The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT – 16 July 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th July 1991. John MacGregor responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Trotter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

    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 hosting the economic summit.

    Mr. Trotter : Is my right hon. Friend aware that many members of the electricians’ trade union on Tyneside play a great part in the economic success of our region? That union is not tied to out-of-date practices. Did my right hon. Friend know that Eric Hammond had recently warned his members of the dire consequences of socialist policy and does he agree that those consequences should be made known to all trade union members?

    Mr. MacGregor : I think that all trade union members are becoming increasingly aware of them. Eric Hammond was talking about the minimum wage policy, which he said would

    “cause industrial unrest, discourage training, harm the economy, put more people on the dole and create a cycle whereby inflation continues to rise.”

    No wonder Opposition Ministers do not want to hear what a trade union leader has said. That is only one in a long line of devastating indictments of Labour’s minimum wage policy. It is beginning to look like Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow : bad news and more bad news every day.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm that the Bank of England and the Treasury have known since the publication of the March 1990 Price Waterhouse report that serious irregularities were operating in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International?

    Mr. MacGregor : The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Bank took action as soon as it was satisfied that it would have evidence–[Hon. Members– : “Answer the question.”] This is a very important point. It took action as soon as it was satisfied that it would have evidence to support the use of its statutory powers. It cannot act on mere suspicion.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that the 1990 Price Waterhouse report said that BCCI was then virtually bankrupt and that hundreds of millions of dollars were being given in unsecured loans? Does he not think that if businesses, individuals and council treasurers had been aware of those conditions, they would then have formed an appropriate opinion on whether to use BCCI? A great deal of hardship and misery might thus have been avoided.

    Mr. MacGregor : The point is that the Bank must act according to the Banking Act 1987. Actions under that Act are subject to appeal and the Bank must therefore have evidence that would stand up in court before it does anything. It cannot act on rumours ; it must have good evidence before acting. In this case, it acted as soon as it had such evidence.

    Mr. Kinnock : We are not talking about the Bank or the Government acting on the basis of rumours. We are talking about both bodies acting on the basis of a serious report from the auditors. The bank has now closed, 200,000 people have lost all or part of their savings and councils of all political descriptions have lost scores of millions of pounds. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time that the Government accepted their share of the blame for these conditions instead of trying to shift the blame to the shoulders of people who simply could not have known what was going on in the same way as the Government could?

    Mr. MacGregor : There is no question of shifting the blame. On the question of the individuals concerned, the right hon. Gentleman knows that under the deposit protection scheme compensation is paid to depositors up to certain levels of deposit. That gives considerable protection to small depositors. It is essential for the Bank to act on evidence that would stand up in court and it did so as soon as it had that evidence.

     

    Q2. Mr. Charles Wardle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Wardle : Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to reconsider the laws governing prison visits and the number of visitors allowed at any one time so that all 28 Labour Members who agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) about non-payment of the community charge may visit him together in gaol?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend asks an intriguing question, but it has a serious point. Since he raised the matter of the 28 Labour Members, it is worth mentioning that three years ago the Leader of the Opposition said that he would wipe out the Militants once and for all. He failed then, which is why we have called upon him to take action ever since. My hon. Friend has made the good point that the influence of Militant in the Labour party is still strong.

    Mr. Rees : Will the Leader of the House bring to the Prime Minister’s notice the serious allegations made in The Guardian today about a “World in Action” programme which reported the comments of a former member of the Joint Intelligence Committee and the fact that serious matters are not brought to the attention of Cabinet Ministers or Parliament? They are serious allegations which should be investigated. Will he ask the Prime Minister, when he has finished today, to institute an inquiry, because such allegations cast doubt on matters that should not be in question?

    Mr. MacGregor : I have not seen that “World in Action” programme, but I shall arrange for it to be looked at and will draw the right hon. Gentleman’s point to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

     

    Q.3 Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert : Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity to get a message to the Prime Minister at the economic summit to ask him to express regret at the assertion revealed today in The Sun that the election of Mr. Bush to the Presidency was based on a disgraceful campaign of slurs and attacks? Those assertions are apparently made in a letter from the general secretary of the Labour party.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have seen the report and I hope that it is not true. If it is true, it is a disgraceful slur and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would wish to have it withdrawn.

    Ms. Walley : With so many international leaders meeting in London this week, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to tell the House why his Government have no policy on British shipping? Now that the House has been denied the opportunity to debate and vote on this matter, will he tell us why he is not giving the support to British shipping that other countries enjoy?

    Mr. MacGregor : There already is support for British shipping, but it was made clear in one of the debates last night that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was considering proposals put forward during that debate.

     

    Q4. Mr. Knowles : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Knowles : Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when he sees the Prime Minister–

    Mr. Tony Banks : Will he recognise him?

    Mr. Knowles : During the Group of Seven conference and discussions with President Gorbachev, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister make it clear that the Baltic states have not been forgotten, that none of the G7 countries has ever accepted the Soviet conquest of those three states and that that must be a starting point for any discussions about aid and investment?

    Mr. MacGregor : I certainly take note of my hon. Friend’s point.

    Dr. Kim Howells : Is the Leader of the House aware that at this morning’s annual general meeting of British Airways, Lord King announced that, because of the appalling incompetence of the Secretary of State for Transport in his dealings with American airlines, British Airways is considering selling off all but its core operations, including an aero overhaul plant in my constituency which employs 1,000 men and women? What is he going to do to prevent such a calamity for south Wales?

    Mr. MacGregor : I certainly reject the allegation about my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The whole House knows of the way in which he has conducted these matters.

     

    Q5. Mr. William Powell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Powell : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to re-read the excellent speech made a few days ago by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the future of our education system and will he pay special attention to the passage which deals with the future of city technology colleges? Can we expect early action by the Government to ensure a great increase in the number of CTCs?

    Mr. MacGregor : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I thought that it was an admirable speech which showed the tremendous progress that has been made under our education policies. My hon. Friend makes it clear that one programme–only one among many–is that for city technology colleges. There are now 13 in operation or about to be in operation and two more in the pipeline. They are undoubtedly making a big impact in inner-city areas by extending technology and involving industry and commerce. My right hon. Friend mentioned two other ways in which the programme can be carried forward–allowing local education authorities to invest in CTCs and allowing grant-maintained CTCs. It is worth pursuing both ideas and I am sure that we shall do so as soon as legislative time permits.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 July 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Building Societies

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister, if Ministers, at the time of the 1985 Budget, intended to lay regulations to create liability for tax relating to a year for which building societies composite rate tax liability had been fully discharged; what estimate of the money involved was available to Ministers at the time; and what, and when, an estimate was first made available to Parliament.

    The Prime Minister : The 1985 Budget day press release announced that there would be transitional provisions to deal with the changeover for building societies from an annual to a quarterly accounting system in line with that for the banks.

    The announcement followed confidential discussions with building society representatives during which Ministers made it clear that the provisions would cover payments between the end of societies’ accounting periods in 1985-86 and 5 April 1986 that would otherwise fall out of account.

    No estimate was made at the time of tax on interest accruing between the end of societies’ accounting periods ending in 1985-86 and paid before the end of that tax year. No estimate covering all societies has subsequently been made available to Parliament. For societies other than the Woolwich Equitable, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by the Economic Secretary on 21 June at column 341.

     

    Additionality

    Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements exist for co-ordination between the Treasury, the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office, on the question of additionality in respect of RECHAR funding from the European Community; and which Minister has the lead responsibility for policy regarding additionality.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has lead responsibility for all matters concerning the European Community structural funds.

     

    Former Prime Ministers

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 27 March, Official Report, column 428, whether income arising from a former Prime Minister’s special position in public life was taken into account in assessing their eligibility for the allowance to former Prime Ministers for the additional costs which they are liable to incur from their special position in public life.

