The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1995

  • PMQT Written Answers – 31 October 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October 1995.

    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.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

    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.

     

    Office Costs

    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the expenditure on his office broken down into (a) salaries and (b) other costs for each year since 1980 81, in 1994 95 prices.

    The Prime Minister: Figures on a consistent basis are not available. In 1980 81, recorded spending on my office and Chequers on the votes of the Civil Service Department/Cabinet Office was £3.684 million in 1994 95 prices. In 1981 82, charges were introduced for the use of Ministry of Defence aircraft. Including those charges, spending was, at 1994 95 prices, £4,649 million in 1981 82 and £4.852 million in 1982 83. In 1983 84, charges were introduced by the Property Services Agency for buildings and services. Including those charges, spending was, at 1994 95 prices, £5.197 million in 1983 84. In 1984 85, charges were introduced for the use of the Government car service and for service personnel at Chequers. Including those charges, spending was, at 1994 95 prices, £6.193 million in 1984 85 and £6.830 million in 1985 86. In 1986 87, the cost of office services was included in the No. 10 budget. Including those costs, spending since then has been as follows:

    £ million

    |Total costs

    |1994-95

    |prices |Staff |Other

    ————————————————————

    1986-87 |7.469 |2.513 |4.956

    1987-88 |7.741 |2.519 |5.222

    1988-89 |8.777 |2.550 |6.227

    1989-90 |9.600 |2.703 |6.897

    1990-91 |9.533 |2.385 |7.148

    1991-92 |9.450 |2.487 |6.963

    1992-93 |10.866 |3.043 |7.298

    1993-94 |9.384 |3.327 |6.057

    1994-95<1> |7.671 |3.217 |4.454

    <1> In 1994-95 spending of £0.718 million on communications was transferred from No. 10 budget to the Cabinet Office budget.

  • PMQT – 31 October 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

    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. Winnick: Why did the Prime Minister in his meeting with the French President not condemn French nuclear tests, which have deeply offended British and international opinion? Did the Prime Minister not take such action because the British Government have connived with the French in a dirty deal whereby information arising from the nuclear tests will be passed on to this country? If that is the case, it shows the dishonesty of the Government.

    The Prime Minister: It is not the case. As I have said before, no information from the French nuclear tests will be passed to us–indeed, given the nature of our weapons, it would not be of use to us. There is no deal; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that and withdraw his allegation.

    At least the hon. Gentleman is consistent in his views. He has been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and he is, and he saluted the courage and determination of anti-nuclear demonstrators at Greenham Common. [Interruption.] I trail my coat to find out where Labour Members’ hearts are, and now we know.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mrs. Lait: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement that one of London’s most popular grant-maintained schools, the Oratory school, will be able to build a choir school, thanks to its self-governing status in the public sector? While that may be music to the ears of the parents with children at the school, how does my right hon. Friend think that the rest of the Labour Front Benchers will react?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I welcome that news.

    Grant-maintained schools have a greater freedom to develop their strengths because power is put where it should belong: with the school head, the school governors and the parents who know best what is in their children’s interests.

    Mr. Blair: Is it– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Stop this barracking–particularly from Ministers.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm as a matter of fact that what the chairman of the rail users’ watchdog as well as the Transport Select Committee have said is true: that, as a result of privatisation, an extra £700 million of taxpayers’ money will be paid to the subsidised, privatised railways?

    The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that over the years we have increased resources to the nationalised British rail industry. Contrary to what has been said by some people, the Government have supported record levels of investment. We made it clear when we decided to proceed with privatisation that we would support lines that were socially necessary–partly at the request of Her Majesty’s Opposition. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe now that we should not do that.

    Mr. Blair: Is it not right that the Select Committee attributed the extra £700 million to privatisation, not to paying for socially useful routes, and that hundreds of millions of pounds of City fees are involved? Is it not also true that investment in the railways today is half what it was two years ago and that, as a result of privatisation, 5,000 manufacturing industry jobs have been lost and the unified railway network has been broken up into 70, 80 or 90 companies?

    When will the Prime Minister, just for once, stop pandering to the right wing of the Conservative party? [Interruption.] Conservative Members may want rail privatisation: the British people do not. When will the right hon. Gentleman stop pandering to the right wing of his party and, instead, listen to and speak up for the British people, who want their railways run as a public service?

    The Prime Minister: I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman would get round to his “lurch to the right” campaign, launched so inexpertly–one might almost say he made a hash of it–by the new shadow Chief Whip.

    If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the policies we are following, of bringing choice to parents and opportunity to children, are a lurch to the right, the country will not agree. If he thinks that spending more on patients’ health is a lurch to the right, the people will not agree. If he thinks that dealing with asylum abuses, or standing up for Britain in Europe, represent a lurch to the right, he is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the centre right of politics is our ground and there is no way a squatter like him can rest on it. He may regard himself as the Trojan horse of socialism, but he will find that it is our land on which he is parking and there is no room for him on it.

    As for the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point, and pushing aside the points on which he was inaccurate, I would tell him that there have been record amounts of investment in recent years–£1.5 billion in 1992-93, which was the highest for 30 years. Investment is still running at more than £1 billion in the current year, and every privatisation that we have introduced has provided better service. I see the new shadow Chief Whip in his place. It was he who once referred to the privatisation of British Airways as the pantomime horse of capitalism. It is now the most successful privatised air service in the world.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that positive discrimination in favour of women is both unnecessary and patronising? Will he comment on the policy of the Labour party, which has imposed by diktat from Walworth road–

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the attitude of the Labour party. I am sure that he has caught the first part of the hon. Lady’s question and is perfectly capable of answering it.

    Mrs. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will never impose women-only shortlists, as has been done by diktat of Walworth road in six constituencies in the north-west of England?

    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that I believe that we should seek equality of opportunities for everyone, for women in the House of Commons and elsewhere. It is certainly our policy to do so. My hon. Friends needed no special discrimination to get here. As to the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question, I can promise her–not only in this but in other matters–that we will not follow the policies of the Opposition, because, apart from anything else, daily they seem to be following our policies.

    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister consider these three dates? On 11 July, Srebrenica fell and 8,000 young men were taken away and massacred. On 31 May, I asked the then Secretary of State for Defence, in the House, to assure me that the policy on the defence of Srebrenica had not changed, and he gave me that assurance. It is now revealed, or claimed, that on 24 May, with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the British Government, the UN decided to abandon Srebrenica to its fate. Is that correct?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, just occasionally, might do the British forces and the British Government the credit of acknowledging what they have done. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is not correct. He has been wrong throughout the whole of this episode time after time. He has denigrated what the British Government have done and what the British armed forces have done. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman this: there are hundreds of thousands of people alive today in Bosnia because of what was done by the British Government and the British armed forces.

