The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1993

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Paris – 28 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Paris on Friday 28th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I just want to make a few introductory remarks and then I think we can really begin by taking the questions that concern you and I will attempt to answer them.

    I came here this morning at the invitation of the President of the Republic who very generously gave me lunch. President Mitterrand of course has been the longest serving French President for over a century and as such he is listened to with very great respect and I greatly enjoyed my meeting with him again today.

    I began the day earlier this morning with extensive talks with Prime Minister Balladur whom I had reacquainted when he came to dinner at Downing Street three weeks or so ago, we did of course know one another from the time we were both Finance Ministers some years ago.

    I also had the opportunity this morning of a meeting with President Giscard d’Estaing, who flew in from Strasbourg, and we were able to spend an hour or so together just before lunch.

    In each of those meetings we covered broadly similar, not identical, but broadly similar agendas. We looked at cooperation between Britain and France in international affairs, we looked at some of the main points on the European agenda and perhaps in particular the agenda that lies immediately in front of us on the Copenhagen summit, the Anglo-French bilateral that I will refer to in a few moments, and of course the European interest in the G7 summit at Tokyo later on in the summer.

    Let me make one or two general points. The first point I make is one that I make with a great degree of pleasure, and it is this. There is at the moment a great deal of common ground between people and politicians in France and the United Kingdom, and indeed in Germany and other member states, on the future of the European Community. I welcome that, I think there is an increasing concordat on many of the things we need to do in the Community and I think that is thoroughly welcome. The Community went through a period in the second half of the 1980s when there was very dramatic growth right the way across Europe. Subsequently the growth across Europe has fallen away and many of the difficulties that people have faced economically in countries right the way across the Community, international events that have swept right across the continent, have often been blamed, in many cases unfairly, on the specific activities of the Community itself.

    The second point I want to make is that I cannot myself recall a time when the relationship between the United Kingdom and France has been in better shape than it is at present. In many areas we have similar policies, we work together, we complement each other, we have joint interests. That is very welcome and I think we should maximise those joint interests in the interests of France and in the interests of the United Kingdom and both the President, the Prime Minister and I are determined that we will make the most of that.

    Of course between neighbours there are areas where we have a different shade of view, areas where there are disagreements. That I think is inevitable between neighbours and where that happens we get a great degree of publicity about it. But when one looks beyond those occasional matters, people perhaps take for granted the fact that millions of French and British visit one another each year, live and work in one another’s countries, build ships, cars, aeroplanes together as joint ventures. All that is happening and I welcome it very much indeed.

    I think they forget also that we work together, Britain and France, in a unique relationship as members simultaneously of the European Community, the Group of Seven and the United Nations Security Council. That is a very vivid illustration of the extent of common interest that exists between Britain and France and the extent to which we do work together and need to work together in the future. I think people even take for granted the fact that we are now joined by the Channel Tunnel – a massive joint engineering triumph.

    I have spent today discussing a range of matters with the President and the Prime Minister, they have not been discussing principally points of disagreement but points of agreement, points of how to develop policy further between us. we have had intensive discussion on how we can work together on issues of great importance to both of us, how to promote subsidiarity, that is to say the transfer of authority from the Community level back down to the nation state, how to promote enlargement of the Community to bring in the EFTAn states and in due course the central and Eastern European states, how to develop a closer relationship with Eastern Europe at the Copenhagen Council and how to cooperate even more closely in foreign policy, in defence and in security matters. So today has not been a day for short-term decisions but for long term planning about how to develop our joint interests together.

    Mainly because of the electoral calendar, France and Britain have not had a formal full dress British/French summit since June 1991. But I can tell you today that I have invited the President and the Prime Minister to come with a team of senior colleagues to a summit meeting in London in July. It will be held on 26 July when we will have a very extensive agenda to cover.

    I should also tell you that we have agreed this morning that the British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, and M. Juppe will be meeting next week in order to take further the Washington agreement on Bosnia that was concluded just a few days ago.

    So those are broadly the areas we have been discussing this morning, I will not go into detail, you may well wish to ask me details and as far as I can I will respond to that, but those are the general areas we have been discussing this morning and I think it has been a very useful series of exchanges.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Associated Press):

    Today Alain Juppe has said that France has submitted a proposal to the United Nations calling for peace-keepers to be able to use force in Bosnia, what is your reaction to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well that is one of the things that Douglas Hurd will be discussing with Alain Juppe next week. The British and the French position on Bosnia has been astonishingly close right from the outset of this whole affair, our analysis of the problem has been close, our commitment to put troops on the ground has been close, our commitment and determination on sanctions and other matters has been close and our general reading of the problem has been close. We propose to liaise with Alain Juppe about this matter and I hope we will be able to reach a concordat, that meeting will take place next week.

    QUESTION:

    There are two known areas where there is a degree of disagreement between France and Britain, two known areas connected in part with the European Community, the first is the social aspect by which I mean Britain’s known refusal to accept the social facet of the building of Europe and the second is connected to the GATT negotiations, are the British and French positions getting closer together or are they still as far apart?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think understanding of the positions is certainly getting greater in both those instances. If I can say a word about the social aspect of Europe, the social structure and in particular the social charter which presumably is what you have in mind rather than the other social elements of the Community. If you mean the other social elements, the British contribution to them and the British acceptance to them is as great as any other country in Europe. But if you mean the social charter, it is certainly true that we do not favour the social charter, not as a position of ideology, I believe the social charter is mis-named.

