The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1993

  • PMQT – 8 July 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th July 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Tipping : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 July.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the G7 economic summit in Tokyo where he has played an important part in bringing about a major step forward in resolving the GATT round.

    Mr. Tipping : Given the citizen’s charter, is the Lord President concerned that Regional Railways has cut its publicity budget by 30 per cent? As a result of that, many small stations in the east midlands and East Anglia no longer appear on the timetable. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure rail users that those stations will stay open after privatisation? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the problem? With no platform, no timetable and no sense of direction–that surely sounds like this Government.

    Mr. Newton : The Government’s sense of direction is very clear with regard to the vigour with which we have carried the rail privatisation proposals through the House to pave the way for further improvements in rail services. That is what we shall see.

    Mr. Spring : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a result of the Government’s trade union reforms, substantial power has been handed back to individual trade union members? Does he believe that there are other parts of union activity that could benefit from the introduction of one man, one vote?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s point about the effect of the trade union reforms that we have carried through in respect of returning power to individual members. I can think of quite a number of other reforms that should be carried out, but, unfortunately, they depend on the success of the leader of the Labour party, which he is not exactly having.

    Mr. John Smith : Bearing in mind that pensioners already face value added tax on their heating bills and the prospect of having to pay prescription charges, why is the Prime Minister in his speech in Tokyo adding to their very genuine fears by threatening even further curbs on social spending?

    Mr. Newton : I must say that I am not surprised, in view of the contrast between my right hon. Friend’s success in Tokyo and the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s catastrophe in Bournemouth, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should– [Interruption.] In Tokyo, my right hon. Friend was making the point that all western countries face rising pressures on their welfare budgets. Few would argue in this country that the current Department of Social Security budget of almost £80 billion is necessarily spent in the best way possible and that any Government are not entitled and right to review policy and spending patterns. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees with that, may I say that I have just been quoting, to all intents and purposes, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).

    Mr. Smith : Is not it now absolutely clear from the Prime Minister’s speech in Tokyo and the documents issued by the Secretary of State for Social Security that the Government have embarked on a blatant attempt to soften up the public for cuts in public spending? Does he not appreciate the justified anger of pensioners who have paid tax and insurance all their lives and hear these threats to their pensions? Does he not think that it is monstrous that these people should be asked to pay the price of the Government’s economic improvidence?

    Mr. Newton : What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has published this morning is a range of information to inform the debate which, in my view, everybody in this country agrees must sensibly be had. It is a debate which the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertook in setting up his social justice commission and in his own manifesto statement for the Labour party leadership. Pensioners have an absolute guarantee from the Government that we will maintain our commitment to uprate the basic retirement pension in line with prices and that we will not do what the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s Government did–fiddle the uprating figures and abolish the Christmas bonus two years running.

    Mr. Smith : On the subject of guarantees, can the right hon. Gentleman remind us of what the Government said at the election about guarantees on value added tax?

    Mr. Newton : The Government made it clear at the election that they would maintain the commitments to pensioners that I outlined. What I want to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and have not yet heard at any stage, is why the Labour party left VAT on fuel out of the list of those things that it was determined not to do.

    Mr. Knapman : The whole House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his considerable success at the G7 economic summit–[Hon. Members :– “No.”]–the sensible ones, anyway. Will my right hon. Friend, on his return, look at the ever- increasing number of directions and regulations coming from Brussels, because, surely, what we really need to meet and beat world competition is a lightly regulated, free-trading economy?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That, indeed, is another of the points that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has underlined, not only time and again in discussions in Europe but now in the discussions in Tokyo in relation to the G7 summit. It is clear from the response from one country after another, most recently from President Clinton and the United States, that that crucial British message about the need to ensure the competitiveness of our economies is beginning to hit home all around the world.

     

    Q2. Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Fraser : I remind the Leader of the House, in relation to the questions put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), that the Government were absolutely explicit about not extending the ambit of value added tax. Now they impose a hypothermia tax, which will mostly hit people with modest savings and small pensions and people on the margins of poverty. Because the Government did that, why should anyone believe what they say about not whittling away pensions and making pensioners’ incomes means tested? Surely the Government’s problem is that their clock has now struck for the 13th time.

    Mr. Newton : The reason that pensioners should believe the commitments that we have made about their pensions is that we have consistently honoured our commitments to pensioners in a way that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members cannot possibly claim to have done.

    Mr. David Howell : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming not only the excellent news from Tokyo about the proposed tariff cuts– which will, of course greatly increase trade and jobs–but the fact that at present the pound is regarded as the strongest currency in Europe? Does he agree that the right response to those two positive developments is to do everything possible, not to manipulate the exchange rate up or down but to maintain our competitiveness, build a good infrastructure, keep down inflation and manage our costs very tightly, and that that is a very promising way forward for this nation?

    Mr. Newton : Again, I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. Alongside my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s success in contributing to a further step forward in an important deal for world trade is his success–and that of the Government–in emphasising and carrying through in Britain the policies to which my right hon. Friend has referred, and which will leave us particularly well placed to take advantage of the increase in world trade that will result.

    Rev. Martin Smyth : Can the Leader of the House, speaking on behalf of the Government, tell us whether, at the intergovernmental conference today, the Government will contend that the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland should not be ridden over roughshod any longer but that those people should be treated as part of the United Kingdom?

    Mr. Newton : I can assure the hon. Gentleman, and he would expect no less from me, that the Government remain totally committed to the principle that any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of a majority of the people who live there, and I repeat that commitment this afternoon.

    Mr. Peter Robinson : Did the Leader of the House read in The Guardian this morning an article that stated that the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Irish Republic attempted to pour petrol on Ulster fires by endorsing the Labour party proposal for joint authority and putting forward a further proposition for a commission, with representatives from the Dublin Government, Her Majesty’s Government and the European Community, taking charge of Northern Ireland? Will the Leader of the House rebuke, as strongly as the Prime Minister did last week, the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister for making such a suggestion?

    Mr. Newton : I have noted that report. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is meeting Mr. Spring this afternoon and will seek clarification of what he said. What I can do, and have just done for the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), is to repeat clearly and emphatically the British Government’s position in this matter. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) can no doubt speak for the Labour party, but the British Government deplore the Labour party’s position as well.

    Mr. Ashdown : Do the Government yet understand that typhus and cholera are shortly to be added to shells and bullets as the means by which the people of Sarajevo will be condemned to die? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that mere words from the G7 in Tokyo will be sufficient to save them?

    Mr. Newton : The G7 summit in Tokyo has clearly reaffirmed our and other countries’ commitment to the territorial integrity of Bosnia and to a negotiated settlement based on the principles of the London conference. It has made it absolutely clear that we cannot agree to any solution for Bosnia dictated by the Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Muslims. As the whole House would wish it to do, the summit has underlined our commitment to the urgent implementation of safe areas and to improving the flow of humanitarian aid.

    Mr. Patrick Thompson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the past 14 years the Conservative Government have shown real determination and courage in carrying through their reforms with the trade unions? Does he agree that the Leader of the Opposition singularly lacks those qualities in dealing with the same matters?

    Mr. Newton : The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East probably wishes that he was in Tokyo and had not had to go to Bournemouth. Since he left Bournemouth with what looked to me on the television news last night as a rather sheepish expression on his face, he has, of course, suffered a further significant reverse with the vote that the Transport and General Workers Union took this morning to reject his plans.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Prentice : What would the Lord President say to the firefighters in Pendle who, over the past 14 years, have seen their pay formula scrapped and the imposition of a 1.5 per cent. pay limit, when the chairman of North West Water has received a 43 per cent. increase, taking his salary to £267,000 a year? Why is it that those who douse the flames are worth so much less than those who provide the water?