    Mr. Elletson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a successful conference this year in my constituency? Is he aware that next year the Labour party will be in Blackpool? Will he take this opportunity to reassure parents and police in my constituency that under a Conservative Government cannabis cigarettes will never be for sale?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance and I will tell the House why very clearly. The vast majority of people–between 80 and 90 per cent.–who move on to hard drugs graduate to hard drugs having first experimented with soft drugs. Any sensible person realises the danger of doing that and realises that any responsible person in public life would discourage the use of soft drugs because of the danger of moving to hard drugs. I am sorry that some Opposition Members with some responsibility in public life should choose to take a different view.

     

    Q3. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Dowd: Given the Government’s latest response to the recommendations of the Nolan committee, when will the Prime Minister stop his feeble backtracking on his alleged intention to improve the standards of conduct of Ministers and stop trying to defend the snout in the trough behaviour of so many on the Benches behind him?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows–or should know, if he took an interest in our matters–that the Nolan report is at present being considered by the Select Committee. It will very shortly be brought before the House, when we will have the benefit of the deliberations of the Select Committee and when the House can then vote on all the recommendations that emanate from it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter–the characteristically pompous letter–from the leader of the Liberal party, inviting Conservative Members of Parliament to back his party on education? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best response to that has come from a Harrow Liberal councillor, Bernadette Murphy, who says that the arguments for the Conservative education system are unanswerable and that every party should understand that? Will he congratulate her on reinforcing her message by resigning from the council and causing a by-election and giving such a clear steer as to how people should vote in that by-election?

    The Prime Minister: I did see the letter from the right hon. Gentleman, which he displayed so widely among my colleagues. I recall that the letter also said:

    “This is the moment to stand up for what is right and to put Britain first.”

    Clearly, Miss Murphy did.

     

    Q5. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that Britain requires a job skills audit? We have fallen from 21st to 24th in the league, according to the World Economic Forum’s report on skill shortages. Is that because the Government do not invest in education and training? Is it not about time that the Government recognised that education and training are vital to our economy?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated a skill shortage in answering questions. [Laughter] It is clear– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    The Prime Minister: It is clear that Opposition Members’ new standards of behaviour are only for certain occasions.

    Of course my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is right to examine the level of skills. He has done that to enable us to ensure that we can build on what has already been done to improve skills in the country. That is the purpose of the changes that have been made. That is the purpose of the training and enterprise councils; that is the purpose of investment. It is because of the increasing skills and increasing investment that our exports–not least in manufacturing–are performing better today than they have for many years.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Inauguration of the Franco-British Air Group – 30 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the inauguration of the Franco-British Air Group, held at High Wycombe on Monday 30th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Chiefs of Defence Staff, Ladies and Gentlemen. The President and I have just finished around about two and a half hours of discussions on a range of issues that affect our two countries right across the globe: Russia, the Middle East, Europe of course, a whole range of matters to do with defence. All of those are areas where there is a great degree of common interest between the British position and the position in France. What we begin to see emerging is the increasing move towards a global partnership between the interests of our two countries.

    I will have more to say about that in another forum later this afternoon. But what I would like to do in the next few moments is concentrate just upon the defence aspects of our cooperation. And I do so because the more one examines them, the more striking it becomes how much Britain and France does together in terms of defence cooperation.

    In the two military crises of recent years – the Gulf and Bosnia – Britain and France have worked together at the centre of co-operations. We cooperate equally closely in other areas of the defence relationship. We work together in the Western European Union. We cooperate closely in developing new forms of armament.

    Both the President and I believe there is scope for developing this work further. And our Defence Ministers, who I am also delighted to see here at High Wycombe this morning, have been addressing that quite specifically in their discussions.

    But the purpose of this ceremony is to inaugurate the Franco-British Air Group. The group was launched just a year ago at Chartres. This summer our Defence Secretaries agreed to establish precise roles, precise missions and working practices for the group. And today the President and I can launch what I believe will become an ambitious, an imaginative, undertaking.

    We have high hopes of this group. We hope the Air Group will improve the inter-operability of our two Air Forces, improve them so that they are trained and ready to deploy together whenever, and wherever, that may be necessary.

    Of course with this group at the moment it is early days. Much has been done, but there is a great deal more still to be done. The main focus thus far has been to develop contingency plans, to develop operating procedures, to develop a whole range of procedures on tasks such as humanitarian aid or peacekeeping.

    But we see a much larger role for this group in the future. By enhancing the operational effectiveness and inter-operability of our air forces, we believe the air group will enable our two countries to work together more efficiently and to improve our joint contribution to European Defence. That, for both of us, is a matter of some considerable importance in the years ahead.

    I am delighted that the President is with me here today for this particular occasion. And it occurred to me just a moment or so ago, as the President and I were just driving to the entrance of this building, that if our predecessors, Mr President, had hit upon this particular idea quite a few hundred years ago, I rather fancy the history of Europe might have been rather different, and many of us perhaps might have wished that it had been different.

    So I think when one takes not just the beginnings that we are launching today, but the concept of what this may well become, one begins to see the scale and importance of the particular inauguration that we are privileged to be present at at the moment.

    So we look today, as we inaugurate this group, to the future. And as I look to the future in inaugurating the group may I offer it, all its members, present and future, every success in fulfilling the important joint tasks that will continue to confront both of our great nations.

    There is I believe, Mr President, and in this I believe I may safely speak for us both this morning, a determination to take every opportunity that exists to ensure that the interests of Britain and France march together, sail together and fly together, both for the security of Britain and France and the wider security of Europe.

    I wish the Group every possible success.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Award Ceremony – 30 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the award ceremony for General Michael Rose and General Bertrand de Sauville de la Presle, held in High Wycombe on Monday 30th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In a few moments and President and I will have the pleasure and privilege of honouring General de la Presle and General Rose for their work together in Bosnia over recent years. I would like just, if I may, to say a word about the award that I shall making to General de la Presle.

