The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1992

  • Mr Major’s Opening Remarks to the UN Security Council – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening remarks to the United Nations Security Council, held in New York on 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The 3046th meeting of the Security Council is now called to order.

    May I turn firstly please to the adoption of the Agenda. The Provisional Agenda for the meeting is before the Council. Unless I hear any objection, I shall consider the Agenda is adopted.

    If there is no objection, the Agenda is adopted.

    The Security Council will now begin its consideration of Item 2 of the Agenda and with the permission of colleagues, I will make a brief introductory statement to our meeting today.

    This is a unique meeting. We are meeting at a time of momentous change. Just a year ago, the Council met the challenge of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the Council did that with great success but today we face new challenges and to set a new course in tackling them it is right, I believe, that we should meet for the first time ever at the level of Heads of State and Government. Today, we must show that the Security Council is working with a common purpose.

    I welcome very much the presence today of so many Heads of State and Government. It is proof of the importance we all attach to the United Nations and of our commitment to the ideals of the United Nations. We come today from all parts of the world. Each of our countries has its own characteristics, its own concerns but we are united in one particular aspect: we are united by a commitment to strengthen the wider community to which we belong, to reinforce collective security and to maintain international peace and security.

    In convening this Extraordinary Meeting this morning, I intended that our discussion could serve four important purposes:

    Firstly, our presence today marks a turning point in the world and at the United Nations. On the international scene, we have witnessed the end of the Cold War; member states of this Organisation have divided and reformed themselves. This presents immense opportunities but it carries with it also new risks. At the United Nations, the term of office of Mr. Perez de Cuellar has come to a close. He has served the international community for many years with outstanding distinction and I am delighted to be able to thank him for that work. We are here not only to wish his successor, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, well but to give him our full backing in carrying out his mandate. A new situation in the world needs new ideas and a new impetus.

    Second, we should today reaffirm our attachment to the principle of collective security and to the resolution of disputes in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. We should send a clear signal that it is through the United Nations and its Security Council that we intend to deal with threats to international peace and security.

    Thirdly today, we should consider anew the means by which collective security is upheld through the United Nations and consider how best to update and to develop them. It is time to review all the instruments at our disposal: preventive action; to avert crises by monitoring and addressing the causes of conflict; peace-making, to restore peace by diplomatic means; peace-keeping, to reduce tensions, to consolidate and underpin efforts to restore peace. These, I believe, are the matters that we should consider in our meeting today and even today as we meet here, peace-keeping operations are under way in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Asia and Europe.

    The need is not likely to decrease in the future. We must consider how we can enhance the United Nations ability to respond effectively and ensure that it has the necessary resources both financial and material to enable it to do so. In all of these, of course, the role of the Secretary-General is vital.

    Fourthly today, we should commit ourselves anew to upholding international peace and security through reinforced measures of arms control. Activity to restrain the accumulation and transfer of arms, to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, that affects all members of the United Nations. Arms control policy has become genuinely global. The role of this Organisation – not just the Security Council but the whole of this Organisation – is an increasingly important one.

    As we meet to consider the specific responsibilities of the Security Council, the wider concerns of the international community even if we shall not discuss all of them today are also in our minds. It is of course true that without economic development and prosperity we cannot hope to achieve lasting peace and stability but it is every bit as true that only when conditions of security and peace are assured can sustained economic development take place; both are needed and only when we have both can resources be directed to where they are so urgently needed, towards the economic and social needs of the world’s population.

    The opening line of our Charter – the Charter of the United Nations – does not talk about states or governments, it talks about people. The world now has the best chance for peace, security and development since the founding of the United Nations, I hope, like the founders of the United Nations themselves, that we can today renew the resolve enshrined in the Charter, the resolve to combine our efforts to accomplish the aims of the Charter in the interests of all the people that we are privileged to represent. That is our role and I wish the Council well in its work today.

    Members of the Council, we have a great deal to do today. In accordance with custom, with your agreement, I shall make my National Statement when all other colleagues have spoken but we may now, I think, commence our debate and I invite the Secretary-General to address us.

  • PMQT – 30th January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th January 1992. John MacGregor deputised for John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    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 has been having important discussions today with President Yeltsin, who is on his first visit abroad as President of an independent Russia. My right hon. Friend will be meeting President Bush this evening after my right hon. Friend’s arrival in New York to chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

    Mr. Jones : I am sorry that I so rattled the Prime Minister with my question at the previous Prime Minister’s Question Time that he has not come to the House today. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies spring budget report shows that Government borrowing is likely to reach £20 billion next year, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have reneged on their promises to balance the books?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman will have to await the Budget statement on matters relating to his question. As is absolutely clear, we have made our spending plans public. They are set out in detail and we have indicated how they are paid for. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear on Tuesday. I note that the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers says :

    “Labour, if elected, would have little scope for increased spending in the early years unless it were willing to increase taxes by more than it has indicated.”

    The country now says, “And how!”

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Does my right hon. Friend agree that too often we lose sight of the fact that the national health service was born as a result of co-operation between three parties? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the founders of the health service would be horrified at the resistance to the reforms so ably carried out by the Government for the benefit of patients throughout the country?

    Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree. It is clear that we have not only substantially increased expenditure on the national health service but that we are the only party proposing credible reforms, the results of which are already showing. I assume that that is why a consultant, who is the nephew of a distinguished former socialist in the House, said yesterday :

    “I do not believe the health service would be safe in Labour’s hands.”

    Mr. Hattersley : When the Prime Minister said on Tuesday that if the Conservatives were re-elected they would not increase VAT, was he giving the House and the country a categorical assurance?

    Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friend made the position absolutely clear on Tuesday.

    Mr. Hattersley : Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister also made the position categorically clear on 6 April, when he said :

    “No honest Government could give a categorical assurance that they would not increase VAT. No Government ever has, and no Government ever will.”

    Was the Prime Minister telling the truth last Tuesday or last April?

    Mr. MacGregor : What my right hon. Friend said on Tuesday is : “There will be no VAT increase we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them.”–[ Official Report, 28 January 1992 ; Vol. 202, c. 808.]

    That is absolutely clear, and it is in clear contrast to the position of the Labour party, which maintains its high spending policies and is all over the place in deciding how to finance them.

    Mr. Hattersley : It is absolutely clear that the Leader of the House has either no authority or insufficient courage to say whether that promise was categorical or whether it was what the country believes it to have been– evidence of a Prime Minister panicked into making a promise that he has no intention of keeping. Is not the truth about Tory policy on VAT revealed in the party’s latest campaign document–that the way to raise taxes is “Wait until they spend the money as that is the right moment to tax them”?