    The Prime Minister : No. The full amount of the allowance is available to all former Prime Ministers.

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 27 March, Official Report, column 428, what is the former Prime Ministers’ total annual allowance; whether it includes travel expenses (a) within the United Kingdom and (b) abroad; and if he will make a statement on the restrictions on the use of money under the scheme.

    The Prime Minister : The maximum amount of the allowance available to former Prime Ministers during 1991-92 is £28,986 plus £2,899 for secretaries’ pension contributions. Former Prime Ministers may draw on the allowance to offset the secretarial and other office expenses they incur because of their special position in public life, but not the cost of their travel either in the United Kingdom or abroad.

     

    Mar Lodge

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up an interdepartmental working group to consider the future of Mar lodge.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already established the Cairngorms working party to present options for the integrated management of the Cairngorms as a whole. Mar lodge estate is central to the area under consideration. The relevant Government Departments and agencies are represented on, or act as technical assessors to, the working party.

    I understand, moreover, that the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland are giving consideration to the future management of the natural heritage interest on the estate.

     

    Cairns Group

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the communique issued following the meeting of Cairns group of ministers in Manaus, Brazil, on 9 July; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The communique rightly points to the need to bring the Uruguay round of trade negotiations to an early conclusion, and the crucial importance of agreement on agriculture in order to do so. As the communique says, the need now is to move from technical discussions to decisions on the framework within which agricultural support and protection are to be reduced. I hope that the London economic summit this week will give a strong push to the Uruguay round, and that Heads of Government will remain personally involved, with the aim of reaching a successful conclusion this year.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Brian Mulroney – 14 July 1991

    Below is the text of a joint doorstep interview with John Major and the Canadian Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney. The doorstep interview was held in London on Sunday 14th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good Morning. We have had the opportunity this morning to range over a large number of bilateral and international matters of mutual interest. On the bilateral front I was able to thank the Prime Minister personally for the tremendous help and assistance he was throughout the period of the Gulf war, there was a very close consultation throughout that period and one that was very much appreciated. The fact that the Canadian Field Hospital, so badly needed, was placed under British command was particularly welcome.

    We have also had a series of discussions over recent months, the Prime Minister has been kind enough to contact me from various parts of the world from time to time to discuss matters in the lead-up to this summit. He has of course the advantage of having chaired one of these summits on a previous occasion. So we had a series of bilateral matters to discuss.

    We also took the opportunity this morning of running through the agenda for the G7 and the subsequent meeting thereafter with President Gorbachev as well as matters of interest to us both as members of the Commonwealth. So we found it a most useful and productive preliminary meeting before the summit begins.

    MR MULRONEY:

    We had an excellent meeting this morning, as the Prime Minister has indicated, reviewing both bilateral matters and questions in regard to the run-up to the summit. Most recently I have had the occasion to spend some time with Prime Minister Kaifu and Chancellor Kohl and last Tuesday night a meeting with President Bush. And so it gave us an opportunity in respect of the agenda and Mr Gorbachev’s visit to compare notes and to get ready for what I believe will be four very challenging and important days of summitry.

    I thanked the Prime Minister for his contribution, his very generous contribution to the remarkably profitable and mutually beneficial bilateral relationship we have as evidenced by the very sensitive degree of cooperation and mutual understanding during the war.
    And so we discussed the Commonwealth, we had to cancel a meeting that was scheduled here for June with the Commonwealth because of preoccupations we both had elsewhere, but we did have a chance to review some Commonwealth matters today before we meet again on that subject in Africa in October.

    [More remarks in French but not interpreted].

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you think you can do business with the Soviet President?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we will have to discuss with President Gorbachev what he has to say when he gets here, there will be ample opportunity when President Gorbachev gets here for him to set out before the G7 Heads of State and Government what his proposals and plans are and then we will discuss it. But I think it would be courteous to hear what President Gorbachev has to say before I respond to that question.

    QUESTION:

    Are you happy with the reform package?

    MR MULRONEY:

    We are still analysing the package, it is a very complicated one, and we will have to see when the seven get together. Obviously President Gorbachev is approaching this in what appears to be a quite constructive manner, whether the G7 will be able to respond to this I somehow doubt it. I do not believe that you will see either miracles or blank cheques from the G7 summit. I hope that what will take place will be a serious response to a serious proposal under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Major and then there be a meeting with the Chairman of the Summit and President Gorbachev which I hope will give rise to a process whereby the response could be geared to the implementation of a programme for important structural reform.

    But you are quite aware that for example some of the people around the table, not necessarily either of us, but some people round the table will raise questions like: Well if your economy is in such great difficulty, as it is, why will you persist in spending such vast amounts of money in refurbishing your military at a time when cash would seem to be scarce and ought to be placed into consumer goods and the rebuilding of your economy?

    So I think this is the kind of debate that probably will take place with Mr Gorbachev in the room and if his answers are appropriate. if his answers are persuasive, he may find the general approach constructive. If his answers are not I would not want to presume on the outcome.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The last point is the key, we need to know what President Gorbachev has to say.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    Both your national economies are in recession, do you think there is any chance that there will be a significant package emerging possibly from this summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we are going to discuss in this summit is not the individual economies of the United Kingdom and Canada and in both cases of course the principal problem that we have faced over some time has been inflation and in both cases that is beginning to abate and interest rates are beginning to fall so both economies are getting themselves into a position where there will be fresh growth. But I think there will be very considerable concern to make sure as we come out of the slow-down in world trade generally, a recession in some countries, a near recession in others, that we come out of it in a way that does not re-engender inflation, I think we will be very concerned to avoid that.

    MR MULRONEY:

    I would second that and just add one comment. We have had a tough recession in Canada but we seem to be out of it now and interest rates have come down by some 500 basis points over the last year, all of the signals would appear to be quite promising, and so we are hopeful that the policies to which Prime Minister Major referred coming out of this summit will allow for quite strong growth in Canada but in a non-inflationary climate. That is what I think we are all looking for.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Mulroney, is there a chance that trade disputes will be used as a bargaining chip to unify the group over aid to the Soviet Union?

    MR MULRONEY:

    Not a chance.

    QUESTION:

    You have had a chance to look at the economic package as proposed by Mr Gorbachev, it seems that initially you have given it a somewhat dusty response, you are not terribly impressed with it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have examined it overnight, we have not had a chance to do an analysis in detail, it is clearly built on the Pavlov plan. What one needs to do is to determine to what extent it can be carried out, what the impact would be of it being carried out, whether it is a plan that can be carried out by the Soviet Union at the centre or whether it actually needs the active cooperation of the Republics, to what extent it would get the active cooperation of the Republics, what it actually means in terms of draconian measures within the Soviet economy.

    All those are matters that actually deserve some form of detailed study before we pronounce upon it. That study is being undertaken at the moment and will be concluded before we have the meeting with President Gorbachev later on this week. So we will not only wish to study it in detail, as we are doing, and how it would be implemented in detail, we will also wish to hear what President Gorbachev has to say about it. For there are two points to be considered: one is that it is perfectly desirable and satisfactory to set out an economic reform programme, but it only actually has a practical application if the economic reform programme is actually carried into operation and is successful and there are a vast range of matters to consider about that and to ask President Gorbachev about.

    So that is why I genuinely think that we need to have this dialogue with President Gorbachev before we can reach conclusions upon it. It is very complex, as the Prime Minister said a moment or so ago, very complex indeed, we will want to analyse it, consider it, discuss it, listen to President Gorbachev and then we will be in a better position to draw conclusions about it.

