Category: 1994

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EC White Paper

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a White Paper setting out the economic gains and losses for EEC membership since Britain joined.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s White Paper on competitiveness, to be published on 24 May, will set out the United Kingdom’s approach to Europe, the benefits that that has brought, and how we can enhance the performance of the European economy as a whole.

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 April, Official Report, column 264, if he has now received from the Indian Human Rights Commission its report of the incident at Bijbehara in Kashmir which took place in October 1993.

    The Prime Minister : The Indian Human Rights Commission report into the incident at Bijbehara in October 1993 was published on 24 April. A copy was placed in the Library of the House of Commons on 12 May.

     

    Correspondence

    Mrs. Roche : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement as to whether his office has obtained or sought to obtain a copy of the receipt and letter from the Ritz hotel in Paris referred to in the correspondence between the Prime Minister and Mr. Peter Preston, editor of The Guardian newspaper.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 13 May 1994] : I have nothing further to add to the letter sent from my office to Mr. Preston on 29 March 1994.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with other members of the United Nations Security Council about the statement by Edwin Bollier and Ulrich Lumpert, Swiss manufacturers of timing devices, about the circumstances of the Pan Am 103 disaster over Lockerbie and the policy of sanctions against Libya.

    The Prime Minister : The exchange of information with the authorities of other Governments involved in the Lockerbie investigation is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. He has made it clear that he cannot comment on the details of the available evidence while criminal proceedings are pending. We have regular discussions with the other members of the Security Council about Libya. They are clearly of the view that Libya has not complied with Security Council resolutions 731, 748 and 883.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

    The Prime Minister : 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.

     

    Malaysia

    Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister for how long his predecessor visited Malaysia on 6 August 1988; who she met during her visit and by whom she was accompanied during her meetings; what subjects were discussed during the meetings; and on what date it was decided that she should visit Malaysia on 6 August 1988.

    The Prime Minister : My predecessor decided in June 1988 to visit Malaysia in August on her return from Australia. During a two hour stop-over in Kuala Lumpur on 6 August, she met the Malaysian Prime Minister, who was accompanied by his Foreign Minister, the Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry and two other officials. The British high commissioner and the Prime Minister’s foreign affairs private secretary were also present. A wide range of subjects was discussed, including aid, air services, Cambodia, defence sales, and arrangements for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malaysia in 1989.

  • PMQT – 17 May 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dunnachie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 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 have further meetings later today.

    Mr. Dunnachie : Will the Prime Minister agree to scrap the Child Support Agency in its present form and go back to the drawing board to produce a more efficient and fair method of supporting children of lone parents?

    The Prime Minister : I think that children are entitled to be supported by their own parents and that taxpayers should help only to the extent that parents do not have the means to do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in February we made some changes to the Child Support Agency and I repeat what I have said to the House on previous occasions : we shall continue to keep it under review and, if further changes are necessary, we shall make them.

     

    Q2. Mr. Lidington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

    Mr. Lidington : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week’s decision by the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill has caused immense dismay among my constituents in Aylesbury and among many other people in London and south-east England? Will he assure the House that the Government will look urgently at other ways in which that project might be taken forward?

    The Prime Minister : I share the disappointment that the Select Committee has rejected the Crossrail Bill. We have consistently made clear our commitment to the project and I am pleased to tell the House that that commitment remains. The promoters are now urgently considering the position and we are in discussion with them on how to proceed.

    Mrs. Beckett : When does the Prime Minister expect to publish the Department of Transport’s report on the technical and legal aspects of fitting seat belts in minibuses and coaches, especially in view of the fact that the Government have been saying since January that that research would be published “in a few weeks’ time”?

    The Prime Minister : I hope that it will not be very long before we are able to publish it. The report has now been delivered to Ministers and I hope that they will be able to announce their conclusions shortly.

    Mrs. Beckett : Could I urge the Prime Minister to make that very shortly indeed, as the report has been in preparation for some time and safety organisations, coach operators and the general public have been calling for a measure along those lines for a considerable time?

    The Prime Minister : We are looking at a range of things. The Department of Transport has been conducting a full review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to both minibuses and coaches. We also wish to take into account the circumstances of the minibus accident last Sunday and the vehicles in that respect are still being examined by the Vehicle Inspectorate. It is right that we examine all the circumstances. As soon as we are ready, we shall bring forward our conclusions.

    Mrs. Beckett : Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that when the Government have looked at this report they will be prepared to introduce legislation as a matter of urgency ? I believe that the amendment paper contains an amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) which might make possible the adoption of a decision in principle as early as tomorrow night. I repeat the offer of all-party talks which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) as long ago as December, with a view to ironing out the difficulties regarding such legislation. I assure the Prime Minister that, subject to proper scrutiny, the Opposition would certainly give any legislation a speedy passage.

