The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Bill Clinton – 4 April 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Bill Clinton, held in Washington on Tuesday 4th April 1995.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Good afternoon. Please be seated. I am delighted to welcome Prime Minister Major back to the White House. Throughout this century the United States and the United Kingdom have stood together on the great issues that have confronted our people. Our common cause has been at the heart of our success in two World Wars and of course in the Cold War. In just the last two years British/American cooperation has played an essential role in allowing us to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction, in promoting peace around the world and certainly in expanding free trade.

    Today we have continued working in that tradition. We have had excellent discussions, we have covered a broad range of issues, we have, as always, found much to agree about.

    On security issues we agree that the inevitable process of NATO expansion must proceed smoothly, gradually and openly, without any surprises. This is essential for extending stability, democracy and prosperity throughout Europe. We believe that in parallel with the enlargement of NATO the Alliance must develop and maintain close ties with Russia.

    We affirmed our shared commitment to a political settlement in Bosnia, based on the Contact group plan. The conflict is being prolonged because of Bosnian Serb intransigence. Renewed fighting will not end the conflict but only lead to more bloodshed and continued stalemate. The Prime Minister and I also vowed to continue working together to contain the Iraqi threat to stability in the Persian Gulf region. We are deeply concerned that Saddam Hussein could be regaining the ability to build weapons of mass destruction. We are determined that Iraq must meet all its United Nations obligations. This is no time to relax sanctions. The Iraqi people are suffering tremendously under Saddam’s tyranny and they do deserve the help of the international community. But easing up on a regime that oppresses people will not help them. So while there can be no compromise, the United States, the United Kingdom and Argentina have put forward new proposals at the United Nations to get food and medicine to the people of Iraq. We hope other nations will join these efforts and support our Security Council Resolution and pressure Saddam Hussein to stop the needless suffering of his innocent citizens.

    Prime Minister Major told me a great deal about his recent trip to the Middle East. We both strongly believe this is a hopeful moment for broadening the circle of peace. The United States and Europe must continue to fight the efforts to derail the peace process by those who prefer destruction to peace. It is clear that for peace to take root in the region more economic assistance is vital. Peace and prosperity depend upon one another. I applaud the United Kingdom’s investment programme in the West Bank in Gaza, as well as its debt relief measures for Jordan. We must all continue to support those who take risks for peace.

    Nowhere is this more true than in Northern Ireland. I salute the Prime Minister for the tremendous efforts he is making to bring an enduring peace to Northern Ireland. Today Northern Ireland is closer to a just and lasting settlement than at any time, in a generation, thanks in large measure to the vision and courage of John Major. He and Prime Minister Bruton of Ireland together introduced the joint framework which provides a landmark opportunity to move ahead towards a political settlement, one that will be backed by both of Northern Ireland’s communities. We also agreed that the paramilitaries of both sides must get rid of their weapons for good so that violence never returns to Northern Ireland. And we must work to increase economic opportunity in that area, their prospects have been blighted by bloodshed for too long.

    Next month our White House Conference on Trade and Investment in Ireland will help to expand the ties between the United States, Northern Ireland and Ireland’s border counties. Building those kinds of bonds will help to lead to a better life for all the people of the region. The Prime Minister and I discussed some other issues. We agreed on the need for an indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the review conference that begins this month. To further the cause of non-proliferation the Prime Minister joins me in calling for full implementation of the framework agreement we negotiated with North Korea to end that country’s nuclear programme. And we discussed the need to adapt our international institutions to the challenges of the next century at the G7 Summit in Halifax. I was particularly impressed by the thinking that the Prime Minister has done on this profoundly important issue. The United States and the United Kingdom, after all, helped to shape those institutions, they have served our interests for the last half-century.

    With the extraordinary relationship between our countries as important as ever, I am confident that we can make the changes necessary and work together to advance our shared values and our common interests, to promote peace, democracy and prosperity in the years ahead and of course in the century ahead.

    Finally let me say that we discussed the ceremonies that will mark the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. Because of my prior commitments I have asked the Vice President to represent me and all Americans in London on 8 May at services that will commemorate the great wartime bravery and sacrifice of so many Britons. And I look forward to seeing Prime Minister Major when we go together to Moscow on 9 May to pay our respect to the heroism of the Russian people in that conflict.

    Mr Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, thank you very much.

    We have had the opportunity today for a good humoured, worthwhile, productive and very far-reaching series of exchanges on a whole range of matters. The President has set out much of the agenda we discussed and I will not reiterate what the President said except to say that in his remarks he spoke not just for the United States but for the United Kingdom as well. I share the views he expressed and I will not reiterate them.

    We spent some time looking forward at two separate matters which I think are of some importance to both our countries and of wider importance as well. The first of them the President just touched on, and that was the review of the Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations that we agreed with the other G7 Heads of Government at Naples last year that we should undertake and return to at Halifax later this year. We have given a great deal of discussion to that and I think for a range of reasons the time is right to look at a fairly comprehensive reform of some of those institutions and we exchanged some ideas today on precisely how we might do that and agreed that we would exchange further ideas before we came to the G7 Summit. I think there is scope to rationalise some of the international financial institutions.

    We wish to look particularly, in addition to that, at the United Nations where there are a number of overlapping functions. I am a very strong supporter of the United Nations and I wish to see the United Nations a successful organisation for the year 2000. It does seem that looking at some of the areas of the UN could well do with up-dating, refreshing, to make sure that they are entirely applicable to the problems they will have to face in the late 1990s and beyond the turn of the century. And I hope very much that we will be able to get together with some more of our ideas and float those in greater detail when we get to the Halifax Summit later on this year.

    We also spent some time looking at the commonality of interest that exists between the United Kingdom and the United States. There are a huge range of areas where there is common interest, not just those that were discussed, the agreements that we have in terms of policy towards Russia, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, Bosnia and a range of other areas. But beyond that I think there is a commonality of interest in the future security and prosperity of the Central and East European states, and also with two other matters. First, the further extension of free trade, to which I wish to return in just a second, and second with looking together and combatting together some of the problems of instability, extremism and terrorism that we can begin to see in parts of North Africa, parts of the Levant and parts of the Middle East, and we spent some time considering how we might address some of those problems in the future. It was necessarily a discussion that dealt with problems that may arise, and dealt in some cases frankly with generalities, but it was an opportunity to look forward rather than to just discuss the immediate topical problems that we face at the moment.

    One area of growing importance that we touched on was the possibility of seeing how we can build on the Uruguay Round agreement of a year or so ago, and see how we can move forward to deal with much freer trade in financial services, for example, removing many of the non-tariff barriers that still exist between western Europe and the United States, and seeing how, step by step, we can move forward to a much greater element of free trade between North America and the Western European nations. That is something that needs to be done, I think it is something that is of immense benefit, and I found our discussion on that immensely productive and it is one I know that we will both return to in the future.

    So I found the discussion, not just on contemporary matters of use, but I found the sharing of ideas about how we deal with the development of the transatlantic relationship to deal with the problems that are going to arise in the future, and also the examination of the common transatlantic view on many of the international problems around the world to be a very worthwhile and a very refreshing discussion and I am delighted we were able to have it.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, I would like to ask you about two tax matters at home. Congress has sent you a bill that would provide health and insurance tax reductions for self-employed people, but it also allows billionaires to avoid taxation by renouncing their citizenship. Will you sign or veto that measure? And secondly, the House tomorrow takes up the Republican tax bill that provides benefits for a range of businesses and also a 500 dollar child credit for families earning up to 200,000 dollars a year. I know you have your own approach but can you live with this Republican approach?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    In answer to your first question, I strongly support restoring deductability to self-employed people for the cost of their health insurance, I think it is untenable to have a different standard for them than for corporations, and that was a big part of my Health Care Reform Bill last year. So I am on record strongly in favour of that, as a matter of fact I would like to see it expanded. I am deeply troubled that the Conference Committee took out a payment mechanism by simply asking billionaires who made their money as Americans, who largely made their money in the United States, to pay the taxes they owe and instead to let them evade American income taxes by giving up their citizenship now that they have it made. So I am going to have to look at that very closely and examine whether there might be some other opportunities to achieve that objective. But it is just wrong for us to walk away from that, that is just wrong.

