The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Jerusalem – 6 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Jerusalem on 6th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Could you just tell us whether you think the Middle East is now a less stable place, after the assassination?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Over the last few years, both Palestinians and the Israelis have made tremendous strides towards a Middle East settlement. Very few people anticipated that it would have got this far, and a great deal of the credit for that is of course to Prime Minister Rabin. I believe that his legacy will help carry that forward. I think that must be the hope. I don’t have a shred of doubt from my separate discussions with the Israelis and with the Palestinians that there is a will to take this matter forward. I very much hope that that will can be built on.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there are any lessons here for the Northern Ireland peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think there are some communal lessons for all processes of this sort. They are very difficult. They are very time-consuming. They need a lot of patience. Sometimes there are setbacks. It’s necessary to keep going. And from time to time it’s necessary to take risks. That has been true of the peace process here. It’s true of the Northern Ireland process as well.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview at Chequers – 5 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview at Chequers on Sunday 5th November 1995 following the assassination of Yitkhaz Rabin.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what is your reaction to the assassination?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am deeply saddened by what has happened. Yitzhak Rabin has been seeking for peace in the Middle East for very many years. I think no-one has done so much towards seeking it as he has. What has happened is a great tragedy, not just for his family, not just for Israel, but for the Middle East peace process.

    QUESTION:

    How concerned are you about the future of the peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Everyone wants the peace process to continue and be successful. There is a great world interest in the peace process, not just here in the United Kingdom but right across the world. I think that what Mr Rabin would have wanted would be for this to have given some momentum to the peace process in the future and I very much hope that will happen.

    QUESTION:

    What will you be saying to the Acting Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will be expressing the thoughts of millions of people in the United Kingdom about what has happened. He was a very popular man here, a frequent visitor here, a very good relationship with the United Kingdom. There will be huge numbers of people in this country who will feel very personally about what will happen. I will certainly express that to the Acting Prime Minister. And then I will express the wish that he will carry on the work. He has been intimately involved with it. I am sure he will, and I hope that Mr Peres will carry it forward to success.

    QUESTION:

    How did you find Mr Rabin personally?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I found him a very engaging man. I had met him quite frequently over recent years. We had a great deal to discuss. I was the first British Prime Minister for many years to visit Israel just a few months ago. We spent a lot of time together. He visited here on many occasions.

    When he was here I think last time, or last time but one, it was the day of one of the dreadful bus bombs in Israel and we provided a plane immediately for him to go home. We spoke from time to time on the phone. I found him a man utterly determined to proceed down the peace process, despite the short-term difficulties, despite the obvious discomforts of going down that road politically, because he believed there was a great historical opportunity for peace and he was determined to try and take it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 November 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Opposition Parties (Civil Service)

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister what are the conventions whereby civil service Departments take steps to consult the Opposition about their policies towards the end of a Parliament; and when such steps are planned to be taken before the end of the current Parliament.

    The Prime Minister: The convention has been that, by authority of the Prime Minister, towards the end of a Parliament or when a general election has been called, Opposition parties may arrange, with the authority of their party leaders and through the head of the civil service, contacts with senior civil servants. These arrangements are designed to allow briefing on factual questions on departmental organisational changes which Opposition parties have in mind or which may result from Opposition party policies. Any exchanges would be confidential. Following the last general election, I told the leader of the Opposition that I would be content to authorise confidential exchanges between senior civil servants and Opposition spokesmen from January 1996.

     

    Copex Arms Exhibition

    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister what (a) financial and (b) other assistance is given by Her Majesty’s Government to the Copex arms exhibition.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board Trade.

     

    Duke of Windsor (Papers)

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 October, Official Report, column 747, how many other documents relating to the conduct of the Duke of Windsor during world war two are held by Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 November 1995]: British official papers in question have been released to the Public Record Office with the exception of a few items, which will be re-reviewed under the open government initiative and released at the appropriate time.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations Her Majesty’s Government have received from the Arab League in relation to Libyan sanctions and Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 November 1995]: None.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep on Commonwealth Games Success – 3 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Huntingdon, on 3rd November 1995, following the success of Manchester’s bid to hold the Commonwealth Games.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am absolutely delighted that Manchester have won and they certainly won on merit. They have been trying for a long time to get a major sporting event in Manchester and they thoroughly deserve this win.

