The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1993

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Newspaper Society Luncheon – 5 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Newspaper Society Luncheon, held on Wednesday 5th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say that I do regard today as an important occasion to talk about some of the particular difficulties and some of the opportunities that are faced by the press generally but most importantly in terms of today’s occasion, the regional press. It does I believe have a very special place in our community and I want to touch upon that in a little more detail in a few moments.

    It is a rapidly changing industry, it has come a huge way since that old and hoary headline we all know about the sinking of the Titanic, Aberdeen Man Feared Lost at Sea – all that seems a very long time ago. Regional papers, local papers, have a much broader vision these days. New technology, new attitudes, new approaches, all of those in their different ways have transformed your industry. And if I may say so on this occasion, I think no-one pushed harder for such transformation than the great Malcolm Graham, the grand old man of regional press if I might put it that way, who sadly has just died and who I know must have been well known to many of the people here today.

    I teased about Aberdeen Man Lost at Sea. But I have to say, despite the modern attitudes of your industry, despite the changes in it, the headline writers still occasionally have a tricky job. For example, I have in my hand the Lynn News. Those people who wonder whether I read the press now know that I read the regional press. And last week’s Lynn News announced: “MP introduces his bride-to-be, Emma.” Now that seems straightforward enough, doesn’t it? Less straightforward than you might think. The Member of Parliament of course is our old friend Henry Bellingham who is shrinking into the tablecloth over there on that table, and I offer Henry my congratulations. His engagement, you may think, is just plain, simple, straightforward good news. Or is it? Read on in the Lynn News. It says here that an ancestor of Henry’s murdered the Prime Minister and the Tories are the party of tradition. Family tradition, Henry, is a wonderful thing, but so is ambition, and they may clash.

    My current favourite headline does not as it happens come from today’s press but from headlines: “Better times”, it says, “are really on the way”. I think that should be good news for everyone although of course good news for some is bad news for others. And to quote a recent headline in the Financial Times: “British recovery worries Delors” – very snappy, I like it, and poor Jacques, if our recovery really does worry him, he is in for a very bad time in the future.

    Mr President, let me say something about how I see the importance of your industry. Or perhaps a little better, let me quote Alan Proper from the Kent Messenger Group, and I do so now: “The strength of the regional press lies in binding together local communities and giving people back a sense of belonging.” I think that is right. And in giving us just that you often, as you hinted in your modest remarks earlier, Mr President, you often out-perform the nationals. People want the news, they want to be informed, but I believe they want the good news as well as the other news, they want to know about local events and they want to contribute themselves. Public figures of course may respond to the press by lurching from blase to paranoid during the space of a single afternoon. But for private citizens penlines on the turn are an event. You can brighten lives or you can blight them. So I would say to you, dip your pens in kindliness and tolerance when writing of private citizens, you record the real Britain so be a recording angel when you do.

    So far as public figures are concerned you may think different circumstances apply. I certainly know, and I see a number of my Parliamentary colleagues from different parties here today, I know many Members of Parliament are tempted to use Sir Jacob Astley’s prayer. He wrote as follows:

    “Oh Lord, thou knowest how busy I shall be this day,

    If I forget thee, do not thou forget me.”

    A very wise man, Sir Jacob Astley, and any Westminster politician who thinks he can forget the real Britain and forget his local newspapers will be out of touch now and probably be out of office later.

    I welcome unreservedly, and I say so not simply because Harry Roach is sitting opposite me, I would have said it anyway, if you spent Tuesday and Thursday afternoons like I do you lose that sense of delicacy, I welcome unreservedly yesterday’s statement by the Press Standard’s Board of Finance outlining measures to strengthen self-regulation. The government is still considering its response to the Calcutt Report but I have not a shred of doubt that this positive move will play its part in moving the debate forward, we will keep a particularly close eye, Harry, on how effectively and widely the new measures are implemented.

    The best of the national press can be very good even though it may not thunder like the times of delaying, often it drizzles, sometimes it drizzles acid rain. There are moments when Quintus Flyde of the People’s Vanner appears to have leapt straight from the pages of Trollop into contemporary journalism. Quintus Flyde was very fierce with politicians and I think it has to be said that politicians are sometimes very fierce with the Quintus Flydes. Baldwin’s memorable remarks about press power and responsibility have travelled famously down the years.

    And last night reading in the watches of the night that remarkable Martin Gilbert biography of Churchill I came across Churchill’s letter to The Times complaining that his editorials had, in his words, and now I quote, “been a very important adverse factor in the life and strengths of the British Empire and Commonwealth.” And he went on, in remarkable fashion: “Time after time they have thrown their immense weight on the wrong side and such is their power that they have been able, again and again, to blow away the head of every front or formation which could be made to keep Britain great and strong.”

    Thank goodness it is not like that today. Churchill, you may equally be interested to know, wrote his letter, but as Martin Gilbert faithfully reports, he did not send his letter which suggests that underneath the frustration there was a very practical politician indeed.

    Now obviously, just as the press has responsibilities to the public, so the government has responsibilities to let the public and the press know the state of our thinking. We will never be proscribers but there is a common climate of anxiety about malevolent abuse. Contemplate for a moment, particularly important I believe to the regional and local press, the new opportunities to challenge government and public services. Under the Citizen’s Charter we are publishing more information about public services, about school league tables, hospital waiting times and shortly the performance of local authorities as well, comparing one with another. Rich pickings for local reporters, bad news for the inefficient, ammunition for the awkward squads and even fun for trouble-makers, but all now published and all available for use.

    We are giving, too, much more detail of the thinking behind government policies. Ten times more background information accompanied this year’s budget compared with 15 years ago and we are opening up the process of government, Cabinet Committees, historical records, disputed criminal verdicts, the Channel Island occupation papers, even the secret of the FCO Sphynx Suez – all now available. Sir Humphrey Appleby, a wonderful character, I believe of fiction, once said: “You can either have openness or you can have government, but you can’t have both.” I don’t understand this next line but you can have William Waldegrave. And this summer he will be publishing a White Paper on openness with further proposals to open the workings of government and public services to public scrutiny. I want to turn Sir Humphrey into a melancholy ghost who has lost his mystique.

    In recent weeks, Mr President, a cascade of economic information has been released that suggests we are moving out of recession and back into growth. The recovery is in its infancy but it is growing daily, GDP up 0.6 percent in the first quarter; new car registrations 11.5 percent up on a year ago; manufacturing output up; construction orders up; retail sales at record levels; exports at record levels; unemployment down for the second month in succession. And business optimism, so vital, that instinct, that feel that people have for what is likely to happen in the future, business optimism, as assessed by the CBI, the highest for 10 years. Other surveys, private sector, not government surveys, paint the same picture.

    And the vital ingredient for our economic future is confidence, confidence that recovery has started, confidence it can be sustained, confidence we can compete successfully abroad in manufacturing and services. But confidence and recovery need to be earned. It was the long hard slog to get inflation down, down from nearly 11 percent to just 1.9 percent, that laid the foundation for recovery. We started that process before we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism and the benefits had started to come through before we left the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Interest rates had been cut from 15 percent to 10 percent before last September. GDP had stabilised before September and started growing again in the second half of last year. And it is now clear that retail sales, industrial production and manufacturing Investment all started to recover from around the middle of last year. So anyone who argues that leaving the Mechanism was the sole cause of recovery should inform themselves by looking at those facts. We were cutting inflation and cutting interest rates well before and recovery was starting to show through, but we could not have sustained recovery if we had not already got inflation under control. And those conditions, low inflation, low interest rates, competitive exchange rates combined with high productivity, those are the quiet enormously influential guarantors of sustained recovery for the future.

    Of course our recession was exacerbated by a slow-down in the world economy. Similarly, the speed of our recovery will be affected by the recession in many of our European markets. But the fact is we have emerged from recession ahead of our main European competitors and ahead is a good place to stay.

    Mr President, in recent months public and parliamentary debates have been dominated by the economy and by the Maastricht Bill. And one of the effects of that has been that a vast range of reforming legislation has been passing through Parliament in some cases almost without notice, other than perhaps by those Parliamentarians who spent so many hours debating it, discussing it, reforming it and amending it. Recently I asked my staff to draw up a list of our manifesto commitments and the progress that we had made thus far in putting them into effect. On a rough estimate we have already fulfilled rather more than one-third of the commitments we made in the manifesto, in fact more manifesto pledges have been honoured in the Parliamentary year since the 1992 election than was achieved after the elections of 1979, 1983 or 1987.

