The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Text of the NATO Agreement – The Situation in Yugoslavia – 8 November 1991

    Below is the text of the NATO Agreement on The Situation in Yugoslavia, issued on 8th November 1991.

    THE SITUATION IN YUGOSLAVIA

    1 – We, the Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, are deeply concerned by the current crisis in Yugoslavia and the grave danger it poses to stability in the region. We deplore the tragic loss of life, the intimidation of civilian populations and the extensive destruction of property.

    2 – It is only for the peoples of Yugoslavia themselves to decide on their country’s future. We call on all parties to comply fully with the principles of the CSCE. All attempts to change existing borders through the use of force or a policy of fait accompli are unacceptable; we will not recognise any unilateral change of borders, external or internal, brought about by such means.

    3 – We condemn the use of force to achieve political goals. Continuing attacks by the Yugoslav National Army on Dubrovnik and other Croatian cities are out of all proportion to any provocation, ceasefire violation or requirement to protect Serbian communities or Army garrisons. We call on all parties to respect ceasefire agreements. Commitments for deblocking of barracks and withdrawal of JNA forces, to which parties subscribed on 18th October in the Hague and were reaffirmed on 5th November, have not been complied with. We remind all those responsible for acts of violence in Yugoslavia and for violations of ceasefire agreements that under international law they are personally accountable for their actions in contravention of relevant norms of international humanitarian law.

    4 – We express our support and appreciation for the efforts of the European Community, the CSCE and the Security Council of the United Nations to resolve this crisis. We urge all parties to cooperate fully with the European Community in its efforts under the mandate given to it by the CSCE, both in the implementation of ceasefire and monitoring agreements and in the negotiating process within the Conference on Yugoslavia.

    5 – We welcome Lord Carrington’s efforts to provide a framework in which the peoples of Yugoslavia can solve their differences. We urge all parties concerned to agree on a peaceful resolution in the framework of the Hague Conference on Yugoslavia. The prospect of recognition of the independence of those republics wishing it, can only be envisaged in the framework of an overall settlement, that includes adequate guarantees for the protection of human rights and rights of national or ethnic groups. The right to self-determination of all the peoples in Yugoslavia cannot be exercised in isolation from the interests and rights of national or ethnic groups within the individual republics. Authorities at all levels should respect international norms and international obligations, especially those embodied in the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, and other CSCE documents.

    6 – We welcome the measures agreed by the European Community and its member states at the meeting of Foreign Ministers on 8th November.

    7 – We encourage all efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to the victims of the conflict, both inside and outside Yugoslavia, involving the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Red Cross. We urge all sides to allow humanitarian supplies to reach the communities in need and the many persons displaced by the fighting.

  • Text of the NATO Agreement – Developments in the Soviet Union – 8 November 1991

    Below is the text of the NATO Agreement on Developments in the Soviet Union, issued on 8th November 1991.

    DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SOVIET UNION

    1 – We, the Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, warmly welcome the historic events that are fundamentally transforming the Soviet Union as we have known it and the relationships among the republics. By their resolute and courageous stand against the illegal coup of 19th August, the men and women of the Soviet union have affirmed their determination to build a new future based upon democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and economic liberty. The nations of the Atlantic Alliance pledge themselves to assist in this great endeavour. We are prepared to build our relationships with the Soviet Union and the republics on the basis of the following fundamental principles that have guided our own policies and practices for decades.

    2 – It is for the peoples of the Soviet Union to decide their future relationship through peaceful and democratic means. At the same time, we encourage them to progress towards a common ground of cooperation, both among themselves and with us. In this process, there is no place for threats, intimidation, coercion or violence. Authorities at all levels should respect international norms and international obligations, especially those embodied in the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, and other CSCE documents. Consistent with these commitments, government must be based on democracy through free and fair elections, and on the rule of law. Inalienable human rights must be guaranteed, including full respect for the individual and protection of the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

    3 – In a period of dramatic political change, it is important also to the development of our relations that leaders of the Soviet Union and the republics implement policies that contribute to international peace and security. in this respect, it is critical that the Soviet Union and the republics take all necessary actions to ensure that international agreements signed by the USSR, especially the START Treaty, the CFE Treaty, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Biological Weapons Convention are respected, ratified, and implemented. We call upon all authorities to refrain from any steps that could lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons or other means of mass destruction. We therefore welcome the intention of the Soviet leadership to ensure the safe, responsible and reliable control of these weapons under a single authority. This matter affects the security interests of the entire Atlantic Alliance, as well as those of the international community as a whole. The Soviet and republic governments should adopt firm measures to prevent the export of nuclear or other potentially destabilising military technologies. We urge restraint in the development of conventional military forces that by their size and character could exacerbate political tensions, retard market economic reform, and contradict efforts toward lower and more stable levels of forces as embodied in the CFE Treaty. Because it reduces the dangers of instability and enhances openness, the CFE Treaty is in everyone’s interest, including those of the Soviet union and the republics.

    4 – The Allies are firmly convinced that political change should be accompanied by economic liberty and the building of market economies. We support the development of economic policies that promote trade and economic cooperation among republics in the interest of growth and stability. In this context, it is essential that all the republics assume their appropriate responsibilities vis-à-vis Soviet international obligations, which would facilitate integration of the Union and the republics. into the world economy. Newly established links with the international financial institutions should facilitate rapid reform towards the development of a market economy as the basis for economic recovery and prosperity for the Union and the republics. The Allies stand ready to assist in this historic undertaking, including through technical assistance in key sectors. In addition, we are providing humanitarian support to the Soviet peoples as they cope with the political and economic crises that confront them. We consider such assistance a vital contribution to the future security of Europe and of the world as a whole.

    5 – We hope that leaders and authorities at all levels throughout the Union and the republics will demonstrate their commitment to the values and principles we have reaffirmed in this statement.

    6 – The North Atlantic Council will continue to consult actively on developments in the Soviet Union, with a view to harmonising our approach towards unfolding events.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Rome – 8 November 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s press conference, held in Rome on Friday 8th November 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think in the last couple of days we have seen a very successful conference indeed, we have seen one that has successfully completed the work that was set in hand in London just over a year ago and there are a number of points to which I would particularly like to draw your attention.

    We have agreed the reorganisation of our forces which will now be more flexible and more mobile. And there has been complete agreement amongst the allies that we will need to maintain effective nuclear as well as conventional forces, but of course at lower levels than previously. For example, our theatre nuclear weapons will be cut by around 80 percent.

    We have also been able to endorse the role of the Alliance’s new reaction forces and again I suspect you were aware that Britain will command the new rapid reaction corps.

    We have also reaffirmed NATO’s position as the essential forum for consultation among the allies and the forum for agreement on policy bearing on the security and defence commitments of all its members, and we regard that as very important.

    The Alliance has always been an organisation designed to defend the peace but its role is changing, Now we are increasingly seeing an Alliance that is promoting the peace as well. As you will have seen from the declaration, we have agreed to set up a North Atlantic Cooperation Council to conduct a continuing dialogue with the countries of Eastern Europe and at Britain’s suggestion its first meeting will be at Foreign Minister level in December and I think it has now been agreed that that will be in Brussels.

    That is a remarkable achievement. Two years ago many of the countries of Eastern Europe were calling for both the Warsaw Pact and for NATO to be dismantled. The Warsaw Pact has now disappeared but the countries of Eastern Europe have come to see the valuable role NATO can play in seeking to underpin their democracy.

    But I think the important point is this. We are not just talking to each other, it will go a good deal further than that. We shall be offering education and training, advice on the conversion of defence industries and encouragement to Eastern European countries to join with us in the West in halting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

    We have also had an interesting discussion of events in the Soviet Union. l think it is self-evident to everyone in this room that the Soviet Union is changing very rapidly and very unpredictably as well. The problem of food shortages this winter is one we are well aware of. We discussed that collectively and I discussed it bilaterally with President Bush yesterday as well. I have also been in touch with the President of the European Commission over the last two days.

    Within the G7 countries we have been coordinating an international effort to provide food aid, effectively targeted to the areas that we believe will most need it. There is an urgent need to get food aid on its way. Within the European Community we have already agreed aid worth nearly 2.5 billion dollars. But the problems of the Soviet Union of, course go a good deal wider than simply food aid and we have to try and help them to achieve democracy with stability, that is we believe what they are seeking for themselves and to the extent that we can help with that we believe that we should.

    Economically, our ability to help the republics of the Soviet Union must depend on their willingness to shoulder their share of the burden of Soviet debt and politically we must encourage them to ratify and apply the main arms control treaties agreed by the former Soviet Union.

    The Soviet Union must also stop wasting its scarce resources on vast military programmes inherited from the past and far beyond its present needs. It makes no sense economically and would be very dangerous politically for the republics to seek to build up their own forces. These issues will be one of our central preoccupations over the immediate months ahead.

    The Alliance’s new strategic concept and the declaration reflect the view expressed by all of us that Europe should be doing more for its own defence and both the texts also reflect agreement that we should not be talking about transatlantic defence and European defence as though they were alternatives. Defence activities within the framework of political union will to doubt develop over time but it must be compatible with what we are doing in NATO.