    Economically, this means long-term advantages for Manchester. All the publicity the city will get is bound to result in long-term gain.

    QUESTION:

    Will this result in Manchester getting the Olympics?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope so. They tried very hard to get the Olympic Games and I tried to give them whatever support I could. Unfortunately, they were not successful despite having a well-constructed and very innovative bid.

    I would very much like to see the Olympic Games take place in the UK, perhaps in Manchester.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 November 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

    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.

     

    Annual Remuneration

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate the number of individuals in his (a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non- departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration, including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000 and (iii) £300,000 in (1) 1985 86, (2) 1990 91, (3) 1992 93, (4) 1994 95 and (5) 1995 96.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 1 November, column 324.

     

    Salaries

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what was the (a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in his (i) Department, (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies in (1) 1994 95 and (2) 1995 96.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 1 November, columns 324-25.

  • PMQT – 2 November 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

    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.

    Ms Eagle: If the disclosure of the amounts that are earned in parliamentary consultancies is such an unimportant detail, can the Prime Minister say why up to 100 Conservative Members are threatening to resign if the House forces them to share that information with their constituents? Is that why he will vote for secrecy? What do Conservative Members have to hide?

    The Prime Minister: With great respect to the hon. Lady, I say to her that she should not believe all the nonsense that she reads in some newspapers about the proposed actions of my hon. Friends or, indeed, about anything else. The Nolan report is extremely important. I set up the committee because I believed that there was a problem that needed to be looked at dispassionately. It has produced its report and the Select Committee has examined it. In a number of ways, the Select Committee has gone beyond the Nolan report. It has done so with my support, and I look forward to Parliament approving its recommendations.

    Mr. Lord: Thanks to the national lottery and the millennium fund, there is now a great deal of money available for good works. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could set ourselves two very worthwhile targets to achieve by the year 2000? They are, first, by that time every inner city ought to be a decent place for people to live in and secondly, every secondary school ought to have access to a good, proper cricket square.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend plays to my instincts, as I think he knows, in this case. There is no doubt that the national lottery has exceeded the success that even we had forecast for it. It has already raised in excess of £1 billion for good causes and a very large number of organisations are now able to put in place facilities that millions of ordinary people will enjoy and would not have been able to enjoy but for the lottery. The point about the lottery is that, because of it, some areas of importance to our national life that are never likely to receive total priority in any public expenditure round will now have a guaranteed stream of future income for many years ahead, and millions of people will benefit from that.

    Mr. Blair: Having set up Nolan and having agreed to implement it, what possible justification will the Prime Minister give when he comes to the House on Monday, along with the Cabinet and Government, and votes down its key recommendation–the simple honest requirement that Members of Parliament who have outside financial interests that are connected with their being Members of Parliament should disclose the amounts that they earn from them? Just what do he and his party have to hide?

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear, when I established Nolan, that I thought that there was a matter that needed independent investigation. Lord Nolan did that. He said, when he replied, that he thought that there were matters that needed some further clarification. The Select Committee has done that. I have made it clear throughout that I support the broad thrust of what the Nolan committee recommended and I have said so on more than one occasion. I still hold to that.

    Nolan made 55 recommendations, 45 to the Government, almost all of which are already being implemented, and I thoroughly agree with that, and 10 recommendations addressed to the House. The Select Committee has accepted nine of those, and has gone further than the Nolan committee in respect of the 10th, and I agree with that.

    What is most important in the midst of this is the Select Committee’s proposal to ban paid advocacy. That is entirely right, I support it, but if we do that, the income that hon. Members earn from other activities explicitly approved by Parliament seems to me to be a matter between them and the Inland Revenue tax inspectors.

