The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Harare Declaration (I) – 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 if different countries have different definitions of democracy and if that would be a problem].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not think there is a real problem, we have elaborated in the Harare Declaration what we mean by good government, you can call it good government, you can call it sound administration, you can call it just and honest government. We have set out a string of criteria in the Harare Declaration, everyone has accepted that, we have collectively accepted the Harare Declaration. But that is a remarkable move forward, I do not believe it is a declaration that could have been agreed at previous Commonwealth conferences.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how it would work without sanctions or enforcement].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are not a punitive organisation, the Commonwealth, we operate by example and we operate by peer pressure. If over time people sign up to principles that they do not adopt then the Commonwealth will have to decide how it responds to those particular members. But at the moment there is no reason to suppose that will happen, no-one has been dragged kicking and screaming into signing this declaration, they have signed it willingly and there has been a very good natured and good humoured discussions about it all. So we have no reason to suppose at the moment that people will not honour those commitments to which they have agreed this week.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if in the future membership of the Commonwealth would be conditional on these requirements].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may say so, you are raising the question on a false premise. People have willingly signed up to the matter this week, if they do not honour it then we can decide what to do about it. For the moment there is no reason to doubt that people mean to achieve what they have set out in the Harare Declaration.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if previous declarations twenty years ago had been similar].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Singapore declaration did not cover and was not as specific as the points that are in the Harare Declaration. The Harare Declaration sets out a clear elaboration of what we actually mean by good government and it makes specific reference to human rights, specific reference to democracy, and I think you will find the Commonwealth will go in the direction that the declaration has set out.

  • Text of the Harare Declaration – 20 October 1991

    Below is the text of the Harare Declaration, signed in Harare, Zimbabwe, on the 20th October 1991.

    Issued by Heads of Government in Harare, Zimbabwe on 20 October 1991

    1. The Heads of Government of the countries of the Commonwealth, meeting in Harare, reaffirm their confidence in the Commonwealth as a voluntary association of sovereign independent states, each responsible for its own policies, consulting and co-operating in the interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace.
    2. Members of the Commonwealth include people of many different races and origins, encompass every state of economic development, and comprise a rich variety of cultures, traditions and institutions.
    3. The special strength of the Commonwealth lies in the combination of the diversity of its members with their shared inheritance in language, culture and the rule of law. The Commonwealth way is to seek consensus through consultation and the sharing of experience. It is uniquely placed to serve as a model and as a catalyst for new forms of friendship and co-operation to all in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations.
    4. Its members also share a commitment to certain fundamental principles. These were set out in a Declaration of Commonwealth Principles agreed by our predecessors at their Meeting in Singapore in 1971. Those principles have stood the test of time, and we reaffirm our full and continuing commitment to them today. In particular, no less today than 20 years ago:

    – we believe that international peace and order, global economic development and the rule of international law are essential to the security and prosperity of mankind;

    – we believe in the liberty of the individual under the law, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, race, colour, creed or political belief, and in the individual’s inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which he or she lives;

    – we recognise racial prejudice and intolerance as a dangerous sickness and a threat to healthy development, and racial discrimination as an unmitigated evil;

    – we oppose all forms of racial oppression, and we are committed to the principles of human dignity and equality;

    – we recognise the importance and urgency of economic and social development to satisfy the basic needs and aspirations of the vast majority of the peoples of the world, and seek the progressive removal of the wide disparities in living standards amongst our members.

    1. In Harare, our purpose has been to apply those principles in the contemporary situation as the Commonwealth prepares to face the challenges of the 1990s and beyond.
    2. Internationally, the world is no longer locked in the iron grip of the Cold War. Totalitarianism is giving way to democracy and justice in many parts of the world. Decolonisation is largely complete. Significant changes are at last under way in South Africa. These changes, so desirable and heartening in themselves, present the world and the Commonwealth with new tasks and challenges.
    3. In the last twenty years, several Commonwealth countries have made significant progress in economic and social development. There is increasing recognition that commitment to market principles and openness to international trade and investment can promote economic progress and improve living standards. Many Commonwealth countries are poor and face acute problems, including excessive population growth, crushing poverty, debt burdens and environmental degradation. More than half our member states are particularly vulnerable because of their very small societies.
    4. Only sound and sustainable development can offer these millions the prospect of betterment. Achieving this will require a flow of public and private resources from the developed to the developing world, and domestic and international regimes conducive to the realisation of these goals. Development facilitates the task of tackling a range of problems which affect the whole global community such as environmental degradation, the problems of migration and refugees, the fight against communicable diseases, and drug production and trafficking.
    5. Having reaffirmed the principles to which the Commonwealth is committed, and reviewed the problems and challenges which the world, and the Commonwealth as part of it, face, we pledge the Commonwealth and our countries to work with renewed vigour, concentrating especially in the following areas:

    – the protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth:

    – democracy, democratic processes and institutions which reflect national circumstances, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, just and honest government;

    – fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief;

    – equality for women, so that they may exercise their full and equal rights;

    – provision of universal access to education for the population of our countries;

    – continuing action to bring about the end of apartheid and the establishment of a free, democratic, non-racial and prosperous South Africa;

    – the promotion of sustainable development and the alleviation of poverty in the countries of the Commonwealth through:

    – a stable international economic framework within which growth can be achieved;

    – sound economic management recognising the central role of the market economy;

    – effective population policies and programmes;

    – sound management of technological change;

    – the freest possible flow of multilateral trade on terms fair and equitable to all, taking account of the special requirements of developing countries;

    – an adequate flow of resources from the developed to developing countries, and action to alleviate the debt burdens of developing countries most in need;

    – the development of human resources, in particular through education, training, health, culture, sport and programmes for strengthening family and community support, paying special attention to the needs of women, youth and children;

    – effective and increasing programmes of bilateral and multilateral co-operation aimed at raising living standards;

    – extending the benefits of development within a framework of respect for human rights;

    – the protection of the environment through respect for the principles of sustainable development which we enunciated at Langkawi;

    – action to combat drug trafficking and abuse and communicable diseases;

    – help for small Commonwealth states in tackling their particular economic and security problems;

    – support of the United Nations and other international institutions in the world’s search for peace, disarmament and effective arms control; and in the promotion of international consensus on major global political, economic and social issues.

    1. To give weight and effectiveness to our commitments we intend to focus and improve Commonwealth co-operation in these areas. This would include strengthening the capacity of the Commonwealth to respond to requests from members for assistance in entrenching the practices of democracy, accountable administration and the rule of law.
    2. We call on all the intergovernmental institutions of the Commonwealth to seize the opportunities presented by these challenges. We pledge ourselves to assist them to develop programmes which harness our shared historical, professional, cultural and linguistic heritage and which complement the work of other international and regional organisations.
    3. We invite the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and non-governmental Commonwealth organisations to play their full part in promoting these objectives, in a spirit of co-operation and mutual support.
    4. In reaffirming the principles of the Commonwealth and in committing ourselves to pursue them in policy and action in response to the challenges of the 1990s, in areas where we believe that the Commonwealth has a distinctive contribution to offer, we the Heads of Government express 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 of the wider community of peoples of which they are a part.

     

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Commonwealth – 20 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Commonwealth, made in an interview at Victoria Falls on Sunday 20th October 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was satisfied with his first Commonwealth Declaration as Prime Minister].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I am very pleased with the declaration, it is very forward looking, it picks up all the themes we were most concerned about – good government, human rights – but above all it is a forward looking document, it is the Commonwealth of the 1990s, not harking back to the problems of earlier years.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he felt all countries could support the Declaration, even those with less developed democracies].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I am confident they will carry it out, there was a very remarkable atmosphere at this Commonwealth conference. No it was not especially difficult to agree the communique, frankly, there were many points that needed discussions upon which different views were expressed, but by the time those had been expressed a common view right across the Commonwealth emerged and you will see it in the communique.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why there were no sanctions].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Commonwealth is not really that sort of organisation. The way it does operate is through peer pressure and by example and I think it is perfectly clear that the peer pressure of the Commonwealth and the example both within the Commonwealth and beyond the Commonwealth will have a very salutary effect. So I think we will see some practical results.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on South Africa – 18 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on South Africa, made in an interview held in Harare on Friday 18th October 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about sanctions in South Africa].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have never agreed that the imposition of sanctions and the way they have been used over recent years was the right way to deal with the problem in South Africa and for a very practical reason too. If you look forward at what South Africa most needs now, it is investment into South Africa to increase its growth. They have the horrendous problem of nearly three percent population growth a year and no economic growth at all. What that effectively means is that year after year after year the poorest people in South Africa get relatively poorer.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he was giving up pressure on South Africa near the end of the reform process].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am convinced myself that the process of change in South Africa is irreversible. All the main pillars of apartheid have now been legislatively abolished. We are moving towards a constitutional conference at which a new constitution for South Africa can be determined. That is going to happen; whether it is going to happen this year or whether it will be determined next year, I can’t be clear but if investment in South Africa only starts after that, it is going to be the late 1990s before it is effective, before it creates growth, before it creates jobs and there are 7 million people unemployed in South Africa – they need that investment and they need it speedily.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked his reaction to Mr Mandela’s comments to hold on for a while].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are differences in view about how we should approach it. Where there is an agreement of view, is that sanctions must go. The dispute that still exists is the speed at which it should go. I just set out the practical reasons why I think we should move more speedily than the Commonwealth itself wishes but there are many old scars and divisions here and I think that difference of emphasis on speed will remain.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Harare – 17 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Harare on Wednesday 17th October 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Your Majesty, fellow Heads of Government, Ministers, Secretary General, Ladies and Gentlemen. It is a particular pleasure to be able to thank President Mugabe for the warm and friendly welcome that we have all received here in Zimbabwe. And I think in that warm and friendly atmosphere I both hope and believe that today we can see the opening of a new chapter for the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is unique, nothing like it has ever existed and nothing could replace it. It belongs to all of us and in particular perhaps it belongs to the young people who are with us today whose future we will be discussing this week.