    And there are three important principles in the declaration and in the strategic concept to which I would particularly draw your attention. Firstly, NATO should remain the forum for decisions on matters involving the defence of the Alliance. Secondly, as we create new European capabilities there should be no duplication of NATO’s military structures for the defence of western Europe, that is what is meant by the reference to operational coherence and strategic unity in the documents published today. And thirdly, the Western European Union should be reinforced as a means of strengthening the European pillar of the Alliance and we should make sure that all allies are properly involved in decisions that may involve their security.

    That reflects our view that the Western European Union, although politically very close to the Union and its foreign and security policy, should remain autonomous, subordinate neither to the union nor to NATO.

    The Foreign Ministers also met this morning to discuss Yugoslavia and on that occasion they heard a fairly sombre report from Lord Carrington. On the political front the Serbians remain unwilling to make good use of Lord Carrington’s peace conference and the proposals that we have made. On the military front there is now new and serious fighting, this time in Zagreb itself.

    Our judgment is that the outside world must now find new ways of bringing the leaders and the forces to their senses. For that reason the European Community has decided today to dismantle its links with Yugoslavia. We shall in particular suspend the trade and cooperation agreement which will have a serious effect on Yugoslav exports to the Community. And these are new measures, not old measures revisited.

    The three Community members of the Security Council have agreed they will press at the United Nations for an oil embargo, it would bear more heavily on the Serbs and the Yugoslav National Army, the largely Serbian Yugoslav Army. We shall also look for positive measures to alleviate the effect of sanctions on those parties which cooperate with, the peace efforts.

    Lord Carrington in the future will of course continue his efforts, but the peace conference needs clear signs that all the parties to the peace conference are ready to work seriously for peace if that conference is to proceed.

    That was the substance of the agreement amongst the Foreign Ministers this morning and that was endorsed subsequently by the Heads of Government.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Nik Gowing, Channel 4 News):

    Prime Minister, what kind of benchmark on defence issues has been created by the text reference to the WEU in advance of your discussions before Maastricht?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There was complete agreement about the essential primacy of NATO at the discussions, that we have had over the last 2 days, there was no dissent on that point from anyone at all, neither was there any suggestions from any part of the conference that there should be any other command structure or operational structure other than that which exists through the Western European Union and through NATO. There is a general agreement that the Western European Union should be built up as the European arm of NATO, that is entirely acceptable. That is what was agreed and nothing further was agreed, there was no suggestion of subordination of the Western European Union to the European Community.

    QUESTION (Jim Hoglan, Washington Post):

    You have just said that there is an urgent need to get food aid on its way to the Soviet Union, can you tell us whether the delay in doing that, the remaining obstacle in doing that, has to do with the inability of the Western powers to organise that aid or the problems of knowing who to give it to in the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The primary concern is knowing precisely where the food aid is going to have to go and determining how to get it there. The Community has agreed something over 2.25 billion pounds worth of food aid, there has been an offer from other sources as well. There is a need to coordinate that, it would be rather silly of the Western powers collectively to deliver the wrong sort of aid at the wrong time to the wrong place in the Soviet Union. So there is a need for a good deal of coordination and that coordination is at present in hand, how rapidly it will be concluded I cannot say, but I would certainly hope that we would be able to make those facilities available to the Soviets well before Christmas.

    QUESTION (Graham Leech, BBC):

    Following Nik Gowing’s question, the declaration does refer to the reinforcement of the role of the WEU as the defence component which would suggest a leaning towards the Franco-German ideas rather than the Anglo-Italian ideas?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With respect, I think it suggests precisely the opposite. The idea of building up the Western European Union is one that arouses no difficulty amongst any of the European partners in the Alliance, there is agreement that it is right for Europe to bear a proportionately larger share of the transatlantic NATO burden – that is generally agreed.

    The point at issue really is what the nature of the Western European Union subsequently will be and what its links will be both with NATO and with the European Community. There has been no suggestion in the discussions that we have had over the past two days, and nothing in the declarations, to suggest that the independence of the European Community and of NATO should change insofar as the western European Union is concerned and we believe on the basis of that that it is a helpful text.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It means that Europe is going to build up its own share of the Alliance through the Western European Union, but the Western European Union remains wholly a part of NATO and will be operational within NATO.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    If there is general agreement on the primacy of NATO why didn’t the Alliance take the opportunity to affirm it in so many words and what prospect do you see for NATO operating as an out of area military policeman?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no question that NATO is the prime method of our defence, it is a matter which is accepted without any need for it actually to be stated. I think one exchange during the meeting is perhaps more illustrative than the text. President Bush said at one stage during the meeting: “if it is actually the wish of the Europeans that the Americans should not continue as at present they have and that NATO ought not to continue as it has, then perhaps they should say so.” The Europeans responded to that by saying precisely the reverse, there is a very strong support for NATO operating as it does now and that was not Contradicted by anyone in the conference we have had over the past two days.

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph):

    Chancellor Kohl is said to have invited or be about to invite the Presidents of Slovenia and Croatia to Bonn very shortly to discuss the conditions for German recognition of their two republics and Prime Minister Martens of Belgium has said that he doesn’t think Germany will wait much more than beyond the end of this month before recognising them on its own. Is that something you would welcome and what will you be saying to Chancellor Kohl when you meet him in the course of the next few days?

    My other question is about this WEU business. How far could you accept orders, mandates, suggestions being passed down from the European Council to the WEU? If it is not going to be subordinate, what relationship will it have with the EC?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Western European Union is not technically part of NATO – I think I should make that clear – but it will serve to strengthen the Alliance. We do see an organic link, a relationship, between the Western European Union and NATO and the European Community. There is very substantial common membership in it but we do not see it as being subordinate to the European Council and taking orders from the European Council or having its own policies agreed collectively within the European Council and Britain will not accept that. That is not a matter of dispute. We will not accept that and no-one has argued for that over the past two days.

    On the earlier point about Croatia, I am not going to comment on what Chancellor Kohl may or may not do at some stage in the future. I will no doubt have the opportunity of discussing this and other matters with him when I see him on Sunday and I am looking forward to that but I think that recognition is a little way down the road.

    The Foreign Secretary was involved in the discussions this morning; he may want to add something.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    We discussed the extent to which we should continue to act together in this matter and everybody agreed we must so I don’t think there is any question of individual EC member states acting on recognition by themselves. If you look at the Declaration that we put out it said in this respect they recall that the prospect of recognition of the independence of those republics wishing it can only be envisaged in the framework of an overall settlement that includes adequate guarantees for the protection of human rights and the rights of national or ethnic groups, i.e. there is a good deal of work still to be done.

    QUESTION (David Osborne, The Independent):

    To return to the European Defence Identity and the WEU, just as you are doing so here, President Mitterrand a few minutes ago expressed his complete satisfaction with the text and said he could ask for no more. Has anything happened here that makes you more confident that the differences between yourselves and the French in particular on this can be settled in time for Maastricht so that the defence question will not be an obstacle at Maastricht.

    On the Declaration of the Soviet Union, President Mitterrand said that he voted against it because he felt that parts of it made NATO look as if it were a preaching monk to the Soviet Union. Perhaps you could comment on his dissension on that point?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sorry the French were isolated on that point but that is a matter for President Mitterrand, not me.

    On the earlier question of the Western European Union and NATO, I am encouraged by the discussion over the past couple of days and encouraged particularly because of the huge common ground there was about the role of NATO, the central and prime importance of NATO – that was not, I repeat again, questioned by anybody; it was endorsed by everybody and on the basis of that, it seems to me unlikely that anybody is going to take action that would seek to undermine NATO’s position either in the short or the medium term so I think the whole of the discussion that we have had over the past few days has been very encouraging about the future of NATO, people’s allegiance to NATO and the prospect of the Western Europeans building up the Western European Union as the European pillar of the NATO Alliance.

    QUESTION (Hella Pick, The Guardian):

    If I could follow up on what you have just been saying – indeed everybody else – what a wonderful achievement NATO is able to record here, if you put this in the context of the Soviet crisis, do you think that NATO or indeed anyone in the West is really able to respond to the challenge that is coming from here and in particular, how do you envisage crisis management and the maintenance of peace and stability that has been outlined in these Declarations?

    In your capacity as Chairman of the G7, do you intend to offer any more substantial aid now to the Soviet Union beyond the emergency food aid which you have mentioned? On the position of the G7, do you feel able to proceed with any massive injection of capital and other forms of aid to the Soviet Union for economic restructuring or do you think all this is now being halted by their inability to meet their present debt obligations and the uncertainties in the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The latter points are under continuing discussion with G7 Deputies and elsewhere but when we are quite clear what the situation is, we will be able to make a decision. I am afraid if you have in mind help in the nature of balance of payments help or debt help, which I suspect you did have, I think substantial decisions on that are still some way away.