    It is a remarkable example of what can be achieved in the most difficult circumstances. With General Rose, General de la Presle held very high responsibility for military operations in an area of the highest political and military complexities. There were no guiding stars as to how to cope with the extraordinarily difficult circumstances of Bosnia, there were no historical guidelines to deal with the particular level of problems that were faced there. And yet General de la Presle played a leading role in a new kind of military activity, an operation in which, almost uniquely, there were no clear enemies, but in an operation that was fraught with a great deal of danger. And in this, perhaps not uniquely, but unusually, political judgement was as important in his responsibilities as military skill.

    The General led a military force comprising a range of nations. And yet on the ground at the same time he was dealing with different parties with a long history of mutual antagonisms, a history that as we have seen only too vividly was violent and often uncontainable.

    And that is why I say there was no relevant experience from the past to go on. There were no books to tell people precisely what one did in those set of circumstances for they were strange and novel circumstances. It was hard to establish guidelines because the problems were changing, fluid, but more important than being fluid, inconsistent and unpredictable, not so much on a weekly basis but perhaps on an hourly basis.

    The key to the General’s success, if I may be permitted to say so having observed from afar, was predominantly in the example set in working so closely with senior commanders, ensuring that everybody was absolutely up-to-date with what needed to be done, absolutely up-to-date with the latest tactical situation and completely aware of the strategic challenge facing the forces in Bosnia.

    The results of that leadership I believe speak for themselves, both in terms of what was achieved at the time and in terms of the groundwork that was laid for those who came subsequently to achieve more. It was a very remarkable achievement indeed and I am delighted in a few moments that on behalf of Her Majesty I shall be honouring the General.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Chirac – 30 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Chirac, held in London on Monday 30th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly welcome you to this press conference. This has been my seventh meeting with President Chirac in the last 6 months and on this occasion he has brought a very powerful team of his Ministers with him.

    This morning our Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers, Finance Ministers, Transport Ministers, have all held separate discussions and subsequently reported to us about them. Collectively we have reached a number of wide ranging decisions.

    Let me just firstly say that this morning the President and I visited RAF Strike Command at High Wycombe. And we did so for two special reasons. Firstly, to inaugurate the Franco-British Air Group; and secondly, to present decorations to General and General Rose who worked so successfully for so long together in Bosnia.,

    I think that that ceremony, both the inauguration of the Air Group and the joint award of Honours, illustrates the increasingly close partnership that is developing between France and the United Kingdom. It is a global partnership and that theme of global partnership has been the dominant theme throughout this summit. Let me set out precisely what I mean by that.

    Britain and France are both European countries a worldwide outlook. We are the only nuclear powers in Western Europe. We each make a huge contribution to the overall defence of Europe. We are the largest European contributors to United Nations peacekeeping. We are Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council and participants in the Economic Summits. And we both have obligations to parts of the world, like Africa, where we have long-standing and historic ties.

    In defence, upon which we spent a great deal of our time this morning, the President and I have concluded that the vital interests of one could not be threatened without the vital interests of the other equally being at risk.

    Step by step in defence, our approaches are moving closer together. In defence procurement, Britain has a wider range of joint projects with France than with any other country. We are discussing together the most effective structures for European defence, drawing on the lessons that we have learned In Bosnia.

    The Franco-British Euro-air Group is one bilateral dimension. We have decided on another – new arrangements for the Royal Navy and the French Navy to exercise and to train together.

    We have made important progress in deepening our nuclear cooperation. Our aim is to strengthen deterrence whilst retaining the independence of our nuclear forces. This deepening of cooperation will strengthen the overall European contribution to deterrence.

    Our Armed Forces, taking all aspects together, are closer today than at any time in the last 50 years, and the President and I shall look for yet further defence cooperation.

    We discussed the full range of European questions. We have a different approach to some of those questions, but we agreed to work together on a number of aspects at the Intergovernmental Conference. Subsidiarity is an area where we have a shared interest and concern. Subsidiarity – that is keeping or returning decision-making to the national level. We discussed, and have a common interest, in a more effective common foreign and security policy based on an intergovernmental agreement. We have a common approach to justice and home affairs matters and for the role of national parliaments. And we agreed to continue discussion on these and a number of other aspects that we are likely to face at the Intergovernmental Conference.

    We spent some time discussing the removing of regulations and red tape. We both agreed that small businesses had a vital role to play in our economies as generators both of employment in the future and of growth. And we have decided therefore to launch a joint initiative to reduce burdens on business and will invite businessmen from both countries to contribute to that work.

    Both of us have long, historic and very strong interests in Africa. We are launching today a joint initiative on conflict resolution and peacekeeping in Africa. We shall help African countries to develop their own capabilities and shall invite Western European Union partners to join us in sending advisory teams to Africa.

    You should, I hope, find on your chairs a detailed note of further joint approaches which we will take in Africa. These include a number of matters which you may wish to raise in questions but will not detain you with now.

    Let me just highlight four others of the many subjects we discussed.

    The first of these is Bosnia. We will continue working closely together on Bosnia and will both make a large contribution to the peace negotiations and the implementation of a peace settlement.

    Second, terrorism. I deplore the recent bombings that there have been in France. I have promised President Chirac every possible assistance and we have agreed on specific steps to enhance cooperation between France and the United Kingdom in dealing both with terrorism and with organised crime.

    On United Nations reform, about which we both spoke at the UN meeting just a few days ago, we both want to see effective follow through to the work of the G8.

    And finally, on a very positive note, we are launching the Entente Cordial Scholarship Scheme. This is an imaginative scheme that will be privately funded to help young people in Britain and in France to study in each other’s language and in each other’s country.

    Those are just the sketchy headlines of what has been, I think we both believe, a particularly productive summit.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I have nothing to add to the substance of what the Prime Minister has said, I have nothing to change in what he has said.

    As to the specific details, we shall be happy, both of us, to take questions from the press and I am very happy to welcome members of the British, French and other press corps as well.

    But let me make one comment, if I may, to start with. I have been attending French/British meetings for many years now and I have followed how these meetings have progressed and I am most struck by the sea-change which has occurred in our discussions. In Franco/British relations today there is no trace whatsoever of a gracility of ill humour. I think it has become quite natural for us to talk about everything, to discuss everything frankly and openly, to discuss matters which bring us together as well as matters which can divide us. But there is no drama about it, it happens quite naturally and openly.

    And on an increasing number of subjects all the time we have increasingly convergent views on these issues which are the challenges for our countries in the future. In other words, we have a greater and greater awareness all the time of the increasing solidarity of the destiny of our two countries, and that is extremely pleasant, this friendly atmosphere, this atmosphere of friendship which goes beyond us politicians but which concerns our countries and our systems. And I am very struck and impressed by this increasing closeness between France and Britain.