    On the second matter, you know what my views are on that. We have two objectives here. I support the tax relief for the middle class, I support greater tax standards. I think it should be much more focused on things that will raise incomes in the short-term and in the long term, so I favour a sharp focus on educating people and raising children, on families and education, but we cannot afford a cut of that magnitude and do the right thing by the deficit. And we should not be cutting taxes in ways that benefit very wealthy Americans and require us in turn to cut education which will weaken our country as a whole. Education is the middle class social safety net, if you will, it is the key to our economic future as well. So I think that is a big mistake, I think it is too big, we need to focus on the deficit and we don’t need to be cutting education and investment in our future to give tax relief to people who don’t really need it.

    QUESTION (John McIntyre):

    Could I just ask the President whether he accepts the British Government’s analysis that Sinn Fein has not yet gone quite far enough on the decommissioning of arms to justify ministerial talks and also could I ask the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the backing he has got from the Administration on that issue?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I think it is a decision entirely for the British Government to make in negotiations with Sinn Fein when ministerial talks are appropriate.
    I will say this: I was very clear when the Adams visa was granted with permission to fund raise that there must be an agreement – a commitment — in good faith to seriously and quickly discuss arms decommissioning. Without a serious approach to arms decommissioning, there will never be a resolution of this conflict so I would hope there would be no difference in our position on that because I think the Prime Minister is right about that, we have to deal with this arms decommissioning issue and I know that there is an attempt by the Government to work with the paramilitaries on both sides to achieve that objective and that is what I think should be done.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just add to that point. We have already started discussions at ministerial level with the Loyalist paramilitaries on decommissioning and those discussions are proceeding. What we are seeking to do is to have exactly the same discussions on exactly the same terms with Sinn Fein. If Mr. Adams is serious about moving towards peace – and he has repeatedly spoken about it – then he needs to discuss with the British Government the question of the modalities of decommissioning the arms. We need to know how it can be done, when it can be done, what needs to be done, a whole series of details but that matter has to be discussed.

    I think it is right for that matter to be discussed at ministerial level with Sinn Fein and we have made it perfectly clear that providing they are prepared to discuss that matter – we have suggested what the agenda might be and we are in discussion with them about that – then I think it is right for us to move to ministerial discussion on the decommissioning of arms.

    What is absolutely clear is that unless we are able to make progress on decommissioning of arms, there will be no possibility of Sinn Fein sitting down with the other democratic political parties in Northern Ireland, they simply won’t be prepared to talk about reaching a settlement until there has been progress on decommissioning of arms so I very much hope Mr. Adams will embark upon those discussions speedily.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, could you elaborate on something you said in your opening remarks about your concerns with Iraq in their apparent ability to build weapons of mass destruction?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I didn’t say they had the apparent ability, I said they could be regaining it. I want to be very specific about it. What I mean by that is that unless Mr. Ekeus and the international inspectors can certify that they are in full compliance with all the relevant United Nations Resolutions, then we have no assurance that they are not regaining the capacity to move forward with weapons of mass destruction. That is what I mean but that is all I mean about it.

    QUESTION:

    Do you say you don’t have the evidence?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    That they are doing that now, I do not and I want to make clear that is why I used the word “regaining”.

    The United States position, which the United Kingdom has supported and for which I am very grateful, is that we should not relax these sanctions until there is full compliance with the Resolutions. The Resolutions were not passed in a careless way; they are carefully worded Resolutions designed to assure the international community that this cannot happen and unless those, Resolutions are complied with, the international community cannot know that this cannot happen.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you share that view?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I share that view absolutely and I think we need to await Mr. Ekeus’s report; from all I hear, it is not going to be satisfactory about the way Iraq are behaving. We are concerned about the humanitarian aspect of people in Iraq; there is a Security Council Resolution which I trust is going to be passed which will open up a better possibility for Saddam Hussein to sell oil in order to feed people in Iraq; it is an option that will be there, I very much hope he will take that option but on the general relief of sanctions, until he has met the Security Council Resolutions in full and we have seen independent verification that he has met the Security Council Resolutions in full, then we entirely agree that there can be no relief whatsoever from the sanctions that have been imposed.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, having broken bread with Gerry Adams, could you person-to-person, man-to-man, recommend that he speak with Gerry Adams himself?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    That is a decision for the Prime. Minister to make in the context of the peace process. I said on St. Patrick’s Day when I spoke then and I will say again that we are where are today because of the risks that John Major has been willing to take for peace and they have been considerable risks to himself, to his party, to his government because he knows that this matter must be resolved and I applaud that.

    The details of the decision-making must be made by the participants and that is a decision for him to make.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, with all due respect, your nuclear policy is filled with inconsistencies. You want to stop Russia from building a nuclear reactor in Iran; you want to ease sanctions against Pakistan which we believe is developing nuclear weapons; you want Egypt to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty along with other states in the area and you never try to persuade Israel, which does have a nuclear arsenal, to sign the treaty. Can you explain?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    First of all, the United States does not want Russia to give the capacity to Iran because we don’t want that to be the beginning of their increased capacity to develop nuclear fuel and technology for other purposes and given their conduct, I think that is the right policy and I don’t have any problem with it.

    With regard to Pakistan, the simple question there is whether the policy we have pursued in the last few years is achieving its objectives and whether we will be a stronger force for peace and reconciliation and ultimately for the defanging in terms of weapons of mass destruction in the area if we change our policy or if we stay with it. I think we should seriously review the policy. If you look at the number of people in those countries in South Asia, the potential they represent for the future and the powder keg on which they sit because of their problems, the United States it seems to me has an obligation to do the very best we can to bring about the best result and the most peaceful result and that is all we are doing.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct but about producing weapons]

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We don’t support that. We want everybody to be a member of the Non-Proliferation regime; we want everybody to do that and that is why I said what I did to President Mubarak of Egypt. Our position is that we want the largest number of people possible to participate in the Non-Proliferation regime and to go forward with its requirements and we want to keep as many states non-nuclear as possible and we are doing our best to reduce the nuclear threat by reducing the number of nuclear weapons that we have in agreement with the Russians and the states of the former Soviet Union.

    I think that our policy is consistent if you look at what the objective is; the objective is to reduce the threat of nuclear war to the world in the future and to reduce the threat of other weapons of mass destruction. There still is no more significant obligation I have to future generations and that is the common thread running through all these policies.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton):

    Given that the Tories [indistinct] ideologically and given that we understand that Tony Blair of Labour may be coming here soon I wonder if I could ask you how important you think your personal relations are for the relations between our two countries?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    First of all, I think that in foreign policy the differences are not easily discernible by party. We have, as you heard today, a broad overlap and indeed in our country the differences among us here in America as Americans in foreign policy don’t tend to break down along party lines. For example, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader supported the position I took on debt relief for Mexico which was opposed by a number of members of their party and a number of members of mine so I think that at the end of the Cold War in this country and I sense throughout Europe perhaps there are forces arguing for a kind of inward-looking approach, a little bit more if not more isolationist, a disengaged approach and there are others who believe we must still continue to broaden the frontiers of relationships, to expand trade in order to support democracy and prosperity. I am in that latter group, Prime Minister Major is in that latter group. Last year, at the G7 meeting, we were the two strongest proponents of expanding opportunities for economic integration of the countries there so I just don’t believe that there is a necessary partisan breakdown to our common objectives in the world community.