    On food aid, there is no doubt in principle about our willingness to assist and I set out earlier the fact that I believe we will need to have some of that aid in place this side of Christmas and it may be that what we would have in place would be the stand-by credits rather than the physical delivery of food but there is a great deal of information that we still need before we can be entirely clear what is required and where.

    As to the future role of NATO and whether it can play a role, I think there are several things that suggest that it can and there are helpful signs. One of them, of course, is the extent to which the Eastern European states now support the retention of NATO, are very keen to have a relationship with NATO and the discussions that will take place in the newly-formed Cooperation Council. They will begin, as I indicated earlier, at Foreign Minister level. Quite how they will continue after that is not entirely clear but I suspect they will continue at ambassadorial level; that is the most likely outcome and it does mean that we will have a continuing relationship with the Eastern European nations and will be able to deal with matters on a regular basis and hopefully iron out difficulties before they become international sores. That is the intention so the role of NATO is changing to the extent that it is seeking to promote peace rather than simply defend ourselves if our own security is threatened.

    QUESTION (Mark Laity, BBC):

    Relating to that, do you see the Cooperation Council ever ultimately leading to some form of associate membership, security guarantee or full membership for nations and relating to that, yesterday you were quite in favour of an expanded out-of-area role for NATO and a proposal which was included in the communique at one point is not there so was there a problem over getting any out-of-area commitment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the subject of associate membership, I think it is a little early to say. I certainly would not rule that out in the long term but I think it is self-evident there are a clear number of difficulties with that in the short term and I don’t envisage that as being a short-term option but I certainly think the developing relationship is attractive, is necessary and will prove effective.

    On the out-of-area role, I was casting my mind forward to future roles for NATO; it wasn’t a matter that was under substantive discussion this weekend so it was neither agreed nor disagreed.

    QUESTION (Robert Morton, Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, on the WEU you said that Britain doesn’t see this organisation as being subordinate to the European Community institutions nor taking orders from them. At the same, you said there will be some link with the European Community. What sort of link are you thinking of exactly?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When I said it wasn’t subordinate, I was referring of course particularly to some of the aspects in the Franco-German text some time ago which held out the prospect that the Western European Union would be subordinate to the European Council. That is not acceptable to us and we have made that clear but there are going to be, I trust, what are called “organic links”. The European Council can give guidelines, it can set out what it thinks and it has a very substantial common membership with the Western European Union but operationally the Western European Union cannot be subordinate to the European Council – that is the core point of substance upon which we feel most strongly.

    QUESTION (Peter Jenkins, The Independent):

    Following up what you said a moment ago, would you agree that the enlargement of NATO to the East is now effectively on the long-term agenda and if not, could you state precisely what the short-term difficulties that you mentioned a moment ago – associate membership and so on – precisely what they are?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just take the question in the larger sense first:

    I have argued in the past for the desirability of the European Community itself also making it clear that when Eastern European countries are economically ready we should admit them into the European Community. The structure of Europe is changing. It follows, I think inexorably as night follows day, that if I think it is proper in the medium-term for the Eastern European nations to join the European Community, I would not object to the Eastern European nations also joining in the defence establishment for the security of the West – NATO – but I think it is some time away.

    The sensitivity, of course, that exists at the moment is that if NATO were to readily accept entry into NATO of some of the Eastern European countries, I think that might well have an unsettling effect on other Eastern European nations, not least the Soviet republics, and I don’t think that is wise at the moment but I do think we should have this ongoing dialogue and as the years unfold no doubt other opportunities will present themselves.

    QUESTION (Ian Davidson, Financial Times):

    At the London NATO Summit, the Declaration referred to nuclear weapons which were described as “weapons of last resort”. In the new Strategic Concept, those words do not appear. Could you tell me whether there was any discussion in particular of the nature and role of nuclear weapons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, there was not. The concept of the use of nuclear weapons I think remains as it was before except that of course the volume – the quantity – of nuclear weapons has been substantially reduced in Europe by around 80 percent but it was not a matter of substantial discussion over the last few days.

    QUESTION (Michael Evans, The Times):

    Just wrapping up the WEU thing, apart from the point that you have already made very clearly about the WEU and its subordination or non-subordination, can you think or two or three other precise points which you will be making on this particular issue at Maastricht from which you will need satisfaction from the Germans, the French and others?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I can but if you mean am I going to outline them now, I am afraid no, I am not. I am in the midst of a round of discussions on European matters with our European colleagues. Over the period that I have been here, I have had discussions with Prime Minister Lubbers and a number of other European colleagues, Prime Minister Schluter I have met also, the Prime Minister da Silva of Portugal I have met and Prime Minister Adreotti of Italy, I am going to see Chancellor Kohl on Sunday, I will be seeing President Mitterrand, I have further meetings with other European leaders between now and Maastricht, so there is a great deal of bilateral discussion to be had upon the particular point that you raised and I think it has to be said upon one or two other points as well but I don’t want to elaborate on it now.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Today):

    You have been a bit dismissive this morning about Labour’s victory in Langbaurgh. The fact is they won and you lost. You have not won a by-election I think since Richmond and you were absolutely trounced by the Liberal Democrats up on Scotland. These are rather bad results for you, aren’t they?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did lose at Langbaurgh with a swing of 3.5 percent against us; we did lose at Hemsworth with a swing of 3 percent against us, both to Labour. The fact of the matter is that Labour need a 5.5 percent swing to win a general election from the Conservatives to Labour and in a by-election, after twelve years of government at the end of a recession with all the by-election factors that traditionally arise, they only managed to get about one-half of that swing. I think if I were a Labour Member of Parliament I would of course celebrate the two victories that they have had and I would enjoy that celebration because casting the trend of those victories forward, I would not expect as a Labour Member to win a general election on those figures and indeed they would not, so for that reason I think that although I regret the fact that we lost Langbaurgh, it was an astonishingly good result in many ways.

    The Conservative vote held up, the swing against the Conservatives in a by-election was remarkably low, not just in the history of the last couple of years of by-elections but if you go back through the history of the last fifteen or twenty years of by-elections you will find very few by-elections where the swing against the governing party in a Tory/Labour or indeed Labour/Tory marginal has been so small.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    I just wondered if we could ask you a question about the Scottish dimension because you yourself have devoted a lot of energy since you became Prime Minister to Scotland and yet the Tories now I think are level pegging as far as representation goes with the Liberals. Does this really make it conceivable that a Conservative Government, if you win the-next election, could go on governing Scotland where you don’t really have a mandate at all?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are jumping a long way ahead from a by-election to a general election. It is not all that long ago in this Parliament that the Liberals were getting swings from the Conservatives in by-elections as protests of something over 20 percent. This was half that and in many ways it is a rather unusual and odd by-election. There is certainly said to be a great deal of protest about the decision on Scottish regiments but I think it is a protest vote for this reason: because the Liberal Party’s policies would be to halve defence expenditure; that would be bound to affect Scottish regiments, indeed it is arguable that there might not be any Scottish regiments left, so I think it must be seen as a by-election protest vote.

    We are just coming out of recession, there were local issues in that particular by-election and that, I believe, is acknowledged not just by us but by everybody else who visited the by-election or knows anything about it.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep with Ruud Lubbers – 7 November 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Ruud Lubbers, held in Rome on Thursday 7th November 1991.

    QUESTION:

    What are you hoping to cover at this summit meeting?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are a number of important things to discuss at this meeting this week. Clearly it is an opportunity to reaffirm the primacy of NATO, I think that is central to what we will agree this week, and we clearly have to look at the emerging situation in central and Eastern Europe, that is a matter of very great importance. We need to determine in the changed circumstances one has seen over the past two years or so what the future strategy of NATO is going to be. I think they are the areas that we will spend some time discussing, they are extremely important, and I think we will reach conclusions that will be satisfactory to everyone.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, have you asked Mr Lubbers to organise a second European Summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nobody knows whether a second European Summit will be necessary, I very much doubt it, he is such a good President that we are confident that there will be great progress made and I hope we will reach agreement.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with President Bush- 7 November 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with President Bush, held in Rome on Thursday 7th November 1991.

    QUESTION:

    Do you expect any concrete [inaudible] European defence identity in the role of NATO?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I think that will all be smooth, don’t you Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Absolutely, we are all here to reinforce NATO.

    QUESTION:

    Can you really swear that the American [inaudible] role?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    We are going to have a sufficient force to take care of our obligation in our own national security interests and one of those fundamental national security interests is a vigorous participation in NATO, it is in the interests of the United States to do this as well as in the interests of the Alliance, so that is the way I would handle that one and I am just not going to leave here until every single member of NATO understands that, but I think they all do.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think that there is any doubt about it. Nowhere in Europe is there any wish to see any damage done to NATO and everywhere in Europe is there a total understanding that NATO has been a guarantor of our security for 40-odd years, that is how it has been, that is how it will stay.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, the position in Europe is that the Europeans feel they have to take a greater share of the overall burden and we all agree with that, it is the overall burden within the NATO [inaudible].

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 November 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th November 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Departments which no longer ensure that a ministerial reply is sent to letters from hon. Members; and if he will ensure that letters from hon. Members receive a ministerial reply.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    There has been no change in the existing practice.

