet the expenses of a witness or adviser necessarily incurred in attending to give evidence to the inquiry. Legal costs will be met by the inquiry if Lord Justice Scott decides that they were necessary in the interests of justice. They will be assessed by the costs branch of the Treasury Solicitor’s Department on the standard basis (as defined in order 62, r.12(1) of the rules of the Supreme Court). The legal costs of Government witnesses or advisers will be met by the Department in which they were serving at the relevant time.