The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Address to the Efficiency Unit at Foreign and Commonwealth Office – 4 November 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s address to the Efficiency Unit at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, made on 4th November 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [Indistinct] at No. 10 got me here rather later than I thought and I should have been somewhere else some time ago so I fear it a few moments it will be time to leave and my apologies for being with you for such a short time.

    May I just say while I am here how grateful I am for the work you have done on the efficiency scrutinies. Many people just see them as an opportunity to save a few pennies for the Treasury. I don’t see them that way and neither does the Treasury — the Treasury would like rather more than a few pennies [laughter] and I would like to [indistinct] savings.

    Savings, of course, are welcome but increasingly I think we have to look not just at the cash savings but at the quality and the quantity of the service that we are actually in a position to provide for people. I know many people still have a degree of scepticism about how serious the Government may be about the quality of service in the public sector. I can only say to you that I am deadly serious about it. I don’t think it is acceptable for the public sector to have a second-rate service and I don’t think providing a first-rate service is only about the level of resources which are there; it is also about the way in which those resources are used to ensure that the public, who provide those resources, get the service firstly that we think as professionals would like to provide for them and secondly that they as taxpayers have a right to expect and I believe the work which is being done by the Efficiency Scrutiny Teams, sometimes in very high-profile areas, others perhaps in quite tiny areas, have highlighted ways in which we can improve our procedures, improve our service and enable us to devote the resources we have to the areas that most need them.

    So it is extremely valuable work and when you. actually aggregate all the changes that have been made as the result of individual scrutinies over the last few years, it does make a remarkable difference to the efficiency of the complete service that we provide so it has been a job very well done. If I may say so, you have earned the drink you are having!

    I know it isn’t always a very popular thing to carry out an efficiency scrutiny and say to people who have been perfectly content doing something in a particular way that it is actually screamingly inefficient and they ought to do it in a wholly different way. It isn’t easy to do but I think it is very necessary for that to be done and I know from the reports that I have had from Robin and from Angus that it has been done with great skill and efficiency and I am very grateful to you all, so thank you very much.

    I hope those of you who have done a scrutiny and gone back to your Department are finding [indistinct] I hope they are; they certainly deserve to and I personally am. Thank you very much all of you for all you have done and my apologies for being here for such a very brief time.

  • Mr Major’s Contributions During Commons Debate on the Loyal Address – 31 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s contribution during the Commons Debate on the Loyal Address, held on 31st October 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I join the Leader of the Opposition in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on their splendid speeches in moving and seconding the Loyal Address. I am also grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his generous remarks about Alick Buchanan-Smith which will have been much appreciated by his family and by all of us on the Conservative Benches. The right hon. Gentleman’s tribute to his colleague George Buckley was moving. We share that tribute and express admiration for his courage.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has been a distinguished Member of the House for 30 years and he was a Cabinet Minister for almost half that time. To all the posts that he held he brought not only an acute mind, but an intensely independent one. He brought genuine concern to the problems that he faced. Twenty years ago when my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for the Environment and I was a local councillor, I saw those qualities at first hand in Lambeth and I am happy to thank him for them all these years later.

    I was intrigued by my right hon. Friend’s reference to Oliver Cromwell’s ill-treatment in Worcester and by his subsequent invitation to visit his constituency. I will reflect on that invitation and recall that Cromwell was the Member for Huntingdon and perhaps take some care.

    More recently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester served as Secretary of State for Wales. At the time, some thought that that appointment was surprising, but it turned out to be inspired–both for my right hon. Friend and for Wales. He developed a great affection for the Principality and found that it was reciprocated. He got to know Wales extremely well in a series of unscheduled visits. On one occasion when a startled shopkeeper said to him, “You don’t half look like Peter Walker”, my right hon. Friend replied, “A monstrous slander.”

    When I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury I learnt that Wales was the first priority of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. Public spending control came perhaps a narrow second during those turbulent years. It was therefore always a relief when he applied his powers of persuasion overseas to attract record levels of inward investment to the Principality. He attracted the money and then he opened the factories. He opened so many that when I visited Wales recently, I heard him referred to affectionately as “Peter the Plaque.”

    My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South ably seconded the Loyal Address and, as he said, followed a family tradition. His father, Sir William Aitken, proposed the Loyal Address 29 years ago and referred to a subject in terms that may be familiar to the House today. He referred to it as

    “a matter of controversy in the days, weeks and months to come.”–[ Official Report, 30 October 1962 ; Vol. 666, c. 11.] He was referring to Britain’s negotiations with the European Community–plus ca change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South implied earlier. [Interruption.] Travel broadens the mind.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South is also something of a political forecaster. In his book many years ago, “The Young Meteors”, he picked as rising stars three men then aged 30 or under. They are now my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Leader of the House. My hon. Friend’s percipience was very remarkable so many years ago. It says something, perhaps, of my hon. Friend’s independence of mind that, although he has sometimes taken a sceptical view of politics, he has always taken a very vigorous stand for the interests of his constituents, of this House, of Britain and of Europe. I believe that he showed that again today in his remarkable speech.

    I will refer to the substance of the Queen’s Speech in a few moments, but before I do so, I wish to respond to some of the points which the Leader of the Opposition made. He said, as he has said on a number of occasions in recent weeks, that he would like to have an election. But what is he going to tell people about his programme? Who was it who said in 1983,

    “If we were to abandon the definition of our Socialism and the policies that go with it there is no reason why anybody should vote for us”?

    It was the right hon. Gentleman. So upon that test, does he still believe, as he said then,

    “We want out of Europe”?

    There was some hilarity a few moments ago as the right hon. Gentleman tried to reconcile his past with his present on that subject. Does he still believe in what he referred to as

    “a major extension of public ownership of control”,

    or has he ditched that as well? Does he still say :

    “We do not subscribe to the effective defence of our country by the possession of nuclear weapons”?

    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he still believes those things– that he is still an anti-European nationaliser who believes in unilateralism? If not, is there any reason why, in his own words, anybody should vote for him because of what he said earlier? We have heard today the speech from a Front Bench that is prepared to surrender any principle, abandon any commitment, and promise anything to anyone and, indeed, everything to everyone. Opposition Members can promise, but, when it comes to the election, they will not deliver. That is not our way, for we will keep to our principles and the lasting values that underpin them.

    Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian) rose–

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose–

    Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central) rose–

    The Prime Minister : I shall give way a little later.

    We will keep to an enterprise economy, the power to choose and the right to own, for our philosophy has not collapsed around the world, as has the right hon. Gentleman’s socialist philosophy. Our philosophy is getting stronger while socialism disappears in the dustbin of history. Our policies emphasise our belief in personal ownership.

    Mr. Eadie rose–

    The Prime Minister : I shall give way later.

    We must give each and every person the chance to build up for themselves and for their families something of their own–their own home, their own pension, their own shares, their own stake in the future–a stake that they can pass on without fear of penal tax rates, soaring inflation or interference by the state. It is that principle which most clearly distinguishes this Government from that Opposition. The Opposition fought the right to buy and conceded defeat only grudgingly. They fought against the campaign for personal pensions and they threaten them still. They campaigned against privatisation while they bought their shares on the quiet. The right hon. Gentleman says today that he believes in choice, but he would never have given the choice to people and they would never have been able to exercise it.

    Mr. Eadie rose–

    The Prime Minister : No–[Hon. Members :- – “Give way.”] No. The Labour candidate in Hemsworth–not just any old candidate, but the candidate who was specially selected and imposed in a flying visit by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)–bought BT shares, and good for him. But why?

    Mr. Eadie rose–

    The Prime Minister : Just a moment. The hon. Gentleman can intervene when I have finished this point.

    But why did that Labour candidate buy shares? His minder told us why. He said :

    “He bought them when they came on offer because he has a family of four and wanted that security.”

    But what about the security of the 8 million people who have bought shares and who the Labour party will threaten with its policies at the next general election? The Labour party’s motto is clear. It is, “Don’t do as I do, do as I say.”

    Mr. Eadie : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Based on what he is telling the House about the confidence that he feels in his Government when he compares their policies to those announced by the Opposition, can he tell us why he decided to announce to the nation in that clandestine way that he would not hold an election in November if he is so confident about what he is telling Parliament today?

    The Prime Minister : It comes ill from a party that is now committed to fixed Parliaments to complain that we are going on–[Hon. Members :– “Answer.”] I have just answered. Let me pursue the point that I was dealing with–[Hon. Members :– “No, answer that point.”] I have, and this is germane to that point. I have here a leaflet that will help us during the campaign and– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister.

    Hon. Members : Answer.

    The Prime Minister : I have here– [Interruption.] Perhaps in a moment the Leader of the Opposition will answer this point– [Interruption.]

    Hon. Members : They do not like it.

    The Prime Minister : The Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends may not like it, but they are going to get it. I have here a leaflet that is a remarkable endorsement of Conservatism. It states :

    “Many people today are wealthier than they imagine, especially those who have been able to buy their own home.”

    I am very glad to have that endorsement of Conservative success. It comes from the Labour party. But the people of this country might feel more reassured if that same political party was not at the same time threatening to increase taxes on ordinary people–on their income, on their savings and on their wealth. The leaflet– [Interruption.] Let me just refer to the leaflet– [Interruption.] I am prepared to wait until Opposition Members will listen. The leaflet– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you in a position to know whether the Prime Minister is quoting from a Labour party leaflet or from some brief that he has been given by Conservative Central Office? Is he quoting or not?

    Mr. Speaker : That is not a point of order. The House should now get on and settle down. I call the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I shall show the House a leaflet explaining how legacies can help the Labour party. It states :

    “Whatever the size of your donation to the Labour Party, no inheritance tax whatsoever is payable on it.”

    Of course, what Labour does not state is that under its plans inheritance tax would be paid on smaller legacies and at a higher rate than today. So now we know ; under Conservative legislation, one can pass on one’s wealth to the Labour party–that is permitted–but under Labour plans, someone passing it on to his children would be taxed and taxed and taxed again.

    A year ago this month Britain entered the exchange rate mechanism. In the debates which followed, the shadow Chancellor made it clear that he accepted that we were right to join the ERM. He agreed with the rate at which we entered. He asked me to forecast the benefits of membership and posed two perfectly fair questions. “Was it my judgment”, he asked,

    “that the rate at which we agreed to join is sustainable?”–[ Official Report, 15 October 1990 ; Vol. 177, c. 930.]

    We now know the answer. Sterling has remained firm against other Community currencies and the mechanism has given business the exchange rate stability that it wanted.

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked whether the balance of payments deficit would be progressively reduced. Yes again. Our exports to the rest of the Community have shot up. Our imports have fallen. Our trade deficit with Europe has been slashed and manufactured exports, far from declining, recently hit record levels.

    Of course, some of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen’s colleagues were less cautious. The Leader of the Opposition asserted that inflation was still rising. Wrong. I said that we would bring it down. We have done so and we will carry on doing so–down below the Community average ; down to the levels of the best in Europe. When we joined the ERM and cut the interest rate the Leader of the Opposition called it a cynical expedient. That was distinctly odd, for three days before he said that we should “cut interest rates” and

    “be negotiating entry into the ERM”.

    What changed in those three days other than that we did what he had advised us to do? What changed was the right hon. Gentleman. He may or may not have changed his mind. But he certainly changed his tune.

    Mr. Foulkes : The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a major announcement yesterday that there had been an increase–a seasonally adjusted increase–in optimism. How do the Government measure optimism and how do they seasonally adjust it?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman looked at the surveys from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry, he would see the return of confidence that is coming and the way in which it will lead to a return of growth. During the past year our policies within the exchange rate mechanism have brought inflation down to 4 per cent., allowed eight reductions in interest rates, reduced our balance of payments deficit and kept sterling stable. That has set the basis for steady growth with low inflation in the years of Conservative government that lie ahead.

    Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : Not at the moment.

    Getting inflation down is not easy. It is painful. But the measures are unavoidable and necessary for stable growth in the future. It is always tempting to call for interest rate cuts and the easy course, but that carries great dangers. We are not prepared to play fast and loose for some short-term gain, for we know that inflation is the tax which bears hardest on those in society least able to afford it. As inflation falls we are moving out of recession and back to stable growth. The Opposition need not just take my word for it. They should listen to British industry and what the chambers of commerce and others are saying. As the Association of British Chambers of Commerce has said :

    “The country is unmistakably experiencing a turnround in economic performance commerce and industry is on the road to recovery”.

    The Institute of Directors says the same and so does the CBI. The CBI’s latest survey shows business confidence up, more businesses expecting new orders, more businesses expecting to increase investment and more businesses intending to take on new workers. The International Monetary Fund also forecasts that our growth next year will be as good as or better than that in France, Italy and Germany.

    Mr. Bell : The House is listening with great interest to the Prime Minister on the state of the economy and our relations with Europe. If things are so good, why cannot he give us an election date?

    The Prime Minister : Things will get better and then the hon. Gentleman will get one. Britain is getting back on track again, back to the growth that provides the only way of putting people back in permanent work so that we can add to the 800,000 extra jobs that we have created since 1979.

    Mr. Bell : Jobs are being lost.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman talks about jobs. We will turn to that. The Leader of the Opposition says that he is concerned for the unemployed. Let us test it. Let us put it into action now. He could persuade his own union, the Transport and General Workers Union, to drop its boycott on youth training, employment training and the training and enterprise councils. Will he do it? No, he will not. Let me try him on another point.

    Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) rose–

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman could tell the Trades Union Congress that it was wrong to boycott employment action even before the scheme had started. Will he? The right hon. Gentleman will not.

    Ms. Primarolo rose–

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps most importantly of all, the right hon. Gentleman could drop his plans for a statutory minimum wage.

    Ms. Primarolo rose–

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) says that no jobs would be lost as a result of that policy. But that is not what every independent commentator says. It is not what the CBI says. The CBI says that the first phase would cost 200,000 to 300,000 jobs. “Oh, no”, says the hon. Member for Sedgefield,

    “it will make industry more competitive”.

    There is a gem of Labour newspeak–adding to one’s costs makes one more competitive. That is Labour’s understanding of the economy.

    Ms. Primarolo rose–

    The Prime Minister : We hear a lot from Opposition Members about the supply side. When they are not lecturing the CBI or threatening to sack the Governor of the Bank of England they are keen to quote those sources. Earlier this year they were very keen to quote the CBI as saying that we were in recession. They can update that. They can tell us who said recently :

    “There is at present one economy in Western Europe where manufactured exports have been increasing faster than world trade ; where import penetration remains below that in West Germany ; where investment in skills and innovation is at record levels and still rising ; where private sector inflation is under 4 per cent. and falling.”

    Opposition Members do not like to hear such words because they can only talk the country down, but those were the words of the director-general of the CBI.

    Ms. Primarolo rose —

    Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, South) rose —

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister is not giving way, so the hon. Lady must resume her seat. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to participate in the debate. Let us get on with it.

    The Prime Minister : I shall give the hon. Lady her chance in just a moment. The words that I quoted were those of the director-general of the CBI and the country about which he was speaking was Britain, a country which attracts more investment from America and Japan than does the rest of Europe put together.

    Ms. Primarolo : Earlier this week the Prime Minister revealed his deeply held conviction that it is necessary to further the equality of women in our society. If that was a firm pledge, why are there no legislative proposals in the Queen’s Speech to further women’s equality, such as a proposal to introduce universal child care?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady should not doubt our commitment on that issue. She had better wait and see.

    The Opposition like to talk about investment. What they usually mean by investment is more public spending of taxpayers’ money.

    Mr. Cryer : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends had the opportunity to intervene on several occasions. I invite him to wait a while.

    It is interesting that the principal paymaster of the Leader of the Opposition, the TGWU, refuses to welcome investment from Japan, especially in Scotland and Wales. What do they call it? [Interruption.] What do they call investment from Japan? They call it “alien”. That is what Japanese investment in Scotland and Wales is called. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us : does he personally think that Japanese investment in Scotland and Wales is alien? Does he want to see the £4 billion that Japanese investment adds to our trade balance, and the 400,000 new jobs that it could bring to this country, or not? Which does he back : the TGWU–his paymasters–or Japanese investment? Let him tell us.

    Mr. Kinnock : I had the great good fortune to have the first Japanese-owned factory in Wales, Takiron, opened in my constituency back in 1973. Since then, as the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and others know, I have worked assiduously to secure such inward investment. I am delighted to say that Aiwa is flourishing in my constituency. I should like the Prime Minister to introduce policies on retraining, transport, technology, research and development, and science that would make our country more attractive not only to Japanese investment but to British investment.

    The Prime Minister : It is under our policies that that investment has come here. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman now condemns the TGWU motion.

    The House and the country face a clear choice on the supply side. The Opposition propose new levies, new regulations and new quangos. We believe in lightening the burden on new business. The Opposition want to extend new powers to the unions–enforced recognition and complete immunity from dismissal for strikers. Those are powers which even the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) dared not introduce in the 1970s. In contrast, we believe in giving managers the right to manage and in giving the unions back to their members. The Opposition propose a new tax on savings. We know that savings are the fuel for the very investment that they claim this country needs. They propose higher taxes on earnings. We accept that that would enrich industries and laboratories, but it certainly would not enrich them in this country. It would just send scientific and managerial talent abroad.

    The Opposition still believe in nationalisation–the only party east or west of the old iron curtain that still does. We know where that policy ends. The private sector of industry would be the bit that the Government controlled and the nationalised sector would be the bit that nobody controlled.

    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : Not at the moment.

    In the months ahead we have a full programme for a Session of Parliament. Within it, we intend to carry forward the citizens charter, to extend parental choice, to raise education standards and to establish a stable and lasting relationship between local and central Government.

    First, the citizen’s charter. The best guarantor of effective service to the consumer is competition. That is why we have already extended competition in telecommunications and why we are taking powers to end the monopoly in gas and we are increasing competition in the water industry. The legislation will also bring the powers of all the utility regulators up to the level of the strongest, so that they can set guaranteed service standards and secure compensation, if those standards are not met. The legislation will also include enabling powers to resolve disputes between the utilities and individual customers about the accuracy of bills.

    The legislation will put more power in the hands of the individual. That is the essence. That is central to the citizen’s charter. The charter applies not just to the privatised utilities, but throughout the public services. We do not intend public service to mean second-best service.

    Several Hon. Members rose —

    The Prime Minister : I have given way amply.

    As well as making the big utilities more responsive to their customers, we shall give parents a greater say in their children’s schools and make local councils provide a better service to their electors.

    This Session we can put to the test the Opposition claim to care about public services.

    Mr. Frank Cook : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : I have said to the hon. Gentleman, who appears not to understand, that I do not propose to give way to him now. We will wait with interest to see how the Labour party votes. Will it vote with us for the charter and for the public or against us, as usual, and for the trade unions and the second rate?

    We shall introduce three Bills on education this Session. We will require the publication of local league tables on exam results, staying-on rates and truancy rates for all schools. Parents have a right to that information and they will get it. They also have a right to short, clear reports on their child’s school prepared by independent inspection teams, and they will get that, too. [Interruption.] I must say, Mr. Speaker, that if the public at large could see the behaviour on the Opposition Benches, they would know why Labour Members are unfit for government. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the Opposition not to point across the Chamber. It is very bad behaviour indeed.

    Mr. Skinner : The Prime Minister has sent the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) off to sleep.

    The Prime Minister : This coming year we will begin to introduce national vocational qualifications to schools, bringing in the high calibre technical qualifications that have been missing in education for so long– [Interruption.] Opposition Members may not regard further and higher education as importantly as we do–[Hon. Members : — “Hurrah.”] Perhaps they could cheer this. We will give further education colleges and sixth form colleges the same freedom from town hall control as we gave to the polytechnics. [Hon. Members :– “Hurrah.”]

    I wish that we could get the support of the Opposition for those policies, but I doubt that we can. The Opposition voted against the teachers’ pay review body and in favour of strikes. They voted to take schools out of the hands of head teachers and governors and to put them back in the hands of NALGO officials. They voted against the national curriculum and against simple tests. There is no doubt that they will vote against parents getting reports on their child’s school. For the Opposition, parental ignorance is bliss. They simply do not trust parents to have the interest in their children that we believe parents should have.

    In the national health service we will put patients first. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) may care to listen as he professes such an interest in the NHS. The Opposition fight our reforms because they believe that compassion and efficiency are incompatible. In that they are wrong. Compassion without efficiency is mere sentimentality. Compassion with efficiency delivers more and better health care. That is not a new principle ; it is an old principle. It was understood very well 140 years ago by Florence Nightingale, but if the Labour party had been around then, it would undoubtedly have opposed her reforms with the same vehemence as it opposes ours.

    Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North West) rose —

    The Prime Minister : For our part, we will continue with our reform of the NHS because only by doing so will patients get the best possible care from the resources that we devote to the NHS. No one can honestly doubt the Government’s commitment to the NHS. It is a commitment to the 1 million patients who use the service each day. It is a commitment that is re-emphasised in the patients’ charter, published only yesterday. It is a commitment reinforced by our determination to modernise the service. We are modernising the service and have no intention of abandoning it. Labour Members know that modernisation is necessary, but they have no policy whatever to achieve that.

    Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : Not at the moment.

    As a result, the Opposition trot out the old canard about privatising the NHS.

    We have seen that sort of trick before previous elections. Colleagues may recall the scare that we would reintroduce conscription, that no roads would be built in Britain and that we would stop raising pensions in line with inflation. Then in 1983 from Labour’s health spokesman came a real scare–that if the Conservatives were re-elected we would, within five years of 1983, end the NHS. Well, it is now 1991, and the health service is going strong, with £32,000 million worth of resources from the Conservative Government. If the right hon. Gentleman does not have the grace to admit that Labour were wrong before, does he have the grace to accept it now when I say that there will be no charges for hospital treatment or for visits to the doctor and that there will be no privatisation of health care in whole or in part? Does the right hon. Gentleman have the grace to accept that?

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister at last acknowledge that where there were once free services, and those free services are no longer available, so that people are obliged to purchase, because of the pressures of the system, he is privatising the health service and will continue to privatise it?

    The Prime Minister : Were the Labour Government privatising in 1951 when they introduced charges? The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no privatisation actual or intended in the national health service and that he is deliberately trying to scare people again and again.

    The right hon. Gentleman’s retreat on privatisation has been matched only by his creeping retreat on funding. Last month the Labour health spokesman affirmed that party’s commitment to restore fully what he called the

    “underfunding of the past decade”–

    an amount that Labour has not identified and cannot identify. They have slithered back from that. Now the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) says :

    “We very much hope to”

    and

    “we will seek to”.

    Even that is too much for Labour Treasury spokesmen, who say that only “some” of the alleged underfunding could be put right. What weasel words.

    Even that game of grandmother’s footsteps came to an end when the hon. Member for Livingston admitted :

    “We shall do it next time because we did it last time”.– [Official Report, 21 October 1991 ; Vol. 196, c. 673.]

    What did Labour do last time? They put up waiting lists, cut nurses’ and doctors’ pay and slashed the hospital building programme.

    The Conservative party has increased the share of the nation’s wealth given to the NHS. I give the House this further pledge now : in each and every year the NHS will, under us, get a real increase in its resources for patient care. That is what a Conservative Government can promise. Labour cannot promise, for their record shows that they cannot.

    Mr. Allen rose–

    The Prime Minister : I have given way enough already.