    When we last met in Kuala Lumpur, East Berlin had just marked the first 10,000 days of the Berlin Wall. Little did the authorities realise, little did anyone realise that that wall would be breached before it was 100 days older. And I must say I had just completed the first 80 days of being Foreign Secretary, little did I realise I would no longer be Foreign Secretary 10 days later. But the world has changed dramatically since we last met. Communism has been discredited and it is being discarded. The events of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union have proved that government by centrally controlled ideology is unfair, inefficient and ultimately unacceptable.

    People will not be governed indefinitely by a remote authority, people demand the right to express their nationhood and they also increasingly insist on their rights as individuals within each nation.

    In the Commonwealth we have long realised that international order is based on cooperation and that where a relationship rests on coercion then there is no basis for cooperation. Our common language is a cornerstone of our organisation but common values are even more important than a common language. Most of the world now agrees that democracy and the rule of law are indispensable to a civilised society. And since its establishment 45 years ago, the principles of the Commonwealth have been based on those values. The common law enshrined in the constitution of nearly all our members is there to uphold the impartial rule of law and our largest country is also the largest democracy in the world – India.

    Member states of the Commonwealth have not always applied the values which our organisation represents but we have always held on to those values, they represent a yardstick of behaviour for each one of us. The Commonwealth is well placed to catch the tidal wave of human rights and democracy which is sweeping across much of the world. We can ride that wave or be carried along by it, but we cannot ignore it. This meeting must set the framework for the Commonwealth of the 1990s, we must build on our existing strengths, make the most of new possibilities. But the bedrock of what we must do must be the general application of democracy and human rights. It is on that basis that we can build good government and economic prosperity.

    There is no wish to impose particular models. Different parts of the world have different traditions, different means of establishing a consensus, different institutions and different problems. Of course each society will strike its own balance between individual rights and the responsibilities of the state. But recent history shows us that stifling individual rights leads to discontent and economic failure and ultimately collapse.

    We must all meet basic standards in human and democratic rights, universal standards, not Western standards. When the Commonwealth discusses those standards the debate is not one part of the membership lecturing another, it is all part of the membership consulting, I hope also agreeing on what we should all strive to achieve. Those achievements should include tolerance of free debate and genuine democracy. That means the rights of our citizens to choose freely who governs them.

    These are the yardsticks by which increasingly governments will be judged and thanks to its traditions the Commonwealth can give a lead.
    Today President Sam Nujoma joins us for his first Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting since Namibia’s independence. For years Namibia was one of the world’s unsolved problems and seemingly some thought unsolvable. It took pressure, internal pressure and external pressure, hard negotiation and ultimately realism to bring Namibia to freedom and independence. And in welcoming Namibia to the Commonwealth we are doing more than simply inviting her to join a club. Namibia is joining an organisation which stands for certain values and which can use its collective strength to help its individual members and to wield influence in world affairs.

    In the past there have been differing views about how we should use that influence to bring about fundamental change in South Africa. But all of us have used our influence and all of us can welcome the radical changes that have taken place.

    In the last 20 months the South African government have repealed the Land Acts, the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act. The burden that now rests on all the leaders of all sectors of community in South Africa is a heavy one. There will be many obstacles and set-backs in the way of South Africa becoming a genuinely democratic nation. The core issue will be to draft a constitution for majority rule in a multiparty state. We can all play a part in helping South Africa to tackle the obstacles to agreement but only the South African parties themselves can make a new democratic constitution for their country and we all wish them well in that endeavour.

