The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1991

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Soviet Coup (I) – 21 August 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Soviet coup, made in an interview held in London on Wednesday 21st August 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether it was good news that the coup had failed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is very good news, yes. The prospect of what might have happened if this coup had succeeded was almost unthinkable. It would have changed the whole balance of power between the world; it would have changed the influence; it would have changed the improving relationship that there has been between East and West for the last decade or so; and it would have been an immense setback for all of us. It is a very good night indeed; a very good night for democracy.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the attempted coup failed because it lacked support or because it was badly led].

    PRIME MINISTER:
    In the medium-term, I think it was doomed to failure because of the changes there had been in the Soviet Union. Political freedom is now abroad in the Soviet Union and I don’t believe once a freedom like that is available to people, that they will give it up and so I think in the medium-term this coup could not possibly have succeeded but in the short-term, of course, through repression it could have succeeded perhaps for weeks, perhaps for months, perhaps even for a few years; thankfully, it hasn’t.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether Mr Yeltsin had been over-dramatic when saying that time was running out].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He might have been right. When I spoke to President Yeltsin then, there were tanks heading towards the Parliamentary Building; they stopped. For all he knew, they might not have stopped; they might have over-run the Parliamentary Building; they might have arrested Yeltsin; they might then have cut off the communications with the rest of the world. Nobody knew what might have happened. It didn’t happen and it didn’t happen in the view of people in the Soviet Union for several reasons: because the Muscovites and other people in other cities were resisting the troops; it didn’t happen in the view of those people I have spoken to because of the universal condemnation of people in the West; the moral support that was given, I am told was very important to the people who were there; that is what they have said to me.

    The fact that we made it clear that the coup was illegal and that we wanted the legal government of the Soviet Union restored made an immense difference those people in the Parliamentary Building have said to me, an immense difference to their spirit and to what happened in the Soviet Union.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Dr Kagalovski – 21 August 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Dr Kagalovski, held in London on Wednesday 21st August 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Dr Kagalovski [phon] and I have had a most useful and worthwhile meeting this morning. He spoke just before coming to see me to members of President Yeltsin’s entourage in the Russian Parliament, as you know a debate is continuing there at this very moment.

    Last night the Russian Parliament was not stormed, that is a hopeful sign, but I must say there are still many threatening signs about and nobody should overlook the possibility of non-Russian troops, Asian troops, actually being used to storm the Parliamentary building at a later time. I must say I believe that would be a fatal error and I hope that will not happen, it would be a very grave sign indeed if that were to happen. Throughout the whole of the Soviet Union, the White House. the Russian Parliament is the symbol of democracy at the moment and everybody here in the West will be looking to make sure that that symbol of democracy is not damaged.

    We still wish to see the restoration of the legitimate government in the Soviet Union and I have made that very clear this morning to Dr Kagalovski in our discussions and we have arranged to remain in close touch over the next few days as necessary.

    I will now invite him to say a few words to you and then Dr Kagalovski and then me if you wish will answer your questions.

    DR KAGALOVSKI:

    Good day. Today the fate of our country is being decided. It is very important to have the support of the world community and I would like to thank the government of the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister, Mr Major. for his moral and political support of the legal government of Russia in their struggle against the junta that is trying to take power in our country and who are trying to set up an anti-peoples regime.

    Thank you very much.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    I wonder if the Doctor could confirm reports we are getting, if he has that information, which is that Mr Boris Yeltsin has ordered the arrest of those hard-liners involved in the coup and that there are reports that some of the group of eight are trying to flee the country at the moment?

    DR KAGALOVSKI:

    I have no specific information on this.

    QUESTION:

    Does the Prime Minister care to comment on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have no corroboration to that at this stage.

    QUESTION:

    But is it your judgment that there is now disarray beyond doubt?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think one can be clear about that yet, there are all sorts of signs, some of them are encouraging, some of them are less encouraging, we may know more in a few hours and I will comment then.

    QUESTION:

    These reports come from the Russian Federation parliament itself and Yeltsin addressing that parliament, they are quite firm that the committee of eight is driving out to Moscow airport is what Mr Yeltsin is suggesting. If it is correct you presumably welcome it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When and if we have confirmation I will comment on it, I will not keep you waiting for comments if we have the information but we do not have it yet. There are many stories coming through, some of them are capable of being confirmed, some are not. I do not wish to add to anything until I am certain of my facts.

    QUESTION:

    Would you say that the coup looks like it is on its last legs now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not think you can say the coup is on its last legs. I said yesterday when we discussed the matter yesterday that I did not think that the success of the coup was a fait accompli. I think events subsequently have confirmed that. But the situation is still threatening and nobody should be certain the situation has ceased to be threatening until this matter has been properly resolved and legitimate government is back in charge in the Soviet Union. That has not yet happened, there are many twists and turns that may yet lie ahead of us, I think we must wait and see how those turn out.

    QUESTION:

    Even if Mr Gorbachev were to return, do you believe that he is irreversibly weakened and that perhaps Mr Yeltsin will be the man with whom the British government and other Western governments will be doing business in the months and years to come?

    DR KAGALOVSKI:

    I personally do not believe in the illness of President Gorbachev and I believe that once he is free to take charge of the country we will see what type of relations we will establish with him.

    QUESTION:

    Would you like to see Mr Yeltsin as the ultimate President of the Soviet Union given the clear support he has at home and given the fact that whatever happens Mr Gorbachev will have been shaken by this experience?