    QUESTION:

    President Chirac, particularly on the point of terrorism, do you think the British government is doing everything it can to prevent a spill-over from the Algerian war taking place in Britain and to stop Britain being used as a haven by Islamic radicals?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    As far as the fight against terrorism is concerned, I do not think, I am absolutely convinced that the British government is fully determined to do everything it can. I am convinced that there is excellent cooperation between the British and French services involved. And I have only thanks to express to the British authorities on these two scores.

    I would add that the Prime Minister wished to go beyond even that and proposed to me a strengthening of our cooperation in the fight against terrorism, and he also proposed to me that we should strengthen our cooperation in the fight against drugs, and I thoroughly agree with him on those two counts.

    QUESTION:

    Could I ask you both what the significance to Anglo/French relations, and indeed to nuclear cooperation, you find in the British decision to back French nuclear testing over the protestations of the Commonwealth?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me respond to that point first. President Chirac had scientific advice about the necessity to test the French nuclear deterrent. I think on the back of that scientific advice it would have been extremely difficult for the head of any country not to have accepted that scientific advice and tested, as advised, his own nuclear deterrent. Upon that basis, I have offered the President my support for the action that he has taken. If one is a nuclear power there are certain obligations. Some of those obligations involve ensuring that the nuclear weapon is in proper order, that it is working as expected. And one does need in those circumstances to test, if that is the advice one is given. That is the advice the President was given, he accepted that advice. Frankly, I believe he had no choice and upon that basis I have offered him my support.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Support for which I am most grateful and which is also part and parcel of the solidarity of countries of the European Union. But I would also like to say that I was fully aware of the reaction that international public opinion would have when I took my decision. But the decision was absolutely inevitable for the safety and the reliability of French nuclear weapons. It would have been irresponsible of me not to take that decision. That is the negative answer to your question if you like. But there is a positive answer to your question too, which is that I am now in a position to confirm that France, as the United Kingdom, will sign the full Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and that France and the United Kingdom have both said that they will support the zero option on on-site controls, no small tests, no tests whatsoever, that France and the United Kingdom have just signed the Protocols of the Ruratonga Treaty which next spring will make it possible to declare the South Pacific a nuclear-free zone. And therefore there will be no further problem of nuclear testing.

    The United States, as you know, have agreed too to the zero option. In my recent discussions with the Russian President I understood him to say that that would be Russia’s position too. I am not answering in Russia’s place of course but I understood that would be his position. And I would not rule out China taking the same position too, and that would be a very optimistic and positive conclusion to the whole affair.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The President, on behalf of France, the Americans and the British have agreed to sign the Protocols to the Ruratonga Convention. I think that is very welcome. What we can actually now see, not very far in the future, just a few months away, is an end to nuclear testing and the signature of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. That is now, with luck, just a matter of months away and I think that is great progress and I am delighted about that.

    QUESTION (Jon Snow, Channel 4 News):

    When you became President, one of the earliest public pronouncements you made, or one that was recognised worldwide, was the offer to send French troops to save the people of Srebrenica. The Dutch government has today published its findings over what happened in Srebrenica and sad reading they make. The Dutch Defence Minister says that the whole concept of the so-called safe areas failed dismally. Could I ask you both whether as members of the Permanent Five Security Council of the UN you accept any culpability, any blame, for what went wrong and the fact that we are now sitting in a situation in which 8,000 citizens of that area are either dead or missing?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    You are referring of course to events which occurred as I became President. I believe that the United Nations forces were not able to fulfil the role that they were supposed to play. And I think it was wrong in the past to accept that confusion between a military role and a humanitarian role and the result was that events of that kind did occur. Who was responsible? Certainly not the United Nations because the United Nations was not given to proper mandate to act. I think it was a collective responsibility, I think that the British and French governments realised that when they decided together to react to what happening, to change their policies and to set up together the Rapid Reaction Force. And a lot of observers made fun of the Rapid Reaction Force when it was announced initially, but it did make it possible to give the troops the resources they needed to attain their objective, which was a peacekeeping objective and which was I think behind the positive developments that we have witnessed since.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is perhaps sometimes a little too easy to overlook the reality that it is the British and the French, and their troops on the ground, who have played the biggest single role of turning what looked like at one stage a trans-Balkan war, and at another stage like the mass genocide and slaughter of huge numbers of people, into a position where across central Bosnia there is peace and where we can now look forward to the possibility of a peace right the way across Bosnia. That would not have happened but for the action of the British and French governments who sent the largest number of troops and sent the troops not only in the largest numbers but sent them earliest. There were also those countries who participated predominantly in the conferences that were held and that determined with the Rapid Reaction Corps to respond to some of the events that were occurring. So, no-one doubts the horrors from the early genocide and subsequently what occurred in the former Yugoslavia, but I think the British and French troops played the predominant role in mitigating the slaughter and saving lives. And I do not think it an exaggerated claim to say that but for the activities of British and French soldiers and their commanders, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people alive today who would otherwise have been dead. And I think in the scales of who did what and what the outcome was, that is something that should weigh heavily.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Could you clarify this statement where you say you do not see situations arising where the vital interests of either France or the United Kingdom could be threatened – is that like the NATO declaration that if one country is invaded, could you tell us what it means?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I don’t think I need to elaborate a great deal on this. We are very strongly linked politically, economically, culturally and geographically, and I am not referring to the Channel fixed link. I am referring quite clearly to the fact that we are very close to each other. But clearly one cannot imagine a situation where in the immediate future or in the foreseeable future a conflict might occur in which France and Britain would not be on the same side, we will clearly be on the same side, and I think we must draw some conclusions from that strategically speaking?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think really the point is quite straightforward. Neither the President nor I can conceive of circumstances in which in any way France was threatened militarily, in which the interests of the United Kingdom would not be seen to be similarly threatened. And equally the President can conceive of no circumstances in which the United Kingdom was threatened militarily that would not equally threaten the vital interests of France. And we thought it appropriate to make that point crystal clear on this occasion to exemplify the increasingly close cooperation we have in all aspects of defence.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, 50 years ago, referring to somewhat complicated relationships with General de Gaulle, Winston Churchill said: “Of all the crosses I have to bear, the cross of Lorraine is the heaviest”. I would like to ask the successor of General de Gaulle, whether this is a heavy cross to bear on your shoulders? I am referring to the increasingly Euro-sceptical policy of Her Majesty’s Government or if that policy is a relief and a comfort for you?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I must say I don’t know what Euro-scepticism is – is it a fad. And in every country of the European Union, not only the United Kingdom, there is such a phenomenon. So let us be realistic about this and if one is realistic, what does one see? What one sees is that there is considerable progress in European construction. There are areas in which France and the United Kingdom have a somewhat different approach. We discuss these differences and I say we discuss these differences quite equably and openly, it is certainly not a heavy cross to bear. And there are other areas in which our views are perfectly convergent, and the Prime Minister has told you what they are, everything which concerns the construction of a Europe which is closer to its citizens, on enlargement, on other issues. On these issues we have no conflict of views whatsoever. So let us not be ideological, we are pragmatic people. We are moving ahead at our own pace but very positively and without there being any misunderstanding between us.