    Our local government legislation will put the council tax in place. That system will reflect ability to pay and ensure that most people contribute something to council services. It will be certain and fair. It will be in place from 1993 and bills will be restrained. When we introduce the council tax my only regret will be that my former colleague Richard Holt, who played such a part in helping us to frame so many of the proposals, will not be here to see them carried through. We shall all miss him very much.

    We shall extend competition into more council services and give new powers to the Audit Commission so that it can name names, authority by authority and service by service, so as to spread best practice and root out incompetence. We shall reform the structure of local government to give people councils with which they can identify, to which they can feel loyalty, and which deliver good services at a reasonable cost.

    Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the council tax legislation will include the existing provision in the poll tax legislation for the imprisonment of non-payers? Is he aware that of the 84 people who have so far served a prison sentence, many have been pensioners? The oldest such person is Richard Northover, who, at 80 years old, was sentenced to 30 days in Her Majesty’s prison in Dorchester, although he had paid his poll tax. He was the first person, at 80 years of age, to be sent to prison for not having filled in the registration form two years earlier.

    As the Prime Minister voted to abolish imprisonment for debt under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, will he now give a commitment to transfer that measure to England and Wales and stop this medieval barbarity?

    The Prime Minister : That question comes ill from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who has played such an ignoble role in encouraging people to get into debt and not to pay their bills. Much though we may sympathise with the hon. Gentleman at the way in which his Front-Bench colleagues have treated him, he should not give such a bad example while he sits in this House as a law-maker by encouraging people to be law-breakers. The law is set and it must be obeyed or the penalty paid.

    The Opposition like to pretend that services do not have to be paid for– the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East is living proof of that. However, too many of the Opposition and their councillors do not pay. Even as those councillors were setting inflated bills for others, they would not pay–but not any more. We propose to stop that abuse and to do so in this Session– if they can’t pay, they won’t vote. That will happen this year.

    Recent years have brought home to people the simple truth that high bills do not always mean better services, usually the reverse. Some councils are excellent, but too often standards are unacceptable. Shoddy service comes with the ready-made excuse, “We have special problems”. Let us look at two services that the social composition of a borough does not affect.

    Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    The Prime Minister : No, not even to a friend.

    Why does it cost nearly three times as much in Labour Camden to empty the bins as it does in Conservative Wandsworth?

    Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

    Mr. Speaker : I have heard nothing that is out of order. What is the point of order?

    Ms. Gordon : I want to check whether I heard the Prime Minister say, “If they can’t pay, they won’t vote.” I want to make sure that Hansard does not alter that.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady knows exactly what the policy is ; if people won’t pay–

    Mr. Nellist : The right hon. Gentleman said “can’t”.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has set a standard of stupidity in this House that is rarely excelled. He knows what the policy is. He should not try to follow the lead of the Leader of the Opposition in another area and try to pervert what that policy is. Why does it cost seven times more in Lambeth to issue a library book than in the most efficient councils?

    Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

    Mr. Speaker : I have heard nothing out of order. Is it a matter with which I can deal?

    Mr. Wilson : It is a genuine point of order arising from the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). The House is not interested–nor, I am sure, are you, Mr. Speaker- -in what the Prime Minister meant to say. What we and the Hansard writers are interested in is what the Prime Minister did say. There is no doubt that he said “can’t pay, won’t vote”.

    The Prime Minister : Let me make this quite clear to the hon. Gentleman so that he will not find himself in the position of being able to scare people over this matter. The policy applies to councillors. That is perfectly clear and it is well known to the House. I am happy to reiterate that now. If, by a slip of the tongue, I said otherwise, I am happy to correct it in the interests of ensuring that the Opposition do not, as has been their habit elsewhere, seek to scare people with what is expressly not Government policy. Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we are referring to councillors. We are also referring to people who are in a position to pay, but do not. There is a full range of rebates in the scheme we propose.

    Mr. Allen : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way–on rebates?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will not tempt me. The Opposition are clearly determined, if they can, to disrupt as much as they can. I think that that will be evident to anyone listening to this debate.

    In the Labour party’s own words, it says that Labour councils “demonstrate as far as the public is concerned what a Labour Government would be like”.

    There can be no more awful warning for people as we come to the next general election.

    On developments in the European Community–

    Mr. Haynes : Will the right hon. Gentleman give me further consideration?

    The Prime Minister : Tempting though the hon. Gentleman is, I wish to discuss the European Community and Britain’s place in forthcoming developments.

    Britain belongs to the mainstream of Europe and must remain at the heart of the Community. In the past 20 years, despite many frustrations, we have gained enormously from our membership–

    Mr. Frank Cook rose–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he puts his place on the list in jeopardy if he continues to interrupt in this way.

    Mr. Cook : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the deepest respect for you and for your position in the Chair, I remind you that the Prime Minister said that he had no intention of giving way to me at the moment. He said nothing about giving way later. He said that at 4.19pm.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it is within the knowledge of the House that I have given way rather more often than the Leader of the Opposition did. I now wish to consider something that I believe is of acute importance to every Member of the House and to millions of people beyond it –the negotiations in which we are currently engaged on the intergovernmental conferences.

    In the past 20 years we have gained enormously from our membership of the Community. I believe that the Community has gained also from our membership because Britain has determined its direction in so many ways–on budget reform, on reform of the common agricultural policy, on the single market, on free competition within Europe and on free trade with the rest of the world. Too often we overlook the extent to which Britain leads the Community and too frequently we recall the difficulties we sometimes face in it.

    Mr. Frank Cook : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    The Prime Minister : I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman at the moment; not in this speech.

    I do not doubt that over the next 20 years the Community’s evolution will be as marked as it has been in the nearly 20 years since we joined. We cannot dictate what our children will make of the Community, but we must leave them in a position where they can effectively influence the shape of Europe, and that Europe must be one in which we retain our distinct national identity.

    The intergovernmental conferences now under way raise vital issues for the future of this country. They involve hard judgments of where our best interests lie. In our approach to those negotiations, we have been guided by the views expressed in debates in the House. We have made progress in a number of areas. We are working to achieve an agreement at Maastricht in December, but it must be an agreement that I could make in the confident expectation that I could commend it to the House.

    On economic and monetary union, it would be irresponsible for any Government to ask the people of Britain to decide now that we should adopt, at a future date, a single European currency which will have far-reaching implications for the conduct of monetary and economic union. A move to a single currency that was not backed by convergence between the two economies of the member states of the Community would be a recipe for economic disaster. That is not in the interests of this country, or of our partners in Europe.

    This country is in the first rank of the European Community and will remain so. But I am not prepared to commit our country to a single currency. We must be able to judge nearer the time–Parliament must judge nearer the time–whether a single currency is in the interests of Britain. We should not achieve what is best for Britain or the Community by giving up now our right to independent judgment then.

    There is still some way to go before we have an agreement on economic and monetary union, but the discussions so far have shown that it is possible to thrash out a sensible position in negotiations. It is our aim to do the same on the draft treaty on political union. The issues raised are more diverse and just as difficult. They include the conduct of defence and foreign policy, and the powers of the European Parliament, the Commission and the European Court. We have to satisfy ourselves that, if we reach an agreement, it is an agreement in the overall British interest. It must be in Britain’s interest to work more closely with like-minded European countries on foreign policy, defence and security.

    Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    The Prime Minister : I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.

    It would not be in our interests to set up new defence structures that would undermine the role of NATO in safeguarding our defence.

    Mr. Ashdown : As the Prime Minister has been commenting on changes in policy, I congratulate him and the Government on having moved so far on Europe since the summer. On the subject of defence, may I remind him that less than a month ago he signed an agreement containing the following words :

    “Political union implies a common foreign and security policy and stronger European defence identity with the longer term perspective of a common defence policy”?

    The Prime Minister said that on 5 October this year. Will he confirm that it remains the Government’s objective?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is taking that statement out of context and is not listening to what I am saying. I shall be explicit in a moment and then again later on these points. It makes sense to co-operate with other European countries on judicial, police and immigration matters; but at a time when more and more member states are concerned about illegal immigration, the spread of drugs and the threat of terrorism it makes no sense to agree to measures that would weaken the unique and effective controls in this island. It makes sense to recognise that the European Parliament, directly elected, will have an increasing say in the conduct of European business, but it would not make sense to give the European Parliament powers of decision-making equal to those of the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament should have a larger role in curbing the undemocratic powers of the Commission. Commissioners are answerable to the Commission, not to the Governments who appointed them. The Commission is effectively answerable to no one. It must be answerable to an elected body and that body can only be the European Parliament. The European Parliament must be able to make its influence felt, but it must be the Council that decides on the Community’s policies for the future. At Maastricht the issues may not be laid out in black and white ; there will he hard judgments to be made. The crucial judgment for the Government will be to determine what is in the best interests of Britain and acceptable to this House. That is why we are arranging a two-day debate on 20 and 21 November. I and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out in detail the issues at stake and where Britain’s interests lie. This will be a vital opportunity for Members to set out their views. It will also be an opportunity for the Opposition to let the people of Britain know where they stand, if anywhere, on issues vital to the future of our country.

    The Labour party has consistently sold Britain short in Europe. Out of Government, its members opposed membership ; in Government, they bungled the negotiations on fair terms for our country. Now the Opposition have gone to the other extreme–“If it’s made in Brussels, it’s good enough for the Labour party.” No money back and no questions asked.

    Nowadays the Opposition try to pass themselves off as modern and moderate. They say that they now accept the agenda which we set through the 1980s and which we will continue to set through the 1990s–but who can believe them? Who could trust them? Are they political chameleons or political turncoats?

    We know that what this country needs is sound money, competitive industries, accountable public services, the extension of ownership and choice, and strong defences–and everyone knows who can be trusted to provide these things : not the half-hearted, reluctant converts among the Opposition, but a Government who genuinely believe in these things, a Government who will do what is right for this country without flinching, this year, next year and for years to come. That Government will remain on the Government side of the House after the election.

  • Text of the Queen’s Speech – 31 October 1991

    Below is the text of the Queen’s Speech, held on 31st October 1991.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

    I look forward to visiting Australia in February, the European Parliament and the Council of Europe in Strasbourg and Malta next May, France in June and Germany in October.

    My Government attach the highest importance to maintaining our security. For nearly half a century NATO has formed the cornerstone of our defences. It will continue to be the principal focus, but the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the other welcome developments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe permit changes to NATO’s strategy and will enable us to maintain our security with smaller forces. Nevertheless instability and other risks remain in Europe and elsewhere, and substantial and effective nuclear and conventional forces will be maintained.

    The United Kingdom will work for balanced and verifiable arms control agreements including early ratification of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. Efforts will continue to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to encourage greater international responsibility in the transfer of conventional weapons. The completion of multilateral negotiations on the abolition of chemical weapons will be pursued.

    My Government will require full, unconditional compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions, including the disposal of its missiles and weapons of mass destruction. They will press for long-term peace in the Middle East, including a settlement of the Palestinian problem. They will continue their efforts to secure the release of hostages in the Middle East.

    They will continue to work for a stronger, more effective United Nations.

    My Government will, with our Community partners, pursue the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. Within the Community, they will continue to play a constructive role in the two Inter-Governmental Conferences on Political Union and Economic and Monetary Union; and will work to complete the Single European Market, to promote budgetary discipline, and to reform the Common Agricultural Policy. They will prepare for the United Kingdom’s Presidency of the Community beginning on 1st July 1992.

    The United Kingdom will continue to develop our good relations with the Soviet Union and its republics, and to encourage their integration into the world economy; and will work to help Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania re- establish themselves in the international community.

    My Government will further encourage the development of democratic institutions and market economies in central and eastern Europe; and pursue the completion of Association Agreements with Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. They hope for a peaceful settlement in Yugoslavia. They will contribute constructively to the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

    My Government will encourage all sides in South Africa to pursue peaceful means of constructing a democratic, non-racial society. A substantial aid programme aimed at promoting sustainable economic and social progress and good government in developing countries will be maintained.