    MR MULRONEY:

    Exactly what John has said – what does privatisation really mean to him? What does price liberalisation mean? What does currency stabilisation mean to him and how does he see technical assistance? There are definitions that I think are quite important and probably quite different but the only way we are going to find out is the 8 of us around the table, 7 with him. And so I think that will be how the Prime Minister has been leading us all if the truth be known, in a very demanding build-up to this, he has been in bilateral communication with all of us frequently and I think very effectively and so Prime Minister Major has ensured that all of us come to this summit well acquainted with the difficulties and the challenges and the pitfalls that we are going to confront and ready to I think come together, I hope, with a common response to that.

    QUESTION:

    [In French and not interpreted]

    MR MULRONEY:

    [In French and not interpreted]

    QUESTION:

    Is it too early to call it the G8?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is too early.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EC Environment Policies

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement of his policy on (a) EC proposals to ban the sale of fish contaminated with pesticides and (b) plans for the EC’s own environmental protection agency.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom has consistently supported the concept of the European Environment Agency (EEA) and greatly regrets that the delay in deciding its location is holding up its establishment. We see the provision of objective, reliable and comparable environmental information at the European level, which is the aim of the EEA, as the only sound basis for formulating environmental policies. As to the first part of the question I am not aware of any EC proposals on this subject.

     

    Marine Pollution

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of last year’s conference of North sea states; what is his policy on (a) a ban on dumping of nuclear waste at sea and (b) a declaration to reduce output of pollutants blamed for blooms of toxic marine algae.

    The Prime Minister : We made it clear at last year’s North sea conference that we have no plans for disposing of radioactive waste from ships or seabed artificial structures into or beneath the seabed. We have always followed the recommendations of the competent international organisations on the dumping of waste and agree that this disposal option is not suitable for the North sea. Nevertheless we have not completely ruled out sea disposal for large items such as boilers from decommissioned power stations and are keeping under review whether this disposal option may be required at some further date.

    Algal bloom, including toxic marine algae, occurs naturally in the marine environment, but, in slow-moving shallow water areas with a high proportion of freshwater from rivers, nutrients from agriculture and sewage discharges can be a determining factor. In the North sea these conditions occur along the eastern coastal seaboard particularly in the Wadden sea and Skaggerak. Given the circulation pattern of the North sea, discharges of nutrients from the United Kingdom do not contribute to this problem.

     

    Arms Control

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives he plans to take to advance the aims of avoiding world over-armament as agreed in annex VII of the Presidency conclusions of the European Council meeting at Luxembourg on 28-29 June.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 11 July 1991] : We are actively pursuing a number of initiatives to encourage greater responsibility and transparency in the international transfer of conventional weapons, and to combat proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The five leading arms exporters met in Paris on 8-9 July and agreed to develop machinery for continuing consultations on arms transfers. A further meeting will be held in London.

    The Paris meeting also endorsed our initiative to establish a United Nations register of arms transfers. The initiative has attracted wide support. The European Council on 28-29 June announced that the Twelve will present a resolution to set up such a register at the next United Nations General Assembly.

    These issues are on the agenda of next week’s London economic summit.

     

    Eastern Europe

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the arrangements in place for the assistance by the United Kingdom of environmental clean-up, environmental protection and industrial development for countries of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 11 July 1991] : The know-how fund is the main focus of the United Kingdom’s environmental and industrial assistance to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. On 21 June we announced an environmental programme for eastern Europe worth £5 million over three years. Multilaterally we co-ordinate our efforts through the G24 with participation by all OECD countries and relevant international organisations. There are separate G24 sub-groups which address environmental issues and investment and economic/industrial restructuring. In addition to EC’s Poland and Hungary aid for economic reconstruction (PHARE) programme has so far made available some £152 million for economic/industrial restructuring and £71 million in environmental help.

     

    G7 Economic Summit

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what environmental initiatives (a) he intends to raise and (b) Her Majesty’s Government have been informed that other heads of state and Governments intend to raise at the forthcoming G7 economic summit in London.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 11 July 1991] : The summit is an informal meeting between Heads of Government. I hope that the summit will give impetus to the run-up to the UN conference on environment and development, in particular on climate change, the protection of biological diversity and the conservation of forests.

    Mrs. Currie : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with representatives of international businesses concerning the G7 summit; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 11 July 1991] : I met representatives of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) on 2 July to exchange views on the issues likely to arise at the London economic summit. The ICC endorsed the importance which the Government attach to low inflation as a necessary condition for sustained growth in the world economy and shared the Government’s wish to secure early progress in the Uruguay round of GATT talks. We also discussed the ICC’s ideas on technical assistance to the Soviet Union and the countries of central and eastern Europe.

  • Mr Major’s Briefing with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary – 11 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record press briefing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, and the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd. The briefing was given in London on 11th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Economic Summit this year, as you know, will be held in London next week between 15-17 July. The meeting will be held in Lancaster House, the same venue for the last Economic Summit held in the UK in 1984, seven years ago.

    On 17 July, when the Summit itself is over, I have invited President Gorbachev for a full afternoon of talks followed by a less formal dinner. This will be the first time that any Soviet President has taken part in such a meeting and I believe it will mark a further development both in relations between the Summit partners and the Soviet Union and also I hope in the economic and political development of the Soviet Union itself.

    These summits, as we have seen over recent years, by tradition range widely. Although they sometimes take decisions, their essential character is informal. The theme we have this year for the summit is building world partnership and strengthening the international order and our aim is to reinforce, to encourage the spread of values which all of those round the summit table share – democracy, sound economic management, respect for human rights, good government and the rule of law. And that over-arching theme runs through the wide range of both political and economic matters that we will discuss during the course of next week. Our overall aim at the summit is to stimulate multilateral economic cooperation and help to extend successful economic principles throughout the world.

    On the political side we will certainly discuss Yugoslavia, much of that discussion of course will depend on what state the present crisis has reached by early next week; the Middle East will certainly feature in our discussions; we will cover developments in Iraq, including the refugee problem and the Arab/Israel peace process; on South Africa we will be covering the need to ensure the economic recovery which will be necessary for the political reforms to succeed in both the medium and in the long term.

    I am sure also that the summit will consider giving particular emphasis to controlling sales of conventional arms. We simply cannot allow a country like Iraq ever again to build up a huge arsenal of deadly weapons, unchecked and in some cases unknown. So we will need to agree a series of principles governing such sales.

    Our focus will also be on ideas for strengthening the international order so that small states can feel safe from aggression from their larger neighbours and in particular we will be advancing a number of ideas for strengthening the role of the United Nations.

    On the economic side I hope the summit will be able to range over a number of matters. It will I hope give strong endorsement to the firm counter-inflation policies which produce good growth and low inflation in the 1980s. I certainly hope it will give a very strong push indeed to the Uruguay round of the GATT to ensure a successful conclusion this year. It will I trust give strong political backing to the reforms in Eastern Europe and help to improve access for their exports to Western markets. I hope it will take forward further the debt reduction for the poorest countries on the lines of the Trinidad Terms initiative I launched when I was Chancellor. And I hope it will also make a firm commitment to the successful outcome for the crucial UN Conference on Environment and Development that will be held in Brazil next June and I think that is particularly important insofar as climate change is concerned.

    At the end of the summit proper I am of course looking forward to the visit of President Gorbachev. The summit partners’ meeting with him will be a development of the process that was initiated at the Paris Summit in 1989 when he wrote a letter to the 7 Heads of Government present, that was carried forward at Houston with a study subsequently of the Soviet Union. The United Kingdom, and I am sure all our summit partners, firmly intend that this meeting should mark the beginning of a new process of cooperation and dialogue between our governments, our countries and the Soviet Union.