    Mr. Newton : I would say to the firefighters of Pendle or anywhere else that they should not listen to the kind of overheated rhetoric in which the hon. Gentleman indulges.

    Mr. Cormack : Reverting to the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that reaffirmation of itself is a cruel hoax unless it is followed by action? There is nothing to stop Sarajevo being saved. Can something now be done?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend has taken a long and honourable interest in these matters. He knows the difficulties of proceeding in quite the way he has often suggested. I would do no more at this stage than repeat what I said in an earlier answer–the British Government will continue to do everything that they properly and responsibly can to achieve a settlement that will stop the bloodshed in Bosnia.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 July 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Villages

    Mr. David Howell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on arrangements made to co-ordinate policy between the Departments for Education, of the Environment and of Social Security, on the encouragement of village communities and village life.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The Department of Environment has overall policy responsibility for rural affairs in England and liaises with other Government Departments, including the Departments for Education and Social Security, on matters affecting the social and economic well-being of rural England, and matters affecting village communities. The Government’s countryside agencies also have a statutory duty to advise the Government. In particular, the Rural Development Commission, which is sponsored by the Department of Environment, has a number of programmes directed specifically to the enhancement of village life.

  • Mr Major’s Pool Interview in Tokyo – 7 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s pool media interview held in Tokyo on Wednesday 7th July 1993.

    MICHAEL BRUNSON:

    Prime Minister, the agreement at the so-called quad talks, very very big tariff cuts. Are you cracking open the champagne, throwing your hat in the air?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am certainly very pleased. They are very large tariff reductions indeed and across a very wide range. It is what we have been seeking for a long time and for an external trading nation like ourselves who live by our exports it is extremely important, not only big tariff cuts but big tariff cuts where we wanted to have them.

    MICHAEL BRUNSON:

    Tariff cuts and all of that, it doesn’t mean a great deal I suspect to the man-in-the-street and woman-in-the-street. What does it actually mean in terms of how it will affect life in Britain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me try and illustrate that. I said the tariff cuts are in areas of importance to us. People who work in the ceramics industry, the glass industry, people who produce high-quality textiles will now find that markets like the United States that were difficult for them are open to them, they will be able to export more, produce more and that is going to create jobs.

    It is very difficult to be precise as to what this will mean for jobs over the next decade or so, it is very much a rule of thumb guess at the moment but on the basis of the calculations others have done, including the United States, I would think probably we are talking over the next decade or so of an extra 250,000-plus jobs, perhaps 350,000. That does mean something to people in this country.

    ROBIN OAKLEY:

    Prime Minister, this is a package of agreed measures, is not yet an agreement. What badgering and bullying have you got to do to turn this into a full GATT agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    85% of the GATT agreement is now practically together. I think the first thing to say is that these trade talks are infinitely bigger than anything we have seen before, it touches all sorts of areas that simply were not covered by agreements like this before. 80-90% of it is now in place. There is still a good deal more to be done. We hope we can push that through during the rest of this year. A lot to be done, it will be difficult but the prize at the end of that is very substantial for all of us, for the United Kingdom and for every other trading nation.

    ROBIN OAKLEY:

    One of the biggest problems may be with one of your European Community partners. Do you think the French can be persuaded to go along with this or could they yet sabotage the whole GATT agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope so. The French, like ourselves, are an industrial nation as well as being an agricultural nation. They too have very great interests in the industrial aspects of this particular agreement and in the service aspects so there is a lot in it for France. They still have some reserves – some concerns – about agriculture; these are matters that hopefully will be sorted out during the rest of the year. Quite apart from that, France has very great interest, as well as us, in a satisfactory agreement.

    ADAM BOULTON:

    The Americans have suggested that President Clinton should take most of the credit for this. Mickey Kantor said that he concentrated everyone’s mind. Who do you give the credit to for achieving this breakthrough?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think everyone has been working. We certainly have been working for this, as you know, for a long time. I recall raising it at the Houston summit two years ago. I have sat there at three successive GI summits at which we have pledged ourselves to get an agreement and we have then gone away and pushed and pushed for an agreement. I don’t think anyone doubts in the European Community that Britain has pushed more forcefully for an agreement than any other European Community nation but I think everyone is entitled to a share of the credit if and when it is finally sewn up. It isn’t yet finally sewn up, when it is done, let us all then be grateful for it.

    ADAM BOULTON:

    Is this perhaps an occasion when the much maligned G7 jamboree has actually worked, that the leaders have got together and concentrated their political will and that has put pressure on the negotiators?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the fact of the meeting has certainly put huge pressure on the negotiators. It has been clear for some time that we actually needed this agreement on market access, the reduction of tariffs, by the time of this particular meeting and I think each of the G7 Heads have put a considerable amount of pressure on the negotiators to reach an agreement so yes, I think it has helped a great deal.

    MICHAEL BRUNSON:

    But isn’t it true that this whole GATT saga, which has been going on now for five or six years or something of that sort, is littered with false dawns? I remember for example in Washington you were issuing ultimatums telling everybody to wrap it all up in a fortnight. How can you be certain that it is going to stick this time and that people will be signing agreements in Geneva say in December?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, of course, it is precisely because I was issuing ultimatums some time ago and others as well that we have actually pushed forward and dealt with the problems that then existed. There were problems, it looked like it was blocked, we pushed it, we have moved forward. That is exactly what we must do in the next few months.

    People mustn’t underestimate what this will mean. If there is one single thing that will give a boost to confidence and world trade and as a consequence of that growth and jobs and prosperity it is a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round. It is quite the most important thing we have had for many years so there is a huge prize there; everyone must push for it.

    MICHAEL BRUNSON:

    But you really think come December people will be putting names, signatures, on paper, say, in Geneva?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It won’t be for lack of effort by the British if they are not. I certainly hope so.

    ROBIN OAKLEY:

    This could be the last summit of its kind if you have your way. What exactly are the reforms that you want to see in the G7 summit process and what support are you getting for them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I just want to make it more informal. I think the idea of the Heads of Government and perhaps on occasions other Ministers getting together to talk about matters that affect all of us in what economically is a shrinking world is a very good idea. I don’t object to that at all. The better Heads of Government get to know one another, the safer world we will all live in. What I do want to cut down is some of the jamboree aspects of these very large gatherings, perhaps too much ceremony, perhaps too many artificial additions to communiques at the end of our discussions.

    What is vital I think for everyone is that Heads of Government can have close contact and can speak freely and frankly to one another about problems. I don’t want that artificially pre-cooked. I want them to have the opportunity of free and open conversation so I would like a great deal more informality on these occasions in future.

    ROBIN OAKLEY:

    A lot of you are suffering from political traumas at home. Indeed, this meeting has been described as a meeting of the world’s strongest countries and the world’s weakest leaders. Do you feel that your clout is weakened here by the fact that there is an opinion poll at home this morning calling you the most unpopular Prime Minister this century?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is true of everyone here, not some people here. Everyone here is facing precisely the same problem. There is a malaise about. People are concerned. I think it is partly a result of the recession and it spreads right the way across the industrial world. People are concerned. We had many years in the 1980s when across the industrialised world there was steady growth, each year people felt a little better off, there was security, a certainty.

    Suddenly the recession has cut that off and people are bewildered I think, they are not quite sure what has happened. In each individual country, they believe it is solely the responsibility of their particular government. When we meet together, as you have just observed, all these governments are in exactly the same position and we need to work together to bring the world economy round out of this recessionary phase and back into growth. That is what people want – certainty, confidence, growth, prospects and hope again – and that is what we are seeking to provide.

