The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1993

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Principals and Chairs of Governing Bodies – 1 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Principals and Chairs of Governing Bodies, made on 1st March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nearly two years ago I launched the White Paper “Education and Training for the 21st Century”. I launched it myself because I passionately believe we must open up wider and better opportunities for young people and adults.

    A key part of that reform has been the establishment of the new further education sector. It comes into effect next month. From that time, FE colleges will be cut loose from control by local authorities, and you will gain a new freedom. Freedom to plan courses with much more certainty that the necessary funds will be available. Freedom to expand to meet student demand. Freedom to respond to the needs of local employers. Freedom to manage your own finances and your own buildings.

    We didn’t make this change for ideological reasons. We made it for the strictly practical reason that we want more and better further education.

    We want all young people to develop to the best of their ability. We want to give adults the option of a “second chance”. We want to ensure that British business and industry has people with the right skills. In the global market place, we need a world class workforce. That must start with education.

    The priority we give to further education is reflected in our public expenditure plans. They provide for an unprecedented 25 % increase in student numbers over the next three years. That increased number of students will be taking an improved range of qualifications: the new General National Vocational Qualifications will stand alongside equally esteemed A levels and National Vocational Qualifications.

    The Government’s commitment is reflected in the National Education and Training Targets. And in John Patten’s proposal for a Charter for the further education sector.

    But, of course, none of this happens without people. In particular, without you. I would like to welcome everyone here tonight, especially you, nearly 500 college principals; the chairmen of governors – representing the wealth of local expertise freely brought to bear in each college governing body; and of course Bob Gunn, Bill Stubbs and all the other members and officers of the Further Education Funding Council.

    Over two million students – full and part time – are educated in your colleges. You have a key role to play. You face new responsibilities as well as new freedoms. I give you my very best wishes for the future.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Local Government Conference – 27 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference, held in London on Saturday 27th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Two years ago, at this Conference, I spoke about my roots in Lambeth. It was where I learned how politics shapes people’s lives. That same local government learning curve is followed with benefit by many in our Party – like those who sat in this hall two years ago and now sit in Parliament. They have brought with them the experience of local government: the best experience it is possible to have.

    One thing local government taught me was – don’t always listen to the experts. Listen to the people. It was a lesson I relearned at the General Election. All the experts said we would lose – but we won. And won by doing what the wise men said we shouldn’t do.

    And again, on May 6th, whatever the wise men say, we’re going to see more Conservative Councils and more Conservative councillors. And we’ll do so because Conservative Councils Cost You Less and Serve You Better. And Labour and Liberal Councils cost you more – and serve you right.

    Unemployment

    In a moment I want to turn to the future of local government. But first let me deal with one of the issues that most concern people at present – the need for jobs.

    Every politician cares about unemployment. It’s the trivial politics of simple abuse to suggest otherwise. We all want to see more permanent jobs. But the worst thing any of us can do is to pretend there is some quick fix solution. To kid ourselves and mislead others that with some as yet undiscovered potion there’d be jobs for all.

    As the Government, it is our duty to set out the plain truth. So let me do so. But, because it is relevant, let me first put it in context. Unemployment is not just a problem in this country. It is nearly worldwide. Does anyone think the Spanish government want unemployment at nearly 20 per cent? That France wants three million without jobs? That the [indistinct] government are happy that one in six of their population are unemployed? From Canada to Australia, from the USA to France, from Germany to the UK, unemployment has worsened seriously in every country. In recent days, as Leyland-Daf collapsed in Holland with job losses in the United Kingdom, Volkswagen in Germany cut 36,000 jobs, Boeing 28,000 in the US and Nissan and NTT in Japan announced they would shed 35,000 jobs.

    When pessimists knock Britain and damage our prospects, I hope you will answer back. Set out the facts that show we are poised for recovery. Remind them that interest rates are at their lowest since 1977; inflation is at its lowest since 1967; mortgage rates for first- time buyers lower than at any time since 1956.

    And tell them of our trade prospects. Exports are at record levels. Who would have thought a few years ago that we would be exporting cars to Japan? Yet we’re doing just that – in growing numbers. And now we have the biggest market in the world on our doorstep. More of our workforce in this country are in jobs than Italy, France, Spain, Germany or almost any European country you care to name.

    Last year, in the depths of recession, 400,000 new firms set up in business. In Europe five out of the top 10 companies are British. So are 11 Out of the top 20 and 17 out of the top 30. Today, we have the lowest number of strikes in recorded history. These are the conditions that encourage so many foreign companies to invest in Britain, bringing prosperity and jobs with them. Another £100 million worth of American investment was announced just yesterday creating up to 700 jobs. And on the same day, Michael Howard gave the go-ahead to Derby’s City Challenge Action Plan which will create over 4,600 new jobs. I know there are difficulties. In no sense do I ignore them. But don’t let us overlook the good news or we risk perpetuating the bad news.

    We don’t help the unemployed by spreading doom, gloom and depression. We help our competitors. Other countries don’t talk themselves down. And neither should we. The best way to help unemployed people back into work is to have confidence in our nation and self-confidence in ourselves.

    It has been a long haul to put the economic conditions in place for sustained growth and lasting jobs. Now we must take advantage of them. The European Commission predicts that we will be the fastest growing economy in the EC next year. Let’s prove them right. We have done it before. And we can do it again. And it will help enormously if we ditch this habit of national self-denigration. It isn’t necessary. And it isn’t helpful.

    Getting people back to work will take time and it will take persistence. It will be a hard fight. It will need growth in the economy. But we are determined to achieve it.

    The long-term strategy is right. But we have a short term problem to deal with too. So let me tell you what we are doing. We have a massive programme of support for people who are unemployed. Helping them to find work where possible. Keeping them in touch with the labour market. Encouraging them to use their time constructively. We want to do more to keep people in touch with the world of work, either by giving them new opportunities for work experience, or, in some cases, making sure they take advantage of existing opportunities.

    Our employment programmes are being expanded further from this April. Expanded to offer opportunities for 1.5 million people to get back into work. We are producing practical measures to deal with this problem. Labour call for us to “do something”. But whenever we bring in programmes to help – youth training, job interview guarantees, training for work, Jobclubs, Restart, and our Jobplan Workshops – what do they do? Labour vote against those programmes. “Do something”, they say. Well, they could do something too. Get Out of the ‘No’ lobby and onto the side of those looking for work. And that’s where they’ll find us.

    And one other thing. We reject – and will continue to reject – the Social Chapter. France can complain as much as it likes. If investors and businesses choose to come to Britain rather than pay the costs of socialism in France, let them call it social dumping. I call it dumping socialism.

    Let Jacques Delors accuse us of creating a paradise for foreign investors. I am happy to plead guilty. Again and again we warned our European partners about the Social Chapter. And now that our warning has turned out to be right we are not changing policy. They can have the Social Chapter. We’ll have the jobs.

    The importance of local government

    I don’t need persuading about the importance of local government. I know and feel it in my bones. It forms a central part of my political beliefs. So let me set out for you my credo for the future of local government.

    Above all, I want the 1990s to see a renaissance of local government – with modem, forward-looking local leadership. Rooted in civic pride. Rooted in ideals of public service that made household names of so many Conservative council leaders in the past.

    Second, local councils, like central government, must commit themselves to better quality in public service. People won’t be fobbed off any more with the old excuses – and rightly so.

    Third, local government must work with central government to give people more responsibility over their own lives.

    Fourth, it’s time to set a structure for local government that will last. We need to define its responsibilities once and for all. And then let you carry them out.

