Category: 1994

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bosnia – 28 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Bosnia, made during an interview given in Washington on Monday 28th February 1994.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the situation in Bosnia and the shooting down of planes].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The No-Fly-Zone Security Council Resolution has been there for a year. At any stage in the last year, if this sort of infraction had occurred those planes could have been expected to have been shot down. On this occasion, so far as one can tell from the early reports, it is a fairly clear-cut case; the planes were where they ought not to be, were there with ill-intent, they were given a warning, they ignored the warning and then they were shot down so they ought to have been in no doubt about how they would be treated.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Russia agreed with the military intervention].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It seems so certainly but then it is a Security Council Resolution to which they would have subscribed.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the Serbs had taken aggressive action].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It does seem almost inexplicable, it seems to be rather an odd thing for them to have done. I can’t make a judgement as to why they did it but why ever they did it they were there, they were there for ill-intent, they could well have attacked people, they could well have attacked the arms dump that was there and it was necessary to deal with the problem. That is what happened but as to why they did it, I have no more knowledge of that than you.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he fully support the military intervention].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have complete support for the action. The Security Council Resolution was quite clear and perhaps this will serve to warn people that Security Council Resolutions are important; not only are they important, people expect them to be obeyed and if they are not obeyed certain consequences will follow.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if his visit to the United States was one of reconciliation].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I read this report of it being a visit of reconciliation but that is not as I see it and I don’t think that is how the President sees it either. I think the talk of breach and difference is wildly overdone. We have a whole range of things to discuss, Bosnia, Russia, a whole range of other foreign policy and economic matters and that is what I am here for.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Vice-President Al Gore – 28 February 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Vice-President Al Gore in Washington on 28th February 1994.


    QUESTION:

    What did you think of the shooting down of four planes in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I expressed what I thought a little earlier and I may do later but not now.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, the British Government has very exposed intelligence cooperation with the CIA; how much damage to British intelligence was done allegedly by Rick Ames?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have nothing to say at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    Vice President have you heard a lot of American names down for Moscow, diplomats, for retaliation?

    VICE PRESIDENT GORE:

    No, we have no official word as of this moment.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but re bringing an end to this chapter of American-Soviet relations]

    VICE PRESIDENT GORE:

    The developments of last week were very serious and everyone understands that fact. The investigation is continuing, it will be extremely thorough. At the same time, the impact of the allegations against the CIA employee should be put in a larger perspective and the relationship between the West and Russia, between the United States and Russia, should not be determined by such an incident. We have our own self-interest in continuing the improvement of relations with Russia and we will seek that.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what is your reaction to the shooting down of Serbian planes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I expressed it earlier, it remains the same: the Security Council Resolution was passed nearly a year ago; what the Resolution said was perfectly plain; it established a no-fly zone. Here were half a dozen planes that were clearly infringing the no-fly zone, I think there is little doubt about that. They were warned, they didn’t desist, they were shot down. I think they could have expected nothing else.

    QUESTION:

    But does it damage prospects for peace in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe so. The no-fly zone was there for a purpose. It is now clear to people that the no-fly zone will be enforced.

    QUESTION:

    What about the impact possibly on British troops [indistinct] aid?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there will be an impact upon that. We have contingency arrangements to make sure British troops are secure.

    QUESTION:

    Vice-President, what is your reaction to the shooting-down?

    VICE PRESIDENT GORE:

    This has been a standing order for quite some time. Back in September there was one brief violation, this is the first violation since then and it was met instantly with the appropriate response. There is much we still need to learn about why these aircraft would attempt their mission but far from damaging the prospects for peace, it may actually improve the prospects for peace.

    QUESTION:

    How exactly?

    VICE PRESIDENT GORE:

    By sending the message very clearly and firmly that the no-fly zone is not to be trifled with and that strengthens the force of the other statements by NATO and the United Nations.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] these were Serb planes, not Croatian planes?

    VICE PRESIDENT GORE:

    Let’s await further [indistinct]. We know the type of plane and the type of plane is associated with bases in Serbian-controlled territory but we need more information before making any definite statement.

    I think that is a fair comment.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, have you had a reaction from the Russians on the shooting down?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not aware of one yet.

    QUESTION:

    Are you looking forward to going back to your roots?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am certainly looking forward to going to Pittsburgh. [Laughter].

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Washington – 28 February 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Washington after a meeting with Vice President Al Gore, held on Monday 28th February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Just let me say a word or two about the discussions now and earlier this morning with Secretary of State Christopher and others.
    We had the opportunity both over breakfast and now with the Vice-President to look at a range of issues and there is no doubt that our policies on Bosnia and on Russia are very closely aligned now. Some of the difficulties that existed in the past I think have substantially been put behind us. We had the opportunity of discussing those this morning and a range of other issues. I won’t go into details at the moment but I will take a few questions if you have any.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia, Prime Minister, the fact of what happened this morning, doesn’t that increase the risk to British ground troops and wouldn’t it increase perhaps the pressure you would like to bring on the Americans to put ground troops in too because it might concentrate their minds when it came to air strikes in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think what happened in Bosnia this morning was always likely to happen at some stage. We passed this Resolution a year or so ago now. I think what it does illustrate is that United Nations Security Council Resolutions can’t be ignored with impunity. That might be a very useful lesson. I am absolutely sure that Admiral Border [phon] was right to take the decision that he took this morning and I hope the lesson has been learned from it.

    QUESTION:

    How will any Serb retaliation be greeted now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have no reason to suppose there is going to be any Serb retaliation. The last I heard – and I may be out-of-date as this was an hour or so ago – the Serbs hadn’t even conceded they were their planes. We are still waiting for further information on that.

    QUESTION:

    Did you discuss Russia at all?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did discuss Russia this morning. There is no doubt we both remain very strongly supportive of the reform process. There is a great deal happening in Russia at the moment and I look forward to discussing those in further detail with the President later; I would prefer to comment after that.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On Partnership for Peace, we haven’t yet heard from the Russians whether they are proposing to take part in that, I very much hope that they will. I expressed that thought to President Yeltsin when I was there. I think Partnership for Peace will be enhanced by the Russians taking part in it. I think it is in the West’s interest that they should do so and I think it is in their interest as well but as yet we haven’t heard from them.

    QUESTION:

    What are you hoping can now achieved at the United Nations with fresh Resolutions related to Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know yet what fresh Resolutions we are going to get.