    The Prime Minister : We wish to conclude our examination of this matter before deciding what is the right way to proceed. Increasingly a number of minibus manufacturers are fitting seat belts as a matter of course. That is a decision for them. It is also open to potential customers, when making coach or minibus bookings, to ask whether belts are fitted. I do not wish to give any indication of the outcome of the review until we have had time to study the conclusions and to reach a decision based on all the evidence that is available.

    Mr. Couchman : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while regretting the need for such a course, the House will back the decision of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to increase the number of armed response units?

    The Prime Minister : There is a feeling–in the House and across the country, I suspect–that people certainly do not wish the police to be armed as a matter of course. This is a very limited measure and I believe that it is justifiable. Of course, the number of armed policemen will be very small–about 50. These officers are highly trained in the use of firearms and they will be called only to incidents where firearms might be needed.

     

    Mr. Ghazanfer Ali

    Q3. Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he had made to the Government of Pakistan to secure the release of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali from prison in Mirpur.

    The Prime Minister : Although Mr. Ali is not a British citizen, our high commissioner in Islamabad has followed this matter closely on a humanitarian basis. We are concerned that Mr. Ali’s case keeps being adjourned. Officials at the Foreign Office are arranging to meet his son to discuss future courses of action.

    Mr. Madden : I thank the Prime Minister, on behalf of Mr. Ali’s wife and family, for his past efforts on this man’s behalf. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Mr. Ali has been held without proper trial for the past four years. I urge him to make further representations to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and to the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir, who will be visiting Britain and calling at the House of Commons later this week.

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a very great interest in the matter. So far, we have pursued it on a humanitarian basis. Given the length of time that Mr. Ali has been detained without trial, I shall consider raising his case again with the Pakistani authorities. The hon. Gentleman knows that as Mr. Ali is not a British national we cannot assist specifically with consular advice. However, on a humanitarian basis, it is right that we should again raise with the Pakistani authorities the question of his lengthy detention without trial.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Dr. Spink : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

    Dr. Spink : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the breast cancer lobby that is taking place at the House of Commons today? Did he have time to read the report on the subject in The Daily Telegraph today? Will he draw its importance to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health?

    The Prime Minister : I think my right hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend’s question. I am very pleased that the Macmillan Fund for Cancer Relief survey shows that there was a high degree of satisfaction with the treatment that women had received from the national health service. That was particularly marked among those who had received treatment more recently. I understand that the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales will publish tomorrow their consultative report on the provision of cancer services. I believe that it will have far-reaching consequences for the services provided for patients with cancer.

     

    Q5. Mr. Grocott : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

    Mr. Grocott : Is not it salutary for the international community to note that in Rwanda more people have been killed in the past six weeks–one estimate puts the figure at 500,000–than were killed in the former Yugoslavia in the whole of the past three years? Is not it vital that the United Nations, the European Community and other international agencies ensure that the time, energy and effort that they devote to the solution of crises worldwide are at least in some way proportionate to the degree of suffering on the ground?

    The Prime Minister : There are many people who feel as the hon. Gentleman clearly does about the dreadful bloodshed in Rwanda. It is clearly a bitter civil war and some of the atrocities that have taken place are unforgivable by any rational judgment. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously adopted resolutions calling for a ceasefire. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to assist where practicable. The mandate is primarily humanitarian, contributing to the security and the protection of refugees and civilians at risk. The resolution also imposes an arms embargo.

    Mr. Bowden : As we approach the 50th anniversary of D-day, will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the war widows whose husbands made the supreme sacrifice, to see whether there is some way in which he can ensure that additional recognition is given to that sacrifice this year by some form of financial payment?

    The Prime Minister : I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for pensioners generally, and war widows in particular, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will have heard what he has to say. My hon. Friend will agree that, over the years, we have taken great care to recognise the remarkable sacrifice made by many widows whose husbands were killed in the war and most people will consider it right of us to have done so.

     

    Q6. Mr. Foulkes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

    Mr. Foulkes : If the economy is on the mend, as the Prime Minister keeps claiming, instead of increasing VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. in April, will he consider getting rid of it altogether?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that many people doubt that the economy is on the mend. All the indicators show that that is certainly the case. Not every single indicator in the months ahead may be as good as we would wish, but the overall trend is undoubted. One of the reasons why the economy is moving ahead is that we have taken the tax measures necessary to improve our public finances.

     

    Economy

    Q7. Mr. Luff : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the prospects for economic growth and inflation in the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : The prospects for the economy are extremely good– [Interruption.] –and not only that, this year the United Kingdom is set to be the fastest-growing major European economy for the second year running. Underlying inflation is under control, at its lowest for 25 years and well within its target range. I shall spare Opposition Members all the rest that it says here.

    Mr. Luff : I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the hardest lessons we have to relearn as a country is that British manufacturing industry can prosper only if it is competitive? Against that background, will he join me in welcoming yesterday’s news that factory gate inflation is at a low level not seen in Britain for a generation?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right about competitiveness. The more competitive we are, the more we will sell and the more jobs we will be able to create in this country. The figures on factory gate prices are extremely good–better than we have seen for many years. One of the reasons why we are competitive and will remain so is that we have no intention of saddling our companies with the social on-costs that so many in Europe have now undertaken and which so many in the House would be prepared to undertake.