    Secondly, I think we have got a good personal relationship and I feel very comfortable about where it is; I think it is honest and open and it endures occasional disagreements but the agreements are far more numerous and over the long run should be the shaping factors of our relationship.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The fact of the matter is that we know one another well enough and the relationship is good enough to have those disagreements and it doesn’t affect the broad swathe of agreement that exists between the two countries. I was fascinated to see that you referred to differences between parties, not within parties, and I think that is a great advance [Laughter]. I am delighted you put it that way!

    Let me just make a broader point really about the Anglo-American relationship.

    At almost any time, it would be astonishing if there wasn’t some measure of difference on an issue between two sovereign governments whether they happen to be Conservative or Labour in the United Kingdom, Democrat or Republican in the United States but against that, I think you have to look at the huge range of things in which the instinctive outlook between the United Kingdom Government and the United States Government is exactly the same.

    If you run down most of the great issues of the moment, relationship with Russia, relationship with the Middle East, relationship on terrorism, relationship with Iran, relationship with Iraq, present policy on Bosnia, you won’t find a scintilla of difference between the British Government and the United States Government. If you look at the two nations that were foremost in propounding a free trade agreement – the GATT Agreement – and taking that forward, you will find the same relationship between the British and American governments.

    As for looking forward, I spoke a few moments ago of two areas where we have actually been looking forward today together at what we might actually do in the future and as for whether the relationship is good enough, perhaps I can just give you a practical example.

    If you were to spend a weekend, Adam, on one of our nuclear submarines, you would find a Trident missile on it. I am not sure you could travel on anyone else’s submarine and find a Trident missile on it and I hope very soon in the future that you will be able to see Tomahawk Cruise missiles in the United Kingdom armoury and I am not sure anybody else will have those. They are practical illustrations of the extent of the closeness of the defence, security and other relationships between the United Kingdom and the United States and the fact of the matter is it is sufficiently close – and has been sufficiently close for a large number of years – to enable the President and I to have the occasional disagreement if we want without any harm coming of it.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to go back to the issue of Russia. You said that you do not want the Russians to go forward with their plans to sell nuclear plant to Iran. What, if anything, did you talk about in terms of putting some real pressure on them? Is there anything you can do at this point to stop it from going forward and if they do go forward, will this put a damper on the Western relationship with Russia?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We are continuing to have negotiations and discussions with them about it and I think that is all I can really say at this time because we are in the midst of our conversations.

    I thought Helen was going to ask me the question which I thought you asked me the last time which is are we trying to discourage Russia from selling to Iran the technology we are trying to finance in North Korea? The difference is that when I became President I found a full blown nuclear programme in North Korea which I am trying to take down and I don’t want to leave some future President of the United States and the people of Britain with a problem in Iran. If they have to try to take it down, I am going to do the best I can to deal with it.

    QUESTION:

    A lot of Americans are still questioning whether you can really rely on Russia in any way?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Let’s don’t jump the gun here. We are having these serious discussions, we are working it through. We have a lot of interests in a democratic and a reformist Russia and the Prime Minister and I talked about it at some length today and I think that they have done better economically than either the Prime Minister or I thought that they would a couple of years ago in terms of pursuing the path of reform. They have continued to honour their constitution and their electoral system and obligations to democracy and we are going to have differences from time to time but I wouldn’t assume we can’t work this one out; we are going to keep working hard on it.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, the President mentioned your ideas on the Bretton Woods institutions and the UN. How much have you worked that up in detail and what would it actually involve?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is developing rather than been developed. We agreed last year that we needed to look at some of the overlap there was in the Bretton Woods institutions and see how we could look at bringing the United Nations a little more up-to-date.

    If I could just give you a couple of illustrations, if you mean have we yet got a detailed worked-out position between the United Kingdom and the United States, the answer is no, we haven’t. We have both been looking separately, as we agreed we would do at the G7 summit last year, at the sort of ideas we might bring forward for discussion with partners at Halifax later on this year and the sort of the things that we are looking at – by “we” I now mean the United Kingdom – in terms of the financial institutions, you will be of the idea we have had in the past of selling some IMF gold to help some of the poorer nations – that is still on the agenda as far as we are concerned.

    Looking at perhaps a greater degree of rationalisation of some of the activities of the IMF, OECD and the World Bank is an area we are looking at.

    We would like to look at the way in which poverty is dealt with through the UN; there seem to us to be a number of overlapping agencies, a certain amount of duplication, which could credibly be looked at. In terms of trade, we would like to see what can be done to bed down the World Trade Organisation satisfactorily. In terms of environment, I would suggest that there are some areas of overlap as well – in the UN Environment Programme and the Commission for Sustainable Development, there seem to be areas of overlap.

    They are just specimen samples of the sort of things we are looking at. I emphasise we are in the early stages of that examination. We haven’t reached any conclusions but I think those are matters we must examine.

    Other things I would like to see us examine at the summit would be to look more comprehensively at crime, drugs and money-laundering; we had a G7 task force on money-laundering some time ago, that has been successful, I think we should re-visit that given the nature of the problem and given the problem that exists internationally with crime and drugs and I think we would like to look a little more carefully at what might be done in terms of conflict prevention. Those are just broad headlines of some of the areas we are looking at; we shared them in general outline today; we will come to them in detail at the summit.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you very much.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 April 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Malaysia

    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Malaysian authorities about trade relations between the United Kingdom and Malaysia.

    The Prime Minister: I welcome Dr. Mahathir’s positive remarks, during his recent visit to Britain, that Malaysia wants to continue building the strongest possible ties with Britain, and is putting behind her the two countries’ recent trade problems. This was a constructive initiative. Britain has close and long-standing links with Malaysia. We look forward to working with Malaysia to develop these to their full potential in the future.

     

    Deregulation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss during his visit to Washington, the United States’ experience of deregulation and the lessons learnt by the administration which can be applied to the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister: I am always interested to hear new ideas to take forward the Government’s deregulation initiative.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Washington – 3 April 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep interview following his meeting with Senator Dole in Washington on Monday 3rd April 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, did you gather from the Republicans whether they intend to lift the arms embargo now against the Bosnian Muslims?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say I think that debate will come in May, probably not before May, and heaven alone knows what the outcome of that will be. I took the opportunity this morning when seeing the Majority and Minority leader of running through a whole range of topics. I was particularly pleased to thank Senator Dole for his activities over the Uruguay Round where we were very pleased to get a settlement and he played a very material part in that. We looked at Bosnia, Russia, NATO expansion and a number of related problems like that. I don’t know what the outcome will be on lifting the arms embargo, I think the British government’s position on that is very clear.

    QUESTION:

    But you have not been able to persuade Senator Dole to hold off on that one?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is a matter for Senator Dole at a later stage. I understand the very strong emotions that exist about that matter. We have a lot of troops on the ground in Bosnia and we don’t ourselves believe that that is the right way to proceed. But no doubt the House will debate that later in the year.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you why you feel you cannot help Mrs Ingram to save her son from the electric chair?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set out the position. I replied to Mrs Ingram’s letter. I gave it very long and careful thought before replying to it. Clearly I understand fully the very deep distress that she must feel. She has written to me again, I have replied today and I think my reply will be given to her very shortly.

    QUESTION:

    Are there no grounds for you to intervene?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is anything further that we are in a position to do.

    QUESTION:

    What sort of practical help are you expecting from the US Administration on pressuring Sinn Fein into decommissioning of arms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is no doubt that the American Administration are keen to see these talks continue and keen to see the decommissioning of arms, but I don’t wish to go further than that.