    And we have had resounding successes in taking important reforming measures through Parliament – the Housing Bill, the Asylum Bill, the Lotteries Bill, the Education Bill, the Employment Bill have now all either received Royal Assent or are well on the way to the Statute Book. As Michael Caine might aptly have put it, not a lot of people know that, but that is what has happened in the midst of the debates about the economy and the Maastricht Treaty.

    And neither I think should we overlook some of the other notable successes, the dogs that did not bark, the successful introduction of the Council Tax and the long awaited reforms of health care in London. And then there is a whole list of solid achievements, of far reaching reforms that just over a year ago people said would never happen – the 800 grant maintained schools, the 150 National Health Service Trusts, the 3,000 GP fund-holders, new rights for parents, new rights for pupils, new rights for trade union members, new rights for tenants, more opportunities for people to buy their own homes, more opportunities to take out their own pensions, more opportunities for parents to know how their children are doing at school. All that has happened over the period of the last year. And we turned over some stones that were left unturned throughout the 1980s. We will abolish NEDDY, we are getting rid of the Wages Councils, controversial in many cases but things that we believe to be right, that we have done and our opponents have rightly opposed for they believe we are wrong, that is the essence of Parliament.

    We are bringing the fresh air of private enterprise into the railways and we are saying that public services – all of them – are no longer no-go areas for government reforms. Pushing through changes as profound and wide ranging as anything we attempted in the 1980s, and just as we succeeded then, I believe we will succeed on this occasion.

    So away from the headlines, away from the smoke and fire of Westminster, we have been pushing ahead with a radical agenda to extend choice, open up opportunity and enable more people to know the pride of ownership. That is what has been happening.

    In the year ahead I want us to make more progress on that vital domestic political agenda and I want to single out just two areas where we will be moving the debate forward. Firstly, and I make no apology for putting it first – law and order. I know there is growing concern about crime, I know it because I share that concern. We have already brought forward measures to tackle the problem of persistent young offenders and new age travellers. Ken Clarke has responded to concerns that have been expressed about the Criminal Justice Act. So we have shown that we are prepared to listen and then act, but there is more that we can and must do and you can expect to see further action in the next session.

    For I am personally in no doubt at all, when that smoke and fire spoke about has cleared away and the Maastricht Treaty is concluded and the immediate concerns and day to day high publicity of the economy have been swept to one side, the matter that is most likely to be on the minds of all of our fellow citizens up and down the country is the need for us to deal firmly with the concerns that they face about crime and the determination to uphold law and order and it is right for Parliament to put it in the centre of its concerns, and that I am determined is precisely where it will be.

    And secondly, businessmen tell me time after time about the problem that they face from over-regulation. Again I believe they are right to be worried, unnecessary bureaucracy destroys jobs, it is as simple as that. I am not amongst those people who decry bureaucracy almost as though it was a smear word, bureaucracy has its role and it is a vital role in many industries and in the maintenance of government and in many ways and on many occasions it is very efficiently performed and I welcome that.

    But unnecessary bureaucracy is a drain on the economy. No-one, for example, who cares about unemployment can be complacent about the great tomes of rules and regulations with which business are burdened. That battle against red tape is never ending, it is a battle that must be fought year, after year, after year, after year, the enemy never seems to lie down and die, it always reappears in one guise or another. So we need to get its hand round its throat, and let me say to you quite clearly today, for me deregulation is an absolute priority and I believe you may see that reflected when we bring forward our legislative programme in the autumn.

    There is a great deal that needs to be done, a great deal that want to do, a great deal that I believe the people of this country want to see Parliament do if we are going to build on the reforms of the 1980s and turn Britain into a country that will succeed in the 1990s. That is why the legislative programme this year is so full; that is why the legislative programme next year – bad news for my parliamentary colleagues of all parties – is going to be very full too and there will be plenty of red meat for every parliamentarian to get his teeth into and equally for the press, both national, regional and local, to comment upon and to examine with care and let me tell you one reason why that must necessarily be so.

    We live, I believe, in the most rapidly-changing decade in peacetime that any of us have ever known. All around us, wherever you look around the world, the competitive environment we face, the people with whom we do business or the people with whom we must transact political exchanges are changing as well. We lead that change or we will find ourselves led by that change. I don’t want to see Britain with a halter round its neck led away by other countries. I want us to play our part in leading in the development of the 1990s both within the European Community and beyond.

    It is very easy – and people are often very fashionably inclined to do it – to stand back and decry the contribution that this country has made, can make, is making and will continue to make in the different fora around the world. That is not a party point. I make no party point. I think it is an instinctive reflection of our historical background that we have a particular role to play in Europe and in the world and I believe it is overwhelmingly the view of Parliament – again irrespective of party – that Britain should play its part in those changes and to do so with maximum influence we need to make sure domestically and economically that we remain ahead of the field.

    It will need changes. Sometimes they will be painful changes. Change is often difficult, often debilitating, often something people would like to put aside and wish it wasn’t necessary but unless we wish to decline, we must face up to many of the needs that we see for changes and implement those changes during this particular decade. I want to be certain that when we start the next Milllennium in 80-odd months time – for that is how close it is – that we can look back on the span of the 1990s and say: “Not only did we deal with the contemporary problems; we laid the groundwork for a more successful, prosperous, secure and happy country at the beginning of the new century!”

    Mr. President, let me just finally turn back, if I may, to your own industry. It shouldn’t, I think, surprise you that I feel a certain sympathy and kinship for your industry. After all, politicians and some journalists hold an equal place in the public’s esteem – as every opinion poll shows! [Laughter] There we are and I think you know where we are! There we are at the bottom of the list along with estate agents who are deeply embarrassed to see themselves bracketed with us!

    So let us see who can improve their rating fastest. We, the Government and the newspaper industry national and local, won’t always agree, Mr. President, but let us join forces in one thing at least. As I said a moment ago, our world is fast changing, disturbing and too many people are uncertain of the future, fearful of losing much that is traditional and valuable about our society – tolerance, decency and respect for others.

    Alan Sprossor spoke of the danger of people becoming – and I quote directly from him again – “strangers in their own land” and he spoke also of the role of local newspapers in preventing that. I agree with him. Let us offer support, show that those British values we care about are still alive and well. Like you, the regional and local newspaper industry, we speak for the local hearts of Britain. Let us help local communities take control and shape their own local services, promoting choice and encouraging responsibility. It is work worth doing; it is work worth doing together; it is work, I believe, that millions of our fellow citizens out there hunger to see done both at Westminster and locally so let us see to what extent we can work together and build that better Britain we want to see and build it from the ground up. [Applause].

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    I ask this question, Prime Minister, not because I am sitting opposite you [indistinct] [laughter] I was very pleased indeed to hear the fact that you welcomed the improvements that [indistinct] announced yesterday about self-regulation. What I would like to say is given those improvements and given that the industry – and by “the industry” I mean the national, regional and local press – is not opposed to legislation to protect the privacy of members of the public providing that that legislation is applicable to all and not just to newspapers, would you agree, Prime Minister, that the way forward is to couple that general [indistinct] with continuing improvements in self-regulation rather than [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me say firstly to Harry it is unsurprising you should have a question in mind and I answer it not because I’m sitting opposite you but because I am happy to deal with what is a very important point.

    Let me elaborate firstly on the question of self-regulation. I always welcome moves to improve self-regulation. I think it is attractive, I think it is desirable and I shall study very carefully, as I said, precisely what you proposed yesterday and how it works. We will need to see how successful it is before passing judgement on it and deciding absolutely what to do. We will take that into account when responding to the Heritage Select Committee Report as we are bound to do in due course.

    Let me tell you some of the instincts I have about press regulation. I have made it clear before and I am happy to make it clear again today that I am reluctant to go down the route of statutory press complaints tribunals. I am reluctant to do that. I have made that clear before and am happy to reiterate that point today. We have reserved our position but our reluctance is genuine.

    We have accepted the recommendations that Calcutt produced for criminal offences of unwanted intrusion into people’s privacy. We have done that because we think there is a difficult balance to be kept. There is firstly upon the one hand the legitimate right of the press to investigate and report and as I said a few moments ago when I spoke to you, I am not a proscriber, I am not in the business of restricting the legitimate rights of investigation of the press but I do want to balance it with the legitimate right to privacy of individuals as well. It is a difficult balance to keep but it is one in my experience that the regional and local press particularly have well understood over many years and well appreciate.