    DR KAGALOVSKI:

    I think that we must wait for comment until President Gorbachev is free and then we can discuss the relationship between the Union Republics.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, have you information suggesting that Asian troops are on the move?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a matter of concern that whilst I think there is a growing view in the Soviet Union that Russian-speaking troops would be reluctant to storm the Parliament, of course Asian troops not speaking Russian may not have quite the same reluctance. And I wish to raise the matter so that we can make it clear beyond any doubt to the group of eight that that would not be acceptable in any way and to ensure that they regard the parliamentary building as being inviolate, it is inviolate, the legitimate government should be restored and it should not be attacked in any way. I hope nobody thinks that that could remotely be made acceptable in London or in any other capital of the world.

    QUESTION:

    You are registering your support for the likes of Mr Yeltsin as democratically elected leaders, is there any more you can do and have you been asked this morning to do any more to support Mr Yeltsin and his colleagues?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It has been made perfectly clear to us this morning that the importance of moral support, the broadcasts that have been made, the clear condemnation of the coup that has been unreserved from the whole of the free world is an immense help to those in the Soviet Union who are fighting for democracy and for freedom at the moment. There is no doubt that that support will continue, it will continue in the practical forms that were set out in the freezing of aid in the European Community, in the United States and Canada and elsewhere over recent days. Further measures may follow but I think it is premature to discuss those at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    Would it help if you were to now recognise the independence of the Baltic states to do more on a much more wider scale?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have always had contacts with the Baltic states and indeed the individual republics, but our primary concern at the moment are those I set out yesterday: to restore legitimate government to the Soviet Union; to see President Gorbachev free; to offer all the comfort and support we can to the people who have been directly elected and who have democratic legitimacy in the Soviet Union – that is our first concern and of course to avoid bloodshed, we are bending all our efforts to that at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    Is Mr Gorbachev free at the moment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have no firm information on that, it does seem that representatives of the Russian republics, the Vice-President I think, the Prime Minister I think and possibly accompanied by Mr Kruchkev [phon], may be going to see President Gorbachev. We believe that is the case, I do not have final confirmation of that at the moment but we believe that may be the case, I hope so.

    QUESTION:

    Any hard new decisions to be taken at the special summit in The Hague?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will be consulting with our European partners during the course of today and tomorrow prior to the summit at The Hague but events are moving at such a pace at the moment I do not think I can offer you a clear view at the moment of what may be decided at The Hague later on this week.

    QUESTION:

    Dr Kagalovski, is there any more you would like to see the UK doing and indeed the UK’s European partners?

    DR KAGALOVSKI:

    I believe that the strong position which the government of Great Britain has taken, that is the best step for the normalisation of the situation in our country and I thank the British government for taking such a strong moral and political position on the future of our country.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Soviet Situation – 20 August 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Soviet situation, made in an interview held in London on Tuesday 20th August 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had been able to reassure Boris Yeltsin that he had British support].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I was certainly able to reassure Mr Yeltsin of our support for the reform programme in the Soviet Union, that has been strong and remains strong, it is only by implementing a reform programme that the Soviet Union will improve its own condition and sustain its position I think over the years in the world community. So that was the first assurance I was able to give him.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what support he had been asked to give by Mr Yeltsin].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He was very keen firstly that we should ask the leaders of the coup to release President Gorbachev, he made it clear that President Gorbachev was not ill, had recently been examined by a doctor, was still being held in the Crimea but remained the legally appointed President of the Soviet Union and that he should be freed, that was the first point he made. I undertook to ensure to him that that was the British Government’s position and we would make that clear to the leaders of the coup in the Soviet Union. He asked also that there should be an independent examination of President Gorbachev’s health, I undertook to demand that also. He thirdly asked that we should require direct communications between President Gorbachev and President Bush in Washington and myself in London. I undertook to make those requirements as well and we will be passing those demands on to the Soviet Ambassador within minutes.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference on Soviet Situation – 20 August 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference, held outside 10 Downing Street on Tuesday 20th August 1991, on the events in the Soviet Union.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I spoke a short while ago to President Yeltsin in the Russian Parliamentary Building. I agreed with him to make public the contents of our conversation and so I will on this occasion refer to the notes I made during our discussion.

    President Yeltsin made a number of points that I would particularly wish to refer to:

    He said that matters were becoming even more complicated while we spoke. The Group of Eight were taking ever more decisive measures to capture the Russian Republic’s building. They had completely isolated President Gorbachev. He did remain in the Crimea and was as not, as rumour had suggested, in Moscow. There were no telephone communications near President Gorbachev and the runway close to where he was being held had been closed.

    Mr. Yeltsin went on to say that a curfew had been announced in Moscow. Intense efforts were being made to take the building in which he and his colleagues were blocked in for the second day running. The statement that had been made by Yanayev about President’s Gorbachev’s health was untrue. President Gorbachev had been examined by a doctor as recently as 19 August; he had been found to be in almost completely good health with only a few very minor complaints.

    President Yeltsin went on to say that he could not rule out that his building would be stormed today though he hoped that this would be averted. Hundreds of thousands of his supporters were out on the streets; he hoped that no extreme measures would be taken against them.
    He expressed his gratitude in very fulsome terms for the support he had received from the West, from the United States and from the British people in particular. He hoped that we would continue to coordinate the activities of the world community against the originators of the coup in Moscow.

    At that stage in our conversation, President Yeltsin interrupted to say that tanks were moving towards the building from which he was speaking. He said to me that he believed he had not very much time left. At that point, we agreed the action to be taken.

    President Yeltsin asked that we demand that President Gorbachev be freed; he was the legal President of the Soviet Union. I am happy to give him the assurance that that is the position of the British Government, that we do expect President Gorbachev to be freed and we are making that crystal clear to the Soviet Union leaders who have taken part in this coup.

