The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Institute of Directors – 24 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Institute of Directors in London on Wednesday 24th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen. A few moments ago, David, you encouraged us with details of your latest business confidence survey. I suppose I might call it a sort of alternative news summary on how I hope it forms the basis of the real news summary in the days that lie ahead. Clearly what is happening in the economy is of crucial importance to all the plans we have.

    What I think that survey confirmed is what many of us have felt for some time: the economic prospects are bright, they will get brighter, and increasingly we have a lot to be confident about in this country. And I think it is time to be positive – I hope that message will be carried through to people up and down the country. This pervading atmosphere of gloom that so many people have perpetrated does no good to them, no good to the country, no good to our prospects and there is no conceivable justification for it. It is about time for the gloom-mongers to depart and for us to look more clearly at the prospects that lie ahead.

    The centre of your debate today is Europe. And firstly this morning I want to set out my view of the opportunities it offers and the fierce debate that almost invariably surrounds it. I would like to set out how I see the future of Europe over the coming years and what I see as Britain’s place in it.

    For the last 30 years, Europe has been the great explosive issue of British politics. Our membership of the European Community, as it was then called, was confirmed in a referendum in 1975. Today there are some who question that membership in each political party and in the media.

    I understand the concerns and frustrations that lead to that questioning, in many ways I don’t find it surprising. For years past some have portrayed Europe only in the most negative terms. Every frustration is played up, often inaccurately; every benefit denied at worst, or ignored at best. And in these circumstances it is little wonder that the European Union has become so unpopular in the United Kingdom.

    But there is another side to the picture. I also see clearly the hard-headed benefits that Britain has gained from its membership. And as Prime Minister, I believe it does the country no service whatsoever to suggest that the only choice we face is either to go along with every demand our partners make, or to head for the exit. That is naive, it is damaging and in my judgment it is just plain wrong.

    We are in Europe and we all know that we are staying in Europe. And anyone who seriously thinks of leaving should perhaps explain to the nation precisely what that would mean. What, I wonder, would be the impact on inward investment, which accounts for three-quarters of a million jobs in manufacturing alone? Would the Nissans, the Toyotas, the Samsungs still be so keen to come here if we were not playing a leading role in the European Union? What would be the effect on the city and the great exporting companies were we to leave the Union? Would we be taken more seriously, or less seriously, in the wider world? And why have more and more countries in Europe, including some of the most prosperous, decided to join the European Union in recent years?

    Some suggest we could just negotiate a trading relationship with Europe. But I must be frank with you. The idea that if we were outside the European Union we could somehow become a trading haven on the edge of Europe, with all the benefits of that vital market of 370 million, while others fix the rules without any regard whatsoever to our vital national interest, seems to me to be cloud cuckoo land. This country is an international trading nation, it is not a little England, and it must never become so.

    So the first point is, we are staying in Europe, that is not in dispute. But the second is where the battle must be joined, and that is what sort of Europe are we staying in, and how do we address and remove the legitimate concerns that so many people have in this country?

    Let me be frank. Some politicians in Europe do have an agenda of ever greater integration, an intent to subsume states into common institutions in order to prevent the re-emergence of old national ambitions and rivalries. And they believe in that integration just as passionately as many of us oppose it.

    I understand and I respect their views, they reflect the long experience of wars and conflicts right across the continent – a different experience from ours in this country. But I don’t believe they are the right way to develop European cooperation. The nation state that we care about so much lends security, comfort and familiarity and people need that more than ever at a time of change and insecurity.

    You cannot legislate for a common nationality or a common sense of identity. The nations of Europe have developed over centuries, their cultural traditions can’t be eradicated by a simple stroke of the pen, and nor should they be. That would not carry the consent of the peoples of Europe, whether in Britain or elsewhere. And if politicians ignore those realities we would increase rather than reduce conflicts and tensions across Europe, we would set at risk all that Europe has achieved.

    So we in Britain are not going down that centralising route. At Maastricht I said no to policies that I thought would be damaging to the interests of this country. And if I had not won on those critical issues, there would have been no treaty for there would have been no agreement. And equally on the intergovernmental conference we have set out our position. Nothing can be imposed upon us in the intergovernmental conference unless we agree to it. And if it isn’t in our interest, I will not agree to it, I will just say ‘No’.

    But I don’t seek confrontation and nor do I expect it. In negotiation the European Union can be tough, but in the end it must respect and accept the vital interests of its member nation states.

    There are things that we don’t like about Europe, but we must fight them on the arguments, not on the basis of stereotypes and slogans, they do no good to our interests or to our prospects of success. And my personal view is quite clear. Although there are many things in Europe we would like to change, there is a lot that helps us. The balance is in our advantage. Not every decision, of course is exactly what we would have liked, but neither is every decision comfortable for every other country. We aim to build in the years ahead, in the conference and beyond the conference, a Europe that is more in our image and more to our taste. If we win the argument to build a Europe of nation states, all of Europe will benefit. Equally, if others choose to go in a direction that we reject, they need to recognise that we will stand our ground and not follow them in that direction. The Europe that evolves will be flexible, and it will need to be flexible to recognise and accommodate our national interests and beliefs, as well as theirs.

    The European debate must take into account not only national interests and sensitivities, but economic realities. And upon those economic realities I want to concentrate for a few moments. Today we live, as no audience knows better than this one, in the most competitive business environment we have known. Competing against countries around the world is an everyday reality. The man in the street in Manchester, Milan or Munich is not only competing with someone else in Europe, he is up against someone on the other side of the globe as well working in Seoul, Shanghai or Singapore. And we compete successfully or we fail, and if we fail, we go out of business. And that is the main challenge facing all businessmen. We need hard-edged policies to address these challenges. Business must win the battles for contracts, not government. But the decisions that government make, and the policies they follow, can help or they can hinder. And if governments get things badly wrong, they will condemn their businesses inevitably to defeat.

    Many people talk about competitiveness, but over 17 years of government our commitment to competitiveness is a matter of record and an article of faith. To be competitive we had to overcome problems that have beset Britain for generations. In the 1980s we tackled the excessive union power that was throttling British enterprise, and Norman Tebbit will speak to you later, and your own President, had a key part in that particular battle, so successfully won.

    In the 1990s we have inflation at the moment under better lock and key than it has been for generations, and it is never a battle that is permanently won, and if we were to take the arm-lock off inflation, we would begin to face the problems we have seen in previous years. For decades inflation was the scourge of the British economy, fuelling industrial strife, discouraging investment and making long term planning quite impossible. Now we are enjoying the longest run of low inflation for nearly 50 years.

    And not only is that vital for business. If anyone has ever lived in circumstances in which if the bills go up at the end of the week it is difficult to know how they will be paid – they will understand the true wickedness of letting inflation get out of hand and I have no intention of letting that happen again.

    In the 1980s we began to return to the private sector businesses that used to be badly run in the public sector at the taxpayers’ expense. They are now profitable companies bidding in markets the world over.

    In the 1990s we have tackled the more difficult privatisations, such as coal, successfully privatised in 1994 and now the most efficient coal industry anywhere in Europe. On rail, impossible according to some, quite extraordinary people decided they weren’t in favour of the private sector running British Rail. I sometimes think they forgot who built up the rail network in the first place. And yet that privatisation is now well under way and delivering benefits – new services, new investment, new improvements to stations and in my judgment a much better service for the train user is certainly going to come about as a result of these changes.

    Always, right the way through the ‘80s and right into the ’90s, there was always someone saying that each privatisation was one privatisation too far – mustn’t do that, it is change, it is uncomfortable, it is trusting that wicked private sector with something that has been run so comfortably, but so inefficiently, in the public sector. So those pessimists were wholly wrong, they have had to eat their words as one privatisation after another has proved to be a success.

    And above all, to be competitive as a nation we have had to get spending under control. It is now coming down again and tax rates have come down with it. British business now has the second lowest burden of business taxation of any G7 country – 6 percent of GDP in Britain, compared with 9 percent in Germany, 14 percent in France.

    We now have an economy that is more successful and has better prospects than for a generation. No longer do we look at our European competitors and wonder what their secret is, now they are beginning to envy our success here in the United Kingdom.