    Mr. Purchase : Will the Prime Minister contrast the sweeping victories of many Labour groups in the local elections recently

    Madam Speaker : Order. I am listening carefully because the hon. Gentleman’s question has to be tied to the question on the Order Paper on prospects for economic growth and inflation.

    Mr. Purchase : Indeed, Madam Speaker. Will the Prime Minister compare that record with the awful record of the Black Country development corporation on economic development in the black country? In the light of that comparison, would he care to give back to Labour authorities the money taken from them for that economic development?

    The Prime Minister : I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the record of the Black Country development corporation. It is clear that right across the black country and the country as a whole the prospects for manufacturing industry and other industries are rapidly improving. That is self-evident in the growth seen in the past 12 months, the growth that we are seeing now and the growth that we can safely anticipate in the future.

     

    Engagements

    Q8. Mr. Richards : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 May.

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

    Mr. Richards : Does my right hon. Friend agree that sharpening the skills of our schoolchildren will improve the competitive edge of the economy in the future? Does he welcome the recently announced statistics showing that more of our schoolchildren are staying on at school than ever before?

    The Prime Minister : I do welcome that, just as I welcome the fact that the number of people who are unemployed is falling and has been consistently for 15 months. Some years ago, about one in eight of young people went on to further education; that figure is now one in three. Some 70 per cent. of our 16-year-olds are now in full-time education. I am sure that that trend is right and I thoroughly welcome it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Sir Robin Butler

    Mr. Simpson : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) of 28 April, Official Report, columns 254-55, if he will set out the criteria to be adopted to judge the disproportionate time or effort in preparing information as stated at paragraph (c) of the Cabinet Secretary’s note to which he refers.

    The Prime Minister : The criteria are set out in the guidance on interpretation of the code of practice on access to Government information, which has been issued to all Departments and placed in the Library of the House. The guidance states that consideration should be given to the amount of information sought in an application and the difficulties in identifying, locating or collating the information requested. The guidance goes on to say :

    “In each case, the test is whether these factors would mean that meeting an access request would require an unreasonable diversion of resources or otherwise undermine the work of the department (because files are kept out of circulation for extended periods, for example, or staff have to be diverted a considerable amount of time from other more urgent work).”

     

    Wrafton Laboratories, Devon

    Mr. John Evans : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has visited the north Devon factory of Wrafton laboratories since January 1993; and what was the date and purpose of each visit.

    The Prime Minister : I have made one visit, on Friday 5 February 1993, as part of a series of regional visits throughout the country.

     

    Consultants

    Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to publish the report of the Cabinet Office efficiency unit on the use of outside consultants to identify savings in the civil service.

    The Prime Minister : The final report of the efficiency unit’s scrutiny on the Government’s use of external consultants will be completed shortly. It is the normal practice for the efficiency unit’s reports to be published. A decision on publishing the report will be made when the final report has been received.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what information has been made available to Her Majesty’s Government as a result of the opening of Stasi files in East Germany about the acquisition of timing devices of the type manufactured by Edwin Bollier and Ulrick Lumpert, which featured in the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie and of the approach to Bollier and Lumpert by United States authorities on 30 December 1988.

    The Prime Minister : The exchange of information with the German authorities in the Lockerbie investigation is a matter for my right honourable and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. He has repeatedly made clear that he cannot comment on details of the available evidence while criminal proceedings are pending.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 13 May 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference in Inverness on 13th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Today of all days I want to talk not of partisan politics, but of our country and its prospects.

    There are occasions when it is right to turn aside from the clamour of political differences.

    Yesterday, this conference adjourned to mark its respect for one of our country’s political leaders. An opponent, yes. A gifted and an honourable opponent. Undoubtedly. But a partner, too. A partner in that mission which is central to politics. The guest to build a stronger democracy, a better country, a richer life for all.

    All of us here are people to whom our families matter deeply. John Smith was a family man. And our thoughts and prayers go out, above all, to his family in their grief – in a time of loss for which no words suffice, and into which no-one should seek to intrude.

    The reaction to John’s death tells us much about our country. It showed the priceless asset of the essential decency of the British. We can weep for a good man – even an opponent – because we recognise his qualities.

    This reminds us that there are things higher than politics and, across all divisions, common bonds of humanity that unite us all.

    I liked John Smith. The nation saw us set up in artificial confrontation twice a week in the House of Commons. That was part of our political process – and I make no complaint of that.

    But people did not see behind the scenes. There is friendship in politics, there is decency, there are private relationships across all Parties, there is principle and there is respect and understanding for the beliefs and the convictions of others. What a shame it is that that becomes apparent so rarely.