    Secondly, he asked that we should demand the establishment of communications between President Gorbachev and President Bush in Washington and myself in London. I promised I would carry those points further and make those demands.

    Thirdly, in the light of the allegations about President Gorbachev’s health, he asked that we demand that President Gorbachev be independently examined in order that his health might be determined. We shall certainly do that this afternoon.

    Fourthly, President Yeltsin asked for us to continue to give as much public support as possible to the reform movement in the Soviet Union and to the position in particular that existed within the Russian Republics. I was able to give him that assurance as well.

    We concluded our conversation not at all certain what will happen in the next few hours by saying that we would endeavour to keep in touch over the next few days in whatever way we could.

    I will take one or two questions but just one or two.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    If the building is stormed, isn’t it time for the West to take much stronger action against the current leadership in the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the action that is being taken at the moment has made the world’s condemnation of what has happened absolutely clear. It is difficult to see what other action could be taken at this time. We do need to make our condemnation clear; it is clear and it will remain so.

    QUESTION:

    Could you at least say that the Western and British Governments recognise only Mr. Gorbachev or indeed perhaps Mr. Yeltsin as the rightful leaders in the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have made it clear before that the coup that has toppled Mr. Gorbachev is illegal and unconstitutional. The constitutional President of the Soviet Union is Mikhail Gorbachev. There is a constitutional way to remove him; it was not used. He remains the constitutional leader of the Soviet Union. Other leaders have some legitimacy: President Yeltsin in the Russian Republic is amongst them; they have been elected; there are others as well. They are the constitutional leaders.

    QUESTION:

    Are you concerned, Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    At the moment I am determined to do whatever we can to sustain the reform programme, to see if we can get President Gorbachev free, to see if we can avert bloodshed in the Soviet Union. Those are our primary concerns; that is what will govern our policy.

    QUESTION:

    You said the coup is not yet a fait accompli or perhaps may not be a fait accompli. It is, isn’t it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t believe it is a fait accompli. There is certainly resistance to it. It is also clear from the fact that I was able to get through to President Yeltsin a few moments ago that some lines of communication at least up until now have been open, so I don’t think it is a fait accompli yet, no.

    QUESTION:

    But Prime Minister, what did Mr. Yeltsin mean by “not very much time left”? Was he speaking specifically of the storming of the Parliament or does he mean that in his position he doesn’t have much time?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I understood him to mean the storming of the Parliament. I have no doubt that that is what he had in mind.

    QUESTION:

    Have you attempted to speak to the new Russian regime itself, the leaders there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I have not.

  • Mr Major’s Second Statement on Soviet Union – 19 August 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s second statement, made in Downing Street, on Monday 19th August 1991 on the Soviet Union situation.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, any further developments you can tell us about?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There isn’t a great deal I can add to what I had to say earlier today. As today has progressed, I think it has become clearer that what we have actually seen in the Soviet Union is a straightforward common-or-garden old-fashioned coup; that is actually what has happened there.

    I have had two conversations today with President Bush and a number of conversations with European leaders in both East and West Europe.

    I think it is very important we coordinate our position, very important that we pool our information over the days and weeks ahead.

    I had a particularly interesting conversation with the Prime Minister of Poland and I think tomorrow at the discussions at the European Community Foreign Ministers’ meetings a number of matters will be raised. I think the question of speeding-up the European Community Cooperation Agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia will be raised – Douglas Hurd will raise that; he will also raise the question of freezing Community aid to the Soviet Union in precisely the same way that we have frozen our Know-How aid and I think also that we will be very likely to have a European Community Heads of Government meeting some time in the next few days but beyond that there are no fresh events to report.

    QUESTION:

    Have you had any indication at all about the nature of the new regime and are you any less gloomy about the prospects?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I have had no particularly fresh information about that. It is clearly, as I said earlier, a hard-line and reactionary coup but beyond that we have no details of what is going to happen. I think we are, like everyone else, waiting on events for the time being.

    QUESTION:

    What do you think will be the next most significant event?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t tell you yet. Events may move very swiftly. It is impossible to say. I think we will have to wait and see.

    QUESTION:

    What do you make of the ambassador in this country’s apparent assertion that there are going to be continued reforms and so on in the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I hope that is true. We have supported reform in the Soviet Union for many years in the past; we hope we are going to see reform. The future prosperity of the Soviet Union depends upon there being reform. It is in their interest to have reform; it is in the West’s interest to see reform; whether it happens, we must wait and see. The omens at the moment are not propitious.

  • Mr Major’s First Statement of Day on Soviet Union – 19 August 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s first statement, made in Downing Street, on Monday 19th August 1991 on the Soviet Union situation.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Events overnight are clearly a very ominous development indeed. I will be consulting our friends and allies over the next few hours and I would expect to have a meeting of senior colleagues at No. 10 in the middle of the afternoon.

    There seems little doubt that President Gorbachev has been removed from power by an unconstitutional seizure of power. There are constitutional ways of removing the President of the Soviet Union; they have not been used.

    Whatever the future may hold for President Gorbachev, I hope there is no doubt in anyone’s mind about the immense contribution that he has made over recent years both to the prospects for people within the Soviet Union and to the rapprochement that has taken place between East and West as a result of his efforts and those of Presidents Reagan, Bush and others. He has, therefore, a very proud record indeed.

    I believe that the whole world has a very serious stake in the events currently taking place in the Soviet Union; the reform process that is of vital importance to the whole world and of most vital importance of course to the Soviet people themselves and I hope that is fully understood by everyone.