    The summit will not consider large-scale financial assistance but I do expect summit Heads of Government will want to explore with President Gorbachev his ideas for the economic and political reform of the Soviet Union, his ideas to mobilise the immense resources of the Soviet Union, both natural and human, I think that will be an important part of our discussions. We will also consider with President Gorbachev practical ways in which we can best cooperate, drawing on all relevant sources of bilateral and multilateral skills to support reform and to integrate the Soviet Union increasingly into the world economy.

    It looks therefore as though it is going to be a fairly crowded and I hope a worthwhile and productive week. We have endeavoured to make a particular effort to ensure that all of you who will have a difficult job to do over the next few days have the best facilities available at the Queen Elizabeth Press Centre. I have no doubt that you are going to be busy, I hope in addition to being busy that you enjoy the occasion and I hope it turns out to be a successful, as I am sure it will be, and fascinating few days.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister, I wonder if you could expand just a little on what you meant by the practical ways in which you can cooperate with Mr Gorbachev, you will obviously discuss with him the reforms but he would obviously like to take something concrete away, it is clear obviously that he cannot now expect to take a large suitcase full of cash but could he for example expect cash in the form of access to a know-how fund or greater access to a know-how fund, something of that sort?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We do not have a fixed agenda for what we are going to offer President Gorbachev and discuss with him when he comes, it is a genuine dialogue, so there is not a fixed agenda and a clear agreement of what actually will be the outcome of the discussion. There is in fact already a know-how fund available to Eastern Europe and partly to the Soviet Union. The sort of things I think we will discuss are new processes of cooperation to support economic reform, advice and assistance on matters like property rights, privatisation, how to expand and develop businesses.

    I think there will be a widespread feeling that there ought to be technical assistance and I draw the distinction between technical assistance and large sums of money. I think it is probable that we will discuss whether the Soviet Union could be associated in some way with international financial institutions, including perhaps the IMF, and we will need to establish a framework to follow-up after the summit the matters that are discussed at the summit. I would not imagine it would be a brief, single discussion that would both begin and terminate on Thursday of next week, I think there would be a framework of some sort to follow it up later.

    QUESTION (Peter Day, BBC):

    What can the summit do for the ordinary British person perhaps worried about unemployment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the concern that people have about unemployment both in this country and in many countries abroad is clearly related to what is going to happen to the world economy generally. None of us is isolated, certainly we are not in the United Kingdom, so I think we will be looking to see what we can determine in terms of economic management to create a low inflation, inflation-free if possible, sustainable growth for the world economy generally. That I think is the best and most productive way we can approach the problems of unemployment both in this country and in many other countries where the unemployment problem is acute,

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    In view of the speech you made earlier this week expressing strong remarks about the dangers to the environment, particularly the rain forests, what practical steps do you hope to achieve on the environment at the summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think the summit of itself is going to make vast new proposals insofar as the environment is concerned. I would be very surprised if we did not do a further analysis of Brazilian prospects on safeguarding the Brazilian rainforests, that I suspect is a specific matter that we will discuss. One thing I would hope that would come out of our conference next week is a commitment that the G7 Heads of Government should attend in person the Environment and Development Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and if that does happen I think it will be probably the first time ever that the Heads of Government from all round the world, not just in groups like the G7 or the Permanent Five or the G24, would have actually gathered together for a single conference to discuss a single particular problem. But I hope that is something that we will encourage at the summit next week so that we may have the most successful development conference we possibly can in Brazil next year.

    QUESTION (Jerry Lewis, Israel Radio):

    You have mentioned great emphasis on trying to restrict the sale of arms, how does that tie in with the proposal evidently made yesterday at the EC by Mr Hogg to lift the ban on arms sales to Syria and what proposals do you have specifically to advance the peace process on the Arab/Israel front?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we are seeking to do in terms of arms control, each country has a right to arms for defensive purposes, I think no-one would dispute that, the concern that we have particularly in the United Kingdom is where the growth of armaments in a particular country far exceeds what is necessary for defensive purposes and becomes an arsenal satisfactory for offensive purposes.

    What we are seeking to do through the United Nations is to obtain more transparency so that people are aware of the scale of armaments that countries are building up and that is of course what underpins our particular desire for a transparent register of arms sales, I think that is a practical proposition that will work, most of the arms sales come from the Permanent Five, if the Permanent Five will actually agree to such transparency then we will be able to monitor to a far greater extent than ever before what armaments are actually in the hands of regional governments and observe when a particular regional government becomes so powerful in terms of armaments that it may have an offensive intention.

    I have nothing to add about Syria to what Mr Hogg said yesterday.

    ADAM BOULTON (SKY NEWS):

    Prime Minister, given the extent of the preparatory bilateral meetings which have been taking place in which you have not been playing a part in the last week or so, are you confident you won’t be ambushed with any surprises? Following up on that, what would you say to the suggestion that G7 is in fact a fiction and that really G3 – Japan, America and Germany – call all the shots?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would not agree with that both in terms of the discussions I have had previously in G7 fora as a finance minister and also briefly as a foreign affairs minister as well; I certainly would not agree that that is the case and I think there is a lot of practical evidence to indicate that it is not.

    Insofar as ambush is concerned, I don’t think there has been a single week since I became Prime Minister last November when someone has not suggested somewhere that I was going to be ambushed by someone on some particular topic. Thus far, I have no arrows sticking out of me and I certainly don’t expect any next week.

    ELEANOR GOODMAN (CHANNEL 4 NEWS):

    You talked about firm counter-inflationary policies. Can you hope that this Summit will in any way accelerate the reduction in interest rates or are the members of G7 too divided over this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure that Heads of Government is the right place necessary to consider the more detailed matter that you raise of coordination of interest rates; that is a matter for the finance ministers and the finance ministers meet in G7 fora as well so that would be a matter for them. I don’t imagine that is going to be a particular subject for discussion this week. The general framework of economic management, the objectives of economic management, the need to bear down continually on inflation and produce sustainable growth is a legitimate matter for Heads of Government to discuss and we will do so. The details of coordination under Louvre, under Plaza or whatever other agreement one may have in mind, I think is more appropriate a matter for the finance ministers themselves to discuss.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    We had a discussion in G7 just a few weeks ago. I would imagine we will be talking more generally about savings and investment and the position of fiscal deficits and emphasising that the reduction of fiscal deficits is extremely important and from a long-term point of view of achieving lower interest rates it is concentration on a strong fiscal position – that is what I imagine we will discuss.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (THE TIMES):

    Prime Minister, the political achievements since the Gulf War don’t seem to have lived up to the military achievements. Do you hope that this Summit can do anything in the next week to help along the Middle East peace process?

    A second, practical question: we often get grand declarations about drugs or terrorism and such subjects at these Summits but there never seems to be much follow-up afterwards. Are you going to do anything about the practical follow-up process between this Summit and the next one?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I mentioned insofar as the latter point is concerned, particularly a framework for following up the discussions with President Gorbachev and I certainly would not expect that this conference should produce declarations that are not then going to be subject to a detailed follow-up – I would not expect that to happen. If we indicate areas of interest and policy, then we would wish to see how they were going to be followed up in order that we could monitor what was to be done.

    Insofar as the peace process in the Middle East is concerned, I don’t think you should expect anything dramatic out of this Summit. This has been a problem that has been with us for a long time; it is continuing. I think we will wish to take stock of the present position and ensure that the drift of policy is in the right direction but I would not expect any dramatic new initiatives over the period of the next week.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    The initiative which the United States Administration launched earlier this year after the end of the Gulf War on the Arab-Israel problem is of course still in action and I think everybody around the G7 table supports it and will continue to do so. It has always seemed to us very important that the Americans should put all the energy and enthusiasm they can into bringing the parties together. They have made some progress but not yet sufficient for a conference to be held. I am sure that backing will continue.