    QUESTION:

    To come back to terrorism I have three somewhat distinct questions. First of all, the French government has stated that it is concerned about the fact that some Islamic fundamentalists may have taken refuge in the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is information to the effect that the SIS might open an office in London, the BBC announced this this afternoon. And thirdly, Abad Anas [phon], one of the founder members of SIS, is supposed to be in the UK and has made a request for political asylum. Can you comment?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    On the first question, my answer is no. There is no difference of view between us on that. On the other questions I have no comment to make. But I would refer you back to what was said earlier on which is that I consider that cooperation between France and the United Kingdom in the fight against terrorism is absolutely first class, it is efficient and I warmly welcome it.

    QUESTION:

    Could you tell us about what concrete steps have been taken to strengthen cooperation between the French and British governments in the fight against terrorism?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    When it comes to the fight against terrorism, it is not customary to announce publicly exactly what one is going to do, and I am sure you will understand that.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will just add one point to that. Although the President is entirely right in saying that we do not announce publicly what the cooperation is, let me just say two things to you. Firstly, the cooperation is already close; and secondly, the President and I agreed this morning on ways to make it closer yet. Terrorism is a scourge to all countries and we will work very closely in dealing with it, but I am afraid that we are not going to tell people precisely what we shall be doing.

    QUESTION:

    Did you talk about who might be the next Secretary General of NATO, whether it is clear that there will be a British candidate, and if there is not then can you both tell me what you think of the candidature of Ruud Lubbers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me respond to that first. We did consider the possibility not of one, I saw one British name being floated in the press, there were in fact a number of British names that we considered. But we also looked at other names that were already in the field. Dr Lubbers is not yet a formal candidate, I should make that entirely clear. But were Dr Lubbers to be a formal candidate for the Secretary General of NATO, I think he would receive strong support from the British government.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    And you will hardly be surprised to hear me say that there again we share the same view.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Daily Express):

    Prime Minister, do you agree that Euro-scepticism is a fad?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are many ways to describe Euro-realism, Euro-scepticism, Euro-philyism, Euro-phobism, there are all sorts of names. I think what is important is that one looks at the problems related to Europe with a clear and open mind and decides what is the answer most appropriate to the British interest and the European interest, and that is the way the government examines them.

    QUESTION (Tom Carver, BBC TV):

    Can both Presidents tell us what this new rapprochement that seems to exist is going to do for the much vaunted Franco-German axis that we have?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am grateful to be promoted to President but I fear it is not a title I can accept. I will leave the President to answer that.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    The Franco-German friendship, let me put it that way, is part and parcel of our destiny for reasons of history and geography that I don’t need to elaborate on here. But also because we are two countries at the very heart of Europe it was always clear that Europe would never get anywhere unless there was a clear understanding between France and Germany. If there is no understanding between France and Germany, there will be no Europe, full-stop. But Europe is not only France and Germany, Europe is also a number of other countries and a leading country of course is the United Kingdom with its traditions, with its history. And the United Kingdom cannot be on the sidelines. Therefore the cooperation between France and Germany, the understanding between France and Germany is absolutely essential but it is not enough, there has to be something else and that something else is the British presence. Clearly that is a reflection of British interests. And I think France is in a position to facilitate that necessary synergies between the British view of things and say the German view of things. One always tends to imagine that there are very considerable differences of view, but when one gets down to them and when one looks at them very closely one realises there is no difference which cannot be reduced. And I believe that Franco-British cooperation, which is going from strength to strength every year and is gaining in strength at each one of our meetings, is one of the important points for a vision of a sound stable Europe developing strongly into the future.

    QUESTION:

    Did you discuss the Quebec referendum and what is the position of Paris and London?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    The referendum is going on this very day and you will hardly expect me, nor the British Prime Minister, to make any comment on that.

    QUESTION (Magreb Press):

    Why has it taken so long for the former dominant powers in Africa to launch the present initiative, that is conflict resolution and peacekeeping, and what prompted the move?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I suppose one could always have done a good thing earlier. I think the fact that the President and I have discussed this on more than one occasion. We both in our own backgrounds have a direct interest in parts of Africa, it was a matter that naturally arose in our conversations some time ago and that we have subsequently taken forward. It clearly is important. If you look at what has happened in Africa over the last few years there are some people who will say, well it is very depressing to look at the problems in Africa. I think that is at best a half truth, and at worst a complete untruth. Because many of the changes that have taken place in Africa have been very beneficial. Many of the African governments are struggling very hard to turn away from bad economic policies to sound economic policies. Many of the African countries that were not democracies are moving towards being democracies. Of course there are some areas where things are not yet right, but a great deal of progress has been made and both the President and I would like to lend a helping hand, where we can, to that process.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    And I would just add one further point to that. There was reference earlier on to Euro-sceptics, now we are talking about Afro-pessimists. But I am neither one nor the other. And as far as Africa is concerned, I think that Africa is moving ahead in the right direction. And I fear that a lot of Afro-pessimists are in fact people who are trying to withdraw from Africa and trying to shuffle off the efforts which are necessary for the development of Africa. But I am optimistic for three reasons: firstly, Africa is moving ahead in the right direction; the rule of law is gaining ground; the management of public affairs in Africa is improving every year and that is I think clear when one looks at the increasing number of agreements which are entered into with the international financial institutions; thirdly, today African nations have understood that there are two things they must do – first of all they have to take into account regional interests and they also have to be involved in conflict resolution in order to avoid conflicts as far as that is possible. And those three developments I think are liable to give greater confidence to African peoples but also to Europeans who wish to participate in the development of Africa and that is why I am an Afro-optimist.