    We all know from time to time that the desire to know goes further than the desire to know legitimately ought in the interests of the individual and you have seen the sort of occasions I mean: where there is a vast collection of people with bugging devices, telephoto lenses and a degree of intrusion and harassment often of people in a very defensive position, perhaps when someone has died in a very emotional situation and I think many people think that goes too far. Much of that is for self-regulation and I hope your proposals will help. Bits of it, I think after Calcutt, are perhaps for the Government to consider regulating but we are not in the business, as I said, of going down the route of a statutory press complaints procedure.

    We are considering precisely how we should proceed. I think it is right that we should take a good deal of time to do so because it is a very important series of principles that are at stake. They are not principles that all lie on one side of the argument. There are legitimate principles over the right to know as well as legitimate concerns over the right to privacy. I don’t want to make a snap judgement on what might be in any proposals we produce. Let me say to you: when we produce those proposals, it will only have been after the greatest consideration and care and with no intention to do violence to the traditional freedom of the press. That is not our intention and we will announce our conclusions when we have finished our consideration. That, I fear, will be a little way ahead [applause].

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I do, but let me say a few general words and then I’ll come directly to article 3B which for those of you who have been carefully following the debates in the House of Commons through day and night and not reading Martin Gilbert’s biographies will know is the clause that actually deals with subsidiarity.

    Let me say a word or two about Europe first. There are three sorts of people who look at Europe and our position in it.

    There are those who wish in their hearts we were never part of it and the world was still as it was a long time ago and that we were still sending Henry II abroad to teach the French how to behave [laughter] – and some of those may be here.

    Then there are those who are full of the milk of human idealism and do actually see a great deal of advantage in a centralised Europe.

    I would suggest to you that both of those two extremes are a minority of opinion amongst the British people.

    And then there are the vast majority of people, amongst whom I stand myself, who look across the European Community and see the reality of what life is industrially and commercially and the opportunities that exist for us if we play a part in it and the disadvantages that lie ahead for us if we do not. Those people, I believe, take my view that we are in the European Community, 60% of our exports go to the European Community. We export more to Germany these days than we do to the United States and Japan added together. There are vastly important markets for us and for our industry and the European Community of which we are a part makes the rules that govern this great free-trading single market, a free-trading single market that has come about because of the British influence.

    We have a choice: get out and lose many of those markets; stand aside without influence and let the French, the Germans, the Dutch and the Spanish make the rules that will govern the way our industry operates or get in the middle of it and actually form alliances with other people who think as we do and ourselves begin to frame the sort of European Community that is compatible to us and compatible to the rest of the European Community and there I must say is where I take my stand as to the right policy for the United Kingdom.

    There are those who say to us: “But you never win!” Where have they been these people who say we never win? Who invented the Single Market, the free-trading aspect of Europe? A British commissioner. Started by a British Prime Minister, completed at Edinburgh by a British Prime Minister.

    Who pushed for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy? The British pushed for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

    Who want the European Community to widen and bring in the EFTAn states? The British wanted it to widen and bring in the EFTAn states and why? Because what we have at the moment is a fragment of Europe, not the real Europe; it is a fragment of Europe.

    Bring in the EFTAns and you bring in free traders, you bring in people who will contribute to the Community budget and you make it infinitely more likely that you will have the sort of European Community that will be amenable to you as a businessman and to every other businessman in this country.

    And then lift our eyes for a moment above the mundane problems of commerce and the profit and loss account nationally or at company level. Twice this century the world has gone to war and the war has started in Western Europe. That is inconceivable and the principal reason it is inconceivable is that intermeshing of trade that has come about over the past 30 to 40 years in the European Community, that interlinking of mutual self-interest that renders any war other than a paper war or a war of words absolutely unthinkable and we have an opportunity not just to enshrine that but to spread that. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of communism, the opportunities that exist with enlargement of the Community to the north with the EFTAns and potential enlargement to take in the Visegrad countries – our old friends from Hungary, Poland, the Czech Lands and Slovakia – opens the possibility of extending that free trade principle, that democratic principle. With free trade there is democracy; without free trade there often is no democracy at all. Those are historic political opportunities that we actually have as well.

    That is – you may put it – the high-flown reason for being part of the European Community but you say that I am buried in all sorts of boring and tedious regulations. I know that. What do you think I spend my life fighting in Europe for? It is to get rid of those tedious regulations. Where do they come from? They come from the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. The Maastricht Treaty gives us an opportunity for the first time to start reversing that.

    What was I doing last night? I was discussing with the new French Prime Minister the virtues of subsidiarity with which he wholeheartedly agrees. What was I doing in Salzburg when I went to see Chancellor Kohl on his health cure? [Laughter] I was actually eating a five-course meal while he drank herbal tea! [Laughter and applause]. But apart from that, we were discussing matters like subsidiarity.

    It is not just we who feel frustrated about it. Ask the French how they feel about the fact that they are often stifled and you will get the same sort of response that you had a moment ago. Ask the Germans how they feel about subsidiarity with the troubles they have got between their federal parliament and the their Lander all the way around Germany.

    What has changed in the European Community is that Britain no longer stands alone. That is what has changed and we have the opportunity of forming those alliances and shaping in a way we have not previously had the sort of Community in concert with our partners that we like.

    Let me put this point to you. If any other European country suddenly said: “We are going to do it all our way and the rest of you in the Community can follow on behind!” If the French said that, the British would be up in arms and equally, I have to say to you that when the British beat their chests and say: “In a Community of Twelve we are going to do it our way or not at all!” the same frustration, the same blockage, the same breaking of links that will actually reach concrete results also comes about so I no longer am Henry II. I cannot go abroad and impose my will. I have to negotiate and agree what is right for this country but I don’t have any doubt that it is right for us to be there, right for us to create our sort of Community and I have no doubt that the principle of subsidiarity

    [small section missing]

    I put it at its simplest. The Maastricht Treaty is in British national interest. If I had wanted cheap, short-term popularity, if I had wanted to don a John Bull vest and been cheered no doubt in odd meetings from Lands End to John O’Groats I could have said: “Away with treaty! We’ll all do it differently!” but it isn’t in our interest and whatever the manoeuvrings and interests of others are, my responsibility is to proceed with what I passionately believe is in the British national interest and that means ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, Britain in Europe with the Treaty without the Social Charter playing a role in developing the future of Europe. I believe that is an historic role for the British nation and I believe it is an historic role for the British Conservative Party and upon that point I will not be moved. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the French Prime Minister – 4 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the French Prime Minister, Mr Edouard Balladur, held in London on Tuesday 4th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am very pleased this evening to welcome the Prime Minister here for talks. We have had an hour or so before dinner to talk, we will be returning over dinner and perhaps after dinner to deal with a range of other issues. I had the pleasure of congratulating the Prime Minister on his remarkable election victory and we spent some time discussing a whole range of issues. we have in fact had opportunities for discussions before, during the period I was Chancellor we have had a number of discussions.

    We have spent this evening looking at a number of matters of bilateral interest so far. Of course we have touched upon the problems in Bosnia in which both France and the United Kingdom have a very great interest and we both have a significant number of troops on the ground in Bosnia. We have looked at a range of European. Community issues and we have looked forward at how we will deal with those in the future. We have discussed how to take the European Community forward and we hope to discuss these and a range of other matters later on this evening.

    M. BALLADUR:

    I was really happy to be meeting with the Prime Minister, whom I had already met on other occasions. This gives me the opportunity of saying how deeply attached I am to the strengthening of close ties between Great Britain and France. Of course there are plenty of problems and the Prime Minister has already listed some and we have noted a broad convergence of views on many subjects, including I would say that I have great confidence in the fact that the United Kingdom will decide to ratify the treaty on European Union. And as far as Bosnia is concerned, we really share the same concerns, that is that the region should in fact be able to live under the rule of law and human rights and that the whole region will move towards peace. And we also exchanged our views on the conversations that we had, I think, with your Prime Minister on Sunday and for me this morning with Mr. Warren Christopher. And we spoke of the respective situations of our two countries from the domestic point of view and from the economic point of view and it is our intention to continue talking over dinner and afterwards.

