The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1992

  • PMQT – 4 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir George Gardiner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Sir George Gardiner : Does my right hon. Friend agree that to suggest that there is one kind of school that can cater for the needs of all kinds of pupils is an example of the naive theorising that has caused so many problems in education, which we are seeking to address today? Will he continue to press for diversity in education through grant-maintained schools, through city technology colleges and through local management of schools responsive to parents’ wishes?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the premise underlying my hon. Friend’s question. We will certainly continue to encourage diversity through grant-maintained schools, CTCs and locally managed schools, all of which give greater opportunity and choice to parents and pupils. We will continue to offer that choice.

    Mr. Kinnock : At the time when the Prime Minister said that if his policies

    “were not hurting, they were not working,”

    did he realise that those policies would cause the longest recession since the 1930s?

    The Prime Minister : We have taken action to ensure that we come out of this recession in a way that will ensure sustained recovery. As the Governor of the Bank of England said only yesterday, “the conditions are now in place to underpin a sustained recovery.”

    Mr. Kinnock : Having caused the longest recession since the 1930s, does the Prime Minister agree with the words of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said last month : “the policy would not have been different even if we had known the outcome.”?

    The Prime Minister : Caused the recession?–Did we cause it in the United States, in Sweden, in Japan, in Australia, in New Zealand ? If the right hon. Gentleman believes all that, he is certainly not capable of leading his party, let alone this country.

    Mr. Kinnock : There is no question of doubt that this Government caused the recession in this country. Since the Prime Minister made the statement that I quoted, nearly 1 million jobs have been lost, there have been over 100,000 repossessions and 80,000 businesses have been lost, in those two years. This Government caused the recession, they continued the recession, and now they have not got a clue how to get out of the recession.

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. Gentleman has to say– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. Gentleman has to say is economic illiteracy. If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about recovery, what does he think that higher taxes would do to it ? What does he think that his jobs tax would do to it ? What does he think that his investment tax would do to it ? What does he think that his minimum wage would do to it ? The policies which the right hon. Gentleman pursues would mean perpetual recession for this country.– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will hon. Members please settle down ?

     

    Chancellor Kohl

    Q2. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister when he will next meet the Chancellor of Germany; and what issues he intends to discuss with him.

    The Prime Minister : Chancellor Kohl and I are in frequent contact by telephone to discuss matters of mutual interest. I expect to meet him again soon, but I have no immediate plans to do so.

    Mr. Hunter : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the extent to which the German economy has suffered from the worldwide slowdown and the fact that German output has decreased during the past two months for which figures are available? Does not that conclusively show that economic difficulties are not confined to the United Kingdom, as the Opposition try to claim?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend’s question is more apposite than he might have imagined. He is entirely right. I have noticed that fact, even if the Opposition have not. Again, the Governor of the Bank of England noted yesterday that the recession has proved unexpectedly persistent in north America and that in continental Europe, Japan and elsewhere economic activity has slowed and unemployment has begun to rise. Only the Opposition adopt their typical stance. They ignore other countries’ difficulties and concentrate solely on those in this country, to the damage of our interests.

    Mr. Radice : After the two opt-outs negotiated by the Prime Minister at Maastricht, does Chancellor Kohl still think that the Prime Minister is a good European?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman had better ask Chancellor Kohl that question. I have enjoyed the closest possible co-operation with Chancellor Kohl in the past year and I intend to continue to do so in the same capacity in years to come.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Lee : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Lee : The massive growth at Manchester airport since the Government have come to power–a 1,100 per cent. increase in fixed assets– has given a tremendous boost to the economy and pride of the north-west. Indeed, the north-south divide has now ceased to exist as an issue. When my right hon. Friend next has a free Saturday, will he fly up to Manchester, look at what has been achieved by the airport, and then pop over to Old Trafford to watch a first-class football side in action? It will win the first division championship, just as my right hon. Friend will certainly win the next general election.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not respond to one part of his question. Manchester airport, however, is a success story. It has benefited especially from the growth in the liberalisation of air services and, as a result, three times as many passengers now use the airport as when the Government came to office. That is a direct result of liberalisation introduced by the Government. The concept of a north-south divide was always too simplistic and sweeping. Many areas of prosperity and some of difficulty exist in each and every part of this country– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us have less barracking.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Cohen : Is the Prime Minister aware that, in my constituency of Leyton, unemployment has risen by 84 per cent. in the past 18 months? As last night the Governor of the Bank of England backtracked over the duration of the slump, will the Prime Minister now institute an urgent programme of recovery? Failing that, will he explain to my unemployed constituents why the Government consider them a “price worth paying”?

    The Prime Minister : Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was not listening a few moments ago when I quoted directly the Governor of the Bank of England saying that the conditions necessary to underpin a sustained recovery are now in place.

    Mr. Allason : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a review is to be undertaken of the use by the security and intelligence agencies of informants and other sources? When he receives that final report, will he bear in mind the fact that the security intelligence agencies rely on the use of informants, and the intelligence that they receive will never be any good unless a measure of protection can be granted to those sources?

    The Prime Minister : We do, of course, constantly keep these matters under review and I believe that it is important that we continue to do so.