    Fifth, we must build a new accountability fit for the 21st century – a new accountability that goes directly from those who run public services to those who use them. Many local government services impact directly on the family. In these areas, particularly housing and education, people want to exercise their own choices, not subcontract them wholly to Government – however benevolent and well intentioned Government may be.

    Local Government Structure

    I believe we have a system of local government finance that will last. Now we must seek a structure of local authorities that will stand the test of time as well. I want this change in structure to be the best – and the last.

    There is, I think, a widespread view that the structure and responsibilities of local government are not as clear as they should be. The pattern is too complex. There is a case for structural change.

    But a structure that lasts will not be one that Whitehall has imposed. It will be one that grows naturally from people’s loyalties and local traditions. That’s why we have no national blueprint for local government structure.

    In the 1880s this Party set out a pattern of local government that endured for a century. In the 1990s I want to agree a new pattern – one that lasts, in its turn, well into the century to come. I want an end to the wrangling and the wrestling about structure and functions. I want agreement about the proper role of local government – where it is, what it is, and how it should perform. I want you to know what that role is. I want the public to know it. Then I want to leave you to get on with the job. My message is straightforward: let’s stop batting one another around the head and get on with good government.

    Where the system works well, don’t let’s change it. And let me tell you one other thing, plain and simple. There is going to be no – repeat no – new tier of regional government set above you. That is a cock-eyed idea of our opponents – without identity, without price, without principle and without purpose. And that applies to our opponents as well as that idea. It’s just another half-baked piece of socialism we can do without. We are getting rid of regional monstrosities in Scotland; we have no intention of re-inventing them elsewhere.

    Local government in the modern era

    We are the Conservative Party. Think what that means. It means we do not change for change’s sake. We only change for improvement. And we look for improvement in local government because we care about it.

    I want our reforms to be the friend of local government, not the enemy. The more effective local government is, the more popular it will be. We want to show people which councils are serving them best – and those councils will be Conservative councils.

    The public pay their taxes compulsorily. They should be given more information voluntarily. That’s why we are allowing the Audit Commission power to publish more comparative league tables of performance – powers I hope they will use. Local people should have the chance to judge how their councils are doing. Let’s give them straight answers to the questions they ask. They deserve them – and we must give them.

    Quality Service from Conservative Councils

    I know that not everyone welcomes the new openness. Even some Conservatives are uneasy. We shouldn’t be. It is one of the great differences between us and the other parties. We recognise that this is the age of the consumer, not the producer. And the new ethos of public service and value for money must apply as much to the local council as it does in the market place.

    No-one here has anything to fear from that. It is in Conservative councils that you’ll find the best quality at the best price. I don’t have to look far for proof of that – Huntingdonshire District have set the council tax for a Band C property at minus £4. But I’m the first to concede that my neck of the woods does not have a monopoly of virtue – Hambleton has come in at minus £10, and Wellingborough even lower.

    It’s in Labour councils that you’ll find the homes left empty, the rents uncollected, the inefficiency and worse.

    If you doubt that’s true, consider this. Labour councils are planning to charge nearly £100 more in council tax than Conservative ones. Liberal Democrats are planning £50 more. That’s the soggy Left for you – Labour will take an arm and a leg; the Liberals an arm or a leg. But the poor old taxpayer is clobbered either way. And isn’t it just typical of the Liberals? They never did know their arm from their elbow.

    Creating a New Accountability

    I spoke also of a new accountability. Let me say more about what we mean by that.

    We mean direct accountability – of supplier to customer. It is parents who have the strongest interest in the success of their children’s school. So give them the right to ensure that the school delivers. Give them the information about how the schools in their town or district are, doing. Give them the chance to choose the school in the first place.

    Council tenants want more control over the management of their lives. So give them the chance to buy – and help them to do so. And if they don’t want to buy, give them the assurance that remote, incompetent and unresponsive management will be shaken up. Give them the information about the standards of service they’re getting, and the right to choose.

    Hardly revolutionary, you might think. Yet there are still some in the Labour Party who claim that to give people more information upon which to base their choices is an assault on democracy.

    Don’t you find that astonishing? Is that not really a perversion of logic and language. How can giving choice be an assault on democracy? How can giving more information be an assault on democracy? So much for the fine talk from Labour about being the Party of the individual. What they mean is that Labour is the Party that likes to tell individuals what to do.

    Let us be the Party that tells individuals what Government is doing.

    We give them information.

    We give them choice.

    And we give them power.

    These are the policies that people want. And if Labour really understood individuals they would know that. All of us here today have a sense of common purpose. Michael Howard and his team have been working hard to build an ever closer relationship between Conservative councils and a Conservative Government. And what you have done to introduce the Council Tax smoothly is a tribute to that new spirit as well. We serve the same people in the same country and we serve them best when we work together.

    Enabling Businesses to Grow

    Let me tell you of some of the other key areas where I want Conservative government – central and local – to be working in partnership in the ’90s.

    All of us in public service have our part to play in getting the economy growing again. You know – as I know – that we are entering a very difficult time for public sector spending. But the truth is that for the economy to grow, we have to reduce the cost of the public sector.

    This year’s local authority settlement is tight. So is public spending as a whole. We have a 1.5 per cent limit on public sector pay. I know many of you are being very robust in your budgeting this year. But with inflation now down to 1.7 per cent, there is no better time for pushing through tough decisions on spending and pay.

    And, in our battle for more jobs, there is more we can do to help business. Take planning. Of course we must cherish and protect our heritage. No one doubts that. But restrictive planning policies can shut the door on business opportunities. Wherever possible, we should be helping new businesses locate in our areas, and help people to move where jobs are available – not stand in their way.

    And you can help, too, by getting unnecessary regulation off businesses’ backs. I acknowledge that we in government have often gone too far in imposing unnecessary regulatory duties on local councils. Well, that’s going to stop.

    But I need your help too. Some council departments enforce such regulations with too heavy a hand. We must stop that as well.

    So here are some questions for you to ask your Environmental Health Officers and your social services departments. And perhaps they should ask their clients too.

    Why do so many nursery schools complain about social services inspection? Do Environmental Health Officers really take account of local needs when they inspect the local shop? Do they insist on higher standards for the private and voluntary sectors than they do in the public sector?

    We have to make deregulation effective. So I ask for your help to do so. It is one sure way of helping businesses to grow. Prospects to grow. And jobs to grow.

    Better Housing

    And, in local government, you have other ways to join us in extending choice and opportunity to all.

    In housing, it was Conservative, councils who pioneered the right to buy. They saw an opportunity to help people achieve their dreams of home ownership. And they did so. And government followed where local government led. As a result, nearly one and a half million council tenants have become home owners under Right to Buy since 1979.

    And don’t believe it when people say that the demand for home ownership is past. I don’t accept that for a second.

    That is why the Housing bill, now before Parliament, gives tenants a new right to become home-owners by converting their rents into mortgage payments.

    And now – with mortgage rates for first time buyers the lowest since 1956 – now is the time to remind tenants that they can have huge discounts when buying their home.

    Michael Howard and his team will be launching a new campaign to spread the Right to Buy. They will be taking that message to more than a million tenants this spring.

    I want you to help them spread that message. Help those people to know the pride of ownership. To have their very own piece of Britain. And to build up something for themselves and for their children.

    Better Education

    We must also give parents a bigger say in the education of their children. More schools are going grant maintained. All schools are running more of their own budgets. And I don’t expect to hear of Conservative councils standing in their way. We must always remember what we are fighting for – and what we are fighting against. In the 1980s, housing was the chosen battleground for the Left. The Right to Buy challenged their biggest power base. Why? Because it gave people what they wanted – independence and a stake in our country’s future. That policy brought great dividends to the Party, our Party which made it possible.