    PETER NORMAN:

    Prime Minister, you said you wanted to give a very strong push indeed to the GATT talks and also said you hoped that the Summit would come out and press for a favourable conclusion by the end of this year. The Houston Summit a year ago said exactly the same thing after much wrangling and the GATT talks nearly collapsed in December, so what has changed since then? Why are you confident that things can be different this year and isn’t the G7 credibility getting rather tattered on this issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I regard the successful outcome of the Uruguay Round as one of the most important things on the international scene at the moment. The impact of a Uruguay Round that failed I think would be very serious in the temptation that it would lead people towards all sorts of artificial trade barriers, protectionism and a trade war so I think it is extremely important that the Uruguay Round is a success. I think we not only need to signal the need for success, including progress on agriculture at the earliest possible date, on matters to do with services and also market access but I think the particular point that I would wish to emphasise is that we need a specific commitment of the Heads of Government if necessary to make sure that there is a sufficient degree of political clout to make sure that the Uruguay Round does proceed. No-one doubts the difficulties of getting a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round, equally I think no-one can possibly push aside the dangers of not having such an outcome.

    QUESTION (JAPANESE NEWSPAPER):

    Concerning aid to the Soviet Union, it is reported that Japan is reluctant to offer a large amount of money because of the problem of the Northern Islands. Are you going to suggest to the Japanese Government or persuade the Japanese Government to take a more positive attitude or to become our biggest contributor?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the relationship between the Japanese Government and the Soviet Union over the Northern Islands is one that has been there for a long time; it has been the subject of discussion and I can’t answer for how the Japanese Government will deal with that matter in our general discussions but the question of large-scale aid, as I indicated earlier, is not likely to come up at this particular Summit. I indicated the areas where I thought there would be discussion with the Soviet Union and what would happen but I do not expect it to embrace large-scale financial aid, perhaps the balance of payments or even for some other purpose so I don’t think the particular push you have in mind is one that is likely to feature on our agenda at all.

    KEITH ROCKWELL (JOURNAL OF COMMERCE):

    Prime Minister, Mr. Yevenski and Mr. Allison have been trundling their plan around Europe in the past couple of weeks. I wonder if you could give us your impressions of that plan and what areas of it may need to be firmed-up before it would meet with your approval?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t yet know what President Gorbachev is going to say to us when he comes and I don’t know whether it will be any one of the variety of plans that have been circulated or whether it will be a combination or whether it will be something wholly separate. I think I am going to concentrate on what President Gorbachev actually says to us and not the plans that have been in circulation for some time, so I would prefer to say nothing until I hear what the President has to say.

    HELEN PIK:

    Do you have any indication in advance if Mr. Gorbachev will be content with being told that he can expect no money at this Summit? Are you willing to make any commitment of future financial assistance after the review which you are going to set up in [Indistinct] and do you think that you can give Mr. Gorbachev enough to strengthen him domestically?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr. Gorbachev knows the remit for the discussions this week – that has of course been a matter of discussion with him. What he is going to say and what plans and ideas and what he is going to tell us about economic reform in the Soviet Union we don’t know but he knows the broad parameters for discussion for this week so I see no difficulties in that at all.

    We are very concerned to ensure that not only do the Soviet Union pass the legislation for economic reform but they actually implement the legislation so that economic reform itself can actually come about. That is the key point and we will be very interested to hear what President Gorbachev has to say about that. How matters develop subsequently will of course depend upon how the economic reform programme proceeds.

    QUESTION (POLISH PRESS AGENCY):

    Central European countries’ balance of trade suffers with the collapse of trade with the Soviet Union which simply does not have money to pay for sufficient imported goods. There were some ideas circulating to help the Soviet Union and those Central European countries by supporting mutual trade. Do you agree with this concept?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are several things floating around in Central and Eastern Europe, certainly what we have in the United Kingdom and call the Know-How Fund and there are similar arrangements with other countries that have a slightly different remit but they all have the same underlying objective and that is to promote long-term private investment in Eastern Europe and promote the movement towards a market economy so that the Eastern European nations are manufacturing and producing goods that are readily saleable to the West. The counterpoint for that is to make sure that we provide them with the market access to the West without which of course it would be a pretty futile gesture simply providing them with the know-how in order to increase their manufacturing and private sector capacity. I think those are the matters that are likely to be under discussion over the next few days.

    QUESTION (LE MONDE):

    Prime Minister, I understand that this activity, Economic Summits, were initiated by Monsieur [Indistinct] quite a long time ago. At that time it was supposed to be totally informal and based on economics. For quite a time it seems to be more political and less and less informal and more and more formal. Do you believe there is still space for real economic activity or negotiation in those meetings and what do you think of Mr. Gorbachev’s invitation to this Summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think they are still informal occasions; they are conducted informally; there isn’t a rigidity about the matters that are raised – they are discussed beforehand and if any of the G7 want a particular matter on the agenda it tends to be there. Other matters will be raised no doubt that are not on the agenda, so they retain their informal aspect. I think the value in them is not only in the informality of the way a wide number of things are addressed but also as an increasing acknowledgement of the inter-independence that each of the countries even up to and including the largest and most powerful of them have with the economies of the other countries there, so that interdependence, that knowledge of what is actually in the minds of the people running the economies in those countries and the foreign affairs in terms of the foreign affairs ministers in those countries is very valuable. That would be destroyed I think if it were too rigid a structure, which is why although you may be correct in saying they are less informal than they were many years – I can’t vouch for that, I wasn’t there – I can promise you that this week will certainly be informal.

    WILL HUTTON:

    [Indistinct] for the GATT talks, will that be confirmed or not? Endorsing the Trinidad terms: does that mean two-thirds debt write-off for the poorest countries?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first question, we will have to wait and see – I hope so. So far as the Trinidad terms are concerned, I am extremely keen to see progress on the Trinidad terms. It is a difficult package, it is a complex package. The theory of it is simple – writing off their large sums of debts; the technical application of that theory is extremely difficult and has different ramifications in each of the G7 countries. I think we will make progress on the Trinidad terms; how far that progress will get, I am afraid I don’t yet know and that perhaps illustrates the point I made a few moments ago that there is an informality in these meetings and there is a great deal to be determined as a result of the discussions that take place at them.

    COLIN BROWN (THE INDEPENDENT):

    The Soviet Union appears to be increasing spending on defence in spite of the various arms negotiations they are involved in. Although you are not going to directly discuss the subject of financial aid, do you think in principle the two ought to be linked and that the Soviet Union ought not to get financial aid until it starts cutting expenditure on defence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are naturally concerned about two things related to defence: firstly, the degree of expenditure the Soviet Union continues to put into its defence structure – that is a matter of concern and may well be discussed; secondly, to ensure that the Soviet Union actually implements the agreements that they have previously entered into on disbandment of defence. It is still a matter of some concern to us, the transfer of tanks from the army to the navy which leaves the Soviet navy with rather more tanks than many Western armies, so those are the sort of things that will be discussed and of course we will have to take those into account in considering what assistance we can offer the Soviet Union in the short- and the long-term on their economic reform programme.

    WILLIAM KEEGAN (THE OBSERVER):

    Prime Minister, if there is to be no new Marshall Plan on this occasion, is there going to be a Major Plan?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There certainly is not going to be a Marshall Plan, William. There will certainly be a discussion but I certainly would not give it any such name!

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Official Visits

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister, when he will next pay an official visit to south London.

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

     

    Share Shops

    Mr. French : To ask the Prime Minister which Departments have participated in the Government’s review of high street share shops as a distribution method for privatisation issues and other equities.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering, in consultation with interested colleagues, proposals from the private sector for a retail share distribution network.