    My Government will continue to support the Commonwealth. My Government will continue to administer Hong Kong in the interests of its people and to cooperate in implementing the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

    My Government will continue their fight against terrorism in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. They will vigorously pursue their policies to combat drug trafficking and misuse of drugs, nationally and internationally.

    The United Kingdom will work for a successful United Nations Conference on Environment and Development next June.

    Members of the House of Commons,

    Estimates for the Public Service will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    My Government will pursue, within the framework of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, firm financial policies designed to reduce inflation further and maintain the conditions necessary for sustained growth. They will promote enterprise and training and improve the working of the economy. They will continue to prepare for the privatisation of the British Railways Board and the British Coal Corporation. They will maintain firm control of public spending with the aim of keeping its share of national income on a downward trend over time. My Government attach the highest priority to improving public services. They will implement the programme of reform in the White Paper on the Citizen’s Charter, including bringing forward Charters for individual public services.

    Legislation will be introduced to reinforce the regulation of privatised utilities.

    Legislation will be introduced to provide for a new council tax, to establish a review of local government structure in England, and to enhance competitive tendering for local authority services. Action will be taken to improve quality and choice in education. Legislation will be introduced to reform funding of further education and sixth form colleges and to reform higher education in England and Wales, and to make information available about the performance of individual schools.

    My Government will continue to develop policies to enhance the nation’s health and to improve the effectiveness of the health and social services, and the social security system.

    Work for the regeneration of our cities will continue.

    A Bill will be introduced to enable applications for asylum in the United Kingdom to be dealt with quickly and effectively.

    A Bill will be presented to create an offence of prison mutiny and to increase the maximum penalty for aiding prisoners to escape. Legislation will be introduced to revise health and safety arrangements for offshore installations.

    A Bill will be introduced to replace private legislation as the means for authorising transport development schemes.

    A Bill will be introduced to provide for a Cardiff Bay Barrage. For Scotland, legislation will be introduced to reform further and higher education.

    In Northern Ireland, my Government will resolutely seek to defeat terrorism through the even-handed and energetic enforcement of the law; to promote political progress; to strengthen the economy; and to create equality of opportunity and equity of treatment for all sections of the community. They will maintain positive relations with the Republic of Ireland.

    Legislation will be introduced to improve the supervision of charities.

    Other measures will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Launch of Opportunity 2000 – 28 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the launch of Opportunity 2000, held at Lancaster House in London on Monday 28th October 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Elspeth, thank you very much indeed. Perhaps I might begin by congratulating you, Jane Kershaw, Karen James and Business in the Community for the tremendous amount of work that has been done both to start this initiative and put together today’s events. I think it is very attractive that it has happened, it is very necessary and I am delighted to be here today to play a small part in the launch of Opportunity 2000.

    It is an initiative that I welcome and I think it is also an initiative that is probably well overdue and it is undoubtedly one of the boldest corporate equal opportunities initiatives that we have yet seen. In my judgment it will catch the tide of public opinion.

    What I would like to do today is to focus primarily on the central point, what Opportunity 2000 employers are doing to remove the barriers that make it harder for women to realise their full potential. And on this particular issue I do so, like so many of you, as an employer. Because the office for the Minister of the Civil Service has signed up as the umbrella organisation for the whole Civil Service. So I hope today I am in a position, perhaps a unique position, of talking to you as one employer to another.

    I believe that there are several valuable aspects to the Opportunity 2000 approach. Firstly, it recognises most crucially the frequent subtlety of the barriers facing women, not all of those are evident. It gives line managers a direct interest in overcoming them and it allows each organisation to set its own goals for progress in the light of its starting position. They are very valuable aspects for the Opportunity 2000 approach.

    At present there is a social revolution going on in the role of women in our society, one does not have to be an expert on it to be aware of that, one can perceive it even with a casual glance. And it is happening, frankly, whether men like it or not, it will go on happening, nothing will stop it and I believe that nothing will slow it.

    And not only is this revolution right socially, I believe that it is right economically as well. So for business there are strong arguments for capitalising on the revolution, for getting a far larger return on the resources invested in the training of women during their education and at the start of their career.

    But even apart from that clear cut point on the economics, there is a yet stronger argument for accepting that the change in the role of women is fundamentally right and it really can be set out quite clearly in a simple question: why should half of our population go through life like a hobbled horse in a steeplechase? The answer of course is that they should not and increasingly they will not.

    Things are changing. Perhaps in our impatience to see further action we sometimes overlook some of the changes that have occurred in recent years. But within living memory women were largely excluded from higher education and the professions. And it is truly astonishing to recall that it was only after the Second world War that women did not have to resign from the Civil Service when they got married and today women and men are entering higher education and many professions in equal numbers.

    And within living memory also women were banned from voting or holding elected office. Now we have had a women holding the highest elected office, we have six women Ministers of State in the government, a number poised just outside the Cabinet. And to build on that I would certainly like to see far more women entering the House of Commons as Members of Parliament. All the main parties are tending to choose more women candidates, I am glad to say my Party has an extremely good list of them, including my own Political Secretary, Judith Chaplin, in Newbury. But the fact is we still do not have enough and I would like more and I hope we will see more.

    But welcome though that is, it really is not just a question of women becoming judges, Members of Parliament, boardroom chairmen, Permanent Secretaries or senior consultants. The truth is only a few men actually do that. The really important developments are that women now constitute nearly half the labour force and are expected to account for virtually all the growth in numbers employed in the coming decade. And while many women choose to stay at home while their children are very small, two-thirds of mothers are in paid employment and it is this group above all who must be allowed to realise their full potential.

    So I want to see all women having the same opportunities as men. We do want more women in top posts and I shall have something to announce about that in a moment. But it is just as important, perhaps in many ways more important, that the average woman should have the same scope for development and fulfilment at work as the average man has enjoyed for many years.

    What we need is a twin track approach. Enabling women to get to the top must go hand in hand with enriching women’s job opportunities on every rung of the ladder. And that needs to be done anyway to provide a supply of able candidates for top jobs. No-one wants tokenism, least of all in my experience women themselves at work competing not wholly on equal terms with men.

    We are getting over the hurdle of the first prejudice, we have moved a long way from the rigid stereotyping which used to dominate thinking and I recall the Victorian writer, Elise Acton, who wanted to write poetry but was told by her publisher to write a cookery book instead. Well tell that to Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, Agatha Christie, PD James or, come to think of it, Jilly Cooper. And on the subject of cooking they might tell it to Anton Mossiman as well and see what he would have to say.

    So more recently, provided women are prepared and able to work as men traditionally have – and the key point is, are able to work – they should now be able to progress as men progress in the same field. But this is of course a big provided. It glosses over the main difference between the opportunities open to men and those open to women. Relatively few men think that combining career, marriage and children will involve choices or pose dilemmas. But for women these three simple human ambitions are still very hard to combine.

    And that is the problem that we must tackle today and which Opportunity 2000 addresses. And it is above all about changing attitudes. The time has come to ask why women should need to be prepared to conform to traditional working practices. Why can’t work be organised on a part-time basis with or without job sharing? Why can’t career breaks be recognised as something positive from which people might actually gain in terms of effectiveness and fresh thinking?

    The problems of working women are emphatically not a minority issue. Every day millions and millions of women cope with combined job and family responsibilities, including responsibilities frequently for elderly relatives as well as for children. And although those responsibilities can affect men, the truth is that to date it is mainly women who have to juggle job and family responsibilities.

    We increasingly need to come to terms with these facts. And I am delighted that the employers participating in Project 2000 have done so. I hope as a result of their efforts that many more employers will follow suit. Because it is the forward thinkers who have noticed the social revolution in the role of women and who are planning their future development accordingly and it is I believe in their own self-interest to do so.

    But the Government, too, has a role in encouraging voluntary action by employers. Michael Howard, the Employment Secretary, recently launched “The Best of Both Worlds”, a book that aimed at making employers aware of the benefits of flexible working arrangements for them and for their staff and he also launched a 10-point plan for equal opportunities which emphasises the need for employers to develop their own action plans and to set challenging, achievable objectives for the recruitment and the development of women

    So one might ask: what are the employers in “Opportunity 2000” actually doing apart from the crucial first step of alerting male managers to the fact that barriers exist?

    What they are doing is to undertake a range of measures designed to remove the barriers which stand in women’s way and they are going to do this in measurable ways:

    Some companies are committing themselves to increase the management development and training opportunities for women employees; others are setting managerial targets for the number of women in key areas; and yet others are raising board-level consciousness and are running training programmes on women’s development and on equal opportunities because women are an asset which employers frankly cannot afford to waste and recognition of that is the key to greater opportunity for women and it is as hardheaded as that. A modern economy demands an increasingly skilled workforce, training costs money and it is not only formal training which is an asset; anyone doing a job of work gains valuable experience and skills and employers will want to get the best possible return on all that investment. And yet, if they are going to do that, they will need to offer retraining to women who want to come back after a career break; they will want to ensure that women who do come back don’t face disincentives such as loss of seniority or restricted prospects and they will want also, as I indicated a moment or so ago, to offer flexible [inaudible] I said earlier that I thought we were breaking down the first hurdle of prejudice – the assumption that women simply could not cope with the most demanding of jobs – and I believe it is true that we are breaking down that prejudice but there is still a variant of this hurdle about: “That’s not a woman’s job!” is what you hear people say and nowadays, the reasons given seldom have anything to do with brains; more often, they have to do with brawn or the assumed unpleasantness of the job but in truth, that is really a choice surely for the women who want those jobs to make. What is said is no more than a kind of restrictive practice. Sometimes male managers and male employers like their cosy male world; they see the arrival of female employees as a threat or as a bore and in that I believe they are wrong.

    As I come from Government, you may well ask what the Government is doing about the social revolution. I could read out our record, I could point to the introduction of independent taxation which for the first time gave married women an existence in law as taxpaying individuals; I could point to the abolition of composite rate tax which helped above all, non-taxpaying wives in particular; I could point to the indexation of child benefit; I could point to the limited extension of tax relief to the provision of workplace nurseries; but instead, I want to highlight four things relevant to today’s launch:

    Firstly, Government must highlight the values of a society. It is no use my saying we want women to have more opportunity, including opportunity to get to the top, if the top of everything is dominated by men and it will take time to change this but there is something that the Government can do right away and I am intending to do it. I am determined to see an increase in the proportion of women holding senior public appointments; 23 percent, the level reached last year, is simply not good enough so I am asking my Cabinet colleagues – at the moment men but nothing is for ever! [Laughter] – to take a close personal interest in this. A Minister in each and every Department will be personally responsible; they will expect to see women on every short list for public appointment or to be given good reasons for the absence of women candidates and I shall want to review progress personally in a year’s time. The Women’s National Commission is supporting this initiative by advising women of the opportunities available, the experience required and how best to present their experience and qualifications and I hops that women will come forward for these jobs.

    In some other areas, we will have to wait for the pool of female middle management to become large enough to supply a stream of candidates for the top jobs but thousands – literally thousands of women – are already equipped to serve the public with distinction in positions of responsibility; it is just a matter of finding them and making sure that their chances of an appointment are quite as good as those of a man.

    Secondly, Angela Rumbold, who is here this morning, who chairs our Ministers Group on Women’s Issues, reports direct to the Home Secretary. I have asked them both to report regularly and directly to me in future and I have done so because the problems faced by women cannot be confined within the remit of a single Department; they transcend most if not all the Departments of State and we recognise that.

    The group which Angela chairs is helping to develop an effective and integrated approach to the concerns and needs of women and increasingly, all policy-makers without exception are being required to consider the impact of their policies on women before they are put in place.