    QUESTION:

    Once this row over Ireland is finished, Prime Minister …

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that matter is behind us. We had a disagreement about that, I think it is well known we had a disagreement about that. In the best [indistinct] circles that sort of thing happens from time to time, but I think that is now behind us.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Warren Christopher – 3 April 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Warren Christopher in Washington on Monday 3rd April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just say I am delighted to have had the opportunity of talking to the Secretary this morning. We have been able to touch on a wide range of issues where there is very substantial agreement between the British and the United States Administrations. We have looked at the present situation in Bosnia and how that may turn out in the future, we have looked at Russia, Iraq, a number of NATO questions and some bilateral issues as well. We will take a couple of questions in a few moments. I will not traipse through all the detail of what we have discussed except to say I think it was an extremely worthwhile discussion and I am delighted that the Secretary was able to join me this morning.

    MR CHRISTOPHER:

    Thank you very much, Mr Prime Minister. I am honoured and pleased to be here this morning for breakfast on this gorgeous spring morning, and the presence of those wonderful trees. We did have a good discussion over about an hour. I think it shows the high degree of congruence on our policy on some of the most difficult issues we are facing. We are very good colleagues and friends on these issues and I think the Prime Minister and I were able to exhibit that, but also to wrestle with some of the difficult on-going questions we have over the next several weeks and months relating to NATO and Bosnia and so forth.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, the special relationship – defunct, could be better, better than ever – which one of these best describes it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have never referred to it as a special relationship. There is a relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of shared interests, we have had that relationship of shared interests for very many years. We tend to look at the same problems in the same way. Occasionally there are spats, as there are in the best of families, but they are very rare.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] no longer being a relationship, is it justified in your view?

    MR CHRISTOPHER:

    There will always be a relationship, as the Prime Minister said, based upon so many things – a common history, common language, common interests, issues such as NATO – and I see that relationship being a very strong one in which we look to our British colleagues, and they look to us, on so many issues for advice and counsel. So I think it is very strong relationship and it is in very excellent shape.

    QUESTION:

    What does the Administration think about a lifting of the arms embargo?

    MR CHRISTOPHER:

    We certainly are strongly opposed to a unilateral lifting of the arms embargo. That issue may arise again. I sense that there is a better understanding now in the Congress of the dangers of unilaterally lifting the arms embargo, both for the effect it would have on other UN resolutions but also on the effect if might have for involving the United States more deeply in that conflict.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There was a time a year or so ago, maybe 18 months ago, when there was some difference in Bosnian policy between the United States Administration and the British administration, that has substantially come together and I agree entirely with what the Secretary has just said.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Secretary, would you say that the US Administration was closer to Gerry Adams or John Major on Northern Ireland?

    MR CHRISTOPHER:

    John Major is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and a long-standing relationship. We have certainly had the relationship with him on a great range of issues where we have so much in common. As the Prime Minister has said about that particular issue, the issue that arose a few weeks ago is now ancient history and we are pulling together, as I say, on the broad range of issues we have here this morning. So we are really delighted and honoured to have the Prime Minister in our country as the leader of one of our most important allies, and that is a much different relationship than any other.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am less concerned about Mr Adams’s opinion than I am about Sinn Fein deciding they will come and talk about decommissioning. The important thing now is that Sinn Fein honour what they have been implying for some time, that they decide that they mean what they say, that they come along, that they engage in constructive discussion that leads to the decommissioning of arms and taking them out of Northern Ireland politics. That is what concerns me and that is what I wish to hear from Mr Adams.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on New Labour – 3 April 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on New Labour, made in an interview on 3 April 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Tony Blair rather than him could deliver a nation at ease with itself].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe that is the case. When one thinks of what one needs to have a nation at ease with itself, I think there are several very important ingredients. The most important ingredient of all of course and the one that many people are worried about is security, security in every aspect of the sense and the first thing one needs for security is a secure currency, low inflation. We have set out right from the outset to try and do something absolutely fundamental in terms of the British economy and that is to break the inflationary psychology. I remember ever since I was a boy the relative boom and bust cycles, the economy did well, the economy did badly, did well, did badly. What we are trying to do is to break that. That is a very difficult thing to do. The recession was longer than we thought, harder than we thought, but I think most dispassionate observers believe we are closer to breaking the inflationary psychology today perhaps than we have ever been.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was forced into attacking Labour].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is rather curious to see what they are doing in fact. What in practice they are doing is dismantling the whole of their past at least in their oratory, at least in their leader’s oratory, and trying to strike out, saying: “All the things we believed in in the past, we no longer believe in!”. Labour’s soul has gone. The things they cared about, the things they fought for, they have apparently gone; they have apparently moved over to the values that people have accepted for the last four elections and I think will accept at the fifth election, essentially Tory values and I think what they have done is realised that the old message that the Labour Party had is no longer a message that people wish to hear.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that had now made them electable].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I think the real point at issue is whether what they say is what they can deliver. If you have to choose between a real Conservative Party and a quasi-Conservative Party where the Labour Party says one thing but the Party’s heart and soul is elsewhere, then I believe people will go for the real thing.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Conservative Central Council – 1 April 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Conservative Central Council Meeting at the International Convention Centre at Birmingham, on Saturday 1st April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We’ve had a great Conference here in Birmingham. Our first, but not our last.

    This Central Council has often in the past been a platform for a change in our fortunes.

    Three years ago – it was from a Central Council – we set out and won a general election many believed we would lose.

    I believed we would win – and so we did – in three weeks, with a recession at our throat.

    Now we have two years, with a strong recovery at our side.

    So let me tell you something loud and clear right at the start. I believe we will win again.

    I have no time for faint hearts.

    The next election is there to be won. By the party with the verve and tenacity to reach out to people and catch their imagination.

    We did it before. We can do it again.

    And I expect every single person in our Party to want it, and work for it, as hard as I will.

    To those who say look at the polls, I simply say this: it is possible to look at the polls too much and your principles too little.

    I have a way in life. I learned it as a boy. I offer it to you. Stick to your principles. Stick to your guns. However rough the going may be, just keep going.

    So today I’m going to tell you how we’re going to win back the faith and trust of the British people.

    Let me take you back to five years ago when I became Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let me tell you what was on my mind. I looked back on 50 years of a boom and bust economy. Good years. Followed by bad years. If the good years coincided with elections, you won. If they didn’t, you lost.

    Over generations, we slipped back economically as a country. I grew up in that period. Even from the back streets of Brixton I found it depressing. And I was determined to try and change it. To help our economy to grow and to beat other countries.

    For the truth is that without growth every year, no Government will be able to improve education and health, increase pensions, provide care in the community, better law and order or anything else.

    But I want those improvements.

    So I need long-term growth. A stronger, more prosperous country. That’s why we’ve had to do things that have disappointed our supporters and seemed against our natural instincts.

    You know what I mean. We are the Party of low taxes. But we had to put them up. Now the economy is growing again and we can look forward to bringing them down.

    We are the Party of law and order. But crime continued to rise. So we put through controversial measures to tackle it. Now recorded crime is beginning to fall – the largest fall for 40 years.

    We’re the Party of personal well-being. Yet, on our watch, unemployment rose to nearly 3 million. But we kept our nerve. We pursued the right policies. Now it has fallen 600,000; down 1,000 a day. It is now among the lowest of the large nations of Western Europe. It is falling fastest, too. And I believe it will fall far further.

    So times are changing. And so will the political climate. The country has been through a difficult period. No doubt we’ve made mistakes. But we have learned from them. We have weathered the storm. And now we are poised to return to our natural agenda from a position of strength. Unrestrained by the iron bands of recession, the country can look forward with confidence.

    – the economy grew last year by over 4 per cent;

    – we expect it to grow by at least 3 per cent this year and next;

    – prices are rising at the slowest rate most people can remember;

    – exports have risen at record levels as we win markets across the world;

    – manufacturing expanding again – and so, too, employment in it.

    In all we’ve done we have been playing for the long-term. My target is growth every year; higher living standards every year; manufacturing growing every year; public services improving every year – and to do that without fear of inflation.