     

    China (Visit)

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to raise the matters of global warming and climate change, and ozone layer depletion, when he meets members of the Chinese Government during his forthcoming visit to China.

    The Prime Minister : Plans for my visit to China are still at an early stage of preparation. The Government are in regular contact with the Chinese authorities to discuss climate change, ozone layer depletion and other international environmental issues.

     

    Environmental Conferences

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government were represented at the Ecoasia ’91 conference held in Japan in early July.

    The Prime Minister : No.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the new policy proposals on the environment he made to the conference on global problems and solutions on 8 July.

    The Prime Minister : Copies of my speech are available in the Library.

     

    World Conservation Monitoring Centre

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what use is made by departments of Her Majesty’s Government of the world conservation monitoring centre in Cambridge ; and what funds are provided by Her Majesty’s Government to support the centre.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to page 52 of the Environment White Paper (Cm. 1200), where attention is drawn to the Government’s five-point plan for the conservation of biological diversity in developing countries. The first of the five points relates to a major study on the status of the world’s biodiversity which is being carried out for the Overseas Development Administration by the world conservation monitoring centre. The centre is an independent charity established by leading agencies in the conservation movement including the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the United Nations environment programme (UNEP), both of which are supported financially by Her Majesty’s Government.

     

    United Nations Bodies

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what annual contributions have been made by the United Kingdom since 1979 to the man and biosphere interdisciplinary sciences and natural resource programme of the United Nations Education and Science Organisation ; and what benefits have accrued to the United Kingdom from the contributions made.

    The Prime Minister : Until the United Kingdom withdrew from the United Nations Education and Science Organisation (UNESCO), in December 1985 no separate contribution was made from aid funds to the man and biosphere (MAB) programme. An assessed contribution was made annually to the UNESCO programme of which MAB is an integral part. Since our withdrawal from UNESCO research related to the MAB has been maintained through a grant from the Overseas Development Administration to the National Environment Research Council (NERC). The sums given over the past five years are as follows :

    Year |£

    ————————

    1986-87 |89,185

    1987-88 |98,600

    1988-89 |98,700

    1989-90 |100,000

    1990-91 |100,000

    Work on the MAB within NERC is undertaken by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. The institute benefits from these contributions by being able to maintain its research capacity in areas overseas which might not qualify for funding from its other sources. This strengthens the United Kingdom institutional capacity to maintain a broad experience in environmental disciplines and increases our knowledge of the environmental problems affecting other countries, whose perspectives and priorities in addressing environmental issues may differ from those of the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to propose to the United Nations that a new agency for the promotion and establishment of new and renewable energy sources be set up under the auspices of the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : The United Nations already has a committee on new and renewable sources of energy, which has achieved little of value. The question of future United Nations institutions in this area is likely to form part of the subject matter of the United Nations conference on environment and development to take place in Rio de Janeiro next year.

     

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects Her Majesty’s Government to publish the results of its monitoring of the implementation of carbon dioxide emission reduction policies ; and if he will indicate the cost to date of such monitoring.

    The Prime Minister : United Kingdom carbon dioxide emission figures are published annually in the Department of the Environment’s “Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics”. The first set of measures to curb emissions was published last September in the Environment White Paper (Cm 1200). We will publish a report in the autumn on progress towards our carbon dioxide target.

    It is not possible to estimate separately the cost of monitoring progress on carbon dioxide as monitoring forms part of a wider programme of work on the United Kingdom’s response to the threat of climate change, involving a number of departments.

     

    Our Common Future

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty’s Government intend to publish their review of progress in the implementation of the action points set out in the White Paper “Our Common Future” and what has been the total cost to date of the actions taken to implement the proposals and commitments.

    The Prime Minister : The first full progress report on the Environment White Paper (Cm 1200) will be published later this year. The essence of the White Paper commitments is the integration of environmental concerns throughout Government policies. The cost of implementation is therefore reflected across a wide range of spending priorities and an all- inclusive figure for the costs of the action taken to date is not readily available. Among the more substantial expenditure committed is :

    Water investment by the water companies of £28 billion from 1990 to 2000 ;

    An extra £23.1 million grant-in-aid in 1991-92 for the National Rivers Authority ;

    £30.2 million representing a rise of 35 per cent. grant-in-aid to the Countryside Commission for 1991-92 ;

    Increase of £4 million for research on renewable energy ; An extra £133 million credit approval for local authorities over the next three years to improve recycling and waste disposal.

     

    Rain Forests

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking to enhance biodiversity and the protection of the rain forests in south America, south-east Asia and Africa.

    The Prime Minister : On biodiversity, our activities are summarised in “Biological Diversity and Developing Countries : Issues and Options”, which was published last month and which is in the Library.

    British bilateral aid contributions to forest projects in progress or under consideration as at early 1991 are as follows :

    Area | Number of projects | Estimated aid | Programme costs | (£ million)

    —————————————————————————-

    South America |12 |10.5

    South East Asia<1> |9 |9.4

    Africa |74 |28.2

    <1> Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand.

     

    Environmental Protection and Enhancement Agency

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to publish the consultation paper on his proposals for an environmental protection and enhancement agency, announced on 8 July.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 8 July 1991 at column 279 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe).

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

  • PMQT – 11 July 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Patrick Duffy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Sir Patrick Duffy : Is the Prime Minister aware that whatever reservations hon. Members may have about the rigour of his counter- inflation policy and its impact on growth, jobs and investment, it would attract more support if the Government had a more even-handed approach to it? How does he explain, for example, the statement last night by the latest power chief to receive a big pay rise–Mr. Weston of MANWEB–that the Government knew that his salary would soar?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman may know, the gentleman concerned has withdrawn that statement and withdrawn it unreservedly. As MANWEB said :

    “the higher levels of pay were not agreed until after the offer for sale was announced in November 1990. The Government did not place any restriction on the regional electricity companies in announcing likely figures at any time.”

    That was what was said and I endorse that as an accurate statement. Salaries after privatisation are and must be a matter for the company. But I have made my view perfectly clear; in my judgment those salaries should reflect what is reasonable. But it is a matter for the companies and not for me.

    Sir John Farr : Might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has had a chance today in his list of engagements to look at the recent announcement by the Labour party that it apparently intends to–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The question must refer to the Government’s responsibility. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been away for a while, but his question must refer to the Government’s responsibility.

    Sir John Farr : I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will see it as his responsibility today to have an early debate on our nuclear deterrent and the need for us to keep it. Apparently the Opposition’s policy has suddenly changed. Rather than an announcement in the media, we should have a full, proper and open debate on the Floor of the House.

    The Prime Minister : First, I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House after his absence. We are very pleased to see him back in his place.

    My hon. Friend touched on defence, a matter of great importance not just to the House but to everyone in it and beyond it. I believe that there is considerable doubt about the position of the Opposition on defence, and I hope that they will take an early opportunity to make it clear whether they are unilateralist and in what circumstances they would use nuclear weapons.

    Mr. Hattersley : Does the Prime Minister still stick to his prediction that the British economy will recover during the second half of this year?

    The Prime Minister : Apparently the right hon. Gentleman does not want to discuss defence quite so soon. I remain of the opinion that I have expressed before in the House and which has been endorsed by the OECD and the CBI : that we shall begin to move out of recession in the second half of this year.

    Mr. Hattersley : Has it escaped the Prime Minister’s notice that the second half of the year began 11 days ago.

    Hon. Members : Oh!