    There is a great deal of information we don’t yet have but I would like to make clear above all that we will expect the Soviet Union to respect and honour all those commitments that President Gorbachev has made on its behalf.

    I hope we will be able to say more later on today. I will take one or two questions but very few.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, given what you say, do you believe it is too late now to influence events and if it is, who does the West do business with?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We simply don’t know the answer to that question yes. I hope we will find out more information during the course of the day.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, the G7 Summit offered moral support to Mr. Gorbachev. Do you now feel in retrospect that you should have given him much more, especially hard cash?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t believe that is the case and neither is that the cause of the present difficulties in the Soviet Union today so far as we can see.

    What we were seeking to do and indeed I was going to Moscow in order to further that later on this year, was to help along the reform progress. What appears to have happened is a strike against the reform process in the Soviet Union.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, do you believe you will still be going to Moscow?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is too early to say.

    QUESTION:

    Does the international crisis enhance the Conservatives’ election chances?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have had no chance of contemplating that matter this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Were you forewarned in any way at all?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we were not forewarned. Of course, the possibility of some action of this sort has been around and has been considered for some considerable time but there was no immediate knowledge that it was going to happen at this particular moment. As background, clearly one realised the possibility of this happening at some stage.

    QUESTION:

    Given the fall in the FT index today, how worried are you about the implications for the British economy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is very early stages in terms of the fall in the FT index; we will have to see how it will stabilise. I think there is no reason for people to panic in terms of the international markets, either the exchange markets or the stock exchanges and I hope people won’t.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, will there have to be some reconsideration given to the planned defence cuts?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I see no reason for us to do that. The prospects of events in the Soviet Union were amongst those matters that were considered and considered very carefully in terms of the defence reductions that were made. It is quite wrong for people to suggest, as sometime they have done, that they were Treasury-driven cuts; those changes in our defence posture were made as a result of changing circumstances, changing needs, changing capacity and changing nature of weaponry so there were a whole series of other reasons for making the changes that were in hand.

    QUESTION:

    Do you fear a return to the Cold War, then, Prime Minister? Is that what we are looking at?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe that we are in a position to make a firm judgement on that yet; clearly, one would hope not. I don’t think one is going back to the position that existed pre-Mr. Gorbachev but of course it is very early to make any judgements of this sort and although it is perhaps not the answer you would wish, I think we will have to wait and see how events unfold and be a little better informed than we are at the present over what is actually happening. I hope we will know more later on today; if we do, of course we will say so.

  • Mr Major’s Party Political Broadcast – 24 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s radio party political broadcast, transmitted on 24th July 1991.

    PRESENTER:

    On Monday this week, John Major launched the Citizen’s Charter. ‘Citizen’s’ because it is on your side. The idea for it was born many years ago. John Major.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Twenty years ago, I was a local councillor. I became convinced then that our public services could be more sensitive to the people who use them, who depend on them and who pay for them.

    PRESENTER:

    In 1979, the Conservatives took power and started on a programme of reforms, rolling back the power of the state, helping council tenants to the dignity of home ownership and privatising those industries government ran so badly. Much has been done since 1979 but the Citizen’s Charter sets out much more that is still to be done. We all know the annoyances: long hold ups on motorways because one lane has been coned off for miles, even though there’s no sign of any work being done; the train you were depending upon suddenly being cancelled; and the way hospital administrators fail to value the patient’s time. How many people have had hospital experiences like this?

    [Sound effects]

    WOMAN:

    And I’m not exaggerating. There were dozens of us there. And all with an appointment at the same time – ten forty – with the same doctor. Oh, I can’t tell you. It was awful. It’s bad enough being pregnant without this sort of thing happening. Talk about being in the club.

    PRESENTER:

    Here’s another example that too many council tenants will recognise. The scene is a council estate. And here come two council workmen.

    [Sound effects – doorbell – door opening]

    WORKMAN:

    Afternoon lady. Come about your old rotting window.

    WOMAN:

    Oh, you’d best come in.

    WORKMAN:

    Ta. Oh, nasty that. Yeah, it’ll need a glazier. Have to send in a requisition.

    PRESENTER:

    Well. What’s your bet? Next time?

    [Sound effects – doorbell]

    PRESENTER:

    Someone to fix it? Or?

    [Sound effects – door opening]

    WORKMAN:

    Oh, morning. We’re from the council. Apparently one of your windows is playing up a bit.

    WOMAN:

    Yes, come in.

    WORKMAN:

    Oh, that is cracked. That is definitely cracked. It’ll need some glass. Look.

    WOMAN:

    Well, I know that. I told the council six months ago.

    WORKMAN:

    All right. All right. I’ll order some glass.

    [Sound effects – workman whistling]

    PRESENTER:

    Another annoyance: having to stay around all day for someone from the public utilities to turn up. But now, thanks to the Citizen’s Charter, waiting for the gas man will no longer be part of the English language.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    I want to put the pride back in public services. There is no joy in giving bad service; and too little recognition of good service. So we will introduce more choice and competition on the one hand and reward care and commitment on the other.

    PRESENTER:

    What have the papers had to say?

    The Today Newspaper. Britain’s gas men, post men, train drivers and council workers will never again be able to take us for granted.

    The Daily Mail. John Major knows about bus queues, crowded tubes and hospital waiting rooms, so he wants to provide you with the information you can really use to practical advantage: how your child is doing in class; how local schools compare; what is the name behind the unhelpful voice at the other end of the phone; how you can complain and to whom.