    Across Europe they know that Britain is the number one destination for inward investment in the European Union, second only to the United States worldwide. They know it is Britain that has Europe’s leading financial centre and the lion’s share of Europe’s most profitable companies. They know it is Britain that has got the lowest unemployment of any major European country and more of our people actually in work than any other major European country. They know that Britain has grown faster than the G7 average each year since 1993 and is expected to do so again this year and again next year.

    We have in place all of the ingredients for a rapid growth in prosperity. Life is better, and it should get better yet, but not if we turn our back on the policies that have carved out these opportunities in the first place. Not if we are seduced by candyfloss promises instead of continuing to make the hard choices. Only if we keep on sharpening our national competitive edge will Britain be able to go on winning in the fierce global market place.

    I want Britain to be in the front rank of industrial nations. So I have a clear objective for this country’s future – to make Britain the enterprise centre of Europe. That means policies that build on our strengths and it means we must learn the lessons from the world’s fastest growing economies. It means sound responsible economic management – easy to say, not so easy to deliver. But inflation has wrecked too many, recoveries in the past for us to risk throwing that prize away now. It means finding room to reduce taxes by keeping the lid on public expenditure. That is the only way to keep taxes down and then to get them lower still. And that is why, as the economy grows, we are committed to getting spending back down below 40 percent of national income and keeping it there, and that compares to something over 50 percent amongst our partners in Europe. And as we do so, we will press on towards our target of a 20 pence standard rate of income tax and the abolition of capital taxes.

    We need an enterprise culture that runs right through society, one that encourages the belief that individuals can themselves, by their own efforts and their own actions, make a difference. And that is why I am determined to stand up for the risk-takers, whether it is the people who are ready to take on and run a piece of the railway, or the companies that will shake up our gas, and electricity, and water markets as competition comes, or the thousands upon thousands of people up and down the country who risk everything they have to make their own small business a success.

    And I want more people to have a stake in enterprise. In the last budget, Ken Clarke made it even more attractive for companies to get their workers involved as shareholders. Now it is up to industry to play its part. Many of you of course already have employee share schemes and I hope more of you will. My challenge to you is simple, let us see if we can have a majority of workers in Britain’s large companies holding shares in those companies by the end of this decade. It is eminently achievable and it will do a great service to the spread of capitalism.

    Britain is a global trading nation and will remain so, that is both our history and our future but what we trade in will change. Much of tomorrow’s trade will be in information, in technology, in software, in communications and here Britain, with its skills and culture, its trading links right across the globe and the huge incalculable advantage of the English language, is well equipped to take on the world and to win those battles but we can only do it if our young people have the skills they need and that is why progress in education is so important and why we have continued so rigorously with our education reforms.

    We have seen a massive explosion in the number of people going into higher education in recent years. In 1979, 1 in 8 of our young people went into higher education; today, no longer 1 in 8, today it is 1 in 3. We are making progress in schools through the national curriculum, through tests and inspection and league tables and vocational education. We are shining a searchlight on the things that went wrong in education. Sometimes, when they become apparent it is embarrassing but it is better to be embarrassed and to have the information so that we can put it right than to let education remain a secret garden when we are not turning out the right sort of skills in our youngsters that industry will need and that they will need for their own life satisfaction.

    But we mustn’t only look at the schools. We need to ensure that every adult in Britain understands the opportunities to learn new skills, to take advantage of new technology at work or at leisure. We need to open the nation’s mind to the opportunities that lie ahead so we are getting together with industry on a project for the millennium to let as many people as possible try out computers in schools, in libraries, in shops in the high street, wherever it can be arranged to give them the opportunity to see for themselves and to develop the skills that will equip them and all of us for the changes that lie ahead as we move towards the new century.

    Our route to success in the challenging, competitive markets of tomorrow is built upon sound finance, low taxes, the liberation of enterprise, the skills and the capabilities to compete and a global trading ambition to reach out for the markets of tomorrow. Indeed, I believe that is the only way to deliver the wealth, the prosperity, the jobs, the opportunities that this country needs and that the people of this country deserve. It is the only way to meet the challenge of the future.

    We would like all of Europe to adopt competitive policies and succeed. There is nothing altruistic about that. We have nothing to gain here in this country if the market on our doorstep goes into decline and if Europe does not put competitiveness at the top of its agenda it will decline and that is why I regret so much that Europe has not yet completed the single market. It should and soon, starting perhaps with some concrete progress on the single market for energy. Energy bills account for a huge proportion of industry’s costs and Europe’s businesses can ill afford to pay over the odds for it.

    The same goes for telecommunications. Thanks to privatisation and liberalisation, prices in Britain have tumbled by almost 24 per cent in real terms over the last 5 years. That hasn’t happened in other countries, in the Netherlands for example, where prices have increased by more than 6.5 per cent over the same period, a 30 per cent difference with the drop in the United Kingdom. Here at least, though, there is the promise of progress.to complete the single market with full liberalisation due by 1998 and what a shame as well that negotiations to create a single market in pension funds have come close to stalling since some countries are simply not willing to give up their national captive markets.

    Europe as a whole is never going to compete and win in the world if it cannot even bear competition in its home market so Europe must proceed to complete the single market as soon as possible.

    Nor can it be right or justifiable that Europe still tolerates huge state aids for some countries’ air lines – that just rewards inefficiency and punishes success – and here too the result is higher prices when what Europe needs is the lower prices that competition and deregulation will surely bring.

    I understand, I know why people are reluctant to change, they want to protect jobs. We all want that but jobs are most secure when companies are most successful. The social polices of some of our partners sound very attractive and they advocate them with great self-belief but I believe they are misguided and they destroy jobs. Across Europe, companies are feeling the pain. Much of Germany’s new-job creation is now in Poland or the Czech Republic and in Britain too which, according to the President of the BDI has “the most effective job-producing machine’ in Europe” and I agree with the President upon that point.

    In France last month, Brittany Ferries tried to get the government to cut the social costs it must bear as a French employer with a French workforce. Employing 2,500 workers, it claims that it pays up to 18 million pounds a year more than would be paid by a similar British employer. A spokesman was quoted as saying that he wanted “to level the playing field, to find a way of giving us the same overheads as Britain.” Again he is right. He asks for that with good reason.

    The difference between our employment costs and Europe’s is stark. For every £100 he pays in wages, a British employer has to add £18 in non-wage costs. Quite enough you might think but in Germany not £18 but £32; in Spain £34; in France £41; and in Italy £44 and that is the measure of the cost of excessive regulation and that explains also the attitude that I took and take upon the European Social Chapter. Those costs explain why it would be against our interests to be part of the Social Chapter.

    Let us be plain about it! It isn’t just what is in the Chapter now, it is also a question of what would go into the Chapter if Britain signed it. The Social Chapter isn’t a finite list of specific measures, it is a mechanism, a mechanism to implement unspecified social policies in many cases by qualified majority voting so we would have no veto to protect British businesses. If we signed up to it, we would emphatically not be able to pick and choose which bits of it we wanted and at the moment the British opt-out focuses minds on the Continent on the competitive cost of more social regulation, it acts as a brake on further measures but if that brake went, if we signed it, if we were part of it, we would then see an avalanche of new measures building on other countries’ existing traditions and many of those measures would be precisely the sort of policies that we have spent the last 17 years getting rid of and I don’t want them back on the backs of British industry and British employers. [Applause].

    Look at the sort of over-zealous – I think that describes it accurately – over-zealous employment regulations some of our partners have at national level. For example, in Germany, if your firm has more than 5 permanent staff you can’t cut staff without consulting the works council, pretty inconvenient I would have thought for huge companies striving in a very difficult market and if you want to work overtime in Luxembourg, you need government consent to work overtime. I could give you further examples but I will spare both you and our partners from them.

    Just ask yourself this question: If all of Europe were in the Social Chapter, we signed up to it and became part of it, wouldn’t it be more tempting and less painful for our partners to try and foist the same rules on everyone rather than putting their own house in order? The answer to that is self-evident, of course it would and that is why we shouldn’t sign it. The Social Chapter could make jobs one of our fastest-growing export businesses and that is not in our interests.