    QUESTION:

    M. Balladur, have you perhaps considered the joint attitude if the Bosnian Serb Parliament decides to refuse the agreement, would you contemplate working together, what would your position be?

    M. BALLADUR:

    As you know, Madam, in all world affairs there are always two possibilities, there is the favourable outcome or the pessimistic outcome, and we have looked at the two possibilities, and between the two of us we have noted no fundamental divergence.

    QUESTION:

    Are you prepared [indistinct] a stormy agenda?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have never ruled out action of that sort, we have set out our views repeatedly, we have never ruled it out, we must wait and see.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there will be an over-stretch if we commit more troops to Bosnia, will you stop the Army cuts; and are there any circumstances under which you could accept the Social Chapter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think on the first of your two questions we first have to make sure that there is a satisfactory peace, there is not a satisfactory peace, no-one has been discussing the question of putting troops on the ground in order to make a peace. If there is a peace we have to look at the question of keeping the peace and if that is so that may well be an operation by NATO, discussions are going ahead, many people would have to contribute, but I think that problem lies a little ahead and I have no more to say about that this evening, but I am sure we can cope with any problem that arises. On the second question, I have made my position about that clear often enough and it has not changed.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask M. Balladur why, as a fellow Conservative politician, he does not share Mr Major’s reservations about the Social Chapter and the impact it would have on French jobs?

    M. BALLADUR:

    Firstly I am not absolutely sure of being a Conservative, I would also say that I am a Liberal. The adjectives do not mean quite the same thing in English and in French and it is true that as far as I am concerned the Treaty on European Union contains a certain number of social elements which personally I approve of. The third is, in any case, to some extent, if I may say so, past history because the problem was discussed at length and settled during the negotiations.

    QUESTION:

    In that case are you disappointed that it is still an issue in this country?

    M. BALLADUR:

    I cannot say that I am disappointed that you should be yourself raising the issue and asking the question, you are obviously entitled to ask any question that you wish.

    QUESTION:

    Did you talk about GATT?

    M. BALLADUR:

    We did talk about GATT briefly and we will continue to some extent over dinner and as you know it is our intention to explain clearly to our partners the various items on which we call for greater precision. And I told the Prime Minister that I would be giving your Prime Minister the list of these questions within the next two weeks. And I said the same thing to Chancellor Kohl two weeks ago.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] Battle of Trafalgar?

    M. BALLADUR:

    The British seem to talk about the matter so often that I do not quite see what one can add on the subject.

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted].

    M. BALLADUR:

    That is a matter for the English to sort out among themselves, it is not my business.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] on the Vance/Owen plan in the next coming days?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is exactly one of the matters that we are discussing within the Allies at the moment, we are discussing it with the Americans, we have had the opportunity of discussing that this evening, but I think that is a matter that is better concluded in discussion before we make the announcement..

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think our position has been made pretty clear on the Social Chapter, it was not readily reached. It is a position that is very widely shared across British industry and commerce, it is not a position that is unique to the British government. We have a different structure of social provision in this country to many of our colleagues in different parts of the continent and it is partly a result of that different structure that makes us so reserved about the particular application of the Social Chapter.

    So I think our position is pretty clear, has not changed and has been consistent throughout, and as the Prime Minister said, it was accepted by all our partners when we had the negotiations at Maastricht.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As I said, it was discussed and accepted by our colleagues in the negotiations in Maastricht and our position on Amendment 27 some time ago was made perfectly clear and has not changed.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made it clear a moment ago, our position has not changed, we must wait and see.

    QUESTION:

    When you were talking about the possibility of an unfortunate [indistinct] in Bosnia did you have in mind the idea of lifting the arms embargo?

    M. BALLADUR:

    I really do not think that we can today in public look at all the possible scenarios and all the possible answers to every problem that could arise. We discussed these matters with our partners and our allies and when the time comes we will make our position known, but our allies know our position already.

    QUESTION:

    On GATT, is the French position still the same, that better no agreement than a bad agreement?

    M. BALLADUR:

    It is not only GATT, I think that in all fields you could really say that it is better to have no agreement than a bad agreement.

    QUESTION:

    The Bosnian Serbs have launched a new offensive against certain Muslim held places, does this strengthen the resolve of the British and French governments to strengthen their position, militarily perhaps, and what would be the possible size of a military involvement of Britain and France in Bosnia?

    M. BALLADUR:

    All I can do is to answer what the Prime Minister has already said, and I have already said it myself, we are looking at all the possible situations that could arise and how to respond to each of those possible situations, and as far as I am concerned it is not my intention to say any more.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On my part, I think the Prime Minister summarised my views very accurately. We have spent some time discussing it upstairs, I do not think it is helpful to discuss it any further at the moment. We are looking at all the possibilities, there are a range of possibilities at the moment as events move forward. Clearly we would like the peace to hold, we would like the Security Council Resolution as speedily as possible, we would like a proper ceasefire, we would then like to look at how we can actually make that ceasefire operate successfully, be successfully implemented, and deal with the problems that then begin to need to be faced after the ceasefire is in place. That is what we wish to do but I think the mechanisms between here and there are not mechanisms I wish to discuss this evening.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Buses

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will commission a study of experience of bus tendering in London, deregulation elsewhere in England and Great Britain and of regulation in Northern Ireland.

    The Prime Minister : The Transport Select Committee is currently considering these issues in the context of its inquiry into bus deregulation in London and is taking evidence from a number of sources, including the Government.

     

    Overseas Visits

    Mr. Batiste : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy for taking senior British business representatives with him on official overseas visits.

    The Prime Minister : I am firmly committed to taking senior business representatives with me whenever possible when I visit key markets overseas. My recent visits with a business group to India and Saudi Arabia were examples. I intend to build on them. I hope to visit Japan in the Autumn with senior business representatives. My ministerial colleagues also take every opportunity to promote Britain and British goods abroad. They are planning to lead at least 14 missions to 17 countries, to markets as diverse as Ghana, Singapore and Kazakstan this year.

     

    Prerogative Powers

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the groups of actions taken using prerogative powers for which it would incur disproportionately high costs for them to be recorded individually.

    The Prime Minister : No.

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to record the occasions on which prerogative powers are used where disproportionate costs would not be involved.

    The Prime Minister : No.

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what prerogative powers have been attenuated by being bought within statute law since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 1 March at column 19 , and to the response of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Department’s response to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) on 21 April at column 492. The relationship between statutory and prerogative powers can be very complex. This complexity would mean examination of each section of each Act passed since 1979 in order to determine whether a prerogative power had been brought within statute law. This would be impracticable and would lead to disproportionate cost.

     

    Treaty on European Union

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration was given at the European Council held at Edinburgh in December 1992 to the termination of membership of any member state of the European Community in the event of non-ratification of the treaty on European union.

    The Prime Minister : The issue was not considered at the Edinburgh European Council.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

    The Prime Minister : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

    The Prime Minister : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  • PMQT – 4 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Smith : Will the Prime Minister comment on the views of the European Commission’s chief legal adviser that the so-called Danish opt- outs from the Maastricht treaty were worthless? Does not that coincide with the views of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who said that

    “it does not alter, either the text on European union, or the obligations taken on by those who ratify the treaty.”–[ Official Report, 30 March 1993 ; Vol. 222, c. 126.]

    Does not the constitutional question now being put to the Danish people remain unchanged?

    The Prime Minister : All that was set out carefully at the time, but I shall reiterate it for the hon. Gentleman. It was made perfectly clear from the start that what was agreed was an interpretation of the treaty, an intergovernmental agreement binding in international law. That was the case, is the case, and has never been in doubt.

     

    Q2. Mr. Booth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Booth : Does my right hon. Friend share the feeling of many Conservative Members that unit fines are not working well? Does he also share the feeling of many of us that the fact that previous convictions cannot adequately be taken into account by the courts is a great shame and will he therefore change the rules so that persistent offenders can be identified by the courts and punished severely?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he shares the concern expressed about some, although not all, aspects of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. He has made it clear that he wants to see amendments and to introduce them as soon as is appropriate. As my hon. Friend may know, my right hon. and learned Friend met the Magistrates Association this morning to decide how best to proceed.