    The Daily Express. John Major’s Citizen’s Charter amounts to the biggest shake-up Britain has seen in its public services.

    Almost everybody has greeted the new Citizen’s Charter with enthusiasm. Almost everybody.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    So who, you might ask, could possibly disagree with the aims of the Charter? Well, I’ll tell you. People who are comfortable about low standards. People who expect you to put up without asking questions. And people who always want to spend more money, more of your money, rather than try and use it better. Then there are the people who know how to work the system for themselves. They’re all right, Jack. But what about everybody else? I don’t want anybody to feel like a second class citizen. I want everyone to have better public services. That’s what the Citizen’s Charter is all about. That’s what it will aim to deliver – for everyone.

  • PMQT – 23 July 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Haynes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

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

    Mr. Haynes : The Prime Minister will be aware that we came into this place together and that we have been friends ever since. However, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked him a question yesterday on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, I wondered where Honest John was. Will he tell me please?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct that we entered the House on the same day. I, too, am proud to have been his friend during that period and I hope that that will continue. I made it clear to his right hon. Friend yesterday that I had no knowledge of the fraud at the BCCI until 28 June. I have set up an inquiry that will have open access to all the information that is available and all the people who are concerned, up to and including Ministers and myself. When that report is concluded, I will publish it.

    Mr. Dickens : Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister please confirm that it was the Conservative party which first gave parents their rights, gave trade union members their rights and gave council tenants their rights? Is it not now the Conservative party which is giving the ordinary citizens of Britain their rights and is not that to be admired under the leadership of my right hon. Friend?

    The Prime Minister : I would not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recall that he told the House on 18 January 1990 that he was aware of the reports about the banking operations of BCCI, that he said :

    “I am satisfied with the supervision responsibilities and powers available to the Bank of England”–[ Official Report, 18 January 1990 ; Vol. 165, c. 402.]

    and that he said that the Bank had “sufficient staff working” on what he told the House was “a serious matter”? Will he now answer the specific question which he did not answer in any way yesterday? When did he first know about the very serious and prolonged banking irregularities at the BCCI?

    The Prime Minister : As I told the right hon. Gentleman, the first time that I knew of serious banking irregularities was on 28 June–last month. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that clear to the House on Friday, I made it clear to the House on Monday and the Governor of the Bank of England made it clear in a letter to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, as a Privy Councillor, is unwilling or unable to accept those assurances.

    Mr. Kinnock : If the Prime Minister will refresh his memory, he will discover that he made absolutely no mention whatever either yesterday or on any other occasion of serious banking irregularities. Is it not a fact that in early 1990 the Prime Minister knew about the use of BCCI by drug traffickers, and therefore clearly knew about the other grave irregularities? It is a matter of record in columns 402-3 of Hansard of 18 January 1990 that he knew about the other grave irregularities at BCCI, that he told the House that it was a “serious matter” and that he then let the matter drop, with tragic consequences for those who, in complete innocence, continued to use the BCCI. Has not he been utterly negligent? Was not his failure to act on the knowledge that he had a complete dereliction of duty?

    The Prime Minister : I regret that the right hon. Gentleman continues to conduct opposition by smear. The reality of what happened all the way through, of who knew about the details of the fraud and other serious matters, will be entirely uncovered by the inquiry that I have set up. The right hon. Gentleman should wait for the results of the inquiry and, meantime, he should not continue as he is doing.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister is rightly exercised about the sovereignty of this House of Parliament. Will he answer questions to permit us to exercise the sovereignty of this House and hold the Government to account? He says that it is a matter of regret that I ask these questions. It truly is a matter of regret that 200,000 people continued to trade with the BCCI, including 60 local authorities and countless companies, in complete innocence when all the time the then Chancellor of the Exchequer knew about serious irregularities in that bank, but did nothing to warn anyone.

    The Prime Minister : Those depositors are in difficulty because of the fraud perpetrated by the BCCI. I have told the right hon. Gentleman that the first knowledge that I had of that fraud was on 28 June. [Interruption.] If he is saying that I am a liar, he had better do so bluntly. [Interruption.] If he is not, he had better stop insinuating it.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister has already misled the House once today by saying that yesterday he referred to the irregularities, when it is in the recall of this House that he did not say a word about the irregularities yesterday, despite being asked about them. I have said to the Prime Minister that he knew about matters other than fraud before January this year and before June this year. Despite what he knew as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did nothing to warn innocent people of the trap into which they were moving and of a bank that was near bankruptcy, that was giving unsecured loans and was not fit to trade. He let the bank trade.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has just revealed to the House why he is unfit to be in government– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. [Hon. Members– : “Guilty !”]. Order.

    Mr. Skinner : It all started when–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us behave like the House of Commons.

    Mr. Whitney : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent citizen’s charter. Does he agree that the typically churlish and sour reaction of Opposition Members demonstrates once again that, unlike the majority of the political parties in the world, they have still not understood that it is the competition and choice in the private sector which create quality of service? Does he also agree that it is the right of customers in the public sector to receive that same quality of service?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The measures in the citizen’s charter, both the large ones and the smaller ones, will be welcomed by people up and down the country. It is often the small matters that cause the greatest degree of frustration to ordinary people, and those small matters require to be dealt with. Many of the provisions of the citizen’s charter will do precisely that.

    Mr. Ashdown : Further to that answer, yesterday the Prime Minister rightly said that where the authorities fail, the citizen should be compensated. Will he confirm to the House that that principle of compensation will apply if the Bingham inquiry shows that the authorities failed in the BCCI affair?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman had better wait for the result of the Bingham inquiry.