     

    Cabinet Office (Costs)

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if there are any proposals to change the 1991-92 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office : other services vote.

    Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister if there are any proposals to change the 1991-92 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office : other services vote.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Cabinet Office : other services – class XIX, vote 2 – will be increased by £850,000 from £24,814,000 to £25,664,000. At the same time the running costs limit will be increased by £806,000 from £21,656,000 to £22,462,000. This reflects the setting up of the citizens charter unit within the Cabinet Office which will be responsible for seeing that the citizens charter programme of initiatives, which my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 22 July 1991 at column 765, is implemented and developed. The increase is within the forecast outturn for the planning total included in the Chancellor’s autumn statement yesterday.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply. This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a bilateral with President Bush in Rome. He is currently attending the NATO summit now under way there. That summit will set the future course for NATO to ensure that it remains, as it has been, a bedrock of stability in a still uncertain world.

  • PMQT -7 November 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th November 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Jessel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I have been asked to reply.

    Hon. Members : Where is he?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I call the Leader of the House.

    Mr. MacGregor : This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a bilateral with President Bush in Rome. He is currently attending the NATO summit now under way there. That summit will set the future course for NATO to ensure that it remains as it has been–a bedrock of stability in a still uncertain world. The fact that Opposition Members should regret the fact that my right hon. Friend is in Rome, shows how little attention they pay to defence and NATO matters. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This kind of thing gives a very bad impression elsewhere.

    Mr. Jessel : On Europe, to put it beyond all doubt in this House, in the country, and on the continent, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government that Britain shall not go down the route of a federal Europe and that it is for Britain to decide on the future of her own currency?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are not going down the route of a federal Europe. With regard to a single currency and economic and monetary union, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government are not prepared to commit Britain now to a single currency. We will be able shortly to debate those matters more fully in the House, but we have on many occasions made it clear that this Parliament will decide on the single currency issue at some date well into the future if and when it should arise.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I call Mr. Kinnock.

    Hon. Members : Where is he?

    Mr. Kinnock : All present and correct, Sir.

    Is the Leader of the House aware that three times in the past 24 hours the Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to answer direct questions about the Government’s plans for further increases in VAT? Is that not surprising because the Chancellor has repeatedly been eager to make precise pledges of cuts in income tax to 20p in the medium term? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now, in precise terms, what are the Government’s plans for making further increases in VAT?

    Mr. MacGregor : The right hon. Gentleman will be all present on the Opposition Benches for some time to come and will not be leading for Britain at future NATO summits. In answer to his question, the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the commitment to income tax is one that would extend over the lifetime of the future Parliament and perhaps beyond that. That is a general commitment for some time to come. No precise dates have been given. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to ask questions about tax, given the very high public spending commitments to which his party is committed.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Leader of the House has even changed the line on what the Chancellor said on income tax this morning. As far as talking about tax is concerned, I realise the right hon. Gentleman’s sensitivity. His Government have, after all, lifted the tax burden on the British people to the highest of any Government in history. The right hon. Gentleman is wriggling. Since the Prime Minister has announced the target rate for income tax, surely he can announce the target rate for VAT. If he can tell us the one, surely he can tell us the other. Why are the Government so specific on income tax and so shifty on VAT?

    Mr. MacGregor : The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the commitment on income tax is a longer-term one and that we hope to achieve it as and when conditions permit and when it is prudent to do so. We have made that clear on many occasions. But it is really not for him to argue the case about taxes because, as we well know– [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like that. The reason they do not like it is that they are so sensitive about it. We know perfectly well that the Labour party has committed itself to an additional £35,000 million of public spending and no capping on local authority expenditure. The two combined would mean a very high increase in the tax and community charge burden on all people.

    Mr. Kinnock : The longer that the right hon. Gentleman speaks, the less he convinces. Will he tell us now? After making huge rises in VAT in the past 12 years, what are the Government’s plans to make further increases in VAT?

    Mr. MacGregor : The Government have made their public expenditure plans absolutely clear, and they are clear on the normal basis. It is equally clear–the right hon. Gentleman has not refuted this–that, in fact, the £35 billion spending commitment of the Labour party would mean either a very big increase in income tax and/or a very big increase in VAT, and it would be likely to be both.

    Mr. Michael Brown : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s proposals to introduce powers to prevent local authorities from excessive spending by means of capping will be very well received by all those in Labour-controlled authorities who have to put up with excessive tax bills? Does my right hon. Friend agree also that those people will not welcome the pledge that was given from the Opposition Benches yesterday to ensure that high-spending Labour authorities can go with gay abandon to yet higher spending?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a point that will have to be stressed again and again. On top of the increased taxes-direct and indirect taxes that would come from their spending pledges–the Opposition have now committed themselves to no capping on high-spending local authorities. That can mean only higher community charge and council tax bills as well.

     

    Q2. Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Sir David Steel : Is the Lord President aware that, at the end of last week, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry warmly welcomed the Government committee report recommending, among other environmental measures, an increase in petrol tax? They have referred that recommendation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will he ensure before the Budget that, in any such conservation measure, account is taken of the needs of rural areas where– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Interruptions take a lot of time.

    Sir David Steel : Admittedly including the area that we will represent after today, in rural areas in which the car is a necessity and in which the cost of petrol is already high, what compensatory measures are the Government prepared to support?

    Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friends have not committed the Government to any position on tax, but I notice that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman wants to have it both ways. As it would put it, the Liberal Democratic party claims to make people face up to hard decisions by increasing pricing and taxes. However, because some of its Members of Parliament come from rural areas, they want those rural areas to be protected. It is typical of the right hon. Gentleman and his party to make different noises in different places.

    Mr. Lord : Does my right hon. Friend agree that nothing is more damaging to the fabric of a nation than the failure properly to educate its children? May I urge him to press for a return to traditional standards of teaching in our primary schools as soon as possible?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that what we are doing through the national curriculum, and especially in the testing of seven, 11, 14 and 16-year-olds, will ensure not only that we can monitor progress on standards, but that pupils who are falling behind will be given the assistance that they need to improve. The point of our educational reforms is to improve standards.

     

    Q3. Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Campbell : The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that 22 November is the first anniversary of the sinking of the fishing vessel Antares in the Firth of Clyde as a result of its gear being snagged by the submarine HMS Trenchant. However, is he aware that the Royal Navy is proposing to hold a similar exercise in the same waters on the day immediately following that anniversary? Is not the timing of that exercise particularly insensitive, and is there any reason why it should not be postponed for a period of, say, a week as a mark of respect to the crew of the Antares, all of whom perished when the vessel was sunk?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows the considerable steps that have been taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to deal with the aftermath of that tragic incident. I shall draw the hon. and learned Gentleman’s particular point to my right hon. Friend’s attention.

    Mr. Rathbone : As our Prime Minister is away at such an important summit conference–important for the security of the whole of the western world–does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate at this moment to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to that European pillar, the Western European Union?

    Mr. MacGregor : Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We have made it absolutely clear that, in our view, that body will play an important part in our future defence position. I am sure that that will be discussed today at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gareth Wardell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Wardell : In view of his admission some weeks ago that this Government have imposed the heaviest tax burden in British history, will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise for the Chancellor’s wholly inaccurate statement to the House yesterday that the Government have been cutting taxes ever since 1979?

    Mr. MacGregor : The truth of the matter is that we have seen a substantial reduction in direct tax rates, a substantial improvement in standards of living and, as a result of the reduction in tax rates, an improvement in the tax base, which has enabled us not only to achieve increased public spending on a large scale in our key priority areas, especially health, but to achieve a reduction in direct income tax and, overall, considerably to improve our public sector borrowing requirement.

     

    Q5. Mr. Andrew Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Mitchell : Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread support among parents for the Government’s proposal that schools should make their public examination results available for publication in common form? Does he agree that that would give parents an objective answer to the question, “How is my child’s school doing?”, as well as further pressing back the frontiers of choice in education?

    Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He refers to an important part of the reforms that we are undertaking. I pay tribute to him for first raising the subject of league tables for schools’ performances in the Bill that he introduced earlier in the year. League tables of examination results, destinations of school leavers, truancy rates and all the other items that we are suggesting will be an important aid towards improving parental choice. I was glad to note that that was endorsed by the chairman of the Audit Commission this morning.

    Ms. Primarolo : Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government voted against the EC directive on maternity leave which would have given women a minimum of 16 weeks of maternity leave and protection from being sacked because they are pregnant? This is the second time in less than two weeks that the Government have failed to respond to the Prime Minister’s so-called commitment to women’s equality. Why should women believe anything that the Government say?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Lady is wrong. An agreement was reached yesterday which represents a sensible balance on maternity pay. It carries forward the interests of women without imposing an undue burden on employers. The Government abstained on a different aspect relating to the Treaty of Rome basis. We did not believe that the issue should have come within that particular article. That is why we abstained. The political agreement was reached clearly.

    Under our policies more than one in three of the jobs created in the European Community for women were created during the past eight years in Britain. That is a clear indication of the opportunity and choice that we give.