    Mr. Blair: This has nothing to do with some detailed consideration of Nolan. It is to do with the squalid monetary interest of the Conservative party. That was Nolan’s key recommendation. If now, in weakness, the Prime Minister goes back on his word to implement the report that he commissioned, it will leave a stain on his prime ministership and on his Government that will not be removed until this rotten Administration is swept from office.

    The Prime Minister: I think that, one day, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there are serious matters about Nolan that deserve serious consideration, not the sort of short-term party political wrangling that we have just heard from him. On the substantive point, this is a serious matter for Parliament, with long-term implications, and it is a shame that he cannot understand that. I do not favour a wholly professional House staffed entirely by hon. Members who are professional politicians and nothing else. That is the route that the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party would wish to lead us down. He would then, no doubt, have his party thought police telling Labour Members what to do and issuing statements on their behalf, as he did last week. That is not the route for this House. He may find some short-term advantage in the line that he takes, but what he is proposing is bad for the future of the House of Commons.

    Mr. Blair: Madam Speaker– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. Blair: The Nolan committee is not stopping people from having outside interests. It simply says that we should be open and honest about them. The Prime Minister is a man saying today what he knows to be wrong, and the question for him is this: when is he going to have the courage to stand up to his party and tell it what is right?

    The Prime Minister: We have gone further than Lord Nolan had on the matters that are undesirable. Rather than say simply, “Disclose income,” we have banned the things that we believe to be wrong. That is what I propose to do. The Select Committee is right in banning paid advocacy. If it is wrong, it should not be done. If it is right, it should not be impeded for party political reasons, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do.

    Lord Nolan considered whether hon. Members’ assets and income should be disclosed and that would, of course, include not only matters such as directors’ fees– [Interruption.] This is an important matter to the future of the House of Commons and it deserves to be seriously considered by the House, not just treated as Opposition Members are treating it.

    Lord Nolan considered the matter. He concluded, and I quote from the Nolan report:

    “No-one has put a convincing case to us as to why that”– that is, disclosure–

    “might be necessary.”

    Parliamentary rules already require all outside interests to be entered in the Register. That will continue. It will be published more regularly. The substantive point is clear. If it is wrong, it should not be done and the Select Committee proposes to ban the things that are wrong. If it is right, it should not be impeded, as the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do.

    Mr. King: May I correct my right hon. Friend in one respect, in that it was not Lord Nolan on his own but 10 members under his chairmanship who considered these matters and described in the report whether we should recommend a ban on paid advocacy? We said specifically at that time that we doubted whether it was practicable or whether it would be acceptable to the House. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be an immediate ban on paid advocacy goes significantly further than Lord Nolan and his committee recommended? It goes to the heart of the issue of public concern, and should therefore be strongly supported.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and I sought to make that point a moment ago. The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is the case, but for his own party reasons, he and his colleagues are deliberately distorting the central aspect to be determined.

     

    Q2. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Banks: No one would accuse the Prime Minister of being a professional politician. If hon. Members have outside consultancies, what is the Prime Minister’s personal objection to them declaring how much they get? Why does he object to that transparency?

    The Prime Minister: I have told the hon. Gentleman why. I believe that it is right for the House to know what interests Members of Parliament have. It is right that they should register the nature of those activities, as is proposed, so that the House knows about them. It is right that things which are wrong should be banned. Beyond that, hon. Members are entitled to the same tax privacy as others.

    Mr. Faber: Will my right hon. Friend pass on the grateful thanks of those of my constituents who have written to me in recent days to describe the misery and torment that they and their families have suffered because of the activities of the Rev. Moon? Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday’s extraordinary court decision is yet another example of the contempt with which some members of the judiciary seem to treat the views of the House and of the general public?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was right to refuse the Rev. Moon entry into the country. I do not believe that his presence here would be conducive to the public good. If the Rev. Moon decides to make representations, of course they will be considered.

     

    Q3. Mr. William O’Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. O’Brien: As recently as 23 May, the Prime Minister assured my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he favoured greater transparency in the affairs of Members of Parliament. He is now saying that he will vote for more secrecy. When will the Prime Minister, with all the dignity and authority of his office, lead the Tory party from the front rather than the rear?