    Mr. Soames : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in more than 40 prison establishments in this country today there is a full-blown industrial dispute? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs? Does he further agree that the Government must do something to sort out that rotten union?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we address that matter.

     

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

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

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Is the Prime Minister aware that the Health Select Committee recently heard evidence that there has been a huge increase in serious infections during child birth because of the declining standards of hospital cleaning, directly arising from the privatisation process? Will he include as part of his citizens charter a commitment to return to the public sector those unsafe and unsatisfactory privatised services currently operating in the national health service?

    The Prime Minister : It is a curious reality of life that all over the world different countries are moving increasingly to privatise services, including the Soviet Union which is looking to move many of its services into the private sector. Only the Labour party in this country is seeking to move back to nationalisation.

    Mr. Ward : Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are less likely to have seriously ill patients turned away from hospitals and less likely to have people waiting to be buried if we continue with our privatisation scheme and eliminate the unions from the hospitals?

    The Prime Minister : It is the Government’s policy to continue to improve the quantity and quality of health care in this country, as we have done in recent years. That is in the interests of patients and it is certainly what is set out in our provisions in the citizens charter. That is the policy we will follow.

     

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

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

    Mr. McAllion : Is the Prime Minister aware that the most important right available to citizens is the right to decide for themselves under which kind of Government they live? Since that is the very right that the Government are denying to the people of Scotland, does the right hon. Gentleman understand that his so-called citizens charter will be seen in Scotland for what it is–a fraud and a deceit? It is yet another reason for inflicting deserved electoral defeat on the Government when the Prime Minister finally finds the courage to face the citizens at the ballot box.

    The Prime Minister : I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Gentleman lives in the real world.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Executive Agencies

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out those areas for which ministers are referring parliamentary questions for reply to next steps executive agencies.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s policy for dealing with parliamentary questions on matters delegated to executive agencies was set out in their response to the Eighth Report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee (October 1990, Cm 1263) as follows : “It is for Ministers responsible for particular Agencies to respond in the way they consider most helpful and appropriate to inquiries raised by Members In the case of Parliamentary Questions concerning day-to-day operational matters delegated to the Agency, Ministers will normally arrange for the Chief Executive to write to the Member (and will reply to this effect in Hansard )”.

    All replies to hon. Members from agency chief executives, other than those concerning personal or confidential matters, are available in the Library.

    The Government’s intention is that replies about the carrying out of Government business are full, prompt and as helpful as possible. The arrangements we have are intended to achieve this and they are kept under review.

     

    Engagements

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

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

     

    Security Vetting

    Sir John Wheeler : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the Government’s policy on the implications of homosexuality for security vetting.

    The Prime Minister : All candidates for posts involving access to highly classified information are vetted in accordance with the procedures described in the statement of vetting policy announced by my predecessor on 24 July 1990 at columns 159-61.

    Because homosexual acts, even between consenting adults, remain criminal offences in a number of overseas countries, evidence of homosexuality, even if acknowledged, has been treated under this policy as a bar to clearance at PV (TS)–positive vetting (top secret)–or enhanced positive vetting (EPV) level in overseas posts and therefore as a bar to recruitment to certain areas of employment, including the diplomatic service. In the light of changing social attitudes towards homosexuality in this country and abroad, and the correspondingly greater willingness on the part of homosexuals to be open about their sexuality, their lifestyle and their relationships, the Government have reviewed this policy and concluded that in future there should be no posts involving access to highly classified information for which homosexuality represents an automatic bar to security clearance, except in the special case of the armed forces where homosexual acts remain offences under the service disciplinary Acts.

    The susceptibility of the subject to blackmail or pressure by a foreign intelligence service will continue to be a factor in the vetting of all candidates for posts involving access to highly classified information. An individual assessment is made in each case, taking account of the evidence which emerges in the course of the vetting process and the level of security clearance required.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference on the Citizen’s Charter – 22 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference on the Citizen’s Charter, made in London on Monday 22nd July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say to you all at the outset that I am delighted to be here at the launch of the Citizen’s Charter, I believe the charter is going to mark a new beginning for our public services, a new beginning that will produce better services, better tailored, more efficient and more effective for our citizens who use them. I will take whatever questions you have in a few moments but let me say a word or two before I take those questions about why I find myself personally so committed to this concept of a Citizen’s Charter.

    Twenty years ago I became a local councillor in Lambeth and I saw then the importance and the capacity of raising standards for local people. I still share those ambitions but now on a wider scale and I believe it is possible to raise the standard of public service for all our citizens and I want to make sure that people who are responsible for delivering the public services are properly answerable to the people who use those public services and those who pay for them.

    I have spent a great deal of the last twenty years working with people in the public service so I know from first hand how much energy they have, how much enthusiasm and how much they too want to improve and increase the services that they provide for the public. I am sure that in the vast majority of cases they are as frustrated as the consumer is when the service falls short.

    My aim then is quite simple, it is to raise the standard of the worst services to the standard of the best and then see whether we can improve the standard of the best. Each year, year after year, we spend more money on our public services and I want to make sure that we get the very best value we can for every pound that we spend, I want everyone to know precisely how to get the best out of the public services that we provide, not just those who are articulate, not just those who know their way round the system, I want top quality public services for everyone and that is the intention that lies at the heart of the Citizen’s Charter.

    In the Paper that we produced today – the Citizen’s Charter – I said in the House there were well over 70 specific measures in the White Paper to raise standards throughout our public service. In practice I excluded many of the tiny ones and one can total a figure above 100 if one wishes to include many of the tiny improvements that are there. I do not propose to list them all, you will find a comprehensive list attached to the press statement that you have. But I do want briefly to highlight some of those that I believe are of particular importance.