    Mr. MacGregor : I repeat that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position absolutely clear, as we have done on many occasions. It is also clear that in the last two weeks the whole country, as it heard different voices and different noises, has wondered who is speaking for the Labour party. Indeed, on Sunday the right hon. Gentleman was proposing that Labour’s recession package should be introduced after the recession had ended.

    Mr. Dykes : Has my hon. Friend noticed that in recent weeks, as the public have been able to assess our present policies and our future policy offerings, there has been a very sharp and noticeable increase in our opinion poll ratings? That is not just a coincidence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opinion poll improvement in the past few weeks reflects not only our excellent policy range but the fact that the election is getting closer and the best is yet to come?

    Mr. MacGregor : I agree that as we unfold our positive policies over the next few weeks, and as the electorate sees more and more of what Labour is offering–or not offering–what my hon. Friend has suggested will come about.

     

    Q2. Mr. McAvoy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. McAvoy : The Cabinet is split from top to bottom over the Prime Minister’s policy of using Common Market grants for tax cuts instead of for the provision of help to deprived areas. Will the Leader of the House confirm the report in yesterday’s Financial Times that the rules for allocating this money were changed in 1988 with the approval of the Government, and will he give an immediate assurance that the new rules will be obeyed? Why should Britain’s areas of highest unemployment suffer because of Tory party internal divisions?

    Mr. MacGregor : There are no internal Tory party divisions. The position on the particular issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that for some years now we have pursued the same policy that the money has been, in the formula applied, additional and is reflected in higher public spending plans, and that it is for the Commissioner to honour the pledge that we have had for years past.

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes : Has my right hon. Friend noticed in the past few days the widespread support for our plans to seek better-quality services from councils? Has he noticed that much advice has been given to us on how that should be done? Some of the advice is bizarre. Will he confirm that he will reject advice to use as a role model councils such as Lambeth, Liverpool, Hackney and Southwark–in other words, councils which have high borrowing, rotten services and high community charges and which have lost control of their housing stock, and all of which are run by the Labour party?

    Mr. MacGregor : It is clear that nearly all of the 10 worst councils in terms of rent collection and houses left empty are Labour controlled. It is also clear that many of the high-spending authorities are Labour. The country will draw its own conclusion that under a Labour Administration there are great inefficiencies, high spending and high taxation.

     

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Kilfoyle : Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and given the obvious confusion among Ministers about the implications of their electoral promises for the future level of value added tax, can the Leader of the House conjure up the actual figure for value added tax when his Government came to office in June 1979, and the level now as they go out of office?

    Mr. MacGregor : We have, of course, in addition undertaken a considerable change– [Hon. Members :– “Answer.”] I intend to answer. We have undertaken a considerable change from direct to indirect taxes, which is absolutely right because it enables many more people to spend their money as they wish. That is the policy which we have pursued consistently, with the result that direct taxation has come down substantially. However, we did not have the very high rates on many goods such as television sets, which are described as luxury goods but are essentials for many people–rates which we inherited and which I understand that the Labour party would consider again.

     

    May Day

    Q4. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for the future of the May day bank holiday.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The Government have no plans to change the present public holiday arrangements, although we shall continue to keep the situation under review.

    Mr. Field : Why do we not throw off this hangover of socialism and instead celebrate a free enterprise day, a British export day or, better still, a low taxation day? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who think that high taxation is the answer to recession are about to try to convince the electorate that suffocation is a form of first aid?

    Mr. MacGregor : On the question about May day being a bank holiday, I can give my hon. Friend some comfort. Although I know that my hon. Friend is interested in switching it to the autumn, we have no plans to do that because there are different views about it. I think that he will agree nevertheless that on May day, instead of celebrating socialism, we now celebrate the end of socialism.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing : Will the Lord President of the Council, as a fellow Scot, tell me whether he has had the opportunity to study in depth the implications of the ICM opinion poll?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Sadly, the question is about May day.

     

    Engagements

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Bellingham : Will the Leader of the House find time today to plan a journey from south Norfolk to north-west Norfolk to look at the local health services? He is welcome to bring with him Sir Roy Griffiths. He will see that a number of general practitioner practices have become fundholders, that a local NHS trust has already reduced waiting lists by 1,200 in the last year, and that a district authority is about to merge with a neighbour to give itself more clout. Are not those the results of Tory policies working for the benefit of patients?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right. The same is happening in west Norfolk, as well as throughout the country. As a result of the reforms, already in a very short period we see improved services, shortened waiting lists, and so on. Interestingly, we are also seeing increasing support for the reforms from the medical profession itself and increasing take-up of them.

    Mr. Redmond : Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister the request that he restore to Back Benchers–

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not know what the hilarity is about, but please carry on.

    Mr. Redmond : –the right to examine Government legislation and that he stop the appalling use of the guillotine which stifles it?

    Mr. MacGregor : We shall be discussing that matter in a short while. I shall make plain our position on today’s business.

     

    Q6. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is evidence of the growing success of the Government’s education reforms that this year 28,800 people have enrolled for teacher training courses–20 per cent. more than last year and the best figure for 15 years? Is that not in stark contrast with the cynical disregard for educational standards shown by those Labour Members who filibustered on the parents charter Bill last night?

    Mr. MacGregor : Later today we shall be able to debate further the great improvement in standards that we are achieving as a result of our reforms. My hon. Friend draws attention to one of them. I am delighted with the considerable increase in the number coming forward for teacher training. It reflects the fact that we have considerably improved the salary prospects and career prospects of teachers as a result of all the steps that we have taken in recent years.

     

    Q7. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Will the Leader of the House confirm that although few people in Britain would expect the Prime Minister to match President Yeltsin bottle for bottle, they will find it odd that the Government insist on increasing or doubling Britain’s nuclear fire power when both the Russians and the Americans see good reasons for cutting theirs?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue and I want to make the position clear. We welcome the proposals to reduce the super-power arsenals. They are wonderful news for all of us. We must hope that the current plans are implemented. But let us be perfectly clear about the scale of what is involved. The present arsenal of the former Soviet republics is 27,000 warheads, and it will take them many years to implement the current proposals. Even at the end of that process, they will have thousands of nuclear weapons. Our deterrent involves one boat on patrol at all times with no more than 128 warheads. So the scale is very different. I believe that the whole country thinks that with the uncertainties in the world–in the middle east and elsewhere, as well as in the Soviet Union– and looking ahead to the next 10 years, it is essential that we maintain our minimum credible nuclear deterrent.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with President Yeltsin – 30 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with President Boris Yeltsin, given in London on Thursday 30th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good Afternoon everyone. President Yeltsin and I have had four hours of talks this morning and over lunch, some of it in very restricted session and some of it with other Ministers.