    There is a good deal of discussion. What we really have to determine is how we carry forward two separate things: firstly, the political peace process; it does seem that the discussions here in Washington between the Croats and the Muslims over the last 24 hours have looked very hopeful, we will know a little more by the end of the day but they certainly seem to have gone pretty well so far. And secondly, of course, what actually happens on the ground; whether it is possible to negotiate ceasefires in an increasing range of areas.

    Those two events both need to be carried through in parallel. That is what is happening at the moment. I believe that is the right way to proceed and I think there is a unity of view about that.

    ELINOR GOODMAN:

    On Bosnia, was there anything particular you wanted out of the Americans, for example a commitment to more troops and what was their response?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we were discussing strategic matters this morning and I will continue that discussion with the President later on today.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference – 26 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference on 26th February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    “Making Councils Work for You”

    Making Councils Work for You is the theme of this year’s Conference. In those five words is the very essence of local government.

    It is something Conservative councils have always sought to do. It was what I tried to do here in Lambeth – what is it now, a quarter of a century ago.

    Present today will be people here who have served in local government all that time. That’s something to be proud of: a record of service that many have reason to be grateful for.

    There’s one lesson I learned in local government. Politics is about people. About their lives. That is why our policies are based on individual choice, individual opportunity, individual responsibility.

    That is the message we need to carry. Street to street, house to house, face to face. Tell it to people on the doorstep. After all, it’s their communities, their choices, their freedoms, their children, their future.

    So tell me tell it how it is – without the gloss of intermediary comment. That’s the way to hammer home our message and make sure it is received.

    In this we have an advantage. Our strength comes from the ground up. More than any other Party, our message is carried to the country by our local supporters, local councillors, local candidates and local party workers.

    This year, many of you will be fighting in the local elections. We’re going to have to fight hard to win. Mid term elections are never easy.

    But I’ll tell you one thing. We’re not going to win if we stay on the back foot. We must be positive. We must be confident. We must be united.

    THE ECONOMY

    And, Mr Chairman, we have reason to be. These elections will take place against an economic background that seemed impossible a year ago.

    Unemployment is falling. Growth faster than predicted. Business confidence rising. Exports up. Retail sales on the up. And British industry going from strength to strength.

    We can’t expect our opponents to say all this. Indeed, we can be pretty sure they won’t.

    So we must say it. And when we’ve said it – say it again, and again, and again.

    Make sure everyone notices it. Don’t let the good changes that are taking place be hidden. Gloves off. Punch the good news home. Build up the confidence that will build up our prosperity.

    When were interest rates last this low? 16 years ago. When was inflation last this low for so long? 25 years ago.

    When were mortgage rates last this low? 25 years ago.

    When was the number of strikes last this low? Over a century ago.

    When did we last have such good news on all these fronts together? Not in my lifetime. Not in anyone’s.

    I don’t intend to see the Conservative Party on the defensive.

    What we’ve done is right for the country.

    And what we’ll deliver is good for the country.

    So help spread that message wherever you are.

    For the last two years politics has all pointed in one direction. The issue has been the recession. No-one takes our opponents seriously. No-one pays much attention to what they say. They’ve had a free ride. They’ve talked complete drivel – and got away with it.

    But that won’t last. In due course people will notice the vacuum that is their policy. While we’ve been working to put Britain back on its feet, their only concern has been to put the boot into Britain.

    So – remember. While your main job is to explain our policies, just – occasionally – take a moment out to expose theirs.

    TAX

    Meanwhile, let us take all the key issues head on. Tax – for a start. Let me come straight out about where we stand on tax. All our instincts are to get tax down. There’s no other Party in British politics that can say that.

    Yes – taxes are rising in April. Why? Because tax income fell during the recession. And because public spending had to rise.

    Yes, but why did public spending have to rise? Mainly to help those people who were vulnerable during the recession – a recession we can now see was not – as advertised then – a British phenomenon, but one that has spread right across Europe and beyond.

    It was right to help people during that recession. We could not have done otherwise. No Conservative Government could turn its back on those most in need. Nor did we.

    That’s mainly why spending went up. But we’re through recession now – the first nation in Europe to be able to say that. Now we need to rebuild income and control spending. This country has been through many sacrifices to get to this position. We are not going to throw it away now.

    The first task of any responsible Government must be to balance the books. And, even though we’ve now cut spending, this still means that taxes have had to go up.

    We didn’t put them up because we wanted to. We did it because we had to. What we need now is to build a recovery that lasts. That is what responsible government is all about.

    But there’s something else you can tell them on the doorsteps. We remain by instinct a tax-cutting Party -the only tax-cutting Party. And when it is possible to cut taxes again, we will.

    So don’t just defend our record. Remind people of this…. Every time the Conservatives have voted for lower taxes, Labour have voted for higher ones. And the Liberals have voted with them.

    Every time the Conservatives have voted for lower public spending, Labour have voted to spend more. And the Liberals have voted with them.

    And when did Labour or Liberals call for spending cuts? You’re right – never. They called for more spending – as they always do.

    Nor do they stop at high tax and high spending in Britain; they want high tax and high spending from a high and mighty Brussels too. Yes – we’re in Europe. Because that’s where our interests lie. But not the Europe Labour and Liberals want.

    Just look at Labour’s plans for Europe. Sheer madness.

    Higher taxes on business. Extra burdens on business through the Social Chapter. Extra costs on business through a 35 hour week.

    In the European Parliament Labour have even voted for taxes on investment income – the old axe on savings and pensions. How extraordinary to propose a tax surcharge on savings income, just when interest rates are low. What damage that would do to the elderly and the prudent. The politics of envy are alive and well – and living in Labour policies.

    And if that’s not enough, they and their Socialist friends actually want to double the money that Europe spends. Double your money. Double the Community budget? That means doubling our net contribution.

    Hands up all those who want to double our net contributions to Brussels? No hands up? – the observer from the Liberal Party must have slipped out to lunch.

    How does that square with keeping your tax bills down? It doesn’t, does it? You can’t give more money to Europe unless you take more tax at home.

    In Whitehall, in Brussels and council chamber, too – it’s taxes, taxes everywhere. Remind the people – with every Labour promise, the taxing meter clicks upward.

    That’s the key difference between the Parties. And that’s the lack of difference between our opponents. Labour and the Liberals: two halves of the same tax demand.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW

    Mr Chairman, when I spoke to you last year, I said I wanted to produce an enduring structure for local government. I meant it. I come from local government. I have an affection for it. I want it to be successful.