    Mr. President, at Maastricht I negotiated what became called “an opt-out from the Social Chapter”. That will remain but it must remain effective and in some ways there is a risk to it at the moment. I am not prepared to see that opt-out, undermined by the creative use of other articles of the treaty such as health and safety at work. We agreed those provisions in 1985 to deal with matters of genuine health and safety. Recent attempts to use them as the basis for imposing the working-time directive on Britain go far beyond what we agreed to and not only that, they breach the understanding I reached at Maastricht when I negotiated our opt-out from the Social Chapter.

    I have told our European partners in clear and distinct terms that we must change the health and safety provisions so that they reflect the more limited scope that was originally intended and that we originally agreed to and I take this very seriously. We cannot be expected to have confidence in European agreements if they are subsequently undermined by shifts in interpretation. I do not want to be misunderstood about this. If old agreements are to be broken, I do not see how we can reach new agreements.

    Mr. President, I want Europe to succeed. I have no doubt that our best interests are as part of the sort of Europe that I have tried to sketch out this morning but I don’t believe that Europe will succeed unless it faces the tough decisions necessary to win in tomorrow’s world and if it doesn’t, it isn’t only our continental partners that will lose, we will lose as well and that is why we need to be in the middle of the argument in Europe, not at the sidelines in the middle of the argument, arguing for the sort of Europe we believe in and care about and the business environment that will bring prosperity to our countries right across Europe.

    Every time I go to south east Asia or the United States or Japan, I see the growth of competition that is coming from those parts of the world, I see how much of the world’s market they are eating up day after day after day after day and I ask myself: if Europe doesn’t lift its eyes and begin to see what is happening elsewhere in the world rather than in Europe, what will be our competitive position and our place in the world in 10 years or 20 years from now?

    Those are the points at issue, that is why we are having the disputes that so often hit the daily headlines with our European partners. It isn’t a matter of this trivial subject, that trivial subject, this occasional dispute or that occasional dispute; it is a question of the direction in which Europe goes and whether it will go in a direction that can make it successful and competitive or whether it will shrink in on itself and find that slowly but inexorably it has less influence, less competition, less wealth, less prosperity and matters less in the world and fighting that battle is very much in our British national interest.

    Mr. President, I don’t believe you make business more competitive by hitting them with extra costs like the Social Chapter, I don’t believe you create more jobs by imposing a minimum wage – and Heaven alone knows, with nearly 20 million people unemployed in Europe we need those jobs – I don’t believe you support the force of market by resisting privatisation, private ownership, which is what most people in most parts of the world have now accepted.

    Why should we find it rejected in parts of some of the very centres of capitalism itself in western Europe? And you don’t reward hard work and initiative by a policy of high spending and high taxes not fair on the individual and crippling to the competitiveness of companies.

    These are policies of importance, they are policies that if we don’t fight for in Europe I cannot see who will and if Europe doesn’t fight for them or a British government doesn’t fight for them, then the long-term impact of what happens in Europe and the washback upon what happens in this country scarcely bears contemplating. That is why I say we must be in the centre of the argument, that is why I don’t want the argument conducted in stereotypes on one extreme of the argument or the other extreme of the argument. We will never find everything in Europe to our taste, in truth we never believed we would but we need to make sure the balance of advantage is there for Europe and for us and for our future and these are central issues that are coming up for discussion in the inter-governmental conference and in decisions that will be taken beyond it.

    We have seen for the first time in many years that we are more competitive than our European partners because we have followed the policies I have been talking about. We had a good argument to put over. We need to lift the atmosphere of confidence right across this country so that we can conduct our arguments with our European partners with confidence so that they don’t say: “Well, you are only saying that because there are disputes about European policy at home!”. We are saying it because we believe in it, believe in it for us and believe in it for them.

    Mr. President, life in Britain is better than it has been for generations, our membership of Europe has on balance helped make it better. It can be better yet and we need, all of us – government, business big and small and individuals in every part of the country – to approach the decisions ahead determined to protect what has been achieved and then to build on it for the future. That is my responsibility and I intend to discharge it. The arguments will be difficult but I believe they can be won and I believe they will be won. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Greek Prime Minister – 23 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Greek Prime Minister, Mr Simitis, in London on Tuesday 23rd April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just say how much I welcome the Prime Minister’s visit here to Downing Street today and very much welcome him into his new responsibilities.

    We have had the opportunity this afternoon of a fairly wide ranging discussion. The Anglo-Greek relationship is extremely good. We think it could be closer and better, we think we can improve the trade and investment flow between our two countries and we have taken some time in discussing that. We have also looked at developments in the European Union, coming up to the intergovernmental conference and beyond the intergovernmental conference, and we have discussed the Cypriot problem of course and the relationship between Greece and Turkey and a number of other matters. I won’t go into the details of all our discussion so we will happily take a few questions in a few moments.

    MR SIMITIS:

    We had a very good and fruitful discussion with Mr Major. Mr Major mentioned the main problems we discussed – British-Greek relations, trade relations, cultural relations, our politics in the Balkans, the European Union problems, Greece and Turkey relations and the Cyprus problem. There are differences of views but there are also many common points, and I think on the basis of our discussions we can continue to work together and to find solutions to all problems.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I agree.

    QUESTION:

    In which area did you find support from the Greek Prime Minister on [inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you had better ask the Prime Minister, our position is pretty well known.

    MR SIMITIS:

    As far as the European Union is concerned, we have a common view on the question of unanimity of decisions on foreign policy. We think also that matters of the economic and monetary union are not yet clear and must be cleared and discussed in future. And there are certain questions concerning the revision of the Maastricht Treaty that are not yet right for decision and that is why they must be looked at by both countries.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We think the time is right to have another serious push at trying to reach an agreement on the Cyprus problem. I very much hope before too long that Cyprus will be able to join the European Union, and in order to ensure that that is facilitated, we need to look again to see whether or not we can reach a conclusion to the problem in Cyprus. I think the Prime Minister as well is dedicated to seeking a solution. We know it won’t be easy. We have had 29 years to discover that it is not going to be easy, but we agreed that it is well worth trying and I think there will be a concerted push to do so.

    QUESTION:

    What is the British position on the problem of Imya [phon]?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We think it should go to the International Court of Justice, yes.

    QUESTION:

    Did you manage to find agreement on the beef problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There aren’t enough people to reach agreement on the beef problem. Douglas Hogg has been discussing this in Brussels today. I understand he has made some progress, I haven’t got a full report yet so I don’t quite know how much progress has been made. But over the last few days I made some progress when I had the meeting in Moscow at the end of last week, the Foreign Secretary pursued the matter further on Monday, the Agricultural Minister today. So I think we are moving to a position that is a good deal better than it was a few days ago, but I had better get further information before I say any more.

    MR SIMITIS:

    I want to add to what Mr Major has said, that we have discussed the matter and I will ask the Greek scientists to look at the facts that the British government will present and they will decide on the basis of the facts.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Cinema – 23 April 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on cinema, made on Tuesday 23rd April 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [asked about the first time Mr Major visited the cinema]

    JOHN MAJOR:

    I can’t remember the first time I went to the cinema, but I can remember as a boy I used to go to Saturday morning cinemas. They had a whole series of things that appealed to boys, Tom Micks, Roy Rogers, Tarzan of course, Batman and Robin, Dick Barton, that ages me somewhat, but Dick Barton I seem to remember as well and many of these were series. You went on Saturday at the end of the Saturday morning the film ended at some dramatic moment and you’d return the next week to see what happened and I got into the habit of film going at a very young age.

    QUESTION:

    [asked if he could remember the first film he saw]

    JOHN MAJOR:

    I remember a number of films from the forties that I probably saw in the early fifties. The old black and white version of How Green was my Valley. Whether that was the first or not I can’t be certain. It was certainly one of the first films I saw and a very good film it was too.

    QUESTION:

    [what genre of film does he like]

    JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m not excessively fond of comedies. Musicals I like, drama I like. I don’t think there’s a special genre, no. I have a fairly full taste.