    Firstly, we have a whole package of new measures to raise standards in our school; secondly, and this does take me very directly back to my Lambeth days, we will be giving council tenants a better deal in future; thirdly, we will be introducing guaranteed maximum waiting times for certain National Health Service treatments; and fourthly, British Rail will be bringing forward a range of measures to improve their service, tell their passengers what is going on, and then compensate them when things go badly wrong.

    Now those illustrations frankly just touch the surface of what is in the White Paper, many of you will have heard the statement I made in the House, others of you will no doubt by now have read the White Paper or read the press release with the comprehensive list attached to it, and I think you will see from that just how wide the Citizen’s Charter approach ranges and how it is set to drive very deep into the very core of our public services.

    I do not for one moment today pretend that I am offering an instant fix, cannot all be done immediately and as I made expressly clear earlier today is only the beginning, it will require a lot of grit and a lot of determination to carry these proposals into law and then see people’s lives actually improve as a result of them. But we are determined to see that happen. In the 1980s we did have the grit and the determination to push through reforms that materially changed the face of this country for the better, we will now do precisely the same with the Citizen’s Charter in the 1990s and I have no doubt that i t will have a very beneficial effect indeed for millions of our fellow citizens in the way in which they receive the public services that are provided.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman):

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think when you look at it just from the point of view of cost you are actually looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope and for this reason. If you look, for example, at page 38 – checking progress – you will actually see comparisons of performance between different areas of local and other government and it indicates very clearly when you see those comparisons how much improvement can actually be obtained within the resources that are already available. As to beyond that, some of these matters will require legislation and of course resources are always a matter that is discussed in the public expenditure round.

    But this is not simply a question of saying here are these new things to do, therefore here is a new pot of money in order to do it. These are policies, some of which will be cost effective and cost efficient, and it is really a question of making sure these policies are carried out within the increasing resources that are there and thereafter if it seems that more money is required it is a matter for the public expenditure round.

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman):

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a matter for the public expenditure round if necessary. But I draw you back to this Eleanor, have a look at the difference between the best and the worst and you will see how much extra should be achieved for the resources that are already there, the increase in public resources in recent years has been dramatic.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, The Times):

    You say that legislation is needed for quite a lot of the items in this list, can you say which are the priority items of legislation which we should look for in the next Queen’s speech and on one point of detail, the Post Office monopoly, why are you only going close to the cost of the first class letter in ending the Post Office monopoly, why not go the whole way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did consider that, we thought it better at least for the immediate future to go close to, so you may regard it as a step by step approach but for the moment we think the right way to deal with it is close to.

    As for legislation, some of the legislation will undoubtedly appear in The Queen’s Speech in November, there is more than one way of handling the legislation and I cannot tell you which way we will do it yet, it might for example be an Omnibus Bill or conceivably much of it will quite naturally and literally fall within the ambits of bills that are coming forward in any event and some of the changes relate only to secondary legislation and would be introduced by Order.

    QUESTION:

    You call this the “Citizen’s Charter” not the “Consumer Charter” or the “Charter for Public Services”. Could you tell us what you mean by “citizenship”?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Anyone legally resident in this country.

    QUESTION (Same Man):

    But is there more to it than that? Is it simply another name for individuals who have rights through this or is there a broader vision?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no hidden agenda under the word “Citizen”. This is intended to deliver better value for the consumer of the services. The consumer of the services varies from one service to another but all of them, within the definition I gave you a moment ago, are citizens of this country and hence the name.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    Prime Minister, by publishing this Citizen’s Charter, are you effectively accepting that during the ’80s the Labour Party took the public sector area by default and that now you can’t deliver on the economy you have to take them on that ground as well?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Expressly not! I don’t think the Labour Party took anything in the 1980s – they certainly took no elections and they won’t take any in the 1990s either.

    In the 1990s, firstly if one may talk about the economy, the news of course that was perhaps slightly overshadowed today was firstly the increase in retail sales which many people have waited to see for some time and secondly, the fact that the balance of trade figures were actually in surplus. I hope both those points are clearly noted together with the fall in interest rates there has been, the fall in inflation there has been and the clear view of the G7 Heads of Government that the world would be coming out of recession in the second half of this year. I think all those indicators point in the right direction.

    What we are seeking to do in terms of public services is take forward what has already been achieved. If you go back to the beginning of the 1980s, a large number of the public services were still in the public sector – all the public utilities were still in the public sector and receiving massive taxpayer subsidy whilst they remained there. They have been taken out of the public sector; they are now contributing to the Exchequer and not draining the Exchequer and they are providing a better service as well and they have regulators who, under the proposals I have announced today, will be able to monitor their performance and order compensation when their performance is inadequate, so I believe we are taking the reforms that we began in the 1980s to a further dimension.

    QUESTION (Michael White, The Guardian):

    Prime Minister, having read much of what you have published today, much of it seems admirable and idealistic – the sort of thing one might expect to read in some of our more ideological journals, perhaps “Marxism Today” or the “Sunday Telegraph” but one wonders in terms of practicality how much of this is as do-able as you seem to be suggesting and if I can ask a couple of illustrative questions:

    If I were unlucky enough to need a hip replacement operation or a hernia operation and my local hospital couldn’t do it and I went either to another hospital as you suggested or the private sector, who would end up paying for that operation, where would the money come from?

    Secondly, my sister is a teacher; she is 49, she loves teaching but she says: “The Government has imposed so much paperwork on me in the last two years that I am thinking of getting out of teaching – I can’t cope!” This Charter seems likely to impose more on my sister.