    And it’s always been my belief that structures will only endure if they reflect the traditional loyalties and identities of local people.

    Local government is at its best when people know what its responsibilities are and who is responsible. When they know to whom they should look for help on particular issues.

    At the moment in many places that isn’t very clear. There are blurred responsibilities. People often don’t know who to turn to. There’s scope for better integration of services and savings from improved efficiency. Achieving that would not only be good for the structure of local government, it would be good for its prestige.

    In many cases unitary authorities will deliver advantages. Where that is so I believe we should have them. But the argument for unitary authorities may not be so strong everywhere. Where that is so, we have made it clear that we will not change for change’s sake. There is no national blueprint.

    And I promise you this. All through this process government’s doors will be open. John Gummer and David Curry will take your views fully into account before coming to any final decisions.

    We share a common objective of which this process is only a small part. To get back to the time when the big figures of local government were invariably big figures on the national stage as well.

    I want to see that happen again. You play a vital part in making your communities better places. I want your work to be recognised and your voice to be heard.

    IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL DECISIONS

    Mr Chairman, debates on structure will no doubt continue. But immediately ahead of us lie elections which will decide what matters far more: who runs the council.

    We’re realists. We know many people will vote on national as well as on local issues. That is why good news on the economy matters so much.

    But don’t think that what you do isn’t noticed. It is. Or doesn’t count. It does. Because most people’s day to day lives are affected by local government just as much as central.

    Many problems are best solved locally. Sorted out by thousands upon thousands of decisions and actions taken at council level. And, whatever the local problem is, I know one thing for sure. It’ll be tackled best, if it is tackled by Conservative councillors.

    On almost all the key issues of local government, there are sharp differences between the parties. And time and time again it is the Conservatives who are most in tune with the people.

    EDUCATION

    Take education. We can all agree it’s vital. Words are cheap. But only we Conservatives have produced a clear policy for the future. And we have done it against the flat opposition of the other parties, national and local.

    Children have only one chance. If schools fail to teach the basic skills, then pupils lose the opportunity to make the most of their lives.

    Every child needs the basic equipment for success in life. The three Rs do matter. And so too does confident command of standard English. If you can’t write a clear application, you may never even get an interview for the job you want.

    We Conservatives have a clear strategy for a better future.

    We’ve given parents the right to choose which school they want their child to go to.

    We’ve brought in a new National curriculum.

    We’ve insisted on testing – checking progress in every school.

    We’re taking on those trendy theorists who have done so much damage in teacher training.

    We’re giving more power to the schools.

    We’re giving parents and public more information about our schools than ever before. School reports, full prospectuses, truancy records and performance tables.

    And who is it that opposes us – on all these critical commonsense policies? Why, Labour, of course.

    They are the abominable no-men of education. They think they know better. So they say “no” to choice in education, “no” to information about how our children are doing in school, and “no” to more say for parents.

    How completely, how absurdly, time and time and time again the Labour Party has misjudged the mood of the people of this country. Not just in the council chambers – but in the Shadow Cabinet, too.

    Hundreds of thousands of parents have voted for Grant-Maintained schools – but John Smith and co still want to scrap them.

    Millions of parents want to see our school performance tables – but Labour still want to scrap them.

    Assisted places for poor children? They’ll scrap them, too. Their attitude is all so negative and out of date.

    And this week Labour have even revived their old blind prejudice against independent schools. They are talking of ending charitable status. What hope for our children’s future, when Labour’s spokesmen trek back into a discredited past?

    Mr Chairman, there seems no attitude on education so vindictive that Labour won’t back it.

    In some Labour-run authorities, young children in CTCs have been picked on and stopped from playing music or team games with children from other schools.

    I don’t know about you – but I don’t think you can sink much lower than that. What a spiteful policy. It is educational apartheid, and it should stop – now.

    Team sports are vital. They are part of childhood. And they are part of life. I am determined to see them played far more in our schools. And I don’t want to see classroom wars or perverted political ideology stand in the way.

    LAW AND ORDER

    Mr Chairman, as I go round the country one subject resonates more clearly than any other – concern about crime. This year in Parliament, we have the most comprehensive legislation for years to crack down on crime. To give the courts and the police the powers they need.

    But all of you can help us – and I’ll tell you how. For no-one should ever think that local councils can’t help in the fight against crime. The war on drugs and the war on crime involve us all. And you in your councils can play a big part in winning that war.

    Here’s an example. I recently visited a Conservative council in London. Ealing. I found they were leading the way in new projects for fighting crime on the streets.

    You didn’t need a degree in criminology to see the sense of what they were doing. It was simple practical action. Just fitting gates in the alleyways of estates. In just one year it cut domestic burglaries by a third.

    Not expensive. Not difficult. Just plain common or garden sense. Back to basics you might say.

    And that’s just one of many things councils should do.

    You can set up neighbourhood watch schemes.

    Work with the police and local businesses under our Safer Cities programme.

    And don’t underestimate what better planning can do. To help you and to pull threads together we’re publishing new guidance today on planning that will help councils cut out crime.

    Better lighting, entry phones in tower blocks, better street design. Simple things like these can make life more difficult for the mugger, the burglar and the ram raider.

    So, too, could more closed circuit cameras in City centres. We’re out to stop the criminal – and the best way to do that is to spot him before he strikes. Closed circuit cameras have proved they can work. So we need more of them wherever crime is high.

    Yes, no doubt we will hear some protests about a threat to civil liberties. Well, I have no sympathy for so-called liberties of that kind. The one liberty that concerns me is the liberty of people to go out in the streets without fear and to know that they and their property are safe.

    Anything that helps them and hinders the criminal is fine by me.

    PARTY DIFFERENCES

    Mr Chairman, in ten weeks time people will be voting up and down the country on what council will run their area in the years ahead. The choice they face couldn’t be clearer.

    What was it Jack Straw said the other day about Labour councils? He said he was “proud of what Labour councils have achieved”. Well, if he is, he must be easily satisfied. He went on to say, “The facts speak for themselves.”

    Yes, they do. But I wonder if he realises what they say.

    Seven out of the ten authorities with the highest Council tax arrears? Labour.

    Eight out of ten with the worst rent arrears? Labour.

    Nine out of ten with the worst exam results? Labour.

