Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 October 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th October 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lord Lieutenants

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister when the functions of lord lieutenants were last reviewed; and what current action resulted from that review.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The principal functions of lord lieutenants, who hold an ancient office, is to act as the sovereign’s personal representative in the county concerned. Their duties include support of the armed forces, the magistracy and voluntary organisations, as well as certain civic and social functions. I understand that the lord lieutenants themselves keep their responsibilities and practices under constant review, referring to the Royal Households for advice as necessary.

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to review the selection and method of appointment of lord lieutenants of counties and their deputies.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    None.

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister how many lord lieutenants and deputies there are and when each was appointed.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The following are currently in office :

    County | Lord Lieutenant Appointed | Vice Lord Lieutenant Appointed

    ———————————————————–

    ENGLAND

    Avon | 1974 | 1980

    Bedfordshire | 1991 | –

    Berkshire | 1989 | 1989

    Buckinghamshire | 1984 | 1984

    Cambridgeshire | 1985 | 1985

    Cheshire | 1990 | 1990

    Cleveland | 1981 | 1981

    Cornwall | 1977 | 1979

    Cumbria | 1983 | 1991

    Derbyshire | 1978 | –

    Devon | 1982 | 1991

    Dorset | 1984 | 1984

    Durham | 1988 | 1990

    East Sussex | 1989 | –

    Essex | 1978 | 1985

    Gloucestershire | 1978 | –

    Greater London | 1986 | 1987

    Greater Manchester | 1987 | 1988

    Hampshire | 1982 | 1988

    Hereford and Worcester | 1977 | 1977

    Hertfordshire | 1986 | –

    Humberside | 1983 | 1983

    Isle of Wight | 1985 | 1987

    Kent | 1982 | 1984

    Lancashire | 1976 | 1977

    Leicestershire | 1989 | 1990

    Lincolnshire | 1975 | 1991

    Merseyside | 1989 | 1989

    Norfolk | 1978 | 1980

    Northamptonshire | 1984 | 1991

    Northumberland | 1984 | 1987

    North Yorkshire | 1987 | 1987

    Nottinghamshire | 1991 | –

    Oxfordshire | 1980 | 1989

    Shrophire | 1975 | 1990

    Somerset | 1978 | 1978

    South Yorkshire | 1985 | 1990

    Staffordshire | 1968 | 1984

    Suffolk | 1978 | 1983

    Surrey | 1986 | 1986

    Tyne and Wear | 1984 | 1987

    Warwickshire | 1990 | 1990

    West Midlands | 1974 | 1990

    West Sussex | 1975 | 1990

    West Yorkshire | 1985 | 1985

    Wiltshire | 1989 | 1989

    WALES

    Clwyd | 1985 | 1986

    Dyfed | 1979 | 1989

    Mid Glamorgan | 1990 | 1990

    South Glamorgan | 1985 | 1990

    West Glamorgan | 1987 | –

    Gwynedd | 1990 | –

    Gwent | 1979 | 1985

    Powys | 1986 | 1986

    NORTHERN IRELAND

    Antrim | 1959 | 1982

    Armagh | 1989 | 1989

    County Borough of Belfast | 1991 | 1991

    Down | 1990 | 1990

    Fermanagh | 1986 | 1987

    Londonderry | 1975 | 1985

    County Borough of Londonderry | 1986 | –

    Tyrone | 1986 | 1987

    SCOTLAND

    Highland Region

    Caithness | 1973 | 1986

    Sutherland | 1972 | –

    Ross and Cromarty | 1988 | –

    Inverness | 1985 | 1986

    Nairn | 1969 | 1988

    Grampian Region

    Moray | 1964 | 1980

    Banff | 1987 | –

    Aberdeen County | 1987 | 1987

    Kincardine | 1977 | 1978

    Tayside Region

    Angus | 1989 | –

    Perth and Kinross | 1971 | 1984

    Fife Region

    Fife | 1987 | 1988

    Lothian Region

    West Lothian | 1985 | –

    Midlothian | 1972 | –

    East Lothian | 1986 | –

    Central Region

    Clackmannan | 1966 | 1974

    Stirling | 1983 | 1984

    Borders Region

    Peebles | 1980 | 1981

    Roxburgh | 1974 | 1975

    Berwick | 1989 | 1989

    Strathclyde Region

    Argyll | 1990 | 1990

    Dumbarton | 1990 | 1990

    Lanark | 1963 | 1964

    Renfrew | 1980 | 1990

    Ayrshire and Arran | 1991 | 1991

    Dumfries and Galloway Region

    Wigtown | 1989 | 1990

    Stewartry | 1989 | 1990

    Dumfries | 1991 | 1988

    Island Areas

    Orkney | 1990 | –

    Shetland | 1982 | 1983

    Western Isles | 1983 | 1984

    In Scotland the Lord-Provosts of Aberdeen city, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow hold office in addition as lord-lieutenants.

     

    IPPR Report

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will obtain a copy of the Institute for Public Policy Research report on a written constitution for his office’s library.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is aware of the document and its contents.

     

    Green Decision-making

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when the intra-departmental guide for civil servants on green decision-making was completed and distributed to each Government Department ; and what has been the cost to date of producing this guide.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The guide, “Policy Appraisal and the Environment” was published by HMSO on 23 September 1991. The Department of the Environment distributed copies to other Departments during the following week, and copies are available at HMSO bookshops. The guide cost approximately £76,000 to produce.

     

    Civil Servants

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names of those civil servants whom Her Majesty’s Government have authorised to volunteer statements to the media whose substance is the prerogative and responsibility of Ministers, together with their names, post and annual salary.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 14 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    No. Many senior civil servants give occasional interviews to the press.

  • PMQT – 15 October 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th October 1991. John MacGregor responded on behalf of John Major.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Goodson-Wickes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 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.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing will prevent the dismantling of Saddam Hussein’s capability to manufacture nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend made a particular personal contribution in the Gulf war and I therefore understand why he has made that point. I am happy to give him that assurance. He will agree that this country has played a major part in securing resolution 687 which stated that we would seek, identify and destroy Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. As a result of the United Kingdom’s initiative and of the courage of members of the teams including scientists from several countries under United Nations auspices, it is becoming clear just how extensive and advanced was Iraq’s nuclear weapons capability. [Interruption.] I do not understand why Opposition Members are reacting in that way, because they must know that this is one of the most crucial international issues at the moment. The Iraqi Government are still trying to cling to it and are still cheating and lying. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) that they will not be permitted to succeed. One way or another, their nuclear capability must go, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is a very important matter.

    Mr. Kinnock : Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Government propose to do to stop the process of privatisation of the national health service?

    Mr. MacGregor : The first thing is to make it clear–time and again- -as I believe the right hon. Gentleman now knows, that there is no question of privatisation. [Interruption.] That is why the right hon. Gentleman is now retreating to his charge of creeping privatisation. Let me tell him what that amounts to. It amounts to issues like contracting out of services and competitive tendering. It amounts also to other issues to ensure better reforms of the health service. Even allowing for all the savings that Labour claims that it would make, the net loss to patient care as a result of Labour’s proposals for abolishing competitive tendering and charges and introducing a statutory minimum wage–proposals that would cost nearly £400 million a year–is equivalent to 400,000 fewer acute in- patient treatments or 16,000 fewer heart transplants, 12,000 fewer liver transplants or 40,000 fewer kidney transplants. That is the point the Leader of the Opposition has refused to answer. The policies that we are pursuing are not creeping privatisation, they are achieving proper reforms to ensure that the resources are better directed to patient care.

    Mr. Kinnock rose–

    Hon. Members : Tell the truth.

    Mr. Kinnock rose–

    Mr. Dickens : Lies– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Withdraw that remark.

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

    Mr. Kinnock : Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows–

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Dickens : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been a custom — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. No point of order arises. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the comment.