    QUESTION:

    You talked about advances in European construction thanks to excellent Franco-British cooperation, particularly on defence matters. But when you discuss matters like the EMS, the single currency, the IGC, is that not likely to hold back European construction, is that not pragmatism too?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I mentioned some of the areas in terms of what is loosely called European construction. I am always wary when people talk of European construction, it means different things to different people.

    As far as the Intergovernmental Conference is concerned, I set out a series of areas where it is clear already, before the Intergovernmental Conference begins, that there is a broadly common interest between the British position and the French position. There will not be unanimity on every issue between Britain and France, or indeed I suspect between almost any two countries in the European Union, total unanimity is a very rare proposition. But there is a good deal of unanimity and we will try and build on that in the Intergovernmental Conference. There will be some things that will be unacceptable to some nations and that is a matter that will need to be determined in the conference when it begins next year.

    As far as Monetary Union is concerned, the British position on that is well known, our position has not changed. I set it out pretty clearly in the Maastricht negotiations when I obtained for the British the right to opt-out of a Single European currency if that is formed and if it is not thought to be in the British interests to join. That was the position and that remains the position.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Just one comment as far as France is concerned. Let me first of all point out, if I may, that each time a debate of this kind gets going we are told that things are going very badly. But I think it is quite beyond challenge that Europe is progressing. Some people find that Europe is not moving ahead as quickly as possible, some people say not as well as possible, but basically it is moving ahead. Soon after I became President, France was the President of the European Council and I hosted a meeting in Cannes of 15 Heads of State and Government, plus 11 Heads of State and Government of countries which may one day become members of the European Union, and I have no recollection of there ever being a venture of this kind in history. Nobody thinks today that there could be such a thing as a war in Europe, if one excludes the unfortunate affair of ex-Yugoslavia. So I think that is real progress.

    Once you have got that far, you have of course other issues to deal with – the Intergovernmental Conference, the need to adjust the European institutions to an increasing number of member countries. That is necessary. Well we shall be tackling that issue and we shall be thinking pragmatically once again about the ways in which we can succeed in that reform. And on several points France, the United Kingdom, Germany, see eye to eye, on other points there are differences. Fine. But that is what diplomats are there for and that is precisely why we agree on a certain period of time necessary to come to an agreement. But I don’t doubt that eventually we shall come to an agreement on the best institutions which are best suited to the principles of each country and I hope that Europe will be enlarged, that it will be closer to its citizens thanks to the application of the principle of subsidiarity on which both British and French and Germans fully agree.

    Then you raised the issue of the currency, a big debate on the currency. You are familiar with the position I took during the French debate on Maastricht, I came out in favour of [indistinct] today I have made it very clear that whatever efforts need to be made and of course those efforts have to be properly distributed in France, but France will meet the conditions which will enable it to become a member of the single currency on 1 January 1999 – that is the French option. And I don’t think anybody can challenge today that France has the political will to do that because it is in our interests and we believe it is in our interests because it requires us to reduce our budget deficit and it is only by reducing our budget deficits that we shall be able to rise to the challenge of unemployment, and that is my objective, to fight against unemployment. Clearly fighting against unemployment means sound management and sound exchanges. France being what it is, I believe the single currency is a positive thing for France, it is something which will enable France to fight effectively against unemployment and to maintain social cohesion, which is something also which I have stated a great deal. And I would also say that it is a great French tradition, the single currency basically is an assertion of the stability of exchange rates, that is the objective of the single currency. And France’s objective, France’s view of things, has always been in favour of the stability of exchange rates. That was one of the major hobby-horses of General de Gaulle, whom you referred to earlier on, and it remains France’s unwavering position on monetary issues.

    The British Prime Minister has just recalled his position, which we are amply familiar. The United Kingdom, which does not have the same characteristics, the same constraints as France does, does not wish to have its hands tied. It wishes to keep full freedom to take that decision if and when it feels it is in its interests to do so. And I would observe that the UK will fulfil the criteria for monetary union if it wishes to embark upon it because its economic management is sound and reasonable. So the UK will have its hands entirely free to take the decision it feels fit to take and it will take that choice when it feels appropriate to do so. I am sure we will discuss it beforehand and I am sure the British government will discuss it with its British partners. We must respect the freedom of choice of the British government in this respect.

    QUESTION:

    Could you clarify something the Prime Minister said about global partnership. Does that mean that it is easier to have common foreign policy between countries which have a worldwide presence than within the 15 countries of the European Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, that was not what it was intended to convey. Though a common foreign policy, agreed by unanimity and not imposed by qualified majority vote, is a very attractive proposition for Europe.

    Clearly collectively if the whole of Europe agrees to a foreign policy then we are in a stronger position than if any one or two countries themselves agreed. But the remark I made about global partnership was not particularly geared to one aspect of policy like foreign policy, but geared to the range of interests that I set out, and the President set out, that are common both to France and the United Kingdom. We are the only two European nations that are nuclear powers, that have a worldwide interest, that sit on the United Nations Security Council, that have long-standing historical interests in large parts of the world like Africa and it is upon that basis that we have a common outlook on many problems. And it was that common outlook, based on common background, common history and common interests, that led the President and I to conclude that there was ample scope for a global partnership. And as we have indicated in defence and other areas, there are large areas that illustrate in very practical terms the extent of partnership that already exists today between Britain and France and we have both reiterated our determination to sustain those areas of agreement and to build on them wherever and whenever we think it appropriate.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 October 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Cash and Running Costs Limits

    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if there are any proposals to change the 1995-96 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office: Other Service vote.

    The Prime Minister: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Cabinet Office: Other Services (class XIX, vote 1) will be increased by £2,999,000 from £37,749,000 to £40,748,000. At the same time the running costs limit will be increased by £2,772,000 from £40,895,000 to £43,667,000.

    The increases reflect the residual transfer of running costs provision for central services previously funded by Her Majesty’s Treasury: administration (class XVII, vote 1) (£272,000) following the machinery of government changes announced on 16 December 1994. The vote is eligible for an increase of £2,747,000 in respect of end-year flexibility for running costs expenditure as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 1995, Official Report, columns 776-82. The supplementary estimate gives effect to £1,500,000 of this increase.

    The vote is also eligible for a cash limit increase of £1,227,000 in respect of end year flexibility arrangements for capital expenditure as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1995, Official Report, column 776-82. This supplementary estimate gives effect to the increase.

    Some £1,000,000 will be transferred from capital into running costs.

    All the increases are either offset by inter-departmental transfers or have been charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Cumbria – 27 October 1995

    Below, in abbreviated form, is Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Cumbria on 27th October 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Asked about President Yeltsin]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Very sorry he is ill and wish him a full and speedy recovery.