    QUESTION:

    [asked if he has any heroes or heroines]

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I wouldn’t call them heroes or heroines, certainly not, but I thought Henry Hathaway was a great director and David Lean was self-evidently a great director and I think as far as actors are concerned, the person who didn’t enjoy a John Wayne film I’ve never yet met. I’ve always enjoyed John Wayne. Humphrey Bogart I think was a great actor. I greatly enjoyed almost everything that Bogart did. So I think they’d be among them, but certainly many more as well. One of the finest acting performances I remember is again a very old film, it’s the Olivier version of Richard III which I’ve watched more times than I can remember.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 April 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    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.

     

    Lake Kojanovskoe, Russia

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had at the Groups of Eight nuclear safety and security summit in Moscow of radioactive contamination of Lake Kojanovskoe.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 April 1996]: The specific questions of contamination levels in Lake Kojanovskoe did not arise at the summit.

     

    Third-party Liability Convention

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what reasons he had from the Ukraine and Russia in respect of the signature and ratification of the Vienna convention on third-party liability.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 April 1996]: I understand that both Russia and the Ukraine have indicated that they intend to join the Vienna convention. As a first step, both are currently in the process of developing compatible national legislation.

     

    Beef Industry

    Sir Julian Critchley: To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in respect of requiring the feed and meat processing industries to make a contribution to the culling of the nation’s cows.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement to the House on 16 April, Official Report, columns 513-16, covering measures for the removal of cattle over 30 months of age from the human food chain, and on the possibility of a selective cull of animals potentially at high risk from bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  • PMQT – 23 April 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir

    Q1. Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister when he intends next to meet the Prime Minister of India to discuss Kashmir.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I have no plans at present to meet the Indian Prime Minister. I look forward to an early opportunity to do so following the Indian elections, which begin later this month.

    Mr. Madden: Does the Prime Minister share the growing international view that the conflict over Kashmir presents the gravest threat to international peace today, given that India and Pakistan have gone to war over Kashmir previously, and that both countries now have a nuclear capability? Against that background, will the Prime Minister and Her Majesty’s Government do everything possible to persuade the next Government of India to enter into serious and urgent negotiations with the Government of Pakistan on the basis of UN resolutions, to find an acceptable settlement on the basis of the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their own future?

    The Prime Minister: That is an important matter, as the hon. Gentleman says. We are in touch with our friends and colleagues in India and in Pakistan. We have said consistently to those friends and colleagues that we are prepared to help in the search for a solution, either at the UN or in any other forum, provided that the parties concerned wish us to do so. That remains our position, but there must be simultaneous progress on several fronts–first, self-evidently, bilateral dialogue; secondly, the development of a genuine political process in Kashmir, with an improvement in the human rights position there; and, thirdly, a clear cessation of external support for militants, which has poisoned the atmosphere in Kashmir for far too long.

    Mr. Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent developments in Kashmir have caused many UK citizens of Kashmiri origin much anxiety? His statement that the British Government will continue to press for a stable democratic solution of the Kashmir problem will therefore be most welcome.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know from my experience that what he says about citizens here in the United Kingdom is true. Our policy is to advocate the development of a genuine political process in Kashmir.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Ms Armstrong: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

    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.

    Ms Armstrong: As we once again see Tory Members of Parliament queuing up to express their differences–one with another–over European policy, is not the Government’s real problem the widely held view of the Prime Minister, which was vocalised this morning by Sir James Goldsmith when he asked how people could be expected to follow a man who zig-zags so much?

    The Prime Minister: I can think of some prominent politicians who, in the past two years, have made it their life’s work to deny everything that they stood for previously. So far as I recall, those politicians enjoy the strong support of the hon. Lady.

    As to Europe, the hon. Lady might care to look at the comments of some of her hon. Friends in response to recent statements that I have made about Europe which expose clear differences on the Opposition Benches. She might also care to look at some of the pamphlets that have been produced, in which many tens of Labour Members demonstrate their sharp differences with the Labour Front-Bench policy. They are as split on Europe as they could be.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

    Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that British beef is best and that that remains the case despite the scaremongering by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) which has done so much damage? Will he tell our European colleagues that, until the ban is lifted, there will be no more co-operation from this country, nor any more British money?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that British beef is best. I am also happy to confirm to him and to others that it is entirely safe, and that has been verified by British scientists, by the World Health Organisation and by Commissioner Fischler. There is no justification whatever for the European ban, but I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made some progress this morning and I am delighted with that. We are seeking to get the ban lifted as soon as possible, and I hope and expect that that will happen.

    As to withholding resources, I must tell my hon. Friend that that would be illegal under United Kingdom law, quite apart from European law. I am not sure that either the House or my hon. Friend would wish the Government to behave illegally.

    Mr. Blair: I suspect that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) speaks for many tens on the Conservative side. Will the Prime Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s policy to threaten retaliation against Europe over beef, so that the confusion and incompetence at the heart of Government policy may be removed once and for all?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman once threatened to leave Europe, as I recall–it was part of his election manifesto. As the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) might put it, he has clearly zig-zagged from that policy since then.

    Our policy is as I described it a moment ago: to try to seek, by agreement, the lifting of the ban. I hope that the ban will be lifted but, if that is unreasonably withheld, our position is–as it has been–that we shall look at other options.

    Mr. Blair: What does that mean? I suggest to the Prime Minister that a strategy based on the Grand Old Duke of York is not a very good one. The Foreign Secretary is hinting at retaliation, the Deputy Prime Minister contradicts him and he calls his European partners a bunch of something-or-others while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is negotiating with them.

    Will the Prime Minister kindly take a grip on the situation? If he does not, he will find that his Government are taken seriously neither at home nor abroad.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends played a part in creating this problem. There is not a beef farmer in this country who does not know that the problem has been worsened by the way in which the Labour party has behaved. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has the gall to continue to behave in that way. I set the matter out perfectly clearly for the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago and I am sorry that he was unable to understand it. We are discussing the lifting of the ban, and we are making progress on that. That is the right way to proceed but, at the end of the discussions, if the lifting of the ban is unreasonably withheld, we shall consider other options for action. I hope that is clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman this time.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister is to threaten retaliation, he should be clear about what he is saying. At some point, the Prime Minister will have to admit the brutal truth to himself–that the business of his Government is less designed to run an Administration than to appease the factions in the Conservative party. Until that changes, he and his Government will be divided, weak and incompetent.

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on being clear, perhaps he will be clear about his tax plans. Perhaps he will be clear about why, if children stay on to do A-levels, their parents should lose £500 a year in benefit. Perhaps he will recognise that we operate in Europe in the national interest while he seeks party interest. It is in the national interest to seek, as we are doing, the lifting of the ban on beef, and it is equally in everyone’s interest to remind the beef industry which party played a role in worsening the crisis.

     

    Q4. Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

    Sir Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of young people staying on in full-time education since 1979? Does he agree that that considerable achievement, on which our future depends, is put at risk by the plans that we have heard from Opposition Front Benchers for chopping the funding for 16 to 18-year-olds?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Even among the children of unskilled parents, more than half now stay on in education beyond their 16th birthdays. The claim by the shadow Chancellor, who is probably absent because he is checking his figures, that only 20 per cent. of children stay on at school is years and years out of date. It is based on figures from between 1974 and 1978, under the Labour Government. The fact that the figures are so wrong shows the vast increase in educational opportunities since then. The reality for working-class and other parents is that, if their children stay on at school beyond GCSE to A-level, the Labour party will charge them £500 for each child by taking away their child benefit–so much for Labour’s concern for opportunities for the poor.

    Mr. Ashdown: We can always tell when the Government are in a real mess–they start to blame everybody else. Given the urgent necessity to get the ban on British beef lifted, have not the past 24 hours been all too typical of the five weeks of fiasco over BSE? The Foreign Secretary launches gunboats over breakfast, Tarzan sounds the retreat over lunch and, by dinner, the poor old Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on his way to Brussels, is shot in the foot again. How on earth can we persuade Europe to believe the Government when the Government cannot even agree among themselves?