     

    Q.6 Mr. Thorne : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Thorne : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures given yesterday for expenditure on the national health service, education and transport show our clear commitment to expenditure on those items? Does he agree that those people in the House who advocate expenditure without saying how much they are prepared to spend are entirely unconvincing?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right. The autumn statement yesterday demonstrated that we have substantially increased in real terms– after inflation–the spending in each of the three areas that my hon. Friend mentioned. Indeed, in health the additions announced yesterday represent £50 more for every man, woman and child in Britain. That means that the increase in health spending since we took office is 55 per cent. in real terms. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the high additional spending programmes of some £35 billion advocated by the Labour party, which would put a crippling tax burden on so many families in Britain.

  • Mr Major’s Address to the Charities Aid Foundation – 5 November 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s address to the Charities Aid Foundation in London on Tuesday 5th November 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted to have the opportunity today, I am delighted also, if I may say so, to see so many people here who care so deeply about charities; but I am delighted to have the opportunity today to review the government’s policy to the charitable sector and to look ahead at what the future may hold for that sector.

    Before this audience of course the role of the voluntary sector needs no defence whatsoever. But alas even in this day and age not everyone recognises the sector’s scale and diversity. And there are still some people, for a raft of different reasons, who still see private charitable activity as a public shame.

    I believe, frankly, that that is a nonsense and I am glad that such negative attitudes are now clearly on the retreat. Because the truth I believe is becoming more and more widely accepted that public provision could never replace the immense contribution of voluntary action, it never could and actually it never should. Voluntary action is often at the frontiers of what even the richest and most benevolent state could possibly provide.

    It improves the lives of those people who are helped and in doing so I believe it also fulfils the lives of those people who do the helping. That is not of course the primary purpose of charitable activity but I believe it is one of the practical aspects of charitable activity that we ought to acknowledge and to welcome.

    There are at the moment across the country about 1 million people involved in managing voluntary activities. Tens of millions more give time or money or often both and tens of millions of our fellow citizens benefit either directly or indirectly from the activities of the voluntary sector.

    And I believe it is worth just a moment or two to try and put that in context. Just try and imagine what life would be like without charities, how many children I wonder might be left at risk without the NSPCC. How many hundreds of thousands of people abroad would have no hope whatsoever without Christian Aid? How dark and immobile would life be for many people without sight without the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association? And I wonder how many lives would be lost at sea without the remarkable activities of the RNLI. And just imagine, imagine the anguish of so many people if they could not pick up the phone in need and speak to the Samaritans.

    I think it is worth just reflecting on the impact that has on the quality of life and the nature of society we have in this country. We refer to the voluntary sector. But in a sense voluntary sector is a misnomer, it is not a sector, it cannot be a sector because it permeates everything. What it is, because of the scale and diversity that it has now reached, is a part of the very fabric of the whole nation.

    I have not a shred of doubt about the value of the efforts of all volunteers. Charities are not, and should not be seen, as the sticking plaster on welfare state. The activities of volunteers should be seen in a different activity, they should be seen as part of the cement that actually binds our society together. They are a very part of its stability and they give people the chance to deploy their skills and develop their potential. And wherever possible, everyone should have the opportunity to develop their abilities to the utmost and charities help them to do precisely that.

    There are of course a vast raft of ways of meeting society’s needs. Some are best met by individuals, others by business, some by government. But alongside all of these, voluntary bodies have a vital role, they are close to people’s needs and they can respond quickly and flexibly to changing circumstances.

    And I think there is a further point often overlooked by people. There are many people, proud, independent, perhaps in need of some assistance of some sort who are far more inclined to accept that assistance from the voluntary sector than they ever would be prepared to accept it from the government, but they need that help and the voluntary sector provides it.

    And I think it is worth looking at some of the voluntary organisations and what they have done. It was, for example, voluntary organisations that responded first to the victims of crime, victim support schemes began in Bristol in the 1970s and have burgeoned since then, they met a need that clearly was there.

    It was voluntary organisations that first pioneered the care of AIDS sufferers, something that many people would have pushed aside a little while ago, but it was the voluntary sector that identified the need and began to do something about it.

    And it was voluntary organisations and the VSO and community service volunteers that first grew from the ideas of just one man – Dr Alec Dixon. And I think that is an important point and the point is clear, voluntary bodies do not just help, frequently they innovate as well and are ahead of the problems that government agencies of all sizes, under whatever government, often have not yet spotted and are often not in a position to deal with.

    I believe that is a very important role for the voluntary sector and in the future we will be calling on that innovatory approach in the Children Act, implemented just last month. For the first time ever all concerned will be obliged by law to listen to the child’s voice, the voluntary sector will be fully involved in the planning and provision of services for children. And the act, again for the first time, places on the statute book the role of the NSPCC in investigating children in need of protection in parallel with statutory and other voluntary agencies.

    I doubt whether anyone, anyone, knows accurately how many voluntary bodies flourish in the United Kingdom, but registered charities are measurable and are growing fast. In just 10 years, 30,000 more actually came into being. There are now 170,000, they come in all shapes and sizes from large organisations which employ professional staff to small local self-help groups.

    I am immensely proud personally, and I believe we can all be immensely proud as a nation, of the fact that nowhere else in the world is there such a spread and depth of charitable activity.

    In whatever we plan, the needs and ideas of the small groups must not be overlooked. Many of the little battalions are doing a big job with small resources, providing valuable services to people in their local community. But through all this activity, all this diversity, there is one consistent golden thread that runs continually. All those charities in their different various ways aim to improve the quality of life in one way or another. And so for those reasons I have no doubt whatsoever about the place of the voluntary sector in our society.

    Let me say a word abut how the government sees that. The government wants a positive relationship with the voluntary sector, it wants to encourage it, it wants to support it and yes, from time to time, it wants to learn from it as well. There are of course difficulties in that relationship from time to time as there are in any relationship outside of fairy tale, but nonetheless we need to develop it and we intend to develop it.

    I would like to see the development of clear cut relationships, embodied where possible in contracts, so that each party knows where it stands. And I do support a move towards longer term more stable patterns of support. Voluntary organisations, like businesses, need stability in order to plan their own activities and their own future. And every hour spent negotiating in Whitehall or the Town Hall about your grant is an hour not spent helping others doing the very work for which the organisation was formed and for which it is most suited.

    But as we work for greater clarity, as we implement the results of last year’s efficiency scrutiny of government funding of the voluntary sector, we must be careful not to replace one problem with another. In the 1990s, I want to see the voluntary bodies established ever more firmly as a powerful independent force in our society.

    The truth is that charity has no bounds of class or wealth or race, everyone can be a donor, everyone can give time, everyone benefits directly or indirectly from their activities. As Ralph Barendorf has put it, the strength of the voluntary sector is an index of liberty. The voluntary sector is very strong indeed in our country, the right of people to associate in a common interest or in the interest of others is a fundamental freedom and a fundamental good.

    I cannot possibly hope to cover today the myriad aspects of the voluntary sector’s role or its relationship with government and I daresay if you thought I would I doubt many of you would have volunteered to be here today for it would have taken a very long time.

    But perhaps I can in the time available to me single out three specific areas: first, the legal framework; second, financial support; and third, what we in this country can do for others.

    There is a crucial component in promoting charitable giving and helping the sector to expand still further. And it is quite clear, and one I know that is dear to your hearts, charities must be seen to be well managed and well regulated. Bad publicity about one charity is often bad publicity for all, doubt can spread like a canker when a charity goes wrong.

    People who do not really want to give use it as an excuse not to give, so donors must have confidence that their money will be used wisely and well and with accountability. And this is something of which the voluntary sector has long been all too aware. You have made it clear to us on many occasions that you did not see more effective regulation as a threat to charity, and nor is it. Indeed you saw it as a precondition of continuing success and I believe you are right in that judgment.

    We have tried to respond to those concerns. In recent years we have discussed with you a new approach to the regulation of charity, one that offered to maintain the high standards while limiting unnecessary bureaucracy. With your help I hope and I believe that we have found the right balance.

    And so we are publishing today, as your Chairman mentioned a moment ago, a Charities Bill which I know has been keenly anticipated inside the voluntary world. This bill will be a centre-piece of the coming Parliamentary session, it will provide a statutory framework for the proper management and the public accountability of charities.

    I particularly commend the Bill’s four main themes: first, enhancement of the Commissioner’s ability to obtain information about the management of individual charities; second, where necessary, powers for the Commissioners to act speedily if they detect abuse; third, and critically important in many ways, clarification of trustees’ responsibilities, we do not intend to burden trustees unreasonably. I know the effort which goes into running charities and it is enormous, bureaucracy must not be in the business of stifling benevolence, but trustees have responsibilities to the public too, the vast majority of them fully recognise this, a few may not and we must ensure that they do not damage the reputation and activities of the majority.

    So the Bill will therefore build in a legal foundation for the maintenance of good accounting practice in charities and it will ensure that anyone can obtain a copy of the charity’s accounts.