    Ten out of ten with the highest council taxes? Labour.

    “The facts speak for themselves”. They do indeed. And what they tell you is to vote Conservative – unless you want a council that puts up your taxes because it doesn’t collect the rents, and doesn’t teach your children.

    Thanks Jack for reminding us. Although I have a feeling that’s not what you wanted us to hear.

    And since I’m in the mood to let facts speak for themselves, here are a few more that positively scream out.

    Who runs the ten councils with the highest debts? Yes. Labour.

    And did you know those ten councils collectively have borrowed so much money that the latest figures show they owe more than Nicaragua?

    And if you think that’s unfair because there are ten councils and only one Nicaragua, let me tell you what else those figures show.

    After ten years of Socialism, Birmingham’s debt is almost three times the size of Albania’s. And it took Albania forty years of communism to build up her debt.

    And in case you think that’s a freak, then Hackney owes more than Haiti. Hackney’s Labour.

    Camden owes more than Chad. And Camden? Labour.

    And Sheffield owes more than the Seychelles. Sheffield – since we’re talking about elections today, that brings back some happy memories. Perhaps Labour would like another rally there – it might even be worth us paying.

    Week after week John Smith talks about competence in government. Well, that’s fine. But he should take a close look at incompetence in Labour local government instead.

    No wonder he calls for the cancellation of Third World debt. He thinks he might need the IMF to bail out third-rate Labour councils instead.

    LIBERALS

    Before we leave the third-rate, let’s spare a word for the fourth-rate also. Here’s one last question about council debt. Who runs the council with the eleventh largest debt? No, not Labour. Yes, you guessed it. The Liberal Democrats.

    Wherever Labour leads, the Liberals follow, tails wagging, right at their heels.

    We’ll confront Labour head-on. But don’t let’s forget the Liberal threat.

    Do you remember the Liberal posturing at the last Election? All that fuss about PR? Paddy’s patent remedy. People soon saw through that piece of quackery.

    The Liberals said PR was the key to a new style of politics. And that was half true at least. Because it was a key alright – a Liberal key to a Labour Britain.

    And events have proved that. Just look at what’s happened up and down the country. Wherever people have voted Liberal in protest, the Liberals have used that key to open the Town Hall door for Labour.

    In Berkshire, Essex, Hereford, Lincolnshire, Shropshire, Suffolk and Kent, what do we see? Liberals touching their cap and opening the door for Labour. Lib-Lab pacts putting up council taxes and snuffing out common sense.

    I hope everyone remembers that this May.

    There’s only one way to vote Tory. But there are two ways to vote Labour.

    A hung council is a swung council. And it always swings to the Left.

    The only consistent policy the Liberals have is to let in Labour wherever they can. Backstairs deals. Selling their principles for a few committee chairmanships.

    Three chairs for the Libs – and, hey presto, you have a Labour council.

    CONCLUSION

    Mr Chairman, I’ve spelt out for you today some of the challenges we face. But also the opportunities – and today we have opportunities better than we’ve had for years to take our country forward.

    At this conference we have set out our shared beliefs. And told the world how strongly we hold them. Our commitments on education and crime strike a chord in every household in this country.

    We in this Party are not in politics to advance a narrow political ideology. We are there to do what we can for the people we serve.

    Over the last two years, I admit, we’ve taken a fair amount of stick. But now is the time to give some back.

    We’ve been on the defensive. But now is the time to go on the attack.

    It will take time before our policies work through. Time before all their benefits are seen.

    But one thing I do know. We won’t convince anyone if we stay at home indoors. In all the years of service on your councils, in all your actions, you have helped to build the reputation of this Party.

    Now go out and sell it. You deserve to win. Make sure you do.

    So get on your coat. Get on the doorstep. And get stuck in.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Advertising

    Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by his office (a) in the current financial year and (b) planned for 1994-95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

    The Prime Minister : No advertising has been incurred in my office on promotional or advertising campaigns in the current financial year. None is planned for 1994-95.

     

    Royal Family

    Mr. Frank Fields : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those areas with regard to the royal family, on which it is his practice to answer questions.

    The Prime Minister : I will answer questions which are within the conventions of this House and raise issues of public policy, where appropriate.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 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 further meetings later today.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 21 February, Official Report, columns 33-34, if Russia would be consulted and its approval need to be given before NATO air-strikes in Bosnia-Herzegovina were carried out.

    The Prime Minister : United Nations Secretary Council resolution 836 authorises the use of air power in support of UNPROFOR in and around the safe areas in Bosnia-Herzegovina. There is no need for further decisions by the Security Council.

    We nevertheless regard consultation with Russia as of the utmost importance. We welcome the Russians’ positive contribution to lifting the siege of Sarajevo, which demonstrated their commitment to bringing the conflict to a peaceful end.

    Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 21 February, Official Report, columns 33-34, if he will give President Yeltsin’s response to his description of the specific terms of the North Atlantic Council’s response to the United Nations Secretary-General’s request for NATO assistance at Sarajevo; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 21 February at columns 33-34.

     

    Gifts

    Mrs. Clwyd : To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances gifts made to the Prime Minister which are state property may be used; and, in the case of gifts of jewellery, who is entitled to wear it.

    The Prime Minister : These are matters for the Prime Minister’s discretion.

  • PMQT – 24 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 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 further meetings later today.

    Mr. Connarty : I thank the Prime Minister for that interesting information. Is he aware that the independent living fund appears not to be working properly, and that only £500,000 out of the £4 million allocated is likely to be disbursed by the end of the financial year ? That means that £3.5 million will go back to the Treasury. If those figures continue for next year, £9.6 million out of £11 million will go back to the Treasury, and only £1.4 million will go to those who need it.

    Can the Prime Minister confirm that the problem with the trigger mechanism is that a social service department must spend £200 per week on someone who is applying, and that 57 authorities have not submitted a single name ? Will he give an assurance that he will look seriously at that trigger so that the poorest and most disadvantaged in society are not denied the help that they require ?

    The Prime Minister : The independent living fund exists to help people who face particular difficulties. If there is a mechanism that creates particular difficulties–I am not aware of the particular point that the hon. Gentleman raises–I will examine it, and see what the situation is.

     

    Q2. Mr. Moss : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 February.