    Mr. Dickens : In accordance with your wishes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “lies”. We do not lie in the House of Commons.

    Mr. Kinnock : There is another withdrawal in order. It is the withdrawal of opt-outs and privatisation, for which the Government have no mandate.

    Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the closure of geriatric wards in NHS hospitals means that old and very sick people are forced into private medical homes? Is not he aware that people now have to pay the commercial rate for eye tests? Is not he aware that people are having to use their life savings for urgent operations? The people call that privatisation–so do we.

    Mr. MacGregor : Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is engaging in the smears and fears again? There is no question of national health trust hospitals being outside the national health service. On eye test charges, he will know that about 40 per cent. of the population do not have to pay for those eye charges. Is he really saying that he would abolish them and thus deprive patients with serious hospital needs from getting the extra resources that he would take away? Is that what he is saying? On elderly people in homes, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the number of elderly people supported by public funds in residential care has more than doubled since 1979.

    Mr. Kinnock : The more the Government protest, the less the Government are believed. Is it not clear to the right hon. Gentleman that, when people have to pay for services at the point of use that were free at the point of use, that is privatisation in anyone’s language?

    Mr. MacGregor : May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a Labour Government supported the idea of some charges in the health service? He simply has to answer the question that we have increased resources of more than 50 per cent. in real terms in the health service. He is putting forward the only proposals that seem to be different. The only proposals that he can possibly say are creeping privatisation, are actually designed to improve the amount of money that goes direct to patient care. He has failed to answer the question why he would pursue that policy and thus deprive patients of operations which are currently taking place.

    Mr. Ken Hargreaves : When the Leader of the Opposition refers to opt-out hospitals, is it not the case

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Please deal with Government policy.

    Mr. Hargreaves : Will my right hon. Friend agree that in response to his recent remarks, the opting out of NHS hospitals is simply the return to their status before 1974, as in the case of teaching hospitals which were then hospital trusts? Is it not the case that a large number of those hospitals wish to have the management of their own affairs in that state to which they were accustomed before 1974?

    Mr. MacGregor : I would go further than my hon. Friend. The reforms are ensuring better use of resources in the health service directly on patient care. The reason why we are getting wholly unfounded smears and fears is that the Labour party has nothing to say about improving the management of the national health service.

     

    Q2. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Skinner : On the subject of facts and figures, does the Leader of the House recall that on 8 November last year the Prime Minister forecast that there would be a surplus on the Budget account of about £3 billion? He was wrong. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the budget for this year forecast a deficit on the Budget account of £8,000 million. He was wrong again, because the forecast for this year looks like being at least £18 billion. The truth is that the Government cannot get their economic sums right, and that is why they cannot be believed on the national health service or anything else. The Tory Government would not recognise the truth if it were sprayed on their eyeballs.

    Mr. MacGregor : This Government have succeeded in achieving a rate of economic growth throughout the 1980s that has been a good deal faster than in previous decades. That is why we have been able to increase spending on the national health service and in many other areas. It comes very rich from the hon. Gentleman’s party to accuse us about issues relating to public expenditure when we know that the Labour party has already committed itself to an increased expenditure bill of £35,000 million.

     

    Q3. Mr. Roger King : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. King : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the city of Birmingham is blessed with a superb education system based on choice? We have six grammar schools, a city technology college on our border, a growing number of grant-maintained schools and many church schools. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will maintain that element of choice in our education system, in contrast to the Labour party which is intent on nationalising all that choice?

    Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend. I have visited that city technology college and some of the grant-maintained schools. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the reforms that we are undertaking and the extra choice that we are giving are raising educational standards and increasing parental choice. It is very noticeable that grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges are increasingly popular with parents because demand for places at them is rising substantially. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Labour party would abolish that choice.

    Mr. Ashdown : How does the Leader of the House reconcile a Government who say that they want to privatise British Rail with a Prime Minister who appears to want to run British Rail? Is not the problem the fact that the travelling public are now paying in full for the Government’s 11-year neglect of our rail system, and is not the answer to give BR access to the private markets to increase investment and to give private services access to the rail network to increase competition?

    Mr. MacGregor : At present, BR is engaged on a massive programme of capital investment to improve services. I believe that the public are prepared to pay more in charges to secure that improvement in services. As for the charge about the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend had a view to express about those lines that were faced with a higher-than-average increase to reflect the benefits of extra investment and better services. In the case of one line, he said that that should happen only when the better services were delivered. That is the citizens charter already operating.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bowis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Bowis : Has my right hon. Friend been able to study the case of my constituent who stands to lose his job and is being victimised at his place of work because of his support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the anti-poll tax campaign, despite the fact that 30 of his workmates take the same view and are not being sacked? Will my right hon. Friend look into this matter? He will understand that on this occasion I cannot name my constituent, but his job is as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Time is getting on.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Brian Mulroney – 15 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Mr Brian Mulroney, given in Harare on Tuesday 15th October 1991.


    MR MULRONEY:

    The Prime Minister and I, we have been together for the better part of the day and we met a little earlier this evening and we are going back to a dinner meeting where we are going to be focusing on the Soviet Union and on Yugoslavia and related matters, including the Uruguay Round which is of great concern to us all.

    But we spent some time a little earlier this evening discussing the Commonwealth and the importance of this conference and we will no doubt both have an opportunity to answer your questions tonight and during the course of the week.

    The conference has not started yet, it starts tomorrow, we had a preliminary meeting today that dealt with the manner in which the communique or the declaration could emerge. I told our colleagues that given the choice between the draft submitted by the Commonwealth and the British draft I liked the British draft, it was shorter, crisper, to the point and it I believe will become the basis for the Commonwealth declaration that we will see emerge later on during the week.

    We discussed in general terms today and in general terms because the Commonwealth conference has not started, you cannot have 8 or 9 people in a room purporting to speak on behalf of the Commonwealth, the debates will begin tomorrow. But we talked about human rights in general and in specific terms, we talked about aid, we talked about development in what was I think the Prime Minister will agree a very good exchange this morning although it was preliminary because the conference has not started.

    [Mr Mulroney continued to speak in French, this portion not translated]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Brian, thank you very much indeed. I think you have set out very clearly and fairly what we have been discussing.

    We have a number of areas we particularly want to touch on, some we have discussed already, others we will discuss later over dinner, but Britain and Canada are partners in the G7, we are partners in NATO and we are partners in the Commonwealth. So there are a vast range of different areas that we will wish to take one another’s mind upon.

    We are certainly going to spend rather more time than we yet have discussing the GATT Round, that clearly is very important and I believe we will also spend some time later on this evening on the forthcoming NATO conference in Rome, that is a matter of considerable importance and of considerable interest to both of us.

    And of course we will both review what happened today in our preliminary discussions in the high level group and preview what will happen during the rest of the Commonwealth conference.

    I think the atmosphere today was extremely good. There was a great willingness, a communal willingness to cast minds forward and look at what the Commonwealth is developing into. We have had the early years of the Commonwealth, it has been there for a long time, it has matured, it is time for the Commonwealth to look at itself again, review the position and decide how it moves forward from the present position.

    And that I think will be the importance of what in due course when all colleagues have looked at it will be the Harare declaration. We had a very important declaration 20 years ago in Singapore, we now need to up-date that, refresh that and point the Commonwealth to the future. And that really will be the substance of our discussions this week and also I both hope and believe the substance of the declaration we will agree this weekend.