    But South Africa will need more than just our good wishes, they will need the help of the international community if they are to return to economic growth which is essential for the stability of South Africa and the prosperity of all the people who live in South Africa.

    At the heart of the constitutional negotiations will be the values that we and the Commonwealth hold to be fundamental. I hope and I believe those values will be carried through into a new constitution and I look forward to the day when a non-racial South Africa might want to rejoin us. And we must in any case stand ready to re-admit South Africa to the international community of nations.

    As old problems are solved so a new agenda unfolds. On the environment, drugs, anti-terrorism, health, Commonwealth members have long had a tradition of cooperation. In these fields and others Britain stands ready to help where it can. Eighty percent of British development aid goes to members of the Commonwealth.

    Next year the United Nations will hold a conference on environment and development, a unique event. So far progress in preparing that conference has been slow, there is little sign yet of real consensus as to what the conference’s outcome should be. But here I believe the Commonwealth can give a lead. We, the Heads of Government can give a practical political push to the conference process. We can help to promote the signature at Rio of effective framework conventions on climate change and biodiversity.

    These are not just buzzwords, these issues are vital. The world is still losing a tropical forest the size of a football pitch each and every second. Many of the countries of Africa are having to find a balance between the competing claims of human development and natural conservation. All of us, developed and developing countries alike, have come to realise that the only solution is to work as one to safeguard the future of the one world that we all share.

    In these hectic times the chance to talk comprehensively over a few days is rare. But it is essential if we are to understand each other’s problems and each other’s hopes.

    I know this week, under your chairmanship, President Mugabe, we will all bring the spirit of mutual encouragement to our talks here. The Commonwealth is in tune with the spirit of the times, its structures, its history and its ethos all equip it to flourish in the 1990s.

    The Commonwealth has new relevance, its way of doing things will I believe be seen as among the best ways to conduct international relations. The Commonwealth can set an example, dialogue, negotiation, the peaceful settlement of disputes – that is the way forward and the Commonwealth can set the trend.

    Mr President, under your chairmanship this week we can begin that work.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 October 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th October 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Abu Dhabi

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to seek to visit Abu Dhabi.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    Nuclear Disarmament

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister what response he made to the proposal by President Mitterrand of France that the four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council that deploy nuclear weapons in Europe hold an urgent summit meeting to discuss future multilateral nuclear arms cuts.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    We welcome President Mitterrand’s proposal for a meeting with the Soviet Union to discuss the future security of its nuclear weapons. We believe that this is a matter to be taken forward in consultation with all our NATO allies.

     

    Mr. Li Ka Shing

    Mr. Foulkes : To ask the Prime Minister what was the purpose of his meeting in Hong Kong with Mr. Li Ka Shing, chairman of Cheung Kong ; what topics were discussed ; what United Kingdom Government officials were present ; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s normal practice is and will continue to be neither to confirm nor deny whether meetings with private individuals have taken place, even in those cases where no such meeting has occurred.

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will be receiving a reply to the letter he wrote on 23 September.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will reply to the hon. Member’s correspondence shortly.

     

    NUM (Sequestration)

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 June, Official Report, column 35, if he will place in the public domain the information requested and obtained from the Government, by the sequestrators of the National Union of Mineworkers funds, relevant to the discharge of their duties to the court.

    Mr. MacGregor : No. I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s answer of 10 June to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) at column 425.

     

    Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if, during his meeting with his Chinese counterpart in Beijing in September, he discussed the implications of the Chinese Government announcement that they intend to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed China’s decision to accede to the NPT with Mr. Li Peng. China’s action is an important step in the field of non-proliferation.

     

    Party Funds (Donations)

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister what guidelines are issued to Cabinet members and other members of the Government about the granting of access where there has been payment to party funds.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    None.

     

    Senior Civil Servants (Guidelines)

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister what guidelines exist for senior civil servants about discussing political matters; and whether these guidelines apply also to the chief executive of the national health service.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    General guidance for civil servants on discussing political matters in public is contained in the civil service pay and conditions of service code and in the note on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers issued by the former head of the home civil service in December 1987. This guidance does not preclude individual civil servants, including the chief executive of the national health service, from explaining Government policy when appropriate.

  • PMQT – 17 October 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th October 1991. John MacGregor responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 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 attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare.

    Mr. Illsley : Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to join me in condemning the waste of money by Barnsley district general hospital, which is paying for a number of employees to go on a luxury holiday fact-finding mission to a Paris hotel as part of the hospital’s move towards NHS trust status? Is that another example of the Government allowing hospitals to waste money in pursuit of their NHS reforms?