    Mr President, I must confess to you that I often have little taste for the politics of point-scoring or for the belittling of others. I have none today. I care passionately for what I believe in. But I don’t care passionately for damning what other people believe in. If we could attack the policies of others, but respect their motives, then politics would have a fresher feel than it does today.

    Let us be truthful with ourselves. Across all Europe there is a lower regard for politics than I can ever remember. And, as democrats, we should worry about that.

    Politics isn’t just about power. As you grow more experienced you see the limits on the power of action, limits set by the need to persuade others and carry them with you. Limits set by the capacity of our country to create the wealth and resources needed to fulfil our ambitions.

    No, it isn’t just about power. It’s about ideals. Hopes. Ambitions.

    In politics you never lose the ideals of youth. You always travel in hope. And you never forget your long-term principles.

    There are twists and turns, moments of exhilaration and achievement, and times, too, of disappointment and despair. But you pick yourself up, take on the next task, and go on forward. Because you always have a long-term aim in view.

    Mr President, I sometimes wish that side of politics was more evident. I know politicians of all Parties. And they are not the cynical, power-hungry, self-servers that fiction so often portrays. There is such a thing as public service in this country. And our politicians generally subscribe to it.

    Too often our politics is rooted in old battles, not new opportunities.

    Of course we differ greatly in our philosophy; in our beliefs as to how to do the best for Britain. But sometimes, too, we share a common purpose.

    The War-time coalition and the Labour and Conservative Governments that followed all worked to strengthen the welfare state, develop the Health Service, put in place the modern system of education that Rab Butler had worked to create, and which culminated in his great Education Act of 1944.

    The achievement of Conservatism in the present generation has been to redress the balance between the state and the individual. To extend choice and ownership, to build the right climate for industrial growth and expansion, to set the ambitions, the hopes, and the capacity of every family free.

    I don’t believe those achievements either will ever be challenged or changed. We have created a special British cocktail of free enterprise, tempered with social justice. A wider ownership of homes, shares and pensions than almost any nation in Europe, but a free health service which those overseas envy and admire.

    That will never change. When my parents were old and unwell and without any money, they were well treated. It made an abiding impression on me that they had the security and comfort of mind to know that. While I am Prime Minister, that will never change.

    All of us in politics – national or local – have our role to play. Whether we are players on the stage, or supporters in the wings, or commentators in the front of house, we all have our responsibilities.

    Sometimes I feel – and I don’t only mean in the reporting of politics – that there is too much knocking, too much carping, too much sneering. Too much setting up of Aunt Sally against Aunt Sally.

    Being negative can be an addictive drug. It’s easy. Because we all know how easy it is to do something, if you don’t have to do it yourself. But like any drug it corrodes and destroys the body in which it exists. And one body it runs the risk of corrupting is the body politic of the nation itself.

    If politicians fight – in Party and across Party – like ferrets in a sack on every issue, is it surprising if the public turns away?

    Let’s not be negative here today. Let’s be positive. And look at what’s happened in Britain in the last two years alone, and at our prospects for the future.

    We have achieved an impressive revival from recession – well ahead of the rest of Europe.

    We have the lowest inflation and interest rates for a generation.

    We have growth in the UK – twice as high as anywhere in Europe, and set to continue next year.

    We have public services forced by the Citizen’s Charter to tailor their performance to the needs of the public and to raise their standards year by year.

    We have a National Health Service, in which local doctors have more say than ever, and in which we are treating more patients than ever before – and treating them better.

    We have set reforms in place to raise standards in our schools and to improve the quality of training for young people.

    One third of our young people are now going on to university.

    And crime is now falling in Scotland and throughout the UK.

    That is the reality of what’s happening.

    Mr President, I have not come here to hide the challenges we still face. On the back of a world-wide recession Government is a tough business everywhere. We often have to do things that seem perverse today because we believe they will be right tomorrow.

    Our job is to look long-term, plan long-term, achieve long- term. Set a framework for lasting prosperity. To ensure we don’t go through such difficulties again.

    Some people may not like some of the action we’ve had to take – but our duty is to make the right choices for Britain’s future. It isn’t our job to do things to court short-term popularity, if they have a long-term cost.

    Obligations are painful things. So are difficult decisions. But often they are necessary for the sake of future generations. So that their prospects are not just as good, but better than ours.

    But that is what we’re in Government for.

    “The elevation of the condition of the people”. That’s how Disraeli once put it.

    “The elevation of the condition of the people” – Mr President, that is why I am a Conservative – why we are all Conservatives. And why this party must always frame its policies, not by the yardstick of ideology, but by how closely they touch the everyday lives of the people.

    We mustn’t live in a world of theory. Our theatre must not be the academic clique or the Party caucus. Our theatre is the home, the family, the business, the voluntary group. That is the world from which Conservatism grows.

    Our Party is at its strongest wherever it strikes a chord with the commonsense of the British people. When Conservative canvassers came to my door in Lambeth all those years ago they spoke a language I and the people I knew could readily understand.