    QUESTION:

    There was a great deal of enthusiasm for sanctions against South Africa at past Commonwealth conferences, there does not seem to be the same type of enthusiasm for tying foreign aid to human rights as there has been for South Africa, I understand this was a British proposal?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you may not have got that entirely right. There is a very great concern about human rights, I have expressed it elsewhere, the Prime Minister has expressed it elsewhere, and that is a concern that spreads amongst the vast majority of the Commonwealth and has been expressed by them. But one has to look at precisely what our aid is geared to. It is geared firstly to help alleviate need, that is the primary purpose of the bilateral aid but we need to make sure that it is focused properly and I think it is not a question of tying aid, it is not a question of saying unless you do this, that or the other thing there will be no aid, it is a question of looking at programmes and seeking to focus aid where it will have the greatest practical effect to improve good government. And I think good government in its widest aspects, I suppose broadly we mean democratic government, accountable government, is something of great concern to the Commonwealth, it is of concern to the World Bank and of concern to others and I think that has got very much tied up in our discussions this week.

    QUESTION:

    British sources have characterised the progress made on discussions on South Africa today as slow, it does seem that momentum either on reaching perhaps changes to the New Delhi accords which you would like to see, or indeed on inviting other representatives other than Nelson Mandela here does not seem to have been achieved?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a dramatically changed atmosphere as far as South Africa is concerned and that has predominantly come about of course because of what has happened inside South Africa, people have seen the pillars of apartheid be repealed. And one looks forward to the time when the constitutional conference begins, is concluded and South Africa moves on to a new non-racial future.

    The climate in the Commonwealth is very much in favour of that developing as speedily as possible. I think that has been reflected in discussions, everyone knows a tremendous amount has been achieved but there is still some way to go.

    QUESTION:

    We understand from British briefings that Malaysia, for instance, was not enthusiastic about the proposal to tie aid and human rights records. Is the going a little tougher than you envisaged?

    1. MULRONEY:

    There was no such proposal, there was no such reaction from Malaysia. I don’t know what you are talking about. There was no such proposal, Dan, and there was no such reaction. In the discussions this morning – I think, John, you can correct me if I might have missed something on a coffee break or something what took place was an overview provided by the Secretary-General of his own views and that was followed by a debate both on the Declaration and on specifics. Prime Minister Major and I and others intervened very vigorously. I gave, for example, an indication of what I believe to be the case, that more and more the evolution of foreign policy will see us witness the sweeping away of any totalitarian regimes and the primacy of human rights. This is what will dominate the spectrum, dominate the concerns of national governments.

    Canada, like any national government, reserves the right to terminate completely any aid where it feels that that would be appropriate. We did it in the Commonwealth when Idi Amin came to power in Uganda; we have done it recently in Haiti, where we want the illegal occupation and usurpation of the Presidency of Haiti to end. I signalled to President Mitterrand in Houston in 1990 that Canada would not attend a summit of Francophone nations held in Zaire because of the human rights policies there – this was a year and a half ago. I sent word to the summit [Indistinct] a few weeks ago that we want Haiti excluded from the participation at the Summet de Chyu [phonetic] and so we express our points of view in different ways and they range from cutting off aid completely to channelling or focusing aid. For example, in some cases we go through the Red Cross to make sure that the aid gets to the people who are desperately in need without any of the aid getting into the hands of the government or the governing party in that particular country. That is the way Canada has done it over the years; I think Britain has followed similar policies, but it didn’t come up in any way, Dan, other than in the way I have described it to you.

    QUESTION [in French]:

    1. MULRONEY [answer also in French]:

    QUESTION:

    In your meeting tomorrow, Prime Minister, with Nelson Mandela will you be looking for increased signs of flexibility from the ANC in terms of the timing of the removal of sanctions against South Africa?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think what perhaps may not be appreciated in the United Kingdom is how much contact I have had with Nelson Mandela and indeed with others over the last year about South African matters. It is by no means an uncommon occurrence for us to pick up the phone and talk to one another about what is going on.

    I have made no secret about what I wish to see in South Africa. I wish to see the constitutional conference convened; I wish to see a conclusion; I wish to see South Africa move forward to a non-racial future.

    I will be talking to Mr. Mandela about how the constitutional conference can get under way, what progress he thinks is possible, how he thinks things will develop, what the time-scale will be and generally how he thinks we can inch forward. I think it is a mistake always to suddenly imagine one dramatic event is going to move things forward almost overnight in a huge way. It has been a continuing series of events that have moved progress forward in South Africa and I will be continuing to discuss with Mr. Mandela how we see that progress continuing. It is going in the right direction. Many people would like it to go faster, many others are surprised that it has gone as fast as it has over the past two years so there is no great drama about my meeting with him tomorrow. It is a meeting; we have had several meetings; we have spoken frequently; and we just want to carry that debate a little further.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, can those citizens in Commonwealth countries where there are human rights abuses reasonably expect that the Commonwealth will emerge from this summit with effective measures to isolate those governments who persist in abusing human rights inside the Commonwealth?

    1. MULRONEY:

    I think that what you can reasonably expect is a very strong commitment and an endorsement of the primacy of human rights and the indispensable priority that it must be given not only in the Commonwealth but in other institutions around the world. I think you can probably expect as well that more and more governments are going to factor that in a major way into all of their foreign policy decisions including aid decisions.

    As I have just indicated, there are instances where, for example, the Government of Canada has been approached in regard to a decision where we were inclined as a government to terminate all aid and we were approached by the NGOs in that country and asked specifically if we would funnel aid through them as opposed to the government, to make sure that the aid got into the hands of the needy. In our programme, for example, of immunisation, where Canada put some $25 million into a programme of immunisation, the money of course was funnelled into NGO hands, into the Red Cross, into UNICEF hands as opposed to into the hands of the government or any agent or agency of the government and I think we are going to accentuate that. I think all governments are doing that. We are going to be judicious perhaps in the manner in which these decisions are arrived at but I think that the reflection that you will find from the Commonwealth itself will be a direct and a great commitment to the primacy of human rights and individual freedoms in the intercourse among nations and particularly as members of the Commonwealth. I think you can expect that from Great Britain and from Canada.

    QUESTION:

    I come from South Africa. Overall, Sir, would you be optimistic about making substantive progress on the South African issue at the Commonwealth Conference?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think the South African issue is at this Commonwealth Conference the dominant issue. It has been because people were frustrated and worried that progress was not being made. I think now there is an acknowledgement that progress is being made – I am sure South Africa will be discussed, of course it will, it is very important. The dominant issue at this Conference will actually be to determine how the Commonwealth moves forward and to agree the Harare Declaration so I am not sure quite what is meant by “progress on South Africa”. We can’t externally make progress on South Africa; the progress that we need to see towards a new constitution and a new future for South Africa has to be made within South Africa by the people who live there and I don’t think we can externally deal with that.

    QUESTION (SAME QUESTIONER):

    I mean convincing your Commonwealth colleagues on Britain’s attitude towards South Africa relating to sanctions, for instance.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it is going to be a great issue, quite frankly, at this particular conference. There is now general agreement that people-to-people sanctions should be lifted – that is progress – and the direction in which the general thought of the Commonwealth is going is now quite clear: they are seeing progress made and they are reflecting in their own attitudes the acknowledgement that progress has been made, The European Community and others have gone a bit further than the Commonwealth and there are always going to be shades of difference but there are not great chasms of differences between us any more.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Harare – 15 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Harare, on Tuesday 15th October 1991.


    QUESTION:

    Can you tell us what you hope to get out of today’s talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have a lot to discuss today though the Conference doesn’t really start until tomorrow of course, but I am looking forward to a very good conference. I think it will be very constructive; I believe it may be a different sort of conference from those we have seen in the past; that the Commonwealth wants to look forward and see how it is going to develop in the future; that will be theme, I think, of the week.