    Mr. MacGregor : I did not know of that incident. Our reforms are achieving considerable savings right across the board, all of which are being directed at patient care.

    Sir Ian Lloyd : If, as has been reliably reported in the press this morning, the Government are–doubtless from the most admirable motives– offering training and education to civil servants from the African National Congress, are not we in danger, first, of assuming an outcome to the constitutional process in South Africa which may be disproved by events? Secondly, are not we in danger of racial discrimination against a significant and admirable people, the Zulus?

    Mr. MacGregor : What is being proposed is training for people who will participate in the Government. The training that we could offer should greatly help with the whole question of race relations and the future of South Africa.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that unemployment in Britain has risen by over three quarters of a million in the past 12 months, that there have been more than 340,000 job losses in manufacturing industries over the same period and that unemployment in our country is rising faster than in any other European Community country? Is not it clear that the Government’s policies are doing long-term damage to the British economy? Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to belong to a Government who are doing Britain down in so many ways?

    Mr. MacGregor : I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at his own policies and realise that they would lose more jobs more permanently.

    Mr. Kinnock : As a direct result of the policies of the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman serves, output and investment continue to go down. Government borrowing continues to rise and unemployment is heading towards 2.5 million for the second time in 10 years under this Government. Is not it clear that the longer that Cabinet members hang on to their jobs the more other people will lose theirs?

    Mr. MacGregor : For every day that the Government have been in office, on average 220 new jobs have been added, nearly 100 new businesses have been created and 880 families have bought new homes. That is our record. Employment is higher than it was four years ago and higher than it was under the last Labour Government and it is higher than the European average. Investment over the period is substantially up. That is why we have been able to achieve this record, which is way ahead of anything that a future Labour Government would do.

    Mr. Kinnock : For the past three years and for next year Britain will be bottom of the investment, jobs, growth and other leagues of the major industrial countries. In Britain, more than 1,000 jobs a day are being lost in industry and services and manufacturing is bearing the brunt of that. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can be proud of nothing in that record. Is not that manifested by the shuffling off of the autumn statement until the end of November because the Government are afraid to bring it forward at the proper time?

    Mr. MacGregor : That latter point is entirely irrelevant. The decision on when the autumn statement should be made will be taken in the normal way. In the period as a whole, just as in recent times, there has been considerable success in getting inflation down to the levels of our major competitors overseas. That is the issue that most guarantees jobs long term.

    As for manufacturing industry, the director general of the CBI said in the summer :

    “Virtually everything associated with our manufacturing base is better than it was”

    in the era of Government interference, lost orders, strikes and horrific inflation. That was the era of the last Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to talk about policies that effectively improve competitiveness, investment and productivity. That is what we have been achieving.

    Sir William Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition spokesmen seem to take particular delight in talking down the British economy– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. MacGregor rose–[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This takes up time.

    Sir William Clark : –and the Government’s achievements in the economic sphere? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the amount of inward investment is proof positive that the foreigner has confidence in this country because the economy is not only sound but is better than it ever has been?

    Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and I apologise if I interrupted him. The Labour party simply ignores all good news and there is a deal of it at the moment. My right hon. Friend is right to draw to our attention examples such as the substantial bringing down of inflation and the high regard of overseas companies, which is shown by their rates of investment in this country.

     

    South London

    Q2. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister when he will make his next official visit to south London.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an official visit to south London in September and intends to do so again in the future.

    Mr. Hughes : When the Prime Minister or other Cabinet Ministers next come to south London, will they say whether they agree with the comment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, made half an hour ago in Church house, that the inner cities of Britain suffer from severe and divisive inequalities and severe deprivation? If they accept that that is the case, is it Government policy to increase the gap between the richest and the poorest, as has happened over the past 12 years, or will Government policy change under the new Prime Minister, so that the gap between the well off and the poorest will narrow in the years to come?

    Mr. MacGregor : I understand that the Archbishop also paid tribute to the Government’s inner cities programme, which has been substantial–

    Mr. Simon Hughes indicated assent.

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that now, but he forgot to include it in his supplementary question. The inner cities programme and many others, including the urban initiative, have greatly improved the prospects for all our inner cities. There are many examples of that. One of the things from which inner cities suffer is Labour councils.

    Mr. Brazier : Does my right hon. Friend agree that an improvement in the teaching of economic history in our schools–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This question is about inner London.