    It has a nice friendly ring if you call it the social charter. If you were to call it a potential job destruction charter I do not suppose it would be as popular across Europe and yet that is what I believe it to be. We in Britain have a different social structure from some of our partners in Europe and clearly therefore we have a different perspective on the social charter.

    But let me put the point specifically about the social charter. The social charter will add to the employment costs of people in Europe. If it adds to the employment costs it must mean one thing above all, there will be less jobs in Europe. We have between 17 and 18 million European citizens unemployed. I just ask the question: is it sensible when you have 17 – 18 million citizens unemployed, to add to the social costs of employment? I think you will just add to the number of people who are unemployed. That is the first point and the first reason that Britain opposes the social charter.

    The second reason is a European reason as well. Europe as a whole, all of it, faces much greater competition these days with Japan, with the United States, with the countries of the Pacific Basin. In a shrinking world for trade purposes we have to compete against those countries. If we, right the way across Europe, add to the social costs of employment and production we will diminish our capacity to win in those markets of the world, we will pile social costs on our employers and we will lose their markets to the Japanese, to the Americans and to the Pacific Basic countries.

    And I ask again: is that a sensible thing to do with 17 – 18 million Europeans unemployed? I have to tell you bluntly that I do not think it is sensible and it was for that reason that I argued so strongly at the Maastricht Council for Europe as a whole not to adopt the social charter, I do not want to see Europe as a whole put itself at a disadvantage to the rest of the world and I believe that is what it is doing and I believe you see that in unemployment right the way across Europe. It is emphatically not a question of saying let us not give new rights to workers. It emphatically is a question of saying let us get more workers back into jobs that they can stay in because the European industries can compete. That is why I argued against the social charter in Maastricht, why I would not accept it in Maastricht and why I still say for Britain and for Europe it is wrong, it is a disadvantage, the time for it is not yet right.

    On GATT, I very much want to see an agreement on the Uruguay Round, it has to be a fair agreement, I understand the difficulties that France faces. The GATT agreement extends across the whole range of industry and commerce, agriculture where I understand the difficulties in France, but there are many other industrial and other areas where a GATT agreement is very much in favour of Western Europe, very much in favour of jobs in Western Europe, prosperity in Western Europe, growth in Western Europe. And we have to find a way through this GATT tangle to reach a satisfactory settlement I believe within the terms of this year.

    If I may offer you a second reason for pushing ahead for a GATT agreement it would be this. What is one of the characteristics of Britain and France? One of the characteristics of both our countries is that we are very generous with overseas aid to countries with whom we have had a long-standing relationship. We are prepared to use a great deal of money from our own taxpayers’ revenue in order to assist those countries with direct aid.

    What on earth, what on earth is the purpose of giving them aid with one hand and not agreeing a GATT agreement that opens our markets to their products with the other? It is counter-productive. We may salve our consciences by giving them aid and we leave them in a position where they are a perpetual recipient of aid whilst denying them the opportunity of coming into our markets and make their prosperity, on their terms, for their future.

    Unusual for politicians to talk about morality maybe these days but I do not believe that is a moral policy and I think we should seek a GATT agreement for that reason. There are difficulties still in reaching a GATT agreement, they are not just French difficulties, I know France has difficulties with the Blair House Agreement, other countries have difficulties as well, the Japanese have difficulties, the Americans have difficulties with different aspects of the deal. I simply say that we need to continue to talk. Year after year we have gone to the G7 or some other great conference of Heads of Government and collectively agreed that we were going to have a Uruguay Agreement by the end of the year and year after year it has failed. I just think it is time that we actually reached a conclusion. It will to a greater or lesser extent be uncomfortable for all of us, including my country, but when you look at the recessionary situation around the world, particularly in Western Europe, and one looks at the difficulties that need to be faced, I think we all have to enter those talks with the determination of making them succeed. And in saying that I do not for a second under-estimate the difficulties that face France, I understand them, I just say collectively we must look and see how those can be solved across agriculture and elsewhere.

    QUESTION (David Buchan, Financial Times):

    Just two questions, one to follow up on GATT. Prime Minister Balladur said that you had agreed that your officials should put their heads together to try and advance agreement on GATT. Was that his initiative and what concretely would that mean? Would it be mainly focused on the agricultural side where he complimented Mr. Gummer’s help?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It followed on from the co-operation at the Agriculture Council that led to the agreement – which I hope will soon be clear is genuinely an agreement on oil seeds – just the other day. There was a great deal of Anglo-French co-operation. It advanced a cause that seemed lost.

    Maybe we can extend that co-operation in other ways. There is, as I indicated at the outset, a good deal more Anglo-French bilateral work on a range of subjects than most people perhaps realise and what we want to do is to look at the component parts of GATT. You can’t agree GATT by talking in generalities; you have to get down to the specifics. This is a “nuts and bolts” agreement. Everyone, to a greater or lesser extent, is hurt by the GATT agreement in one form or another. We need to look at those sore points and see whether we can find a way round them and I have great admiration for the diplomatic and political skills of the French and I believe we have quite a lot to offer in that respect as well so all we have agreed over our meeting this morning – and it followed on from the agriculture meeting – is that we will look together at these problems and see if we can identify a way ahead. we are not seeking a bilateral fix. Let me make that clear. We are pooling our resources to see how we can advance the general trend towards a satisfactory agreement.