    Education is still a battleground for the Left and for the same reasons. Education can liberate. An educated person is hard to oppress. It is education above all that makes a society of opportunity and breaks the bonds of class. To parents it brings that most priceless gift: the certainty that their children will have better opportunities than they ever had.

    That’s why the Conservative Party – in central and local government alike – must recognise that our education reforms are the most vital of all for our country. Don’t listen to those who want to cloak exam results in secrecy. Don’t listen to those who want to keep parents locked outside the school gate. I won’t mince my words: the campaign against testing is a disgrace – a smokescreen thrown up to cover the disastrous results of failed educational theories.

    So let’s make parents and pupils the driving force in our schools. Let people in years to come look back and remember that it was we – we in this Party – who set the course for a revolution in the standard and quality of education. Who threw away the nostrums of the ’60s. Who let our teachers do the job as commonsense tells them best. There’s a lot at stake in this battle. So go out and win it.

    The Message of Conservatism

    This Spring, we face County Council elections. Take this message with you as you campaign.

    If you want to keep the Council Tax low, vote Conservative.

    If you want high standards in schools, vote Conservative.

    If you want local government that puts people first, vote Conservative.

    Our councillors know no equals in dedication, determination and commitment. You get involved to make things better. You don’t turn away and leave it to others. So don’t be bashful. Go and get out there. Tell them what you stand for. Tell them what you have achieved. Tell them what you plan for the future.

    That is what you’ve always done. That is why you win. And that is why you’ll deserve to win again on May 6th.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy – 25 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made in Washington on 25th February 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked about the state of the economy and unemployment]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you have to accept the fact that it isn’t just a problem in the United Kingdom. I know that is not any comfort to the people who are unemployed in the United Kingdom but neither is it any help to suggest that it is uniquely a United Kingdom problem.

    In Japan, in Germany, in the United States and in all sorts of other countries there have been large job losses in recent months and for the same reason – because the recession we face in the United Kingdom is a recession that is biting painfully everywhere. The point is what can we do and what has happened?

    What we need to do to get people back into secure employment is to take the decision to get the economic fundamentals right. Some months ago, we had an inflation rate that was much higher – it is now down to 1.7%; we had interest rates at 14% – they are now down to 6%; we saw no signs of increasing re-investment – we are now beginning to see those signs of re-investment and we have also made some further progress towards the determination of the world trade talks which will lift world trade and create jobs everywhere.

    They are practical measures, sound bite politics criticising the Government may be part of the party political plan but it is practical measures like these that will provide secure jobs for the future and that is what concerns me.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked whether the Government had made mistakes]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If it satisfies you, no government that has ever been in office has failed to make mistakes. What we are concerned about is getting people back to work. It is the future. We are going to be living in this decade in the most competitive decade that we have ever seen. That means we have to have a competitive economy, it means in terms like inflation we need to be at least as good and hopefully better than our principal opponents.

    One of the points I think many people have failed to recognise about the changes in British industry is that we now have the most effective productivity rates anywhere in Europe. That is vitally important because it means we are competitive. Our exports are growing. People often saw years ago us having a declining share of world trade. It is now stabilised and potentially growing for the first time in generations. That is important because of what it means for our prospects in the 1990s. Unless we out-compete other countries we will have no secure prospects so we need the circumstances to make sure we can do that and that is what we putting in place.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked about whether enough was being done about job creation and school rebuilding]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But you overlook what we did in the Autumn Statement. We did create a job-creation programme in many of the measures that the Chancellor actually took in the Autumn Statement.

    The point that I am making is a different point, that to believe that you can actually solve the problem with short-term palliatives is wrong. We have put in range firstly the job-creation measures that the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Statement and secondly, to deal and assist with people who are unemployed at the moment, a wide range of training and other programmes. It is important to keep people who are out of work in touch with the world at work and to provide them with training opportunities so that they can use their skills. That is what we are doing.

    It is a three-pronged approach, get the economic fundamentals of interest rates, inflation and supply-side policies right, then have the right training programme so that people can benefit from those during the period that they are unemployed. Those are the sort of measures that are necessary.

  • Mr Major’s Pool Interview with the Media – 25 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s pool interview with the media, en route to London on Thursday 25th February 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, your trip to America I understand has ended on a good note for British jobs?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes it has, I think it is very good news. We have seen several pieces of good news recently, the move of Hoover to the United Kingdom I think is very good news, and of course Digital establishing themselves in a bigger way at Ayr, safeguarding 1,100 jobs and potentially providing several hundred more, I think that is very good news.

    QUESTION:

    Can you claim some personal credit for an initiative of your own, I notice you had Howard Davies over here to meet the executives from the administration.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Howard Davies and Michael Angus were over here but that is what you would expect us to do and I am delighted to work with British industry when we could. I spoke to the Managing Director of Digital but that was after they had made the decision.

    QUESTION:

    You were being questioned quite heavily earlier on today about the loss of jobs in Britain and you were making the point that you believe the conditions for recovery are there and there is evidence of that, what is that evidence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are several things. In terms of external investment into this country, well we just mentioned some of the evidence. If you look at what was happening last year, even in the depths of the recession, I know about the job losses and so does everyone else, but 400,000 new firms actually registered for business in the depth of the recession last year. That was the pattern we saw after the 1981 recession that produced a substantial amount of employment growth throughout the 1980s, so I think that is a very important factor. The fact that in terms of productivity improvement we now have the best productivity rates of anywhere in the European Community is another important factor, not a glamorous one which people will immediately fasten upon, but a critical one from the point of view of investors as for job growth.

    QUESTION:

    It is not just draining jobs from our supposed European partners?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not believe so. If you actually look not just at the levels of unemployment in this country but also at the levels of employment in this country you get rather a different perspective. Of all the European countries we have the second highest proportion of our adult population in secure jobs, only Denmark is ahead of us and most of the European nations are well behind us.

    QUESTION:

    You have the Budget coming up, we did have a significant shift in economic policy at the end of last year, do you believe that that now is the political basis or does a lot more work have to be done politically to change the conditions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Autumn Statement was there to help stimulate recovery and I think most people would say that it did. The package that the Chancellor put in hand to deal with repossessions was clearly very successful. We must now address the situation as it is and the Chancellor will do that in the Budget.

    QUESTION:

    I was surprised by the warmth of President Clinton when he met you yesterday, what do you think lay behind that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course although it was the first time President Clinton and I had met, we have had a number of very lengthy and detailed telephone conversations, so we were hardly strangers. We had addressed a series of problems together, we had examined them together and both of us had a very clear idea of what was in the other’s mind when we met. But underlying personal relationships there is the shared interests that the United States and the United Kingdom have, shared instincts but also shared interests in how we have free trade, how to lead to trade agreements, how we deal with Yugoslavia, Russia, Iraq. Those are areas where the United States would look instinctively to us, knowing that we would be likely to share their view, and where we would look instinctively to them for precisely the same reason.

    QUESTION:

    They were concerned perhaps that the campaign rhetoric had worried people in Europe and that we needed reassurance perhaps?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Campaigns are curious things on each side of the Atlantic and all the way around the world, one has to face the realities of governing and dealing with problems as they are, that is what governments are about and that is what they do. I think we will work very closely with this administration as we did with the last.

  • PMQT – 25 February 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on an official visit to the United States, which is clearly going extremely well.