    The things they cared about were the things we all care about – how to get on in life, how to take our own decisions, how to acquire new skills, save money, own a home and leave a better start for our children and grandchildren than we ever had ourselves.

    Even to the dependent Conservatism spoke the language of independence. Even to the insecure it offered security.

    It did then. And it must today. Somehow we must break through the artificial frenzy that so often masquerades as political debate and focus attention once more on the essential concerns of the people we represent. That, I believe, is what people want and what our political system needs.

    The Conservative agenda

    Last autumn I spoke of a malaise that I saw creeping across our country. A cloud of unease and uncertainty in the face of constant challenges to the standards that people hold dear.

    I said that our first duty was to dispel that anxiety, answer the worries people have, and draw deep at the well of commonsense instinct as we did.

    I set out there my programme for the rest of this Parliament.

    First, to see through – come what may – our policies for a strong stable economy. That we are doing – through low inflation, low interest rates and falling unemployment.

    It is easy to write off now the importance of the fight against inflation. That is a mistake that I will never allow this Government to make.

    I know from experience what inflation does. What it is like at the end of the week if you’re not sure you’re going to have enough money left over to pay the bills. I grew up in a hard part of London. We shared the house with all sorts of odd characters. Inflation wasn’t our only problem – but it was one of the worst. I know what it is like at the sharp end, what it’s like to struggle on fixed incomes. And so long as I am Prime Minister containing inflation will continue to be a cornerstone of our policy and a touchstone of its success.

    The second goal I set in Blackpool was to bring about a seachange in our approach to crime. Shift the balance in criminal policy decisively against the villain after a generation of liberal ideas. Put punishment back on the agenda. Reject forever the fatal idea that crime can ever be excused.

    If you don’t give young people guidelines and rules you are not helping them. Children who start with a small offence and are not brought up short will commit a bigger offence and then a bigger one, and, before you know it, they’re into serious crime. It is no good if when a young criminal gets caught all he gets is a slap on the wrist and sent on his way.

    We have embarked on a shift in policy on crime, not to turn back the clock – of course not, Dickensian attitudes have no relevance today – but to turn up the heat on the criminal. I make not a shred of apology for that. The British people are heartily sick of the apologists for crime. And the crackdown that’s needed has only begun.

    The third target I have set for the ‘90s is to raise standards in our schools. Without that Britain will not be able to compete in the world. We need to sweep aside the progressive dogma that has done so much damage. Extend parents’ choice. Insist on the basics. Make sure we get the best results for every child. And see that those results are reported, and, what is equally essential, tested.

    Mr President, I simply do not understand opposition to testing. I sent my children to school to learn – so do all parents. You can’t just wrap children in cottonwool. Life itself is a test – and you have to prepare them for it. Compete is what children do naturally. Just put four small children together and see what they do. They see who can run fastest or jump highest. So we will be introducing more competitive games and we will stick to our guns on testing.

    Mr President, in the last six months we have taken huge strides in carrying forward the agenda I set out in Blackpool. Inflation is right down. We have the biggest crime-fighting bill for years before Parliament. And, through teacher training reform, we are putting the last pieces into the mosaic of education reform.

    That is the road this country must follow – and that is the road down which I and this Party will lead.

    Mr President, the mandate we won from over 14 million people was a mandate which runs for 5 years. We are not yet half way through – and I intend to complete it. And then I shall say:

    “Judge me on my whole term of office. All of it. You can’t judge a house when only the foundations are laid”.

    A changing world

    If we are to achieve our social objectives we must have strong economic foundations on which to build.

    There are new and ever greater demands on our resources. But there’s only one way to create the wealth that we need. Through business success.

    We have to lift our eyes from the short-term headlines. Look to the long-term. The world is changing faster than ever before. Just look at the changes there have been.

    Operations that 15 years ago were unheard of now happen almost every day. Young people today have opportunities that our parents’ generation wouldn’t have dreamed of. In future it will not be enough to learn just one skill at 16 and do the same thing all through a lifetime.

    People are living longer than ever before. More people are going into higher education than ever before. Those are all good changes, changes we’ve worked for, changes we want, changes that are making people’s lives better.

    But they all have a cost. We need to pay for them. But we don’t want high taxation. So the challenge for us is to make our economy as competitive as possible, so that we can generate the wealth that we need for the improvements we wish to bring about.

    For today we face a world more competitive than ever before. Not just from America and Japan but from new countries in the Far East, once our captive markets, now our active competitors.

    We must look forward to the world in which our children will live. In the 21st century we’re going to have a world dominated by Japan, the United States and China. The European Community has a choice to make – will it be with those players or will it not?

    The importance of Europe

    I hope it will be, but it is not certain unless Europe follows the right policies. I would give Europe this warning. Unless it makes the right choices about policy today – unless it adopts free market policies – and believes in them – Europe won’t be up there in the next century with the US, Japan and China. It will slide behind.