    As you may recall, my first contact with President Yeltsin was at the height of the August coup and some of you may remember that at that time I came out into Downing Street to report that conversation.

    Britain at that time was the first country to denounce the coup. I wanted on that day in August to draw the world’s attention to the courage of President Yeltsin and his followers in the White House. They fought for their lives and for the future of democracy in their country.

    It is therefore a particular pleasure to welcome President Yeltsin here today as President of Russia. Today we have made new progress in building a new relationship between our two countries.

    We have always had shared interests, now we have shared values as well, the shared values of democracy, a free economy and a commitment to peace and to stability.

    I was glad to have the opportunity today to welcome the arms control initiative taken by President Bush and by President Yeltsin. I expressed our very strong support for further moves towards deterrence at lower levels. I also assured the President of our intention to maintain only a minimum nuclear strategic force, threatening no-one.

    Today, we have been able to give a practical and important expression to the new relationship between our two countries. I will mention ten points to illustrate that.

    We have signed this morning a joint declaration. This commits our two countries to a relationship of friendship as partners in the international community. It commits us to the peaceful settlement of disputes, to the control of weapons of mass destruction and to non-proliferation. We propose to turn this declaration into a formal treaty on the relations between our two countries in the near future. It will be the first such treaty of such substance between Britain and the Soviet Union since the mid-1770s.

    Secondly, Britain is determined to help democracy in Russia. It has already done a great deal to provide assistance to Russia and the new Commonwealth and it proposes to do more. Amongst some of the measures taken already was Britain’s share of Community aid at 300 million; a Know-How Fund already committed to over 50 projects; the provision of animal feed grain, particularly to St Petersburg; medical assistance; and a financial training assistance programme under which there will be places for 1,000 Russians with British financial insurance and legal firms.

    Thirdly, Britain was the first country to propose Russian membership of the International Monetary Fund and to propose an April deadline for that membership. We will continue to press for that, we believe it is urgent and important that that matter is concluded.

    Fourthly, we took the lead in negotiating a debt deferral agreement for Russia and the other republics. We have also taken the lead in the Group of Seven to urge further assistance for Russia, possibly in the form of a rouble stabilisation fund.

    Fifthly, and in the context of an IMF programme, I can announce today our readiness to make available this year a total of 280 million in medium term export credit cover and investment insurance for Russia and the other republics.

    Sixthly, Britain will propose in the European Community an improved trade and cooperation agreement with Russia. We propose to make this one of the priorities of our Presidency in the second half of this year.

    Seventh, we have agreed to cooperate on handling surplus Soviet nuclear weapons and safeguarding nuclear materials and we will be sending a technical mission to Moscow to assess the immediate needs at first hand.

    Eighthly, we have agreed to cooperate in other defence fields, including the transformation required to ensure the restructuring, control and financing of armed forces in a democratic society. I have offered to second a small number of MOD officials to the Russian Ministry of Defence.

    Ninthly, the President and I discussed the problems of expertise in the field of weapons of mass destruction and the President told me of the steps he is taking against the risks of proliferation. We will have further discussion about how best we can help the Russian republic and the other republics to use the talents of their scientists to the cause of peaceful development.

    And the tenth point is this. President Yeltsin and I have agreed to establish a secure telephone link between his office and mine. I do not see this as a crisis hotline, I do see it as a line upon which we can reflect the growing number of shared issues and interests that we will wish to discuss.

    Let me also mention, I have invited President Yeltsin to pay an official visit to Britain later this year and I am delighted to say he has accepted.

    This afternoon we both fly to New York for a meeting of the Security Council which will demonstrate Russia’s role as a lynchpin in the Council’s role as peace-keeper and peace-maker. The keynote of the meeting that we have had today, the President and I and our colleagues in parallel meetings, has been an aspect of friendship and of partnership. I am confident that that is also going to be a hallmark of tomorrow’s meeting of the Security Council.

    I very much look forward to my further discussions with President Yeltsin and I will now invite him to say a few words to you.

    PRESIDENT YELTSIN:

    Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen:

    First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the Prime Minister for his very good idea which he put across to me over the telephone recently to pay a visit to this country. Indeed, we established our first contact on August 19 1990 and it was really a matter of great pride for me to hear him address me at this most difficult time for Russia. He expressed his political support and he expressed his personal support, which will not be forgotten in our developing and new relationship between Russia and the United Kingdom, between the new Russia and Britain.

    I don’t really have anything to add to the enumeration of the ten points which were just described by the Prime Minister with regard to our discussions in private and in plenary. I can only add that Russia has shaken off the communist shackles and has finally embarked upon the civilised road of development, the road of democracy, human rights, civilised market economy and various forms of ownership including private ownership and we shall not abandon that road.

    The economic reform which has just started in Russia was five years overdue and indeed, we are going through hard times right now. We shall overcome all the difficulties that we are facing though the difficulties we are facing with the liberalisation of prices have fallen mostly on the poorer population. We are sure that by the end of this year we shall achieve some stabilisation of our economy, levelling of prices and improved living conditions for our people.

    Despite the seemingly economic cares and the forecasts by the economists that our economy would shrink by 15%, last year it had sunk only by 2.2%. Russia is a great country and it will dampen all small storms and smaller earthquakes. The only thing that can impede our progress would be general unrest and general unrest would happen if our reforms fair. Should the reforms fail, we shall face a new leadership which will reverse the progress that we have so far achieved and Russia will fall into the abyss which had been fixed for 74 years. Therefore, not only Russia and the people of Russia but the entire world community as well as the United Kingdom are interested in the success of our reforms and we are grateful to the Prime Minister for his understanding on that score.

    Tomorrow, the Security Council of the United Nations is to meet and for the first time ever the Security Council will meet at the level of Heads of State or Government; that was the initiative and the proposal’ by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr. Major, and he will be chairing that meeting on the last day of the chairmanship of the United Kingdom of the Security Council. I can only promise that we shall always match the support that: will be given to us to promote our economic reform.

    I have accepted the invitation which the Prime Minister has kindly extended to me to pay an official visit to this country in the first half of this year and in my turn, I extended that invitation to him to pay an official visit to Russia in the second half of this year and I am delighted to report that he has accepted that invitation.