    Mrs. Ewing : Will the Lord President of the Council accept that there has been a very warm welcome for the fact that the European Commission has designated the highlands and islands of Scotland as being eligible for objective 1 payments? This matter has been made all the more urgent by the fact that Ardersier is to be placed on a care and maintenance basis. Will the Lord President make it clear that the United Kingdom Government are to argue that the highlands and islands area to be covered by objective 1 should be the same as the highlands and islands enterprise area, which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and parts of my constituency? In both cases the economy is very fragile, and we need this assistance.

    Mr. Newton : The whole House will join the hon. Lady in welcoming the announcement that the highlands and islands have been included in the list of recommendations that the Commission is making for designation under objective 1 in the next round of the structural fund. Of course, those recommendations are still subject to scrutiny and to final decision by the Council of Ministers. In the discussions, the United Kingdom will certainly seek to ensure that the needs and interests of west Grampian and of Argyll and Bute are taken fully into account as efforts are made to achieve the best outcome for the highlands and islands.

    Mr. Dykes : As my right hon. Friend has said, the Prime Minister’s visit to President Clinton and the new American Government has been extremely successful. Can he confirm that we are resisting the rather unfair attacks on the Airbus, the excellent British and European aircraft, and on its related equipment being made by American manufacturers, bearing in mind the fact that American subventions for aircraft are much higher than those in Europe?

    Mr. Newton : I am not in a position to give details of every aspect of my right hon. Friend’s conversations, but I have no doubt that he has emphasised the British Government’s view on those matters.

    Mrs. Beckett : How would the right hon. Gentleman feel if he were serving in the British Army, under fire in Bosnia, and were handed a P45?

    Mr. Newton : The need to achieve balanced and well-considered reductions in the armed forces was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Armed Forces some months ago. It is appropriate that that exercise should be carried through in a balanced and fair way. Of course, there is no question of anybody becoming redundant while in Bosnia.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is it not a further example of the Government’s incompetence that one week they are reprieving regiments because the British Army is overstretched and the next they are making soldiers redundant? Are they not gratuitously undermining the morale of British troops in one of the most dangerous theatres of operation?

    Mr. Newton : It seems to me that, against the background of a need acknowledged by all parties to make some reductions in the armed forces, it is right that it should be carried out fairly and even handedly. It would be much more unfair to leave troops serving in Bosnia in a state of continuing uncertainty when the position is being clarified elsewhere.

    Mrs. Beckett : Surely it is adding insult to injury to make soldiers redundant when the Government know perfectly well that there are no jobs for them to come back to. Is he aware that in some parts of the country, as many as 2,000 people are chasing every job?

    Mr. Newton : What I am aware of is that the armed forces have extensive arrangements for assisting those whose services come under the heading that we are discussing and that the great majority of those who left in the previous phase of change in the armed forces have found jobs, and their skills enhanced their prospects of doing so.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will my right hon. Friend commend the action of the judge at Lancaster Crown court who imposed on four youths who were guilty of affray and other crimes–one of whom was on bail–an immediate custodial sentence, which will teach a salutary lesson to other gangs who choose to maraud?

    Mr. Newton : Without being familiar with every detail of the particular case, I endorse the general thrust of my hon. Friend’s remarks. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have her support and, I hope, that of the House when he issues further proposals shortly in respect of juvenile offenders and of those offending while on bail.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Leader of the House recall the Prime Minister’s commitment that under the citizens charter the public would be compensated when the authorities failed? Is he aware of today’s Treasury Committee report which concludes that the Bank of England has manifestly failed in its duty of supervision in the case of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Will the sufferers be compensated, or is this to be another example of “do as I say but not as I do”?

    Mr. Newton : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already carefully considered the implications of the Bingham report and made it clear that the Government do not believe that it would be right to offer compensation beyond that provided in general banking legislation under the statutory deposit protection scheme. Of course, my right hon. Friend and the Government as a whole will carefully study the report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I certainly do not expect them to change their conclusion.

    Mr. Richards : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s trade union reforms have completely transformed the industrial relations climate, and will he join me in welcoming to our policies the Johnny-come-latelys on the Opposition Benches no matter how belated their conversion?

    Mr. Newton : Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend and endorse what he says. The Opposition have opposed every significant piece of reform legislation that we have passed since 1979 in that connection, but have had to come to a grudging acceptance of them as their beneficial results become clear. We have a continuing flow of examples of investment coming into this country which has been helped in coming here by precisely those reforms.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Bennett : I have here a few reports covering the past 14 years of Home Office Ministers assuring us that they would get tough on crime. Can the Leader of the House tell us how many promises were made and why they have not worked? Could it possibly be because of the sort of society that this Government have created, in which people have been encouraged to be selfish and to put self-interest first ; a society in which no one is expected to understand right or wrong, but merely whether one can get away with it, and in which Ministers are trained to say, “Not me, guv”?

    Mr. Newton : I would take that more easily from somebody who was not a representative of a party which has voted against or sought to weaken every substantial measure designed to tackle the problem : the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and, regularly, the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The test of the hon. Gentleman’s commitment will be how he votes when the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act comes again before the House shortly.

    Mr. Waterson : Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in my constituency of Eastbourne and throughout the country stand to benefit from the Housing and Urban Development Bill? Is it not a great pity that Opposition Members voted against it on Second and Third Readings?

    Mr. Newton : Yes it is, and it is typical of the way in which the Opposition so often fail to vote in the way that much of their rhetoric indicates that they should.

     

    Q3. Ms. Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Ms. Eagle : Does the Lord President of the Council agree with the views expressed yesterday by his colleague, Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that Britain’s withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism was a humiliation which could have been avoided if Britain had cut interest rates earlier and realigned earlier? Does he agree with me that Lord Lawson’s comments are hardly a ringing endorsement of his Government’s economic competence?

    Mr. Newton : No, I do not entirely share the views that my right hon. and noble Friend is reported to have expressed. I would have found it more credible coming from the hon. Lady if she had joined the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in referring to something that her constituents will benefit from–the inclusion of Merseyside in objective 1 status.

     

    Q4. Mr. Willetts : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Willetts : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the battle against over-regulation must be one of the Government’s highest priorities? Is it not absurd that health and safety regulations prohibit one of our leading physicists, who has written the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” entry on electricity, from changing a 13 amp plug in his own laboratory?

    Mr. Newton : It certainly sounds so on the face of it, but I had better undertake to look into the particular case, while agreeing entirely with my hon. Friend’s basic proposition, which is that we need precisely what is now being carried out by the Government–a thorough-going review of some aspects of over-regulation.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hoon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hoon : Since the Leader of the House is keen on talking about European Community funding, can he explain to Britain’s depressed regions why not one penny of the £1 billion that is available to this country from the EC in regional funding had been spent at the end of last year? Will he assure the House that all that £1 billion will be spent, together with the £2.5 billion matching funds that will be required in the next 10 months, and ensure that the money is spent in Britain on helping our depressed regions rather than being lost to other countries?

    Mr. Newton : The Government fully comply with the Community’s rules in these matters and have every intention of making that even clearer than, evidently, it is to the hon. Gentleman.

     

    Q6. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Evennett : Has my right hon. Friend observed that on average council tax in Labour authorities will be £100 higher than in Conservative authorities and will he pass that information on to the Prime Minister when he returns from his successful trip to the United States? Furthermore, does my right hon. Friend agree that Conservative councils are efficient and effective, while Labour councils just cost the people more?

    Mr. Newton : Yes, I have noticed such reports. There is a remarkable correlation between high levels of council tax and Labour control, and between low levels of council tax and Conservative control. If there is any risk of that lesson being missed, we shall ensure that the electorate are made aware of it between now and the local elections in May.