    The Prime Minister: We all know the lines that the Opposition Front Bench have given to the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that we are making much tougher and much more transparent the interests of Members of Parliament and we are banning the things that are wrong. That is the key point. If it is wrong, it should not be done, and the Select Committee is right to suggest a ban. The hon. Gentleman referred to 23 May. My activities and views have not changed. I foreshadowed them clearly and at some length in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition on 22 May, to which he has not yet replied.

    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is excellent news that no one in Somerset need wait more than 12 months for non-urgent treatment? Does that not show the success of the Government’s health reforms? Will my right hon. Friend take time today to persuade the Leader of the Opposition to drop his objection to fundholding?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the partisan proposals of the Opposition to turn back the clock on the NHS reforms are to be regretted, given the clear evidence of the success of those reforms. More patients are being treated, they have greater opportunities for treatment and they are treated more speedily. The Opposition’s plans to scrap GP fundholding in the face both of the overwhelming evidence of its success and the opposition of GPs who are providing a better service because of it will be unacceptable to people up and down the country.

     

    Q4. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Sutcliffe: As Tory Members of Parliament fight to save their second and third jobs, many people in my constituency want their first jobs. Is it not true that if Members of Parliament act as consultants, the public have the right to know whether they earn £50 or £5,000?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to touch upon the important issue of unemployment. However, he might more usefully have mentioned that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 21 per cent. from its peak– [Interruption.] it is interesting to note that Labour Members do not like hearing about the fall in unemployment–yet two years ago the then Leader of the Opposition raised the matter week after week. It is months since Labour Members have raised it, because they do not like the fact that it is going down in this country because of our policies, yet it is going up in other countries that follow socialist policies.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 31 October 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October 1995.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

     

    Office Costs

    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the expenditure on his office broken down into (a) salaries and (b) other costs for each year since 1980 81, in 1994 95 prices.

    The Prime Minister: Figures on a consistent basis are not available. In 1980 81, recorded spending on my office and Chequers on the votes of the Civil Service Department/Cabinet Office was £3.684 million in 1994 95 prices. In 1981 82, charges were introduced for the use of Ministry of Defence aircraft. Including those charges, spending was, at 1994 95 prices, £4,649 million in 1981 82 and £4.852 million in 1982 83. In 1983 84, charges were introduced by the Property Services Agency for buildings and services. Including those charges, spending was, at 1994 95 prices, £5.197 million in 1983 84. In 1984 85, charges were introduced for the use of the Government car service and for service personnel at Chequers. Including those charges, spending was, at 1994 95 prices, £6.193 million in 1984 85 and £6.830 million in 1985 86. In 1986 87, the cost of office services was included in the No. 10 budget. Including those costs, spending since then has been as follows:

    £ million

    |Total costs

    |1994-95

    |prices |Staff |Other

    ————————————————————

    1986-87 |7.469 |2.513 |4.956

    1987-88 |7.741 |2.519 |5.222

    1988-89 |8.777 |2.550 |6.227

    1989-90 |9.600 |2.703 |6.897

    1990-91 |9.533 |2.385 |7.148

    1991-92 |9.450 |2.487 |6.963

    1992-93 |10.866 |3.043 |7.298

    1993-94 |9.384 |3.327 |6.057

    1994-95<1> |7.671 |3.217 |4.454

    <1> In 1994-95 spending of £0.718 million on communications was transferred from No. 10 budget to the Cabinet Office budget.

  • PMQT – 31 October 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

    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. Winnick: Why did the Prime Minister in his meeting with the French President not condemn French nuclear tests, which have deeply offended British and international opinion? Did the Prime Minister not take such action because the British Government have connived with the French in a dirty deal whereby information arising from the nuclear tests will be passed on to this country? If that is the case, it shows the dishonesty of the Government.

    The Prime Minister: It is not the case. As I have said before, no information from the French nuclear tests will be passed to us–indeed, given the nature of our weapons, it would not be of use to us. There is no deal; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that and withdraw his allegation.