    QUESTION:

    What sort of specific ideas on the future of the Commonwealth have you got?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are several really. Good, democratic government, I think, is the main theme that will come out of it. I believe the Commonwealth will express great concern about human rights, I think that will be a second theme that will come out of it; and I hope too, to persuade Commonwealth Heads of the importance of the Environment Conference in Rio next year. I think they are all very important matters but of course other matters will come up as well.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, Mr. Mugabe has said it is not possible to buy values with money. Do you think that the British aid policy could be divisive at this meeting?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think the British aid policy can be divisive at all; it is a very substantial amount of aid. About 80 per cent of the complete amount of British aid actually goes to Commonwealth countries and I think that is something that is appreciated around the Commonwealth. Of course, you can’t buy values with money; I entirely agree with President Mugabe about that but I think the aid policy is a quite separate matter.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Bob Hawke – 15 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, in Harare on Tuesday 15th October 1991.


    MR HAWKE:

    I was very grateful to John for joining me with his colleagues and we had a very mutual discussion which covered essentially three areas: the conference itself and issues of importance this week and I think we had a lot of common ground on those issues; secondly we talked about broader international matters and may say from Australia’s point of view perhaps the most important was the finalising of the GATT round, the Uruguay Round, and I was very pleased that John again emphasised, as he did in his role as Chairman of the G7 the commitment to a successful conclusion of that round, this is a matter of very very great importance for us in Australia but I think also for the whole world, and we spent some time on that; and then thirdly there were one or two bilateral matters that we were able to cover with mutual satisfaction – a good working breakfast.

    QUESTION:

    As aid donors, both of you, would you like now to turn your aid to human rights improvements?

    MR HAWKE:

    I think I can speak for John and certainly in my own terms I am not going to have my agenda set by the media or anyone else on this issue. I note that at the start of this conference there is an attempt to set this sort of agenda and I am not having the agenda set in that way. But obviously I would say this as I said at an earlier press conference, if you want to ask what is the distinguishing characteristic of the world in the last one or two years it is the move in so many quarters, not simply in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, to a democratic constitution and way of life. That is a fact and no-one can avoid that fact and it will inevitably be reflected I believe in discussions in any body like this.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major do you agree with this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I absolutely share that view, I think that is entirely right, we are here at this Commonwealth conference to look forward, we have got reports in front of us which enable us to do so and I think there have been the most enormous, quite unprecedented and unexpected changes in the world in the last twelve months or so. That is going to have its impact on the Commonwealth as well and we want to look forward to what sort of government there is going to be in the future, what the relationships will be inside the Commonwealth. There are other important matters as well we will touch on, I am sure we will touch on the environment conference in Rio that will take place next year, a very important conference.

    But this morning I would just like to echo what the Prime Minister said, we had an extremely useful discussion, particularly about GATT, as Chairman of the Cairns group he and I have kept in very close touch over the past few months, it is a matter of critical importance, critical importance, I cannot overstate it, that we actually get a satisfactory outcome to the Uruguay Round and it was extremely useful this morning to have the opportunity of exchanging views about that.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, do you favour the Commonwealth making some sort of statement about GATT?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sure the Commonwealth will discuss a raft of matters including GATT, it is of very great interest to the Commonwealth, it is of very great interest to many of the developing countries that they are actually going to have access for their exports to the developed countries. It is not a great deal of good for the developed countries handing out aid on the one hand and closing their markets to exports from the developing countries with the other hand, that is absolutely self-defeating. So a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round is very important to the Commonwealth.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think the French will shift?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we are going to get an agreement in the GATT Round, there are a lot of things to be determined, you mentioned the French, but there are many matters still to be determined, it is not only Prance who has difficulties with the present situation in the GATT Round. There is a great deal to be done, there are many countries that will have to make a move. What is absolutely critically important is that we do not lose the advances that are already there in the GATT Round and that we do reach a satisfactory conclusion.

    QUESTION:

    Will there be a conclusion?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It may be a conclusion that not everybody likes and that everybody perhaps has to make some sacrifices to achieve. But we will all have to make much bigger sacrifices if we do not actually get that agreement.

    QUESTION:

    Do you foresee any problem for the United Kingdom supporting a CHOGM declaration on GATT?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have not started our discussions here yet and I have just been discussing very clearly, I could not have done it more clearly I think, how important I think it is that we actually get an agreement on the GATT Round, there are very few things that are more important than that if one takes the medium and long term view of the importance of the flow of world trade, the growth of world trade and the need for trade to flow in an uninhibited fashion. So I do not think there will be a great deal of difficulty, I hope that will be a universal view.

    QUESTION:

    On the question of human rights, what is the point of talking about good government if you do not introduce a means to enforce it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are going to discuss human rights and we are going to point to peer pressure. There have been the most enormous changes over the last few years, some of them in the Commonwealth, many of them beyond the Commonwealth. I do not think any country in the world is immune from the sort of changes that we have seen over the last couple of years and I am surprise you think there will be so much difficulty about it. I think the fact that there have been such remarkable changes is clear to everyone and will be reflected in our discussions this week.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 October 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th October 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Citizen’s Charter

    Dr. Cunningham : To ask the Prime Minister what is the total amount of planned expenditure funded by the Exchequer for the promotion and advertising of “The Citizen’s Charter” White Paper.

    The Prime Minister : The estimated cost is likely to be in the order of £916,000. This includes the costs of producing, advertising and distributing the popular version of the White Paper. The costs for printing, publishing and distributing the White Paper–Cm 1599–were met by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, which aims to recover its costs from sales revenue.

    Mr. Andrew Bowden : To ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to complete the appointment of a panel of advisers on the citizen’s charter initiative; and if he will list the individuals who have so far agreed to serve on that panel.

    The Prime Minister : I have appointed six members to the citizens charter advisory panel to serve under the chairmanship of Sir James Blyth. They are Mr. Christopher Bland, Dr. Nancy Lane, Dr. Madsen Pirie, Mr. Christopher Swan, Mr. Stan Webster and Lady Judith Wilcox.

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those proposals in the citizens charter for which new legislation will be necessary.

    The Prime Minister : Legislation will be needed to extend the powers of the Audit Commission and require local authorities to respond to auditors’ reports; to extend compulsory competitive tendering; to require regular independent inspection of schools and the publication of information about the performance of all schools; to require lay members independent of local education authorities to be appointed to appeals tribunals; to give the citizen a right to challenge unlawful industrial action affecting public services; to extend delegation in the civil service and deal with the problems relating to technical redundancy; to privatise British Rail; to deregulate London buses; to change arrangements for the provision of motorway service areas; to limit the Post Office monopoly, establish a new regulator for postal services and give the Secretary of State powers to set standards and targets; to bring the powers to set and ensure service standards of the regulators of the privatised utilities up to the standards of the strongest; and to make other smaller changes to the law, for example allowing juries considering their verdict to go home overnight.

     

    Global Warming

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken to reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to combat global warming.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) on 22 July, at column 375. The “First Year Report on the Environment White Paper”–Cm 1655–which shows how our first set of measures to limit the United Kingdom’s carbon dioxide emissions are being put into practice, was published on Wednesday 25 September.

     

    EC Heads of Government Meeting

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister when he placed in the Library a copy of the communique issued after the meeting of Heads of Governments of member states of the European Community held on 13 September.

    The Prime Minister : No communique was issued, because the European Council planned for 13 September did not take place.

     

    Learning Difficulties

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the National Campaign With People Who Have Learning Difficulties; what reply he is sending; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a letter from the director setting out his organisation’s concerns about the future development of services for people with learning disabilities. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Health has responsibility for these services and will be replying on my behalf; a copy of his reply will be sent to the right hon. Member.

     

    Citizens Advice Bureaux

    Mr. Wray : To ask the Prime Minister what support Her Majesty’s Government are giving to the citizens advice bureaux throughout the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : The Department of Trade and Industry funds the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux–NACAB–and Citizens Advice Scotland–CAS–which provide the central support services for the local bureaux in England, Wales and Scotland. Similarly, the Northern Ireland Office funds the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux– NIACAB. Total grant-in-aid to NACAB, CAS and NIACAB for 1990-91 was £11.74 million. Grant-in-aid for the current financial year will be more than £12 million.