    The Prime Minister: I suppose that, one day, it is just possible we might hear something from the right hon. Gentleman about what he would do in any given circumstances. We never hear that: we just get the usual carping criticism. The matter was carried forward in Moscow, when I met Heads of Government on Saturday; my right hon. and learned Friend took it further in the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday; and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is pursuing it today. Each and every day, there are further meetings and more progress is made towards getting the ban lifted. It would be helpful if, just once, the right hon. Gentleman were to think of the interests of the beef industry and of the country, rather than produce the carping criticism that we usually get from him.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Church-aided schools have a long and proud tradition of providing good quality education? Therefore, is he, like me, shocked to see the specific attacks on Church schools by the Liberal Democrats? Is that not another example of the Liberal Democrats attacking parental choice and the right of parents to make their own choice? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that parents must take that into account when they vote at the next election?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of moral and spiritual education, and I share the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). What the Liberal spokesman said was a silly and ill-considered attack on religious education and I can assure my hon. Friend that it will never form part of our policy.

    Mr. Donald Anderson: What further measures of appeasement do the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Conservative party have in mind to placate the patriot across the water, Sir James Goldsmith?

    The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is quite clear–none.

     

    Q6. Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

    Mr. Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will press ahead with the objective of achieving a 20 per cent. rate of basic income tax? Given the reports in the press at the weekend, is it not absolutely clear that, while the Government are rightly moving towards a 20p rate, the Labour party is moving towards a 30p rate?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, one quarter of taxpayers already pay tax at only 20 per cent. and I confirm that, as soon as it is affordable, we shall move further towards a 20 per cent. tax rate for everyone. There is no doubt that taxes go up under Labour Governments. The Labour party does not like to admit that. Today, the shadow Chancellor is trying to gag the City, but the fact is that, because Labour wishes to spend more, it will always tax more at national level, as it is doing today at local level.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 April 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Sexual Exploitation of Children Congress

    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister which Minister will attend the world congress against commercial sexual exploitation of children in Stockholm in August; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The congress will be attended by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope).

     

    Nuclear Safety and Security Summit

    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the nuclear safety and security summit in Moscow.

    The Prime Minister: I attended the Moscow summit on nuclear safety and security on 19 and 20 April. I have arranged for copies of the declaration and background documents to be placed in the Library of the House. The summit was chaired jointly by President Yeltsin and by President Chirac as the current chairman of the Group of Seven. Other G7 leaders attended, as did President Kuchma of Ukraine for the later part of the summit.

    There was unanimous agreement at the summit on the priority that needs to be given to ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants and the security of nuclear materials. We agreed that the convention on nuclear safety must be ratified and brought into force as soon as possible; the United Kingdom has already ratified the convention.

    At the same time, the summit endorsed the importance of market-oriented reforms in the energy sector, and the contribution this can make to nuclear safety. Investment strategies should be based on least-cost planning, and energy efficiency and conservation have an important role to play.

    We also agreed on the need to work for the early adoption of a convention on the safety of radioactive waste management, which is currently under negotiation. The disposal of radioactive waste at sea is prohibited under the 1993 amendment to the London convention, which the UK and most other countries have accepted; at the summit, Russia gave a firm commitment to accept the amendment. We agreed to work together to identify strategies for the safe management and eventual disposal of fissile material no longer required for defence purposes.

    President Kuchma attended the summit for the discussion on Chernobyl. We welcomed his decision to close Chernobyl by the year 2000 in accordance with the memorandum of understanding signed between the G7 and the Ukraine last year, and we confirmed our commitment to implement the memorandum.

    The summit also discussed the need to prevent any illicit trafficking in nuclear materials. We agreed on a programme to combat any such trafficking, and to increase co-operation to ensure the safe storage and protection of nuclear materials. Existing co-ordination between national agencies will be enhanced.

    The countries at the summit also committed themselves to conclude and sign a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty by September 1996.

    The summit also provided a timely opportunity to discuss the main international issues, particularly Lebanon and Bosnia. On Lebanon, we agreed on the need for an immediate ceasefire and a political solution to end the present crisis and enable the wider peace process to resume. We endorsed current diplomatic efforts to bring this about. On Bosnia, we agreed that the deployment of the implementation force and implementation of the military part of the Dayton agreement had gone well, but that more rapid progress was needed on key issues such as elections, reconstruction and the return of refugees.

    Before the summit, I visited Prague and Kiev for discussions with the Governments of the Czech Republic and Ukraine. In Moscow I had meetings with President Yeltsin, Prime Minister Chernomydin and others. I also took the opportunity to have bilateral meetings with Prime Minister Chretien and President Clinton and to discuss our problems with the European Union over beef exports informally with the other EU leaders present.

    In sum, therefore, the Moscow summit made a major contribution to nuclear safety, through agreements reached and endorsed. It was also an invaluable occasion to take forward other significant issues informally with my fellow Heads of State and Governments, and to reinforce links with them. It was a success on all counts.

     

    Monarchy

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce a measure to abolish the monarchy.

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Libya

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty’s Government are suggesting to the United Nations as a reply to the initiative to the United Nations from Libya to send an inspection team to the alleged chemical weapons site at Rabta in the Libyan desert; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: We believe that if Libya seriously wishes to dispel concerns about chemical weapons activities at this or any other site, she should accede to and comply fully with the provisions of the chemical weapons convention.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Moscow – 20 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Moscow on Saturday 20th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me talk about the summit and the adjacent meetings I have had during the period I have been here in Moscow.

    The summit began last evening with a fairly extensive discussion on the situation in Lebanon. I think all of you know that there is a fair amount of diplomatic activity going on, even as we speak there are a number of Foreign Ministers at the moment engaged either in Lebanon, or in Israel or in Syria, to see what can be done to bring about a ceasefire. It was our view that a ceasefire would be the first step, beyond that we need something that is going to be rather more permanent to prevent re-occurrence of the difficulties there have been over the last few days.

    We moved on this morning to the main reason for the summit being called, you will recall it was suggested by President Yeltsin when he met the G7 in Halifax last year, and that was to examine comprehensively the question of nuclear safety. And I think the fact that the G7 attended in full, with President Yeltsin, is an indication of the importance that we attach to that process.

    Many people I think were quite sceptical at the time as to whether anything would emerge from a summit of this sort. In fact there has been quite a comprehensive range of agreements, some of them very technical, many of them the subject of discussion for some time. And I am extremely grateful to Neil Hurst for the work that he has done on that over the months that have gone.

    But let me just summarise the main agreements that have been reached: an agreement to bring into force the nuclear safety convention, we have long wanted that, it has now happened; agreement to work together on a new convention on the safety of radioactive waste management; thirdly, a commitment by Russia to sign the London Dumping Convention Amendment, that is the amendment which effectively bans the dumping of radioactive waste at sea; a programme to help prevent the illicit trafficking of nuclear materials, that too is something the United Kingdom has sought for some time and we are delighted to have that agreement.

    And of course also there was agreed at this summit a new impetus to the conclusion, by September we think is possible, of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which bars all nuclear explosions on the basis of a zero yield. And I know from time to time in the past there have been conflicting interpretations of what is meant by zero-yield. Let me make it clear that what we mean by this, and what I think is understood by our partners, is that no nuclear explosion of any kind, however small, is permitted. That too I think is an agreement that many people will welcome.

    Over lunch, we discussed the situation, particularly as far as Chernobyl is concerned. We emphasised our commitment to make real the programme contained in the Memorandum of Understanding that we signed with Ukraine last December, and we were joined for this particular discussion by President Kuchma. You will recall, I am sure, there are three elements to the problem with Chernobyl: firstly, there are the grants that we made available to assist with work; secondly, there is the amount of international finance that will be made available to provide alternative sources of energy, that finance is agreed, it is not yet drawn down, the Ukrainians are still determining precisely what they need to do; and thirdly, there is the question of the temporary covering, the temporary sarcophagus over the reactor that exploded. There is no additional financing agreed for that.

    At the moment there is a European Union study being undertaken. When that is concluded, which will be later this year, we will need to look at the question of funding that and how it will be done. I have little doubt that it will need to be an international effort. I don’t think it is remotely likely that the Ukrainians would be able to fund that on their own and I think post-Chernobyl no-one is seriously going to doubt the need for that work still to be done. But at the moment we still await the experts’ report on the sarcophagus. As soon as we have got it, we will be able to move forward.