    Mr. Home Robertson : May I take the Leader of the House back to the question of the redundant soldiers? What does he say to Royal Scots serving in Northern Ireland, and members of the Cheshire Regiment serving in Bosnia, whom I met last week, who applied for voluntary redundancy on the understanding that their regiments were to be amalgamated and who would now like to have the opportunity to withdraw their redundancy applications? It is not good enough to say that they have the right to appeal. Under the new circumstances, they should have the right to stay in the Army and should not be issued with P45s.

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces tells me that that matter was the subject of exchanges in yesterday’s debate and that he made the position clear to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) then. I am certainly not going to add to that now.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Bill Clinton – 24 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Bill Clinton, held in Washington on Wednesday 24th February 1993.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I want to formally welcome Prime Minister Major to the White House of the United States, we are delighted to have him here. As I am sure you know, he has already met earlier today with people on the Hill and with members of my Cabinet. We have just finished the first of two meetings, we talked for about an hour and then this evening we will have a working dinner.

    About the conversations we have had so far, I would just like to make two points: first we covered a wide range of topics, we talked about Bosnia, as you might imagine we would, we talked about the Middle East. And then the rest of our time was spent virtually exclusively talking about economic matters, about the upcoming meeting of the G7, about the importance of trying to get an agreement under GATT and my commitment to that, about the absolute necessity of the United States, Europe and Japan working together during this difficult time to try and prevent a contraction of the global economy and instead hopefully to promote growth not only here at home but throughout the world. And we talked about that in some considerable detail.

    The Prime Minister, as you know, has been in office a lot longer than I have and I asked him for his advice about a number of things and his opinion about others and we had a very very good meeting and I am looking forward to our dinner tonight.

    The second point I would like to make is to reaffirm something that some of you asked me during the photo op, and that is whether the United States will continue to have a very special relationship with Great Britain. The answer to that, from my point of view, is an unqualified ‘Yes’. I think that only two Presidents ever lived in England, I think I am one of only two, there may have been more somewhere in past centuries, but it is a very important relationship to me and I think it is off to a very good start. And I would like to say again how much I appreciate the candour with which the Prime Minister has approached the issues on which we discussed our mutual interests.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, firstly thank you for your welcome today and I have found out meeting extremely useful and I look forward to continuing this evening. And I certainly had some very useful meetings this morning on the Hill and with other members of your Cabinet earlier this morning, with Lloyd Bentsen and of course over lunch as well with some of your colleagues. It is nice, having had a number of telephone conversations over the last few months, to actually see a face across the table rather than just hear a voice across the ‘phone and I look forward to continuing that dialogue this evening.

    You set out some of the things that we were able to discuss over the last hour or so. I was particularly pleased we were able to reach such a meeting of minds on the importance of reaching an agreement to the Uruguay Round as speedily as possible. I think we share the view that for a raft of reasons it is important to get a satisfactory and fair agreement to the GATT Round, not just because of the impetus that will give to trade growth and hopefully to prosperity and job growth as well, but also because of the very remarkable advantage that will give not just to the industrialised but to the non-industrialised world with the many difficulties that are faced economically at the moment. So I was particularly pleased at our meeting of minds on that particular subject.

    We found also a complete agreement about the need for the Security Council resolutions that have been imposed in respect of Iraq to be fully met and to be fully honoured in the future. I had the pleasure of being able to welcome the President’s initiative in humanitarian air drops in Bosnia. The United Kingdom have got a number of thousands of troops actually delivering humanitarian aid in central Bosnia, they have been doing that for some time. I think as a result of their activities many people who otherwise might not have lived through this winter have done and I think this new initiative by the President is thoroughly welcome.

    So it has been a very worthwhile and a very enjoyable meeting thus far and I look forward to continuing it this evening.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Let me answer that first question. If the United States can in some way make a constructive contribution to a political settlement, of course we would be interested in doing that, but that is not a subject we have discussed in any way so far and I think I would rather wait to make further comments until after we have had a chance to discuss it.

    As far as the campaign is concerned, the campaign is over, you are a good one to answer that question since you know that compared to previous campaigns I have been in this was just sort of another day at the office and once you achieve the responsibilities of office, this is what you have to do. I told the Prime Minister today that I was just grateful that I got through this whole campaign with most of my time in England still classified.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Let me deal with the air drops first. General Powell came over here last weekend and we talked for a very extended period of time about this operation and about how we can maximise the safety to United States’ pilots and other personnel on the planes who would be involved in this and to minimise the prospect that any humanitarian relief operation could be drawn into the politics and the military operations of this area. We know that if we are high enough to virtually assure the complete safety of the people who will participate in the airlift that a percentage of the packages we drop will be outside the more or less half mile circle that we will be trying to hit. We also know that if we leaflet the area in advance, if we notify the people about what we are dropping and how to use the medicine and what kind of food will be there, to whatever extent the people need it they will be on the look-out for it and if they have to walk a mile instead of half a mile for it, we think they will. So we believe that (a) there is a need in some of the remote areas and (b) we can do this with quite an effective but safe mission.

    Insofar as other actions, I think there are a number of things that we are looking at. I am encouraged by the United Nations’ interest in the war crimes issue, I am encouraged by the conversation the Prime Minister and I had about the importance of trying to make the sanctions that are now in force actively be more effective. But I would remind you that our policy is that we want to try and have a good faith in negotiations with all the parties there, we are committed to doing what we can to encourage the Bosnians to engage in negotiations within the Vance/Owen framework and President Yeltsin has been very forthcoming on his part in trying to help get the negotiations back on track too.

    So I think we should look at it just from that point of view. It would be a great mistake to read this humanitarian relief operation as some initial foray towards a wider military role.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just add something to that, as you requested? We are able at the moment to deliver a substantial amount of aid in central Bosnia by land but the natural terrain of Bosnia as a whole means that is not practicable for a raft of reasons, not least geographical reasons, at the moment in all parts of Bosnia. I think therefore you do have to look at imaginative ways of actually getting food aid and medicine aid through and I think the prospect that the President is exploring is an imaginative one and I hope it will prove successful. On sanctions, one of the things we have been discussing in the last half an hour or so is the prospects of enhanced sanctions and I think there clearly are opportunities there that we will need to examine. I think we can improve the sanctions over the Danube, for example, I do not think they are being enforced very effectively.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think President Yeltsin is weakened by his present conflict to the extent that he is not going to continue, clearly there are difficulties in the disputes he has had with Congress and in particular the Speaker, but I expect President Yeltsin to be there and to continue, I think he is the best hope for the Russians and I think the policies and the movements towards reform that he has in mind and continues to have in mind are the right ways forward. I think there are two things we can do to help Russia in general and President Yeltsin, one is the economic assistance that has been provided, and there is a great deal of discussion to be had about whether we are directing that in the right way and in the right volume, and secondly I think also there are the political messages of support to the reformers and to the reform policies, personified at the moment in the person of President Yeltsin but the underlying purpose of the assistance is to assist the reformers and to assist the reform policies in Russia. I think we ought to give them political support as well as the practical and economic support that we have been giving them.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I believe that President Yeltsin has not been paralysed by what has happened, I support him and his role and he is trying to do. I have not established a definite date for a meeting with him yet but I do hope to meet with him soon, personally. I know he is having some trouble with his Congress but that is part of being in a democratic society with an elected President [indistinct] what it is like in our system. I do not want to minimise that but I think it is a grave error to assume that he cannot continue and do well, I believe he can. And I think that in terms of what we ought to be doing about it, I think the Prime Minister has pretty well laid out the kind of political and economic support we ought to be giving but let me say that as all of you know, I have placed a great priority on this. The State Department will now have an Ambassador at large whose job it is to coordinate a response not only to Russia but to all the republics of the former Soviet Union and we have a very distinguished American, Thomas Pickering, nominated to be our Ambassador. We have put in a lot of effort into trying to support democracy and trying to support economic recovery there.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We are going to ask for an extension of fast track authority and we are going to put a real effort into a successful conclusion of the Round. I advocated that in 1991 at the beginning of my race for President and I still feel very strongly that it is important.