    I would like to thank the mass media for turning out here in such great numbers. Thank you so much for coming. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for the substantive discussions that we have held and for the positive and interesting attitude that he has displayed. We believe – and I think we share this – that our relations will in future be based on frankness and honesty because this will make it possible for us not to conceal from each other either things positive or negative.

    I am saying goodbye to the Prime Minister and Mrs. Major. We shall be seeing each tomorrow in New York and I thank you for your attention.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION:

    Do you believe that the world is as secure a place now with Boris Yeltsin and the Commonwealth of Independent States as it was with Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes. I have no doubts about President Yeltsin’s commitment to carry on the work that was going on before in terms of disarmament and especially the disarmament between the two super-states. I think the President’s conviction is clear. He has reiterated that to me this morning and I accept that.

    PRESIDENT YELTSIN:

    I would like to add a few words. President Bush on 28 January and myself on 29 January, made statements about global cuts and the destruction of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. Mr. Major and I have discussed these matters today during our talks and Mr. Major has put forward his position which I respect and we shall not blow up this matter out of proportion in the mass media.

    QUESTION:

    Regarding the IMF application for the Russian Federation. How feasible is that? How difficult is it? How feasible is rouble stabilisation?

    And for Mr. Yeltsin, if possible: he spoke teasingly last night of talking to you about redirecting his missiles. Have you now agreed to point Russian missiles away from the United Kingdom?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me deal firstly with the question of the IMF and rouble stabilisation:

    I believe that it is very important that Russia soon becomes a full member of the IMF. We have stated that as our conviction for some time; we have urged our colleagues in the IMF to move in that direction; and the Chancellor has particularly urged that a conclusion for that be reached speedily and not later than April so it is necessary and we will press it and I am sure that we will be successful.

    As far as rouble stabilisation is concerned, again, Norman Lamont pressed that matter particularly at the G7 meeting of Finance Ministers last week. There are many difficulties to overcome but it is our conviction in the United Kingdom that this is both necessary and desirable and that in due course the international community will come to it. We shall certainly continue to press the case for that in the weeks and months ahead.

    PRESIDENT YELTSIN:

    On the first question, I would like to add a few words as well: with the Prime Minister’s active support, I am sure that Russia will become a full member of the International Monetary Fund not later than this April.

    On your second question, we must indeed change our military doctrine. In the past, the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe in general were regarded as our potential enemies. That doctrine has to be changed and the missiles retargeted and the missiles that remain after the cuts and destruction will be used only as a deterrent.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in New York – 30 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview on Thursday 30th January 1992, on his arrival at his New York hotel.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good evening! Thank you for being here this evening.

    We have tomorrow an extremely unusual event. I think tomorrow will be the first time in well over forty years that the Security Council has met for an Extraordinary Meeting at Heads of Government level. I believe it is justified for a number of reasons:

    It has been an extraordinarily turbulent time in the world over the last year or so; there are a vast number of matters we need to discuss: disarmament, non-proliferation; it is an excellent opportunity to introduce President Yeltsin as a member of the Permanent Five and, of course, for the new Secretary-General, Boutros Ghali, to attend his first meeting of the Security Council but above all at our meeting tomorrow, apart from the exchanges of views that we will have on a vast range of matters, I hope we will be able to remit from the Security Council to the Secretary-General a remit for him to examine the role of the United Nations and in particular its special role of peace-keeping and peace-making. There does seem to me to be an opportunity for the United Nations to play a much higher profile, pro-active role in the future than it has done in recent years and I very much hope that will be one of the outcomes of tomorrow’s meeting.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, will the meeting be able to offer Mr. Yeltsin anything more than just kind words?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think the meeting tomorrow is about Mr. Yeltsin’s immediate difficulties; I think that is more a matter for the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank rather than the Security Council tomorrow which will be more concerned with peace and disarmament matters. The British believe that it will be necessary, as soon as the Russians become members of the International Monetary Fund, to offer quite significant help but I don’t think that is a particular matter for discussion at the meeting tomorrow.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how firm will the United Nations be able to be on the issue of human rights and democracy not only in the Soviet but in China, for example?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That, again, is not the purpose of the meeting tomorrow. I am sure it is a matter that will be raised in some of the speeches tomorrow; it will also be a matter that will be raised in the substantial amount of bilateral contact there will be; it is certainly a matter that I intend to raise in some of my bilateral discussions but I do not think, again, that that is the primary matter that we have in front of us tomorrow.

    The primary matter we have in front of us tomorrow is effectively the role of the United Nations, how it can become more pro-active, what it can actually as a peace-maker, as a broker between dissentient nations; that is the matter that I think principally colleagues on the Security Council will wish to discuss tomorrow.

    QUESTION:

    The Germans feel left out – rightfully so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Germans are not at this moment a member of the Security Council but they are a very important nation. I had the opportunity before coming here today to have a couple of conversations with Chancellor Kohl; I am aware of his views; I have no doubt that Chancellor Kohl has spoken to other people.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, on Security Council matters, we are waiting for a follow-up Resolution on Libya to show the international community’s response to terrorism at Lockerbie. Can you tell us when we can expect some sanctions proposed by Britain, France and America?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the follow-up Resolution is a little way away yet; it certainly won’t come tomorrow. My guess – and it can only be a guess – is that it is likely to come towards the end of February but there is a great deal of work to be done before it is ready but I do believe there will be a follow-up Resolution and that it is necessary.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I know you have mentioned it briefly, but some people are saying tomorrow is really a large photo-opportunity. What do you think will essentially make it more than that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe that that is the case. As I said a moment ago, this is the first occasion in fact for 47 years that the Heads of Government of the Security Council have been tempted here to an Extraordinary Meeting of this sort. They have come here because there are matters of real substance that it is necessary for us to discuss. There has been a revolution in the attitude and possibilities of what the United Nations can do over recent years and I will give you several reasons for that:

    – the status of the United Nations improved dramatically because of the key role it played during the Gulf dispute;
    – the activities of Mr. Picot, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative, in terms of dealing with the hostages was another reason to build up the status of the United Nations;
    – in many parts of the world they are acting in one form or another in a peace-making role.

    It is not all that long ago that the United Nations role was largely confined to sending along observers. Now that is no longer the case; there is a great deal more they can do. We have a new Secretary-General, we have a Permanent Five that are working in harmony in a way we haven’t previously seen in the past. For many years, the Permanent Five was a forum in which dissentient views were expressed; now, views of assent are increasingly expressed and that opens an opportunity that simply has not been there before to look at the United Nations and see how rapidly we can move towards the instincts and aspirations its founders had so many years ago. Tomorrow is another small step in that direction.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it might turn out to be a celebration of a new world order which could yet turn out to be fragile?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Everyone, I think, is pleased at the way in which matters developed over the past year in the former Soviet Union, the collapse of communism in a regime that has been discredited in most of the outside world for generations but it survived in strength and was a threat to us in the West – that has gone. That, I think, is a cause for quiet satisfaction.