    He has made a remarkable contribution to democracy, not only in Russia but in the rest of the world.

    QUESTION:

    [Asked about the Conservative Party and family values]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have always been, and will always be, the party of the family.

    The Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill was introduced as a non-controversial bill. It implemented the recommendations of the Law Commission. It passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords and no objections were raised.

    My party believes in the institution of marriage. It is only right to examine the concerns which have now been expressed.

    QUESTION:

    [Asked about divorce]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Wait for the Queen’s Speech.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 26 October 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    British Workers (Japan)

    Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to discuss with the Japanese Government the position of those British workers in Japan who, after paying into the Japanese state retirement pension scheme, are eligible neither for a pension nor for a lump sum payment.

    The Prime Minister: Officials in the Department of Social Security have held informal, exploratory discussions with Japanese officials about a social security agreement between the two countries concentrating on matters of national insurance contribution liability. We have had no formal request from the Japanese Government for such an agreement, but any such approach would be carefully considered.

     

    Free Phone Numbers

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Departments and agencies that provide a free phone number allowing members of the public to pass on information regarding private individuals.

    The Prime Minister: This information is not held centrally.

     

    Young Scientists Contest

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister what were his engagements on 11 September; what factors made it impossible for him to accept an invitation to open a European contest for young scientists on that date; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have no record of an invitation to open such a contest on 11 September. I did receive an invitation, in February, to attend the meeting on 12 or 13 September, but I declined the invitation since I had no plans to be in Newcastle on that date; nor was I.

     

    Cabinet Committees

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish an updated list of ministerial Committees of the Cabinet.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 18 July, Official Report, columns 1005-12.

     

    Nuclear Test Veterans

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the campaign led by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association for recognition and compensation for those veterans who participated in or witnessed nuclear tests held by the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 25 May, Official Report, column 662.

     

    Public Appointments, South Yorkshire

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due, and the salary;

    (2) if he will list all the non-departmental public bodies to which his Office makes appointments in the county of South Yorkshire, with the total annual budget for each body and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last four years.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes, my Office is part of the Cabinet Office–Office of Public Service. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

     

    Scottish Breast Campaign

    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister how many postcards he has received from the Scottish Breast Campaign; and to how many of these he has replied.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 October 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 16 October, Official Report, column 23.

     

    Duke of Windsor (Papers)

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on information relating to (a) the conduct of the Duke of Windsor in World War Two, (b) Anthony Blunt’s visit to Schloss Friedricshof in April 1945 and (c) documents taken from Schloss Friedricshof in 1945 held by Her Majesty’s Government; and when this information will be available for public inspection.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 October 1995]: Papers removed from Schloss Friedricshof by Sir Owen Morshead, the King’s Librarian, and Anthony Blunt in 1945 were returned to Schloss Friedricshof in 1951.

    Papers relating to the Duke of Windsor’s passage through Spain and Portugal in 1940 were published in 1957 in volume X of “Documents on German Foreign Policy”.

     

    United Nations Day

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what engagements he had to mark United Nations Day.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 October 1995]: I attended the United Nations 50th anniversary commemorative summit meeting in New York between 22 and 24 October.

     

    French Nuclear Tests

    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss French nuclear testing in the Pacific in his forthcoming meeting with President Jacques Chirac of France.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 October 1995]: I shall be holding talks with President Chirac on 30 October, during the Anglo- French summit. It is expected that the talks will cover a wide range of current issues.

     

    Joseph Rotblat

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister what communications he has had with Joseph Rotblat on winning the Nobel peace prize.

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister what correspondence he has had with Professor Joseph Rotblat since the award to him of the Nobel peace prize; what assessment he has made of the works of the Pugwash Foundation; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 October 1995]: None.

     

    Employee Fraud

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of his (a) office and (b) non-departmental public bodies for each year from 1991 92 to 1994 95; and for each of these years, what was the total monetary sum (1) misappropriated in such frauds and (2) subsequently recovered.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 October 1995]: None.

  • PMQT – 26 October 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 October.

    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. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to reaffirm his opposition to terrorism and, in doing so, make it his policy to condemn unreservedly the selection by the Labour party in Exeter of a self-confessed terrorist as its candidate? Does not that action illustrate most clearly that the Labour party is utterly unfit for government?

    The Prime Minister: I am wholly opposed to any act of terrorism, and I have no doubt that the majority of people in Exeter will feel the same.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the changes in housing benefit revealed today will mean that thousands of vulnerable people–pensioners, disabled people and families with young children–will lose help and be confronted with poverty or eviction? How can that possibly be fair? Is it not the clearest evidence of the Conservative party’s lurch to the right and the death of one nation conservatism?

    The Prime Minister: Indeed it is not. My party remains in the centre of politics, and that is where it will always be. The right hon. Gentleman’s outrage is rather artificial because he obviously believes that this morning’s story was a leaked document: in fact, it relates to measures approved by the House last July.

    Mr. Blair: The question is whether the measures are right. If the problem is the soaring housing benefit bill, does the Prime Minister accept that that bill has increased under his Government as a result of Government policy? Housing benefit has increased as housing investment has been slashed.

    If the problem, as was suggested by the Secretary of State for Social Security, is private landlords charging excessive rent, is not it sensible to tackle that problem head-on instead of using vulnerable and innocent tenants as pawns to clear up a mess of the Government’s own making?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he had spent one single day in government, he would know that the Government have to take difficult decisions to control expenditure throughout the budget. This is the Labour leader who said that he was in favour of hand-ups, not handouts; this is the party that has said that it wants to take a very radical look at the whole system of social security to try to ensure that money is spent in the best possible way; yet, whatever Labour Members may say about fiscal control, whenever there is a difficult decision to be taken they will oppose it. That is why they will spend on every occasion and tax on every occasion. If they had had their way, public spending would be half national income and tax would be where it was when they left office.

    Mr. Blair: If we had had our way, we would not have slashed housing investment, which has produced the rise in housing benefit. The Prime Minister is perfectly justified in saying that, if there is a problem, it should be tackled. I have given him a specific way of tackling it. Why does not he tackle directly the excessive rents being charged by private landlords rather than make tenants the victims?