    The press response around the world to the economic plan I presented to Congress has been very positive because our trading partners have been asking us for years to make a real effort to reduce the debt and so we are doing that. I think that sparks hope not only here at home but around the world and I think if we were to successfully conclude the Uruguay Round that would also spark hope that we will be expanding trade on terms that are fair to everyone so I am very hopeful that we can get a trade agreement.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We haven’t discussed Northern Ireland at all and after we do I’ll be happy to answers your questions.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    All I can tell you is General Powell has been asked to design the mission in such a way that we would minimise risk to our folks and we have obviously engaged in an extensive consultation, which is not over, [inaudible] has been asking me every day when I was going to make this announcement. The consultations aren’t over and one of the things that we want everybody to know is that this is a humanitarian mission and we are prepared to help anybody who needs the food and medicine and we want the broadest possible support for this and we want all the people on the ground and the various factions to know that this is not a political issue with us.

    We are very encouraged by the responses we have gotten so far from all the elements with whom we have discussed this plan. That is all I can tell you.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is a great deal to add. As I indicated earlier, there is a twin-track approach. We are providing aid by land, the President has in mind aid delivered by air to areas we can’t reach by land. I have no reason to suppose that that is going to put at risk the lives of the British soldiers in Central Bosnia.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but regarding fighter capability].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You asked the question. I have given the judgement I make.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We talked about the importance of adhering to the United Nations Resolution as they apply to Iraq in the aftermath of the Gulf War and about our general support for the peace process continuing. We didn’t deal with that issue and I think I ought to wait until the Secretary of State returns from his mission before I discuss it further.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but regarding consultations on Bosnia and any other countries becoming involved other than the US].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Yes, we might have some other countries involved. The Prime Minister has made his statement. I think he has done his part. His troops are on the ground there but I think there is a chance that we will have support from other nations.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    No.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter that has to be negotiated between the parties and I don’t think I’m going to express a view on whether that is the right map. I think the process of seeking a negotiated settlement and trying to reach by agreement between the three parties an agreement on the map that will enable a political settlement to be reached is the right way but I don’t think it is for me to judge whether the map is right. Clearly, the view of the participants at the moment is that the map isn’t right but that is the purpose of negotiations; that is why I was delighted to hear this morning that Karadzic and Izetbegovic will be joining talks again with Boban so that they can actually talk to Cy Vance and David Owen and see if they can reach an agreement.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    The only thing I would say just to add to that is that I agree with what the Prime Minister has said. As you know, the United States feels very strongly that this agreement must be just that – an agreement; it must not be shoved down the throat of the Bosnians or anyone else if it is going to work.

    We also feel strongly that all the parties should negotiate in good faith and therefore I agree with what he said about the map but I would make this further point: the United States has made clear in our statement of policy that if an agreement is reached in good faith we would be prepared to be part of a NATO or a United Nations effort to monitor or support the agreement and that map would be difficult to support I think but before we make any final judgements we need to give the parties a chance to reach their accord.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    What I said was that I have invited the members of the Congress to present them to me and instructed our people to continue to look for them and I presume as we define things that we are willing to put on the table we will continue to do it. We don’t have any orchestrated theory about how to do that now but I’d be surprised if there aren’t some more comments.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is an agreement over the degree of subsidies for projects like Airbus and that agreement continues until July and I think there is no proposition in what the President said to change that particular agreement.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, you said you may discuss Northern Ireland this evening. Would you expect to discuss both the peace envoy issue and the human rights issue and do you share the view expressed by some members of Congress that Senator [indistinct] suggested that there are abuses of human rights in Northern Ireland that need to be addressed and perhaps the Prime Minister would like to [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will address that point first. The real abuse of human rights in Northern Ireland is the abuse of human rights of people who find bombs in shopping malls when they are going about their ordinary everyday business. I think that is the abuse of human rights that is overwhelmingly the concern of everybody in Northern Ireland on both sides of the sectarian divide.

    Over the past two or three years, the British Government with the Taoiseach and the political parties in Northern Ireland have been engaged in talks to try and find a political settlement to a problem that has existed in Northern Ireland for generations. We are seeking that agreement. Those talks I believe it is fair to say have made more progress than most people believed was possible. The talks came to a halt with the general election in the Republic of Ireland and the forthcoming local elections in Northern Ireland but it is the policy of my Government to resume those talks with all the parties in Northern Ireland to try and reach a satisfactory political settlement and remove many of the disputes and hatreds that have existed for generations. Those disputes and hatreds are worsened by violence, whether it is the IRA violence or whether it is the response to IRA violence which has also been prevalent over the last year or so. I condemn both unreservedly and without any distinction.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I believe that obviously there has to be a political solution there or there will be no solution at all and that the human rights issues will have to be addressed in that context. Whether the United States can play any sort of constructive role is something that we want to discuss later this evening.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I think you have to expect that there would be some trouble and the Senate Minority Leader can say that but he was here during the last twelve years when other Presidents and the Congress quadrupled the national debt. I am trying to do something about it, turn it around and go in the opposite direction. The survey showed that a big majority of the American people support my initiative. The response from people in governments around the world has been almost uniformly positive that American is trying to change the nature of its economic policy, reduce its debt, increase investment in high-growth items and I never expected this to be easy. This is a fundamental change; I don’t expect it to be easy but I hope that I will be working with Senator Dole and with others to bring it to a successful conclusion.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Yes, I spoke to the Prime Minister of Canada. We had a very nice conversation which was mostly personal and I thanked him for his kindness to me and he assured me that his country would continue to work with me and that he would personally until his tenure in office was over. I wish him well. He seemed to be a person who had worked through this and was very much at peace with himself today.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just answer that point as well. I regard Brian as an old friend and a good friend. I shall miss him. He has been a very good friend of the United Kingdom and a very good friend of the Commonwealth so I am sad to hear of his decision today but it must be his decision. I wish him well in the future and I look forward to seeing him in the United Kingdom in a few weeks time.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think from time to time distinguished visitors from the United States in Northern Ireland have come back to the United States and they have actually explained the remarkable changes that have taken place in Belfast. There was a delegation that was there recently and the reality is that anyone who knew the place ten years ago and knows the place today will see there is an absolute and total sea change and I think there is a greater knowledge about the will for peace amongst people in Northern Ireland, especially the ordinary people of Northern Ireland on both sides of the sectarian divide. The more that is understood the better and what is actually needed in Northern Ireland to help speed that is more understanding of the process, more support for the talks, more investment for job creation and less money to fund terrorism and the more people know about that, the nearer we come to a solution.

  • Mr Major’s Pool Interview with the Media – 23 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s pool interview with the media, en route to Washington on Tuesday 23rd February 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I get the sense that on this trip you have got more to talk about and you are going to have a more crowded agenda than for very many meetings between President and Prime Minister for some time past?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is probably right, it is certainly going to be a very crowded agenda. It falls, I think, into two quite clear cut parts, firstly economic/trade matters, the need to get the GATT Round settled, and political matters, the problems in Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq. There will certainly be plenty to talk about.