    One happy development today, President Kuchma said that he would see if it was possible, and he thought that it was possible, to close another reactor at Chernobyl by the end of the year. And we spent some time also discussing alternative energy sources and the need to develop them in Ukraine and beyond.

    We spent some time discussing Bosnia, I won’t elaborate upon that discussion unless questioned, except to say that although it has been more quiescent lately, I don’t think anyone is in any doubt about the importance of making sure the civil development of Bosnia proceeds, and that is a matter to which we will regularly have to return.

    At the conclusion of the summit proper, I had a bilateral for a little over an hour with President Clinton. We discussed a range of matters: Lebanon; the importance of Most Favoured Nation status from America for China, that is important to us of course because of the impact upon Hong Kong and I discussed that with the President; we discussed also the forthcoming Commonwealth meeting concerning Nigeria and the present internal situation there; and I took the opportunity of dealing with one domestic matter by briefing the President on the present state of the legislation on Northern Ireland and the preparatory work for the elections, the forum and the all-party talks that we hope will follow the elections, and that was an extremely worthwhile occasion.

    Let me just say one thing in conclusion before we seek to take any of the questions you may have. I think it has been a very valuable visit, very valuable because of the agreements that have been signed. But also very valuable, to be frank, because it is extremely useful on these occasions, you have the opportunity of discussing in a relatively informal manner in the sidelines of such conference a range of issues with the other Heads of Government who are present, and I think that increasingly close contact is a very reassuring element of international affairs these days. Heads of Government tend to know one another far better and far more personally than ever used to be the case in the past and I think that is immensely useful.

    During those bilaterals I had specific bilaterals with Prime Minister Chretien; President Yeltsin of Course; Mr Chernomyrdin, the Prime Minister; and also, as you know, a meeting last evening here to discuss the European problems of beef with the President of the Commission, the President of the European Council and the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany. So we were able to take the opportunity of reviewing the situation whilst we were here. So all in all a very useful and worthwhile visit.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    On Ulster, we have heard that President Clinton was praising your efforts towards securing peace, and he also apparently made mention of the need for another ceasefire. Could you tell us a little more about that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The President has been very helpful for some time and I have absolutely no doubt at all that he will continue to play a constructive role in helping to take the process further. We do need a ceasefire. There is no immediate sign, I have to say, from Sinn Fein and the IRA that one is imminent. But I think there is no justification for them holding off from a ceasefire. For a very long time they have asked for the prospect of all-party talks, they have asked for a proper consideration of the problems of Northern Ireland. All those lie just weeks ahead. And upon that basis, to take them at their own evaluation, there is no justification for anything other than a comprehensive ceasefire so that they can join the talks that lie immediately ahead. I very much hope that they will do that. But let me emphasise again. If they do not, we will proceed without them. Sinn Fein and the IRA cannot, by not offering a ceasefire, stop the process that is now in hand, they cannot stop the elections, they cannot stop the forum meeting and they cannot stop the beginning of negotiations on 10 June. All of those things will go ahead, but of course one would like to see a ceasefire.

    QUESTION (The Guardian):

    You say that personal relationships are important. Did you feel that you advanced your personal relationship with Mr Zyuganov in your meeting with him yesterday and is Britain taking the [indistinct] that he represents seriously enough?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I had an extremely good meeting with Mr Zyuganov yesterday. We discussed a range of issues. And I read with astonishment the way it was reported this morning. I don’t recall Mr Zyuganov saying to me any of the things that were reported in the media this morning and I am at an utter loss to discover how they got there. Perhaps if some of those present wrote them, they can explain to me how they got there. But I can certainly tell you they did not get there on the basis of what Mr Zyuganov said to me in the meeting that we had yesterday, in no sense did they. It was a good meeting, it was a constructive meeting. I asked him about his programme, he answered about his programme, and we discussed a range of other matters about the situation in Russia generally. But at no stage did he speak in the aggressive manner in which he is reported in the Western press as having spoken to me yesterday. It simply did not happen.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, obviously quite an important meeting last night.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Which meeting are you talking about?

    SAME MAN:

    Sorry! The meeting with Mr. Carl Sherak [phon] over the question of the beef ban. Do you feel more optimistic today that we are slightly closer to a lifting of the ban?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes. I think we have made progress. Of course, that wasn’t a decision-making meeting last night, it couldn’t be. Decisions are for the European Union as a whole. Self-evidently, the Agriculture Commissioner will be deeply involved in these and neither of the other members of the European Union nor the Agriculture Commissioner were present last evening but it was an opportunity to explain in a relaxed atmosphere a good deal more of how this matter is perceived in the United Kingdom and to explain some of the misconceptions, as we see them, that are, present amongst our European partners.

    What we have seen since the ban was instituted firstly by our European partners nationally and then endorsed by the European Union collectively is that the beef market has fallen very dramatically in the European countries as well. The effect of that ban on British beef, which is unjustified on health grounds, has also reflected in a collapse of confidence in the beef market amongst our European partners as well.

    I took the opportunity last night of making several things quite clear:

    Firstly, the fundamental point that there is no public health problem. The scientific advice is unequivocal, British beef is safe to eat – the view of British scientists, the view of the World Health Authority, the view of scientists in other areas as well. All the measures recommended by the scientists have been adopted by the British Government, all those measures are in place. The problem, as our European partners have skid, is one of confidence not one of public health and we have introduced measures in Britain. Those measures will involve destroying elderly animals that would otherwise have entered the market; those elderly animals are the ones that people were most concerned about, they will no longer be in the market. There is no justification for the ban in my judgement at all and the ban has a number of absurdities in it. Let me just illustrate a couple of the absurdities:

    Firstly, calves born after 1 April this year when we instituted the new controls on foodstuffs, under the ban they can’t be exported. That is nonsense, total nonsense. Those calves couldn’t possibly have been exposed to BSE in any conceivable way. I made that point to our European partners.

    Secondly, let me take another illustration. A farmer – and there are a great many farmers like this in the United Kingdom – whose animals have never eaten anything but grass, never close to any possibly contaminated feed at all, and yet they are banned and so are animals identified as coming from a demonstrably safe herd and so are animals coming from herds no members of which breeds, no member of which has ever had BSE – palpably absurd!

    I took the opportunity of running through some of those absurdities last night in the meeting we had. It was a very constructive meeting, it was not a decision-taking meeting, it was a meeting where we were all addressing a problem that now affects the whole of the European beef market, not just a British problem, and I think it was a worthwhile and constructive meeting and I think it will have played its part in helping inform people better for the decisions that will need to be taken in the days that lie ahead and I am delighted I had the meeting, I think it was very worthwhile.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Daily Express):

    On beef, the impression we get, however, is that you didn’t receive what one might describe as support for your position. We have heard what you said to them but was there any indication that they said: “OK! Yes, we’ll take that on board and we will go back to our colleagues and recommend that because of the action Britain has now taken the ban can be lifted!”?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first thing that needs to be done is that people have to understand the reality of what the situation is and not operate under the misunderstandings that there have been over recent weeks. I think I removed a number of those misunderstandings though I am not going to anticipate decisions that have to be taken not by the people who were here last night but by the European Union as a whole. I don’t think that would be wise, it certainly wouldn’t be prudent and I am concerned about the whole of the European Union understanding the position but let me reiterate I think it was very worthwhile having that meeting last night, I think there is a much greater understanding of what is happening across Europe. Each of the other people present of course learned what was happening in the other European countries and the collapse in beef confidence does stretch across Europe, that was apparent, so I reiterate what I said. I am not going to be drawn further on the issue. It was a worthwhile meeting, it was a constructive meeting and I think it was time very well spent.