    I think President Bush was entirely right to say the Cold War is over and the Cold War has been won by the West but it isn’t an occasion tomorrow for drinking glasses of champagne and patting ourselves on the back. We have to look forward. We have a different situation now; no longer that grisly stability of confrontation between East and West – it isn’t the same now. We do have a series of different problems arising, different problems in the Middle East, different problems in Europe – one only has to look at Yugoslavia – and other potential problems and trouble-spots in different parts of the world. We have to come to grips with that and decide how we deal with it. There is no other forum other than the United Nations than can pick up these problems and act as an international broker in times of difficulties. I believe, therefore, that anything we can do to improve cooperation within the United Nations and the status and authority of the United Nations is something well worth doing and I believe that will be the view of everyone who attends tomorrow.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on the Visit of President Yeltsin – 30 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on the visit of President Yeltsin, issued on Thursday 30th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    President Yeltsin and I have had over four hours of talks, some of it in very restricted session, some with other Ministers.

    My first contact with President Yeltsin was at the height of the August coup. Some of you may remember that I came out into Downing Street to report that conversation. Britain was the first country to denounce the coup. I wanted, on that day in August, to draw the world’s attention to the courage of President Yeltsin and his followers in the White House. They fought for their lives and for the future of democracy in their country.

    It is a particular pleasure to welcome President Yeltsin today as President of Russia. Today we have made progress in building a new relationship between our two countries. We have always had shared interests. Now we have shared values as well. The shared values of democracy, a free economy and a commitment to peace and stability.

    I was glad to have the opportunity today to welcome the arms control initiative taken by President Bush and President Yeltsin. I expressed our strong support for further moves towards deterrence at much lower levels, based on the most stable systems. I assured him of our intention to maintain only a minimum strategic deterrent force, threatening no one.

    We have given a practical and important expression today to our new relationship. I will mention ten points.

    1. We have signed a joint declaration this morning. This commits our two countries to a relationship of friendship as partners in the international community. It commits us to the peaceful settlement of disputes; to the control of weapons of mass destruction and to non-proliferation. We propose to turn this Declaration into a formal Treaty on the relations between our two countries in the near future.

    2. Britain is determined to help democracy in Russia. It has already done a great deal to provide assistance to Russia and the new Commonwealth.

    – Britain’s share of EC aid is £300 million;
    – Know-how fund of £50 million already committed to over 50 projects (including improvement of bread distribution in Moscow);
    – £20 million feed grain package to St. Petersburg;
    – Medical assistance of £2 million;
    – Financial sector training initiative: there will be places for 1,000 Russians with British financial, insurance and legal firms.

    3. Britain was the first country to propose Russian membership of the IMF and to propose an April deadline for that membership. We will press for that.

    4. We took the lead in negotiating a debt deferral agreement for Russia and the other republics. We have also taken a lead in the Group of 7 to urge further assistance for Russia, possibly in the form of a rouble stabilisation fund.

    5. In the context of an IMF programme, I can announce today our readiness to make available in 1992 a total of £280 million in medium term export credit cover and investment insurance for Russia and the other Republics.

    6. Britain will propose in the EC an improved trade and cooperation agreement with Russia. We will make this one of the priorities of our Presidency.

    7. We have agreed to cooperate on handling surplus Soviet nuclear weapons and safeguarding nuclear materials and we will be sending a technical mission to Moscow to assess the immediate needs at first hand.

    8. We have agreed to cooperate in other defence fields including the transformation required to ensure the restructuring, control and financing of armed forces in a democratic society. I have offered to second a small number of MOD officials to the Russian Ministry of Defence.

    9. The President and I discussed the problem of expertise in the field of weapons of mass destruction and the President told me of the steps he is taking against the risks of proliferation. We will have further discussion about how best we can help the Russian Republic and other Republics to use the talents of their scientists in the cause of peaceful development.

    10. President Yeltsin and I have agreed to establish a secure telephone link between his office and mine. I do not see this as a crisis hot line. It will reflect the growing number of shared issues and interests that we will wish to discuss.

    I have invited President Yeltsin to pay an official visit to Britain later this year. I am delighted to say that he has accepted.

    This afternoon we both fly to New York for a meeting of the Security Council which will demonstrate Russia’s role as a linchpin in the Council’s role as peacekeeper and peacemaker. The keynote of our meeting today has been friendship and partnership. I am sure that will also be a hallmark of tomorrow’s meeting of the Security Council.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Declaration with the Russian Federation – 30 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Joint Declaration with the Russian Federation, issued on 30th January 1992.

    JOINT DECLARATION BY THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION:

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Russian Federation are opening a new page in their relations. They have left behind the period of the Cold War, do not threaten each other’s national interests and are committed to universal democratic principles and aspirations.

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Russian Federation, further referred to as the Parties, guided by a spirit of mutual respect and in the interests of developing wide-ranging and friendly relations between their two countries and also their broad cooperation in the international arena, have agreed upon the following:

    I

    1. The Parties recognise that, with the dissolution of the USSR, a group of independent and sovereign states has joined the world community. At the same time, the Russian Federation continues to be responsible in full for the international rights and obligations previously assumed by the Soviet Union.

    2. The Parties declare that the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation are friendly States and partners within the international community. Relations between them will be founded on a shared commitment to the principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and also upon respect for the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations, the Helsinki Final Act, the Paris Charter for a New Europe and other documents of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

    3. Between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation there are no ideological barriers, and no political impediments to the growth of friendship and mutual understanding between the British and Russian peoples.

    II

    4. The Parties recognise their special responsibility as Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council for the maintenance of the peace and security of all States and to cooperate in the fulfilment of the principles of justice, democracy and common human values. They will do all in their power to enhance the effectiveness of the United Nations Organisation.

    5. The Parties welcome the transition from confrontation to cooperation in Europe and the world, and the resultant strengthening of the security of all States. They declare that their armed forces are designated purely for defensive purposes. The United Kingdom and the Russian Federation are committed to the principle that the command, control and management of armed forces should be organised within the framework of democratic institutions and the rule of law. The Parties attach the highest importance to the maintenance of international stability and security during this time of deep transformation in Europe and in the former Soviet Union. They declare their commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes by political means and through dialogue.