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

    Mr. Moss : Does my right hon. Friend agree that schemes that attract private investment for public projects are enormously valuable? Will he join me in completely rejecting a scheme that was launched early this week which would leave all the risk on the back of the taxpayer? Is not it typical of Labour that its scheme is unbelievable, badly thought through and fundamentally dishonest?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly keen to see the public and the private sectors working closely together. That is desirable and attractive, and it is something which we have sought to do for some time with considerable success. It has to be made clear that if the private sector does get involved, it needs a degree of freedom and it ought not to be a way of effectively disguising what are, in reality, public expenditure increases.

    Mr. John Smith : On Tuesday this week, the Prime Minister, in answering a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), told the House that the net disposable income of people of all ranges of income had increased since 1979. The Prime Minister must know that that was not correct. Will he now withdraw that remark?

    The Prime Minister : No, I shall not withdraw it. The latest edition of “Social Trends”– [Hon. Members : Reading.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House is obviously not aware that Ministers may read from the Dispatch Box.

    The Prime Minister : In fact, I was about to quote, as it might be helpful to the House if I do. The latest edition of “Social Trends” found that

    “before housing costs, the real median income of the bottom fifth increased…between 1979 and 1990-1991”.

    Those figures, of course, were taken at the bottom of the recession before there was a distinct improvement in the economy and in the position of most people.

    Mr. John Smith : Did the Prime Minister look at the publication issued by the Department of Social Security–by his own Government–which made it clear on page 1 that the real income of the bottom 10 per cent. decreased both before and after housing costs were taken into account? Which is correct–the Prime Minister’s assertions or what his own Department has published?

    The Prime Minister : I responded earlier by quoting what was actually said in “Social Trends”. I will say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Since 1979, real incomes have gone up sharply for vulnerable groups ; more than 40 per cent. for pensioners ; up for the unemployed and up for those in work but on relatively low pay. There is an improvement in living standards at all levels, even among those who are the least well off.

    Mr. John Smith : Can I take the Prime Minister to the precise point on which we are in dispute? Does he maintain that the real income of the bottom 10 per cent. of the population increased between 1979 and now?

    The Prime Minister : I quoted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman– [Hon. Members :– “Answer.”] I will answer the question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman put the question in his own way. I will answer the question in my own way. I refer him to “Social Trends”, which relates to the original question. The figures for the poorest 20 per cent. relate to a time when we were in recession and mortgage rates were high. I stick to the points that I made a few moments ago.

    Mr. Clappison : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent news that output investment continued to grow in the last quarter of 1993? Is not that clear and compelling evidence that, despite the efforts of the Labour party to create gloom, Britain is on the road to recovery and leading the rest of Europe out of recession?

    The Prime Minister : There are very few people now who doubt the fact that the British economy has been growing for six or seven quarters, that we have a rate of growth at present larger than that of any comparable European Community country and that we are set to grow again throughout this year and through next year. Not only are we growing, but we are doing so with interest rates at a very low level–lower than they have been for very many years–and inflation also at a low level and likely to stay at a low level.

     

    Q3. Mr. George Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 February.

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

    Mr. Howarth : Is the Prime Minister aware that information supplied through parliamentary answers to me on 41 quangos shows that 127 members of those bodies are associated with firms that directly finance the Tory party? Can he tell me whether that is a highly unlikely statistical coincidence or yet another example of that lot over there getting their cronies’ snouts in the trough?

    The Prime Minister : I will tell the hon. Gentleman a little something about the membership of quangos. Perhaps I might mention some of the well-known contributors to the Conservative party and Tory supporters who are members of quangos. Margaret Hodge, for example, on the Local Government Commission ; Baroness Blackstone, for example ; Baroness Jay, for example. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is also on a quango–the British Film Institute. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : Not a single Government contributor or supporter among them.

    Mrs. Roe : Has my right hon. Friend seen the figures published today that show that new car registrations are rising strongly? Is not that further evidence of continuing economic recovery and a return of consumer confidence?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is becoming more apparent that consumer confidence is returning, not just in the figures for car sales and car registrations, but in the figures for retail sales and in several other figures. The depth and spread of the recovery are certainly continuing. It is steady and I believe that it will continue to be steady and grow throughout this year.

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister accept that I am very proud to be a member of the unpaid board of governors of the British Film Institute? Will he comment on the lack of Government action in helping to finance and develop the British film industry which is a very important industry, not only for the cultural representation of this country but because it both creates employment here by making films and develops Britain’s image abroad, which cascades down to British manufacturing industry ? Will he give a guarantee that he will support the industry in the future?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he does for the British film industry. [Hon. Members :- – “What about its future ?”] I shall come to that, if hon. Members will just relax. I am told that the hon. Gentleman does an excellent job on the board of the British Film Institute and that he has been appointed to it because of his personal abilities and not because of his political affiliations, as is the case with all appointments to such public bodies, without exception.

    As regards the future of the British film industry, I am keen to see it thrive. One of the areas that will benefit significantly from the establishment of a lottery is the arts in general, a part of which I hope will be the British film industry. It is likely over the years that it will provide considerably more resources for the arts as a whole, and very probably the film industry as well, than even the most benevolent level of Government funding is likely to do, whatever Government we may have. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman and his fellow members of the British Film Institute will fully support it.

    Sir Jim Spicer : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, following the break-up of the Soviet Union, all the former republics of the Soviet Union are entitled to be treated not as falling within the natural sphere of influence of Russia but as free and truly independent states?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. I can certainly confirm that that is the case. We are seeking to develop diplomatic, commercial and trading relations with a large number of them. In the past few weeks, the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have been here to discuss trading opportunities, and my right hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign Office and other Departments have been in contact with a number of the other new republics.

     

    Q4. Mr. William O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 February.

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

    Mr. O’Brien : Will the Prime Minister, during the course of the day, read the independent report, published today, on the murder of Jonathan Zito in December 1992? It condemns the community care programme under which the murderer was receiving treatment and from which he was discharged because of lack of resources. It also condemns the way that the Government have underfunded the social services programme in London. Less than an hour ago, I was talking to Jayne Zito, his widow, and she asked me to request the Prime Minister to meet her and explain to her why her husband should have been murdered because of lack of resources provided by the Government.