    No one has achieved that before. It’s meant saying ‘no’ to short-term options. ‘No’ to fashionable ideas. ‘Wait’ for the tax cuts we all wish to see.

    It did hurt. I said it would. I told people in 1989 – “if it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working.” But now it is working. And the reality is – if we stick to present policies we will improve life for everyone and double living standards within 25 years.

    The prize at stake is that, after the next election, the Government in office will inherit the soundest, most secure economy of any Government since the 1st World War. It will be able to address its social and political agenda more freely than any predecessor.

    Mr Chairman, I want that Government to be a Conservative Government.

    It is a massive achievement. We can be proud of it. So let’s use every day and every hour and every minute of the next two years to tell people of the great future that lies ahead and once again earn their trust and support.

    That’s the fight ahead of us. I relish it. It is a fight we can win.

    Our work is long-term – but already it’s changing our country for the better.

    And while we’ve been doing this, where have Labour been? In the lobbies – in the TV studios – in the streets – against us, that’s where they’ve been.

    Now they say they’ve changed. They say they’re changing everything they’ve always stood for. They claim to be entering our world.

    If they want to fight us on that ground, I look forward to it. They’ve been squatting here a few months. We’ve been living here for centuries.

    Ours isn’t an off-the peg philosophy. We’re not trying out someone else’s ideas for size. We’re not putting on blue in this year’s spring fashion show because “red’s out”.

    Our policies flow from core convictions, gut instincts, beliefs and ideals we’ve all grown up with.

    In these debates we are in copperbottomed, mainstream Conservative home territory. And no slick, sloganising, snake-oil salesmen from the Labour Party are going to take it from us.

    Labour today is just one more synthetic PR campaign. The workers are out. The minders are in.

    Their ideas are picked up from opinion polls, techniques derived from advertisements, language copied from us.

    Nothing is original. All is derivative.

    And if there’s one thing we’ve learned lately, it is that trading in derivatives is a risky business.

    Let me illustrate Labour’s technique for you.

    Last week the Leader of the Labour Party said Conservatives don’t understand duty, nor do they act upon it.

    Frankly, for that comment, he deserved to be laughed at from Lands End to John O’ Groats.

    Duty, responsibility, self-responsibility are the core of the Conservative instinct.

    Perhaps, Mr Blair simply intended a casual political kick. After all, it’s the sort of scatter-gun, all purpose abuse that is the daily language of new Labour.

    The technique is old and effective – throw mud until it sticks.

    Well, I know this Tory Party.

    I grew up in it.

    I am of it – from the grass roots upwards.

    And I know we’re none of the things Labour claim and we never have been. Duty and responsibility are instinctive to Conservatives as a Party, and as people.

    Ask the huge number of Conservatives who run Voluntary Service, Meals on Wheels, Citizen’s Advice Bureaux, Red Cross shops, and a hundred thousand charities up and down the land.

    I will tell you who attack duty and responsibility. Those politicians who claim the state is responsible for everything and everyone.

    Those who believe the welfare state should cope with everything.

    Those who promise that whatever the problem is. the Government can cure it.

    And we know who those politicians are. And they’re not in the Conservative Party. They’re in the Labour Party.

    Mr Chairman, we Conservatives have not changed our fundamental values for 250 years. Our ambitions and hopes have moved forward. But our values have been constant.

    In 1979 we promised to get Britain off its knees and on its feet. To end hyperinflation, curb old style Union power, turn round loss-making nationalised industry, and begin to spread choke and ownership to everyone.

    We’ve done that. Now we must turn to the future.

    Some months ago I set in hand a massive exercise to build the next phase of Conservatism – a new agenda, not just for the next Election, but clear through into the next century.

    This work is in its early stages – but today let me restate some of the core values we stand for and lift the veil on some of the ideas we’re developing.

    First, that most fundamental of Tory instincts, the pursuit of prosperity and security for all.

    Prosperity begets security. But prosperity doesn’t drop as the gentle rain from heaven. It has to be earned.

    Our industry has to be competitive. Britain must mean business. Britain must believe, in business. Britain must reward hard work. And must welcome the healthy profits of success.

    I’ll tell you when we’ll know for certain that prosperity will grow in this country. When our leading companies are world beaters. When our exports are booming. And when Britain is a magnet for foreign investment. That’s when we’ll create new jobs and lasting wealth.

    Mr Chairman, I have news for you – that time is here. That time is now. Billion after billion of dollars, yen and marks poured into Britain by foreign investors. They’re not here for our weather. They’re here for our prospects.

    Toyota, Nissan, NEC, Samsung. Record inward investment. Attracted here not by sound bites, but by sound Tory policy.

    Mr Chairman, we’re here today in Birmingham, the heart of one of the great manufacturing regions of Europe. And I have good news for Birmingham. After decades of decline manufacturing is growing and expanding.

    Despite automation the number of jobs in manufacturing is growing as well.

    And something is happening today that I didn’t expect to see for years: Britain now has a current account surplus with Japan – and we’re selling them our cars, our televisions, our motorcycles and our cameras. Made in Britain. Sold in Japan.

    This is Britain as she was – making and selling goods of high quality to all parts of the world.

    And this is Britain as I want to see her.

    Our prosperity must be built on things we make as well as services we sell.

    We’re looking at how to improve services to industry. To see what more Government can do to help.

    Many of the things we sell will be made by small businesses. That is where the future jobs will come.

    So we’re looking at still more ways to encourage them.

    We’ll be making deeper cuts in regulation and red tape. And let no-one, anywhere, be in any doubt – we will resist pointless regulation in Europe.

    And that includes the Social Chapter of which Labour are so fond.

    There’s a world of new technology out there. We have to provide industry with the modern skills they need.

    Britain must be a world leader in the new industries of media and information technology. So we will soon announce new measures to ensure it is.

    Britain must have the best qualified workforce in Europe.

    By the year 2000 we are aiming for over 80 per cent of our young people to have 5 or more good GCSEs or their vocational equivalent.

    We want to make sure all our school leavers are good enough to get a job.

    We’ve made giant strides forward. Creating 41 new universities; bringing in tough new vocational qualifications to enhance skills and test the mind. We’ve set a long-term target of one child in 3 going into higher education. And, let me tell you today – we’ve hit it five years early.

    These changes will accelerate. They are the building blocks for prosperity. The humdrum, everyday policies that improve lives and build the security we seek.

    Mr Chairman, the second thing we stand for is a nation of opportunity.

    For the right to own and the power to choose.

    Ownership is the very core of Conservatism. We believe in a capital-owning democracy. Where people can do what they wish with more of the money they earn.

    We believe in a fair reward for hard work. And we’re going to carry those principles into the future.

    So let me tell you again today. We’re committed to continue cutting rates of income tax in the future – moving towards our long-term target of 20% as the standard rate. For us, the tax debate is how soon we can bring it down and by how much. Labour’s debate is about how much they should put it up.

    We Conservatives believe in thrift, with individuals encouraged to build up tax-free savings. That’s why we introduced tax-free TESSAs and PEPs. We want people to have the security and independence savings provide. And we want to do more to encourage them.

    I also hold dear the belief that people should be able to hand on security to their children, cascading wealth down the generations. Over the last decade we’ve doubled the threshold at which inheritance tax becomes payable. It’s been difficult to go further in the last two or three difficult years. But I’m committed to doing so as soon as we can afford it.

    I also want to provide more opportunity for people to help others. The talents and experience of pensioners are too often wasted at the moment. They should be used in ways that fulfil their lives and benefit the rest of us. It is high time that retirement was recognised as the opening up of new opportunity, not a drawing down of blinds.