    6. The Parties intend to undertake all steps necessary to ensure that nuclear weapons, and all other weapons of mass destruction, are held at all times under secure control. They believe that any proliferation of weapons of mass destruction carries serious risks for international peace and security.

    7. The Parties reaffirm their strong commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention of 1972, and their readiness to conclude an agreement on a comprehensive ban on chemical weapons. They will remain in active consultation on these questions, and will also examine the potential for British/Russian cooperation in the destruction and safe disposal of surplus weapons in Russia. The United Kingdom and the Russian Federation will take steps to prevent the transfer to other countries of technology and expert knowledge which could contribute to the development of nuclear armaments and of other types of weapon of mass destruction.

    8. The United Kingdom and the Russian Federation will work together to consolidate and carry forward agreements for the reduction of forces and armaments. They look to the very early ratification and implementation of the CFE Treaty, as well as of the START Agreement and of other measures to reduce nuclear weapons.

    III

    9. The Parties will organise regular exchanges of Ministerial visits. They will encourage inter-Parliamentary cooperation and contacts between legislative and executive bodies in the two countries, and will promote the exchange of experience in the preparation and implementation of legislation. The Parties will give all appropriate assistance to the development of contacts between public and private organisations in the two countries.

    10. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation will hold regular consultations on both bilateral and international questions.

    11. The Parties favour the further development of exchanges between the armed forces and Defence Ministries of the two countries at different levels and will seek to extend the scope and content of these exchanges.

    IV

    12. The Parties share the view that it is the objective of Governments to establish conditions for the development of free enterprise and of the creative abilities of individuals. They are committed to bilateral cooperation in conditions of a free market, economic liberalisation, free trade and sound management.

    The Parties believe that the integration of the Russian Federation in the world economic system is a vital objective. This process will encourage private investment, stimulate trade and assist the more effective utilization of Russia’s large human and natural resources. The United Kingdom will continue to give active support to the Russian Federation’s application for membership at the earliest possible time of the International Monetary Fund, and of other international economic organisations.

    13. The Parties acknowledge that there is potential for a large increase in trade between the two countries. They agree that economic reform, agreement on debt questions and the creation of a clear legal environment for investment will establish conditions for greater involvement by British companies in the Russian Federation.

    14. The Parties consider it especially important that closer relations in different areas should be developed between all the countries of Europe.

    The Russian Federation welcomes the United Kingdom’s longstanding commitment to an outward-looking European Community. The United Kingdom will continue to support the development of effective ties between the European Community and the Russian Federation.

    V

    15. The Parties acknowledge the importance of the early signature of a British/Russian Treaty, designed to consolidate the fundamental principles of future relations between the two countries.

    Signed by:

    JOHN MAJOR, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

    BORIS N YELTSIN, President of the Russian Federation

  • Mr Major’s Statement on President Bush’s Nuclear Policy – 29 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on President Bush’s initiative on strategic nuclear weapons, released on Wednesday 29th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I warmly welcome President Bush’s latest proposals for strategic arms reductions and I congratulated the President earlier this week on this important and imaginative initiative.

    The proposals address the key problems facing us in the strategic arena, namely how to increase global security and stability against the uncertain background of events in the former Soviet Union, and how to reduce the threat of nuclear confrontation.

    I very much hope that the CIS leaders will respond positively to this initiative. For my part I will certainly support it in my talks with President Yeltsin on Thursday, 30 January.

    The offer of further agreed reductions in strategic missiles deals with the problem of the most destabilising heavy missiles. This is a matter that is outstanding from the START negotiations. We believe it should be immensely reassuring to the Commonwealth States.

    The President’s measures are a further step in reversing the process of nuclear competition between the superpowers. The security of the world will be greatly enhanced if President Yeltsin agrees to the elimination of multiple-warhead ICBMs – the most destabilising elements of the old Cold War confrontation. The way will then be open for Russia to move with the United States towards a more stable minimum deterrence increasingly concentrated on submarine forces.

    The United Kingdom has always been committed to maintaining only a minimum nuclear deterrent. We announced last Autumn a cut of about half in the number of British sub-strategic weapons. In our view Trident is the minimum strategic deterrent necessary to guarantee this country’s future security.

    The greatest danger we face is not the existence of deterrent forces, but the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons into the hands of other powers in unstable regions of the world. The President’s very welcome initiative addresses this problem squarely and imaginatively.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Disability – 29 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on the Employers’ Agenda on Disability, held in London on Wednesday 29th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Alistair, thank you very much indeed. When I left Number 10 a few moments ago, one of my Private Secretaries pressed into my hands some notes and he said: “You will find these extremely useful”, and I won’t and I have not read them and I will pass them back.

    Can I pick up some of the things that Alistair Frame said a few moments ago. I think one thing ought to be more readily understood than it is, and that is that disabled people are a resource, not just a difficulty.

    We have a large number of people in this country suffering from one form of disability or another. But within that pool of people suffering that particular disability there is a huge amount of talent, a huge amount of understanding. And quite apart from the personal elements of life, it is a huge waste of a national and economic resource not to use that particular talent.

    And it is perhaps for that reason, amongst others, that I welcome very much what the forum is doing and the lead that it is giving to employers in government I think as well as in local government and in the private sector.

    It is important that we use that resource. Increasingly we have seen over the years how that resource is both necessary in the market and how it is often providing a particular set of skills that may not be so readily available elsewhere.

    So although I congratulate without any reserve the employers who are part of this initiative, I do say to the private sector and the public sector collectively that there is an element of self-interest for all of us in making sure that this enormous resource is properly used in the future.

    I had the privilege, for alas too short a time, of being Minister for the Disabled. There have been very few such Ministers in the history of government, a number on the Labour side, Alf Morrison, his successors, Tony Newton on the Tory side, myself and Nick Scott who is here this evening and has been Minister for some time. And amongst that cross-party alliance there is an extraordinary concurrence of view about what can be done, what has been done and what needs to be done.

    And I believe that the year I spent as Minister for the Disabled was one of the years in politics I have found most rewarding and that I have most enjoyed. One learned a great deal that is not readily apparent.

    I think when one sees at close quarters some of the especial difficulties faced by people who are disabled and one talks to them, one learns something that I think others perhaps do not learn. And that, above all, is what those people who are disabled themselves most want.

    I will tell you firstly what they do not want. They do not want to be patronised, they do not want to be treated as different, they do not want to be felt that special things are being carved out in their direction. What they do want is the opportunity on a level playing field to use their talents and when they use their talents to be fairly rewarded for using their talents and I believe they are absolutely right in each one of those ambitions.