    The fourth theme of the bill, is the tightening of control over professional fund-raisers. Their invention and their energy have been of immense value to the charitable sector, but a very few unscrupulous fund-raisers have abused the reputation of the rest of you, so the Bill will regulate the activities of professional fund-raisers to offer greater confidence to the public at large.

    And our aim in this is not to tie up people in red tape but to open wider the floodgates of giving by ensuring even greater public confidence in charities themselves. I know that the voluntary sector understands the need for public confidence. The NCVO and the charity commission have set up a working party to look at improved support and training for trustees, the government has given the Commission an effective capacity for investigating and correcting the abuses that undermine public confidence, and above all the opportunity to reconstruct the Register of Charities. I hope that this programme will deliver a system of regulation and support for the charitable sector which will be unequalled anywhere in the world.

    At present, Mr Chairman, the government provide substantial direct support for charities amounting to almost 2.4 billion pounds. Direct grants to voluntary organisations account for some 373 million, a figure well over double what it was ten years ago even when one takes account of inflation. But even more significant I believe is a revolution that has been brought about in the opportunities for people to give. Covenants have been made more attractive and more flexible; the pay-roll giving scheme has been introduced and I very much welcome the new campaign led by Russell Twisk on behalf of Readers Digest to extend it and I want to see public bodies try harder to promote this particular concept of giving; and all bequests to charity, all bequests to charity, have been exempted totally from tax and again I welcome the recent campaign to highlight the importance of making a will and remembering a charity when you do so, where there is a will there is a way and that way is the route to greater giving.

    So our policies of wider ownership are yielding richer fruit year by year. I want to see charities get a good share of the wealth that is now beginning to cascade down and across the generations. And finally, as you kindly mentioned it yourself, Chairman, perhaps I might mention gift aid which provides tax relief for single deductions of 600 pounds or more by individuals and by companies. I was pleased to introduce this scheme when I was Chancellor, it had long been asked for, and I hope it is proving useful. And I have been far more pleased to see its growth, even in its first year, charities have already claimed tax refunds of over 35 million pounds on donations of almost 110 million.

    Total tax relief therefore for charities, including income tax repayments, currently amounts to more than 800 million pounds. So in these ways I have outlined we have sought to encourage giving and have provided both mechanisms and incentives for people to give. And I know the voluntary sector will follow that through and encourage them to give as generously as they can. I hope they will do so for that generosity will go to a good cause.

    I read with very great interest the statistics in the Charities Aid Foundation’s charity trends document. As Chancellor I probably had more opportunity than most to pour over Dryers Duss statistics and I came became perhaps too much of a connoisseur.

    But the charity trends are different and the Foundation I believe does us a very great service in bringing these figures together. I know that they show a decline in the levels of typical giving over the year just past. I am unsurprised by that, quite frankly, it is inevitably one consequence of a recession such as the one from which we are now beginning to emerge. And it does illustrate another point, it does illustrate how very important it is that the battle against inflation succeeds and that inflation stays down and that we do not have another recession of the sort we are just emerging from. We saw during the 1980s a very strong growth in both personal and corporate giving, I want to see that growth begin again in the ’90s against the background of a stable, growing economy, and that is what I believe we are now on target to produce.

    And as growth in giving returns it will be partly because of the framework the government has provided, but it will be for another reason as well. It will also be because of what the charities to do to promote the ideal of giving itself by individuals, by companies and by institutions too. And I greatly welcome what Willie Whitelaw and the Council of Charitable Support have done to promote giving and I welcome too the birth of the Windsor Group, I understand that are now discussing a campaign to promote the principle of charitable giving itself, a discussion I will follow with very great interest. And we will do what we can to help that campaign succeed.

    I should like to stress here today the very great importance I attach to charitable giving by business and by industry. This country does have a proud tradition, the Rowntrees, the Cadburys, the Port Sunlight ventures, all have a resonance which still speaks to us. I know that many companies today recognise their responsibilities to the local societies in which they are based and to wider society generally.

    And in recent years that recognition has grown and I hope it will continue to grow, we will do what we can to encourage it. At the risk of being invidious, I would like to mention in particular the work of Hector Laing and his colleagues who subscribe to the percent ideal, an ideal perhaps familiar to you, perhaps not, but an ideal whereby a company devotes one percent of its annual profits to charity.

    Enlightened capitalism has a long history in this country, I am sure it has an even longer future and an ever improving one and we will join you in seeking to ensure that that comes about.

    If I may turn, just for a moment, from home to abroad. I welcome the very heart-warming contribution which British voluntary organisations make in developing countries and not only in times of disaster. In more humdrum times too voluntary bodies attack the root cause of under-development through long-term projects which give poor people the means to be self-sufficient.

    The overseas work of the voluntary sector should not be forgotten and it has grown dramatically and we have recognised its value. Last year British voluntary organisations received grants of over 88 million from the Overseas Development Administration, an increase of 35 percent on the previous year.

    And the needs of the poorest most heavily indebted countries are acute and require urgent action. In Harare I was glad to announce that in the absence of full agreement in the near future in the Paris Club of creditor countries the UK will implement the Trinidad Terms initiative on enhanced debt relief.

    And the effect of that I think is dramatic, it will reduce debt by around two-thirds for eligible countries undertaking economic reforms and if we can persuade all creditor countries to implement the initiative it will be worth 17 billion dollars to the poorest countries in the world, the largest debt write-off in history and in my judgment it is not a moment overdue.

    Mr Chairman, the government is absolutely committed, no-one should be in doubt about that, absolutely committed to sustaining the success and growth of voluntary activity in Britain. We have a good model in this country but some proposals made in Europe in the past have shown little appreciation of the fact. And like so many institutions in Britain, the framework of British charity law sometimes does not look logical, but it does work, and I am pleased that some of the potentially damaging ideas once canvassed in Europe seem to have been laid aside. We will be vigilant to see that they are not revived in Europe in the future.

    The framework now being considered by the Commission to help voluntary bodies operate in other countries may well provide a reasonable basis for progress, we will negotiate to ensure that framework is right.

    But I see no reason to be defensive about our own position. I want us to take the initiative in discussion, to encourage our form of trust law, our forms of regulation, our forms of citizen involvement elsewhere. If the Charity Commission is a good way to do things then let us have more of them. And when we take the Presidency of the European Community next summer I shall want to examine whether we should make the development of voluntary activity a significant part of our programme during our Presidency.

    An active voluntary sector has been persecuted and restrained in one part of Europe for close on 50 years. In central and Eastern Europe people are now struggling to build up voluntary organisations, they lack experience, they have no know-how, they confront attitudes of suspicion and leave it to others’ mentality that generations of state centralism have engraved.

    If you believe, as I believe, that voluntary bodies are part of the bedrock of a democratic society, then you will, want to do all you can to help them grow in the East. Some of you I know are already doing that, it is not just bankers and businessmen that you find in the conference rooms of Prague and Budapest, it is charity trustees as well that you will find in those very same rooms.

    President Havel has spoken of the need to create a civil society. we can help him, and others, to define a space, a safety zone, between the individual and the machinery of the state. I am therefore delighted to announce today the setting up of a new voluntary sector skills scheme – the Charity Know-How Trust. This is a special fund to which trusts and government will contribute in equal proportions. It will enable British expertise in the field to be channelled to where it is most needed, it is a seed-corn scheme which should enable a rich harvest to flourish. It will be available for all countries eligible to receive assistance from the Foreign Office Know-How Fund. I am delighted that the Charity’s Aid Foundation is providing the administrative back-up.

    Through it, and through your own independent efforts, British voluntary organisations can help to weave the fabric of a free society in each country which takes part, you will be strengthening the new democracies of the East and there is every reason to do that, military, socially and economically, to build a safer future for us and our children and for everybody else in every part of Europe.

    When British voluntary organisations help their new counterparts abroad, it will be in the central tradition of voluntary organisations themselves as volunteers, out of public spirit, not for private gain. The people involved in voluntary activity are usually modest, often anonymous, they do not seek our praise but they deserve it no less.

    I hope, Chairman, that my presence here today will help to underscore the government’s respect for this sector, I am glad that there is already very active dialogue between many government departments and the voluntary sector, I want to see that dialogue widen and deepen in the 1990s.

    For this government wants to support and promote more charitable giving, more volunteering and more business involvement in local communities throughout the United Kingdom. And we recognise that donations in time, or in kind, are just as important as donations in cash. We want to see more grant-making trusts set up in the 1990s, a very valuable contribution which wealthy individuals can make towards supporting voluntary organisations. We want to see more use of the tax-efficient measures designed to encourage charitable giving. we want more recognition of the needs of smaller, lower profile organisations. We want more recognition of the contribution of volunteers and we want more of the fruitful partnerships which began to emerge in the 1980s and which could benefit all concerned, the individual or company, the organisation and the wider community they serve.

    If, Chairman, if we succeed in those aims, many millions of people who look to voluntary bodies for support or who find greater personal fulfilment through them, will feel and find that their own lives are enriched.

    The outcome of that will be clear, it will be I believe a society which is increasingly enriched as well, that must be the aim of all of us. I know that is the aim of the voluntary sector, you may count on the government to support you in it.