    But one point I think is self-evident: the Government cannot know the concerns of most women without a continuing dialogue, so the third thing I want to tell you about is Angela Rumbold’s new network initiative. This will involve tapping the views of women all over the country; it has just got under way. Angela wants to listen; she will then report and we want to make sure that Government actions are really relevant to all women and if you want to take part, whoever you are, wherever you are, whatever your interests art, then contact Angela Rumbold at the Home Office and she will be delighted to hear what you have to say.

    Fourthly is the Government’s commitment to “Opportunity 2000”. We are entirely behind this project and as I have said, we are a participant in this project. The Government itself is a very large employer of women; 48 percent of the Civil Service are women; another Government-funded organisation, the National Health Service – and it will remain a Government-funded organisation – [Laughter] is the largest employer of women in Europe. The Civil Service has had a long and admirable policy as far as equal pay and the more formal kinds of equal opportunity are concerned; it can rightly be proud of having led in this area but the proportion of women in senior positions in the Civil Service while better than the proportion of women in comparable jobs in the private sector, is still too small. In large part, this is because women have children and rightly want career breaks and flexible hours to look after them. It is only in the last decade that as an employer the Government has really begun to tackle this issue. We launched a specific programme of action in 1984 and since then we have seen a decrease in women’s resignation rates, a trebling of the proportion of women working part-time and more women in management grades and we plan to launch a new programme for action in the spring to carry this forward.

    In the National Health Service as well, we are making good progress. Virginia Bottomley has been particularly active in this area and I am delighted that the National Health Service has just won an award from the International Women’s Forum for the corporation which has “made the most difference for its women employees”.

    The twin-track approach that I mentioned earlier is particularly important in the National Health Service. The nursing profession is overwhelmingly female and half of all students entering medical school and 85 percent of National Health Service administrators are women. But there still is a gap; we still need to see more women consultants, hospital and health authority managers – there are still not remotely enough of them – and we need also to provide satisfying jobs with reasonable prospects at every level and it is particularly important for trained nurses to be able to come back to nursing posts which recognise their experience after for one reason or another they may have had a career break.

    Since 1986, the National Health Service has taken a number of incentives to improve prospects for its women employees. These are designed to retain skilled and experienced staff and to provide more opportunities for advancement and some of these initiatives and incentives are very worthwhile. Most health authorities are developing flexible working arrangements; nearly half of all health authorities provide nursery facilities, some run in partnership with private sector employers; and new provisions on maternity leave and pay in the National Health Service are among the best in the country.

    I very much welcome the fact that several Government Departments and the National Health Service have already signed up as “Opportunity 2000′ employers. Other Departments and Agencies in the tradition of the Civil Service are considering doing so; from the centre, we will encourage them to do so, to consider quickly, to decide correctly and to jump in.

    I have made clear, Madam Chairman, my own belief in the importance of opportunity. Opportunity is one of the greatest gifts that we can give our children but opportunity must be sustained. It isn’t a once and for all opportunity at one stage in your life that you need; it is continuing opportunities at all stages of your life that is actually relevant if we are to maximise the opportunities for people of all ages and both sexes in our society. It is frankly no use equipping boys and girls in equal numbers to take advantage of opportunities and then allowing multiple barriers to check the progress of girls as they become women and there is, it seems to me, something very odd indeed about allowing those who look after children to suffer lifelong disadvantage for doing so when all of us believe that that should not happen.

    So we are committed to changing as much of this as we can as speedily as we can. This Government is committed to widening opportunities and ensuring more of them are available to women and it is committed to encouraging enlightened employers to look to their own self-interest and promote better opportunities for their own growing workforce. That is what I expect to see in the years to come, that is what I hope to see in the years to come, that is what we will be encouraging people to do in the years to come and that is why so very much I welcome “Opportunity 2000” and wish you every success. [Applause]

  • PMQT – 22 October 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd October 1991. John MacGregor responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Twinn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 October.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I have been asked to reply My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is returning from a highly successful performance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare.

    Dr. Twinn : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the effects of a 27 per cent. cut in the defence budget? Will he further consult about the effects–especially on Scottish regiments–of a 50 per cent. cut in the defence budget?

    Mr. MacGregor : I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the policies of the Labour and Liberal parties on defence. The Labour party’s conference proposals, which a future Labour Government would be pressurised into accepting, would mean defence cuts of about £6 billion– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The Leader of the House must put his own interpretation on the question.

    Mr. MacGregor : He is also answering the question. That would be more than the nation spends on the Army and Navy together. The Liberal’s proposals would mean a cut in the Army of nearly 50,000 men below the level set out in “Options for Change”. That is the equivalent of no Scottish regiments and no soldiers from Scotland. I hope that the whole nation and especially those with interests in defence and defence jobs will note the consequences of their policies and the contrast with ours.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to agree with the Secretary of State for Health in repudiating tax relief on private health insurance for the over-60s, or does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the scheme should be commended as

    “definitely a way of getting more resources into the Health Service.”–[ Official Report , 12 July 1989 ; Vol. 156, c. 1024.]

    Mr. MacGregor : My right. hon. Friend was making it clear that he did not believe that there should be an extension of that particular scheme. Obviously, tax proposals are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

    Mr. Kinnock : The right hon. Gentleman’s memory is not serving him well. Just 48 hours ago the Secretary of State for Health said that he would not be at all surprised if the whole scheme was dropped in the next Budget. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that over a three-year period the Government are spending £150 million on supporting private health insurance. Would not that sum be better spent on maintaining and improving services in the national health service for elderly patients who are being hit by the closure of geriatric wards?

    Mr. MacGregor : The right hon. Gentleman knows that the figure is £60 million. Perhaps he should now answer the question that was put repeatedly yesterday and that has not been answered. How does the Labour party propose to fund and find the additional £650 million which would result from its changes in policies on charges, contracting out and the minimum wage? Those policies would reduce patient care and the Labour party refuses to answer.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the right hon. Gentleman, deputising for the Prime Minister, now answer the question that I asked him? The Secretary of State for Health has repudiated the private scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer supports the scheme. What does the right hon. Gentleman think? Does he agree that the money would be better spent in the national health service helping the elderly with their needs instead of funding private health insurance?

    Mr. MacGregor : I have already made it clear that what my right hon. Friend said was that he did not believe that there should be any extension of the scheme. The point is that the £60 million being devoted to the scheme is very small compared with the £650 million that would be taken away from patient care as a result of the Labour party’s changes in policy.

     

    Q2. Mr. Michael Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Brown : Will my right hon. Friend reflect today, as we complete the 12th Session of this Government, that after those 12 years, 1.4 million people now own their council homes and 9 million people are now shareholders for the first time? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those people will look forward to the Prime Minister’s proposals for the reform of inheritance tax? Will he condemn those who oppose that reform, who are displaying not only the politics of envy, but the politics of revenge?

    Mr. MacGregor : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. One of the many great achievements of the 1980s has been the big increase in and wider spread of ownership throughout the community. It is no wonder that the Labour party looks to inheritance tax as a means of financing its high-spending policies. As my hon. Friend points out, Labour opposed all the policies that have brought about the greater increase in home ownership and the much wider spread of share ownership.

    Mr. Cousins : Is not it disgraceful that neither the Prime Minister nor any Cabinet minister has met representatives of the people and the police from Newcastle upon Tyne, where every day police and fire officers face more incidents than anywhere else in Britain, where every day, because of poll tax capping, care, schools and youth clubs are being cut and where every day, old people and women face a relentless campaign and a wave of crime and harassment? Is not that the real city challenge and have not the Government failed?

    Mr. MacGregor : It is this Government who have constantly increased resources to the police, who have put police pay on a competitive level, who have considerably increased the numbers of police, who have supported them in all the difficult tasks that they do and who throughout have taken many steps to deal with the sort of problems that the hon. Gentleman mentions. It is this party which has put substantial resources and substantial support behind them.

    Mr. Allason : Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 1286 on today’s Order Paper? Will he ask the Prime Minister, as head of the security and intelligence services, to order an immediate inquiry into the alleged relationship between the Israeli intelligence service and Robert Maxwell and especially Mr. Nicholas Davies, the news editor of the Daily Mirror?

    Mr. MacGregor : If any questions are raised about export sales to Iran–about this issue–which justify an investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry and any evidence is provided, I am sure that it will do so.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the right hon. Gentleman feel any remorse at the fact that, over the next few months, thousands of business men and tens of thousands of their employees will pay with their jobs and their livelihoods for the Government’s economic mismanagement?

    Mr. MacGregor : The right hon. Gentleman knows that the most important way to ensure long-term prosperity and competitiveness is to get inflation down to competitive levels, as we have succeeded in doing. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that, throughout the 1980s, we saw substantial increases in the number of new businesses that have lasted, in the number of growing businesses and in new jobs. Of course, we regret the increase in unemployment, but I believe that it is our policies that will give us the path for growth in the 1990s that we had in the 1980s. It is important to recollect that about half those who become unemployed find a new job within three months. The policies that we have been pursuing have enabled that to happen.

     

    York

    Q4. Mr. Gregory : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to make an official visit to York.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to make a series of visits to all parts of the country and very much hopes to include York.

    Mr. Gregory : My right hon. Friend will no doubt recall the campaign by animal lovers in York and, in particular, by the York branch of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, to outlaw the export of live horses. Will he accept the grateful thanks of all those involved for the determined stand taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last night, to ensure that our national rules continue and that such deplorable exports do not take place?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am well aware of the feelings in York. All hon. Members–certainly Conservative Members–are well aware of the concern felt by many at the possibility of changes in relation to our existing trade in horses policy, especially our restrictions on the export of live horses for slaughter. I am sure, therefore, that the whole House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on securing a most successful outcome to the Community negotiations and on ensuring that our policies on that issue can be maintained.

    I would go further. On the directive as a whole, there is no doubt that the United Kingdom has taken the lead in ensuring proper welfare safeguards in the transport of animals and that we have achieved significant improvements. That shows the high priority that we have attached to the matter.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Morgan : Following the statement by the Secretary of State for Health to the House yesterday, to the effect that it was illegal for NHS patients to be charged for services–except for the three categories prescribed by law–what redress does the right hon. Gentleman, who is standing in for the Prime Minister today, suggest to my constituent, Mr. Charlie Harding of Ely, who was charged £100 for his nebuliser by Llandough hospital’s chest medicine department and who is still paying £32 a year for the nebuliser to be maintained? Mr. Harding was torpedoed during world war 2 and is now being torpedoed again by this two- faced Government, who say that charging is wrong but who do not do anything about it? What redress does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind to help Charlie Harding get his money back?

    Mr. MacGregor : I understand that the health authority has provided the nebuliser on loan and the hon. Gentleman will know–

    Mr. Morgan : It is a different case.

    Mr. MacGregor : In one particular case, the equipment has been provided on loan. With regard to other cases, I wish to make the position absolutely clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that there will be no charges for patients on the national health service and we will look at cases where payments have already been made.

    Mr. Brandon-Bravo : Like my hon. Friends, I know that my right hon. Friend very much welcomes the statement by the Secretary of State for Health yesterday, especially with regard to our additional provision for residential homes. Will my right hon. Friend note, comment upon and compare our caring approach on residential homes with the approach of the Labour party, whose friends in Nottinghamshire have spent the past six months trying to close the 12 homes in our county?

    Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend. The policies that we have been pursuing in respect of care in the community, which includes residential homes, have very considerably improved the care and resources devoted to such elderly residents. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the additional resources–well above the level of inflation–that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced yesterday for them.

     

    Q5. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Canavan : Will the Leader of the House now settle the dispute between the Secretary of State for Health, who told the House yesterday that it is illegal to charge national health patients for fertility treatment, and the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for health, who claimed that it is perfectly legal? No matter who is right or wrong with regard to the legal technicalities, will the Government intervene now to ensure that such treatment is available free on the NHS?