    There is much that has been done, there is a lot still that remains to be done: the 3 percent target across industry and in government is not yet met everywhere. In government, if I may say so, their record is a good deal better than the private sector collectively, indeed it is twice as good as the private sector collectively. But even amongst government departments at the moment only five government departments and agencies meet the 3 percent target, four others are very close to it, others are a little way behind. But we are moving in that direction.

    Some great companies and some small companies in the private sector set an absolutely magnificent example. Many others have not yet followed that example and I for one hope that they will and I hope that they will do so speedily. It is in their interest to do so, I think it is in society’s interest generally that they do so, and I believe it is in the interest of people who are disabled that they do so.

    So I hope that this initiative will spark a further degree of innovation in both the public and the private sector and I would say to its organisers: firstly that the initiative deserves to succeed; and secondly, that insofar as I can, I will give it my fullest backing.

    I hope it achieves, above all, the forum’s prime objective: to help more disabled people get jobs, good jobs, permanent jobs, worthwhile jobs, fulfilling jobs. And once they have got them to have increased access to development and promotion opportunities as well. There is no reason, as we march through the years immediately ahead, where right through the promotion scales of industry and commerce and politics there should not be the same opportunities for people who are disabled as there have traditionally been for people who are not disabled.

    We live in a changing world, a changing country, opportunities differ, industry differs, the structure of the way in which we live our life differs, the capacity to understand and accommodate differences, some of them perhaps disabilities, becomes greater as year succeeds year.

    And I hope the aggregation of those changes will enable more disabled people to fulfil the ambitions that we have for them and perhaps more importantly than that the ambitions that they justifiably have for themselves in the future.

    So I think, if I may, I will end just upon this point. This is a worthwhile initiative, I am grateful to all of you who had a part in framing it and all of you who are here this evening. I hope it is successful, I wish you well in it, I wish your members well in it, and I hope on behalf of all the people who may benefit as a result of it that the success of this is not only outstanding but swift and thank you very much for inviting me this evening.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Sellafield

    Mr. McGrady : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure co-ordination of consideration by the Secretaries of State for Energy, for Environment and for Northern Ireland of the environmental impact of the Sellafield plant on Northern Ireland and the Irish sea.

    The Prime Minister : I am satisfied that suitable mechanisms already exist to achieve the required co-ordination.

     

    Bingham Inquiry

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister on what date he gave his evidence to the Bingham inquiry ; and if he will place a copy of his evidence in the Library.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing to add to the letter I sent the hon. Member on 22 January, a copy of which has been placed in the House Library.

     

    Hong Kong

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the visits made to Hong Kong by Government Ministers since June 1987 giving the date and purpose of the visit in each case.

    The Prime Minister : The following Government Ministers visited Hong Kong since June 1987 on Government business :

    Ministerial Visits to Hong Kong

    1987 (from June) :

    Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in September.

    1988 :

    Sir Geoffrey Howe, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in May ; Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in February and June ; Mr. Chris Patten, Minister for Overseas Development, in September ; Lord Young, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in June ; Mr. Cecil Parkinson, Secretary of State for Energy, in June ; Mr. George Younger, Secretary of State for Defence, in March ; Mr. Archie Hamilton, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in March ; Mr. Ian Stewart, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in January ; Mr. Peter Morrison, Minister of State for Energy, in September ; Mr. Wyn Roberts, Minister of State, Welsh Office, in September ; Mr. John Macgregor, Minister for Agriculture, in September ; Mr. Paul Channon, Secretary of State for Transport, in November ; Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Secretary of State for the Environment, in December ; Mr. Francis Maude, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in September.

    1989 :

    Lord Mackay, Lord Chancellor, in December ; Sir Geoffrey Howe, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in July ; Lord Young, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in April ; Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in January ; and his successor, Mr. Francis Maude, in September ; Mr. Peter Viggers, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Industry, in November ; and Mr. Richard Needham, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in December. 1990 :

    Mr. Douglas Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in January ; Mr. Michael Howard, Secretary of State for Employment, in September ; Mr. Francis Maude, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in April and July ; and his successor, Lord Caithness, in September ; Mr. Tim Sainsbury, Minister for Trade and Mr. David Mellor, Minister for the Arts, in September ; Mr. Peter Lloyd, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Home Office, in March and Mr. John Maples, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in November.

    1991 :

    I visited in September ; Mr. Douglas Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in April and September ; Mr. Michael Heseltine, Secretary of State for the Environment, in September ; Mr. Tom King, Secretary of State for Defence, in September ; Mr. John Wakeham, Secretary of State for Energy, in November ; Mr. John Gummer, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in October ; and Lord Caithness, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in January, July and December.

     

    Departmental Information Systems

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the current state of implementation of FAMIS–financial and management information systems–or its equivalent in each of Her Majesty’s Government’s Departments ; and what proposals he has to develop the system.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 January 1992] : Following the financial management initiative, most Departments have been developing financial and management information systems, although there is no single model. Executive agencies set up under the “next steps” initiative are now doing the same. Such systems require continuing development to clarify managerial responsibility, to give better information on how to improve value for money and quality of service from the resources consumed, and to meet changing business needs. The Government will continue to encourage the effort being devoted to developing such systems.

  • PMQT – 28 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Ronnie Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

    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. Campbell : Is the Prime Minister aware that people in my constituency of Blyth Valley eagerly await the RECHAR money? As there is a split in his Cabinet will he get off his backside, stop swanning around that desert island and have the money paid?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the RECHAR money has been paid by Britain into the European Community and that we should have it back. I hope that Commissioner Millan will release it speedily.

    Sir William Shelton : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we already see benefits flowing from the citizens charter? I refer, for instance, to shorter hospital waiting lists and to school performance league tables. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what future benefits–proven benefits–the people of this country will see flowing from the citizens charter?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are determined to get the best possible value for the enormous amount of public money that is available at present. In addition to the improved information and guidance systems that we have already set up, there will be much more flexible opening hours in the case of tax offices, benefits offices and employment service offices, and a much more detailed and personal service for the taxpayer, who has the cost of those services compulsorily extracted in taxes from his or her pocket.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister now give a categoric assurance that he will not impose any increase in VAT? Will he please answer yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : We have no plans to increase value added tax.

    Mr. Kinnock : Why cannot the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? Is he aware that the words he has just used are exactly the same as those that were used by his predecessor just before her Government increased VAT? Why cannot he tell us now what his plans are? Or is he trying to forget that the Government have increased VAT five times in 13 years? Is not that why everyone has good reason to know that Tory Governments mean higher VAT?