    Mr. Brazier : I should have said inner London schools, Mr. Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that every child in inner London should be taught that every Labour Government, without exception, have increased unemployment?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right. Labour Governments have increased unemployment, increased waiting lists in hospitals and hugely increased the public sector borrowing requirement to the level to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury referred. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, if the PSBR were at the level that was reached under the Labour Government, it would be about £50 billion.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Prime Minister if the will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 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 : Is the Leader of the House aware that the Minister of State with responsibility for health in Scotland is still hell-bent on pushing the Royal Scottish National hospital to opt out, despite opposition from the overwhelming majority of the staff, the local community and relatives of the mentally handicapped patients? Given the Prime Minister’s fine words last week about the power to choose and the right to own, will the right hon. Gentleman defend the people’s right to choose that their hospitals remain owned and administered by local health boards instead of self-governing trusts?

    Mr. MacGregor : There is no doubt that self-governing trusts are already considerably improving the management of the hospitals concerned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be considering the application to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as others, in the light of consultations.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert G. Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Does my right hon. Friend agree with the chairman of Granada Television, who said yesterday that the Independent Television Commission had exercised its judgment in favour of quality? Does he recall that it was a Conservative Government who created ITV? Conservative Governments also created independent radio and Channel 4 in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party. Will not yesterday’s decisions mean that the second rate and the incompetent will give way to those who are professional and entertaining? We could not expect the Labour party to begin to understand that.

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right. Both choice and quality of television have increased under Conservative Administrations and there will soon be a fifth television channel. We have seen the birth of satellite and cable television, which has expanded the range of programmes that people watch. My hon. Friend is right, too, to suggest that in setting up the Channel 3 and Channel 4 licensing systems, the Government aim to achieve a balance between market forces and quality and to maintain quality. I believe that that is what is happening.

    Mr. Cohen : When the Government did their U-turn on child benefit in the Budget and finally increased it after freezing it for several years, in a peculiar act of meanness they took £1 from the allowance of widows with dependent children. Will the Government recant on that act of meanness and give widows back their £1?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a considerable increase in all social security benefits over the years. There has been a considerable increase also as a result of the targeting of priorities.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hicks : Does my right hon. Friend recognise the need to revise the arrangements for the payment of European regional development funds, with specific reference to additionality? Is he aware that many people in the regions that have been identified as in need of additional investment believe that we are unable to benefit from the additional resources? Of the £45 million allocated to Cornwall and Plymouth, it will be possible to take up only £27 million because of restrictive measures.

    Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has taken steps to resolve the problems arising from the specific targeting of aid at local level and I shall bring my hon. Friend’s concern to his attention.

    Dr. Reid : Given the Prime Minister’s personal pledge to assist in the regeneration of Lanarkshire and the precedent that has now been set of political intervention in the decisions of British Rail, will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will be using their influence to ensure that the new Eurofreight terminal in Scotland is sited at Mossend in Lanarkshire? If it is justifiable politically to intervene in the decisions of British Rail to protect political interests in the south, is not it equally justifiable to protect the economy and the regeneration of employment in Lanarkshire and Scotland?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman knows that I am familiar with Lancashire– [Interruption.] I am familiar with Lancashire because I have just been there, but I meant to say Lanarkshire, where I was born and brought up. The hon. Gentleman’s specific point is not one with which I am familiar, so I shall draw it to the attention of the appropriate Minister.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Harare – 17 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Harare, held on 17th October 1991.

    QUESTION:

    Can we ask you why you felt it was necessary to threaten that Britain would go it alone in forgiving this debt?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not threatening anything at all, what I am saying is that there are a very large number of very poor countries out there and the Trinidad Terms initiative can help them to a greater extent than they have ever been helped before. And I want to push that snowball down the hill a little, that is what we are doing, it will make a material difference. What it will mean for really the poorest countries in the world is that they have some incentive to put their economy to rights and not see all the virtues of that disappear in debt relief.

    QUESTION:

    But is the initiative meeting resistance from other members of the Paris Club?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I think the Paris Club will support it, it has been under discussion for some time and I think there will be general support for it. Immediately I announced it the Prime Minister of Canada announced that he would follow suit, the Australians have said they will look at it very carefully and I suspect others will too. I think it is very important that we actually get this initiative off the ground and the debt written off.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to link this to human rights?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The help we have proposed with the right offer of Trinidad Terms is related to a good IMF programme and the IMF themselves look at matters of that sort. So there is a natural link.