    Although the Government do not fund individual citizens advice bureaux, directly, the money provided to the central organisations includes a provision to develop the local network through partnership agreements on a time limited basis.

     

    Animals Charter

    Mr. Mudd : To ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to prepare and publish an animals charter.

    The Prime Minister : The Government place a high priority on ensuring proper safeguards for animal welfare, and have already made clear their policy for making progress on a wide range of animal welfare issues. In relation to farm animals, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is pressing in particular for measures to improve welfare standards throughout the European Community.

  • Mr Major’s Arrival Doorstep in Harare – 14 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s arrival doorstep in Harare, on Monday 14th October 1991.


    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what are you expecting from this meeting here in Harare?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we are going to have a very good meeting in Harare, we are going to have the opportunity of looking forward to the future of the Commonwealth and deciding which way it is going. I am looking forward to it very much.

    QUESTION:

    Are you sure South Africa is now something you can agree on?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there will be discussions on that, of course, but there are many other important matters to discuss as well.

  • Mr Major’s 1991 Conservative Party Conference Speech – 11 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s 1991 Conservative Party Conference Speech, made on the 11th October 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Earlier this week this Conference welcomed Mrs Thatcher. You gave her the most tumultuous reception. She deserved it. She led our country for over 11 years, our Party for over 15. We owe Margaret a great debt.

    The Britain she left us is immeasurably stronger than the Britain she found. Above all, she helped others to believe in us and us to believe in ourselves. And on those foundations she laid three great Election victories.

    It’s good to applaud; it’s grand to cheer. But the greatest tribute we can pay her is to do as she did. To win, and win, and win again. At this Conference – and what a successful Conference it’s been – you have heard how the next Conservative Government will secure the best future for Britain.

    We’ve heard some cracking speeches this week. From the right team. A young team – in fact the youngest Cabinet this century. A professional team.

    Just think for a moment. When the going gets rough in international affairs, who would be the first person you would send for? Gerald Kaufman? No. He would be the second person. The first person would be anyone but Gerald Kaufman. But far and away the best person would be Douglas Hurd, one of the finest Foreign Secretaries this country has ever had.

    Of course, Labour’s Captain tries to talk up his team. “A winning team” he calls them. After three election defeats? Well, it goes to show that there must be more than one way to look at history. Take waterloo. You thought Wellington won Waterloo? No, Waterloo was a smash hit for Napoleon. But we can help Labour to win one thing – the record for the longest run of election defeats. Played four. Lost four. And a probable vacancy for team captain.

    Last week at Brighton we had speech after speech about a fairy-tale future for the British people. In Labour’s Never-Mind-the-Cost-Never-Never Land. Then there was singalongaleader. It was all good fun if you like that sort of thing.

    But while this was happening out front, there was something thoroughly nasty seeping from under the platform. I refer, of course, to what Labour pretends to believe are the Government’s plans for the National Health Service. There’s only one way to deal with a lie: nail it to the wall of truth, as William Waldegrave so conclusively did yesterday. We have all been brought up with the Health Service. We use it. We cherish it. We are proud of it.

    I know that for millions of people in this country the National Health Service means security. I understand that. Because I am – and always have been – one of those people. I know that even when you’re fit and well, it brings peace of mind – just to know it’s there. It is unthinkable that I, of all people, would try to take that security away. A genuine belief I can respect, even when I profoundly disagree with it. But deliberate lies – repeated, repeated and repeated – merely diminishes its authors.

    The Health Service has been in existence for over 40 years. And who has been in Government for most of that period? We have. For 29 of those years it has been a Conservative Government. It has been under Conservative Governments that the National Health Service has been built up, enlarged and improved. And our reforms will carry that right through into the 1990s. So let me say now, once and for all, and without qualifications – under this Government the National Health Service will continue, to offer free hospital treatment to everyone.

    And so that no-one can misunderstand the position – and I hope the whole country is listening – let me make it even clearer. There will be no charges for hospital treatment, no charges for visits to the doctor, no privatisation of health care, neither piecemeal, not in part, nor as a whole. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not after the next election. Not ever while I’m Prime Minister.

    And if, after all I have said, there are still those who set out to frighten the vulnerable, the weak, and the old, with carefully calculated smears, then the public will know where to find them – in the gutters of public debate. Such people are not friends of the Health Service. They are the parasites that live on its back.

    No Conservative need be defensive about the Health Service. On the contrary, every Conservative has the right to share my disgust at what is said. Go to your local hospital. What do you find? You’ll find Conservatives. In the hospital shop. Serving with the League of Friends. Working on the wards. They are not just friends of the Health Service. They are part of the Health Service.

    The National Health Service doesn’t belong to the Labour Party. As its name makes clear, it belongs to the Nation. And – in both senses of the phrase – Labour isn’t going to get away with it. The Health Service is not a political football to be kicked around in the hope that, somehow or other, it will reopen the door of Downing Street to a Labour Government. It won’t. Neither by hook or by Cook.

    This is the first Conference I have addressed as Leader of the Conservative Party. It is hard to explain how I feel about that. It is a long road from Coldharbour Lane to Downing Street. It is a tribute to the Conservative Party that that road can be travelled.

    Perhaps at the back of this hall today there is another young man or woman who stands where I did 30 years ago. Who knows few people here. Who feels it is a long road to this platform, too.

    They should remember the last two leaders were a builder’s son from Broadstairs and a grocer’s daughter from Grantham. We don’t need lectures in the Conservative Party about opportunity. We are the Party of opportunity.

    This Party is open to all. And to all those who may be watching, wherever you come from, whatever your background, I say simply this, “Come and join us”. There are no barriers in our Party, just as there will be no barriers in the Britain we are building together.

    Some people ask whether we will have a different sort of Conservatism in future. Of course we will. We all bring our own beliefs, our own instincts, and our own experiences to politics. And I am no exception.

    But the fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, those beliefs that brought me into this Party, are the beliefs that Chris Patten expressed so brilliantly on Tuesday. They remain as strong today as ever. Old though our Party is, the values behind it are older still. They are rooted in the instincts of every individual. And it is through our policies that we make them come alive.

    What is it that we offer? A strong Britain, confident of its position; secure in its defences, firm in its respect for the law. A strong economy, free from the threat of inflation, in which taxes can fall, savings can grow, and independence is assured.

    I want to give individuals greater control over their own lives.

    – Every mother, every father, a say over their child’s education.

    – Every schoolchild, a choice of routes to the world of work.

    – Every patient, the confidence that their doctors can secure the best treatment for them.

    – Every business, every worker, freedom from the destructive dictatorship of union militants.

    – Every family, the right to have and to hold their own private corner of life; their own home, their own savings, their own security for their future – and for their children’s future.

    Building the self-respect that comes from ownership. Showing the responsibility that follows from self-respect. That is our programme for the 90s. I will put it in a single phrase: the power to choose – and the right to own.

    Do you know what Labour believes? That choice is something for them. They just can’t accept that choice is something most of us can be trusted with. You might make mistakes, they say. What arrogance. As if the State have never made mistakes, in our name, with our money. Try telling that the tenants of the crumbling tower blocks that disfigures our cities.

    And tell that to the citizens of Eastern Europe, who have risked their very lives for these freedoms, for the right to own, and for the power to choose. Ordinary values – for which ordinary people have, in our time, fought an extraordinary fight.

    During the summer I did quite a bit of travelling – Headingley, Edgbaston, Trent Bridge, Lord’s, the Oval. Also Moscow, Peking, Hong Kong and Kennebunkport. Wherever I went abroad, I found the same story. Britain is respected again. We don’t always realise the admiration and affection for Britain abroad.