    All of that also means building on that explosion of giving, and working and helping others that has marked the last twenty years. Do you know that 17 million people volunteer every year – 2 million more than 15 years ago? And the Labour Party insult them by prattling on about loss of community. Comments like that belittle those who give so much.

    But while they’ve been prattling, we’ve been planning.

    So in June we will announce a comprehensive programme for voluntary service. It will cover all ages. It will be the most far-reaching imitative ever. Not a centralised plan to compete with private effort – but one that will reach into the wellsprings of goodwill that are found in literally every street of our land.

    Nowhere is Conservative belief in opportunity and choice more important than in housing. The Right to Buy is not a chapter of history. It’s not yesterday; it’s today. 70,000 families a year are still becoming homeowners as a result of Right to Buy and similar schemes.

    But there’s always more to do. Too many people are still trapped in grey, impersonal housing estates. Shortly we’ll bring forward a Housing White Paper. It will show how we could offer a choice of decent housing for everybody – and extend home ownership still wider.

    On education, while I know this year’s settlement has been tight, I can assure you – education will be at the top of our priorities as the economy delivers further growth.

    I also want to see more Grant-maintained schools to underpin choice and opportunity – and this week Gillian Shephard announced we’re giving them new powers to borrow and build for the future.

    And, because opportunities start with the young, we will shortly also publish plans to fulfil our pledge to expand nursery education for all children aged four.

    These are practical steps to give people more control over their lives. Taken together, they amount to a massive and irreversible shift of power and choice from the state to individuals and their families.

    Mr Chairman, the third pillar of our beliefs is that we stand foursquare for decent commonsense values. That’s true across the board – but I want to concentrate today on the fight against crime.

    When I became Prime Minister I took the view that it was time to understand a little less and condemn a little more. By that I meant that we shouldn’t explain away why people commit crime. We should just say bluntly: “it’s wrong”.

    Michael Howard has been acting on this – toughening penalties, bringing in new ways to prevent crime, phasing out soft options like cautioning young offenders time and time again. I believe Michael deserves enormous credit for what he has achieved in the teeth of constant abuse every inch of the way.

    He deserves 100 per cent support from all of us – and he’ll certainly get it from me.

    Too much of that abuse has come from Labour. They know they have to talk about law and order. But talk is all they do. They talk tough and act soft. Time and again they have voted against our plans to prevent and punish crime.

    Mr Chairman, we stand for commonsense justice – delivered fairly but quickly. And frankly, I believe the administration of justice is often too slow, too complex and too costly. I’d like to change that.

    So we’ve asked a leading judge to look into court procedures in civil cases, to bring faster and less costly judgments.

    And we are also out to streamline criminal justice. That must include a change to the rules on disclosure. These place a very heavy burden on the prosecution and police, going beyond the balance that justice demands. Informants and witnesses can be put at risk. The police believe these rules should be changed – and we agree with them.

    I expect some of you know victims or witnesses who have felt shabbily treated on a visit to court – as if they came last, rather than first, in the order of priorities. So we’ll soon be sending out new standards for better treatment of victims and witnesses. It’s a terrifying experience to be a victim. And often frightening to be a witness as well. We should remember and respect those fears.

    In the war on crime we’re applying new technology. We’re introducing more and more closed-circuit television to help cut crime and delinquency in our city centres. Some people didn’t like it. But it’s been immensely successful. So we’ll now be working with business on comprehensive crime prevention measures in even more places.

    This month we’re giving police wider powers to take DNA samples to help catch criminals. We will build up a national DNA database – making life safer for the citizen and whole lot tougher for the criminal. It will be the first national DNA database in the world. And we’re moving at the same time towards a national fingerprint register too. This is using technology to catch crime. And in the battle against crime, it is right to use all the science at our disposal.

    Thousands of people want to help our police. So we are having a national call for volunteers to increase the number of special constables up towards 30,000. And those constables will be out on the beat.

    Mr Chairman, we are an open-hearted country to people in difficulties – and I hope we always will be. But we can’t afford to accept abuse of our asylum laws. And so this autumn there will be a new Bill to tighten the asylum rules.

    We are reforming the probation service – so that we’re able to bring in people of quality from all backgrounds.

    And we will be experimenting with tougher new penalties for young offenders. It is right to have an alternative to prison. But I don’t believe it should be a gentle Saturday afternoon stroll.

    And, yes, we must sort out problems that have arisen in some prisons. I was as angry as anyone to read of prison officers shopping for inmates. I am not against decent treatment. But I believe privileges should be earned – and stopped if behaviour is bad, So I can tell you today that from this summer a regime of sanctions as well as reward will begin to be seen in our prisons.

    We are ready to look at anything which will deter crime and make it more likely that we will catch criminals. That’s why I can also confirm that we will soon publish a Green Paper to canvass public views on possible ways to bring in identity cards. And I hope in the debate that will follow you will make your voice heard.

    Fourthly, Mr Chairman, just as we stand against crime, we stand for first class public services. Back in 1990 I set out to sweep away those old patronising couldn’t-care-less attitudes. Our people deserve better. I want Britain’s public services to be the best in the world.

    So we began a 10-year programme of change – performance standards, league tables, market testing, independent inspection, improved compensation, and proper attention to customer needs. An information revolution for the public. We’ve moved from a world in which bureaucracy wouldn’t even give you their names to one where the results of every school, every railway line, every police force, every council are published for all to see. It’s a programme that’s proving steadily more and more successful – and it’s growing day by day. We call it the Citizen’s Charter.

    Of course, services like health and education will always be provided in the public sector. But others need not. That’s why Britain led the world in denationalisation – moving lacklustre and loss-making public companies into the private sector.

    Privatisation has been a huge success. Perhaps that’s why it’s under such vicious attack from Labour. Prices have come down dramatically – phone bills, gas bills, electricity bills, they’re down again this week.

    Privatisation has worked wonders. And I don’t have a shred of doubt privatising British Rail will be a success. Nationalised British Rail has not delivered the service it should. It can and will be done better in the private sector.

    Labour talk of reversing the public sector changes we’ve made. They would throw hospitals, railways and schools back into turmoil.

    Dogma might win – but patients, passengers and pupils would all lose out.

    Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Mr Chairman, we stand for the nation – our United Kingdom. We are proud of its institutions, proud of its place in the world.

    We will do everything necessary to defend our nation. In the 1980s Conservative Governments stood firm against communism. The result? The cold war was won – among the greatest triumphs for freedom, free enterprise, for our ideals in all our history. 400 million people free of repression. It wasn’t Labour – old, new, borrowed or blue – that led the way down that long hard road. It was we, the Conservatives. And never let it be forgotten.

    Today Britain is a leader right across the world – at the UN, in the G7, in NATO and in Europe.

    We treasure our links with the Commonwealth – so strengthened by the return of South Africa. It’s wonderful to have her back – in the Commonwealth – where she belongs.

    Our influence in Asia and the Middle East is creating new opportunities for exports and trade.

    And we for our part – 50 years on from the end of the war – will never forget those unique and lasting ties we have to the United States.

    Britain has a world identity. But we also have a special place in moulding the future of Europe. You know well where I stand. In this dangerous and changing world this great alliance serves our vital national interest.

    Yes, we benefit from Europe – but we also want to shape Europe. A Europe of nation states, built on co-operation, not intervention. A Conservative Government will never let Britain lose her national identity, her eccentricities, her uniqueness that we love. A nation state is what we are – and a nation state is what we shall remain.

    And there’s another side to our nation. We love our traditions of sport, the arts, and our national heritage. But always in the past it was difficult for those causes to compete with the great claims on national resources like health, education and defence. That’s why I set up the national lottery – to provide more resources for these causes than they’ve ever had before. A little flutter. A chance to dream. And real benefit for the country.

    Mr Chairman, I care about the integrity of our country at home as passionately as I do for its interest abroad. So that is why we’ll work to expose the fantastic folly of Labour’s plans for a tax-raising Parliament in Scotland. Those ill thought out ideas would take us towards the break-up of the most successful partnership in our history.