    Mr. John Smith : As there is now overwhelming opposition from parents, teachers, governors and experts to the Government’s insistence on imposing tests on schools this year, why does not the Prime Minister for once admit that he is wrong, do the sensible thing and withdraw the tests for this year?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have exchanged views on that subject before. We believe that it is important to proceed with the tests, not least so that Sir Ron Dearing can draw on that experience, as he has said that he wishes to do, in order to improve the tests. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall frequently calling for this country’s work force to be better trained. Why does he consistently oppose measures designed to bring that about?

    Mr. John Smith : If the tests are so important that the Government are prepared to go well beyond the limits of reason and common sense to impose them, why are private schools, to which many Conservative Members send their children, exempt completely from them?

    The Prime Minister : It is reason and common sense to test pupils. It is reason and common sense to know how well they are doing. It is reason and common sense to have that information so that we can put right the matters that are not being dealt with adequately in those schools at the moment. That is our responsibility in the state sector and that is what my right hon. Friend is seeking to do.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister now answer the question that I put to him? What reason and common sense is there to impose them on the public sector, but to leave the private sector untouched?

    The Prime Minister : We have a direct responsibility for making sure in the public sector that pupils are taught adequately and well. In the private sector the results of the schools have been very good– [Interruption.] –and many of them have their own tests. We have a direct responsibility in the public sector and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the tests, for example, of seven-year-olds, have been successful. They have been good for pupils, good for teachers and good for schools. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would join forces with those who want industrial militancy to end the tests, irrespective of what he has said in the past about having a well-trained work force. Words only from the right hon. and learned Gentleman which he will not back up with action when necessary.

    Sir James Kilfedder : Will the Prime Minister, on behalf of this country, express our deepest sympathy to the people of Sri Lanka following the horrific and callous murder of President Premadasa and many others? Will he express the hope that that and other atrocities will not undermine the stability of that beautiful country, which is an essential member of the Commonwealth?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend sets out views that will be shared widely across the House and the country. It was a particularly brutal and pointless assassination which will have done immense damage to Sri Lanka around the world. I wish the very best of good fortune to the new president in due course and to the Government in restoring stability after that dreadful event.

    Mr. Ashdown : If the House votes to end the opt-out of the social chapter, will the Prime Minister refuse to ratify the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to respond to a hypothetical question– [Interruption.] –to which I have responded on previous occasions. I refer him to my previous answers.

    Mr. Spring : Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that housing repossessions are down 24 per cent. on last year? Does he agree that that is excellent news which bodes well not only for the housing sector but for consumer confidence and for continuing revival in the economy?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, it is excellent news. It is also excellent news that, in the view of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the action by the Government and lenders last year prevented over 50,000 repossessions that would otherwise have taken place. There are now clear signs of recovery in the housing market. That can only be helped by interest rates of 6 per cent. and mortgage rates at their lowest for over 30 years. I believe that that, together with other economic indicators in the last few weeks, point firmly to real recovery.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mike O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. O’Brien : Will the Prime Minister accept the congratulations of many on these Benches that his Government are now in full retreat on his citizens charter for criminals, the Criminal Justice Act 1991? Does he now admit that he got it wrong to pass that law, which restricts the ability of the courts to send to prison people who have committed serious offences– that at a time when crime has doubled and when he has been imposing a freeze on future spending on the police? Will he now accept that his credibility as the leader of the party of law and order is in tatters?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully a few moments ago he would know that I said that I shared the concern about some, but not all, of the aspects of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and we have made it clear that we are prepared to change those. The hon. Gentleman may recall that a great deal of cross-party advice on the 1991 Act was given, not least by many Opposition Members.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly recognised the importance of our manufacturing and construction industries in this country’s economic recovery. Competition is essential, but does my right hon. Friend accept that a level playing field is equally important? Will he state what further steps he and his Government will take to improve the ability of manufacturing and construction to contribute to the recovery of our economy?

    The Prime Minister : I share the view, which has for a long time been expressed by my hon. Friend, about the importance of manufacturing industry. He will know of the remarkable improvement in manufacturing exports over recent months and the remarkable improvement in productivity of manufacturing industry. They are now biting deep with exports into the European market and beyond. My hon. Friend is right about the need to have a level playing field in Europe and beyond. As my hon. Friend will know, that will be improved by the Maastricht treaty.

     

    Q4. Mr. Roy Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the report issued over the weekend that the much-trumpeted decrease in the unemployment figures is little more than a piece of spring cleaning of the figures by officials at the semi-privatised employment and benefit offices? It has been said that falsehood has a perennial spring –would not it be wiser to recognise that Britain’s true unemployment rate is now in the region of 4 million? Is not that a national disgrace? When will the Government take some effective action to put people back to work?

    The Prime Minister : The requirement to put people back to work is felt at least as keenly by Conservative Members as in any other part of the House, which is precisely why we have taken the difficult measures to make it possible to get people back to work in secure jobs. That is why we fail to understand why Opposition Members consistently support matters like the social charter, which would keep people unemployed for a long time.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that this weekend the citizens of Gloucestershire were again subjected to an invasion of new age travellers? Is he further aware that the Gloucestershire police have done a first-class job in breaking up the convoys and keeping them on the move? Is there any chance of introducing any legislation or further measures to restrain those unwelcome visitors between now and the summer? They call themselves new age travellers, but in Gloucestershire they are known as new age vermin.

    The Prime Minister : I sympathise strongly with the citizens of Gloucestershire over the trouble that they have faced with new age travellers. I warmly congratulate the police on the action that they have taken. We are examining what further legislative measures can be taken to give the police more powers, but I cannot promise that they will necessarily be introduced before the summer.

     

    Q5. Mr. McWilliam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. McWilliam : Is the Prime Minister aware of any group of teachers who have said that they will not either teach or assess their pupils?

    The Prime Minister : That is a question better directed to my right hon. Friend, but I am aware of teachers’ leaders who seem to be encouraging their members to take industrial action against the interests of the pupils of those schools, which I regret.

     

    Aberdeen

    Q6. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Aberdeen in the near future.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Scotland among them.

    Mr. Robertson : If my right hon. Friend is able to visit Aberdeen at the end of the year, will he consider allowing his visit to coincide with the first wave of civil service relocations from the Department of Trade and Industry’s London-based oil and gas division to Aberdeen? Will he consider opening the DTI’s new Aberdeen office, which so vividly demonstrates the Government’s commitment to Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland and the North sea oil and gas industry?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly consider that invitation if it comes to me through the appropriate sources and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for anticipating it. The fact that we are opening that office shows that we are committed to expand as and when companies move key functions to Aberdeen. It certainly shows our faith in the future of the North sea industry and the north-east of Scotland. The division will begin moving there in the autumn. I know how welcome that news is to my hon. Friend and how hard he worked to bring it about.

    Mr. Robert Hughes : If the Prime Minister visits Aberdeen, will he recall that the petroleum revenue tax changes he proposes will give large windfall profits to very large companies, but will savagely attack small companies, especially those in the drilling and exploration sector? If he wishes to express his confidence in the North sea, would not it be better to change that to allow people to develop fields and exploration as and when they come?

    The Prime Minister : As it happens, the reform improves the incentives for further development of existing fields and new development of important fields that would have paid tax at 83 per cent. That is good for investment, jobs, Aberdeen, the north-east, Scotland and the United Kingdom.

    Madam Speaker : Order. Time is up. Ten-minute rule Bill, Mr. Anthony Steen. It would be helpful if hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quietly so that we may get on with our business here. I am sure that Mr. Steen is in good voice this afternoon.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 30 April 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Exchange Rate Mechanism

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what research studies he has commissioned into how fault lines in the ERM can be corrected; and what action he has initiated since September 1992 to correct them.

    The Prime Minister : The European Council in Birmingham endorsed the view of Economic and Finance Ministers that the financial turbulence of last September called for reflection and analysis in the light of developments in capital markets and in the European and world monetary systems. This work is currently being carried forward.

     

    Jabal Hamrayn, Iraq

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what information Her Majesty’s Government have concerning military activities at the Jabal Hamrayn site in Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : Jabal Hamrin was the site where Iraq built one of its “superguns”. The gun was destroyed under United Nations supervision in 1991. There is currently no military activity at the site.

     

    Equal Opportunities

    Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in the Cabinet Office are (a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people.

    The Prime Minister [pursuant to his reply 29 March 1993, column 45] : I regret that some of the figures quoted have been found to be incorrect. The correct information is as follows.