    ADAM BOULTON:

    President Clinton also picked up on that notion of a malaise. Pointing for example to Italy and Japan and indeed to the United States, he said that the malaise has been something which has forced the politicians into reforms and he cited funding changes in the United States. Why is it that you don’t think the British system needs reform when so many others are changing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But I have been arguing for a whole series of economic changes. I did so at Copenhagen and I am doing so here again. I think we have to address some of the long-term problems that have been there that perhaps were masked by the buoyant growth there was across the world through much of the 1980s. Once one strips that away – and the recession has effectively done that – I think you can see some structural problems in each and every one of the nations gathered here at the G7 that need to be dealt with.

    We have been discussing that today. The malaise you refer to has been referred in our discussions today by almost every Head of Government. It isn’t uniquely a British phenomenon, it is a worldwide phenomenon. People are now beginning to address it. I think that is very attractive and the more we address it the more we can explain to people why there are difficulties and how we propose to get out of the difficulties, the more likely we are that they will give us their support in doing so.

    The seven nations gathered here have I think beyond doubt the most sophisticated electorates in the world. Let us explain to them what the long-term difficulties are and how we propose to get out of them. Some of the ways of getting out of them may be difficult, they may be painful but if people know what the problem is and what the solution is, I believe they will accept that solution provided they are satisfied it is in their interests and in the interest of their country to do so.

    ADAM BOULTON:

    With reference to Britain, what are those long-term changes and painful changes which people should be facing up to?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a series of things that I have been talking about for some months and they won’t be particularly fresh to you. We certainly have to get rid of the fiscal deficit that we have – the fact that the Government is spending a good deal more than its revenues will allow – that has to be dealt with. We have to look at many of the costs that are in danger of rendering all of European, including British, industry uncompetitive to Japan, to the United States and to the Pacific Basin. We have to look at regulation, red tape, those frustrating controls that prevent small, medium and large-sized businesses from expanding and creating the jobs we need. That is an illustration of the changes we need, by no means an inclusive list but those are the sort of things we all have to address if we are to get our economies growing in the way we want to see them grow.

    ROBIN OAKLEY:

    Bilateral meetings on these occasions can be as important as the main round-table sessions. President Clinton, while he has been here, has been putting all the emphasis on relations between America and Japan and America and Asia. Do you feel that the United States has a new focus and are you worried about the state of the special relationship after the differences with the US on Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not in the slightest. The United States and the United Kingdom have a community of interests. We are very close together. We have a common outlook on almost every problem, of course not every one but on almost every problem around the world we have a common outlook. We are in regular contact at all levels of government, not just my level speaking regularly to President Clinton, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at official level, We have far closer contact with the United States than they would have with many other countries. Of course, on these occasions they seek to make up that deficit of contact with people when they are here. We have that contact all the time. I see no difficulty at all now, there hasn’t been in the past, isn’t now and won’t be in the future over that very close identify of interests and common interests that we have with the United States.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Tokyo – 7 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Tokyo, held on Wednesday 7th July 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what can you us about the movement we hear reported from the so-called Quad talks, does this mean that GATT is on its way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It looks as though it may, yes, it looks as though the talks have ended satisfactorily, I do not have all the details yet so I will spare you the details I do have, but it does look as though it is probable we will now have a market access agreement. That is important not just in itself but because it means we can then move forward to the multilateral talks back in Geneva and towards a GATT settlement, that is very important. It sounds technical but what it means is more trade, open market and more jobs, so it is very important.

    QUESTION:

    In short, why does it matter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It matters precisely for the fact that it will actually create jobs. If one can free up world trade there will be more world trade, the more world trade there is the more goods need to be produced, the more goods are produced the more people are working producing them, so in a single word it means jobs.

    QUESTION:

    Does it mean a transfer of jobs away from Western and developed economies?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I do not think so, that point is sometimes put, doesn’t it mean a transfer of jobs? But a general growth of trade, which is what a satisfactory agreement on GATT will mean, removing trade barriers and removing tariffs, that will help people in every country around the world and I think it will mean more jobs around the world. The estimates are that it will increase world trade very substantially, it removes barriers to many British exports when it is concluded, textiles for example, Scotch whisky perhaps, a whole range of areas that are of very great importance to us. Undilutedly good news when the round is completed, today it looks as though we have made a further step forward.

    QUESTION:

    How much extra bullying would you now need to do to turn a Quad agreement into a proper GATT agreement and are you worried that the French Prime Minister is not here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The French President is here. There is a lot of badgering being done over the last couple of years, no-one is in any doubt at all about the importance that the British have given to this particular settlement, it has gone on for some time. I wish we had settled the whole matter last year or the year before, but we have not. We have now made a great deal of progress. A substantial amount of a final agreement is already in place, there is still quite a lot to be done hut one ought not to overlook the amount that is now already in the bag and is agreed. We will just have to push and push and push, however unpopular it makes us, to try and get a final settlement later on this year.

    QUESTION:

    This will nevertheless have to go through the European Council, are you confident that all twelve member states of the Community will be on side on this and that means specifically the French?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is actually agreed by qualified majority vote, it does not need unanimity in the European Community, it is a matter that is dealt with by qualified majority vote.

    QUESTION:

    You are confident the Community will agree it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it would be folly if the Community were not to agree to go forward.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think we will get agreement by the end of the year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope so, the prize is very great. If there is one thing around the world that people are concerned about it is to see an increase in the growth of world trade, an increase in confidence and the creation of jobs. There are 23 million people in the G7 countries who are without work, there are 17 million people, rising, in the European Community without work. Now here is the biggest single policy change that can help to create new jobs, everyone should snatch at that.

    QUESTION:

    What are you likely to say in the world economy debate this afternoon?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have to remove many of the barriers to growth, there are a whole range of them, one of them of course is the trade barriers that we have been talking about that are subject to negotiation in the GATT round, others are the degree of deregulation that exists, there are a whole series of supply side changes that are necessary, a greater concentration on skills and education, a whole raft of things that I will set out this afternoon. But in essence we have to address long term problems that have suddenly become clear across the world as a result of the recession, if we address those problems now we will set the right basics in place for growth throughout the ’90s and greater prosperity in the ’90s. So it is removing those barriers to growth that I regard as the most important thing.

    QUESTION:

    It is deregulation really?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Deregulation is a part of it, it is by no means the sum total of what needs to be done, but deregulation is certainly an important part of it.

    QUESTION:

    You have a bilateral today with President Clinton, after the disagreements on Bosnia and the American decision on nuclear testing, how much patching up have you got to do?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no need for patching up. President Clinton and I speak regularly on the phone, we had a very lengthy conversation about this particular summit and related matters on Saturday, we will be meeting in the margins of this particular summit to discuss a range of things. There is no patching up job to do, there is a whole raft of areas where we are in complete agreement and I suspect the principal agenda for this summit is one of those areas where we are in total agreement.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] changing the balance of power in the world, how hard are you having to fight to maintain Britain’s position at the table at G7 and at the UN?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not having to fight at all hard, Britain’s place at the G7 and at the United Nations is entirely secure, the only time it is ever questioned is when people like you ask me questions like that, otherwise it is not in any doubt whatsoever.

    QUESTION:

    Why is the New Statesman settlement so low for you personally?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The important thing in the New Statesman settlement, and all the other elements of that settlement, was that people acknowledged that the libel was untrue, that has been acknowledged, everyone concerned has now paid damages. The size of the damages was never a relevant factor, the confirmation that the stories were untrue and unfounded was the relevant factor, that has now been obtained from everybody concerned with the case, those who spread the libel, those who printed the individual publications, all of them have now indicated that it is unfounded and untrue, I am satisfied with that, it is now no longer an issue I need concern myself with, it is dead and gone.