     

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 November 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th November 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Terrorist Offences

    Mr. Stanbrook : To ask the Prime Minister in how many cases since 1975, excepting those initiated under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975, British courts have exercised extra-territorial jurisdiction conferred upon them by anti-terrorism legislation in compliance with multilateral conventions for the suppression of hijacking, hostage-taking and similar terrorist offences.

    The Prime Minister : The information requested is not available.

     

    Separation of Powers

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward proposals to ensure a constitutional separation of powers and to enhance the powers of the elected representatives vis-a-vis those of the Government.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Political Advisers

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister how many political advisers are in post in Her Majesty’s Government; in which Departments they are in post; what is the salary in each case; and what is the total salary bill of such posts.

    The Prime Minister : There are currently 34 political advisers to Ministers employed in the civil service. The number in each Department is as follows :

    Department | Number

    Cabinet Office (including No. 10) | 8

    Defence | 1

    Department of the Environment | 3

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office | 2

    Department of Health | 3

    Her Majesty’s Treasury | 3

    Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food | 1

    Department of Education and Science | 2

    Department of Energy | 1

    Department of Employment | 1

    Home Office | 2

    Lord President of the Council | 1

    Lord Privy Seal | 1

    Scottish Office | 1

    Department of Social Security | 1

    Department of Trade and Industry | 2

    Department of Transport | 1

    It is not our practice to reveal the salary of any advisor as it is negotiated individually in relation to previous earnings and is therefore confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers’ salary spine comprising 30 points, as follows :

    Scale Point | Salary (in pounds)

    30 |57,706

    29 |55,486

    28 |53,352

    27 |52,104

    26 |50,861

    25 |49,271

    24 |47,681

    23 |45,509

    22 |43,818

    21 |42,135

    20 |40,372

    19 |38,595

    18 |36,818

    17 |35,048

    16 |32,937

    15 |31,595

    14 |30,527

    13 |29,464

    12 |28,347

    11 |27,328

    10 |26,490

    9 |25,316

    8 |24,422

    7 |23,627

    6 |22,843

    5 |22,042

    4 |20,869

    3 |20,155

    2 |19,546

    1 |18,403

    The two most senior special advisers are paid personal salaries above the spine limit of £57,706. The current total salary bill, excluding one adviser who is paid a daily rate, is £1,249,970.

     

    Nuclear Weapons Tests

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what changes he plans to announce in the programme of testing British nuclear weapons.

    The Prime Minister : None.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what representation he has received from the Government of Australia or the representatives of the Maralinga aboriginal people to fund a clean-up of the British nuclear bomb test site at Maralinga, Australia.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a letter from the Australian Prime Minister on the question of a further clean-up at the former nuclear weapon test sites at Maralinga and Emu field, and requesting discussions between Ministers and officials from both countries. We are considering the points raised by Mr. Hawke and have agreed to meet the relevant Australian Minister and officials later this year. In addition, a delegation representing the Maralinga aborigines called on my noble Friend the Earl of Arran, Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, and senior officials on 30 October to present their views on the same topic.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to representations from the Shoshone nation against the continuation of the British nuclear bomb test site in Nevada.

    The Prime Minister : I have asked Her Majesty’s ambassador in Washington to reply on my behalf.

     

    Economic and Monetary Union

    Mr. Sillars : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the Dutch Presidency’s proposals for economic and monetary union with his own call for an EC of 30 states; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The question of enlargement will be high on the European Community’s agenda in the coming years; we must ensure that decisions taken in the intergovernmental conferences do not pose a barrier to the accession of applicants who wish to join and meet all the conditions of membership.

    The text produced by the Dutch Presidency is a useful basis for further negotiation towards an agreement. But the United Kingdom and other member states are not committed to any particular part of its contents. The Government have plenty to say about it in the intergovernmental conference and we will make our views clear to the other member states. I remain confident that it will be possible to reach an agreement on economic and monetary union. Such an agreement should not hinder the enlargement of the Community.

     

    Pensioners

    Mr. Battle : To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received from pensioners about the level of their pension increase.

    The Prime Minister : I have received many representations on this topic.

     

    Ukraine

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what impact the declaration of independence for the Ukraine has had upon Her Majesty’s Government’s policy.

    The Prime Minister : We are naturally paying close attention to developments in the Ukraine and intend to build on the good contacts we have established there. Questions of recognition and our future policy towards the Ukraine will largely depend on the outcome of discussions which are still going on between the Ukraine, the centre and other republics on the form of its future relationships. The Ukrainian people will vote on their Supreme Soviet’s declaration of independence on 1 December.

     

    Paid Public Appointments

    Mr. Warren : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish an up-to- date directory of paid public appointments made by Ministers ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : A list of public bodies by Departments, with the number of paid and unpaid appointments, is now given in “Public Bodies”, published annually by the Cabinet Office (OMCS). The 1990 edition is available from the House of Commons Library; the 1991 edition will be published in December.

     

    World Development

    Mr. Lester : To ask the Prime Minister what interdepartmental meetings are held to discuss how world development issues can be covered within British schools.

    The Prime Minister : As a result of the introduction of the national curriculum world development issues will be firmly established in school timetables. Government Departments worked together on the formulation of the national curriculum.

     

    Publicity

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure by the Cabinet Office on press and public relations in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991-92 and budget for 1992-93.

    The Prime Minister : Expenditure on press and public relations by the Cabinet Office was :

    Year | Total in pounds

    1984-85 |247,495

    1985-86 |232,980

    1986-87 |224,813

    1987-88 |215,925

    1988-89 |201,837

    1989-90 |205,650

    1990-91 |165,601

    The latest estimate for 1991-92 is £1,005,000 and the provisional budget for 1992-93 is £508,000. Similar information is not available for the years prior to 1984-85.

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for spending by his office on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991-92 and budgets for 1992-93.

    The Prime Minister : My office has incurred no expenditure on advertising or promotional material and there are no plans for any such expenditure in 1991-92.

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister whether (a) the Prime Minister’s office or (b) the Cabinet Office have sent unsolicited direct mail as part of the distribution of publicity material.

    The Prime Minister : My office has not sent any unsolicited direct mail. The Cabinet Office, as part of its central civil service function, has sent the following publicity material :

    – An approach has been made to heads of universities and local authority chief executives advising them of European Community recruitment competitions as part of the ongoing initiative to improve United Kingdom representation in EC institutions.

    – Each year we inform certain private sector companies of the date by which the Cabinet Office needs to receive applications for the top management programme in the forthcoming cycle.

    – The public appointments unit approaches individuals, in respect of whom they have received a recommendation, seeking their willingness to be considered for senior appointments.

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure by his office on press and public relations in 1979-80 and in each following year ; and what is his estimate for 1991-92 and budget for 1992-93.

    The Prime Minister : Expenditure by my office on press and public relations was not recorded separately before 1987-88. The total expenditure for each year since then is as follows; the budget for 1992-93 has not yet been finalised.

    Year | Total in pounds

    1987-88 |377,987

    1988-89 |419,326

    1989-90 |427,802

    1990-91 |553,068

    1991-92 |560,750 (estimate)

    Note: The figures for 1990-91 and 1991-92 include notional superannuation costs which are excluded from the figures for earlier years.

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide an up-to- date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by (a) the Prime Minister’s Office and (b) the Cabinet Office during 1991-92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each (i) the topic, (ii) the commencement date, (iii) the duration and (iv) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

    The Prime Minister : My office has not undertaken any advertising campaigns in 1991-92 ; nor has the Cabinet Office undertaken any television advertising during 1991-92.

    Details of the only advertising campaign costing over £100,000 carried out by the Cabinet Office in this period are as follows :

    (i) Citizen’s Charter White Paper

    (ii) 22 July 1991

    (iii) 7 weeks

    (iv) the campaign was managed by the Central Office of Information Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for spending by the Cabinet Office on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991-92 and budgets for 1992-93.

    The Prime Minister : The Cabinet Office has not incurred and does not expect to incur any expenditure on promotional advertising on television or radio in the years 1979 to 1993. Expenditure in this period on promotional advertising in newspapers is estimated at £585, 000 in 1991-92 and £300,000 in 1992-93.

    Information on other promotional material is not available for the years 1979 to 1987. Expenditure on such material from 1987-88 was :

    Year | Total in pounds

    1987-88 |19,306

    1988-89 |9,500

    1989-90 |14,833

    1990-91 |876

    The Cabinet Office does not expect to incur any expenditure on other promotional material in 1991-92 or 1992-93.

     

    Sunday Trading

    Mr. David Porter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will issue guidance to local authorities on the kind of shops and markets and the goods which may legally be offered for sale to the public on the Sundays between 10 November and Christmas in England.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Private Health Insurance

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy on tax relief on private health insurance for the elderly.

    The Prime Minister : The Government intend neither to abolish the existing relief nor to extend it to the under-60s.

     

    Press and Publicity Staff

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister whether any member of (a) the Prime Minister’s Office’s or (b) the Cabinet Office’s press and publicity staff accompanied him in Blackpool during the Conservative party conference.