    QUESTION (David Buchan, Financial Times):

    A quick follow-up: Prime Minister, you talked about this being a day for long-term planning. If this Anglo-French rapprochement were to continue until 1996, which is perhaps rather an ambitious hope, would you hope that in that year when there is supposed to be another intergovernmental conference in the Community, that this would help shape the agenda for that conference?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know why you think 1996 is an ambition. Unfortunately it is the disagreements that are magnified and the agreements that are not magnified but we have actually been working together for generations. I know British and French attitudes are perhaps marked by William the Conquerer coming over to Britain with a certain degree of malice aforethought and Henry II coming to France to conquer half the country and marry the rest but that was, frankly, rather a long time ago and we have been working together across a whole range of issues.

    The rapprochement will go on. We have a mutuality of interests. That is real politics apart from the fact that it is something we would both wish to do. What that doesn’t mean is that we are going to agree on every subject – of course it doesn’t. There are even disagreements sometimes within individual countries as we have all seen. Of course there will be disagreements but the determination to look where we can at areas of common interest and see a way ahead I think will continue up to and way beyond 1996 and of course we will be discussing with our friends in Paris and also other friends in the Community what the agenda should be for the next intergovernmental conference. We are working on that subject now and I believe everybody else will be too.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, it seems in fact that you have now a new relationship between Paris and London and mainly on the question of Europe and the shape of Europe. Could you give us some details of that? M. Balladur this morning said that the two administrations will work closely now.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You are wrong in thinking it is just European matters, it isn’t.

    There is a good degree of co-operation in international affairs, Bosnia for example, Russia for example; all the matters that go through the Security Council at the United Nations, the subject of increasing bilateral discussions between the United Kingdom and France. There is a very close defence relationship; we have worked together on a variety of defence projects; that remains the case; it will remain the case in the future. Britain and France are the only two nuclear powers in Western Europe. There is a good deal of collective work that we have done on that so there is a whole range of issues. The Channel Tunnel is a very practical expression of that.

    It isn’t just the development of the Community. Both France and Britain must work to a greater or lesser extent with all our Community partners on that but it is across a wide range of issues that we are seeking to develop perhaps further than it has gone before the relationship that exists between France and Britain.

    Of course it involves European matters. We are both keen on making sure we get the right extension of the European Community, that we have the right arrangements when the new countries come into the European Community, that we look collectively at what actually happens after the 1996 meeting that we will have to refresh Europe and move forward. Of course we are looking together at all those things. We both have a very direct interest in it.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, one of the fruits of Anglo-French co-operation has been this Washington agreement. This agreement has been rather received by the other European partners on two levels: one is that it is a way of promoting a kind of apartheid or bantostar in Bosnia; the second is that they didn’t like hearing about it on the radio without any prior consultation. We are talking about common foreign and defence policy. How do you react to this criticism to the Washington agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think a good deal of the criticism of the Washington agreement has been very ill-informed, to be blunt. The Washington agreement is an action plan. The Washington agreement is not a settlement that freezes the Serb gains and says they can keep them. It emphatically is not that. It is an action plan about how in practical terms we can develop policy. The objective of making sure that sanctions continue and that other policies continue until such time as the Serbs disgorge their gains continues so there is no change in that as Douglas Hurd has made clear, as M. Juppe has made clear. What it is is a practical way in which to proceed.

    As to the concerns of other European members, what they agreed there was entirely in line with previous discussions there had been amongst the Twelve so I think the criticism that we have heard from that quarter is more based on inaccurate reports than accurate substance. I reiterate the point: emphatically not a settlement; emphatically not rewarding the Serbs for the present position; emphatically making it clear that this is the way that it is practicable to proceed in the short-term and that in the long-term we do not expect and do not wish the Serbs to keep their ill-gotten gains and that diplomatic and political pressure, sanctions pressure, is expected to continue and will have the full support of the British and French perhaps for a very long time ahead.

    QUESTION (Nelson Grays, Reuters):

    Could you tell us exactly how France and Britain could strengthen their relations in the military realm and especially as regards nuclear?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nuclear is more delicate for me to discuss here and we will need to have a great deal of discussion about that but we have had a good deal of military co-operation on the construction of military equipment and other matters in the past.

    As military demands change – and they are changing at the moment in the 1990s – we may increasingly have to look across the Western European Union, across NATO, making sure that nations do most what they do best and that does mean we have a particular responsibility to look between Britain and France in the interests of Western Europe in particular at their contribution to NATO, at the right degree of co-operation between them. Joint exercises are the sort of thing we have done for a long time; the possibility of constructing joint frigates. These are all matters of co-operation that would be both in our military interest and very probably, subject to examination, in our financial interest as well and those are the sort of things we will wish increasingly to examine.

    QUESTION:

    You said that you had met with Prime Minister Balladur and indeed then with President Francois Mitterrand and I would like to know your views of this peculiarly French phenomenon known as “cohabitation”.

    Secondly, regarding Franco-British economic co-operation, you know that the Channel Tunnel is of signal importance to France and to the French. I would like to know what Britain’s intentions are in that connection and in particular mention has been made of the possibility of France even investing in British railway networks.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As far as cohabitation is concerned, I don’t find that a strange prospect at all. The Conservative Party have been cohabitating on the Maastricht Treaty for the last few months so I see no particular difficulty in the cohabitation you have had in France.

    On the question of the tunnel and the development of railway networks, we have decided that we will develop the railway network. I know President Mitterrand indicated delicately and with great charm that our trains might go a little more slowly perhaps than his. I would simply say we have some very lovely country to look at while they go slowly and I look forward to the development of those trains between now and the turn of the century and I am very delighted the decision has been made that we will proceed with the development.