    We’ve earned it, because when others have hesitated, we have always stood firm and given a lead. As we did again this year. In defence of freedom in Kuwait. We didn’t want that war, its waste, its suffering, its grief. But to achieve greater security in the world, we had to reverse the annexation of Kuwait. And to keep that security we must destroy Iraq’s nuclear weapons capacity. They are still trying to cling to it, still cheating, still lying.

    They cannot be permitted to succeed. One way or another that nuclear capacity must go. I hope it will go peacefully. If not, it must go by force. But go it will. In January I flew by helicopter over our army in the Gulf. I can still see the scene below me. A great convoy of troops and heavy equipment moving forward across the sands. For mile after mile. You could only marvel at the organisation and planning involved.

    But down on the ground, I had a different impression. Dug into position each unit seemed almost alone. Young men – mostly very young – thousands of miles from home in the wastes of the desert. Let me tell you what was in my mind when I met them. What would they think? Here was a new Prime Minister, unknown to them, untried, asking them to prepare for battle, perhaps not to return. How would they respond to that? And would they understand the reasons why they were there?

    Whatever doubts I had soon disappeared. They knew why there were there. They knew the cause was right. And they knew that they could do the job. They asked only to be allowed to get on with it. And, when they did, my goodness, how they proved their point. They really were the best of British.

    I learned something else from that extraordinary war and especially from that precision bombing that amazed the world. It’s this. If our troops are to do the job we ask, it is absolutely vital that their equipment and their training are the best.

    That is why in the last few weeks we have bought the new anti-submarine helicopter from Westland – the best. Why we are moving ahead with the new Challenger tank from Vickers – the best. And that’s why we will keep our own independent nuclear deterrent, Trident. The best security for Britain.

    And we will take with just a little pinch of salt the conversion of those who campaigned for CND for the past thirty years – and then suddenly let their principles ….what was the word? … lapse? What principles? First, peace at any price. Then power at any price. I know what this country will say to that. Never at any price. For a man who with no fixed view on the defence of Britain, there can be no fixed abode in Downing Street.

    As we saw again in the aftermath of war, a confident Britain is a force for good in a troubled world. If we had not created those safe havens in Iraq, hundreds and thousands of Kurdish people would have died last winter in bitter, freezing mountains. We spoke out strongly for human rights in Peking and spoke out first against the return of tyranny in Moscow.

    Alone among all the nations of the world we stand at the hub of three great interlocking alliances. Of NATO, which is and must remain the core of our defence. Of the European Community. And of the Commonwealth, which meets in conference next week. There we must persuade 50 nations, some – frankly – with a chequered political history, to a formal commitment to democracy and human rights.

    And in the 1990s I hope to see one former member of the Commonwealth once more take its rightful place. We have always fought for an end to apartheid. But we have worked just as consistently for the long-term goal of a fully free and prosperous South Africa. I believe that both goals are now in sight. And when they are reached I want to see South Africa back where she belongs – as a fully-fledged member of our Commonwealth of nations.

    A great debate is now underway in Europe. One in which the Conservative Party can speak with authority. Harold Macmillan first sought to take Britain into the Community, Ted Heath finally led us there, and Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act – with its vision of ever closer union between states. Closer union between states. Not a federal merger of states. That is still our policy.

    I believe strongly in partnership in Europe. Britain, as a great European power, has gained from our membership of the Community. That is the verdict of those people in our country who live by business, banking and trade, the very people on whom our prosperity and jobs depend. But it must be the right Europe. Let me set out for you the objectives that I have in mind, the principles that I will fight for, and the propositions I will resist.

    First we want a Community that will in time embrace the new democracies of the East. We have the chance to heal the scar that divided and disfigured Europe for two generations. The nations of Eastern Europe – Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States – need to know now that when their economies are ready for the Community, the Community will be ready for them.

    Second, I want a genuine single market, open for business right across the Community. It must have common rules. And these rules must be obeyed. When we sign up to something, we put words into actions. Some of our partners, I fear, are keener on making new rules than on keeping them. We need a system that can deal effectively with those who call themselves good Europeans, but who hijack lorries or hold up free trade.

    We are now negotiating new Treaties on political and economic union. I am always ready to listen to new ideas. But they must be workable ideas. Ideas that make sense for Europe, and for Britain. There are vital issues at stake. They involve hard judgments of where our true interests lie. The idea of a single European currency is one with enormous ramifications, both practical and political. At best it is an uncertain prospect. And treaty must provide for a separate decision to be taken – not now – but at a future date by the British Government and the British Parliament. It’s our decision. A single currency cannot be imposed upon us. And I would not accept, on behalf of Britain, any treaty which sought to impose a single currency – at however distant a date.

    We already work closely with our European partners in financial affairs. So, too, in foreign policy and defence. When national interest and Community interest coincide, then common action is only common sense. But in no circumstances – not now, not at Maastricht – will a Conservative Government give up the right, our national right, to take the crucial decisions about our security, our foreign policy and our defence.

    We are working to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December. But I cannot guarantee that our negotiations will succeed. For it is no easy task to get 12 nations to agree. And for my part, I shall put the interests of our country before any agreement. Not any agreement before the interests of our country.

    I hope we can reach agreement. If we do, I will submit that agreement to parliament. For it is here in Britain that the crucial decisions must be taken. Not in the European Parliament. Not in the Council of Ministers. Not in the Commission – certainly not in the Commission. It will be for Parliament to decide on behalf of the people of Britain who elected it.

    So far I have spoken of alliances. Of how much we can achieve if we work with other nations. But when it comes to the search for new markets, even our closest allies remain our competitors. I have never accepted the craven argument that Britain can’t compete with Germany or Japan. And I have contempt for the defeatists who run down our country and write of its future.

    Those who said we couldn’t compete in Europe when we led Britain into the Exchange-Rate Mechanism.

    Those who said that we would have to push up interest rates. And that our inflation was bound to stay far higher than the rest of the Continent.

    All that was just a year ago this week. And look what has really happened since.

    We have cut interests rates – eight times.

    Our exports to the rest of the Community have shot up. Our imports have fallen. Our trade deficit with Europe has been almost wiped out. And in case you haven’t heard this morning’s news, our inflation rate has fallen to just 4.1%. For the first time in a generation we have brought inflation down to German levels.

    They said we couldn’t do it. We did it. And in just one year. Let me remind the sell Britain short brigade of just a few facts. We attract more American investment than any other European country, and twice as much investment from Japan.

    Only two years ago, this country had a 17,000 million pound deficit on manufactured trade. This summer, we had a surplus. Our manufacturers sold more abroad than ever before. They didn’t sell Britain short. They sold for Britain. And they had to fight for their markets when the going was hard.

    I know times have been tough. Unemployment has risen. Many people have faced great difficulties. I know how they feel – what it’s like for a family when a business collapses. What it’s like when you’re unemployed and when you have to search for the next job.

    I have not forgotten – and I never will.

    It is because of that that I will never play fast and loose with the economy. Many have pressed us to do so this past year – siren voices, urging us on to the rocks of inflation, and off the course to recovery. The Chancellor and I ignored those voices. And, as he told you, we can now see the way ahead out of recession, to the recovery that will bring investment. To the investment that will bring jobs.

    And the clearer the signs of recovery, the louder the Labour Party complains.

    Look how they rounded on the Governor of the Bank of England. All because he dared to confirm what everyone else was saying. That recovery is on the way. When he said there was a recession – they cheered him. When he said it was coming to an end – they called for his head. What are they going to do with those hundreds of businessmen telling the CBI exactly the same thing? Will Labour threaten to sack them too? All of them?

    Do Labour realise what their policies would do to business?

    – Stab it in the back just when it’s winning the battle for trade

    – Impose new levies

    – Pile on new costs

    – Bring back union power.