    QUESTION:

    But the New Statesman is claiming a moral victory and there is a suggestion that you have accepted these low damages in order to avoid appearing in the witness box?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a curious moral victory when they admit it cost them a quarter of a million pounds in total, that is a very curious moral victory. They have admitted what they said was unfounded, they are not in a position to repeat, they cannot repeat it, it has cost them a quarter of a million pounds, if that is a moral victory it is not the sort of moral victory they would like every week.

  • PMQT – 6 July 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th July 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dykes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the G7 economic summit in Tokyo.

    Mr. Dykes : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government and our leading partners will exert maximum pressure on the Japanese to open their markets to imports of all kinds and to the sort of free trade that is now developing rapidly in the European single market?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise that. One of the key aims of the G7 summit will be to agree on measures that can help to further the recovery of the world economy, including the maintenance and sustenance of free and competitive trade. My right hon. Friend’s aim will include very much ensuring that sufficient progress is made on the market access and services package to permit early resumption of the multilateral negotiations in Geneva and bring a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is the Lord President aware that, last night in another place, his ministerial colleagues said that the defeat that the Government suffered on the Railways Bill struck at the heart of that legislation? Does he agree?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that the Government have set out and seen accepted in this place their arguments on this matter and he will take a lot of persuading to believe that the policy should be changed. Nevertheless, the other place has asked for reconsideration and, of course, we will carefully consider the points that have been made.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is it not crazy that the French, the Germans or the Italians will be able to run trains on British railways and the only people who will not are British Rail? Why do the Government not show some common sense and simply admit that they have got it wrong?

    Mr. Newton : The right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends have fought every privatisation for 12 or 14 years. As one by one the privatisations have proved successful, they have been forced to abandon most of that. The people who need to learn the lessons are Her Majesty’s Opposition.

    Mr. Mark Robinson : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has published figures today showing an 11 per cent. increase in new care sales over June 1992? Is that not further evidence that the recovery is being sustained?

    Mr. Newton : Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend has described exactly the figures published this morning by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. What is more, the SMMT goes on to say that recovery in the new car market in all but three of the past 15 months is now clearly established. That comes alongside all the other evidence that we have seen– manufacturing output up, car output up, exports up and unemployment down.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bradley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bradley : Does the Leader of the House recall that on 29 October 1987, less than six years ago, as the then Minister for Health, he proudly came to my constituency to open the Duchess of York children’s hospital? Is he aware that, last week, South Manchester health authority confirmed its plan to close that purpose-built children’s hospital despite overwhelming opposition?

    Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he supports the all- party campaign, which has overwhelming public support, to keep open our children’s hospital, or will he accept the invitation which is on the way to him, to return to Manchester, to close that hospital on behalf of the Government?

    Mr. Newton : I well remember the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I have to say that the hospital was not opened by me but by the Duchess of York. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is considering the proposal, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it will be subject to full public consultation. My right hon. Friend will make her decision in due course.

     

    Q3. Dr. Spink : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Dr. Spink : Does my right hon. Friend agree that political parties should not sell the right to choose their leaders or decide their policies? Can he confirm that the Conservative party remains committed to one man, one vote?

    Mr. Newton rose– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The activities of political parties are not a subject for Prime Minister’s Question Time. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) must question the Government about their policies. It is Government policy in which we are interested. Mr. Newton rose– —

    Hon. Members : No.

    Madam Speaker : Order. The Leader of the House has been with us a long time and he is a respected man in this place. I am sure that he has an appropriate reply.

    Mr. Newton : I was going to say that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) was asking about the Government’s attitude to such matters. [Interruption.] I think that that question is entirely right. I have read with great interest the press reports of recent days, starting with that about the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who said that he was going to have a confrontation with the unions, and followed by the comments of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who said that she was looking for compromise. I just wonder when we shall have the climbdown and capitulation.

     

    Q4. Mr. Heppell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Heppell : Is the Leader of the House aware that 405 former council properties are empty in the city of Nottingham and that 80 of them have already been vandalised, when 350 households have been designated as statutorily homeless and another 104 families live in conditions that are statutorily overcrowded? Does the Leader of the House not believe that it is time that the Government took a compassionate and humanitarian view and allowed the city council to spend some of the £53 million that it has amassed from the sale of council houses to put roofs over those people’s heads?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will know that, at this period of time, Nottingham city council–in common with others–has full freedom to spend capital receipts. It can also take advantage– [Interruption.] It may spend capital receipts generated at this time. It also has access to the full range of measures that my right hon. and hon. Friends have introduced to assist the housing market.

    Mr. John Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Viscount Runciman and his colleagues on the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, which has been published today? Although many of its recommendations will require a great deal of thought and consideration, does my right hon. Friend agree that some improvements in our criminal justice system are desirable not just to protect the innocent but to ensure that the guilty are properly convicted?

    Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

    Mr. Newton : It is obvious from the response of my right hon. and hon. Friends–and, I suspect, a good deal of sympathy from the Opposition– that there is a wide welcome for the report that has been published today by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. There will no doubt be differences of opinion about some of the report’s conclusions, but the importance of that matter is undoubted. The contribution that the royal commission has made to the debate on those matters is undoubted and the Government will give its recommendations the most careful consideration and then come to conclusions about what to do.

     

    Q5. Mr. Tyler : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Tyler : Is the Lord President aware that the Prime Minister visited north Cornwall exactly five months ago today and promised my constituents that he was taking action on excessive water and sewerage charges? Will he confirm whether it is the Government’s policy to renege on existing environmental obligations or does he intend to break that promise?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to my right hon. Friend’s visit to the south-west and to his recognition of the concern felt in the south-west, and much expressed by my hon. Friends, about the level of water charges. My right hon. Friends have been actively examining the options for reducing the increase in charges and, particularly, phasing in the burdens of the waste water directive in a way that would help. That consideration is going on at the moment.

     

    Q6. Dr. Michael Clark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Dr. Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree with Senator Campos, who is currently leading a Brazilian Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Westminster, when he said last night that Brazil is not just a country of the future, nor Britain just a country of the past, but that both are countries for today? Is that not best illustrated by the figures for Jaguar cars, which show that output has gone up 46 per cent., exports to Germany and the United States by 20 per cent., and that confidence in that company is greater than for many years.

    Mr. Newton : I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s interest in Brazil and echo the welcome that he has given to the visitors who are here from that country. I join him also in hoping that they may boost Jaguar car sales still further by taking some back with them. Meanwhile, I endorse my hon. Friend’s pleasure at the British motor industry in accelerating away from its European competitors and links with the figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders that we were discussing earlier.

    Ms Abbott : If the Government are really concerned about single mothers on benefit, when will they bring forward a strategy for child care? Is the Minister aware that most women on benefit would dearly like to go out to work and be independent but that their main problem is child care? When will the Government understand that investment in child care would be an investment in growth in general, and the surest and most humane way to get women off social security?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Lady will be familiar with the increase in pre -school provision of all kinds in recent years. She will also be well aware that at least as important a part of a policy in the area with which she is concerned are those policies for the improved collection and enforcement of child maintenance represented by the Child Support Agency, now getting successfully under way.