    The Prime Minister : Everyone must be deeply sympathetic to the dreadful murder of Mr. Zito and the appalling effect that it has had on Mrs. Zito’s subsequent life. No one will dispute that. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentlemen do me the courtesy of listening to the reply ? It was a dreadful incident and we must seek to learn what we can from it. It is significant that the report supports the principle of community care and specifically concludes that most mentally ill people, including those suffering from schizophrenia, are living safely in the community. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the principle of community care is widely accepted in each and every part of the House, and has been for a long time. He may be aware of the remarks of Professor Norman Sartorius who confirmed only yesterday that :

    “Our recent developments in improving mental health services will ensure that the UK continues to lead the world in this area.” I believe that to be the case, and we will continue to do that.

    I will consider the hon. Gentleman’s request, but it would perhaps have been better, if he were genuinely concerned, if he put the point to me privately and not in the way he has.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ottaway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 February.

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

    Mr. Ottaway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with retail sales up, productivity up and confidence in the small business sector sharply up, the last thing that British business needs is so-called “business plans”, which are nothing but a failed Opposition policy that does nothing to help the British economy?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly believe that what is most needed for the health of business is to ensure that we have a low inflation economy, the right business tax structure to encourage investment, and interest rates as low as we can keep them. Those are the ingredients which will encourage investment within this country, and from abroad, which continues at a high rate.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    School Teachers Review Body

    Mrs. Roe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the current membership of the School Teachers Review Body.

    The Prime Minister : The membership of the School Teachers Review Body is as follows :

    |First appointed|Expiry date

    ————————————————————————-

    John Gardiner (Chairman) |1993 |1995

    Mrs. Brigita Amey |1991 |1995

    Alan Cox CBE |1991 |1995

    Philip Halsey CB LVO |1991 |1995

    Mrs. Gill Rostron |1993 |1996

    Mrs. Anna Vinton |1992 |1996

    Mr. Michael Harding |1993 |1997

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Russia

    Sir Thomas Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards Russia’s application to join the Group of Seven.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that there is a strong case for building a closer political dialogue between Russia and the Group of Seven, by creating a political Group of Eight, although it would not be appropriate in current circumstances for Russia to join the economic G7. I shall be taking this up with my G7 colleagues.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

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

     

    10 Downing Street

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of items on loan to 10 Downing Street which have been mislaid since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : No.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of all items of works of art, furniture, china, gold and silver artefacts currently on loan in 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister : No.

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister which paintings and other works of art on display in 10 Downing Street in October 1990 have subsequently been removed.

    The Prime Minister : The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Overseas Visits (Media)

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of amounts outstanding from media organisations for costs arising from using official transport on overseas visits.

    The Prime Minister : It is not my practice to give details of outstanding accounts.

     

    Official Gifts

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister which official gifts were retained by his predecessor at the end of her period of office.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven would have retained those gifts of small value that she wished to keep, and those gifts of higher value that she had chosen to purchase.

     

    Overseas Visits

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister which countries he has visited in an official capacity since November 1990.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 21 February 1994] : The information requested is as follows :

    Country |Dates

    ——————————————————————-

    Italy |13-15 December 1990

    United States of America |20-22 December 1990

    Saudi Arabia |6-8 January 1991

    Oman |8-9 January 1991

    Egypt |9 January 1991

    France |14 January 1991

    France |20 January 1991

    Germany |11 February 1991

    Soviet Union |4-5 March 1991

    Germany |11 March 1991

    Bermuda |15-16 March 1991

    Luxembourg |8 April 1991

    France |24 June 1991

    Luxembourg |28-29 June 1991

    Spain |2-13 June 1991

    Spain |2 August 1991

    United States of America |27-30 August 1991

    China/Russia |1-6 September 1991

    France |11-12 September 1991

    Netherlands |18 September 1991

    Zimbabwe |14-22 October 1991

    Italy |7-8 November 1991

    Germany |10 November 1991

    Italy |27 November 1991

    Germany |27 November 1991

    Netherlands |1 December 1991

    Republic of Ireland |4 December 1991

    Netherlands |8-10 December 1991

    United States of America |30-31 January 1992

    Poland |25-26 May 1992

    Czechoslovakia |26-28 May 1992

    Hungary |28-29 May 1992

    Germany |5 June 1992

    USA |6-9 June 1992

    Colombia |9-10 June 1992

    Brazil |10-12 June 1992

    Portugal |25-27 June 1992

    Germany |6-8 July 1992

    Finland |9-10 July 1992

    Spain |7-9 August 1992

    Spain |16-17 September 1992

    France |30 September 1992

    Egypt |23-25 October 1992

    Belgium |23 November 1992

    Italy/Greece |27-28 November 1992

    Luxembourg |30 November 1992

    Spain |30 November 1992

    |1 December 1992

    Portugal |1 December 1992

    Denmark |2 December 1992

    Netherlands |6-7 December 1992

    Republic of Ireland |7 December 1992

    France |15-16 December 1992

    Canada |17-18 December 1992

    USA |18-20 December 1992

    Bosnia |22 December 1992

    India |23-28 January 1993

    Oman |28 January 1993

    Saudi Arabia |28 January 1993

    USA |23-25 February 1993

    Switzerland |5-6 April 1993

    Austria |6 April 1993

    France |27-28 May 1993

    Denmark |20-22 June 1993

    Japan |5-9 July 1993

    Sweden |11-13 August 1993

    Portugal |23 August 1993

    Japan |18-21 September 1993

    Malaysia |21-22 September 1993

    Monaco |23 September 1993

    Cyprus |21-25 October 1993

    Belgium |28-29 October 1993

    Germany |25 November 1993

    Republic of Ireland |3 December 1993

    Belgium |9-11 December 1993

    Belgium |9-11 January 1994

    Russia |14-16 February 1994

  • PMQT – 22 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Foulkes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

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

    Mr. Foulkes : Is the Prime Minister aware that a schoolboy was killed last year in Auchinleck in my constituency, another was killed last week in Biggar, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), and there is widespread concern throughout the United Kingdom that school buses have no seat belts but three children to a seat, with no attendants? Will the Prime Minister order immediate action to prevent further deaths, without waiting for Europe to act, or is he more concerned about saving money than saving lives?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman’s last remark was unworthy and I hope that he will withdraw it. I am aware of the tragic incident that occurred last week in Scotland. There will be an inquiry into that death. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to report to me on the basis of that inquiry so that we can examine whether action is appropriate.