    I wasn’t aware of the suggestion of French investment in those railways but perhaps that is a suggestion that has been made this side of the Channel rather than the other side.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    You said this morning that there will be no change in the government’s approach both to the ERM and to possible future cuts in interest rates but if there has been no change in economic policy and if that is not your intention, why did you change the Chancellor and what did you make of the fact that he did not send you a traditional resignation letter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The position on economic policy generally has been set out quite clearly and that doesn’t change with a change of personnel. It is no more likely to do that than the government’s desire for a home-owning democracy which has been there for generations will have changed with successive Environment or Housing Ministers; of course it doesn’t change.

    The policy carried out by the Chancellor is the government’s policy, has been and remains the government’s policy. It has been set out and articulated by Chancellors – very well articulated by Norman Lamont – and endorsed before he became Chancellor by Kenneth Clarke. That continues.

    It is always necessary from time to time to refresh a government, to change it round, to put the right people in the right jobs, to push forward the agenda for the next few years, to make sure that is done as effectively as possible and that is the purpose of any reshuffle not least this one.

    Secondly, as to why particularly now: we are about to begin discussions that move towards the first unified budget, a very dramatic change in British budgetary procedures, and it is necessary to have a new Chancellor in place to see that right the way through the preparation and presentation in November of the first unified budget. It takes a lot of work, it takes a lot of decision and it seemed therefore the right time to do it before those discussions actually commence.

    The third reason of course is that I have in my Party a lot of talented people who have not yet served in government, who have a great deal to offer my country, who deserve the chance actually to serve in government. I wanted to bring those into the government as well as giving a lot of Ministers outside the Cabinet predominantly, but some inside the Cabinet, the chance to widen their experience and look at other portfolios. I think it is in the general interest to make sure that they do that, that they have the widest possible experience because I think that helps in conducting policy in the particular Department in which they have responsibility.

    Those essentially are the reasons for the reshuffle.

    Regarding the letter, I think that is a matter for Norman but I don’t think it can be very surprising, can it? I know Norman very well. He is a good friend of mine, he has been a good friend of mine for a very long time. We have worked closely together, we have shared the same policies, we have shared the same hopes, we have shared the same dreams about getting inflation down. He has taken a great deal of criticism as Chancellor – as any Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had to do over the last two years. He has taken very bravely with a great degree of courage a great degree of criticism. The fact that it has been necessary to make a change I understand must be very hurtful to him. Even politicians are human. I quite understand the fact that he wants a little bit of peace and quiet at the moment and I hope he’ll get it.

    QUESTION:

    Could I just ask whether you have a feeling of relief now that you have finally got what must have been a reluctant reshuffle out of the way and will your new Chancellor now have the option of considering possible changes in Norman Lamont’s last budget and specifically the VAT on home heat fuel?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t anticipate the present Chancellor changing what was in the budget that was approved by the Cabinet of which he was a member. I don’t anticipate changes in that regard, no.

    With regard to the sense of relief, tomorrow is always more important than yesterday. There are difficult decisions, difficult things to be done every day. There have been in the past. I have no doubt there will be other difficult decisions next week, next month and the month after – that is the business of government.

    QUESTION (Libby Viner, ITN):

    I would just like to ask the Prime Minister in what way you think Norman Lamont’s departure will restore credibility to your government if in fact he was following exactly the same policies that the government as a whole wanted to follow including yourself?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is necessary sometimes to refresh the look of the government, to have a fresh face to look at things, to move the agenda forward. If one didn’t do that, one would never make any changes in government and I don’t think that is a credible position so have nothing more to say about that.

    QUESTION (Libby Viner, ITN):

    Do you think it was unfortunate, though, that the world heard of it from Mr. Lamont’s mother?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is the reality, not the form in which they heard of it, that really matters, isn’t it?

    QUESTION (Philip Johnstone, Daily Telegraph):

    Beyond being a fresh face, what other qualities does Kenneth Clarke bring to the Treasury that the previous Chancellor lacked?

    Secondly, you say you wanted to refresh the government but by my reckoning you only brought four new Ministers into the government – two others have been Ministers before. Are you anticipating further changes in July at middle-ranking level as well?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I am not; no, of course I am not. I brought back some people who had talent who served in the government before, who lost their seats in Parliament and have now come back. They are still men who have a lot to offer the government and I was delighted to be able to bring them back. I think they will make a great contribution. I was able to bring in at the junior ranks of government and promote from one rank to another rank a number of people with very distinct potential for the future but refreshing the government is more than just bringing new people into the government. It is giving people in government who worked in a particular portfolio the opportunity to go and exercise their talents on another portfolio with the special advantage of the experience they have gained in their first Department. There is nothing fresh or novel about that. That is the way governments have been operating for as far back as we can trace and it is the right way in order to develop political policy and that is what I did in the reshuffle.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky News):

    I didn’t want to disappoint you by not speaking about the polls and the polls aren’t looking frightfully good for either yourself as Prime Minister or for the government. Do you really believe that what you did yesterday will do the trick?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The two things are not related and if I may say, Judith, I seem to remember you saying the polls didn’t look very bright for me four days before the last general election.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky News):

    Neither did they! [Laughter]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Remind me of the result! [Laughter]

    QUESTION (Jane Martenson, South Wales Echo):

    Prime Minister, what good will the appointment of John Redwood do for Wales and does his appointment mean a shift in policy for the region?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it doesn’t. In John Redwood, what I have done is given Wales an extremely talented politician who I believe will fight very hard for Wales. I think the important thing in any Secretary of State’s position is to find someone who has real ability in order to carry out that particular job. John has a wide range of experience across government already. I believe he will bring that experience whole-heartedly to the interests of the people of Wales and I think he will do an outstanding job.