     

    Q7. Mr. Haselhurst : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Haselhurst : Is it correct to say that my right hon. Friend’s colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry have secured a further £2 billion of help from European Community structural funds to help two of the most disadvantaged areas of the United Kingdom? If so, is that not proof of the merits of working vigorously and whole-heartedly within the Community, rather than constantly fretting about our relationship with it?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the whole House will wish to pay tribute to the Minister for Industry on his negotiating success in the Community at the end of last week. He succeeded in reaching an agreement which will extend objective 1 status under the structural fund to Merseyside and to the Highlands and Islands enterprise area, and to the areas Argyll, Bute and West Moray which were not proposed by the Commission. That agreement is likely to bring about £2.25 billion to the United Kingdom over the next six years, to all its objective 1 areas, including Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Bryan Davies : With regard to political contributions, why is it all one way? What incentives do the Government give to rich Britons to make political contributions to right-wing regimes abroad, or does the whole idea stink?

    Mr. Newton : As I may possibly have said on some previous occasion, I will listen to lectures from such as the hon. Gentleman on that matter when we stop facing the prospect of a position in the Labour party where it will be one man, 2 million votes.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Tokyo – 6 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held in Tokyo on Tuesday 6th July 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, President Clinton has talked today of the crisis of slow growth in the developed world, what are you going to be able to do about it here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think he is right about that. Right the way across Europe, in Japan, in the United States, right across the industrialised world there has been very slow growth, the only thing that has grown faster of course has been unemployment and there are 23 million people unemployed amongst the G7 nations here. So I think we have to make that a centre-piece for the discussions we have over the next few days. No-one is suddenly going to find a magical solution that will put all those people back into work but what we do need is to make sure all countries have the right policies to produce growth. Britain is coming into growth, I want to see other countries coming back as well.

    QUESTION:

    You said after Munich that you would badger and bully until the GATT negotiations came to a solution, who do you blame for the fact that that solution has not yet been achieved?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not in the business of distributing blame. What I am in the business of doing is continuing to badger and bully, we do need a settlement, it is no less vital now than it was months ago at Munich, no less vital than it was a couple of years ago and I think it is important we make some progress. I very much hope that by the end of this summit we will have a market access agreement opening up markets, lowering tariffs, increasing trade and enabling more jobs to be created. I hope that we will have that and I hope we will also have an agreement that we can return to the multilateral trade talks in Geneva, that I hope will be achieved this week. It will not be easy to achieve, there will undoubtedly be difficulties, that is perfectly clear, but I think that is what we must aim at.

    QUESTION:

    Is it conceivable when there has been a failure for 4 years to sort out the GATT talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you need to ask the people who have not been able to reach agreement, it is not the British.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not the British, there are other people who have particular difficulties in their own countries, the Cairns Group by and large can sign up to the agreement, there are other countries that cannot, we are urging them to do so. I believe that Britain could reach a final agreement on the trade talks very speedily, we will be encouraging other people to do the same.

    QUESTION:

    A domestic question, if I may, are you going to try and repair the defeat on the rail bill in the Lords?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not had a chance to discuss it with John MacGregor yet, I only heard of it as I got on the plane to leave for here, but I think it is probable we will, yes.

    QUESTION:

    You will try and reverse it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is probable we will but I have not yet discussed it with the Secretary of State.

    QUESTION:

    The Japanese have indicated today officially that they are putting in a request to join the Permanent Members of the Security Council, would you now be ready to support this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have never ruled out the question of Security Council reform, I think it is something that has; to be taken very gently. There are a lot of ramifications to that, one has to look at the competing demands from a number of countries who would like to become Permanent Members, Japan clearly has a case, there are a number of other countries as well. So I think it is a very wide issue and I think it is one that will involve us for some time in discussion.

    QUESTION:

    What about Bosnia, is this a forgotten subject at this summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think anyone could forget Bosnia, I do not think we could and I do not think we should. It is not the centre-piece or this particular summit, I think the two centre-pieces of this summit, if you can have two centre-pieces, are unemployment and growth and the need for progress in the trade negotiations. But I do not think anyone pushes the horror of Bosnia to one side, it is with us all the time.

    QUESTION:

    The Japanese Prime Minister, when talking to President Clinton, said that the gap between imports and exports are beyond our control, we cannot play with GDP figures. He does not sound like a man who is prepared to do business on this issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I had not heard that, Michael, no doubt that is one of the many matters we will discuss perhaps most obviously in our first sessions on employment and on the economies. I am sure a range of issues like that will come up.

    QUESTION:

    It is going to take a lot of give and take to get some trade agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, but I think I had better comment on it after we have had the give and take and we see what emerges from it.

    QUESTION:

    Do you like the idea of a Jobs Summit, as proposed by President Clinton?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I have not seen the details of what he has said, I understand he has in mind getting experts together to examine what might be done, I see no objection to that, I think it might be productive. No doubt he will raise it at the summit.

    QUESTION:

    Would you send Britain’s Employment Minister to such a summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think here we have all got something to learn from one another, I shall certainly be advancing the case for a whole series of supply side changes in countries right the way around the world. If this is a practical proposal that can be of use to us, of course we would take part.

    QUESTION:

    Do you expect and hope that this will be the last summit of its kind?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made no secret of the fact that I would like to reform the summit, I would like more talk of trade opportunities and perhaps fewer photo opportunities. They summit is a huge gathering. There are, if I may say so, 11,000 journalists here, I am not sure that perhaps that is the best use of 11,000 journalists. Perhaps if we had smaller summits, more cohesive summits, perhaps if there were not such great expectations built up for them beforehand, if we could have the quiet, reflective and frank discussions that I think Heads of Government should have more frequently, then perhaps they would be more productive. I would hope we can move in that direction after this summit.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 July 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    No. 10 Downing Street

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what charges are made for the use of 10 Downing Street for charitable or other fund-raising events; and what use is made of the catering and other facilities of 10 Downing Street at such events.

    The Prime Minister : Where charitable or other non-official events are held at No. 10 Downing Street, the organisers are responsible for all catering and staff costs, as well as other miscellaneous direct costs. Organisers may use the kitchens or other facilities at No. 10 Downing Street.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what are the rules governing the use of No. 10 Downing Street for non-official purposes;

    (2) if he will give details of the rules governing the use of 10 Downing Street for the purposes of fund raising for political parties.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1993] : Ministers under this and previous administrations have been allowed–at their own or party expense–to host non-official or party receptions or functions in Downing street. All catering, staff and other direct expenses must be met by the organisers of the event. Appropriate arrangements are required for security clearance.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister how many functions to raise money for political parties have been held at No. 10 Downing Street since 1980.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1993] : Under this and previous Administrations, a variety of functions have been held at No. 10 Downing Street where the costs have been met by political parties. The purpose of such functions is not a matter for the Government, but I can confirm that since November 1990, there have been no functions at 10 Downing Street at which funds have been raised for political parties, or for which tickets have been sold for the benefit of political parties.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister what charities benefited from functions organised in No. 10 Downing Street in each year since 1984.

    The Prime Minister [holding answers 22 and 23 June 1993] : Since November 1990, there have been a total of 25 receptions, dinners or other functions at No. 10 Downing Street for charities or voluntary bodies. The organisations concerned have been :

    NSPCC

    Surrey County Cricket Club Youth Trust

    Lords Taverners

    MENCAP

    Age Concern

    EUREKA

    Wordsworth Trust

    Huntington’s Disease Association

    Action Research

    Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust

    National Council of Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Crossroads Care

    Animal Health Trust

    ORT

    Youth Clubs (UK)

    ChildLine

    Silver Trust

    Marie Curie Cancer Care

    Excalibur Scheme

    Motability

    Westminster Foundation for Democracy

    London Community Cricket Association

    International Spinal Research Trust

    Cambridge Arts Theatre Trust – two functions

     

    Mr. Asil Nadir

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of the functions attended by Mr. Asil Nadir in No. 10 Downing Street since 1984.