    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman commit himself–I hope that the whole country heard it–to rent control. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done–

    Mr. Blair indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: Yes, he has–he cannot shake his head. What he has just said is a Labour commitment to rent control–presumably in the private sector, which would mean no more available lettings. Presumably, in the public sector he would hold down rents artificially and push up the amount of borrowing and tax. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know how to deal with housing and matters of that sort he should look at some of his own boroughs such as Hackney, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Southwark and Islington, which among them have 6,000 empty council houses. They are all in good repair and ready to be let out, but none is available because of the chronic inefficiency and stupidity of Labour local authorities.

    Mr. Viggers: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to see the report of the chief inspector of constabulary which, for the first time, includes some national indicators of the performance of the local, county police establishments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report contains some useful ideas, including the use of advanced technology, the increased use of community resources and better targeting of resources? Does he agree that that is a matter on which we can assist the police to be more efficient?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I have no doubt about that. I have not yet seen that report in detail, but I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to study it and report to me on its contents.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that the number of primary school pupils in classes of more than 40 has risen by 30 per cent. in the past year? Does he understand why parents and governors are deeply concerned about that? Does he still believe that class sizes do not matter?

    The Prime Minister: Of course every aspect of education matters, but what matters most is the quality of teaching, which we are seeking to improve. We have introduced a series of measures to do that in recent years, most of which have been visibly and volubly opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his party.

    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme and grammar schools are immensely popular with parents? What conclusions does he think parents should draw from the fact that, although the Labour party is committed to the abolition of the assisted places scheme and grammar schools, 19 out of 24 members of the shadow Cabinet attended grammar schools or exclusive fee-paying schools?

    The Prime Minister: Extending choice and opportunity is central to our education policy–it is what we believe parents want and we are delivering it. The Labour party’s policies are yet another case of double-think: Labour Members go to good schools, but want to abolish them; they send their children to good schools, but want to abolish them. I read that the shadow Cabinet is now going to Templeton college for the weekend–it had better watch out for its future.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 October.

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

    Mr. Gerrard: How can the Prime Minister justify his earlier answers, which defended housing benefit cuts that will attack some of the most vulnerable and poorest people? Does he believe that they should be forced to make up the short-fall in their rent from money that they need to survive–even using money such as their war pensions? Does it not show the Government’s complete abandonment of any sense of social justice or priority?

    The Prime Minister today attacks poor people, but only two weeks ago he stood at the Tory party conference promising to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax.

    The Prime Minister: The cheap insults from the Labour party are becoming increasingly silly. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman something about protecting the vulnerable: low-income families with children have received extra help–now worth more than £1 billion a year–since 1988. Extra help for poor pensioners has increased to £1.2 billion since 1988. In the past two years we have introduced help with child care worth up to £38 per week for the least well-off in work. We have introduced jobseeker’s agreements that are tailored to individual needs and a package of work incentives worth £700 million. All those initiatives are targeted to the people who are most in need in this country. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman saw what is really being done to help those in need and recognised that that sort of help is possible only if Governments resist some other elements of expenditure.

    Mr. David Evans: May I tell my right hon. Friend that, unlike Labour Members, we on this side are totally united behind our leader? Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether in five years at the Dispatch Box he has ever had to bail out one of his Front Bench spokesmen for total incompetence? Is he aware that last Thursday Bambi, the leader of the Labour party, showed the nation on live television what Conservative Members have known for years: Labour Members are all totally incompetent? In other words, they are men of straw.

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not have the same gift for understatement as my hon. Friend. We all noticed the Leader of the Opposition trying to rescue the shadow Home Secretary last Thursday–and we all noticed that he failed.

     

    Q3. Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 October.

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

    Mr. Watson: The Prime Minister will be aware of the recent announcement by the Secretaries of State for Health and for Scotland of the ban on general practitioners prescribing the drug Temazepam in gel-filled capsules. Contrary to the advice of almost all statutory and non-statutory agencies, including the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse and the Scottish drugs forum, the drug remains available in other forms simply to save about £15 million in public expenditure–the cost of prescribing alternatives.

    Does the Prime Minister believe that the loss of young lives, which will continue to occur–particularly in Glasgow, but also in every other major city in the country–as a result of the availability of Temazepam, is a price worth paying for the short-term advantage of the Government’s desperate search for pre-election tax cuts?

    The Prime Minister: The depths to which some Labour Members sometimes sink in their questions helps me to understand why the public have such a low opinion of politicians generally. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland acted on the medical advice that he received and he will continue to do so in the future.

    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proportion of asylum seekers who come to Britain is rising, whereas the number is falling in other European countries? Is that not precisely because this country is not the clapped-out, impoverished nation that the Labour party pretends it is? Is it not time to strengthen our protection against those who have no right to be in this country?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend is right about the proportion of asylum seekers in this country. Other countries have tightened their asylum procedures and we think that we should re-examine them as well. However, some of the stories that I have seen in the last 24 hours and some of the comments that I have heard from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are entirely absurd. They are inaccurate and misleading and they would better not have been made. There is no doubt that we will honour our United Nations convention obligations and there is no doubt that claims will be considered individually. I hope that the activities of the shadow Home Secretary have not raised too many fears.

     

    Q4. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 October.

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

    Mr. Winnick: Can the Prime Minister explain the purpose of setting up the Nolan committee if one of its main recommendations–the disclosure of outside financial interests–is rubbished and rejected by Tory Members of Parliament? Does not the Prime Minister understand that the general public will contrast the rejection of the Nolan committee’s very important recommendation with the way in which Tory Members of Parliament vote time and again to undermine the position of the poorest people in our society?

    The Prime Minister: As I told the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), we set out innumerable ways–and I will give the hon. Gentleman a much longer list if he wishes–of helping people in great need in this country, and that will continue to be the case. The Nolan committee was established to report to the House and did so. A Select Committee is considering its report, and we will consider and vote on the Select Committee’s report shortly.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Having known Sir John Templeton well for many years, and having attended the launch of the Templeton college in Oxford, I share my right hon. Friend’s sentiments about the dangers of a visit by Labour Members to that college. Does not my right hon. Friend think it extraordinary that the Labour party should accuse the Conservative party of being uncaring when, with unemployment dropping in this country — unlike in most other countries in Europe– we are increasing our social security year by year? Is that the sign of an uncaring Government?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point most forcefully. Unemployment has dropped more dramatically here than in any other major country of western Europe. Unemployment is also below the level of other countries and our degree of social security protection is above it. As my hon. Friend said, Templeton college is a centre of excellence. Therefore, with this Labour party, it must be in danger.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 October 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Belfast

    Rev. Martin Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to visit Belfast, South.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has at present no plans to do so.

     

    Engagements

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

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the commemorations for the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in New York.