    The figures for women employed in the Cabinet Office, including its executive agencies, are as follows :

    Grade (and equivalents) |Women |Total |Per cent. Women

    ——————————————————————————–

    1 |0 |3 |0

    2 |2 |17 |12

    3 |2 |24 |8

    4 |0 |3 |0

    5 |16 |62 |26

    6 |21 |64 |33

    7 |61 |265 |23

    Overall |1,287 |2,495 |52

    The ethnic monitoring programme was carried out on a voluntary basis and did not extend to the Cabinet Office’s agencies. Of those who responded, 62 people chose to register as non-white. One of these is at grade 7 level.

    The Cabinet Office’s figures on staff with disabilities include only those who have chosen to register as disabled. Twenty-eight people are so registered. None is at grade 7 or above. The Cabinet Office employs other staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview on Athens Talks on Bosnia – 30 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview on the talks about Bosnia held in Athens, on Friday 30th April 1993.

    QUESTION:

    What are the prospects for the meeting in Athens this weekend?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I am delighted that there is a meeting in Athens this weekend. David Owen says he is optimistic, I hope that proves to be right.

    QUESTION:

    He says they will be pragmatic?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, it is a settlement we want, not just pragmatism. But I think pragmatism is necessary in order to achieve a settlement. All the parties have agreed to go, I think that is a very hopeful sign. We must hope on this occasion, as the world gets steadily more impatient with the atrocities there, that an agreement will be possible. I am delighted that they are meeting.

    QUESTION:

    Since various talks have been dashed in the past – it’s a triumph that Lord Owen has managed to get them around the table again?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think Lord Owen has done a remarkable job with Cy Vance, and before him of course Peter Carrington over many months, there is absolutely no doubt about that, in a very difficult situation. They are back there talking over the weekend, that is far better than them not talking.

    QUESTION:

    The best thing you can say, is that you are pinning your hopes on them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope they will be successful. We have had these opportunities before and they have not proved successful, so I can not say that my hopes are sky high. But they are talking, that is an improvement, that is welcome, and I hope it will have a practical outcome.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 29 April 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Gibraltar

    Q9. Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the status of Gibraltar in the EC.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so.

     

    Local Authority Powers, Scotland

    Mrs. Fyfe : To ask the Prime Minister

    (1) how many representations he has received proposing that some existing local authority powers be transferred away from Scottish local authorities to the Scottish Office;

    (2) how many representations he has received to establish joint boards or non-elected bodies in Scotland to take over functions from directly elected Scottish local authorities.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations on local government issues. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has received some comments, in response to his consultation exercise on local government reform in Scotland, which advocate either the transfer of particular local authority functions to central Government, or the establishment of joint boards, or both.

     

    Former Yugoslavia

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister how much food has been contributed by the United Kingdom to relieve humanitarian suffering in the former Yugoslavia; what proportion of food held in intervention under EC rules in the United Kingdom has been supplied; what action he is taking to persuade EC Heads of Government to ensure proper supplies of food to the former Yugoslavia are made; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom has provided £92.5 million for humanitarian relief in the former Yugoslavia. Of this some £48 million is our share of EC expenditure, the bulk of which has been spent on food aid. This is provided in cash to UN agencies and NGOs, which then purchase supplies that meet their operational requirements. Some EC intervention stocks have been used in the past, but none from the UK.

    The UK has also contributed some £44.5 the first country to respond to the United Nations inter-agency appeal of 25 March, donating a further £15 million, of which £8.5 million was in immediate cash contributions. We maintain a regular dialogue with other EC member states and have urged them to follow suit.

     

    Former Soviet Union

    Mr. Shersby : To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government towards securing international action to decommission nuclear power stations in the former Soviet Union where it is judged that their continued operation poses a hazard to the lives of the peoples of both eastern and western europe; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : At the Munich summit last July, the G7 countries gave their support to a multilateral programme of action designed to improve the safety of Soviet-designed reactors in the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe. The programme, subsequently endorsed by the G24 countries, included measures to bring about urgent operational and near-term technical improvements to the highest risk plants. The Government are playing a full part in supporting and implementing the programme both bilaterally and through the European Community’s technical assistance programmes. We have contributed £8.25 million to the nuclear safety account recently set up at the European bank for reconstruction and development to finance urgent safety not covered by bilateral assistance programmes.

    The longer-term future of the plants concerned is a matter for the Governments of the states concerned. However, the G7 programme also provided a basis for consideration of the future of these plants, within the framework of market-oriented energy strategies, by setting in train energy studies covering replacement sources of energy and their cost implications. The World bank, with the International Energy Agency, is in the process of completing these studies, in discussion with the countries concerned. The forthcoming Tokyo summit will review progress on the action programme as a whole, including how best to take forward the conclusions of these studies.

     

    Water Charges

    Mr. Tyler : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his statement in the House on 11 March, Official Report, column 1105, to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), what is the timetable for the review of water charges in the south-west; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Responsibility for water charges rests with the Director General of Water Services. My right honourable and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is now examining certain aspects of overall programmes to see if there is any room for manoeuvre. This requires analysis and it would be premature to say more at this stage.

     

    Water Privatisation

    Mr. McLeish : To ask the Prime Minister what implications the decision to abandon the privatisation of water in Northern Ireland has for the future of the water and sewerage services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : None. The position in Northern Ireland is quite separate from that in Scotland. A decision for Scotland will be taken in the light of circumstances that apply to Scotland. I refer the honourable Member to the reply I gave to the honourable Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on 27 April at column 848.

  • PMQT – 29 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Couchman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

    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. Couchman : I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he contact President Clinton today, as he contemplates new measures against the Bosnian Serbs, and convey to him the grave reservations of many people in Europe about the possibility of air strikes against any targets, strategic or otherwise, in Bosnia? Will he remind the President of the paramount need to secure the safety of United Nations troops presently serving in Bosnia, including British soldiers, in giving vital humanitarian aid?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital to minimise the risk to the United Nations troops and, of course, to the humanitarian aid civilians who are also there and who, for so long and so bravely, have carried out the humanitarian operation. We will take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that.

    Our other objectives in Bosnia are to do all we can to deter further Serbian attacks and to maximise pressure on all parties to accept the cease fire and a negotiated settlement. But at the moment we are not excluding any viable option which might help to achieve those objectives. We are consulting our allies, especially the United States and our United Nations allies in France and elsewhere, and have expressed our views very clearly to them.

    Mr. John Smith : As the horrendous situation in Bosnia worsens even further and as no clear policy has yet emerged from the international community which would effectively deter continued Serb advance, is it not the case that the acknowledged risks of limited air strikes are increasingly outweighed by the very real dangers of continued inaction? Is there not a serious danger that if another policy is not adopted, moves will be made to lift the arms embargo, which would merely intensify the conflict?

    The Prime Minister : I share the observations that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made about the lifting of the arms embargo. That does present special difficulties. As I have said before, and reiterate now, we cannot rule out further measures for maximising pressure on the Serbs. We are consulting closely our allies and partners. We must, of course, weigh carefully the implications of air strikes for the removal of the arms embargo or, indeed, any other proposals that may arise in our consultations or in the debate in the House this afternoon.

    We must bear particularly in mind the need to sustain the United Nations humanitarian effort. It is all too easy to overlook the fact that, but for that effort over the winter, many hundreds of thousands possibly would have died. The fact that it has continued has been of immense benefit.

    Mr. John Smith : As the days and weeks go by, and the Serbs continue to flout the authority of the United Nations, is it not increasingly clear that if the Serbs are to be stopped, they must be given an ultimatum that is backed by a credible threat to their lines of communication and supply in Bosnia?

    The Prime Minister : I have told the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will reiterate it, that we have not ruled out options. We are discussing options and it is best to consult on them, consider them, examine the probability of success and the possibility of difficulties and then reach a final conclusion.

     

    Q2. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mr. Duncan : While I recognise our success in bringing down the level of inflation and thereby laying the foundations for economic recovery, does the Prime Minister agree that a rapid rise in house prices is not necessarily good news? Should not we aim for a sustainable recovery, based on exports and investments and, at all costs, avoid a return to the cycle of boom and bust?