    Mr. George Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister how many times in the last 10 years Mr. Asil Nadir has attended functions in No. 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1993] : I understand that Mr. Nadir attended six functions in No. 10 Downing Street between 1984 and 1989. These were a dinner and a reception for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; a reception for the Harold Macmillan Trust; a lunch for the President of Turkey; and two lunches for industrialists.

     

    Vietnam

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the issues of the extent of religious freedom in Vietnam, and the continued imprisonment of persons in that country for their faith, with the Prime Minister of Vietnam during his forthcoming visit.

    The Prime Minister : I intend to raise our concerns about human rights in Vietnam with the Vietnamese Prime Minister, Mr. Vo Van Kiet, during his forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom.

     

    Plaques

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if inscriptions on plaques which are unveiled in the course of visits by foreign Heads of State are viewed in advance by representatives of Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister : We would agree in advance any inscriptions on plaques unveiled at official engagements. We would not expect to be consulted about private engagements.

     

    Republic of Ireland President

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if proposals by the person holding the position of President of the Irish Republic to visit the United Kingdom are communicated to Her Majesty’s Government by the office of the President of the Irish Republic.

    The Prime Minister : Proposals for visits to the United Kingdom by the President of the Irish Republic are communicated to Her Majesty’s Government by the Government of the Irish Republic.

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister what information he receives from the office of the President of the Irish Republic on thanks received in respect of visits by the person holding the position of President of the Irish Republic.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Heads of State

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the private visits to Northern Ireland by foreign Heads of State in each of the last three years.

    The Prime Minister : The information is as follows :

    16 December 1990 –President Robinson

    4 February 1992 –President Robinson

    22 May 1992 –President Robinson

    6-7 September 1992 –President Robinson

    18-19 June 1993 –President Robinson

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister what criteria are used to distinguish between private and official visits to the United Kingdom by foreign Heads of State.

    The Prime Minister : Official visits are those undertaken at the invitation of the British Government.

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the public engagements which have been fulfilled by Heads of State during private visits to Northern Ireland in each of the last three years.

    The Prime Minister : The information is as follows :

    16 December 1990 – President Robinson attended the Installation of Archbishop Daly at Armagh and visited the Armagh Observatory.

    4 February 1992 – President Robinson met women’s groups at the EOC Offices in Belfast; had lunch with the Law Society; met voluntary groups and cultural traditions groups in the Linenhall library; and attended a reception in Stormont castle.

    22 May 1992 – President Robinson, as part of “Impact 92” in Londonderry, lunched with Church leaders, visited Foyle day care centre, opened “The Craft Village”, visited community groups, and attended a civic reception and pageant.

    6-7 September 1992 – President Robinson attended the “Beyond Hate Conference” in Londonderry; opened Belcoo enterprise unit; lunched with Enniskillen Rotary; and met community groups in Enniskillen library.

    18-19 June 1993 – President Robinson visited the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, Down museum, and West Belfast community groups; attended the Solicitors’ Association annual dinner; and visited Coalisland enterprise centre and Ballance house, Glenavy.

    All the above visits were private. President Robinson attended each engagement at the invitation of the organisers.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister which of the undertakings given by the Federal Yugoslav Government at the London conference on 26 and 27 August 1992 have been fulfilled; what assessment he has made of changes in their policy and actions towards the crisis in the former Yugoslavia; what changes he considers to be still required; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The London conference established principles and a negotiating structure as the basis for a settlement of the problems of the former Yugoslavia and set out specific steps to secure an effective and durable cessation of hostilities. The Yugoslav authorities have failed to co-operate satisfactorily with the efforts of the international community to achieve peace in Bosnia and to resolve the problems of minorities in Croatia and Serbia. The international community is committed to the rigorous enforcement of United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro until the conditions for their lifting have been met.

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister when the question of sanctions against the Republic of Croatia was last considered by Her Majesty’s Government; and what plans he has to raise this matter again with the international community in the future.

    The Prime Minister : Policy towards Croatia is regularly reviewed in the light of Croatian Government co-operation with the efforts of the international community both to ensure a peaceful resolution of the problems in the Krajinas and to achieve a lasting and equitable peace in Bosnia. Croatia was put on notice by the 8 June meeting of EC Foreign Ministers that restrictive measures would be initiated against Croatia if the situation so requires.

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister to what extent the Croatian Government have complied with its obligations, as outlined in the London conference; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The London conference established principles and a negotiating structure as the basis for a settlement of the problems of the former Yugoslavia and set out specific steps to secure an effective and durable cessation of hostilities. The Croatian Government are expected to do more to co-operate with efforts to achieve peace in Bosnia. Croatia was put on notice by the 8 June meeting of EC Foreign Ministers that restrictive measures would be initiated against Croatia if the situation so requires.

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister which of the undertakings made by the Serbian Government at the London conference on 26 and 27 August 1992 have been fulfilled; to what extent there have been changes in their policy and actions towards the crisis in the former Yugoslavia; if he will list the changes still required; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The London conference established principles and a negotiating structure as the basis for a settlement of the problems of the former Yugoslavia and set out specific steps to secure an effective and durable cessation of hostilities. The Belgrade leadership has failed to co-operate satisfactorily with the efforts of the international community to achieve peace in Bosnia and to resolve the problems of minorities in Croatia and Serbia. The international community is committed to the rigorous enforcement of United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro until the conditions for their lifting have been met.

     

    Unemployment, Liverpool

    Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and the deputation representing the unemployed in Liverpool.

    The Prime Minister : I met the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside with a number of other people from the area on 16 June. I will be writing to him shortly about points raised at the meeting.

     

    Mr. Shabir Shan and Mr. Yasin Malik

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 27 May, Official Report, column 663, what further information he has received about the detention in India of Mr. Shabir Shah and Mr. Yasin Malik; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Our high commission in New Delhi is in regular touch with the Indian Ministries concerned, but have received no further information on the cases of Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik since receiving the aide memoire from the Indian Home Ministry which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs forwarded to the hon. Gentleman under cover of his letter of 30 June.

     

    Mr. Gazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 8 June, Official Report, column 226, what further information he has received about court proceedings in Pakistan relating to Mr. Gazanfer Ali; and if he make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs wrote to the hon. Member for Bradford, West on 24 June with information on the two cases involving murder charges against Mr. Gazanfer Ali. Both cases have been further adjourned.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 July 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Commonwealth Conference

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Government of Cyprus regarding the political and social arrangements for the forthcoming commonwealth conference to take place in Cyprus later this year; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I discussed arrangements for the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting with President Clerides, when he called on me in March. I understand that the planning for these arrangements is progressing well.

     

    Parliamentary Private Secretaries

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 November, Official Report, column 577-8, if he will publish the current list of parliamentary private secretaries and the Ministers to whom each is attached.