    Thirdly, Whitehall Departments and their obligations to the citizen as a consumer seem to be largely absent from the document and I wonder if I were a soldier unlucky enough to have my legs blown off in Canada in an unfortunate accident, where do I stand today where I didn’t stand yesterday?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take the first point of whether it is do-able. If I didn’t think it was do-able, Michael, I wouldn’t have put it in the Charter. We have looked very carefully; we have been quite ruthless in what we put in and what we have not put in. There were areas where there was a reluctance to proceed and we decided it was right to do so and we have done so; there were areas where it was difficult to see how we would carry things forward for the time being and we have excluded those matters from the Charter.

    On the question of the hernia, which I trust you never have, if your own Health Authority are unable to do it within the guaranteed waiting time, they would look to see whether an adjacent Health Authority could do it; if they can’t do it, they would go to the private sector for it to be done but it would be paid for by the public sector just as though you had been treated as a public sector patient in your own National Health Service hospital so it would be exactly the same; it would simply be that you would not have to wait beyond the guaranteed maximum time for your treatment.

    On the subject of teaching, I am happy to accept not least because my wife was a teacher, the concern and dedication that many teachers have for teaching – I believe that is the case. And what is it those teachers most want? I think they most want to have a proper regime that ensures that they can teach children in a proper adequate way in the way that the parents of those children actually wish to see them taught. The reforms and changes that we have announced today will, I think, move us a step further towards achieving that. It does very heavily rest on seeking to meet the commitment that parents want in our schools for their children and I think it is entirely right that it should do that and that we should provide the information and the guarantees that we are providing in the education sector.

    On the subject of Whitehall, you will have heard me say earlier today that progressively Crown immunities are disappearing; you will have heard me say also that we propose to be very careful indeed to ensure that those public sectors that fall directly under the control of Central Government deliver the best services as well, and if I may give you perhaps an illustration of that, the Benefits Agency which has been recently formed – the old Social Security Department has now been formed into an agency – is beginning to produce its own internal management reforms; it is becoming a more friendly consumer-oriented body; and it is certainly illustrating with name badges and elsewhere whom the customer is dealing with. So these changes are actually coming about. I think the question of Mr. Hicks, Mr. Ray and Mr. Povey is a separate one that I hope will be resolved soon.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister, could I just follow up, though, on your answer there to Michael White on the question of the lady’s hernia?

    You would confirm, would you not, that that is recycling of that existing Authority’s money and that throughout the Charter there is nowhere, as it were, a fresh injection of money. I know what you said to Eleanor about public expenditure but isn’t all of this dependent on the recycling of existing money and how therefore would you answer Mr. Kinnock’s point that, for example, kids would benefit more from more money into school-building than some of the things you have done on school reports or truancy rates?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Whenever Mr. Kinnock sees something, he reaches for your cheque book, Michael. There is a limit to how much that can do and there is a second obligation rather than just reaching for your cheque book and that is to make sure the money that has been extracted from your pocket already with compulsory taxation is actually spent wisely and well and it is self-evident that in some cases it is not spent to best effect and we can get a greater degree of service for the amount of money that is available and as I said, in here there are a clear number of illustrations of that.

    Beyond that, we have set out the commitment of guaranteed waiting times; these are matters that will have to be looked at in the Public Expenditure Round to ensure that we have the resources available to do it but it is silly just to say: “Here is a little pot of gold to do something!” We have set out the principles and our determination to achieve those principles: that will guide policy.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    The charge at the moment is that trying to get these operations done out-of-area only has a very small amount of finance within the local authority – some 2 percent I think.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Michael, in the health reforms that exist at the moment, in the case of GPs who are budget-holders, they can already send their patients actually beyond their own health area. There is a degree of recycling there already. This is a principle writ larger for people who reach the end of their guaranteed maximum waiting time when the local Health Authority are unable to meet their particular operation but those operations are important and they should be dealt with and there is capacity within the Health Service to deal with them, as we saw with the transfer of GP fund-holders. We are extending that wider so it is a fallacy just to look at this in terms of resources. You should be looking at it to ensure that we make full use of the resources that are already available.

    QUESTION (The Independent):

    Quite a bit of this involves publishing more information presumably on the basis that information is power so why did you duck going the whole way in providing a Information Act so that it is your citizens who can decide what information they have available and not you decide what information they should have?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would remind you, Nick, although I am sure you need no reminding, that it was this Government which did reform the Official Secrets Act, I think in 1988, maybe 1989, to remove large areas of information from the ambit of criminal law but this is a Charter for citizens, not for those who want to reduce ministerial accountability in the House and I think you have to look at this Charter and see what it is there for and you will see, therefore, that it does have the freedom of information provisions within its remit.

    QUESTION:

    A lot of the points here seem very basic. Isn’t it long overdue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It may be long overdue but I daresay that many of the points are not basic. I think the proposals for contracting out, the proposals for privatisation, the proposals on education, the proposals on health, the proposals on the Post Office, the proposals in a vast range of other areas, particularly perhaps in the employment area, the right of an individual actually to seek an injunction against a wildcat strike – if those are very simple and very basic, then I am surprised. Some of them are very wide, very wide-ranging and in some cases revolutionary. I believe their time has come and we must now legislate to provide those authorities and those rights for individuals and I believe it will have a very substantial motivating effect upon the whole of the public sector and that is what we wish to see – the best possible public services for the people who pay for them.

    QUESTION:

    Will it win you the next election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are going to win the next election anyway!