    QUESTION:

    How do you feel as a former bank manager wiping out 500 million pounds of British debt with one stroke of a pen?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I looked at it also from the point of view of the countries who are receiving the assistance. I think it is often very hard to get a proper perspective of what life is actually like in some of these countries. I do emphasise again that these are the very poorest countries in the world, the average income for people in these countries is about 400 pounds a year or less. The people with least income in those countries are therefore by definition very poor indeed and the best way to help them is to help their countries actually produce a better performance for the future. Removing the debt burden by writing it off seems to us to be the best way to help.

    QUESTION:

    Will this relieve starvation in the short or long term?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think it will deal with the immediate food problems, no. I think what it does do is help countries put themselves in a better position to invest and to build up a secure economy of their own, it certainly does that but it will not remove the need for emergency help from time to time.

    QUESTION:

    Does this relieve you of increasing the foreign aid through the normal channels?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are in the middle of the public expenditure round and this is a separate matter from that, this is a write-off of debt. I think it is fail to remind people that it was the British government that first introduced Toronto Terms when Nigel Lawson was Chancellor, that was an innovation in its day and way ahead of what anyone else was even contemplating. We have now carried that a really very significant step forward with Trinidad Terms.

    QUESTION:

    What was the response from the other Commonwealth countries here apart from Canada?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They welcomed it, the Australians have welcomed it. There has not been much time to talk to the others, there was a very warm response from the conference hall itself.

    QUESTION:

    What about from Mr Mugabe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Mugabe was particularly warm about it but you must ask him.

    QUESTION:

    Did you do this mainly for economic reasons or compassionate reasons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think both. I do not think you can compartmentalise them, it is not a sudden idea that suddenly emerged from the top of our head.
    I floated the idea of Trinidad Terms and announced what our policy was at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting at Trinidad – hence the name – two years ago. Since then we have refined it. What it amounts to is a straightforward write-off of two-thirds of the debt of those countries. Now that is infinitely greater than anything that has been seen before. What has often happened in the past is that the developed countries have offered help but they have offered help by saying keep the debt, we will reduce the interest rate or we will roll over the date at which you pay it. And what that has effectively meant is that this huge amount of debt actually remains there and however much countries improve their own economy, as they improve their own economy they just run into this wall of debt that then has to be met.

    Now that is not a great incentive so I think the time has come when we actually offer them a clear-cut, practical and significant incentive so that they can see the improvements in their own country of improvements in their own economy and I think this will do that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think your unilateral action today will shame others into joining you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not a question of shaming others, I am setting out what the British position is. I believe others will follow suit, the Canadians have already said they will, I would be surprised myself if that is not a fairly general reaction and I think it will be widely welcomed by people.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Nelson Mandela – 16 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Nelson Mandela, held in Harare on Wednesday 16th October 1991.

    MR MANDELA:

    I just want to make a very brief statement and to say that I used this opportunity to brief the Prime Minister on the latest political developments in our country. I did so because of the involvement of the British government and the British people in the struggle against apartheid. Whatever differences may be there, one thing is clear, that the British government and the British people are the enemies of all forms of racial discrimination and I was therefore happy to be able to brief him on this question.

    I also raised the question of sanctions but because this is a matter which is still going to be discussed by the Heads of State it would be improper for me to say anything about it except to say that we discussed the matter. And I sincerely hope that you will not ask me any questions on this matter because I will not be able to be forthcoming.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much. We have had a number of discussions over the last year both face to face and a number of telephone conversations in order to keep up-to-date with events in South Africa. And I must say I have found that extremely useful and we have had a very useful and productive discussion again today.

    We have covered all the points that Mr Mandela has mentioned. One other point that we have been able to finalise today, Mr Mandela asked some time ago whether we would be prepared to take some ANC supporters and train them for future civil service activities in South Africa in due course. We have said yes and there will be a training programme to that end in the United Kingdom. It is in the pilot stage now but it may well grow and I think it is an indication of the extent to which we wish to cooperate in practical terms in helping prepare for a post-apartheid South Africa.

    So it has been a very useful worthwhile discussion and we will remain in close touch. There will be further discussions between the Foreign Secretary and Mr Mbeki over the next few days.

    QUESTION:

    Without pre-empting your discussions can we ask what is the present British and ANC position on the final removal of stage 3?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are not talking about that at the moment, that has been made quite clear by Mr Mandela. We are talking about that matter privately, it is best done privately.

    QUESTION:

    Are you both in agreement and are you working together to try to get South Africa into World Cup cricket next February?

    MR MANDELA:

    That is a question which has already been discussed publicly. We have recommended, as the ANC, that South Africa, as far as cricket is concerned, has complied with all the conditions which have been made by the Cricket Board and for that reason we see no reason why we should not be readmitted.