    QUESTION:

    But I also sense that there are real differences between you which could cause trouble. Just take two: the whole business over Airbus, Ireland for example, little things which may be a real irritant between the two of you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think there are going to be matters that we cannot solve readily. There are certainly a whole range of things that we will want to discuss but the predominant matters are of course the trade matters, I think that will be in the centre of our minds.

    QUESTION:

    But have you not got more work to do with an incoming President like this, some of whose views do not seem to be quite what yours are?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I think you make a misjudgement when you say that. There is one thing that is absolutely clear, both the United States and the United Kingdom have a common outlook on a vast range of international problems. Most centrally of course we are both anxious to get the world economies moving again, we both know that that needs a satisfactory GATT agreement. We are both determined in international affairs, for example, to do what we can to contribute to helping Russia deal with its enormous problems, vital for the whole of Europe and the rest of the world that we do so. We are both keen to see a solution to the problems in Yugoslavia. We are both absolutely determined to make sure that Iraq obeys the Security Council resolutions. So the points that we have to discuss that you say are points of difference are tiny compared to the points where we wish to move the agenda forward from a mutual area of agreement.

    QUESTION:

    I know it is a hackneyed phrase – the special relationship – but I do get the sense that there needs to be a bit of rebuilding of that special relationship at the moment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The special relationship is not a term, frankly, that I use. There are huge areas of common interest between the United States and the United Kingdom, that has been so for many years and will continue to be so in the future. It is partly the instinct of a long-standing blood relationship but more important it is the fact that we have the common outlook on how to deal with many of the problems that exist, that has been so with administrations over many years, it is so now, and in my judgement it will remain so in the future.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it is important that you are the first European leader to go to see him?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have spoken on the telephone on a number of occasions already so we have a pretty clear idea of what our views are on a whole range of subjects. I am looking forward to seeing him, I very much hope that the other European leaders will see him very shortly.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Mordechai Vanunu

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to raise the case of Mordechai Vanunu with President Herzog of Israel during his visit to the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : This matter has been raised informally with the Israeli Government. I do not plan to raise it formally with the President.

     

    Road Casualties

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a table to show comparable data on road casualty rates for (a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales.

    The Prime Minister : The latest comparable rates for these countries is published in tables 1, 4 and 8 of “Road Accident Statistics English Regions 1991”, a copy of which is in the Library.

     

    Manufacturing Initiatives

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister what further initiatives he is planning to rebuild the United Kingdom manufacturing base.

    The Prime Minister : The Government fully appreciate the part played by manufacturing industry in securing the United Kingdom’s long-term prosperity. I, and my Cabinet colleagues, will continue to pay close attention to manufacturing industry’s concerns across the full range of the Government’s decisions.

     

    Nuclear Weapons (Discussions)

    Dr. David Clark : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to discuss with President Clinton (a) collaboration on the safety of nuclear weapons, (b) the negotiation of a competitive test ban treaty and (c) article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : There will be no formal agenda, but I expect to have wide-ranging discussions with President Clinton and members of his administration.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

  • PMQT – 23 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Kim Howells : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

    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 meetings with ministerial colleagues and others later today.

    Dr. Howells : Does the Prime Minister agree that it is one thing to blame the chairman of the Conservative party for having sent advisers to try to help undermine the Democrats’ presidential campaign, but that it is quite another for him to try to dodge the blame for illegal searches of Home Office files? Does he accept the blame for those illegal searches, and if he does not will he institute an investigation to find out who conducted them so that he can sack them?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is characteristically wrong on both points. Let me set out the facts for him. No one was sent by the Conservative party to take part in last year’s presidential election campaign. Two members of staff were invited privately by people in the Republican party. Their fares were paid by people in the Republican party ; they travelled in their own time ; and they paid their own personal expenses. Their expenses were not paid by the Conservative party. In contrast, the Labour party sent people, including its deputy leader, to the Democrat headquarters. It is not the least of the tributes to President Clinton that he won the election despite Europe’s most frequent losers giving him advice. The Home Office’s press office received inquiries in early October about whether Mr. Clinton had applied for British citizenship. Inquirers were told that, in accordance with normal practice, details about individual applications could not be disclosed to third parties. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now accept that that is the fact of the matter.

    Sir Terence Higgins : As, unlike the previous Labour Government, this Government are not obliged to do what the IMF tells them, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity in Washington to explain to the IMF that the economic recovery is still fragile, that the size of the public sector borrowing requirement is still due to a large extent to the recession and that an increase in taxation at this stage in the economic cycle would stultify growth and be likely to increase rather than diminish the size of the fiscal deficit?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend, as a former distinguished Treasury Minister, will expect me at this stage of the economic cycle to take note of his comments rather than to respond in detail to them.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister appreciate the full significance of the latest figures showing 1 million long-term unemployed? Is it not appalling that 20 per cent. of the long-term unemployed in this country are aged between 18 and 24, many of whom have never had a chance to work?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the number of long-term unemployed is too high– higher than anyone would wish to see. That is why we are seeking to reduce it. That is why we have put in place the most varied comprehensive programme ever to help people who have been unemployed for six months or more. Next year there will be more than 1,200,000 places on a number of schemes to help the long-term unemployed, including training for work, job clubs, business start-ups and restart courses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering how we might further help the long-term unemployed. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared to match his words with action and support any proposals that we may have.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it remotely satisfactory that a problem has to reach crisis proportions before it gets on the Government’s agenda? Is it not the case that, whatever the Government say or have been doing, unemployment goes up every month? Indeed, it has gone up every single month since the Prime Minister took office. I will give him one simple and practical suggestion. Why does he not let local authorities spend their own money which they have got from asset sales to build homes and put people back to work? He could do it tomorrow. Why does he not do it?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls the autumn statement, he will know that my right hon. Friend increased the amount of local authority assets that could be used and that local authorities underspend the amount that they are permitted to use. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so sure that it is this Government’s policies that cause unemployment, how can he explain the fact that unemployment is rising right across Europe and the world and that Governments of all complexions, including socialist Governments in France and Spain, face similar problems? If there is an easy answer, why is it that those socialist Governments and others have failed to find it?

    Mr. John Smith : Why is it that the Prime Minister fails to understand the deep concerns in this country? Is he aware that, in the context of high and rising unemployment and high and rising crime, it was reported yesterday in The Daily Telegraph that only 10 per cent. of the people of this country felt that we were a nation at ease with ourselves? Since the Prime Minister is so good at blaming everyone else, who does he blame for that sad state of affairs?

    The Prime Minister : I say categorically to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not fail to understand the problem of unemployment; I understand it very well. That is precisely why, over the last two years, we have put in place extra schemes–training for work, job clubs, job interview guarantees, business start-ups, workshops and restart courses–all to help people who are unemployed to get back into work. While the right hon. and learned Gentleman admits abroad that it is a worldwide problem, he does not have the courage to admit that here. He comes here with only sound bite politics rather than any constructive help.

    Mr. Ashby : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the way to improve the unemployment situation is to improve manufacturing industry, not, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, by allowing local authorities to spend their capital? Does my right hon. Friend accept, further, that in real manufacturing industry–the engineering industry–there are real signs of improvement and activity and that there is increased employment? Will my right hon. Friend see that that improvement continues by ensuring that we do not have increased taxation, that interest rates are kept low and that there is more capital investment and not so much tax on it?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend sets out a number of important points. Quite apart from the present inflation position and level of interest rates, there are a number of other signs that bode well for our competitiveness and for job creation in the future. United Kingdom unit costs are now growing more slowly than those in Japan and Germany. Earnings are growing more slowly than for 25 years, making us more competitive. Export volumes were at record levels at the end of last year. Our share of world trade has stabilised after decades of decline. Productivity is at all -time high levels. Those are the essential ingredients for growing prosperity and secure jobs in the future, and those are what we are seeking to provide.