    The Prime Minister : One private secretary and one secretary were available to assist me in my official duties. Three members of my policy unit were also in attendance.

     

    Interned Soldiers

    Mr. Cousins : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he or his predecessors have made and what efforts he is currently making on behalf of civilians of Dutch, British and Commonwealth citizenship interned by invading and occupying forces in Indonesia and other Asian countries in the years 1942 to 1945 to secure adequate and meaningful compensation.

    The Prime Minister : Successive Governments have taken the view that the question of compensation for former prisoners of war and civilian internees of the Japanese was settled in the 1951 treaty of peace with Japan.

     

    Cabinet Committees

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now give details of the name, composition and remit of each Cabinet committee and sub-committee.

    The Prime Minister : No. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 6 June 1991 at column 280.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 5 November.

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

  • PMQT – 5 November 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th November 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

    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. Hinchliffe : Is the Prime Minister personally in favour of a single European currency–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : At this moment, in these circumstances, no.

    Mr. Onslow : Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is general support for the emphasis that the Foreign Secretary has placed on the importance of keeping the European Commission out of the nooks and crannies of our national life? Will he, in any negotiations with our European partners, give the highest priority to getting the European Commission under some sort of genuine parliamentary control?

    The Prime Minister : I share the views expressed by my right hon. Friend yesterday. One of the things that we shall be seeking to do in the negotiations on the political union treaty is to try to ensure that the Commission–at present under no effective control–increasingly comes under the control of the most appropriate Parliament, in this case the European Parliament.

    Mr. Kinnock : Since the Prime Minister acknowledges convergence to be a matter of considerable importance in the development of the European Community, why is it, now that the Engineering Employers Federation, the Confederation of British Industry and his noble Friends in the House of Lords have all made cause for new investment incentives for British industry, that he and the remainder of the Government refuse to take such initiatives in order to support this very best way of securing recovery?

    The Prime Minister : On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, convergence is not just important ; it is absolutely vital if there is to be any success whatsoever, or any prospect of a single currency that would not damage the whole of Europe. The most effective way of ensuring that there is investment in this or any other country is to ensure that we have low inflation and the right economic environment.

    Mr. Kinnock : When unemployment has risen by 800,000 in Britain during the last year, when 50 per cent. more companies are in receivership and when manufacturing investment is down by 19 per cent., how can the Government justify taking such a listless attitude to the needs of British industry? Why do the Government refuse to give the same backing to British industry as our European Community competitors give to theirs?

    The Prime Minister : It is not all that many months ago that the right hon. Gentleman was saying to the House and to people beyond it that the most important thing was to get inflation down from its then level of 10.9 per cent. and to recreate the conditions in which people would feel secure to invest. I agreed with the points that he made then and that is precisely what we have done. We are now reaching a position in which growth and investment will reoccur and, as we saw throughout the complete period of the 1980s, there will be a growth in the absolute number of jobs.

    Mr. Kinnock : Since the Prime Minister said that it is important to create the conditions for economic and industrial success, will he listen to the CBI which, in its report asks the Government to take proper account of the interests of manufacturing industry instead of pursuing the policies that they are pursuing? After 12 years, is there any hope of the Government ever taking the interests of manufacturing industry properly into account?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman had paid more attention to the CBI yesterday, he would have heard the director general say that since the crash of October 1987, real take-home pay is up by 11 per cent., manufacturing productivity is up by 20 per cent. and manufacturing exports have increased by £76 million for each and every working day.

    Mr. Sayeed : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two essential components for a policy of nuclear deterrence are that one possesses the capability and that a potential enemy does not doubt one’s willingness to use it in order to defend oneself? Does he agree that a few weasel words in a newspaper do not constitute a policy of nuclear deterrence, particularly when the leader of that party has stated clearly that he would never use nuclear weapons, even if Britain were under nuclear attack?

    The Prime Minister : I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend. The fact that we have had a nuclear deterrent for a number of years has added materially to our security and I believe that we should continue to sustain that deterrent. It is a matter of regret that the Opposition’s commitment to that deterrent is not generally accepted. The words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), “If we change to win, we could change when we have won”, show that British people will not trust the Opposition with defence policy.

     

    Q2. Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November?

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

    Mr. Flynn : Why is the Prime Minister trying to turn the national health service into a family business for card-carrying Conservatives? Why did he appoint two Tory ex-Ministers, the sister of a Tory Minister, the wives of two Tory Members of Parliament and the husband of a Tory Member of Parliament to run opted-out hospitals? Is that what the Prime Minister means when he says that he believes that Conservatives want to use the national health service? They are using it–milking it for their own financial gain.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has clearly forgotten that, for example, Lady Callaghan was an excellent chairman of Great Ormond Street hospital and a number of other wives of eminent people in public life have held that position. It is extremely odd that the Labour party should propose that women should be barred from jobs because of their husband’s position in public life. Among those whom the hon. Gentleman has maligned is someone who has a decade’s experience of working in the NHS. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is a proper contribution to the health service or a proper qualification for the job that she holds, I am very surprised indeed.

     

    Q3. Mr. Viggers : To ask the Prime Minister to list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Viggers : Will my right hon. Friend anticipate the Chancellor’s statement tomorrow to the extent of confirming that funds will be made available to ensure that our armed forces, although smaller, are even better equipped? In particular, will he confirm that conventional submarines will continue to play an important role and that the story broadcast by the BBC last night as a hard fact–that the HMS Upholder class of submarines is to be sold–is completely untrue and without foundation?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm my hon. Friend’s last point. We have shown our commitment to better equipment by our recent purchase of the Westland helicopter and our decision to re-equip the Army with the Challenger II tank. Both were expensive but necessary purchases to ensure that our armed forces have the best possible equipment. That is our policy and will remain so. I am bound to say that that does not seem to be the policy of the Opposition. The principal Opposition party is committed to cutting defence expenditure by a quarter, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is committed to cutting it by a half.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister insists that even if the other 11 go ahead he is prepared to reject an agreement on Europe at Maastricht. Will he describe how he sees the future of this country, should he allow that to happen?

    The Prime Minister : I have repeatedly made it clear in the House and beyond that I am working to seek an agreement at Maastricht that will be acceptable to the House and this country. That remains the position. I have set out our determination to work for that agreement and the principles on which the agreement will need to be based. I have arranged a two-day debate in the House so that I may express that clearly and listen to the views of the House. If I judge that the agreement is in the interests of this country I will sign it. If I judge that the agreement is not in the interests of this country, it would not be right for me to sign it and I will not sign it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Paice : As this is the first Prime Minister’s Question Time since the Commonwealth conference, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his constructive and positive approach to the issues? Will he confirm that he was not detained or locked up and was widely recognised as the leader of this party–unlike the experience of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) after four years as Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that it was an excellent Commonwealth conference. The Commonwealth came closer together than it has been for a long time. There was substantial agreement on changing policies on South Africa, which I much welcome, and there was a warm welcome for our decision to implement the Trinidad terms arrangement, which, if fully implemented by every member, will relieve the poorest countries in the world of $17,000 million of debt.

    Mr. Harry Ewing : Is the Prime Minister aware that just over an hour ago I received a letter from British Alcan, which has a factory in my constituency at Falkirk, informing me that 169 of the work force will lose their jobs, not because they are inefficient but because the machinery on which they work is 50 years old? If that is not proof of lack of investment, what is? Is the Prime Minister further aware that those men like their jobs and that, with his help, they would be able to keep them, but he is not prepared to help them? Try telling men in Falkirk that the economy is on an upturn.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is clearly under the misapprehension that I have been Prime Minister for 50 years–not yet.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Hannam : When my right hon. Friend next meets the British Medical Association, will he raise the success of the first wave of national health service trusts, particularly the success story of the South Devon Healthcare trust? In the past year, it has increased the number of patients by 10 per cent., the number of doctors and nurses by more than 50 and reopened two wards. Will he congratulate the BMA on its wholesale condemnation of the latest Labour party smear leaflet that has been distributed at the Langbaurgh by-election?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to join my hon. Friend in those remarks and to join the BMA in its scathing remarks about the Labour leaflet. The BMA said that the leaflet was in bad taste, and it must be very frightening to the people of Langbaurgh. Like my hon. Friend, I read the report of Labour’s latest scare story about the NHS. I hope that people will realise that what Labour is saying is inaccurate. It is a tissue of falsehoods. I hope that people will look at the real record of improvement in the NHS, not the misrepresentations that they get from the Labour party.

     

    Q6. Mr. Strang : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Strang : Has the Prime Minister noticed that the major issue in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election is the widespread public opposition to the application by Foresterhill hospital in Aberdeen to become a self- governing trust? As the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland clearly favours trust status and as the Conservative candidate has come out publicly against it, will the Prime Minister tell the House who he agrees with–his Health Minister or the candidate?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the application for that hospital to have self-governing status has been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has an obligation to study that application and to determine whether it is in order. That is what he is doing. When he has done that, he will announce his decision.