    At least the hon. Gentleman is consistent in his views. He has been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and he is, and he saluted the courage and determination of anti-nuclear demonstrators at Greenham Common. [Interruption.] I trail my coat to find out where Labour Members’ hearts are, and now we know.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mrs. Lait: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement that one of London’s most popular grant-maintained schools, the Oratory school, will be able to build a choir school, thanks to its self-governing status in the public sector? While that may be music to the ears of the parents with children at the school, how does my right hon. Friend think that the rest of the Labour Front Benchers will react?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I welcome that news.

    Grant-maintained schools have a greater freedom to develop their strengths because power is put where it should belong: with the school head, the school governors and the parents who know best what is in their children’s interests.

    Mr. Blair: Is it– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Stop this barracking–particularly from Ministers.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm as a matter of fact that what the chairman of the rail users’ watchdog as well as the Transport Select Committee have said is true: that, as a result of privatisation, an extra £700 million of taxpayers’ money will be paid to the subsidised, privatised railways?

    The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that over the years we have increased resources to the nationalised British rail industry. Contrary to what has been said by some people, the Government have supported record levels of investment. We made it clear when we decided to proceed with privatisation that we would support lines that were socially necessary–partly at the request of Her Majesty’s Opposition. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe now that we should not do that.

    Mr. Blair: Is it not right that the Select Committee attributed the extra £700 million to privatisation, not to paying for socially useful routes, and that hundreds of millions of pounds of City fees are involved? Is it not also true that investment in the railways today is half what it was two years ago and that, as a result of privatisation, 5,000 manufacturing industry jobs have been lost and the unified railway network has been broken up into 70, 80 or 90 companies?

    When will the Prime Minister, just for once, stop pandering to the right wing of the Conservative party? [Interruption.] Conservative Members may want rail privatisation: the British people do not. When will the right hon. Gentleman stop pandering to the right wing of his party and, instead, listen to and speak up for the British people, who want their railways run as a public service?

    The Prime Minister: I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman would get round to his “lurch to the right” campaign, launched so inexpertly–one might almost say he made a hash of it–by the new shadow Chief Whip.

    If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the policies we are following, of bringing choice to parents and opportunity to children, are a lurch to the right, the country will not agree. If he thinks that spending more on patients’ health is a lurch to the right, the people will not agree. If he thinks that dealing with asylum abuses, or standing up for Britain in Europe, represent a lurch to the right, he is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the centre right of politics is our ground and there is no way a squatter like him can rest on it. He may regard himself as the Trojan horse of socialism, but he will find that it is our land on which he is parking and there is no room for him on it.

    As for the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point, and pushing aside the points on which he was inaccurate, I would tell him that there have been record amounts of investment in recent years–£1.5 billion in 1992-93, which was the highest for 30 years. Investment is still running at more than £1 billion in the current year, and every privatisation that we have introduced has provided better service. I see the new shadow Chief Whip in his place. It was he who once referred to the privatisation of British Airways as the pantomime horse of capitalism. It is now the most successful privatised air service in the world.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that positive discrimination in favour of women is both unnecessary and patronising? Will he comment on the policy of the Labour party, which has imposed by diktat from Walworth road–

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the attitude of the Labour party. I am sure that he has caught the first part of the hon. Lady’s question and is perfectly capable of answering it.

    Mrs. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will never impose women-only shortlists, as has been done by diktat of Walworth road in six constituencies in the north-west of England?

    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that I believe that we should seek equality of opportunities for everyone, for women in the House of Commons and elsewhere. It is certainly our policy to do so. My hon. Friends needed no special discrimination to get here. As to the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question, I can promise her–not only in this but in other matters–that we will not follow the policies of the Opposition, because, apart from anything else, daily they seem to be following our policies.