    Mr. MacGregor : The position is absolutely clear. It is illegal for the NHS to charge NHS patients except in the limited respects allowed by statute. The NHS has, of course, never provided every service in every area. It is up to local health authorities to decide local priorities– [Hon. Members :– “Ah!”] That has always been the case and it was the case under the previous Government. There is nothing unusual about that. As I said to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), if there are specific examples of NHS bodies overstepping the law, we shall investigate them.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 October 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd October 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EC Presidency

    Mr. Anderson : To ask the Prime Minister which special events during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Economic Community he proposes to hold in Wales.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    A wide ranging programme of special events is planned to mark our EC Presidency next year including cultural and artistic events. In Wales there will be an enhanced EC flavour to the Llangollen international eisteddfod : my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend on 9 July as day president.

    An informal meeting of EC Employment and Social Affairs Ministers will be held in Wales. The Welsh Office is also considering hosting a conference for representatives of its economic partner regions in Europe.

     

    British Medical Association

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what recent meetings he has had with the British Medical Association ; and what was discussed.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend met the chairman of the Council and the Secretary of the British Medical Association on 30 September, and had a useful discussion on a range of matters related to the NHS.

     

    Mr. Colin Wallace

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 July, Official Report, column 376, if he will set out his assessment of what went wrong in the case of Mr. Colin Wallace.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    A copy of the conclusions of the report by Sir David Calcutt QC into the handling of this appeal by Mr. Colin Wallace to the Civil Service appeal board was placed in the Library of the House on 13 October 1990.

     

    Earthscan Publication

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will obtain for the library at 10 Downing street a copy of the study published on 21 October by Earthscan, “Caring for the Earth : A Strategy for Sustainable Living”.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is aware of the report’s contents and has arranged for copies to be made available in the Library of the House. The study will be useful in developing our position for next year’s United Nations conference on environment and development which the Prime Minister hopes to attend.

     

    Citizen’s Charter

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), on 14 October, Official Report, column 7 , if he will set out the criteria he used in choosing the members of his panel of advisers on the citizen’s charter.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The panel of advisers were chosen for their experience and their commitment to improved standards of public service.

     

    Disarmament

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library his response to the nuclear disarmament initiative made by President Gorbachev on 5 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made it clear that the Government warmly welcome the response made by President Gorbachev to President Bush’s initiative of 27 September. Together they represent a genuine opportunity to maintain secure defence at a lower level of armaments.

     

    Commonwealth Conference

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister whether, in the course of his trip to the Commonwealth conference, he or any of his accompanying Ministerial colleagues or officials devoted any time to matters of a party political nature.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 October.

     

    Engagements

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is returning from the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare.

     

    Party Conferences

    Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Lancashire on the effects on policing throughout Lancashire during the Conservative party conference; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) if he will set up a review of the policing and funding of policing and other emergency services for the major party political annual conferences.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    No. It is for the chief officer of the force concerned to decide how a party conference should be policed, as with any other police operation. I do not believe that such operations require any changes to the normal arrangements for funding police forces.

     

    Northern Region (Visits)

    Ms. Armstrong : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those official visits he has made to the northern region.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making visits to all parts of the country and he intends to include the northern region in them.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 October 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st October 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Official Visits

    Mr. Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visits to the Soviet Union, China and Hong Kong.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    During my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow on 1 September, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, he had meetings with President Gorbachev, President Yeltsin and members of the committee for the management of the national economy. It was the first visit to the Soviet Union by a foreign Head of Government following the failed coup on 19 August. The Prime Minister expressed our strong support for the continuing process of economic and political reform in the Soviet Union and discussed ways in which we and our partners could assist. The Prime Minister also had a first meeting with the Prime Ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania following their independence, and agreed with them on the desirability of developing close and friendly relations.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Peking from 2 to 4 September and met Premier Li Peng, President Yang Shangkun and party secretary Jiang Zemin. The central element in the Prime Minister’s visit was the signature of the memorandum of understanding on the Hong Kong airport project. The Prime Minister also raised human rights and discussed international and bilateral issues. We reached agreement on a number of issues related to Hong Kong which we set out in the joint communique of 4 September, a copy of which is being placed in the Library.

    In Hong Kong my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had meetings with the Governor and members of the Executive Council and met a wide cross-section of leaders and representatives from the political, municipal and business communities. He also visited the city polytechnic using the mass transit railway–a British export success. The Prime Minister made clear in Hong Kong the Government’s commitment to the continued success of Hong Kong, and to the maintenance of effective British administration until 1 July 1997. There was widespread satisfaction that the vital airport project is now going ahead.

     

    Switzerland (Military Agreements)

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Swiss organisations with which Her Majesty’s Government have made any agreement since 1979 to provide military training in combat, communications and sabotage.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    Military training has been provided to personnel of the Swiss armed forces, but it is not our practice to comment on the details of such training.

     

    Downing Street Office

    Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest annual figure for the cost of running the Private Office at 10 Downing Street; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The total cost of all my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s offices in 1990-91 was £8,225,816

    Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, the costs of office services and the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust are included. The Prime Minister’s salary is excluded.

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to return to the Tate gallery, London, the Turner paintings “A Quiet Ruin” and “Sunset”, which are currently on loan to his office in No. 10 Downing Street.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    There is no set loan period; the paintings will be returned to the Tate gallery when the trustees so request.

     

    Hospitality Costs

    Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest annual figure for the cost of hospitality provided by 10 Downing Street; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The cost of official hospitality met by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s office during 1990-91 was £20,904.

     

    Foreign Visits

    Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister what is the most recent figure for the cost of foreign visits made by the Prime Minister since 22 November 1990; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply. The cost of foreign visits made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister since 22 November 1990 is £550,219, including costs of his staff, but excluding outstanding costs of a number of recent visits.

     

    Zimbabwe

    Sir Eldon Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if, during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare, he raised with the Zimbabwe Government the situation of British retirees who worked there as civil servants and/or police officers, and whose occupational pensions, payable by Zimbabwe, have lost much of their value; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    No. I understand that the Zimbabwe Government are meeting their legal obligations on the payment of pensions to their former public servants.

     

    City Challenge

    Mr. Blunkett : To ask the Prime Minister what Government Departments have agreed to participate in the city challenge initiative; and what steps he has taken to ensure that their departments give a priority to participating in city challenge.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply. All Government Departments with relevant responsibilities are participating in city challenge. They are assessing their contribution to the initiative as the 11 city challenge authorities work up their proposals in detail.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy on Yugoslavia.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 14 October at column 40.

     

    Energy Conservation

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if his Department has carried out an energy audit of the properties at 10 Downing Street and the Chequers estate within the last year;

    (2) what measures have been taken over the last year to improve energy conservation at 10 Downing street and the Chequers estate.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    An energy audit of 10 to 12 Downing Street was carried out in late 1990. The implementation of all the audit’s recommendations will be completed by the end of the year. The Chequers estate is the responsibility of the Chequers Trust.

     

    Ozone Layer

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister what is his latest information in regard to the policy of the Indian Government towards signing the Montreal protocol to protect the global ozone layer.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My understanding is that the Indian Government intend to become a party to the Montreal protocol once there are sufficient ratifications to bring into force the amendments agreed at the second meeting of the parties in London last year. It is hoped that we will reach that position by the end of this year.

     

    UK Nuclear Deterrent

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the basis for his calculation of the minimum size of the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    We maintain our nuclear deterrent at the minimum size necessary to ensure that any potential aggressor is faced by the prospect of intolerable damage if he proceeds.

     

    Kuwait

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what matters were discussed in his meeting with Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah of Kuwait in London on 4 October; and what matters were agreed.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s discussions with the amir covered a number of international and bilateral issues and underlined the strength of our relationship. The Prime Minister welcomed the political changes now under way in Kuwait and stressed the importance of fair and humane treatment of foreign nationals in the country.

     

    BR Fare Increases

    Mr. Adley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will indicate the criteria he employed in determining which lines should be subject to his intervention in the decision by British Rail on fare increases on individual lines; and what is his policy on intervention in day-to-day decisions on management within nationalised industries.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The boards of nationalised industries are appointed to manage their industries in accordance with the financial frameworks and objectives set by the Government. The Government have no wish to involve themselves in day-to-day management matters. However, the chairmen regularly consult Ministers about major management decisions which may have an impact on the achievement of their objectives. British Rail’s recent fares increases are a case in point. In commenting on British Rail’s proposals, Ministers took account of the citizen’s charter principle that increases should be related to quality of service; the need to fund BR’s large investment programme and our general policy that the burden of funding BR should be progressively shifted from taxpayers to passengers.

     

    French Prime Minister

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to defence issues were discussed in his meeting with his French counterpart on 24 September in London.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    Mme. Cresson and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister concentrated on European Community questions on 24 September. They discussed the roles of NATO, the Western European Union and the European Council in the defence field. The Prime Minister stressed the importance of Europe doing more for its own defence, in a way which does not undermine NATO. They agreed on the importance of enhanced bilateral collaboration in this sphere.

     

    Dalai Lama

    Mr. Graham : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet the Dalai Lama of Tibet in the near future.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no plans to do so.

     

    Environmental Protection Agency

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress made over the past three months to establish the central agency for environmental protection and enhancement.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    The Government’s proposals for a new, independent environment agency were set out in a consultation paper issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 3 October. A copy of the consultation paper, on which views have been invited by 31 January 1992, has been placed in the Library.

     

    Research and Development

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when the annual review of Government-funded research and development, “R & D 91”, was published; how many copies of the report were printed; at what cost; and what attempts have been made to circulate the report to interested organisations and libraries in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    The annual review of Government-funded research and development, “R & D 91”, was published on 24 July 1991. Two thousand copies were printed and it is on sale through HMSO for £25. The printing and publishing costs totalled £25,800 and are offset by sales to date of 1,396 : copies of the review’s tables are also available on computer-readable disks.

    A total of 355 copies have been distributed to the Libraries of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, United Kingdom Government Departments, United Kingdom-based embassies, United States National Science Foundation, the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology, research councils, Universities Funding Council, Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and in response to requests from a number of other interested organisations.

     

    Soviet Union

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister is he will make a statement on his visit to Moscow in September.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    During my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow on 1 September, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, he had meetings with President Gorbachev, President Yeltsin and members of the committee for the management of the national economy. It was the first visit to the Soviet Union by a foreign Head of Government following the failed coup on 19 August. The Prime Minister expressed our strong support for the continuing process of economic and political reform in the Soviet Union and discussed ways in which we and our partners could assist. The Prime Minister also had a first meeting with the Prime Ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania following their independence, and agreed with them on the desirability of developing close and friendly relations.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish details of the number of telephone conversations, by date, he had with (a) President Gorbachev, (b) President Yeltsin and (c) officials of the Soviet and Russian Federation Governments, respectively, during August; and what was the purpose of these telephone conversations.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to President Gorbachev on 22 August. President Gorbachev gave an account of his views on the events surrounding the coup and welcomed the prospect of a visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Moscow both in my right hon. Friend’s capacity as Prime Minister and as chairman of the G7.

    The Prime Minister spoke to President Yeltsin on two occasions. On 20 August he expressed British concern at the coup attempt, gave details of British and European Community actions and asked what other support the west could give to democratic institutions. On 21 August my right hon. Friend was able to congratulate President Yeltsin on his bravery, and that of the Russian people, in a memorable two days and to express the hope that my right hon. Friend would be able to meet him in the near future.

     

    China

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to (a) the environment in general and (b) the Montreal protocol and protection of the ozone layer, he had with Ministers of the Chinese Government during his visit to Beijing in September.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    None, though I understand that China has recently signalled the intention to satisfy the Montreal protocol.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister when the Cabinet Office drew up rules governing party political activities of Ministers of the Crown when travelling abroad on public business; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    Each Prime Minister, on assuming office, issues guidance to Ministers on such issues. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to publish such guidance.