    It would destroy jobs in Scotland, saddle all Scots with a Tartan Tax and damage our influence abroad. The nation we believe in is a United Kingdom – not half or a third or a quarter of one. We will continue to fight Labour on this, tooth and nail.

    Mr Chairman, there is another part of our United Kingdom that is particularly close to my heart. I will continue day and night to do what I judge to be right to bring long-term peace to the brave people of Northern Ireland.

    Mr Chairman, we have much to be proud of, we Conservatives. But we have much more still to achieve. Today I have shared with you just a few of the new ideas on which we are working. The work of government moves on – and, as it does, we are shaping the next phase of Conservatism.

    We have to remind people that the essential things we stand for are, as always, the things they believe in too.

    The pillars of Conservatism are as strong as ever:

    – to deliver a strong economy and competitive industry, built on a genuine belief in private enterprise – that is the basis for future prosperity and security;

    – to create a society where individual initiative, hard work, and thrift are recognised and rewarded. An open door society in which ever more people enjoy the right to own and the power to choose;

    – to maintain order and decency, respect for self and respect for others, reinforced by lasting respect for the law;

    – to ensure that Britain has the best quality public services – the best schools, the best hospitals – that British skill can create;

    – and finally, to ensure that Britain has a Government that will keep our country secure abroad and safe at home, a Government which puts the long-term interest of our nation first.

    Mr Chairman, those are the things we stand for. The things we are working for. They are why Britain needs a Conservative Government to lead this country into the next millennium.

    Yes, we have a tough fight on our hands. But I have never run away from any fight in my life. And this is one more battle that, with your help, I intend to win.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 31 March 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Advertising

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for spending by that body or agency on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d), and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising, for each year since 1979-80 or for each year since 1979-80 or for each of its existence if it has been created since then; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96.

    The Prime Minister: The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Mr. Rupert Pennant-Rea

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister whether he approved the terms of the letter sent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Mr. Rupert Pennant-Rea in answer to his resignation letter; and what is the Government’s policy on standards of behaviour of senior public officials.

    The Prime Minister: My approval was neither sought nor required to the letter my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent to Mr. Rupert Pennant-Rea. I have now read it and agree with it. The Government’s policy is to uphold the highest standard in public life.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 30 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 March.

    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.

     

    No. 10 Downing Street (Disabled Access)

    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made at No. 10 Downing Street to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access, with special reference to the fitting of a permanent ramp for wheelchairs; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: No. 10 Downing Street already has a number of facilities for the disabled: portable ramps are available to give access to the house; a passenger lift which can accommodate wheelchairs and gives access to all floors; and a stair climber to enable wheelchairs to be taken up the main stairs. An additional lift to enable disabled people to move more easily to the state rooms and a disabled toilet will be installed shortly.

     

    Commonwealth Youth Ministers Meeting

    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Prime Minister which Minister will be representing Her Majesty’s Government at the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Youth Ministers in Trinidad; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom delegation to this meeting will be led by the British High Commissioner of Trinidad and Tobago, assisted by a social development adviser from the Overseas Development Agency and the vice-chairman of the British Youth Council.

     

    Bank of England

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what recent assessment he has made of whether confidential matters can safely be discussed between the Chancellor and officials of the Bank of England;

    (2) what account he will take in considering candidates for appointment to the deputy governorship of the Bank of England of reports concerning their private lives;

    (3) if the usual steps were taken to check Mr. Pennant-Rea’s background before he was appointed Deputy Governor of the Bank of England.

    The Prime Minister: I will take all relevant considerations into account in deciding who should be appointed Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. Mr. Pennant-Rea was subject to security vetting before he took up his appointment. I am satisfied that sensitive matters can be discussed in confidence between the Chancellor and bank officials.

     

    Child Care

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister what are the child care or nursery facilities within his Department; and what is the breakdown in their use (a) by grade and (b) by gender.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

     

    Pay Review Bodies

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister what were the total costs of operating the pay review bodies for (a) teachers, (b) doctors and dentists, (c) armed forces, (d) nurses and midwives, etc. and (e) senior salaries, including details for each of consultancy costs, members’ expenses and site visits in the latest year for which figures are available.

    The Prime Minister: The pay review bodies are serviced by the Office of Manpower Economics whose total operating costs, including some functions and activities not related to review bodies, amounted to £1.4 million in 1993 94, the latest period for which information is available. This figure includes staff salaries and costs, office infrastructure and support costs, but excludes rent and rates, members’ travel and incidental expenses and consultancy.

    Members and chairmen of pay review bodies are unpaid. Consultancy costs for review bodies vary significantly from year to year. Details of consultancy costs and members’ incidental expenses are set out in the table.

    £ pounds

    |Members’ travel

    Review body |Consultancy costs|and expenses

    —————————————————————————-

    School Teachers

    Review Body (STRB) |249,096 |5,693

    Doctors and Dentists

    Review Body (DDRB) |164,541 |7,366

    Nurses and Allied

    Professions Review

    Body (NAPRB) |- |5,781

    Armed Forces Pay

    Review Body (AFPRB) |284,015 |23,774

    Senior Salaries

    Review Body (SSRB) |192,992 |4,485

     

    Departmental Report

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the cost of producing and circulating the annual report of the Cabinet Office for each of the last 10 years in real terms; (2) what was the cost of producing and circulating the last annual report of the Cabinet Office; what was the circulation list; how many copies were produced; how many copies were sold; and at what price.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 29 March at column 651.

  • PMQT – 30 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 March.

    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.

    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Prime Minister agree that the greatest asset of the national health service is the loyalty and dedication of its staff? He will know that many NHS workers are greatly angered by the fact that they will receive pay increases of between 1 per cent. and 3 per cent. this year. It is within the Prime Minister’s power to lift the morale of 1 million people by agreeing that no one will be paid less than 3 per cent. this year. He has the power to do that. Why does he lack the commitment?

    The Prime Minister: Of course the greatest asset of the NHS is the skills of the doctors, surgeons, dentists and nurses who work in it. There is no doubt about that. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the 3 per cent. figure, and it may be that many people get precisely that sum. He may also recall that the last Labour Government cut nurses’ pay by exactly 3 per cent.

    Mr. Renton: Did my right hon. Friend note that the question asked by many non-political speakers at yesterday’s “Britain in the World” conference was how could we expect other countries to think much of us if we evidently think so little of ourselves? While some modesty and humility is always welcome, does my right hon. Friend think that it would help British exports, and thus British jobs and morale, if politicians from all parties and the media spent rather more time praising evident British successes and less time indulging in destructive recrimination and criticism?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend may have spoken for millions of people in the country when he called for a more balanced presentation of the many virtues which exist in this country in industry and in our traditional aspects and institutions. I have no doubt that many people would wish to support them.

    Mr. Skinner: Stop whingeing.

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) regards saying anything good about this country as whingeing. That says rather a lot about the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Blair: If, under the new nurses’ pay scheme, substantial numbers of nurses get less than the 3 per cent. which other nurses get for effectively the same job, will he accept that such a system is unfair? Will he undertake to change it?

    The Prime Minister: I cannot give that undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman. As I said a moment ago, nobody wishes to be unfair to nurses or anybody else in the health service–certainly no one in the Government. We gave nurses a review body of their own so that their interests could be looked at dispassionately, and we have scrupulously honoured the recommendations of that review body in full.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister will know that the review body has pointed out that it was acting on the prompting of the Government.

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

    Mr. Blair: That is what the review body says in its own report. Is the Prime Minister prepared to accept a situation where substantial numbers of nurses who are doing the same job are paid substantially less than 3 per cent?