    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister consider these three dates? On 11 July, Srebrenica fell and 8,000 young men were taken away and massacred. On 31 May, I asked the then Secretary of State for Defence, in the House, to assure me that the policy on the defence of Srebrenica had not changed, and he gave me that assurance. It is now revealed, or claimed, that on 24 May, with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the British Government, the UN decided to abandon Srebrenica to its fate. Is that correct?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, just occasionally, might do the British forces and the British Government the credit of acknowledging what they have done. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is not correct. He has been wrong throughout the whole of this episode time after time. He has denigrated what the British Government have done and what the British armed forces have done. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman this: there are hundreds of thousands of people alive today in Bosnia because of what was done by the British Government and the British armed forces.

    Mr. Elletson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a successful conference this year in my constituency? Is he aware that next year the Labour party will be in Blackpool? Will he take this opportunity to reassure parents and police in my constituency that under a Conservative Government cannabis cigarettes will never be for sale?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance and I will tell the House why very clearly. The vast majority of people–between 80 and 90 per cent.–who move on to hard drugs graduate to hard drugs having first experimented with soft drugs. Any sensible person realises the danger of doing that and realises that any responsible person in public life would discourage the use of soft drugs because of the danger of moving to hard drugs. I am sorry that some Opposition Members with some responsibility in public life should choose to take a different view.

     

    Q3. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Dowd: Given the Government’s latest response to the recommendations of the Nolan committee, when will the Prime Minister stop his feeble backtracking on his alleged intention to improve the standards of conduct of Ministers and stop trying to defend the snout in the trough behaviour of so many on the Benches behind him?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows–or should know, if he took an interest in our matters–that the Nolan report is at present being considered by the Select Committee. It will very shortly be brought before the House, when we will have the benefit of the deliberations of the Select Committee and when the House can then vote on all the recommendations that emanate from it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter–the characteristically pompous letter–from the leader of the Liberal party, inviting Conservative Members of Parliament to back his party on education? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best response to that has come from a Harrow Liberal councillor, Bernadette Murphy, who says that the arguments for the Conservative education system are unanswerable and that every party should understand that? Will he congratulate her on reinforcing her message by resigning from the council and causing a by-election and giving such a clear steer as to how people should vote in that by-election?

    The Prime Minister: I did see the letter from the right hon. Gentleman, which he displayed so widely among my colleagues. I recall that the letter also said:

    “This is the moment to stand up for what is right and to put Britain first.”

    Clearly, Miss Murphy did.

     

    Q5. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that Britain requires a job skills audit? We have fallen from 21st to 24th in the league, according to the World Economic Forum’s report on skill shortages. Is that because the Government do not invest in education and training? Is it not about time that the Government recognised that education and training are vital to our economy?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated a skill shortage in answering questions. [Laughter] It is clear– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    The Prime Minister: It is clear that Opposition Members’ new standards of behaviour are only for certain occasions.

    Of course my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is right to examine the level of skills. He has done that to enable us to ensure that we can build on what has already been done to improve skills in the country. That is the purpose of the changes that have been made. That is the purpose of the training and enterprise councils; that is the purpose of investment. It is because of the increasing skills and increasing investment that our exports–not least in manufacturing–are performing better today than they have for many years.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Inauguration of the Franco-British Air Group – 30 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the inauguration of the Franco-British Air Group, held at High Wycombe on Monday 30th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Chiefs of Defence Staff, Ladies and Gentlemen. The President and I have just finished around about two and a half hours of discussions on a range of issues that affect our two countries right across the globe: Russia, the Middle East, Europe of course, a whole range of matters to do with defence. All of those are areas where there is a great degree of common interest between the British position and the position in France. What we begin to see emerging is the increasing move towards a global partnership between the interests of our two countries.

    I will have more to say about that in another forum later this afternoon. But what I would like to do in the next few moments is concentrate just upon the defence aspects of our cooperation. And I do so because the more one examines them, the more striking it becomes how much Britain and France does together in terms of defence cooperation.

    In the two military crises of recent years – the Gulf and Bosnia – Britain and France have worked together at the centre of co-operations. We cooperate equally closely in other areas of the defence relationship. We work together in the Western European Union. We cooperate closely in developing new forms of armament.