    The Prime Minister : The current list of parliamentary private secretaries and the Ministers to whom each is attached is as follows :

    Ministry |Parliamentary

    |Private Secretary

    ———————————————————————————————–

    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    Minister for Agriculture (Mrs. G. Shephard) |Mr. J. Brazier

    Minister of State (Mr. M. Jack)Miss E. Nicholson

    Defence

    Secretary of State (Mr. M. Rifkind) |Mr. H. Bellingham

    Minister of State (Mr. J. Aitken) |Mr. S. Milligan

    Minister of State (Mr. J. Hanley) |Mr. R. Gale

    Duchy of Lancaster

    Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. W. Waldegrave) |Mr. I. Taylor

    Education

    Secretary of State (Mr. J. Patten) |Mr. M. Carrington

    Minister of State (Lady Blatch) |Mr. D. Evennett

    Employment

    Secretary of State (Mr. D. Hunt) |Mr. N. Evans

    Minister of State (Mr. M. Forsyth) |Mrs. A. Browning

    Environment

    Secretary of State (Mr. J. Gummer) |Mr. J. Paice

    Minister of State (Sir G. Young) |Dr. C. Goodson-Wickes

    Minister of State (Mr. D. Curry) |Mr. D. French

    Minister of State (Mr. T. Yeo) |Mr. M. Trend

    Foreign Office

    Secretary of State (Mr. D. Hurd) |Mr. D. Martin

    Minister of State (Mr. A. Goodlad) |Mr. G. Kynoch

    Minister of State (Mr. D. Hogg) |Mr. H. Booth

    Minister of State (Mr. D. Heathcoat-Amory) |Mr. R. Richards

    Minister for Overseas Development (Lady Chalker) |Mr. M. Robinson

    PUSS (Mr. M. Lennox-Boyd) |Mr. M. Robinson

    Health

    Secretary of State (Mrs. V. Bottomley) |Mr. K. Mans

    Minister of State (Dr. B. Mawhinney) |Mr. P. Thompson

    Home Office

    Secretary of State (Mr. M. Howard) |Dr. L. Fox

    Minister of State (Mr. P. Lloyd) |Mr. D. Wilshire

    Minister of State (Mr. D. MacLean) |Mr. J. Arnold

    Law Officers Department

    Attorney-General (Sir N. Lyell) |Mr. T. Devlin

    Solicitor-General (Sir D. Spencer) |Mr. G. Streeter

    National Heritage

    Secretary of State (Mr. P. Brooke) |Mr. A. Steen

    Northern Ireland Office

    Secretary of State (Sir P. Mayhew) |Mr. M. Moss

    Minister of State (Mr. R. Atkins) |Mr. J. Hayes

    Minister of State (Sir J. Wheeler) |Mr. J. Evans

    Prime Minister |Mr. G. Bright

    Privy Council Office

    Lord President and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. T. Newton) |Mr. J. Marshall

    Scottish Office

    Secretary of State (Mr. I. Lang) |Mr. S. Coombs

    Social Security

    Secretary of State (Mr. P. Lilley) |Mr. P. Merchant

    Minister of State (Mr. N. Scott) |Mr. M. Bates

    PUSS (Mr. A. Burt/Lord Henley/Mr. W. Hague) |Mr. I. Bruce

    Trade and Industry

    President of the Board (Mr. M. Heseltine) |Mr. R. Ottaway

    Minister of State (Mr. T. Sainsbury) |Mrs. A. Knight

    Minister of State (Mr. R. Needham) |Mr. A. Rowe

    Minister of State (Mr. T. Eggar) |Mr. S. Burns

    Transport

    Secretary of State (Mr. J. MacGregor) |Mr. G. Riddick

    Minister of State (Mr. R. Freeman) |Mr. B. Wells

    Treasury

    Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. K. Clarke) |Mr. P. Oppenheim

    Chief Secretary (Mr. M. Portillo) |Mr. D. Amess

    Financial Secretary (Mr. S. Dorrell) |Mr. G. Brandreth

    Paymaster General (Sir J. Cope) |Dr. I. Twinn

    Welsh Office

    Secretary of State (Mr. J. Redwood) |Mr. D. Evans

    Minister of State (Sir W. Roberts) |Mr. D. Tredinnick

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

     

    Iraq and Somalia

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from UNICEF on the effects on children and infants of United Nations high-tech military action in Iraq and Somalia.

    The Prime Minister : UNICEF has not made such representations to me. We remain in close touch with United Nations agencies providing humanitarian relief to Iraq and Somalia.

     

    Legislative Drafting

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of Government legislative drafting is carried out by lawyers not permanently employed as parliamentary counsel; and what plans there are for change.

    The Prime Minister : In terms of primary legislation, all Government Bills, except those relating exclusively to Scotland and the Appropriation and Consolidated Fund Bills, are drafted by members of the parliamentary counsel office. From time to time some consolidation Bills have been drafted by lawyers who have been members of the parliamentary counsel office but who are no longer employed in the public service. The proportion of work undertaken in this way is not significant and it is not practicable to specify it as a percentage of the total drafting work undertaken by the members of the parliamentary counsel office. There are no plans for change at the moment.

     

    Questions of Procedure for Ministers

    Mr. Denham : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in the last 12 months he has been consulted by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), under paragraphs 126 and 127 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”; on what subjects; and on what dates.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 June 1993] : Consultations between the Prime Minister and other Ministers are private.

     

    Morgan Rogerson (Car Loan)

    Mr. Denham : To ask the Prime Minister on which date he was first aware that the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) had received the loan of a car from the Morgan Rogerson company or from individuals associated with that company.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 June 1993] : My hon. Friend issued a statement to the press explaining the circumstances in which a temporary loan of a car to his wife had been made. He informed my office at the time he issued the statement.

  • PMQT – 1 July 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Paice : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to assure the people of Ulster that this Government are totally committed to the Union? Will he also point out to them that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has a plot to ditch them? The leader of the Labour party should either support that betrayal of the people of Ulster or sack his spokesman.

    The Prime Minister : The Union is vital for all parts of the United Kingdom. It has the democratic approval of the people of Northern Ireland and we in the Conservative and Unionist party stand four-square behind it. I am aware of the opinions that have been attributed to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I believe that he has proposed “shared responsibility”, which “would have to be imposed against the wishes of a majority of Northern Ireland’s citizens.”

    Frankly, I think that that is appalling. The hon. Gentleman also complains that progress in Northern Ireland could strengthen the Union, and he certainly appears to regret that. I assume that can mean only that the Labour party has abandoned its manifesto commitment to consensus and that it wants to promote a united Ireland through economic deprivation. If those are the Labour party’s policies, they are cynical and shameful and are a betrayal of democracy and of the people of Northern Ireland.

    Mr. John Smith rose–

    Hon. Members : Answer.

    Madam Speaker : Order. Settle down now.

    Mr. Smith : Following the revelation that the taxpayer was defrauded — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down and listen not only to answers but to questions, too–all of you.

    Mr. Smith : Following the revelation that the taxpayer was defrauded of £97 million in Britain’s biggest ever tax fraud involving Nissan UK and that, during the period in which the fraud was perpetrated, Mr. Octav Botnar gave £1 million to the Conservative party, will the Prime Minister invite the Conservative party to repay that sum to the Inland Revenue?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the whole House and the whole country will notice what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not have to say about his party’s policies for Northern Ireland. If his fundamental concept is that we should clean up British politics, I agree. We should, for a start, have rules that no donor can buy votes at a party conference, that no donor should buy votes for the selection of party candidates and that no donor should buy votes for the selection of a party’s leader. It is that sort of action, not his sort of smears, that demeans British politics.

    Mr. Smith : The House and the country will have noticed that the Prime Minister did not answer the question.

    Does not the Prime Minister accept that, as First Lord of the Treasury, his principal responsibility is to the British taxpayer? Should he not be encouraging action to recover money of which the Revenue has been defrauded? Is not that a more important responsibility than defending the finances of the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, for I have told him before, that where tainted money has been provided to the Conservative party, we will replace it. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now have the grace to accept that. So far as Mr. Botnar is concerned, no doubt the Inland Revenue will pursue that matter. It is a matter for the Inland Revenue.

    Mr. Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Conservative party received money from Mr. Botnar?