    The first priority, frankly, in choosing people for any Cabinet is to choose people of very great ability. John Redwood in my judgement has very great ability and I think he will be of immense service to the people of Wales.

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Just a very simple question.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If only I had known! [Laughter]

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Do any of your Cabinet speak French?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes.

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Any of these new people? Does the new Chancellor speak French?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure about the new Chancellor speaking French. I do know that Mrs. Shephard, for example, is as bilingual – and maybe even trilingual – as anyone else in this room.

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    It is a curious thing that after so long in Europe that we have to have an interpreter for the Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Do you speak French?

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Of course I do!

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Excellent! Congratulations! [Laughter]

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministers (Cash Payments)

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if Departments in their capacity as employers notify the Inland Revenue when cash payments are made to Ministers to relieve financial pressures which affect their performance as Ministers.

    The Prime Minister : I know of no such payments.

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Richard Shepherd : To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlie the policies of Her Majesty’s Government with respect to giving substantive answers to parliamentary questions seeking details of the names, occupations and remuneration of Members of (a) health boards in Scotland and (b) district health authorities in England.

    The Prime Minister : Non-executive health board members in Scotland are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and information on them is therefore held centrally and given in response to parliamentary questions. Non-executive members of district health authorities in England, however, are appointed by regional health authorities and not district health authorities in England are appointed by their respective board or authority. Information on them, therefore, is not currently available centrally.

    The level of remuneration for health authority members in England, and for health board members in Scotland, is set centrally and this information is always provided in response to parliamentary questions.

     

    Merlin Reactor

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department is responsible for overseeing the decommissioning of the Merlin reactor at Aldermaston.

    The Prime Minister : The nuclear installations inspectorate, which is now part of the Health and Safety Executive, was responsible for overseeing the decommissioning.

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 March, Official Report, column 33, what information has been received through the high commission in New Delhi from the Indian Government about Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : On 26 May, our high commission in New Delhi received a lengthy aide memoire from the Indian Home Ministry. This stated that both Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik are in custody in Jammu where they are awaiting trial. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be writing to the hon. Gentleman with details.

     

    School Visits

    Mr. Tipping : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the local authority maintained schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges that he has visited since taking his present office.

    The Prime Minister : I have visited a number of local authority maintained schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges.

     

    Jubilee Line

    Mr. Bowis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement about the Government’s commitment to making a contribution to the Jubilee line extension.

    The Prime Minister : The Government, and I personally, remain committed to the Jubilee line extension as a major addition to the infrastructure of docklands and of London’s transport. We have earmarked public funds for the line. As soon as negotiations with the companies involved in the financing of Canary Wharf have been concluded satisfactorily my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will authorise the start of construction and the first tranche of those funds will be made available. The line will then be built within an estimated 53 months. The draft funding agreement specifies that swingeing penalty payments will come into force if the line is not completed seven months after that.

  • Mr Major’s Memoirs on Norman Lamont – 27 May 1993

    Below is the text from John Major’s memoirs, John Major – The Autobiography, relating to the departure of Norman Lamont.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Norman’s [Lamont] credibility plummeted. The satirists piled in, and the speculation about he could survive was constant. Central Office and constituency MPs reported that party opinion wished to see a change. This all had an effect: in interviews ministers were questioned about Norman, while Norman himself was asked about trivia, and no one wanted to know about economic policy. In cabinet committees he began to need the reassurance of getting his own way, and proper debate was constrained. He had become a bird with a wing down.

    Ministerial colleagues, by raised eyebrow, rolling eyes and dismissive gestures, let it be known that his position was becoming untenable. Gradually he lost the confidence of industry, the City, the media and a large part, though not all, of the Cabinet and the parliamentary party. My sympathies were with him as a more sinned against than sinning, but I had no choice but to make a change. As the reshuffle approached I consulted senior colleagues; they all believed Norman had to go.

    I saw Norman at Number 10 early on the morning of 27th May [1993], and told him I intended to make a change of chancellor. I had thought long and hard about what other jobs he might like, and concluded it had to be a major department; a non-departmental job would not be enough. I therefore urged him to stay in the Cabinet, offering him the post of Secretary of State for the Environment, with the sweetener that he could keep the chancellor’s official country residence of Dorneywood. Pale-faced and tense, he refused. I pressed him. He refused again. I expressed my regrets. Still he refused. My offer was genuine. I wished him to stay in the Cabinet, but it seemed he could not bear to do so if he left the Treasury. It was a stilted series of exchanges that illustrated the chill that had descended upon our relationship and the depths of Norman’s hurt. “Yes, Prime Minister,”, “No thank you, Prime Minister”, “I wish to leave the Cabinet” were the only words he spoke. He turned and left. We have never spoken since.

  • Mr Major’s Fourth Cabinet – 27 May 1993

    Below is Mr Major’s fourth cabinet, announced on 27th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER – John Major
    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER – Kenneth Clarke
    FOREIGN SECRETARY – Douglas Hurd
    HOME SECRETARY – Michael Howard
    LORD CHANCELLOR – Lord Mackay of Clashfern
    SCOTLAND – Ian Lang
    WALES – John Redwood
    NORTHERN IRELAND – Patrick Mayhew
    LEADER OF THE COMMONS – Tony Newton
    LEADER OF THE LORDS – Lord Wakeham
    TRADE AND INDUSTRY – Michael Heseltine
    DEFENCE – Malcolm Rifkind
    HEALTH – Virginia Bottomley
    SOCIAL SECURITY – Peter Lilley
    ENVIRONMENT – John Gummer
    TRANSPORT – John MacGregor
    EMPLOYMENT – David Hunt
    EDUCATION – John Patten
    AGRICULTURE – Gillian Shephard
    NATIONAL HERITAGE – Peter Brooke
    DUCHY OF LANCASTER – William Waldegrave
    CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY – Michael Portillo