    QUESTION (Phil Reeves, The Independent):

    Prime Minister, it is pretty plain that the Russians are continuing to prosecute a war in Chechnya despite the ceasefire that Mr. Yeltsin announced on March 31st. Did you raise this issue with him, did you discuss the question of the violation of human rights going on in Chechnya and what was Mr. Yeltsin’s response?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course I discussed Chechnya with President Yeltsin while I was here. He is looking to see what can be done to reach a negotiated settlement, clearly he needs to do that if it is possible. It needs two sides to negotiate was the point he made to me but he is clearly looking to see whether that can be achieved; it is desirable in order to move towards a settlement in Chechnya. He indicated to me that there were many areas of Chechnya where there was no difficulty, that it existed rather fiercely in a number of areas but in some areas it had gone away completely. I can neither verify nor dispute that, I report what the President said to me and he was certainly seeking to take a constructive role to see whether they could reach a settlement.

    I am sure that is so for two reasons: firstly, it is self-evidently the right thing to do and secondly, it is self-evidently the prudent thing to do; it would clearly be extremely helpful in the present political atmosphere if some movement could satisfactorily occur on Chechyna.

    QUESTION (Jon Sopel, BBC):

    Sir Edward Heath, writing in the “Express” today, has said that if you lost another by-election you should call a general election. Do you agree with that and if you don’t do you think you could still go the full term?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen Sir Edward’s article. Sir Edward is a very wise man and I always read very carefully what previous leaders of the Conservative Party have to say. I don’t always agree with them but I will read it when I return with some interest, but I won’t promise to agree with it.

    QUESTION:

    We have got the “Telegraph” hitting your Government with an unusually strong editorial, the “Sun” saying that you are depressed, rumours of Tories about to defect, some misunderstanding with John Redwood.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Were you present at Question Time last Tuesday?

    QUESTIONER:

    I am afraid I missed that.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sorry you missed that because I read I was depressed but doubt many people who attended Question Time on Tuesday would have thought that was the case and as far as the “Telegraph” is concerned the “Telegraph” must write what the “Telegraph” thinks it must write, I must believe what I believe to be accurate and have no intention of commenting on what newspapers write or newspapers say, they must take responsibility for their own words.

    I will tell you what I am interested in. I am not so much interested in that; I would have a look at some of the things that are happening at the moment, some of the things perhaps that people ought to look at more often.

    I don’t think there is any doubt whatsoever at the Moment that life is getting better in the United Kingdom after the recession, self-evidently so and is going to get better yet and in case you think that is a standard bit of politicians oratory – “He would say that, wouldn’t he?” – let me give you some concrete examples of why that is the case:

    Mortgage rates at their lowest level since the early 60s; I think I recall reading that the Beatles were top of the charts the last time mortgage rates were at this level, I think the song was “I Feel Fine!” and understandably so as mortgage rates fall. The proportion of new mortgages taken out by women more than doubled between 1983 and 1994, around 18 per cent, that is quite a significant change. Look at education! Huge increases in the choices and opportunities for people in the education sector. Look at changes in other peoples’ personal circumstances! 27 million people a couple of years ago took holidays abroad.

    If you look at what is happening, when can you last remember inflation below 3 per cent for the third successive year, unemployment lower that any other major economy in Europe, investment rising and growth as high as most other countries in Europe and better than almost any other country in Europe, more people in work than any other major economy anywhere else in Europe?

    I will extend the list if you like but they are I think what in newspaper parlance you call “feel good factors” and they are all becoming very apparent so if you want to know how I feel, I am delighted we have low inflation, delighted we have falling unemployment, delighted we have increasing growth, delighted we have good investment and I intend to make sure that we maintain the most benevolent economic situation we have seen for a very long time indeed and I intend very cheerfully to tell as many people as I possibly can that that is what the situation is.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Moscow – 19 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Moscow on Friday 19th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a word or two about the meetings I have had earlier today. A number of meetings: firstly with Prime Minister Chretien, mainly about Commonwealth matters; later on after that meetings with a number of opinion formers in Moscow at the present time; a very useful meeting both Mr Yavlinsky and separately with Mr Zyuganov; and a bilateral in the last hour or so with President Yeltsin; and very shortly I look forward to seeing Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. So it has been an admirable opportunity to run through a whole range of matters that are being discussed in Moscow at the moment.

    The bilateral with the President covered a wide range of matters, as you would expect: the summit tomorrow; of course the questions relating to NATO; a number of bilateral issues; I was able to indicate that we will be increasing our assistance in the Know How Fund by another 50 million to assist with various aspects of reform and good government in Russia. I don’t think I will seek to detail all the elements of the discussion, perhaps you may care to ask questions to pick out the points of greatest interest.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you support Boris Yeltsin’s re-election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not for anyone outside Russia to determine who should be the President of Russia, that is a matter for the Russian people and it would be impertinent of me to express a preference. We do have a very strong view that the reform programme is very important, we wish to see the reform programme proceed and I think that is a view that is very widely held right across the West.

    QUESTION:

    What is your impression of Mr Zyuganov?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I only had a brief discussion with Mr Zyuganov. We discussed the areas of the campaign that he was most interested in, he set out his views on those. But it was a half hour meeting, too soon I think to reach a firm conclusion.

    QUESTION:

    Did Mr Zyuganov say that the West should have nothing to fear from a communist victory?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Mr Zyuganov explained what he was about, what he saw as the priorities in this country, and self-evidently he does not believe that those priorities would concern people elsewhere. I indicated to him the importance that we attach to the reform programme.

    QUESTION:

    Did the subject of the Middle East come up and what perhaps the G7 here in Moscow this weekend ought to be saying as a way of moving the peace process forward?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I discussed the particular question of Lebanon and the current difficulties with President Yeltsin, and I am sure that will come up later on today. I think there is no doubt that what we need to seek very speedily is an end to the hostilities that are proceeding, perhaps only a temporary pause in the first instance while a more firm conclusion is reached. It may be difficult to reach a positive conclusion that will last for a long time. If we can reach an interim settlement, an interim cessation of the hostilities, I think that at least will be a first step and I think people will try and do that over the next 48 hours.

    QUESTION:

    Are you confident that you can persuade the other European leaders to recommend a lifting of the ban on British beef?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I have no idea about that. I think it would have been quite astonishing if, since we are all gathered here, I were not to discuss the problem with them, and that is what I propose to do. But of course only a part of the European Union is here, the Agricultural Commissioner is not here, so I think this is an occasion to set out British concerns and I will do that very clearly and very crisply. I don’t think it is a matter on which there are likely to be conclusions because the right people are not here. But I don’t believe the ban on British beef is justified. The fact that it has been indicated not just by British scientists, but by the World Health Organisation and by the Commissioner himself, that British beef is safe, suggests to me that there is no logic in a continuing ban on British beef. But that is not a matter that can be lifted by the people who are meeting here. What I can do is impress upon them the strength of feeling in the United Kingdom and the extent to which we think it is an unreasonable decision that has been reached and that it is highly desirable that that ban is lifted as speedily as it can be.

    QUESTION:

    Can the G7 do anything to help to resolve the crisis in the Middle East? Are you hoping that there will be a communique at the end of this to say what should be done?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we are more concerned with action than communiques, to be frank. The G7 members, both separately and collectively of course, are in touch with the relevant parties in the Middle East. The Foreign Secretary is deeply engaged, Mr Charette from France is there at the present moment, so is Warren Christopher. I think there is no doubt that it will be discussed and no doubt that we will be in touch with the parties, but whether that will be done collectively or individually remains to be determined.

    QUESTION:

    And the common position from France, the United States and Russia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the common position is perfectly clear. A common final settlement, that remains to be discussed, but a common position that we need to stop what we have seen over the last few days, both the firing from Hezbollah into Israel and the attacks from Israel back into Lebanon, both of those need to cease as speedily as possible. There will be no difficulty about reaching that decision.

    QUESTION:

    Did you raise the subject of Chechnya with Mr Yeltsin?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had a brief discussion, yes.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 April 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Brixham

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Brixham.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend hopes to have an opportunity to do so in the near future.

     

    Intelligence and Security (Committee Report)

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2 April, Official Report, column 107, for what reasons some necessary evidence is not available in relation to the Ames case.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    As the hon. Member will realise, in a case as complex and far reaching as that of Ames, evidence of the full extent of his activities only becomes available over time. My right hon. Friend looks forward to receiving the further conclusions of the Intelligence and Security Committee on this issue.