    QUESTION:

    There are leaders here which dissent from your view?

    MR MANDELA:

    You do not expect decisions to be reached easily and overnight. The fact is that we are trying to persuade everybody to agree to take the same position as ourselves.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On that last point, decisions were reached a couple of months or so ago at the ICC meeting about the re-admittance of a non-racial South African cricket team into world cricket. The bridge was crossed then, decisions were made then that that was the right thing to do. The only question now is when that actually commences and whether that commences with the World Cup in Australia at the beginning of next year or a little later.

    Now that is not a matter for Mr Mandela and I. If you want to know my personal view I think we have crossed the Rubicon, we have made the decision, it is the right decision, you have a non-racial South African cricket team. There is no reason to my mind to bar them from playing international cricket against other teams anywhere in the world. I would be delighted to see them play in the World Cup in Australia and I think if they do they would do very well.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Mandela, are the recent outbreaks that we are reading about in South Africa an indication that the political change in that country is not coming as quickly as some people believe that it is?

    MR MANDELA:

    We have never thought that we would be able to reach a [inaudible] overnight. The fact is that we have made progress in this regard, whatever difficulties are emerging they are emerging against some solid progress which has been in the course of the discussions between the ANC and the government and I think that is what we should hold on to.

    QUESTION:

    You are not concerned that people are saying things are all right in South Africa, you are not cautioning that change is coming but too slowly?

    MR MANDELA:

    I did not expect it to be faster than it is and I am satisfied with the progress that was made and I am optimistic that this progress is going to be maintained in spite of the [inaudible].

    QUESTION:

    Will you be in any way linking the violence to the sanctions issue?

    MR MANDELA:

    That is a question that is difficult to answer. As we exchange opinions on the matter I do not think we should try and pre-judge the issue here.

    QUESTION:

    When there is a democratic government in South Africa is Britain going to stick to the same middle policies that it has elsewhere and would the ANC and government be prepared to accept that?

    MR MANDELA:

    We believe in a multiparty system, we have made this clear, and our basic policy which we published as far back as 1955 is most democratic. There is not a single political party in the country which practises democracy as we do. In fact there is not a single political organisation in the country which involves its members in the participation in democratic procedures, we have had seminars on controversial issues and just now [inaudible] the so-called imposition of a levy which is just a succession which emerged in the course of a seminar which was never taken up. But we believe in these democratic decisions, and there is not a democratic organisation in the country which has held seminars involving its members. That is an indication of our commitment to democratic government.

    QUESTION:

    What about the issue of centralised government and nationalisation?

    MR MANDELA:

    That is a question which we are discussing. You must remember that at one time the National Party which is today condemning us for advocating some form of state intervention in the economy did also call for the nationalisation of the mines.

    QUESTION:

    Would you feel it is necessary to talk to other groups besides the ANC, President de Klerk for instance?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We do, we do. We have maintained a contact throughout recent years with all shades of opinion in South Africa, it is necessary for us to do so. we want to receive a rounded opinion from Mr Mandela, President de Klerk and others, one cannot get a rounded opinion unless one talks to everyone. So the answer is yes we have, we do and we will.

    MR MANDELA:

    I would agree with that.

    QUESTION:

    Would you have any difficulty with President de Klerk or PK Botha coming here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not chairman of the conference.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Mandela would you have any personal difficulty with President de Klerk or Mr Botha coming here to speak to Commonwealth leaders?

    MR MANDELA:

    That is a matter which would be the subject of discussion between ourselves and with the Heads of State. I do not think we should go into that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you want to see South Africa back in the Commonwealth?

    MR MANDELA:

    South Africa really belongs to the Commonwealth and it was kicked out simply because of its racial policies. Once the political situation inside the country is normalised I would strongly support our return to the Commonwealth.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Harare – 16 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Harare, held on Wednesday 16th October 1991.

    QUESTION:

    Nelson Mandela is now urging sanctions against those fuelling violence in South Africa. What is your response to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Sanctions isn’t the main subject of the Conference this week. We are talking about the future of the Commonwealth, the development of human rights, the development of democracy throughout the Commonwealth, the direction in which the Commonwealth goes in the future; that is the substantive part of our discussion.

    There have been some changes on sanctions, the removal of people-to-people sanctions generally is welcome and progress is being made. What we need to move towards is the Constitutional Conference, a satisfactory conclusion and a new constitutionally-proper non-racial South Africa. That is what we are working for.