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Social Chapter and the ERM – 26 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Social Chapter and the ERM, made in London on 26th May 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked if it was the situation that he disliked the ERM, the Social Chapter and wanted a Europe a la Carte?]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No it is not, but neither are we in favour of a prescribed Europe a la Carte, prescribed from the centre. Can I take those three issues separately. Why do I oppose the social chapter? It sounds very friendly, does it not, the social chapter? If you called it what it really is – an employment destruction chapter – I do not think it would have the same support across Europe and yet that is what I believe the social chapter to be. There is a second reason. Europe does not just compete within its own boundaries, Europe as a whole has to compete with Japan, with the United States and with the Pacific Basic countries, that is very tough competition. If we pile extra costs on our employers so that we pile extra costs on their products so that they can make a profit, we will make Europe uncompetitive. If we make Europe uncompetitive we will damage the whole of Europe – that is my argument against the social chapter, it is damaging in a highly competitive world to the competitiveness of Europe and that damage will cost us jobs. we have in the European Community nearly 13 million European adult citizens without work, that is far too many, it is not sensible to add to that by imposing at this moment fresh costs on employers that will cost us jobs. That is why I oppose it, I think it is wrong.

    On the Exchange Rate Mechanism, I entered the Exchange Rate Mechanism because I have a passionate dislike of inflation, inflation wrecks jobs, wrecks countries, wrecks lives, I loathe it. We left the Exchange Rate Mechanism through force majeure, it was not a matter of choice, the market overwhelmed us and we left. It might have overwhelmed the Franc if it had been a reserve currency with as many non-resident holders of the Franc as there are non-resident holders of sterling, all able to sell in a market panic. The Franc thankfully did not face that problem and I am pleased about that, but we did and we had to leave. To say that there are no difficulties with the Exchange Rate Mechanism is really to fly in the face of logic, it seems to me. Sterling was tossed out of it, in Spain, in Portugal, in Italy there have been very real problems. One of the problems was that the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which was a flexible instrument, became a very rigid instrument as countries moved towards a single currency, it was too rigid and it broke in our hands and I think we have to look at the way in which it works before I could take sterling back into the Mechanism.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Manchester Airport

    Q6. Mr. Mans : To ask the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Manchester airport.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has at present no plans to do so.

     

    Environmental Appraisal

    Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister which Government Departments have carried out an environmental appraisal of their policy-making and administrative procedures.

    The Prime Minister : All Departments must ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account in developing their policies and programmes. Papers to Cabinet and ministerial committees should, where appropriate, cover any significant costs or benefits to the environment. We are firmly committed to the principle that “green issues” must be built into decision taking throughout Government.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the unveiling of a memorial statue to Field Marshal the Viscount Alanbrooke by Her Majesty the Queen as is, I understand, the Leader of the official Opposition.

     

    Smoke Alarms

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that smoke alarms are fitted in all new publicly owned dwellings and buildings.

    The Prime Minister : It has been policy to provide smoke alarms in all new dwellings since 1 June 1992.

    Smoke alarms in other buildings–whether public or privately owned–are normally required under licensing or certification arrangements where appropriate.

  • PMQT – 25 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th May 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mandelson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    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 unveiling of a memorial statue to Field Marshal Viscount Alanbrooke by Her Majesty the Queen, as is, I understand, the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

    Mr. Mandelson : Given that a system of charging for hospital beds would be a tax under which the longer one was ill the more one would have to pay, and given that it would destroy at a stroke the principle of a national health service free at the time of need and point of use, will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance today that the Government will never force NHS patients to pay charges for NHS beds?

    Mr. Newton : I can best point the hon. Gentleman to what was said in our manifesto : that need, not ability to pay, is and will remain the basis on which care is offered to all in the NHS. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Ministers said in an interview in one of this morning’s newspapers, we shall honour our pledges both in the spirit and the letter.

    Madam Speaker : Mr. Patrick Nicholls.

    Mr. Newton : While I am at it, may I just say– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I apologise. I had not appreciated that the Leader of the House had not completed his reply.

    Mr. Newton : That is entirely understandable, Madam Speaker. I simply wanted to add that it was good to see the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) back from his triumph in masterminding the loss of Labour’s deposit in Newbury.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nicholls : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Nicholls : Now that the Maastricht Bill has received its Third Reading, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity, and indeed every opportunity, to tell the people of Britain that the Maastricht treaty is a move away from federalism, not a move towards it? It is the Liberal and Labour parties which are self-confessedly federalist and the Conservative party which is not. Is not this a treaty which gives us the opportunity to co-operate with other nation states, to the benefit of this country, which has always been the policy of the Conservative party?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. By enshrining subsidiarity and co-operation between states, the Maastricht treaty will move us to a much less centralised Europe. That is a major achievement and a great gain from the British point of view. As for the Labour party, it has, to my recollection, had seven different policies on Europe in the time that I have been in the House and the Opposition appeared to be changing their minds again even last week.