    It may be true that a Labour Prime Minister would no longer get his marching orders over beer and sandwiches at No 10. In these days of designer socialism, he’d get them over a G&T – down at the Old T&G.

    A minimum wage would create the very unemployment they claim to care about. New burdens would drive business out of markets. Higher taxes would drive business talent abroad. Above all, inflation would drive our economy out of the future and back to the past.

    Remember who suffers from inflation.

    – Infant businesses

    – People on fixed incomes

    – Pensioners

    Inflation is a tax paid by those least able to protect themselves. It is Labour’s invisible tax. It wouldn’t come through the letter box, though there are plenty that would.

    They have eight new taxes lined up already.

    Well, that’s not surprising. We’ve costed Labour’s spending promises. 35 billion pounds extra and still rising. Of course, they say there would be hardly any more tax for hardly anyone. But that’s hardly credible.

    The next Labour Manifesto will be the biggest tax demand in history. They love nationalisation. High taxes nationalise choice. It won’t be a case of ‘you pays your money, you takes your choice’. It will be – they take your money, they take your choice.

    High taxes would enrich the businesses, the laboratories, the the universities of American and the rest of Europe at the expense of the businesses and universities of Britain. We’d be back with something we haven’t heard of for twelve years – the brain drain. Our low tax policies have built up a brain bank for Britain.

    Our Party has always kept personal tax rates down. And in the next Parliament we will go on doing so.

    Lower taxes don’t just mean richer people. They mean a richer life. A life with wider horizons, in which people can develop their interests. Support their favourite charity, pursue their hobbies. Go fishing or to a football match, the theatre or the cinema, or just save up for a holiday.

    But lower taxes give people more powerful choices, too. The chance to save for the long-term, to invest in the future. Building up a pension. Starting a business. Giving their children a good start in life – and passing on to them the fruits of a lifetime’s work.

    In the 1980s we began a great revolution. Our aim was a life enriched by ownership, in which homes, shares and pensions were not something for others, but something for everyone.

    We can now see the lifeblood of ownership – of wealth – running through the veins of the country. Nearly four million more families now own homes. And eight million people more own shares. And four and a half million people now have personal pensions.

    But this revolution is still not complete. In the 1990s we must carry it further. We must extend savings and ownership in every form. And we now have the chance to make enduring change. For people in their middle years are inheriting homes, businesses, farms on a scale never before seen. The pioneers of the property-owning democracy are the parents of the capital-owning democracy to come.

    We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew, with the past cut off and the future ignored.

    So, in the next Parliament, I believe that we must go much further in encouraging every family to save and to own. To extend every family’s ability to pass on something to their children, to build up something of their own – for their own.

    Labour have their eyes on the money stored in the homes in which millions of people now live – and in the businesses they have created. But I believe that what people have worked to build up in life, the State should never destroy.

    As Harold Macmillan once memorably put it, people walk in public gardens, but they tend their own. I want to build a pride in our common inheritance of town and city, coast and countryside. In the very fabric of our nation.

    I want to foster ownership in its widest sense. In making people feel that public property belongs to them. Giving them more say – at the local level – in how things are run. Giving them a choice. Putting them in control.

    That’s the idea behind our Citizen’s Charter – about which Francis Maude spoke so well yesterday. It will be a centrepiece of our policies for the 1990s. I want to see public services in which the passenger, the patient, the parent can have confidence. And in which public servants can have pride.

    I see that Labour are now trying to copy my ideas. I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised at that. Even the Labour Party has to have some good ideas amongst all the bad. It’s just that they filch the good ideas from us. The bad ones of course they think up for themselves. They don’t even hide it when they steal some of my clothes. Did you see how many of them were wearing grey suits last week? Have they no shame?

    The test for Labour will come in the next session of Parliament. We will be legislating on the Citizen’s Charter. We shall be giving parents a greater say in schools. Making the big utilities more responsive to customers. And as Michael Heseltine promised us yesterday, exposing incompetence in the council chamber.

    And how do you imagine Labour will vote? With us? For the charter? And for the consumer? Or against us? For the trade unions? For the old ways? For the past? But it’s not just a matter of changing the way we run things. It’s a matter of breaking down the false and futile divisions, based on class and envy, that have been around for generations. They are wholly artificial. Labour fosters those divisions. It thrives on them. Our task is to end them for good.

    I spoke of a classless society. I don’t shrink from that phrase. I don’t mean a society in which everyone is the same, or thinks the same, or earns the same. But a tapestry of talents in which everyone from child to adult respects achievement; where every promotion, every certificate is respected, and each person’s contribution is valued.

    And where the greatest respect is reserved for the law. There can be no harmony in a lawless society. The recent outbreaks of violence in some of our council estates involved a brutal disrespect for other people and their property. Such behaviour cannot be excused and will not be tolerated. In the face of such violence, I know that this Party will give the police the support that we always have. We admire the bravery and the professionalism of those young policeman and women who have been the front line against violent attacks. This Conference must leave no shred of doubt. Rioting is a crime – a serious crime. And it will be dealt with as such.

    But dealing with crime is not just something for other people – the police, or the courts, of the Government. It’s a challenge to everyone. And the way to fight crime is to change the attitudes that lie behind crime.

    The attitudes of people who say that theft of vandalism are somehow less serious. They call it property crime. Property crime? Tell that to the widow who has been robbed of treasured mementoes of her past life. That’s not a property crime. It’s a personal wound which can never be healed.

    This Government is going to crack down on crime, as Ken Baker made clear this week. Let me give you an example. What the irresponsible call joy-riding, we know as simple theft; dangerous driving, a disregard for human life, and the destruction of other people’s property. Some of these people are too young for a licence. We will ensure that when they reach driving age they can be banned from the road.

    As for those parents who stand by and watch while their children commit crimes, they are going to be held responsible for their children’s actions. Those in authority – parents and teachers as well – should use their authority to teach a sense of respect for others, for their rights, not just your own; for their opinions, their welfare and their possessions. Without respect for others, there can be no proper respect for the law.

    We don’t help our children by excusing bad behaviour, we betray them. And we lead them into worse behaviour. Sometimes it’s right to say no.

    A great deal has been written about my education. Never has so much been written about so little. Perhaps that’s why I am so keen on the subject. I believe that Ken Clarke’s programme of reform is a turning-point in education. It will mean that parents and pupils come first, that the key subjects are studied properly, and that the status of teachers is restored.

    Some have said that Ken Clarke and I are wrong to insist on simple pencil and paper tests for children in schools. Well, I’ll tell you what marks I would give to people like those. Nought out of ten for concern. Nought out of ten for interest in our children. Nought out of ten for commonsense. And, so long as there is a Conservative Government, they’ll get nought out of ten for influence in our schools.

    What Labour Governments did, and what all too many Labour Councils are still doing, is unforgivable – the years of levelling down; the destruction of good schools; the harassment of good teachers; the kicking away of the ladder of opportunity by those who climbed up it themselves; the setting of the union rule book above all other text books; the neglect even of spelling. That is where the long march of the Left in education has led us. Well, we are now rooting these ideas out. We are giving parents more influence in schools. If we want them to exercise responsibility for their children, we must give them a say in the education of their children.

    I will fight for my belief in a return to basics in education. The progressive theorists have had their say. And they’ve had their day.

    In the last twelve months we have seen the Socialist philosophy collapsing in ruins. Who will ever forget those days of high drama in the Soviet Union last August? Or the three young men in Moscow who gave their lives for reform.

    When I visited the place where they died, I was struck by the number of young people who pressed in around me. They had copied Western fashions, wore Western gear. For decades they and their parents had been taught that Socialism was the destiny of their future. That the Soviet Union would bury the West. But it wasn’t the West that the Socialist system had buried, it was the hopes and dreams of their own people.