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman still does not understand the point. I shall make it to him again so that it is clearer. We have accepted the recommendations of the review body in full this year, as we have done every year in the past. The right hon. Gentleman must look at the actual offers which are being made to nurses as a result of local pay determination. The majority of those are in the order of 3 per cent. or more, and I am confident that that trend will continue. We set up the review body–which was welcomed by nurses–and it has made recommendations which I think we should stick to.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. Either he believes– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: Either the Prime Minister believes that the nurses deserve 3 per cent., in which case he should deliver it, or he is content for many of them to be paid less than that, in which case he should have the honesty to say so. May I put it to him this way: if some nurses turn out just to get a 1.5 per cent. pay increase, when they already face mortgage and tax rises and the rest, is not the danger not just of a sense of injustice among nurses, but of yet another damaging blow to the morale of the national health service?

    The Prime Minister: It is the right hon. Gentleman who is seeking to have it both ways. He and every hon. Member of this House agreed that it was right for there to be an independent pay review body for the nurses. That is what there is and we have accepted the recommendations that it has made and provided increased funding to the national health service–some £1.3 billion–so that pay awards of that sort can be met. That is the right way to deal with it; it is the way that we are dealing with it; and it is scrupulously fair. I notice that it was this Government who provided an independent pay review body for the nurses and not previous Governments.

    Mr. Harris: Has my right hon. Friend found time to read the report in The Daily Telegraph , which shows once again how Spanish fishermen are plundering stocks, especially by catching undersized fish? Taking into account the events off Canada and the report by his special advisers, under Sir Crispin Tickell, will my right hon. Friend take a personal lead in the matter and try to bring some sanity back into this whole question of conserving fish stocks and ensuring that our fishermen have a future to look forward to?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly understand and share Canada’s desire to preserve fish stocks. That is a perfectly legitimate concern and it is entirely right of Canada to seek to do so. The real issues here are allocation of the quota and enforcement–two separate, but related, issues. The allocation must clearly be resolved by negotiation. Good progress is being made and I see no reason why an accommodation cannot be struck.

    Enforcement is clearly the key and we need tough rules that are enforced. Again, I understand that we are close to a deal. I believe that Canada is right to take a tough line on enforcement, but I hope that in taking such a line she does not undermine her own good case, which exists at present. There have been discussions about trade sanctions. We have made it clear that we would strongly oppose the imposition of such sanctions.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister think that the director of a company that traded illegally with a foreign power is a fit and proper person to be in his Cabinet?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury dealt with that matter very forcefully and to great acclaim from most of the House just a few moments ago. He has made his position absolutely clear. No evidence has been found to counter that, either by The Independent or anyone else.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend recall Lord Tebbit’s definition of loyalty and commitment to a country as the side that one supports in, for example, a cricket match? Will the Prime Minister join me and this House, therefore, in cheering enthusiastically for Canada in its forthcoming fixture against Spain?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that I am right to say to my hon. Friend that, in 1868 or 1874, Canada beat England at cricket in Canada. As I said a moment or so ago, I think that Canada is right to take a tough line on enforcement. She has our support in doing that and we shall not support the imposition of trade sanctions. This is an area where a satisfactory accommodation between the sides can be achieved, and should be achieved speedily.

     

    Q3. Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Beith: Has the Prime Minister seen from today’s Audit Commission figures that spending on education in secondary schools in Northumberland is lower than in any other county? As it is not possible to explain that by how the council allocates its resources because it results from the Government’s spending formula applied in a scattered rural area and the capping limit on council spending, will the Prime Minister stop pretending that there is no problem and try to do something about it?

    The Prime Minister: I think that many interesting things are thrown out by the Audit Commission report; not all of them would be very well received by the right hon. Gentleman when he actually has the opportunity to study them. On the specific matter of education, I have made the point repeatedly to the House in the past and I reiterate it today: there is a question of priorities within the education budget. I do not believe that it is right for education authorities to look, as their first priority for making savings, at the classroom teacher. That is the last place to look, not the first.

     

    Q4. Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 March.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s reassertion yesterday of his absolute determination to continue to maintain Britain’s role as a national power in international affairs? Will he give a commitment that, at the intergovernmental conference next year, he will veto any attempt to include the pillars of foreign and home affairs in the European Union in the supranational Rome treaty?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me advance notice that he planned to raise that detailed matter. I confirm that, at the IGC, what I wish to see is more effective intergovernmental co-operation between Europe’s nation states to fight cross-border crime and promote joint policies internationally. But I shall make it absolutely clear on that occasion that Europe’s foreign policy and home affairs pillars remain outside the treaty of Rome. The United Kingdom’s right of veto on those matters is important to us. It is at the heart of national sovereignty and I shall protect it at the intergovernmental conference.

     

    Q5. Mr. Dafis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Dafis: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is essential that, at the Berlin climate change conference, the need for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions after the year 2000 is explicitly stated and that we must have a decision to negotiate a reductions protocol to that effect? Does he further agree that, if current strong rumours that the UK and the European Union are prepared to compromise with the Americans and others on that fundamental principle, we shall all stand condemned by future generations?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will attend the Berlin conference and will call on all the developed countries to agree a figure of between 5 and 10 per cent. below 1990 levels for all greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2010. We believe that that represents both a credible and an achievable next step and demonstrates the commitment of the United Kingdom to the framework of the climate change convention. I should say to the House that the United Kingdom is on course to meet current commitments under the convention, and we have been at the forefront of international work over recent years. We were the first country to present our programme up to the year 2000, and my right hon. Friend is now leading the way in calling for agreement on a realistic target up to 2010.

    Mr. Batiste: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in the papers this week that in the middle east seven drugs dealers were executed, but in Leeds a gang of drugs dealers burnt down the house of a black policeman? Is it not time that, in our war against drugs dealers, we treated them as the mass murderers that they are?

    The Prime Minister: I believe everyone in this country shares the distaste for drug dealers to which my hon. Friend refers. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Lord President has been preparing a comprehensive anti-drugs strategy, and the Government have already taken a number of initiatives in line with our European and other international partners. There is no doubt about the danger of that trade, and we will do all that we can, domestically and internationally, to help to stamp it out.

     

    Q6. Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Janner: As we approach the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the Belsen concentration camp by British troops, will the Prime Minister express what I am sure is the wish of us all–that there shall never be such a tragedy again? Will he also consider whether we should not be dealing rather better with Hitler’s heirs in our own country–not least the thugs of Combat 18 and their ilk, who have been sending through the post to constituents of mine, Asians in the city of Leicester and elsewhere, racist, threatening and abusive cards and razor blades? Will he ensure that the police have the resources and the determination to deal with those awful people?

    The Prime Minister: I agree without qualification with the hon. and learned Gentleman about that. Combat 18 is a repellent organisation. The literature that it circulates is utterly disgusting, and there can be no place for its type of politics in the United Kingdom.

    As the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, we have comprehensive anti- discrimination legislation. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced a new imprisonable offence of intentional harassment, which I hope will give the police more powers to deal with serious racial harassment. We are also making the distribution of racially inflammatory material an arrestable offence.

    However, the best reassurance that we can give to victims is the one that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, and that is to help the police to ensure that those people are caught and punished for their crimes.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 29 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Bank of England

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he approved the statement of Government policy set out in paragraph 5 of the Bank of England press release of the text of the Deputy Governor’s speech to the City branch of the Institute of Directors on 13th December 1993.

    The Prime Minister: As stated in the 1995 96 Financial Statement and Budget Report, the role of monetary policy is to deliver low inflation. The Deputy Governor’s speech to the City branch of the Institute of Directors was fully consistent with the Government’s monetary policy.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister whether the appointment of the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England requires or receives (a) Cabinet approval and (b) positive security vetting.

    The Prime Minister: Appointments of Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England are made by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. The posts are subject to security vetting procedures.