    The Prime Minister : I share that objective with my hon. Friend. We have said from the outset that we want a recovery that is steady and sustainable, and that is what we have repeatedly taken action to achieve over the past two years. We have said that recovery would follow the reduction of inflation. We got inflation down from 11 per cent. to 2 per cent., and it seems that recovery is now following. As a result of that, we were able to cut interest rates, but that had to follow the reduction in inflation and not precede it. We have worked extremely hard, and it has been extremely difficult for everyone during that period, to get the fundamentals right. We now have them right and I have no intention of throwing away that advantage.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Prime Minister pause for a moment in his campaign of self-congratulation– [Interruption.] –and recollect– [Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister pause for a minute in his campaign of self-congratulation and recollect that the price of his policies for Britain has been 3 million unemployed, borrowing at £1 billion a week, a devalued pound and a burden of debt that will not be paid off until the end of the century? Does he really think that that is cause for self-congratulation?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman carried the House with him in the introductory part of his question. I acknowledge the difficulties that there have been for many people, not just hon. Members but throughout the country, as we have dealt with the effects of the recession. As the right hon. Gentleman will observe, that recession is not unique to this country. We are emerging from it when many others are still going into it. As we come out of the recession, perhaps I might quote the words of the chairman of Grand Met, Sir Allen Shepherd, who said :

    “Today, in British Industry we have almost everything that we’ve been asking for : low inflation, competitive exchange rates, higher productivity and good industrial relations. On top of that, the skills revolution’ is well under way and will add value to everything we do.”

    I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that and go out and encourage people across the country to take advantage of that position.

    Sir Edward Heath : Does my right hon. Friend recognise that until he and the Government give an absolutely clear and categorical assurance that no British forces, of any kind, will become involved in the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia, except for humanitarian reasons, any other suggestion will be suspect and will make it extremely difficult to persuade people to support the effort that we make? It will be suspect because it will be thought that we shall be dragged, stage by stage, into a European war or that we shall be pushed there by Washington. Both would be intolerable.

    The Prime Minister : As my right hon. Friend knows, we were among the first specifically to put troops into Bosnia to deal with humanitarian matters. We need to consider precisely how we can play a part both in seeking to end the terrible conflict that exists within Bosnia and in ensuring–for this is a clear-cut British strategic interest–that the conflict does not spread beyond Bosnia and lead to a realisation of the greater fear on which my right hon. Friend touched : a wider Balkan war. Those are issues of great complexity, which we need to discuss with our colleagues and friends in the United Nations and NATO.

    I take to heart my right hon. Friend’s remarks, as I know will every right hon. and hon. Member. This is an emerging and changing situation. We shall keep at the forefront of our minds the concern to keep British troops off the ground in Bosnia, but also the need for us to play a part, with our partners, diplomatically, in humanitarian aid, and in using political pressure to bring this dreadful conflict to a conclusion.

    Mr. Hoon : Is the Prime Minister at all embarrassed by the fact that last year some £7 million, or two thirds of the cost of his general election campaign, was received by the Conservative party from foreign sources?

    The Prime Minister : I have to say that that is just a touch rich coming from a member of a party whose entire shadow Cabinet is sponsored by trade unions. As Mr. Tom Sawyer of NUPE said, “It’s as crude as that no say, no pay.”

     

    Q3. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mr. Bates : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gross domestic product figures produced on Monday clearly show that the recession is over and recovery well under way? Does he further agree that those same figures point to growth in the United Kingdom economy commencing in the middle of last year? Does that not further point to his leadership winning the essential battle against inflation and the equally essential battle against the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right that getting inflation down was the key. We were elected in the spring and the figures that we now have for growth in the second half of last year show that recovery began in the summer.

     

    Q4. Ms Coffey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Ms Coffey : Is the Prime Minister aware that Ferranti International, a company in my constituency, is awaiting the outcome of a bid for a high technology contract from the Saudi Arabian Government to which I understand he gave personal support in his talks with the Saudi Government earlier this year? Can he tell me what action he is taking to ensure that the contract is awarded to a major British industry to prevent the job losses that will surely follow if we do not get the contract?

    The Prime Minister : Defence Ministers are following the programme closely and doing all they can to progress it. The awarding of the contract in due course is a matter for the Saudi Government, but we are doing what we can to assist.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Ann Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mrs. Winterton : Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the British taxpayer should not be expected to pay towards the administration costs of the social charter throughout the EC, when the United Kingdom, quite rightly and properly, has opted out of all its provisions?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is well aware of and shares the Government’s view on the social chapter. The administrative costs of dealing with the social chapter are de minimis and in no sense a burden on the economy.

     

    Arms Exports (Iraq)

    Q6. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to instruct Government Departments to make full disclosure of all documents requested in connection with legal proceedings relating to unlawful export of arms to Iraq; and if he will make it his policy not to issue public immunity interest certificates in connection with any such proceedings.

    The Prime Minister : Government Departments will continue to disclose documents in any legal proceedings in the manner prescribed by law.

    Mr. Dalyell : If that is the answer, why is it that the Crown did not exercise its discretion, when Ministers knew perfectly well of his service to MI5 and MI6, in favour of Paul Grecian in the Ordtech trial?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House that it is quite inappropriate for me to comment when such cases are in the courts. He knows that it is inappropriate and I will not do so.

     

    Engagements

    Q8. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mr. Pike : Will the Prime Minister rethink the Government’s approach to low pay and the abolition of the wages councils? Will he consider the information prepared by Lancashire county council which not only highlights the scandal of low pay but shows that in areas with no wages councils there is a much higher incidence of low pay, clearly identifying the dangers of their abolition?

    The Prime Minister : I am hardly likely to take any advice from Lancashire county council, given its record in recent years. The sheer scale of the increase in Lancashire’s council tax–I think from memory that it is an extra £84–as a result of the council’s maladministration is remarkable. Therefore, it is most unlikely that I shall take its advice upon that matter.

    On the general subject of wages councils, we have made it clear on a number of occasions in the past that their principal drawback is that they cost jobs to people who would otherwise be employed, and that is something which we care about, even if the hon. Gentleman does not.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Cable and Wireless – 27 April 1993

    Below is the text of the comments made by Mr Major during his visit to the offices of Cable and Wireless on 27 April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Chairman, I’ve a particular reason to thank you for inviting me today. I’ve not only seen your marvellous new building, but you’ve saved me a trip to Niagara! I’m not sure how the water sculptures would look in 10 Downing Street – but they’d certainly make a difference to Cabinet meetings.

    This is a building worthy of a world class company. And you’re certainly that. Our video conference just now showed how far-flung your operations are. You provide national telephone services for Hong Kong and the Caribbean; international services for the former Soviet states; mobile and data services in Japan, Pakistan, Qatar, Yemen and Macau. That’s only a few of the 50 countries where Cable and Wireless is operating.

    By the way, Chairman, I hope you weren’t charging me for those video calls – they’d add up a bit – even at Mercury’s competitive rates.
    I’ve been following Mercury’s progress. You’re making one of our policy priorities a reality. You’re a living proof of effective competition in the telecoms market – and that benefits consumers and providers alike. You have invested some 1.5 million pounds on a digital network that far exceeds your licence obligations. By September last year I believe you were handling nearly ten million calls every working day.

    I have spoken a good deal in public recently about the importance of Britain’s manufacturing and service industries. Cable and Wireless is a company we can be truly proud of. The Government is backing you. We’ll maintain our pressure for free telecom markets worldwide and we’ll continue to foster the conditions for sustained economic growth here in the UK. Cable and Wireless is ideally placed in seize the opportunities that lie ahead.

    I am therefore delighted to open this new headquarters building. I wish everyone in Cable and Wireless – wherever you may be – every success for the future.

  • PMQT – 27th April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Gunnell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Mr. Gunnell : Now that there is optimism that the bulk of the Maxwell pension funding will be recovered over the next four years, is it not time to end once and for all the uncertainties felt by many of those lobbying us today? Will the Prime Minister authorise the availability of capital now, knowing full well that as funds are recovered most of that money will come back? Eighteen months is too long, for elderly people in particular, to suffer such anxiety. Will the Prime Minister end it now?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that over many months we have made a positive response to the Maxwell reservations. I believe that it was the right thing to do, not least setting up the Maxwell pensioners’ trust, which has raised more than £6 million, and providing £2.5 million to ensure that pensions are paid. We continue to look sympathetically at the problem, but I have no fresh announcements to make today.

    Sir John Wheeler : In the wake of the bomb in the City of London on Saturday, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will bring forward the reinsurance scheme? Will he urge the Leader of the House to make time for legislation for that scheme as soon as possible?