    Socialism has gone in Czechoslovakia, gone in Poland, gone in Hungary, gone even in Sweden. And here in Britain, I’ll tell you what you’ll see over the next few months. You’ll see the Red Flag dying here. It’s going. Going. Gone. Suddenly, it’s just so old fashioned, so irrelevant, so out of date.

    What I owe to this country and to its people is difficult to put into words. My greatest wish now is to give back something of what I have been given.

    I want to work for a Britain that is the best educated and the best governed.

    Where schools and universities are the finest and accessible to all. Where inner cities don’t mean deprivation, but communities that bind and belong. And where no-one has to go in fear at night.

    I should like to live in a world where opportunity is for everyone, where peace is truly universal, and where freedom is secure.

    If that is what you believe in, then go back to your constituencies. Tell them what we stand for. Tell them what we care for. And ask them to choose.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Statement – 6 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep statement held on 6th October 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    When President Bush announced his proposals a week or so ago, I said that if Gorbachev responded in like fashion then it could well be a turning point in the peace process. We have now had a response from President Gorbachev. At first sight it does seem to be a very comprehensive response, and that is very welcome. If it is what it seems to be, then there may be a unique opportunity to see a dramatic de-escalation in nuclear weapons. I welcome that very much, and we would want very carefully to study the proposals that have been laid out before us. I think there are several points to make about this. Firstly, what has happened today is an absolute vindication of NATO strategy over recent years. Had the West not held to that strategy, I very much doubt that we would have seen the remarkable events of recent weeks. And secondly, although these announcements are very welcome indeed, I believe we do have to bear in mind that the Soviet Union still remains a very large military and nuclear power, and we would want to look very carefully to see how these matters develop.

    QUESTION:

    Does this mean that you would consider making further cuts in Britain’s arsenal, and in particular reconsider Trident?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t believe that would be an appropriate response. We have made reductions in our own nuclear weapons over recent weeks, and we have announced those. The Trident is the essential minimum defence that we need in this country, and we must maintain Trident. The Soviet Union, despite these very welcome reductions, are still an immense nuclear power and immense military power, and we need that essential minimum deterrent that Trident provides, and we will keep it.

    QUESTION:

    And the question of nuclear testing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, we will study very carefully all the proposals in the Soviet Union plans. I think at this stage it is wise to examine them carefully before we respond.

    QUESTION:

    There is an opinion poll in today’s Sunday Times which suggests that voters believe the Tories will privatise the National Health Service. What’s your response?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There’s no question of privatising the Health Service. I have made that clear repeatedly, and that is well known by everyone in politics, and I am very surprised that this canard continues to be repeated week after week and month after month. There will be no privatisation of the National Health Service. Not now or in the future. I hope that is now entirely clear to everyone.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 3 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in London, held on Thursday 3rd October 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The meeting we have had this afternoon was a meeting that came about as a result of a discussion I had in The Hague a week or so ago with Prime Minister Lubbers. We decided on that occasion that we needed a tripartite discussion with the Commission, the Presidency of the European Council and myself as Chairman of the G7 to look at the economic situation in the Soviet Union and the particular problem that the Soviets may face this winter in terms of food shortages. That is what we have been discussing for two and a half hours this afternoon.

    It seems possible, perhaps even probable, that there will be food shortages this winter in the Soviet Union but we do not yet have accurate information to tell us what food will be short, where it will be short or in what scale food assistance may be needed.

    What we have been discussing today is the scale of contribution that the European Community itself would be prepared to make available in case of need. We have hammered out what we think would be appropriate this afternoon and the details of that will be laid before the Economic and Finance Ministers on Monday so that they may discuss the matter and deal with the question of resourcing it.

    If they are able to agree that on Monday, as I hope they will, I then propose to write to our G7 partners, particularly of course the United States, Canada and Japan, and invite them to make also on a contingent basis a similar gesture to ensure that there is ample food available for any shortages that there might be in the Soviet Union this winter.

    When that has been agreed, as I hope it will be, we would then anticipate that there would be a political delegation comprising members of the Community and members of the G7 who would then go to the Soviet Union to deal with the practical matters that still need to be determined: how the food is distributed, in what volume it is distributed and how to deal with the shortages and ensure the food is there when it is actually needed. There is a very substantial logistics problem to be solved and we believe that is unlikely to be solved unless there is a Round Table discussion between those prepared to provide the food – the donors – and those who are likely to be in need – the Soviet Union and the individual republics.

    So that has been the substance of what we have been discussing this afternoon. I am not yet in a position to let you have details of that, I think the proposals that we have determined this afternoon need first to be discussed by our Community partners in ECOFIN and then a statement will be made on Monday.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, have you a headline figure for aid that we may be giving?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I have not a headline figure I can give you this evening. We have a proposal to put before our partners in ECOFIN but it is for the Finance Ministers I think properly to determine that and they will do that on Monday.

    QUESTION:

    Will this be food?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It will be food and humanitarian assistance and the figure I would imagine will be released on Monday after the ECOFIN meeting.

    QUESTION:

    Was there any discussion of European union and Maastricht?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No that was not the purpose of the meeting this afternoon and all the time that was available to us was taken up with discussion on various aspects of the Soviet Union.

    QUESTION:

    Do you feel that this shows a way ahead in terms of developing a common foreign policy on an issue like this, that you have shown that Europe can cooperate very effectively when it comes to presenting a united face?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Europe has been cooperating very effectively on the basis of a common foreign policy agreed at government level through the European Council for several years, it is very effective and very efficient. That is the way that we would wish to continue to do things, but that is not of course what was proposed in the Dutch text some time ago. But that matter was not discussed today.

    QUESTION:

    Is the amount of aid a substantial increase on the amount that is going at the moment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes it is but I cannot give you the figures, that is a matter still to be finally determined by our Finance colleagues.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were discussing food and humanitarian assistance today, that is the most immediate and most urgent matter and that was the substance of our discussion at the moment. Information to discuss wider matters frankly is not yet available.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think the Soviet Union is now capable of absorbing large scale aid or will it just get lost in the confusion there?

    QUESTION:

    It was for that reason that I said this would be a contingent package and it would only be released as and when we could see where the shortages were and the scale in which they arose and that is why we envisaged there would be a meeting after these packages had been finalised with representatives with the appropriate authorities in the Soviet Union.

    QUESTION:

    Can you match the 10 billion dollars they are talking about?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Our colleagues in ECOFIN are going to discuss what we can make available as our share of the general assistance on Monday.

    QUESTION:

    Are you now confident that the Soviet economy can actually deal with the sort of aid that you can offer?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I repeat, we are talking about humanitarian aid, we are talking about food aid and medicines this winter and I do not think the West is likely to stand by when they can see a positive shortage if they are in a position to assist. We do not yet know what the scale of the shortage might be. If I can draw it back into your memory, there was a suggestion two or three years ago that Poland would be in similar difficulties throughout one winter and in practice Poland was not in those difficulties. So what we are preparing is a contingency package to be available if it is needed and to the extent that it is needed it will then be disbursed but we need a proper mechanism for doing it.

    QUESTION:

    Did not Mr Yavlinski, who is in charge of coordination of the economy in my country, provide you with any particular information about the scale?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Yavlinski provided us with various interesting information that we are at present absorbing.

    QUESTION:

    Although you did not discuss political union, does the subject of Europe, along with the domestic problems of rising unemployment, make a considerable gamble out of a delayed election for you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have been saying for months for those who wish to listen that I wanted to see this country come out of recession and see it through recession and that I did not want distractions in the run-up to the two important inter-governmental conferences that we will have at Maastricht this winter. That has been my position, publicly stated, on many occasions in recent months, it is still my position.

    QUESTION:

    No hesitation at all about the delay then?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made the point on numerous occasions over recent months and I repeat it again tonight.