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Hattersley : If the right hon. Gentleman’s prediction has any veracity why are we still at the bottom of the economic league? Why do we have the worst record of investment, unemployment and growth of all the G7 countries?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman might study the diary a little more closely to find out how long the second half of the year lasts. As usual, he is facing backwards. Five per cent. off the inflation rate and 3.5 per cent. off interest rates are both essential ingredients to get the economy moving again. That has happened and it will continue.

    Mr. Hattersley : With reference to the diary, I take it that the Prime Minister is now saying that the economy will begin to improve by Christmas. Every time he makes a prediction about improvement, he gets further and further away. I shall therefore ask him a simple question based on his own pathetic analysis of when the economy might begin to improve. First, can we be assured that by Christmas and in the three areas about which I have asked the right hon. Gentleman–investment, unemployment and growth–this country will be doing at least as well as Greece, Portugal and Turkey? May we also be assured– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Hattersley : Will the Prime Minister now also answer the question from which he ran away last Tuesday? Since, during the three years of decline, he has been Chief Secretary, Chancellor and Prime Minister, will he accept his own responsibility for those three years of disaster?

    The Prime Minister : On the subject of predictions, with which the right hon. Gentleman began his lengthy third question, he will recall predicting that unemployment would be 4 million in 1987–he is in no position to talk about predictions. As for the position at the end of the year, as a former sacked shadow Chancellor the right hon. Gentleman should know that we will set out our predictions in the autumn statement.

    Sir Peter Emery : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he and his Government will ensure that the military level of our forces will always be sufficient to meet the defence needs of the realm and of our military commitments overseas?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir.

     

    South London

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

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

    Mr. Hughes : Given that youth unemployment has risen in the four inner south London boroughs by 53 per cent. in the past year, and that more than one in two crimes in the capital are committed by young people, will the Prime Minister, as a south London boy who became the youngest Prime Minister this century, make a personal commitment to the young people of south London by coming to visit them and the youth service south of the river, to see their desperate state and to make sure that he and the Government commit the personnel, resources, training and jobs to ensure that young people today have the opportunities that he is glad he had?

    The Prime Minister : I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the opportunities that are necessary for young people in the inner-London area. One of the principal problems for many years was the treatment of education under the regime of the Inner London education authority, which has been continued by the disgraceful attitude that some of the inner London boroughs take to the way in which they deal with education. That dramatically damages the employment prospects of youngsters. Another factor that caused unemployment in inner London was the capacity of Labour councils, under the old system, to put up business rates to such an extent that businesses left inner London.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : If my right hon. Friend gets the chance to come to south-east London, he will find himself in the area covered by the Greenwich building society and the Woolwich building society. Will he see whether it is possible, on Monday when clause 52 of the Finance Bill is considered in the House, to have an open debate on the way that that clause adversely affects the Greenwich building society, but not the Woolwich building society, so that Parliament can decide openly what should happen in the future?

    The Prime Minister : Parliament is always in a position to decide openly on the matters before it, and that will undoubtedly be the case when we debate the Finance Bill.

    Ms. Hoey : The Prime Minister knows that unemployment has risen in south London, and that he has cut training places there. When will he put more money into training there and give young people real training prospects?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady knows, quite apart from the general employment prospects and training that have been increased over the years, we have established two city technology colleges in south London. These will dramatically improve the prospects of the pupils in them. Prospects would be improved even more were other schools in inner London to adopt the same disciplines and to offer the same certainty of good education that CTCs offer.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Ian Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

    Mr. Bruce : My right hon. Friend will know that the people of south Dorset believe in a strong, credible and clearly stated defence policy. Will he ensure that the policy for defence is both credible and will deter aggression, and that it is well understood? That will be in contrast to the party opposite, which believes in fudged words, so as to avoid the wrath of its Back Benchers.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right, and I believe that he speaks for many people who do not trust the Opposition on defence. Yesterday, they produced a defence policy which appeared to protect them rather than the country. People will have noticed that. One cannot defend the country with a couple of sentences tucked away in an article in The Guardian. This country knows the Opposition only too well and it knows their unilateralist tendencies.

    Mr. Wilson : Less than a week ago, the Bank of England was giving a clean bill of health to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Less than a week ago, the Department of the Environment was issuing that bank’s name as one suitable for local authorities to deal with. If officials of these two organisations, sitting in the heart of London, can make such a catastrophic error, does the Prime Minister have any sympathy with the officials of small local authorities in far-flung parts of the country which might have taken the advice of the Bank of England and the Department of the Environment? Will the Government and the Bank of England face up to their responsibilities in this matter?

    The Prime Minister : The Bank of England acted as soon as it had evidence on which to act, and that has been made clear. It would not be right to give preferential treatment to local authorities over other depositors of the BCCI. Any accountant of finance director should know that if an institution pays over the market rate of interest, it is in the form of a risk premium. Local authorities have a duty of care over the funds entrusted to them and that implies taking a prudent view of risk and spreading risk.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Maureen Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

    Mrs. Hicks : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in the drawing up of the Government’s Green Paper on industrial relations, he will take full account of the poll in The Guardian today, which shows clear majorities against a return to secondary action, flying pickets and unofficial strikes –policies which are all supported by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our trade union legislation has brought unprecedented improvements in industrial relations. Of course, they are unprecedented improvements which are not welcome to the Labour party. As Mr. Ron Todd said earlier this week :

    “Tory industrial relations law has got to go. There is no fudging the issue.”

    Labour’s position is absolutely clear. As the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said when he spoke to the TGWU yesterday– [Interruption.] As the right hon. Gentleman said– [Interruption.] I can wait, Mr. Speaker– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us hear the end of the Prime Minister’s answer.

    The Prime Minister : I know that Labour Members are embarrassed by what their leader said, but they are going to hear it. He said about the TGWU :

    “This union is the Labour party in so many ways.”

    He was right. The union calls the shots, it chooses the policies, and it even picks the leaders.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Pension Age

    Mr. Andrew Bowden : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the President of the European Commission regarding the Barber judgment and the extent to which retrospection will be limited when the judgment is applied; and if he will place a copy of his letter in the Library.

    The Prime Minister : I have written to President Delors twice on this matter; first to express my concern about the financial and economic implications of the European Court of Justice’s judgment in the Barber case; and then to inform him about the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on 26 June at columns 997-1006.

    The extent of the retrospective effect of the judgment is one of the aspects on which clarification is being sought from the European Court. We shall argue before the court that the judgment does not apply to benefits based on service before the date of the judgment. It is not my usual practice to publish correspondence of this kind.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Watney Truman Tenants

    Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister what response he has sent to the representations from Watney Truman tenants about notices to quit from Watney’s brewery and in particular, the notice to quit to the proprietor of the Plough public house, Coldharbour Lane, London SE5.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations on this matter. The Government have expressed their concern that certain brewers are issuing notices to quit to their tenants. However, we have received assurances that the purpose of most of these notices is to allow the renegotiation of tenancy agreements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is keeping in close contact with the brewers and representatives of the tenants on this issue.

  • PMQT – 9 July 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : The Prime Minister must be aware of the 253 per cent. pay increase of the chief executive of Yorkshire Electricity–yet another in a long line of outrageous pay increases to the chiefs of former publicly owned industries. Is not it true that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to do anything about those pay rises because of his friends and former colleagues on the boards of those companies, who are stuffing their pockets with money as fast as it can be snatched from the long-suffering consumer?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman gives a prize example of Labour humbug. The Labour party’s policy document “Opportunity Britain” states :

    “British industry now needs a long term commitment from Government but not in the form of second guessing industry”.

    The hon. Gentleman should remember that.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones : May I remind my right hon. Friend that, so far this year, his Government have supported the creation of 4,500 new jobs in Wales and nearly £352 million of investment for the Principality? Every announcement of such good news has been greeted contemptuously by Labour Members. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tactics of the luddite left are the surest, fastest way of undermining investor confidence?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has just returned from the United States with a significant package of job-creating projects, promising more than 500 new jobs. I should have thought that the Opposition would welcome that.