    The Prime Minister : The Government scheme for insurance against terrorist attacks has been providing cover since 1 January this year and the Government will fully honour their commitment under the scheme. It is, of course, a matter for individual businesses whether or not they choose to take out such cover, but everyone who has done so, or has alternative policies, will have been covered against damage caused by the Bishopsgate bomb. The Government scheme is one of reinsurance for the industry, so those who have suffered damage will need to make claims to their insurers in the usual way. On my right hon. Friend’s last point, legislation to provide for payments to be made to the insurance companies under the scheme will be brought before the House as soon as possible. I hope that it will be possible to attract support from all parts of the House for that measure.

    Mr. John Smith : Now that all six teacher and head teacher organisations have appealed to the Secretary of State for Education to suspend this year’s testing and assessment arrangements under the national curriculum, will the Government for once listen to the considered professional judgment of the whole teaching profession and suspend this year’s tests?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the importance that we put behind the principle of testing. He also knows–he will have heard the remarks of Sir Ron Dearing–that we need the experience of this year’s tests to ensure that we are able to remove the unnecessary bureaucracy and make sure that the tests are right for the future. The implication of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question is that he now accepts the principle of testing. I hope that is now so.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that this increasingly bitter dispute is not about the principle of sensible testing but about the dogmatic insistence of an arrogant Secretary of State that his view must prevail against those of governors, teachers and parents? Why does not the Secretary of State recognise that which is recognised by everyone else–that he has lost the argument and that it is an insult to use £700,000 of taxpayers’ money on futile propaganda?

    The Prime Minister : I notice again that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not indicate that he does not accept the principle. I assume that he does accept the principle of testing. In view of his question, he may care to comment on the remark by the National Union of Teachers president, who said :

    “We should annihilate tests in the national curriculum.” I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now condemn that particular comment. On his further point, I must tell him that I do not think it appropriate for teachers to take industrial action at the expense of those tests.

    Mr. John Smith : If the Prime Minister is so confident of parents’ support, why does he not use that £700,000 to hold a ballot, to find out what parents really think? If the Government are sincere about parental choice, why not let the parents choose?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as every other right hon. and hon. Member that two agendas are in play –that of the ordinary teacher who wants less bureaucracy, which we are considering and to which we shall respond, and that of the militants’ opposition to any sort of testing or appraisal and to all our reforms. I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies that he is favour of tests, but he does not have the courage to denounce the NUT and its comments about industrial action.

    Mr. Cash : Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm the assurance that he gave the House unambiguously on 24 September last year, that if the Danes vote no in the second referendum it would be unacceptable for us and the rest of the Community to go ahead without Denmark, and that the Maastricht treaty could not go ahead?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps my hon. Friend has been misled by some of the reports that he may have seen this morning. The leader of the Progress party in Denmark, which my hon. Friend will know is the only Danish party opposed to the Maastricht treaty, said :

    “There was nothing new in the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, and they were manipulated by the press.”

    That was her comment, not mine. As to my hon. Friend’s specific question, if he will study the transcript of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, a copy of which will be placed in the Library, he will find that my right hon. Friend made four straightforward points. First, we do not expect the Danes to vote no. Secondly, were they to do so the Maastricht treaty could not enter into force because it requires ratification by 12 member states. Thirdly, United Kingdom legislation to ratify the treaty could therefore not proceed. Finally, all 12 members of the European Community would need to hold urgent consultations about what to do next. Each of those points is self-evident. That was said by my right hon. Friend yesterday.

     

    Q2. Mr. McFall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Mr. McFall : In the right hon. Gentleman’s first speech as Prime Minister, he spoke of a commonsense view of life from a tolerant perspective. Now that the Scottish Conservative party has joined the massive opposition to water privatisation in Scotland, will the Prime Minister display that tolerance by recognising the genuine and universal concern felt in Scotland, where water is regarded as being for the benefit of all–not for the profit of a few? At next month’s Tory conference, will the Prime Minister state that the public interest will best be served by increased investment in the present water and sewerage system? Regardless of whatever the Tories have brought to Scotland in the last 14 years, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall not witness the return of the Victorian cry of “Gardyloos!” to the streets of Edinburgh and Glasgow?

    The Prime Minister : The future structure of water and sewerage services in Scotland is still under consideration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to go further while that matter remains under consideration.

     

    Q3. Mr. Rathbone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Mr. Rathbone : Now that Britain is exporting television to Germany, lace to Brussels, cosmetics to the French and pizzas to Italy, as my right hon. Friend pointed out in Manchester last week, does he not think that all British companies now have the competitive edge to develop export markets everywhere?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right to praise our exporters and to point to the opportunities for further exports. We also export more per head than Japan and now have an excellent opportunity to break into new markets and win back old ones. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor increased the amount of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover both last autumn and in the recent Budget. Manufacturing matters ; exporting matters. We seek to support them both.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gerrard : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Mr. Gerrard : Is the Prime Minister aware that very many people in London are extremely worried about the survival of the travelcard and concessionary fares after bus deregulation and rail franchising and that their fears are echoed today in the report by the Select Committee on Transport? Will the Prime Minister tell us what he intends to do to guarantee the future of the travelcard and concessionary fares schemes?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to study the report of the Select Committee and then respond to it. That is what we will do.

    Mr. Whittingdale : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating President Yeltsin on his outstanding personal victory at the weekend? Does he agree that, in supporting President Yeltsin, the Russian people have voted in favour of democracy built on market economics? Does this not represent by far the best chance for the future of Russia?

    The Prime Minister : I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right about the last point. I have sent my warm congratulations to President Yeltsin on the outcome of the referendum. The results are remarkable. They show that the Russian people maintain their personal trust in the President and, most important, that they wish him to carry his democratic reforms further. It is a remarkable result on the back of the sacrifices that have been made towards economic transformation. I believe that the Russian people are beginning to see the benefits of individual enterprise. Success for Russia is essential for its people and equally vital for the rest of the world.

     

    Q5. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Ms Eagle : Does the Prime Minister not find ironic that, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, we are losing the battle for our shipyards without even a fight? Given his Government’s refusal to create a strategy for defence diversification, what action does the Prime Minister intend to take in response to the petition handed to him today by the save Cammel Laird community group, asking him to save the yard from closure in July?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady knows, there is a problem for shipbuilding round the world as a result of the level of capacity and the level of demand. I understand the hon. Lady’s concern about Cammel Laird and I know that it is shared by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). The yard’s future is primarily a commercial decision for Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. which is having to respond to that worldwide decline, which is not just a problem for the United Kingdom but one for the rest of Europe and for countries in other parts of the world. None the less, I will study with great care the letter from the Cammel Laird support group and reply in due course.

    Mr. Batiste : Will my right hon. Friend reassess the case for identity cards to see whether they can give significant support to the police in their fight against crime and terrorism?

    The Prime Minister : That is a matter which from time to time we will need to review. It is one which has many difficulties. We have looked at it in the past and not found it a terribly attractive proposition. I know that a constituency is demanding it. It is not something which I would wish to rule out, but it is not on our immediate agenda.

     

    Shetland

    Q6. Mr. Wallace : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to pay an official visit to Shetland.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so at present, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Earl of Caithness visited Shetland on 29 and 30 March.

    Mr. Wallace : I know that that reply will dismay my constituents. They will be dismayed to learn that, some 16 weeks after the Braer went aground, the Prime Minister has neither visited the area nor indicated any intention of doing so. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Wallace : I shall resist the temptation to ask what would have happened if a ship had gone aground on the white cliffs of Dover. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear the hon. Gentleman out.

    Mr. Wallace : If the Prime Minister came to see at first hand a community’s remarkable, practical and vigorous response to the adversities that affected it on 5 January, he would be very impressed indeed. If, in the attempt to restore the economic fortunes of that community, it is necessary to embark on a marketing exercise to restore Shetland’s good name for good-quality produce, will the Prime Minister repeat that the polluter should pay? If so, will he give the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund a nudge in the right direction?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly say to the hon. Gentleman that the response of the people in the area was indeed remarkable. That was noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and by a number of my other right hon. Friends, all of whom visited the area in the period immediately following the tragedy. What the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention was that an economic impact study is being mounted under the direction of Shetland Islands council, and with the participation of Shetland Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. That will help to target resources where they are most needed, and I think that it is the right way in which to proceed for the present.