    The Prime Minister : There will be no VAT increase. Unlike the Labour party, we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them. So that the right hon. Gentleman is in no doubt, I tell him that I have no plans to raise the top rate of tax or the level of national insurance contributions.

    Mr. Kinnock : It is time that the Prime Minister came clean with the country. In view of the record of Conservative Governments in always putting up VAT and in view of the Prime Minister’s promises on other aspects of policy, how can he pretend that his intention is not to put up VAT? Do not a Tory Government make VAT rises a certainty?

    The Prime Minister : Before the right hon. Gentleman carries that fib any further, does he recall a further and earlier prediction about value added tax? I quote :

    “Labour foresees 60 per cent. VAT. VAT could rise to 60 per cent. if radical tax changes are introduced by a new Tory Government.” The right hon. Gentleman may recall that prediction by his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) before the previous election. That was also the time when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook claimed that Labour would win by a landslide in the 1987 election. He was wrong on both points then and he is wrong now.

    Mr. Gerald Bowden : Does my right hon. Friend agree–

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to settle down.

    Mr. Bowden : Does my right hon. Friend agree– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Bowden : Does my right hon. Friend agree that a party’s commitment to public services is best judged by its record in government? Will my right hon. Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ascertain who controls the 20 authorities that have the highest community charge, the highest rent arrears and more vacant properties than any other authorities? Does my borough of Southwark feature among them?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a sound and fair point. All too often, Labour-controlled councils provide shoddy services at far too high a cost. I well recall the Opposition saying, “If you wish to see what a Labour Government would be like, look at Labour local government.”

    Mr. Ashdown : On the subject of predictions, and while the Prime Minister reflects today on the gloomy report by the Confederation of British Industry, does he recall on new year’s day this year saying on Radio 4 that in retrospect, we would look back and say that the economic recovery had already started? In retrospect, does the Prime Minister agree that he might spend less time talking up false economic dawns and more time taking action for economic recovery?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is becoming a professional gloom monger. When we look back to the present, it will be perfectly clear that in many sectors of the economy, the recovery has indeed started.

    Mr. Onslow : Does my right hon. Friend remember that when the investment income surcharge was abolished in 1984, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer described it as an unfair and anomalous tax on savings and on the rewards of personal enterprise? What would he say today to anyone who was stupid enough to recommit himself to reintroducing it, as Labour has done?

    The Prime Minister : I would certainly find that extraordinary. I would find it even more extraordinary from a party that claims to care about investment, yet clearly has no understanding that investment comes from savings.

     

    Q2. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Given the commitment in the citizen’s charter to parental choice in education, will the Prime Minister agree to meet a small delegation of parents from William Gladstone school which has an excellent academic record and an expanding roll but which faces closure as Brent council wishes to sell the school because of its site value?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be happy to see the hon. Member concerned.

    Mr. Michael Morris : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greatest service he can continue to do for the British public is to keep inflation below 5 per cent? Is he further aware that the public remembers that inflation under Labour was 15 per cent., 20 per cent. and 25 per cent? In order to keep the level of inflation down, will he have a look at what is happening with the six major grocery chains, the increased share of the margins that they are getting and the fact that their margins are now twice the level found in the major grocery chains throughout Europe?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend says, inflation is low and we are determined that it will stay low. He will recall that inflation never fell below 7.4 per cent., and that for only a very brief period, while the Labour party was in Government.

    I will certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

     

    Q3. Ms Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

    Ms Hoey : Before the Prime Minister retires to his desert island, taking with him his Trollope and a very large section of my constituency– without my permission–will he give a clear and simple statement about what he will offer to pensioners so that they can retire with some luxury? Will he match Labour’s commitment to pensions?

    The Prime Minister : A commitment to pensions means nothing if it is not matched by a commitment to low inflation.

    Mr. Devlin rose–[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member has not asked a question of the Prime Minister for many months, and not in this Session, unlike some other hon. Members, now shouting “Marginal seat.”

    Mr. Devlin : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at the study in The Financial Times on 6 January which pointed to the fact that the northern region has very much benefited from the economic restructuring of the 1980s and is now coming out of recession faster than any other part of the country, due to the success of the regeneration programmes that the Government have put in place in the region?

    The Prime Minister : I have seen that myself in visits to the north. There is no doubt that the north has seen the start of many good things in this country and I am certain that it will be the same again with the economic recovery.

     

    Q4. Mr. McKelvey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

    Mr. McKelvey : Can the Prime Minister confirm that last Wednesday he had lunch with Lord Rothermere? Did he take the opportunity on that occasion to co-ordinate the campaign of lies and vilification that the Rothermere press has been conducting against the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I took the opportunity to enjoy an excellent luncheon. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Sir John Farr : As my right hon. Friend prepares himself for the important meeting with President Yeltsin later this week in London, will he take the opportunity of seeing what can be done to deal with the massive threat which still exists from all the different independent Russian states?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend says, this will be an important opportunity to discuss with President Yeltsin both the international difficulties posed by the break-up of the old Soviet Union and the extent to which the west might usefully help the Russian Republic in the difficulties that it faces at present. I anticipate that both those matters will be on our agenda.

     

    Q5. Mr. Bernie Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

    Mr. Grant : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Labour-controlled Haringey council and the children, teachers and parents of Haringey on the fact that our schools came joint top in English, maths and science in the level 3 standard assessment test and top in the individual subject of science? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a remarkable achievement, bearing in mind the fact that Haringey is an inner-London borough and has all the associated problems? Is not he ashamed at the remarks of his predecessor and of his ministerial colleagues who have constantly criticised Haringey’s education policy and have cut its revenue support grant? Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that Haringey receives an increase in its revenue support grant and standard spending assessment as a result of its excellent work in educating the children at its schools?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am especially pleased to hear that he now supports the tests introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I can tell from what he said that he is a strong supporter of the parents charter, without which those results might not have been fully known.

    Mr. Conway : Will my right hon. Friend take time to congratulate British industry on the fact that it has achieved record exports in the past quarter, that 27 of the top 50 European companies are British and that Britain exports more of its national product than Japan? Are not those successful British companies sick and tired of being talked down by the doom-monger Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right. Yesterday’s trade figures showed clearly that export volumes were at record levels even in a worldwide economic downturn. My hon. Friend was also right about some Opposition Members talking down the economy. The Leader of the Opposition said in his letter to supporters at the beginning of this year that Britain had a £20 billion trade deficit, when the truth was that the deficit fell by a half and the right hon. Gentleman’s figures were wholly wrong. Perhaps he will now write again to his supporters and correct his error.