    Mr. Dover : Was not one of the best achievements of the Conservative Administration the creation of enterprise zones? Many of us welcome the latest plans for such zones to be set up where coal mining is running down. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with other Ministers the possibility of creating enterprise zones in areas such as Chorley–where defence industries are running down as a result of the peace dividend–because of capital allowances, no business rates and no planning restrictions?

    The Prime Minister : I had the opportunity of looking at some of the work done in the enterprise zone in Lanarkshire just last week. I certainly can confirm that they have been very successful. In areas that face particular difficulties because of substantial job losses, perhaps because of the collapse of a single employer or industry, we look across the board to see what help can be given. Enterprise zones are an important part of that, but not necessarily the whole of it.

    Mr. John Smith : Following the success achieved so far in stopping the killing in Sarajevo as a result of the threat of military action, will the British Government adopt similar firm initiatives to end the sieges of the proposed safe areas of Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde, Srebrenica and Bihac? Will the Government also support urgent action to bring relief and protection to the inhabitants of Mostar?

    The Prime Minister : We have been examining what can be done following the successful action at Sarajevo.

    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed that in Paris yesterday. Even as we speak, a meeting on that matter is going on among political directors and I hope to have the opportunity of discussing it further with President Clinton in the early part of next week. What we wish to see is the relief of the United Nations contingent in Srebrenica by the end of February–within a week–and we hope to open Tuzla airport in the first week of March.

    Mr. John Smith : I hope that the Prime Minister and the other countries will maintain the momentum that recent events have created. In that connection, is not it clear that further troops will be required? If General Rose, who is the commander on the spot, asks for further troops, ought not the Government not hesitate in giving him further support from his own country?

    The Prime Minister : On the first point of developing plans further, we think that the UN should develop plans for other towns urgently. Mostar, Vitez and Maglaj are the three at which one would look first. The situation in each of those towns is different. In Mostar and Vitez, for example, the conflict is between Croats and Muslims, but all of them undoubtedly are in need of desperate assistance and relief. We hope to use the example of Sarajevo to build new impetus in the peace negotiations and the closer involvement of the United States and Russia will help that.

    As to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s second point about troops, we shall examine that matter when there are requests. Those requests are directed not just at the UK, which has made a substantial contribution already–as has France–but at the whole range of countries. We hope that they will all see what special assistance they may be able to give.

    Sir Anthony Grant : Regardless of the outcome of the vote last night, does my right hon. Friend agree that the disgraceful scenes at St Stephen’s entrance were an affront to parliamentary democracy?

    The Prime Minister : The House yesterday had the opportunity to examine in detail a matter of great complexity and importance for many people. My judgment is that the House came to the right decisions, and I support the decision that was taken. I regret the difficulties that occurred outside the House yesterday and I hope that, after reflection, there will not be a repeat.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister agree with Lord Justice Scott, who said today that public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill affair were used by Ministers to withhold information that was trivial and which there was no sensible public justification in withholding?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen those remarks by Lord Justice Scott, nor have I seen the context in which they were made, nor whether it was a statement or a point put to a witness for response. On this and any other point related to the Scott inquiry, I will say that I set up that inquiry so that Lord Justice Scott could report. I am content to leave it to him to report and I do not intend to comment on those matters until such time as I have that report.

    Mr. Bellingham : Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the Financial Times survey which shows that, of the top 25 European companies, a staggering 14 are British? Is not that remarkable fact another sign of our growing economic strength and should not we be proud of it ? Will my right hon. Friend tell the Opposition to stop running the country down?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt among any of our European partners about the strength of the economic recovery in this country. It is steady and shows every sign of continuing at a time when many other European countries still face great difficulties. My hon. Friend is entirely right that many of the largest and most effective international companies in Europe are British.

     

    Q2. Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

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

    Mr. Fatchett : Does the Prime Minister share the concern of the British people that the future of Britain’s last car manufacturer was determined yesterday by a Japanese company and a German company without any reference to long-term British industrial interest? What will the Prime Minister do to secure the future of Rover? Will he simply come to the Dispatch Box again and say that this important matter of industrial strategy which is of concern to the public has nothing whatsoever to do with him?

    The Prime Minister : A few years ago, there was not a remotely profitable and worthwhile car industry in this country at all. We now have a series of companies providing a lot of jobs, making a lot of profits and exporting. It will not be long before we are net exporters of motor cars, and that could not possibly have happened but for inward investment which is itself related to the policies of the Government.

    Mr. Devlin : With regard to the comments by the chairman of Honda, reported in today’s newspapers, that the British are no longer serious about manufacturing, will my right hon. Friend take steps to reassure the heads of Japanese businesses, particularly those that have already invested heavily in the north of England and south Wales, that Britain’s future lies with manufacturing and that the British are serious about producing cars, fridges and other solid goods?

    The Prime Minister : Just yesterday, Honda Motor Europe publicly confirmed its intention to develop Swindon as

    “a centre of manufacturing excellence”

    and to continue its work in helping improve the performance of United Kingdom component suppliers, in particular, to help them to win export orders to Honda in Japan. There is no doubt whatever about the position of the Government. We believe that manufacturing industry is important and requires support. It is getting support and it is beginning to export abroad on a scale we have not previously seen. That support and assistance will continue.

     

    Q3. Ms Corston : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

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

    Ms Corston : Is the Prime Minister aware that “Social Trends 1994”, a Government publication, reveals that as a direct consequence of Tory Government policy since 1979 the average disposable income of the richest 20 per cent. of households has increased by £6,000 a year while the 20 per cent. of households at the bottom of the income scale have had their average disposable income cut by £3,000 a year? Does not that reveal the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister’s professed commitment to creating a nation at ease with itself?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady was being selective in what she said– [Interruption.] She was selective from the report. The net disposable income of people at all ranges of income has increased and the proportion of total tax take paid by those on top incomes has increased, not been reduced.

    Mr. Cormack : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to convey the thanks, congratulations and good wishes of the House to General Sir Michael Rose? Do not the events of the past fortnight show that firm, clear, decisive leadership–political and military–produces results?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt about the success that General Rose has had. I shall be happy to convey my hon. Friend’s congratulations to him.

     

    Q4. Mr. Denham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

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

    Mr. Denham : Since the Conservatives came to power, everyone who is paid less than £64,000 a year has seen his total tax bill go up, but everyone who is paid more than £64,000 a year has seen his tax bill go down. Why?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about tax bills– [Hon. Members :– “Answer the question.”] I am about to answer in my own way. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about tax bills, why did he and his colleagues vote against every tax reduction in the last decade ?