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions when he has participated in party political activities when travelling abroad on public business.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does from time to time meet fellow Conservatives in the margins of public duties. He also often meets opposition leaders of all political persuasions both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with President Vassiliou – 21 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with President Vassiliou of Cyprus, given in Harare on 21st October 1991.

    PRESIDENT VASSILIOU:

    We had an extremely useful and interesting meeting with Prime Minister, John Major. I had the opportunity to discuss with him the latest developments on the Cyprus issue, the latest Resolution by the Security Council and I also used the opportunity to express our thanks to him both for the support of the UK Government and of the Commonwealth in our efforts to have a solution as quick as possible and I would like to thank you once more for your understanding and your goodwill, Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you President Vassiliou and I have had a number of meetings over the last year and we keep in close touch about the particularly intractable problem of Cyprus. We all want to see a solution, a satisfactory solution. We very strongly have supported the moves by the Secretary-General to that effect. We hope we are going to see an international conference. We hope we are going to see a settlement. It is our very clear view that that is in the interests of everyone who lives on the island of Cyprus. The sooner the better and I hope everyone will work to that end.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Harare – 21 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference, held in Harare on Monday 21st October 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to say first of all that the organisation of this conference has been a very remarkable achievement by President Mugabe and his government and by the Secretary General and his staff. It is no mean feat to organise a conference of fifty Heads of State and Government and we have all had the warmest possible welcome and hospitality. The only slight drawback in the midst of what has been a very enjoyable and productive week is the fact that one of my Commonwealth colleagues appears to have handed me a cold, though the donor thus far has been unwilling to admit who it is. We will seek to track him down.

    I think we have achieved a lot in the last week and we have achieved a lot against a background of very remarkable changes since we last met in Kuala Lumpur two years ago. There has been a rebirth of democracy around the world, a point made repeatedly by Heads of many governments over the past few days. But second, there has been a growing realisation that in terms of government, our economies and our political life, we are increasingly one world. And that is the theme that has run through all our discussions over the past week.

    In the past from time to time the Commonwealth has often been divided. But the factors which unite it have always brought the members together again. And when we sit round the table it is quite remarkable to contemplate nearly fifty countries from every continent. The superficial differences are clearly vast – size, wealth, colour, religion – but sitting down together we do all speak the same language both literally and metaphorically. I can think of no other international meeting of this sort that needs no interpreter or any other meeting where as the Prime Minister of St Lucia remarked the other evening “It is not cricket” and everybody knew precisely what he meant.

    So we have been determined during this week to use the collective strength of the Commonwealth to secure real achievements and believe that is reflected in the outcome of our discussions, though more of this will be apparent of course when the communique is issued and I cannot anticipate that at this stage.

    But firstly the Harare declaration. All the members of the Commonwealth have pledged themselves to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental human rights as well as the sound economic and political management. In short, all those matters that collectively come together under the term of good government.

    And second, the Harare declaration puts new responsibilities on the shoulders of all Commonwealth countries. Let me say quite clearly that Britain is prepared to bear its share of those responsibilities and that is why I announced last week that if necessary Britain would implement the Trinidad terms even if all other countries cannot join in immediately. Though I would like to say how delighted I was when Mr Mulroney for Canada immediately said he would do the same and Mr Hawke for Australia undertook to look positively and sympathetically at what we proposed. And I was also very pleased at the favourable response from many Commonwealth leaders at the conference.

    Thirdly, we are determined to step up our cooperation on the environment in the run-up to next year’s United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. It is a very important conference and I think it needs proper preparation and the widest possible attendance.

    And there were three points from that meeting that I emphasised in our discussions this week. Firstly that we need a convention on climate change signed by the greatest possible number of countries. Secondly that we need agreements to conserve the plant and animal species of our planet. And thirdly that we need a statement of principles to safeguard our forests, which are vital for national economies, for the purity of the air we breathe, for reducing global warming and for preserving biodiversity. And all these are matters that I hope the Commonwealth will be united on and I hope the Commonwealth will collectively go to Rio de Janeiro and fight for those three important matters.

    Fourthly, South Africa. South Africa was a dominant problem in the 1980s but the problem of the 1980s should now be the opportunity of the 1990s. Since we met two years ago there have been remarkable and positive changes in South Africa which we have all recognised at this conference this week. And we are agreed this week that we want to see rapid progress towards a constitutional conference and democratic majority rule government in South Africa. There is no disagreement about that in the Commonwealth.

    Of course only the parties themselves can reach agreement on a constitution, but if the Commonwealth can help then we should be ready to do so and it is for that reason that we have asked the Secretary General to visit South Africa and report back to those of us who constitute the high level appraisal group.

    I had a useful meeting during the week with Mr Mandela with whom I have been in frequent touch over the past few months. We naturally talked about the violence in South Africa and discussed the offer which the British Government has made to the South African government to share with them our expertise on community policing.

    I explained our view that with the South African economy stagnant, that with the South African population growing at very nearly 3 percent a year, early opportunities for investment will be vital. And I argued that if the decision was delayed until the very last stage of the constitutional progress then the benefit of new investment would not be felt in terms of growth and jobs for many years. Now that is the one point of difference between Britain and our partners in the Commonwealth, it is a difference of judgment about how we achieve a common goal, there is no argument whatsoever about the goal itself.

    Fifthly, there was absolute agreement that there must be a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round, failure would be an absolute hammerblow for the developing countries, the cost to them of protectionism in the industrial world currently exceeds the total value of the aid that they receive from the industrial world. And I put the quite bluntly and quite frankly, there is little point in the developed countries providing aid for economic development if the developed countries then deny access to our markets for those very same countries.

    This meeting this week has reaffirmed the common culture, value and goals of the Commonwealth. We have in the Commonwealth no legal powers of enforcement to make individual members live up to the goals we have agreed. But I come back to the theme of one world I mentioned earlier, a coup in the Soviet Union or a coup in Haiti is no longer regarded as simply the business of the countries concerned. And the Harare declaration is not a string of words to forget but a roadmap for our future progress and it will be backed up by practical measures, including technical and training assistance and the increasingly important role of Commonwealth monitoring of free elections.

    So I think it has been a good week. It has been a week that can best be summed up in the words of the Harare Declaration itself in which we expressed, and I may quote:

    “Our determination to renew and enhance the value and importance of the Commonwealth as an institution which can and should strengthen and enrich the lives not only of its own members and their peoples but also the wider community and peoples of which they are a part”.

    That is what I think we have set ourselves to do this week and I believe it has been a very good week for the Commonwealth.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, The Times):

    Prime Minister, what guarantee can there be that this will not turn out to be all words this week? The actual Harare declaration does not offer us very different words to what was in the Singapore declaration in 1971. If it proves over the next two years to be nothing more than words, would you push for some kind of sanctions against backsliders at the next CHOGM in two years time?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a mixture of carrot and stick. Clearly I am much more concerned about the carrot. We set out here, and everybody without dissent has put their name and their reputation and their country’s policy behind the declaration that we have. I do not believe that this declaration, Robin, is a declaration that would have been available two years ago or four years ago, we simply would not have been able to reach agreement on it, we have this year. No doubt it will not operate perfectly in all respects but I think the extent of peer pressure and the extent to which we are increasingly independent will put a very considerable amount of practical pressure on people who may fall short of the principles that are actually there.

    You are accurate in saying that we have no obvious mechanism for enforcing this. But I think the collective view of the other members of the Commonwealth is a potential force that will encourage people. In the first instance we would want to encourage them in a very positive way, I do not at this stage want to talk about negative ways in which we might apply encouragement.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC Radio):

    Can you say whether there is a British reserve on the sanctions issue and without prejudicing the wording of the communique perhaps you could explain how you have sought to resolve the difference between the Commonwealth’s approval of the Foreign Minister’s Committee and your own approach?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I cannot anticipate what is in the communique, I think it would be improper to do so, but I think it will be apparent that there is complete agreement about what the goal is in South Africa. As I said a moment ago, there is a difference of view between Britain and the Commonwealth about the pace at which we develop in some aspects but I think to go beyond that until the communique itself has been published would be unfair on my colleagues and I hope you will forgive me if I do not.

    QUESTION (Commonwealth Human Ecology Council):

    We have been particularly struck with your references to rain forests, we also know Britain’s support for the rain forest programmes, your references again this morning put emphasis on plant and animal biodiversity. We would like to ask you if you also are sufficiently sensitive and aware of the project within the Guyanan Commonwealth Rain forest which is dealing with the Amerindians and indigenous people. We feel that the United Nations preparatory committee are dissatisfied or saying that the Commonwealth reaction and momentum is very weak in relation to UNCED and though individual governments are speaking very much on it we want to know if Britain is going to be firmer in helping to bring the whole Commonwealth together and if they will look at the human and indigenous and say in for example in Guyana the Amerindian side?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When the G7 met earlier this year, and I chaired it, I pressed Heads of Government in the G7 to attend the Conference at Rio next year. In many parts of the world there is some reservation about attending the conference in Rio. I have said quite clearly that I believe this is an extremely important conference, that as many Heads of Government as possibly can should attend whether it is the G7, whether it is the European Community or whether it is the Commonwealth. And I certainly stressed in the remarks we made earlier this week that it would be very desirable for Heads of Government to attend. There is no compulsion within the Commonwealth, we cannot compel them to do so. What we can do is set out before them the importance of this and encourage them to believe that it is as important for the developing countries of the Commonwealth as it is for the developed countries of the Commonwealth that we reach satisfactory conclusions at Rio.

    So the answer is yes I do regard it as very important, I did press people to attend, you must ask them individually whether they will, though we did not discuss any individual rain forest project whether it was in Latin America, in South East Asia or the particular project that you mentioned.

    QUESTION:

    We hope they are not going to put all the emphasis, as is happening in Guyana, on the review and inventory side, we feel that the human side is more important.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I understand that point but that is one of the matters that will be discussed at the conference.

    QUESTION (GEMINI NEWS):

    Prime Minister, your Opening Statement had the welcome reference to access to markets by developing countries. Over recent decades, the growing economic integration of Europe has had disastrous consequences for some Commonwealth countries. Do you feel that at the meeting this was taken into account and that they can expect some further protection for the Commonwealth?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We didn’t discuss the particular position of the European Community in our discussions this week though as a member of the European Community, you may know that Britain has been arguing generally for open markets. The one thing we don’t want is a closed Community. It is for that reason, partly Community but also a bigger matter as well, that we are so concerned to get an agreement to the Uruguay GATT Round as speedily and as comprehensively as possible. I have said to my fellow Heads of Government in Europe that such an agreement is vital. It may be an agreement that isn’t entirely comfortable for us; it may be an agreement that isn’t comfortable for Japan, for the United States, for the Cairns Group that is chaired by Bob Hawke of Australia but the damage that will be done to the international community and in particular, I think, to the developing world if there is no satisfactory GATT agreement on opening markets, will be immense.

    It will not be that there is much in the GATT Round that is there and will be lost if there is no agreement; it is also to an even greater extent than that, the possibility that no agreement would lead to trade blocks and protectionism and that would be absolutely fatal – absolutely fatal – and that point is increasingly recognised, I think, in all the trading blocs and it is certainly now increasingly recognised in the European Community.

    We will push very hard within the Community – the Foreign Secretary does so repeatedly, the Agriculture Minister does, I do so, the Chancellor of the Exchequer does so – for movement in the Community’s position so that we not only get an agreement on GATT but if possible, get an agreement on GATT this year.

    QUESTION (SABC):

    In your discussions with Mr. Mandela, did you agree on all aspects that you were talking about or was there any disagreement? If there was, what was it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We agreed on many things. If I may put it this way without it being misunderstood, there was no special drama in my meeting with Mr. Mandela. We have had several meetings in recent months and we speak on the telephone frequently so it wasn’t, as it were, a set-piece meeting in which we dealt with all sorts of things from the bottom upwards.

