The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1991

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to link this to human rights?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    Will this relieve starvation in the short or long term?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    What about from Mr Mugabe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    MR MANDELA:

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MR MANDELA:

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

    QUESTION:

    There are leaders here which dissent from your view?

    MR MANDELA:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MR MANDELA:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MR MANDELA:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MR MANDELA:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MR MANDELA:

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

    QUESTION:

    What about the issue of centralised government and nationalisation?

    MR MANDELA:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    MR MANDELA:

    I would agree with that.

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not chairman of the conference.

    QUESTION:

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

    MR MANDELA:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MR MANDELA:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 October 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lord Lieutenants

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    None.

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The following are currently in office :

    County | Lord Lieutenant Appointed | Vice Lord Lieutenant Appointed

    ———————————————————–

    ENGLAND

    Avon | 1974 | 1980

    Bedfordshire | 1991 | –

    Berkshire | 1989 | 1989

    Buckinghamshire | 1984 | 1984

    Cambridgeshire | 1985 | 1985

    Cheshire | 1990 | 1990

    Cleveland | 1981 | 1981

    Cornwall | 1977 | 1979

    Cumbria | 1983 | 1991

    Derbyshire | 1978 | –

    Devon | 1982 | 1991

    Dorset | 1984 | 1984

    Durham | 1988 | 1990

    East Sussex | 1989 | –

    Essex | 1978 | 1985

    Gloucestershire | 1978 | –

    Greater London | 1986 | 1987

    Greater Manchester | 1987 | 1988

    Hampshire | 1982 | 1988

    Hereford and Worcester | 1977 | 1977

    Hertfordshire | 1986 | –

    Humberside | 1983 | 1983

    Isle of Wight | 1985 | 1987

    Kent | 1982 | 1984

    Lancashire | 1976 | 1977

    Leicestershire | 1989 | 1990

    Lincolnshire | 1975 | 1991

    Merseyside | 1989 | 1989

    Norfolk | 1978 | 1980

    Northamptonshire | 1984 | 1991

    Northumberland | 1984 | 1987

    North Yorkshire | 1987 | 1987

    Nottinghamshire | 1991 | –

    Oxfordshire | 1980 | 1989

    Shrophire | 1975 | 1990

    Somerset | 1978 | 1978

    South Yorkshire | 1985 | 1990

    Staffordshire | 1968 | 1984

    Suffolk | 1978 | 1983

    Surrey | 1986 | 1986

    Tyne and Wear | 1984 | 1987

    Warwickshire | 1990 | 1990

    West Midlands | 1974 | 1990

    West Sussex | 1975 | 1990

    West Yorkshire | 1985 | 1985

    Wiltshire | 1989 | 1989

    WALES

    Clwyd | 1985 | 1986

    Dyfed | 1979 | 1989

    Mid Glamorgan | 1990 | 1990

    South Glamorgan | 1985 | 1990

    West Glamorgan | 1987 | –

    Gwynedd | 1990 | –

    Gwent | 1979 | 1985

    Powys | 1986 | 1986

    NORTHERN IRELAND

    Antrim | 1959 | 1982

    Armagh | 1989 | 1989

    County Borough of Belfast | 1991 | 1991

    Down | 1990 | 1990

    Fermanagh | 1986 | 1987

    Londonderry | 1975 | 1985

    County Borough of Londonderry | 1986 | –

    Tyrone | 1986 | 1987

    SCOTLAND

    Highland Region

    Caithness | 1973 | 1986

    Sutherland | 1972 | –

    Ross and Cromarty | 1988 | –

    Inverness | 1985 | 1986

    Nairn | 1969 | 1988

    Grampian Region

    Moray | 1964 | 1980

    Banff | 1987 | –

    Aberdeen County | 1987 | 1987

    Kincardine | 1977 | 1978

    Tayside Region

    Angus | 1989 | –

    Perth and Kinross | 1971 | 1984

    Fife Region

    Fife | 1987 | 1988

    Lothian Region

    West Lothian | 1985 | –

    Midlothian | 1972 | –

    East Lothian | 1986 | –

    Central Region

    Clackmannan | 1966 | 1974

    Stirling | 1983 | 1984

    Borders Region

    Peebles | 1980 | 1981

    Roxburgh | 1974 | 1975

    Berwick | 1989 | 1989

    Strathclyde Region

    Argyll | 1990 | 1990

    Dumbarton | 1990 | 1990

    Lanark | 1963 | 1964

    Renfrew | 1980 | 1990

    Ayrshire and Arran | 1991 | 1991

    Dumfries and Galloway Region

    Wigtown | 1989 | 1990

    Stewartry | 1989 | 1990

    Dumfries | 1991 | 1988

    Island Areas

    Orkney | 1990 | –

    Shetland | 1982 | 1983

    Western Isles | 1983 | 1984

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

     

    IPPR Report

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    Green Decision-making

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    Civil Servants

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 15 October 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of The House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I have been asked to reply My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare.

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Kinnock rose–

    Hon. Members : Tell the truth.

    Mr. Kinnock rose–

    Mr. Dickens : Lies– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Withdraw that remark.

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

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

    [Interruption.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

     

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Time is getting on.

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

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

    MR MULRONEY:

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    1. MULRONEY:

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

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

    QUESTION [in French]:

    1. MULRONEY [answer also in French]:

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    1. MULRONEY:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (SAME QUESTIONER):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    MR HAWKE:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MR HAWKE:

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

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major do you agree with this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    Do you think the French will shift?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    Will there be a conclusion?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 October 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Citizen’s Charter

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Global Warming

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

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

     

    EC Heads of Government Meeting

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

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

     

    Learning Difficulties

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

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

     

    Citizens Advice Bureaux

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

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

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

     

    Animals Charter

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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