  • PMQT – 18 April 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th April 1996. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dykes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in the Ukraine, ahead of the G8 Moscow summit on nuclear safety and security.

    Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I much agree with his anxieties about the need to avoid creating an unnecessarily heavy bureaucracy in London? However, in view of the excellent Evening Standard campaign for the notion of just an elected mayor and the fact that millions of Londoners do not want that concept to be the preserve of one or more than one political party, will my right hon. Friend think again about that proposal and return with further thoughts in due course–bearing it in mind that London, like other capital cities, needs to be famous and have an elected mayor?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Government have explored that idea but it would be realistic to say that no hon. Members on either side of the House gave it overwhelming acclaim. Opposition came from Members of Parliament and from the local authority community. It is apparent that one can move to a directly elected mayor only with a root-and-branch overhaul of London’s local government structure, including the relationship between local and central Government. I do not believe that there is a public appetite for that, facing the real and urgent issues that the Government are addressing with such success for London.

    Mr. Prescott rose–

    Hon. Members: Middle class.

    Madam Speaker: Order. Calm down.

    Mr. Prescott: Please.

    Does the Deputy Prime Minister remember his shrewd analysis of November 1990–that the only way to restore the fortunes of the Conservative party was to dump Prime Minister Thatcher? Following the Tories’ humiliation in South-East Staffordshire last Thursday, what is the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis now?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because I have a new analysis. This week has seen three blows to the middle classes. First, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) admitted that the Labour party will put up their taxes. Secondly, we learned that Labour will tax company cars. Thirdly, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has become a member of the middle classes.

    Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that all classes voted for Labour in South-East Staffordshire. Will he explain to the House why, if it was right to dump Prime Minister Thatcher in 1990 when the Tories were so unpopular, it is not right to dump Prime Minister Major now when the Tories are even more unpopular?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, all classes gave this Prime Minister the biggest popular vote in the history of the Conservative party, and because the conditions are now in place to secure a fifth Conservative victory. There are excellent economic forecasts and improving standards in education, and we shall see the current Prime Minister back in his job after the next general election.

    Mr. Prescott: Is not the real problem for the Tories the fact that whatever they do will not make a scrap of difference, because, as The Daily Telegraph–the bible of the middle classes–said today:

    “this Government is a disaster.”?

    Is it not time that the Deputy Prime Minister realised that the only answer is for him, his Government and the country to be put out of their misery by calling a general election now?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Not only has the right hon. Gentleman joined the middle classes; he has started reading a middle-class newspaper. The fact is that, however much one may disagree with much of today’s leader in The Daily Telegraph, one thing I can agree with wholeheartedly is that it realises that a Government formed of Opposition Members would be infinitely worse.

    Mr. Harris: What assurance can my right hon. Friend give fishermen from my constituency and from ports all round the coast of the United Kingdom who have come to London today–they are sailing up the Thames now–about the future of the industry? I agree with my right hon. Friend that we cannot withdraw unilaterally from the common fisheries policy and remain a member of the European Union, but does he agree that the common fisheries policy is inflicting huge damage on the industry and that it must be torn up and renegotiated?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is as well informed on fishing issues and policy as anyone in the House. I have just had a word with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for fisheries, who is to receive a delegation from the wider delegation that is in London today and who will be exploring its concerns. We have already dealt with some of its concerns. We are working closely with scientists on, for example, conservation to find more effective means of dealing with its concern. We have also made it clear that, in the context of the intergovernmental conference, we shall be raising the issue of quota hopping. We shall listen extremely carefully to the representatives of the fishing industry.

     

    Q2. Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jamieson: Is not the Deputy Prime Minister’s real objection to the idea of a mayor for London that he loves new titles only when he can have them?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Having moved from being President to Deputy Prime Minister, it may not seem to be an advance now to become a mayor. If, on the other hand, by the united view of the House I were to be offered the job, I would have seriously to consider it.

    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend have a sneaking respect for those good, honest socialists who are stinking rich but who are prepared to argue that the rich should pay higher taxes? Would he, therefore, like to remind such people–Ben Elton, Maureen Lipman, Ken Follett and Melvyn Bragg–that nothing is stopping them now from voluntarily contributing more taxes? If we are to take the Ladywood line, anyone who is tempted to vote Labour who is currently earning a Member of Parliament’s salary of £34,000 or more can start paying extra taxes now if they want to, because there may not be a future Labour Government to force them to do so.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a most important point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, the House will note, is in his place, mentioned to me that anyone who wants to get in touch with him and make a gesture pro bono publico will be warmly received. But the PSBR is coming down anyway, so there is no immediate need to make any request of that sort.

    The serious issue for the House is not whether there should be higher or lower public expenditure or tax but whether an Opposition party can systematically refuse to answer any questions about whether it intends to raise taxes, and for whom. An Opposition spokesman was literally clawed off the airwaves on a day when she should have been dealing with her major responsibility on the privatisation of British Rail because the Labour party was terrified that she would not tell the truth but repeat the truth.

     

    Q3. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hughes: On the subject of tax, the figures that we heard this morning showed an outturn for the year just gone of a PSBR of £32 billion against a projection of £21 billion. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor, who on “The World at One” today said that if before the next Budget the figures for the year that we have just started showed that the real PSBR was still £30 billion or higher, there would be no scope for tax cuts? Does he accept that that will mean that in the history of this Administration there will not have been tax cuts under the Tories, there are not now tax cuts under the Tories and, if all independent fiscal advice is prudently followed, there cannot be tax cuts before the next election under the Tories?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: As I understand Liberal policy, the hon. Gentleman should support the Government in the Lobby. The Liberal party constantly seeks to increase tax bills, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will make judgments about the proper balance between public provision and tax reductions. What everyone knows, and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor’s last Budget made clear, is that when it can be prudently done, a Conservative Government will reduce taxes. That is why there has been a significant improvement in people’s real disposable income in the past few weeks, as taxes have come down under this Conservative Government.

     

    Q4. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend bank at Barclays? Was it not an awful waste of the bank’s money to send the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) all the way to Hong Kong–

    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must ask the Deputy Prime Minister questions on matters for which he has responsibility as a Minister.

    Sir Michael Neubert: With UK share prices hitting record highs, with unemployment coming down yet again this month by 27,500, and with price rises at their lowest levels for a generation, would not the hon. Member for Hartlepool do more to his own advantage by staying closer to home?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject because it is apparent from an article in The Times that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) had a task that could be interpreted as being in support of Government policy. He said:

    “We must step up our efforts to promote the town”

    of Hartlepool.

    “I am pleased to announce that during Easter I am travelling to Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore to beat the drum for investment in Hartlepool.”

    That is Government policy. The problem is, of course, that the trip was paid for by Barclays bank and it has a different view. It said in the article:

    “The trip had nothing to do with Hartlepool. The only connection we have with Hartlepool is a branch in the High Street.”

    Mr. Galloway: Has the Deputy Prime Minister had time to see the devastating pictures of the shattered United Nations peacekeepers’ base in the south of Lebanon? In the past few hours, more than 50 Fijian soldiers, Lebanese and Palestinian refugees–men, women and children–have been slaughtered by the Israeli invasion force. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that this morning, some hours earlier, a mother, her four-day-old child and her six other children were killed by an Israeli air raid on her home in south Lebanon? Does he agree that the flames now burning in Lebanon run the risk of burning to ash all the hopes of the peace process in the middle east? Will the British Government support an emergency meeting of the Security Council to try to bring the cycle of devastating violence to an end?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the subject of that appalling human tragedy, which shows all of us in the House how fragile peace processes are and how innocent the victims can often be. I have personally seen Fijian soldiers serving in the interest of the United Nations. They are an immensely impressive force and they do a wholly desirable task on behalf of a wider world. But when one considers the issues involved in south Lebanon and the attacks that Hezbollah has made on Israel from there, it is apparent that one is facing a near intractable problem of the deepest concern to the international community. The Government will do all that we can to play any part in accelerating the processes of peace and the restoration of a ceasefire. That, I understand, is the Israeli position and we strongly support that position. I am sure that the House will extend its sympathy to the relatives of those who were so unfortunately killed in today’s incident.