    We discussed what was going on in South Africa, we discussed the problems with violence, we discussed the desirability of moving forward to a constitutional conference as speedily as possible, we discussed the bilateral offer of assistance that we have given to train black South African citizens for a future role in the Civil Service, we discussed practical matters like this. We didn’t spend a lot of time discussing individual items of sanctions.

    Mr. Mandela, as I said in my Opening Statement, knows that I am concerned that we should actually get investment and access to the financial markets as speedily as possible and for this very practical reason, which he understands.

    If one waits too long before those are lifted and suddenly one waits until there is a settlement and there is a majority government and then all the barriers come up at that stage, my fear is that then the investment starts to dribble in, it takes years before it builds up and it will be quite a few years down the road before the jobs that are necessary and the growth that is necessary actually become apparent. It is for that reason that I think we should move a little faster than previously we have and there is a difference of view of about that. There is no ill feeling about that; it is a different perception of the way in which we should proceed.

    Mr. Mandela, in the meeting, mentioned the fact that he had just seen the figure that there were 7 million people unemployed in South Africa and I must say if anything that rather reinforces my concern that the sooner investment begins to flow into South Africa and you begin to narrow that difficult gap between no economic growth and 3 percent population growth, the better it will be for the people most in need in South Africa.

    QUESTION (NETWORK 10 AUSTRALIA):

    To what extent is the British minority view on sanctions that you have just expounded now based on a greater trust of President de Klerk than is shared by other Commonwealth leaders and what would you say to cynics who might suggest that the British view is motivated by British commercial interest?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would say that they were cynical! [Laughter]

    The view that motivates the British interest is the view I have just expressed and I don’t think I need reiterate it. There are 7 million black South Africans who at the moment are without work; the sooner we get growth, the sooner they will get work.

    If you actually get a majority government, as I am sure we are going to get at some stage in the not-too-distant future, I would like to see some of the problems that government will have to face beginning to be solved, not all there waiting for them to begin to solve over a longer time-scale. That is the point. It is not a new British position and I must emphasise to you that there has been no squabble whatsoever about sanctions. The British position and the reason for the British position is understood and appreciated. People take a differing view but there is no difference about the end game; the difference is simply about the pace at which sanctions will be removed. The direction and flow of policy is now clear.

    STEVE DOUGHTY (DAILY MAIL):

    Prime Minister, have you been concerned by developments on the European front during your long absence in Zimbabwe? In particular, are you concerned by the European Commission’s intervention into British construction projects?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes.

    STEVE DOUGHTY:

    What are you going to do about it, Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to that is “Yes”. I think it was an astonishing intervention. We had no previous notice of it; it was not the first time it had happened. It seems to me to be on the basis of ill-founded reports and not facts; it is also on the basis of reports that were not discussed with the United Kingdom. It seems to me to be absolutely how the European Commission ought not to behave and I have told them so.

    QUESTION (ZIMBABWE TV):

    Mr. Prime Minister, the Commonwealth Secretary-General said that the Commonwealth was likely to look at itself and South Africa has often argued that certain governments in the Commonwealth have no moral justification in questioning its system of government. Did the Summit ever look at certain governments in Africa, for example military regimes, certain absolute monarchs and other things like that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the Harare Declaration sets out an elaboration of what good government is and what people should move towards and clearly, we are looking towards everywhere a plural society, a non-racial society, a democratic society, a society in which everyone has the right to vote for whichever political party as a government they wish to vote for and a multi-party society but the way in which those matters are interpreted cannot be uniformly prescribed by the Commonwealth or by any individual members of the Commonwealth. We have greatly diverse histories, greatly diverse structures, but the broad principles I think are quite clear but you can’t set down in black and white terms precisely the way in which such a system ought to operate in every country and I don’t think we should attempt to do so. We should set down the principles and the ideals that are there in the Declaration and then judge the activities of individual governments against those principles over a period of time.

    Every government that has agreed with this has implicitly, by their agreement with this document, said that they will move towards the principles that are enshrined in that document and every other government that has put its name to this document will be looking to see that they do over a period of time.

    QUESTION (CONCORD PRESS, LAGOS):

    How will you react to the criticism that Britain has not been doing enough for its former colonies, especially on the economic front; that most of the programmes they are adopting now are just run by the IMF and the World Bank, that Britain has enough capacity to have assisted them more rather than allowing them to go through the draconian policies of the IMF and the World Bank?

    Britain appears to have left them to their fate whereas Britain has the capacity to be a model for members of the Commonwealth.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I would answer the criticism this way: by saying that not one Commonwealth leader this week has put that criticism to me. A lot of Commonwealth leaders have said to us this week that they believe that Britain is batting very strongly on behalf of the Commonwealth.

    I made it perfectly clear earlier this week not only that we would continue to sustain large aid programmes and large technical assistance programmes where that was appropriate but also that we very strongly believe your own country for example, Nigeria, should have access to the enhanced Structural Adjustment Fund and that we, Britain, would fight for that with our colleagues elsewhere to ensure that they would get it.

    I also yet again, though I hesitate to return to the point, increased the Toronto terms to the Trinidad terms and gave that a further push down the road so that it actually becomes enacted and I think people perhaps have not entirely understood what that means. What that means for the countries that qualify is that we take two-thirds of their debt and we don’t roll it up and say pay it later, we don’t ease the terms upon which they pay it; we say: “We write it off lock, stock and barrel!” or perhaps I should say: “Pounds, shillings and pence” in the old terms in which so much of it was built up. Nobody has ever done anything like that before and I don’t think there is a prevailing view out there amongst our Commonwealth colleagues that we are not shouldering a very fair share of the burden in assisting many of our lesser well-off colleagues in the Commonwealth to face the problems they have.

    There is one other point I would make too; we are actually supporting Nigeria’s attempts to be eligible for Trinidad terms so as you asked the question for a Nigerian perspective, I think it is worth adding that.

    QUESTION (FINANCIAL TIMES):

    Prime Minister, could you explain to us why the term “good government” which figures in most publications by the World Bank and the IMF was not used in this instance? “Just and honest government” is all right – it means roughly the same but it doesn’t have quite the same connotation in international terms.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no special significance in the fact that we used this term rather than that. We preferred this term. The real important point is the elaboration of what it means. One can use “just and honest government”, one can use “good government”, one can use “sound administration”; the important point really is the elaboration of what we actually mean by those rather generic terms that are capable of different interpretations and we have actually set out in the Declaration itself what we mean and that, I think, is the most valuable part of the Declaration.

    QUESTION (Simon Walters, The Sun):

    Prime Minister, after your rigours on the cricket pitch and alleged twinges in your leg, back and now a common cold – or should I say “Commonwealth cold” [Laughter] – will you be seeing a doctor when you go back to Britain and if so, will it be an NHS doctor? [Laughter]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to whether I will be seeing a doctor is no; the answer to whether I have an NHS doctor and whether I see him when I am ill is yes but I do not anticipate any necessity for that at all and if you come close, Simon, I promise to try not to give you the cold – but I don’t promise too hard!

    QUESTION (ZAMBIA):

    Prime Minister, the Human Rights Watch has just issued a report in which it has criticised a number of Commonwealth countries, including Britain, for the violation of human rights. What is your comment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will study the report. I haven’t seen it in any depth yet so I can’t comment on it but I think it is quite difficult to criticise Britain on human rights. I will be interested to see what they have managed to produce that is a form of criticism but I will certainly look at it.

    QUESTION (IPS):

    The Commonwealth Secretary-General announced yesterday that he will visit South Africa at the earliest opportunity. I understand that Australia’s Bob Hawke has expressed an interest in being part of the team that visits South Africa and perhaps some others. Presumably that idea has been shelved since you said that the Secretary-General would be coming to report to the High Level Assistance Group. I am just wondering whether you yourself are itching to visit South Africa, whether you have set a date for that visit and what would be your reason.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Two points to that question:

    As to the impact of the Secretary-General’s visit and what follows it, I can’t make a judgement about that until the Secretary-General reports back. I don’t know what will follow his Report. The purpose of sending him there is for him to come back and report and for us to consider if there is some way the Commonwealth can help. We can’t impose anything but we stand ready to help if there is anything we can help with.

    As to whether I have any immediate plans to visit South Africa, the answer is I have no immediate plans to visit South Africa and don’t expect to do so in the next few months.

    KIM GORDON:

    In the light of your commitment to relieve part of the debt owed to Britain, how far are you prepared to go to review the structures set up at Bretton Woods and how much pressure would you be prepared to put on commercial banks to relieve the debt burden on Third World countries?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think I have anything to say about Bretton Woods at all or the changing institutions – certainly that isn’t part of our present package.

    As far as the commercial banks are concerned, I have invited them in the past to make comparative amendments to their own debt positions. A number of banks over recent years have written off a lot of debt; they do it progressively year upon year for their own sound commercial and I think social reasons as well but it is a matter for them, not for me but I have expressed the hope that where appropriate banks will act similarly.

    BILL SCHILLER (TORONTO STAR):

    On the subject of the elaboration of what constitutes good government, I would like to know if the practice of one-party state-ism is incompatible with the idea of good governance as set out in the Harare Declaration.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not ideal at all and over a period of time one would hope that people would be presented with a choice. It may be that one government will continue to be elected – I have no objection to that happening for quite long periods of time [Laughter] – but it clearly isn’t ideal and it clearly isn’t what is intended over a period of time with the Harare Declaration.

    BILL SCHILLER:

    What kind of period of time, Mr. Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It will vary, will it not? You can’t draw a single conclusion for fifty different countries of different size, different backgrounds and different events occurring in them. It is the direction in which we move that we have set out the principles. We will have to examine how people behave against these principles and decide whether they are behaving in a way that we think is satisfactory and that is what we will do.

    QUESTION (TODAY):

    A very brief cricketing point: following your private discussions with various Commonwealth Heads over the last few days, can you tell us if you think that South Africa will actually be playing in the World Cup in Australia and New Zealand early next year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t tell you that answer today, no. My own position is quite clear: I would wish to see the new non-racial cricket organisation in South Africa admitted to the World Cup in Australia. I think the Australian Prime Minister has expressed the same view. We will have to await the communique and other matters to see how far we have got.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Harare Declaration (II) – 21 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Harare Declaration, made in an interview in Harare on Monday 21st October 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what the minimum Commonwealth countries need to do to meet the Harare Declaration requirements].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think if you examine the declaration you will see it sets out a series of principles on human rights, on democracy, on good government in all its aspects. And by good government I mean one man one vote, a proper democracy, sound administration, we set out all the matters we mean in the declaration. What the Commonwealth is saying is those are the principles upon which we should operate and we must all move in that direction to the extent that we are not already there.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why reference was not made to multi-party democracies in the Harare Declaration and if was a serious weakness].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think so, that is the general way in which the whole drift of democracy is going, it has been so increasingly across the world. The remarkable events one is seeing in Eastern Europe at the moment is a case in point and I think one has seen it in other parts of the world. The trend is inevitably going in one direction now, the Commonwealth is swimming with the tide of that tread.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked that if countries without a multi-party democracy might feel they have already met the requirements of the Declaration].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Commonwealth will come back and it will examine whether its members are actually meeting the commitments they have agreed to this week and that is something we will do no doubt when we meet on future occasions.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if sanctions would be taken against countries].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You are a long way down the road before you fine whether that circumstance occurs. The Commonwealth have collectively decided upon the Declaration without being pressed, without being pushed, without huge horrible rows, have agreed that that is the direction in which the Commonwealth should go. When the Commonwealth meets in future I am sure it will consider how far it has achieved its own principles and if people are not achieving its own principles then the Commonwealth will decide how to act. But I think to produce pre-emptive, prescriptive ideas of what might happen in some unforeseen circumstances in the future is not a helpful way to proceed now.