     

    Q2. Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

    Mr. Fraser : Is not the Prime Minister appalled by the fact that when the Conservatives took office in 1979, unemployment was just over 1 million and that now the number of people unemployed for more than 12 months is over 1 million? May I suggest that, as he crosses the Atlantic this afternoon, he dips into “Bonfire of the Vanities” and contemplates the extent to which economic trends in this country are beginning to replicate the horrors of cities in the United States, and perhaps he could resolve to give up making excuses during Lent?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might do well to reflect on the levels of unemployment throughout the Community, now at 17 million. He might show his concern better if he and his party did not oppose every job training scheme that we produce. While he invites me to look into “Bonfire of the Vanities”, he might look into affairs in his borough, where there is the highest poll tax in Britain, the largest number of uncollected rents, the largest number of empty properties and where he and his party have brought despair year after year after year.

    Mr. Gallie : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the actions of French fishermen today in destroying £10,000 worth of fish en route from Ayr to Germany? Does he recall similar incidents last year, when £30,000 of produce was lost in a similar manner? May we have an assurance that he will approach the French Government to make sure that the culprits are brought to justice and that compensation is paid to all in Britain who lose out in such circumstances?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes the point. Officials have already lodged protests with the French authorities about the incidents in Roscoff during the weekend. We shall continue to leave the French Government in no doubt that we expect them to act where necessary to safeguard free trade, to pay compensation when losses have occurred and to bring the perpetrators to book. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

     

    Q3. Mr. Enright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

    Mr. Enright : If a principal duty of a Government is the prevention of crime, have not the present Government failed spectacularly? Should not the Prime Minister immediately announce the establishment of a royal commission to make urgent proposals on the subject? Or will he just watch the downward spiral continue with the gaze of the dog that does not understand?

    The Prime Minister : As I arrived today, the Under-Secretary of State for Health was setting out a list of measures designed to deal with crime that the Opposition had opposed. To illustrate its depth of concern about the matter, the Labour party had 155 words on the subject of crime in its election manifesto. By contrast, since 1979 we have increased the maximum penalty for trafficking in hard drugs to life imprisonment ; introduced a power to confiscate drug traffickers’ and other criminals’ assets, against the opposition of the Labour party ; increased maximum penalties for carrying firearms to life imprisonment, for cruelty to children to 10 years and for insider dealing to seven years. I will take Opposition Members seriously on matters of crime when they support, for example, the prevention of terrorism Acts, and we shall give them an opportunity to do that within a few days.

    Mr. Luff : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the plans by Jaguar Cars to invest £500 million in the production of a new car at Coventry and of the increases in production planned by Rover Cars, including the excellent Land-Rover Discovery car, which many hon. Members are proud to drive? Does he agree that that is excellent news for the west midlands and the whole British motor vehicle industry?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend and I am–of course –aware of the large investments by Jaguar and Rover. Not only is that excellent news for the motor industry and the west midlands, but it demonstrates the continuing commitment to the United Kingdom as a key manufacturing base by Jaguar’s parent company, Ford. The British motor industry was a relic of an industry 15 years ago. It is now profitable, expanding and exporting as a result of our policies.

     

    Q4. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

    Mr. Beith : Why does the Prime Minister think that the long list of measures that he has just read out, and which his Government have successfully carried through the House to deal with crime and juvenile crime, has simply not worked? Could it be that crime has become too easy, that violence has become too much the theme of television and videos, that respect for other people has gone too much out of fashion and that too many young people see no stake for themselves in society but see more of a future in crime and the black economy? Does the Prime Minister not have to reach out beyond any one party in order to tackle such issues?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say a moment ago, and I addressed a good deal of that in a speech a fortnight or so ago. There is a responsibility that spreads far beyond any Government. It most explicitly includes a responsibility within the family circle. It most expressly includes the churches and it most expressly includes the schools to ensure that there is no truancy. Those children who truant are far more likely to be involved in juvenile crime. It is for those reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing measures to deal with juvenile crime very shortly.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministers’ Homes

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister in how many cases improvements made at public expense in the past five years to the private homes of Ministers, for reasons of personal security, have not been used wholly or mainly for those purposes.

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of no such case. Since November 1990, responsibility for the provision of security measures for public figures at threat from terrorist attack has rested with the Home Office. Before November 1990, the provision of security measures was the responsibility of the accounting officer advised by the police and the relevant departmental security officer.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister how many houses or buildings attached to homes belonging to Ministers or their families which have been converted or improved at public expense for reasons of personal security have been the subject of professional fee payments out of public money in the last five years.

    The Prime Minister : Where security measures are provided at public expense to a person at threat from terrorist attack, professional fees will be paid if this offers the best value for money. It is not possible to identify every case where such fees have been paid.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out those matters in regard to exports to Iraq on which Ministers are prepared to give substantive answers while the Scott inquiry is sitting.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Justice Scott has terms of reference which allow him to look into all the issues which he regards as relevant to his inquiry. Ministers will continue to answer substantive questions where to do so would not prejudice the issues being investigated by the inquiry.

     

    Law and Order

    Mr. Llwyd : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to transfer responsibility for law and order concerns within Wales to the Secretary of State for Wales.

    The Prime Minister : The Government always keep departmental distribution of functions under review.

     

    Polly Peck

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what activities were undertaken in northern Cyprus and the east Mediterranean directly or indirectly by Polly Peck for the United Kingdom Government between 1985 and 1990.

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of any such activities having been undertaken. A full trawl of all Government Departments and agencies could not be carried out without incurring disproportionate cost.

     

    N M Rothschild

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the work obtained and the fees paid to N M Rothschild in the course of the Government’s privatisation programme since 1983.

    The Prime Minister : The table shows the Government appointments made to N M Rothschild in privatisations since 1983. The fees paid are a matter of commercial confidentiality. Appointments for adviser to the Government are made following full competition. The Government’s consistent practice has been to select the firm offering the best value for money.

    N M Rothschild privatisation appointments

    Privatisation |Year |Appointment

    —————————————————————————————-

    BT |1984 |Underwriter

    Britoil |1985 |Underwriter

    British Gas |1986 |Adviser to Government Underwriter

    Royal Ordnance |1987 |Adviser to Government

    British Airways |1987 |Underwriter

    Rolls-Royce |1987 |Underwriter

    BAA |1987 |Underwriter

    British Petroleum |1987 |Adviser to Government Underwriter

    British Steel |1988 |Underwriter

    Water |1989 |Underwriter

    Regional Electricity |1990 |Underwriter Companies

    BT |1991 |Member of French syndicate

    Northern Ireland |ongoing |Adviser to Government Electricity

    British Coal |ongoing |Adviser to Government

     

    Matrix Churchill Trial

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 4 February, Official Report, column 472, how much of the evidence of the key witness was given in response to questions which referred to the disclosed documents.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 February 1993] : As I indicated in my answer of 4 February, I suggest matters relevant to the Matrix Churchill trial should await the outcome of Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry.

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister how he intends to monitor the commitment of the Prime Minister of India to respect human rights in Kashmir.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 February 1993] : During my visit, I encouraged the Indian Prime Minister to allow international human rights organisations and others to visit Kashmir. We shall continue to monitor the situation through our high commission in Delhi, through our contacts with human rights organisations and through media reports. We shall continue to raise human rights issues with the Indian Government.