    Mrs. Beckett : The Lord President quoted the Prime Minister on the manifesto pledges of the Conservative party. Does he recall the pledge not to increase national insurance contributions–broken? Does he recall the pledge to maintain mortgage interest relief–broken? How does he square all that with what the Prime Minister said yesterday?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend made the position absolutely clear in his answer last week, in setting out the Government’s intentions to review public expenditure against the background of the pledges that we have made and the need to protect the most vulnerable. If the right hon. Lady disagrees with that, perhaps she would care to tell us whether she is disowning, in his absence, her right hon. and learned Friend’s statement that we should be prepared to re-examine everything and that he has not ruled anything out.

    Mrs. Beckett : The Leader of the House and his party kept talking about taking tough decisions. When will the Government take the tough decision to admit even the smallest share of the blame for the state to which this country has been reduced–never mind the price the Government are asking the British people to pay?

    Mr. Newton : When it comes to talking about the price that the British people must pay, the hon. Lady must count as some kind of expert. I have been looking back at something said by her hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) some time ago :

    “I will not take lessons in Left wing unity from Margaret Beckett. She was the person who went into the 1976 Labour government to implement the cuts over which I had resigned.”

    [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats.

    Mrs. Beckett : The Lord President knows full well that the Government went into the general election campaign promising tax cuts and public expenditure increases. Is not the most fundamental problem that Britain faces today the fact that it has a Government whose dishonesty is exceeded only by their incompetence?

    Mr. Newton : What I know is that the Government are approaching their difficult task in a responsible and considered way and that they are not going to get into the position that led the right hon. Lady into the problem that I have just quoted–the IMF coming here telling the Government what to do.

    Mr. Butterfill : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government’s priorities in the European Community will, in the foreseeable future, be to secure the entry to the Community of our former partners in the European Free Trade Association, notably the Scandinavian countries and Austria, and to facilitate the arrangements that the Community makes with the countries of eastern and central Europe?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have a number of important tasks in the Community, including carrying forward the concept of subsidiarity. Among the most important tasks and among those on which we have made the most gains in recent months is that of enlargement, to embrace exactly the countries to which my hon. Friend refers.

    Mr. Ashdown : Can the right hon. Gentleman categorically assure the House that no Government agency was involved in any way in coaching witnesses from Walter Somers before they appeared before the Select Committee looking into the Iraqi gun affair?

    Mr. Newton : The right hon. Gentleman well knows that all these matters are the subject of an inquiry by Lord Justice Scott. The most appropriate course for Ministers and other hon. Members is to allow that inquiry to conduct its proceedings properly.

    Mr. Duncan Smith : Does my right hon. Friend agree that last week’s Audit Commission report on the chronic mismanagement, waste and incompetence of Lambeth council painted a grim picture of Labour in control of councils? Does he further agree that it is a bit rich when the deputy Leader of the Opposition talks about the Government displaying incompetence and dishonesty when Labour has a record like that?

    Mr. Newton : I was indeed pretty horrified to hear details of that Audit Commission report on Lambeth council, although not entirely surprised in view of its socialist record of incompetence and waste, which is well known on both sides of the House. It reminded me, once again, of that immortal quote from Tribune last May :

    “Ineffectual or rotten Labour councils have been a feature of political life for as long as anyone can remember.”

     

    Q3. Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Prentice : Is the Lord President aware that the first passenger train that ran in England between Liverpool and Manchester achieved a top speed of 29 mph? That was in 1829. Is not it disgraceful that 164 years ago a train could achieve a higher speed than the train currently running between Nelson and Colne in my constituency? Is the Lord President further aware that I have a letter from the chairman of British Rail which says that the 20 mph speed restriction will be permanent because of cuts in Government funding?

    Mr. Newton : Somewhat to my surprise–I had not anticipated that the hon. Gentleman would seek to be so helpful–that seems to be the best argument I have heard for some time for the rapid passage of the Railways Bill, which is before the House today.

     

    Q4. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Fabricant : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that subsidiarity can be applied retrospectively as well as prospectively and that that means that any European legislation which has been laid before the House and which we have had to rubber stamp since 1986 can–if it meets the subsidiarity test–be either amended or swept aside?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend is right. The Commission is reviewing existing European Community law. At the Edinburgh Council it presented some 32 examples of legislation which should be either withdrawn, amended or re- examined, or further proposals that should not be pursued. That review is continuing and a full report is scheduled for the European Council in December this year. It is our intention that those items to which subsidiarity applies should be amended or repealed.

    Mr. Sheldon : In regard to the Government’s intention to reduce the budget deficit, we have heard from Minister after Minister that nothing is ruled out, yet we have heard nothing about increasing the higher rate of tax. Should not that be ruled in?

    Mr. Newton : It is not only from Ministers that we have heard that. As I reminded the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), that is what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, too. That is the sensible way in which to approach these matters and that is the way in which the Government are approaching them.

     

    Overseas Aid

    Q5. Mr. Luff : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s policy on the relative importance of trade and aid in assisting the economic development of the poorest nations.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    Worldwide trade liberalisation and measures to encourage the private sector are critical for developing countries, but many countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, will continue to need concessional finance for the foreseeable future. Further debt reduction along the lines of the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in Trinidad in 1990 will also be required for the poorest, most heavily indebted countries.

    Mr. Luff : I thank my right hon. Friend warmly for what he has just said. Does he agree that the major objective of our aid policy should be to encourage the promotion of private sector enterprises in the developing world? In that context, will he pay tribute to the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation? Does he further agree that we have a fine record as a Government for fighting for free trade, which brings advantages to the developed and the developing world? Can he give an assurance that that fine record will be enhanced at the G7 summit in Tokyo in July this year?