    That is why Britain must play its full part in Europe. Not just for our own sake, but for Europe’s too.

    Nearly 200 years ago William Pitt said Britain “has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”

    I know that the issue of Europe runs deep in British politics. It touches emotions more profoundly than routine political differences. It raises concerns and fears that are too often played on too readily. For too long Europe has been the poison in the well of British politics.

    Here, too, far too many people present the European debate in fundamentalist terms.

    People are “for it” or “against it”.

    We “must do this” or “mustn’t do that”.

    Everyone, to paraphrase Gilbert & Sullivan, is either “a little Eurosceptic” or “a little Europhile”.

    This approach misses the real debate. The real debate must be about how we make Europe a success; how to make sure it raises enthusiasm, not resentment; how to make sure it raises the quality of our life and is not seen as threatening the nature of our life.

    What we are talking about in the debate on Europe is our national interest. Our jobs. Our future. And yet far too many people on both sides of the argument miss this wider point. They focus on narrow arguments as though we were fighting a holy war.

    So let us remember the fundamental economic realities.

    British business depends on Europe. Well over half of what we export, we export to Europe.

    We need a place in European Community if we are to continue to attract inward investors to Britain.

    And we need influence in Europe, if we are to make sure that our businesses have the right conditions in which to trade.

    Europe is absolutely fundamental to this country’s national interest. We cannot turn our backs on that. It would be the ultimate abdication, a supreme folly. Limit our horizons and we limit our future. A little country in a lost world.

    I am a Euro realist. I look at Britain’s interests with a cold and clear eye. Britain has a special place in the world. Alone of all nations we live and move in three distinct circles – NATO, the Commonwealth, and the European Community. Each and everyone is a shaping factor in our long-term foreign policy and our own national interest.

    We have a special feeling about America. We are intimately bound up with its history, language and culture. I am one- quarter American. My father lived in America for a number of years. But Americans are realists, too. They want a good relationship with Britain. But, today, one of the main reasons they do is because Britain is in Europe. If Britain’s commitment to Europe was in question, have no doubt – the Americans would look elsewhere for their closest allies – to Germany or to France. They are no more dreamy-eyed about international relations than we are.

    Diplomacy is a calculation of where long-term advantage lies. And, for Britain, that advantage is in Europe.

    Mr President, I don’t accept the argument that a British government, fully involved in Europe, cannot win the battle to shape and mould the future of Europe.

    Who says we can’t win the argument against centralism in Europe? We can and we must.

    Conservative Governments won on the rebate.

    Won on the Single Market.

    Won on subsidiarity.

    And we are winning on deregulation.

    Britain should be confident in Europe.

    One final point. I don’t believe the prevailing orthodoxy that if you disagree with current fashionable opinions in Europe that you are anti-European.

    That is not true. The good European does not rush like Pavlov’s dog to every European fancy.

    He judges what is right for Europe. What will attract the support of the people of Europe. What will retain their liberties – their traditions. And then he fights for it – and that is what we will do.

    Why Conservative?

    Mr President, for the moment the world of politics pauses.

    But in a short while the people of this country will be called, with the rest of Europe, to take up the work of democracy again. And in the European elections we shall put our case to the country on the kind of Europe we want to build.

    You know what I believe in.

    I want to see a wider Europe, which spreads the protective mantle of peace, security and prosperity to the troubled countries of the East.

    I want to see an open Europe in which the weight of bureaucracy and regulation is reduced, and we embrace wholeheartedly the goal of a great single market open for business, competition and trade.

    And I want to see a people’s Europe. One that is not the remote preserve of a circle of planners. But a Community that addresses the concerns of ordinary people – and never seeks to interfere where it does not need.

    Our guiding lights are the principles of free trade, free enterprise and free association.

    Our aim is still to build closer co-operation between a growing number of nations.

    But we shall stand always for individual choice.

    Cherish always national diversity.

    And never deviate for one instant from defence of Britain’s own national interest.

    Our vision remains as it ever has been – a strong Britain in a strong Europe. That vision is supported by all but a handful of the people in these islands.

    Conclusion

    Mr President, I am proud of what Conservative Governments have achieved for our country. And I am full of hope and confidence in what this country still can and will achieve.

    Over the last 15 years we have helped change Britain.

    When I entered Parliament Britain faced real and visible threats.

    Our economy was ravaged by inflation.

    Our industrial strength was sapped by trade union power.

    Our country was threatened by the armed might of the Communist bloc.

    Together we have seen that great external threat dissolve.

    And we have seen many of our internal problems so successfully resolved that many have forgotten the dragons that once stalked the land.

    Of course, in the modern world, new challenges constantly arise. And the pace of invention lays new opportunities and new ambitions in our path.

    But it is all too easy to forget how remarkably the face of our country has changed for the better.