    The Prime Minister : I have no idea whether the Conservative party received money from Mr. Botnar around 10 years ago. I am not responsible for that.

    Sir Malcolm Thornton : Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity today to read the report by Ernst and Young entitled “Inward Investment in the 90s–Maintaining the United Kingdom’s Lead”? If so, does he agree with its recommendation that one of our main advantages–the flexibility and cost of our labour force–would be placed in considerable jeopardy if we were to accept the social protocol and that that would further undermine the country’s lead in attracting inward investment, which we need to maintain the recovery?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. Our system for encouraging inward investment is second to none. We have received far more inward investment in this country as a result of the policies followed by this Government and their immediate predecessor than any other country in the European Community. Because of those policies, we remain the preferred location for investment in the Community by Japan, the United States and many other countries. Policies of excessive social costs and excessive regulation would damage that inward investment and the jobs created by it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Beith : Will the Prime Minister, recognising the importance to the north-east and to shipbuilding in Britain of the Swan Hunter shipyard, take steps today to make it clear that the frigates that were built by the yard can be completed at the yard? Will he tell the Government of Oman that he has done that, as that would indicate to them that he is confident that the yard can complete the Omani order for which it has tendered and which would otherwise be lost to Britain?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman touches on a very important matter. I very much hope that it will be possible to complete the three type 23 frigates at Swan Hunter. The Ministry of Defence is in negotiation with the receiver. Some more detailed work remains to be done, but I suspect that those discussions will be concluded very shortly indeed. If and when agreement on the terms for completing the type 23s has been reached, I will of course ensure immediately that the Omani authorities are informed of that fact. Once Swan Hunter has found a buyer–that is one of the matters of concern to the Omani Government–and is back on a secure financial footing, there is no reason whatsoever why, among seeking other orders, it should not begin once more to tender for orders from the MOD.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Bates : Would my right hon. Friend agree that excess bureaucracy and over-regulation stifle initiative and efficiency, not only in British industry but in the police force in its battle against crime and the criminal? Is he aware of the remarks made two weeks ago by the chief constable of Dorset police when he pointed out that, for the most simple arrests, the average police officer is required to complete 23 forms and, in the most complex cases, that figure rises to 47 forms? That takes the average police officer off the beat and puts him behind a desk for half a day on average. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such excessive bureaucracy exists, that the average police officer feels deep frustration about it and that it is a source of bewilderment for the public and a source of delight for the criminal?

    The Prime Minister : I did see the chief constable’s remarks and I am aware of the extent of the bureaucracy facing many officers in the police force. It is partly for that reason that we are seeking to deregulate so substantially. The whole purpose of the series of reforms that my right hon. and learned Friend is now taking forward is to ensure that we have a modern, professional and effective police force with the powers that it needs to deter crime. I share the concerns that are expressed by my hon. Friend and felt by the police force. That is why we are seeking to reform and modernise the police force, so that it can concentrate on the job that it is really there for–catching criminals, not filling in forms.

     

    Q4. Mr. Chisholm : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Chisholm : Has the Prime Minister seen the report which was published this week by the Day Care Trust, which is funded by the BBC’s Children in Need, which analyses the poverty trap faced by a large number of Britain’s 1.3 million lone parents and which advocates that income spent on child care should be substantially disregarded in calculating income support or family credit entitlements? Does the Prime Minister support that proposal? Would he prefer to boost the supply of affordable child care, or does he regard child care as one of the byways of politics about which he said on Saturday he would prefer not to be asked?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should look at the record of the care and the support that have gone into child care over recent years. Expenditure on families with children now totals nearly £13 billion, a rise of three quarters during the period since the Conservative Government came to office in the late 1970s. The hon. Gentleman would be better served offering support for some of those policies rather than misrepresenting other people’s reports.

    Mr. Devlin : As today is the end of the first six months of the single market which this country and the Government did so much to bring about, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to explain to the people of the north of England the benefits of the single market and re- emphasise the Government’s commitment to unfettered markets and free trade?

    The Prime Minister : There is absolutely no doubt, not just in this country but in countries all around the world, that free trade increases the volume of trade and, with it, the volume and levels of prosperity. We certainly see within the European Community the increasing advantages of the single market. I am delighted that it was concluded during our presidency of the Community, and I hope that the general principles of free trade will win through in the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations that we are currently in the midst of.

     

    Q5. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Pike : Will the Prime Minister recognise the widespread concern and anger of people in the north-west, particularly those on low pay–such as nurses and firemen, whose pay was limited to a 1.5 per cent. increase– at pay increases that were announced by the privatised monopoly, North West Water? It increased payments to its chief executive and management by 43 per cent. in the past year and by 506 per cent. during the recession, over the past five years. Of course, they also have their share options. Will the right hon. Gentleman condemn such action by that privatised industry?

    The Prime Minister : It is not a matter for me to condemn. My responsibility across the public sector is to make sure that we retain proper control of costs, not least to ensure that we provide the services that the public want and not least to ensure that we are able to retain within the public sector the levels of employment that are necessary. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate on that rather than parade yet again his politics of envy.

    Mr. Clappison : Is my right hon. Friend aware of recent judicial comments and public concern about the absence of a power for the courts to send persistent juvenile offenders into secure accommodation? Does he agree that it is essential for the courts to have such a power? Does he agree further that the Opposition’s refusal to support giving such a power to the courts shows that they totally lack commitment to the fight against crime and that, far from being tough on crime, they are tough only on the victims of persistent juvenile offenders–victims whom they would continue to allow to suffer?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend clearly knows, one of the sectors in which the greatest increase in criminal statistics can be found is in crimes against property by youngsters, largely between the ages of eight and 18. It is for that reason that we are looking at the method of dealing with offenders and, in particular, finding secure accommodation for them. It is our intention to provide such accommodation.

     

    Q6. Mr. Bayley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 July.

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

    Mr. Bayley : Is the Prime Minister aware that ABB Transportation Ltd. is the last surviving company manufacturing railway carriage body shells in Britain and that it recently announced 532 redundancies among the employees at its York works and a further 364 at Crewe and Derby ? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that situation has arisen because of a haemorrhaging of orders in the run-up to railway privatisation ? Will he do something to stop the next round of job losses, which would mean the closure of the York works and the end of Britain’s ability to build railway carriage body shells, which we should be left to import from abroad at yet further expense to our balance of payments ? When will we have more orders ?

    The Prime Minister : I find it very strange, on some occasions at the Dispatch Box, to be criticised by Opposition Members for the fact that we appear to have too large a deficit, while on other occasions I am urged to spend more and more money–usually for some particular interest of the hon. Member concerned. I regret very much the job losses at ABB. However, ABB, like every other enterprise in this country, must find its way in the marketplace.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 30 June 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 16 June, Official Report, column 583, how many representations on THORP he has received this year; and what proportion were (a) in favour of and (b) opposed to the plant.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 16 June, Official Report, column 583.

     

    Civil List

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister what account is taken in drawing up the Civil List of contributions to the cost of the royal household received from (a) the Isle of Man, (b) the Channel Islands and (c) other countries where the Queen is Head of State.

    The Prime Minister : None, as no such contributions are received for Her Majesty’s Civil List.

     

    Treaties

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister further to his answer of 5 May, Official Report, column 922, how many treaties, since 1 January 1979, have been debated by the House in advance of their ratification by Her Majesty’s Government, and what is this figure as a percentage of total treaties ratified.

    The Prime Minister : Her Majesty’s Government have ratified 243 treaties since 1 January 1979. These have been laid before both Houses in the normal way. They cover a wide variety of subjects and fall to the appropriate Government Department to administer. The information sought is not centrally recorded and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.