    Mr. Newton : Certainly I acknowledge, as I think the whole House would, the leading role that my right hon. Friend and other colleagues have played in advancing the cause of free trade and the successful outcome to the GATT round. My hon. Friend is also right about the part played by the Commonwealth Development Corporation which is the main instrument in our aid programme for the direct promotion of private investment in developing countries. As it happens, United Kingdom direct private investment in developing countries was estimated to be some £3 billion in 1991. That is half the overall total for the whole European Community. It is a record of which we can be proud.

    Mr. Worthington : If the Minister is in favour of free trade, when will we abandon the practice of demanding that developing countries drop their import tariffs and when will we stop dumping subsidised CAP food on them?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have always taken the view that trade is as important as aid in advancing the circumstances of developing countries. I think he will agree that we have a better record than many in promoting those objectives.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if civil service (a) terms and conditions and (b) codes of conduct apply to special advisers attached to Ministers in Government.

    The Prime Minister : Special advisers have generally the same conditions of service as other civil servants, except that their salaries are negotiated individually in relation to previous earnings and are confidential. Different arrangements apply to severance pay. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers’ salary spine of 30 points.

    Special advisers are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants, with the exception of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments after resignation or retirement and certain aspects of the rules on political activities.

     

    European Parliament (Elections)

    Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s policy regarding the de Gucht report on elections to the European Parliament.

    The Prime Minister : We are ready to discuss the issue in Council when the presidency decides to table the report. If the council were to reach a consensus, which remains to be seen, it would certainly need to respect different national traditions. We acknowledge the attempt made by the de Gucht report to take these considerations into account.

     

    Nuclear Test Veterans

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister if he will sympathetically consider any request to meet representatives of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Studies so far have shown that the incidence of death and malignant disease has been no greater among British nuclear test veterans than among the general population. If, however, the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association has any new evidence to change the position, I should be pleased to examine it and will readily consider any subsequent request for a meeting in that light.

     

    British Coal Superannuation Scheme

    Mr. Tipping : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the correspondence he has received about the British Coal staff superannuation scheme.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a substantial number of representations on a wide range of coal issues.

     

    Crossrail

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all those organisations and companies, other than the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, from which he has received recent representations concerning the crossrail project.

    The Prime Minister : I have received representations in recent weeks from the following organisations and companies :

    Aylesbury Vale District Council

    Buckinghamshire County Council

    Grosvenor Estates

    London Chambers Network

    London First

    MEPC plc

    Residents’ Association of Mayfair

    Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce and Industry

    The Corporation of the City of London

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister what is the total cost of Britain’s contribution to the peace process in the former Yugoslavia.

    The Prime Minister : The costs cannot be precisely calculated but are considerable in the military, political and humanitarian fields. Up to 31 March 1993, the United Kingdom’s contribution to UNPROFOR operations in Croatia and Bosnia has amounted to £93,835,679. Further expenditure of £2,576,831 has been incurred as a result of the airlift of humanitarian supplies to Sarajevo. We expect to recover a proportion of these costs from the United Nations in due course.

     

    EC Additionality

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister when he last met representatives of the European Commission to discuss the application of the additionality principle by (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other member states; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I last discussed additionality with the Commission and other EC Heads of State and Government at the European Council in Edinburgh. We agreed that the basic principles laid down in 1988 – concentration, programming, partnership and additionality–should continue to guide the implementation of the structural funds. Financial control more generally will be strengthened and greater emphasis will be given to appraisal, monitoring and evaluation. The current review of the structural funds regulations is examining the Commission’s proposal on additionality.

     

    European Court of Human Rights

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he intends to bring to the Council of Europe Heads of State summit in October with regard to the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, at its meeting at Strasbourg on 14 May, instructed that work should proceed urgently on the mandate for a draft protocol amending the European convention on human rights, to be submitted to Heads of State and Government at the Council of Europe summit in October. The United Kingdom will contribute fully to this work.

    The purpose of the draft protocol will be to reform the control machinery of the convention, in order to accommodate the growing workload of the European Court and Commission of Human Rights and to ensure that cases are heard in good time. All member states are agreed that such reform is urgently needed.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr. Alan Clark

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if Mr. Alan Clark was telephone tapped during his period in office as a Minister of the Crown.

    The Prime Minister : The policy on the interception of the telephones of Members of Parliament remains as stated in 1966 by the then Prime Minister, the Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and as applied by successive Governments since. In answer to questions on 17 November 1966, Lord Wilson said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament and that, if there were a development which required such a change of policy, he would at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative make a statement in the House about it. As I said in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 29 June 1992 at column 375, the Government regard this undertaking as still applying to both postal and telephone interception.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Government Priorities

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what priorities have been set for Her Majesty’s Government between now and the beginning of the summer adjournment.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 14 January 1993 at columns 786-87.

     

    Policy Objectives, London

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what are Her Majesty’s Government’s short-term, medium-term and long-term policy objectives for London.

    The Prime Minister : Our policy objectives are to maintain and enhance London’s position as a thriving national capital and a leading world city.

     

    Council of Ministers (Votes)

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister what advice has been given to all Departments concerning the recording of answers to be published in the Official Report to parliamentary questions of all votes in meetings of the EC’s Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : All Departments are being advised that statements to the House following meetings of the Council of Ministers should include details of the vote, whenever a formal vote is taken in Council, or should record that no formal votes were taken.

     

    Correspondence (Journalists)

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister what guidelines he has issued governing official correspondence between civil servants and journalists; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : None. Guidance on various points concerning relations between civil servants and journalists is given in “A Working Guide for Government Information Officers” produced by the information officer management unit in the Office of Public Service and Science, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Congdon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

    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 this House I shall be having further meetings later today.