    Today, a child growing up in Scotland is twice as likely to go to university, twice as likely to become a homeowner, and has far better job prospects. Not jobs in declining state owned industries, but jobs in growing industries – profitable businesses with better pay and better working conditions than we’ve ever known before.

    So whenever the storm blows, remember the successes we’ve had – and why we had them.

    We had them because, even when the going was toughest, we stuck to our last, stuck to our guns; we kept cool and we kept faith.

    Throughout all the ups and downs of the last 15 years – and together we’ve seen a few of them both – fashionable opinion has carped and criticised.

    I know many of you were with me in Edinburgh two years ago at that great rally in our General election campaign.

    We didn’t bow then to fashionable opinion. We took it on, shook it by the scruff of the neck, and turned it on its head.

    That Election was about something more profound than many before it. About the very structure and fabric of the nation state our ancestors fought to create. People saw clearly two great threats to our Kingdom – the siren songs of separation at home and surrender abroad.

    It was here in Scotland that we drew the line in the sand. We declared that we could not – we would not – whatever the cost, whatever the risk – compromise our deepest core beliefs, and put our nation at risk.

    We stand – by gut instinct – in defence of the ancient Union between four great nations. For one strong, united country whose voice is heard and respected abroad, as four small nations – however proud – could never be.

    The values we care about are the values that generation after generation in this country have lived for and lived by. I believe that Britain needs those values now, more than ever before.

    So, when the work of politics begins again, let us go out and campaign positively for what we believe in – with pride in our principles, confidence in our future, and faith in our country, the United Kingdom – that unique and special country – that means so much to us all.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister how many employees have worked on a full-time or part-time basis with the Scott inquiry liaison unit set up within the Cabinet Office; when the unit was established; and when its work will be completed.

    The Prime Minister : The Scott inquiry unit in the Cabinet Office was established in December 1992 with three full-time members, increased to five in April 1993. I am unable at this stage to say when the work of the unit will be completed.

     

    Veterans

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will reconsider his decision not to appoint a veterans’ Minister.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 9 May 1994] : Responsibility for matters affecting war veterans, their widows and dependants, forms part of the departmental remit of a number of Ministers, as appropriate. There are no plans to change this arrangement.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    United Nations Security Council

    Q6. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister if, when he last met President Clinton, they discussed the structure, functions and membership of the Security Council of the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The structure, functions and membership of the United Nations Security Council were not discussed during my visit.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q9. Dr. Liam Fox : To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to pay an official visit to Woodspring.

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

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 May.

    Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 May.

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

     

    Tigris and Euphrates Valleys

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what latest assessment Her Majesty’s Government have received from medical sources of the latest disease position in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, related to defective water-pump and water-filtering equipment.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 April, Official Report, column 599. We have not received any subsequent assessments or reports.

     

    Savings Disregard

    Mr. Eastham : To ask the Prime Minister what the reasons were for the discrepancy between his oral answer of 5 May, Official Report, column 843, and the answer of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 14 March, Official Report, column 480, in respect of the uprating of the savings disregard.

    The Prime Minister : There is no discrepancy between my answer on the lower savings disregard and my hon. Friend’s answer, which explained the basis of the formula affecting savings held between £3,000 and £8,000. There is no statutory requirement to increase the capital limits as part of the annual uprating of benefits. We keep the limits under review, but there are no current plans for change.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister how many current and former officials and Ministers in his Department, including the Cabinet Office, have been asked to give written or oral evidence to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister : My predecesor and I have both given written and oral evidence to Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry. In addition, one serving and one former official have given written and oral evidence relating to their respective service within the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Office, and two former officials have submitted written evidence only.

  • Mr Major’s Tribute to John Smith – 12 May 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s Commons statement made in tribute to John Smith, the Leader of the Opposition, who had died that morning, 12th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

    When I heard the tragic news of John Smith this morning, I thought it right that the House should meet this afternoon to pay tribute to a distinguished parliamentarian and then adjourn. I do not believe that there would have been the stomach for any other business in the House today.

    I know that the whole House would wish me first to express my deep and warm sympathy for Mrs. Smith and for John Smith’s family, his wife and his daughters. In the House, we have lost a formidable senior Member of very rare ability.

    To the Labour party also, I offer my deep sympathy. After some serious hammer blows that they have faced among their colleagues in recent months, they have lost a leader and, I know, for many of them a deep and close friend of many years’ standing. But above all, Elizabeth Smith, Sarah, Jane and Catherine have lost a husband, a father and a part of their lives which can never be replaced. John Smith was one of the outstanding parliamentarians of modern politics. He was skilled in the procedures of this House, skilled in upholding its traditions, a fair-minded but, I can say as well as any Member in the House, tough fighter for what he believed in and, above all, he was outstanding in parliamentary debate. As one would expect of a barrister and Queen’s counsel, he was always master of his brief, however complex and however detailed it might be. But beyond being master of his brief, on good days–and for him there were many good days–his speeches could shape and move the will of the House in the way that few Members are able to do.