    Mr. Kinnock : When the Prime Minister meets the Heads of Government of the G7 major industrialised nations next week, will he explain to them how he managed to get an oil-rich country like Britain to the bottom of the employment, growth and investment leagues?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should look at what has happened over the past 10 years, when our growth has far outstripped that of almost every other industrial nation. Over the decade as a whole, we have one of the best job creation records of any nation.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister chooses to speak of the past. Will he therefore recognise that, for the past three years, we have been at the bottom of those employment, growth and investment leagues and that, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, with his policies we will be in that position again next year? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is the first time that any country has been at the bottom for four consecutive years? As the right hon. Gentleman has been a Treasury Minister or the Prime Minister over the whole period, does he agree that he should accept unique responsibility for this unique failure?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should have read on in the OECD report, where it was made clear that lower inflation is the essential condition for sustained growth. Everybody recognises that except the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, only last week at the National Economic Development Council, trade unionists such as Mr. Jordan, Mr. Edmonds and Mr. Willis all supported the steps to reduce inflation. Only the right hon. Gentleman does not know where prosperity begins.

    Mr. Kinnock : By pushing the economy into deep recession, the Prime Minister can, of course, reduce inflation. Does he think that, under his policies, he will be higher placed on the growth, employment and investment leagues next year? Does he recognise that, if he is not, he is just laying the seeds for further inflation?

    The Prime Minister : We are absolutely refusing to take action now that may lay the seeds for future inflation. We are determined to ensure that we not only get inflation down but keep it down. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, we shall not take the easy option now at the risk of problems later.

    Mr. Robert Banks : Has my right hon. Friend read the reports of the conference of the Transport and General Workers Union–the union which, incidentally, sponsors the Leader of the Opposition–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This must be related to the Government’s responsibilities.

    Mr. Banks : Has he read about its calls for the scrapping of all trade union laws, with the consequent return of Mr. Ron Todd’s secondary strikes and flying pickets? Is not he thankful that in framing industrial laws, his party conferences have not been tainted by the block votes of the trade union ballots?

    The Prime Minister : It is perfectly clear that Labour Members are sensitive about their relationship with the trade unions. They are right to be, because their idea of democracy is demonstrated every year when the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union visits the Labour party conference–one man, 1 million votes, and the right hon. Gentleman does as he is told.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Hoyle : When the Prime Minister takes time off from his engagements, will he do what the Home Secretary so conspicuously failed to do yesterday and accept total and unconditional responsibility for the appalling lapse in security that allowed two alleged terrorists to escape from Brixton gaol? Does not he realise what an enormous propaganda coup the Government have given the IRA?

    The Prime Minister : Everyone shares the concern at the lapse in security yesterday which resulted in two prisoners escaping. That is a matter of genuine regret, not least by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Those problems have occurred before under previous Governments, but only this Government have taken action to tighten security, improve the conditions of prison staff and provide new and proper prison places.

    Mr. Butterfill : Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that a minimum wage would be damaging but that a minimum wage based on median wages would be the worst of all, because it would continue to ratchet upwards as the median moved upwards? That would lead to a catastrophic rise in wages, destruction of jobs and a policy that could have been dreamt up only by a shadow Cabinet controlled by 18 trade union-sponsored Members out of 20.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is now generally understood by everyone except those on the Opposition Front Bench that a minimum wage policy would devastate British industry and create a substantial amount of unemployment.

     

    Q3. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Banks : As the Prime Minister says that he believes in the creation of a classless society, will he assure the House that he will not recommend the creation of any hereditary peerages?

    The Prime Minister : The subject of honours is not a matter that I am required to answer in front of the House and I do not propose to do so.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Hannam : Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the admission by Iraq that it has been developing a nuclear weapon? Does he agree that any responsible political party in this country should give a firm pledge not to give up nuclear weapons as long as other countries still have them and countries such as Iraq are developing them?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend and can certainly give him the assurance that he seeks. Iraq has now admitted to having a secret uranium enrichment programme. That is a clear violation of the nuclear safeguards agreement and of Iraq’s non-proliferation treaty obligations. As I said some time ago at the Scottish conference in Perth, we shall ensure by whatever means it takes that Iraq can never again build up a capacity to threaten its neighbours with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

    Mr. Ashdown : Leaving aside for a moment the question of how the Bank of Credit and Commerce International got into its present position, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he personally understands the scale of the tragedy that is befalling BCCI investors? Is he aware that in some communities in Britain, up to 30 per cent. of traders are account holders in BCCI? Will he look at the rules governing compensation, which many regard as incapable of meeting the needs of those innocent people whose livelihoods are being destroyed?

    The Prime Minister : I do, of course, understand the depth of tragedy that the apparent collapse of BCCI may mean. As yet, we are not sure what the outcome of the Serious Fraud Office investigation, the Bank of England investigation or other matters will be. The deposit protection fund was explicitly set up to protect small depositors, particularly those people with whom the right hon. Gentleman is most concerned, and it will apply in these circumstances.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert G. Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the private Member’s Bill that would give the National Audit Office power to cost Opposition policies? If the Bill becomes law, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the National Audit Office will be given sufficient staff to carry out that important task because it is a big job–commitments are added week by week and speech by speech by Labour spokesmen–or is it a task which would be beyond anybody?

    The Prime Minister : I welcome my hon. Friend’s tongue-in-cheek suggestion, but I fear that he suggests a little too much. Only last Friday, the Labour party explained that its regional assemblies would be funded by block grant from Westminster. As usual, no price tag was attached and we may yet have to determine what that price tag is. As many hon. Members may have seen on “Panorama” last night, a member of the Labour party, Professor Rowthorne, summed up the matter adequately. Asked about Labour’s spending plans, he said :

    “Frankly I think they don’t add up. If you take their whole list of spending plans and say where’s the money for this going to come from I think the answer is–I have no idea.”

    We have a very good idea–from the taxpayer’s pocket.

    Mr. John P. Smith : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reassure the people of Wales by condemning the ludicrous suggestion that the Royal Welch Fusiliers could ever be merged with the Cheshire regiment, or that the oldest and one of the finest regiments in Wales could ever be disbanded?

    The Prime Minister : We have very great concern for the regimental structure, which is more than the Opposition have shown during the past few years. Final decisions on “Options for Change” will take account of all relevant factors. Those decisions have not yet been made. When they are, my right hon. Friend and I shall be here to answer for them.

     

    Q6. Mr. Riddick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Riddick : When my right hon. Friend met the leaders of the trade unions yesterday, did he feel that his position was significantly enhanced by the fact that those same trade unions do not wield 90 per cent. of the votes at his party’s conference and do not provide 70 per cent. of the funding for his party and that 18 of his Cabinet Ministers are not sponsored by trade unions?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I agree that that gives me a degree of freedom not open to everyone else. There is no doubt that Conservative employment laws have brought about a record on industrial relations which is currently the envy of the whole of Europe. We had fewer strikes last year than at any time since the war. In contrast, Labour’s strikers’ charter gives the unions exactly what they want and no one can doubt their ambitions. As Ron Todd said I shall read this slowly so that hon. Members can listen :

    “We do not want to go back to 1979–things weren’t that good even then.”

     

    Q7. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Winnick : As hostilities are being renewed, with accusations and counter-accusations by former Cabinet Ministers, is there any truth in the rumour floating round Westminster that a small EC peace-keeping mission is to come over here to try to restore some peace in the Prime Minister’s party?

    The Prime Minister : No, Sir.