     

    Q5. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.

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

    Mr. Coombs : May I thank my right hon. Friend for his positive remarks a moment ago about manufacturing industry in Britain and particularly for what he said about the contribution of Honda in Swindon to manufacturing in Britain? Will he confirm that it remains the policy of the Government, in the interests of manufacturing industry in Britain, to oppose the social chapter and do everything possible to resist moves towards a single currency in Europe? Will he further confirm that Conservative candidates in the European elections later this year will fight on a manifesto that clearly rejects such damaging centralising tendencies?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can confirm that. The Government’s position on the matter is totally clear. When the European People’s party publishes its manifesto later this week neither the Conservative party nor Conservative Members of the European Parliament will be bound by that document, although there will be much in it with which we shall agree. On the question of a single currency and the social chapter, our policy is entirely clear. So, alas, is the policy of the Labour party, which would swallow a single currency immediately, irrespective of the economic damage that it would cause, and would accept the social chapter, with its very damaging consequences for productivity and jobs.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 December, Official Report, column 958, what reply has been sent to the Members of the United States Congress, Japanese Diet and hon. and right hon. Members on their appeal for a review and public inquiry on THORP; and on what date.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside replied to right hon. and hon. Members on 16 February.

     

    Royal Family (Education)

    Mr. Frank Field : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Government’s policy in respect of the education and upbringing of those in line to the throne.

    The Prime Minister : No. This has traditionally been regarded as a matter for the royal family.

     

    International Investments Ltd., Gibraltar

    Mr. Beggs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will ask the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic to appoint a High Court inspector to investigate International Investments Ltd., Gibraltar–in liquidation–and its associated companies in the Irish Republic during their next meeting.

    The Prime Minister : No. The Royal Ulster Constabulary is, however, carrying out investigations into the affairs of International Investments Ltd., with the assistance of the authorities in the Republic of Ireland.

     

    Government Leader

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister which Minister is authorised in the event of his temporary incapacity through injury of illness, to head the Government in the immediate period following such incapacity and before Her Majesty the Queen is able to make a temporary appointment of a chief Minister.

    The Prime Minister : The arrangements made would depend on the circumstances at the time.

     

    Highfield Hospital

    Mr. Burden : To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to the letters sent to him by the Save Highfield Hospital Campaign on 20 November 1993 and 31 January 1994 and to the petition on Highfield hospital which was handed in to 10 Downing Street on 20 November 1993; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has replied on my behalf.

     

    Devon and Cornwall

    Mr. Streeter : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the results of the Government’s policies in Devon and Cornwall since 1983; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) whether he will list, by Government Department, the principal aid given to Devon and Cornwall in each year since 1983.

    The Prime Minister : Since 1983, the Department of Trade and Industry policy and programmes have committed more than £71.4 million in grants and loans to industry and commerce in Devon and Cornwall. This has created or safeguarded more than 21,000 jobs spread across 3,363 companies.

    In addition, the Devon and Cornwall Development Bureau has received over £4.25 million to assist in the attraction of inward investment to the two counties. Overseas investment in the area was more than £164 million.

    Government policies of low inflation, low interest rates and less regulation provide the foundation for growth across the country.

     

    Public Appointments

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) of 4 February, Official Report, column 972, if he will give those details on the number of public appointments made by Ministers or by the Crown or nominations by Ministers that can be compiled without incurring disproportionate cost.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Hazel Grove on 4 February 1994, Official Report, column 972.

     

    Design Council

    Mr. Bayley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the representations that he has received from Mr. Ivor Owen, the former director-general of the Design Council, about the British railway manufacturing industry, together with a copy of his reply to Mr. Owen.

    The Prime Minister : As far as I am aware, I have received no such letter.

     

    Official Gifts

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the official gifts he has received since November 1990.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Council of Europe

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister how many conventions have been agreed by the Council of Europe since 1964; and how many have been acceded to by Her Majesty’s Government in full or in part.

    The Prime Minister : Seventy-two conventions have been agreed by the Council of Europe since–and including–1964. The Government have acceded to 34 of these and signed, but not yet ratified, a further seven.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he is having with President Clinton and President Mitterrand about the increase in malnutrition-related marasmus and other diseases in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 January, Official Report, column 153. We are also in regular touch with France over Iraq, including the humanitarian situation.

     

    Departmental Accounting Officers

    Mr. Rowlands : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since 1979 when Ministers have issued written instructions to override a Department’s accounting officer’s objections.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 February 1994] : The issue of such an instruction is entirely a matter for the Minister and accounting officer concerned. Therefore, no central records are maintained.

     

    Pergau Project

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister when he was first informed that the Foreign Secretary intended to issue a direction to the accounting officer in respect of the Pergau project.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 10 February 1994] : In February 1991.

     

    Malaysia

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions Tan Sri Arumugam, joint managing director, GEC-Malaysia, has visited his office in the past three years; and if he will list the occasions.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 February 1994] : Once, in 1992, on the occasion of an official dinner for the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

     

    President Yeltsin

    Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister what views he received from President Yeltsin on the NATO ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs during his discussion with him on Tuesday 15 February; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 February 1994] : I described the specific terms of the North Atlantic Council’s response to the United Nations Secretary General’s request for NATO assistance at Sarajevo. I agreed with President Yeltsin that our objectives were the same. Both the United Kingdom and Russia wanted to see an effective ceasefire implemented in Sarajevo, with heavy weapons brought under United Nations control. We both strongly supported the negotiations for a peaceful settlement.

    We discussed President Yeltsin’s decision to send a personal emissary to Belgrade. He told me that he was considering sending additional Russian troops to assist UNPROFOR in maintaining control over heavy weapons. I welcomed this, and agreed with President Yeltsin that it was important for Russia and her western partners in the European Union and the United States to use their channels of influence to promote a ceasefire in Sarajevo and an overall settlement. President Yeltsin stressed that Russia wished to be a full participant in this process, and I welcome his Government’s announcement on 17 February that the additional forces will be made available to UNPROFOR.

     

    Regional Offices

    Mr. Rendel : To ask the Prime Minister which of Her Majesty’s Government’s Departments have been incorporated into integrated regional offices since 1992.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 February 1994] : New Government offices for the regions will come into being in April, combining the existing regional offices of the Departments of the Environment, of Employment, of Trade and Industry and of Transport.