    Over recent years, both as Prime Minister and as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I had the pleasure and the privilege of facing John Smith across this Dispatch Box. I learned on those occasions to acknowledge the skill and the wit with which he mastered his arguments. He had that rare ability to switch with speed from irony to sarcasm to invective and to fact, and sometimes, in the heat of parliamentary debate, to half fact, on every occasion knowing exactly how and when to move from one mood to the other for maximum parliamentary and political effect. Those are formidable skills, they are rare skills and, even for those against whom those skills were deployed, it is hard to bear that we will never see or hear those skills in this House again.

    He had no malice. There were things that he cared for passionately. He lived for them; he fought for them; he cared for them. But he carried his fight fairly, without malice, without nastiness. The bruises that existed soon faded after a dispute with John Smith. In our parliamentary democracy, it is the fate of party leaders to dispute, to scorn, to disagree. We have an adversarial system of politics–the best in the world, I believe, but adversarial. So it was in the nature of my political relationship with John Smith that we frequently clashed in public and in the House, yet afterwards, in private, we met often and amiably–again, no bruises.

    Inevitably, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have to conduct business in private and on confidential matters. Whenever we did, I always found him courteous, fair minded and constructive, but also tough for what he was seeking and what he believed in. We would share a drink– sometimes tea, sometimes not tea–and our discussions on those occasions ranged far beyond the formal business that we were transacting. To the despair of my private office and, I suspect, sometimes of his, the meetings extended far beyond the time that was immediately scheduled for them.

    Under our constitution, the role of the Leader of the Opposition is unique. It is a vital role–not in government, but vital to the determination of the way in which we conduct our affairs and to the protection of people who oppose the Government on a range of issues. The Leader of the Opposition is in the anteroom of power, yet not in the seat of power itself. In that position–perhaps for a short time, perhaps for a long time–he must maintain his party’s hunger for government and never let that appetite diminish. He must remain confident and never let the years of waiting sour or embitter him or the nature of public life. He must keep alive hope and ambition and must keep sharp the cutting edge of his own party’s beliefs. If I may judge him from this side of the House, it seemed to me that John Smith trod that path for his party and its supporters in the country with skill and assurance that few have matched.

    Political differences are not the be-all and end-all of relationships for Members of the House. When I think of John Smith, I think of an opponent, not an enemy; and when I remember him, I shall do so with respect and affection. When I think of his premature death, I shall think of the waste that it has brought to our public life–the waste of a remarkable political talent; the waste of a high and honourable ambition to lead our country; the waste of a man in public life who, in all his actions, retained a human touch; and, in some ways above all, the waste of the tranquillity and happiness that his past endeavours would have so richly deserved in the years to come.

    Let me end where I began. In the weeks that lie immediately ahead, John’s family will need all their courage. Let us show by what we say and do today that, while we cannot bear for them their pain, we can offer them the comfort of shared respect and shared grief.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty’s Government are making to the report by Willem C. Smit and Dr. Jean Pierre Revel for the regional office in Amman of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, a copy of which has been sent to him, on their assessment mission to Iraq from 11 January to 11 February covering the health and nutritional status of the Iraqi people, the extent of the increase in the cost of a food basket between 1990 and 1993 and the extent of marasmus, kwashiorkor and other water-borne diseases.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 10 May 1994] : I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 25 April, Official Report, column 31. The appeal by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies was to a large extent based on the Smit/Revel report. The British Red Cross is clarifying one or two issues, following which a final decision on a possible contribution from the Government will be taken.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 May 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th May 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    ANZAC Day

    Mr. Cummings : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) of 28 April, Official Report, column 244, if he will consider the banning of traffic in Whitehall during the period of time taken on ANZAC day for the laying of wreaths and the silent tribute.

    The Prime Minister : Under the terms of the sessional orders, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is required, during the Session of Parliament, to keep the streets leading to and from the Houses of Parliament free and open. Any proposal to amend the sessional orders would be a matter for this House and another place.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

    The Prime Minister : 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.

     

    Privatisation (Consultants)

    Mr. Milburn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which the Cabinet Office has been engaged since 1980.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 May 1994] : The Cabinet Office has undertaken no privatisation since 1980 and consequently has incurred no expenditure on consultants in connection with it.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister what have been the costs incurred by his office in (a) providing legal advice to witnesses appearing before the Scott inquiry, (b) drawing up evidence to be submitted to the Scott inquiry, (c) officials and legal advisers attending the Scott inquiry and (d) any other related costs.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 May 1994] : The costs under (a) to (c) are unquantifiable. No legal or other help was provided from outside the Government. The costs therefore consisted in the time of myself and Sir Robin Butler, who appeared as witnesses, and of the officials who gave support as part of their normal duties. Under (d), the cost of the Cabinet Office liaison unit since December 1992, including the cost of supplying documents from 10 Downing street and the Cabinet Office to the inquiry, has been approximately £230,000.