    Both the President and I believe there is scope for developing this work further. And our Defence Ministers, who I am also delighted to see here at High Wycombe this morning, have been addressing that quite specifically in their discussions.

    But the purpose of this ceremony is to inaugurate the Franco-British Air Group. The group was launched just a year ago at Chartres. This summer our Defence Secretaries agreed to establish precise roles, precise missions and working practices for the group. And today the President and I can launch what I believe will become an ambitious, an imaginative, undertaking.

    We have high hopes of this group. We hope the Air Group will improve the inter-operability of our two Air Forces, improve them so that they are trained and ready to deploy together whenever, and wherever, that may be necessary.

    Of course with this group at the moment it is early days. Much has been done, but there is a great deal more still to be done. The main focus thus far has been to develop contingency plans, to develop operating procedures, to develop a whole range of procedures on tasks such as humanitarian aid or peacekeeping.

    But we see a much larger role for this group in the future. By enhancing the operational effectiveness and inter-operability of our air forces, we believe the air group will enable our two countries to work together more efficiently and to improve our joint contribution to European Defence. That, for both of us, is a matter of some considerable importance in the years ahead.

    I am delighted that the President is with me here today for this particular occasion. And it occurred to me just a moment or so ago, as the President and I were just driving to the entrance of this building, that if our predecessors, Mr President, had hit upon this particular idea quite a few hundred years ago, I rather fancy the history of Europe might have been rather different, and many of us perhaps might have wished that it had been different.

    So I think when one takes not just the beginnings that we are launching today, but the concept of what this may well become, one begins to see the scale and importance of the particular inauguration that we are privileged to be present at at the moment.

    So we look today, as we inaugurate this group, to the future. And as I look to the future in inaugurating the group may I offer it, all its members, present and future, every success in fulfilling the important joint tasks that will continue to confront both of our great nations.

    There is I believe, Mr President, and in this I believe I may safely speak for us both this morning, a determination to take every opportunity that exists to ensure that the interests of Britain and France march together, sail together and fly together, both for the security of Britain and France and the wider security of Europe.

    I wish the Group every possible success.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Award Ceremony – 30 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the award ceremony for General Michael Rose and General Bertrand de Sauville de la Presle, held in High Wycombe on Monday 30th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In a few moments and President and I will have the pleasure and privilege of honouring General de la Presle and General Rose for their work together in Bosnia over recent years. I would like just, if I may, to say a word about the award that I shall making to General de la Presle.

    It is a remarkable example of what can be achieved in the most difficult circumstances. With General Rose, General de la Presle held very high responsibility for military operations in an area of the highest political and military complexities. There were no guiding stars as to how to cope with the extraordinarily difficult circumstances of Bosnia, there were no historical guidelines to deal with the particular level of problems that were faced there. And yet General de la Presle played a leading role in a new kind of military activity, an operation in which, almost uniquely, there were no clear enemies, but in an operation that was fraught with a great deal of danger. And in this, perhaps not uniquely, but unusually, political judgement was as important in his responsibilities as military skill.

    The General led a military force comprising a range of nations. And yet on the ground at the same time he was dealing with different parties with a long history of mutual antagonisms, a history that as we have seen only too vividly was violent and often uncontainable.

    And that is why I say there was no relevant experience from the past to go on. There were no books to tell people precisely what one did in those set of circumstances for they were strange and novel circumstances. It was hard to establish guidelines because the problems were changing, fluid, but more important than being fluid, inconsistent and unpredictable, not so much on a weekly basis but perhaps on an hourly basis.

    The key to the General’s success, if I may be permitted to say so having observed from afar, was predominantly in the example set in working so closely with senior commanders, ensuring that everybody was absolutely up-to-date with what needed to be done, absolutely up-to-date with the latest tactical situation and completely aware of the strategic challenge facing the forces in Bosnia.

    The results of that leadership I believe speak for themselves, both in terms of what was achieved at the time and in terms of the groundwork that was laid for those who came subsequently to achieve more. It was a very remarkable achievement indeed and I am delighted in a few moments that on behalf of Her Majesty I shall be honouring the General.