     

    Q5. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Winnick : Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that since the Government came into office in 1979 nearly 2.5 million full-time jobs in manufacturing have been lost, 34 jobs for every hour this wretched Government have been in office? In view of the devastation, the unemployment and the misery caused to our people, is it any wonder that the Prime Minister is so reluctant to hold the general election?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is joining the Opposition trend of seeking to talk down what manufacturing and other industries are doing. He should remember that export volumes of manufactured goods grew faster than in the United States throughout the 1980s, that manufacturing grew faster than in France or Italy during the 1980s, and that Britain exports a larger proportion of its national product than Japan, a point recognised by even the Scottish National party.

    Mrs. Peacock : Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending congratulations to a Yorkshire manufacturing company, Spring Ram plc, which at the end of the month will open two new factories in my constituency, creating 400 new jobs, which is at present building two new factories in Barnsley which will create 400 new jobs, and which has a plan to create 1,100 new jobs in Bradford over the next four years?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to send my congratulations to my hon. Friend’s constituents. There are, of course, many other companies up and down the country which are similarly investing and growing, and laying the foundation for prosperity in the 1990s.

     

    Q6. Mr. Carr : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Carr : Can the Prime Minister tell the House how he squares his vision of a classless Britain with the experience of a constituent of mine from Fulwood, who was told last May that she needed a hip replacement but that she would have to wait 14 months for the operation under the national health service, and who was told that she could have had the operation immediately had she been able to cough up £4,300?

    The Prime Minister : There were no hip replacements available just a few years ago. It is now a relatively routine operation available in the national health service. Hip replacements are becoming more widely available month after month. That is the direction in which we must go to provide the best health service, the best opportunities and the best element of the classless society that I have talked about.

    Mr. Norris : Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the last thing that business needs is for business rates to be brought back under the control of uncapped, loony Labour authorities who will send rates sky rocketing, as they did during the early 1980s? Will he give the House a pledge that such a crazy proposal will never be included in a manifesto issued by the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. It is well known to every hon. Member that under the old system, councils could put up rates by more than the rate of inflation. They did and, among other evils, they forced many jobs out of inner city areas by doing so. Those who doubt that might remember the rate rise of Labour-controlled Ealing council of 57 per cent. in 1987. They might also recollect the wriggling of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on television the other day on precisely that problem. It would be a problem, he said. It would be a problem not just for the Labour party but for business men up and down the country.

     

    Q7. Mr. Andrew Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Since the Government have supported independence in Russia, Lithuania and other parts of the world, when the people of Scotland democratically and peacefully vote for independence, what will the Government say to them?

    The Prime Minister : This Union has served both Scotland and England well, and I would not wish to see it undermined. The proposals of the Labour party, the Liberal Democratic party and the Scottish National party would undermine that relationship that has served us so well in the Union. Devolution is not just a matter for Scotland ; it is a matter for the whole United Kingdom. If an Assembly were given tax-raising powers, how would that fit in with the other fiscal arrangements? What would the increased taxation do to prosperity in Scotland? The hon. Gentleman should put a fair proposal before the Scottish people, not the half-baked one that he has made.

    Mr. Gregory : Will my right hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has not yet asked a question of the Prime Minister.

    Mr. Gregory : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue as the party of denationalisation, and confirm to the electorate of York that the Conservative party will not take away the shares of those who have invested in Northern Electric, British Telecom and other such denationalised companies?

    The Prime Minister : I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. The denationalisation programme has been good not only for the consumer, but for share owning and the improvement of both investment and wealth in this country. We believe in those propositions and we shall continue to support them.

     

    Q8. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 January.

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

    Mr. Jones : I am sure that the Prime Minister will have enjoyed reading the Western Mail last Saturday, where he will have seen the results of a telephone survey showing that the people of Wales now support the setting up of a Welsh Parliament by a margin of four to one. When will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the aspirations of the Welsh and Scottish people cannot be sidelined for ever, and when will Parliament act?

    The Prime Minister : I seem to recall that there was a referendum once before on devolution in Wales when there appeared to be a majority in favour. But the reality was that the referendum showed that there was no majority, and the people of Wales recognised that it would be in the best interests of their country and the United Kingdom to sustain the present arrangements.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Blindness

    Mr. Cousins : To ask the Prime Minister what action he proposes to undertake as a result of the findings of the Royal National Institute of the Blind survey into provisions for the blind and partially sighted.

    The Prime Minister : I welcome the survey as a useful supplement to the information contained in earlier surveys of disability. Ministerial colleagues in the Departments of Health, of Social Security and of Employment have met or will shortly be meeting representatives of the Royal National Institute for the Blind to discuss the implications of the survey for their programmes. The survey is also being carefully considered in other departments with an interest.

     

    Lamplugh School

    Dr. Cunningham : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Lamplugh school, Frizington, Cumbria; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Three representations were received during 1990.

     

    Ehenside School

    Dr. Cunningham : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Ehenside school, Cleator moor; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : As far as I am aware, none.

  • Downing Street Statement on Paddy Ashdown – 3 February 1992

    Below is the text of the Downing Street comment on Paddy Ashdown.

    DOWNING STREET SPOKESMAN:

    These matters are not relevant to Mr Ashdown’s politics or capabilities. It has nothing to do with politics.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on President Yeltsin – 3 February 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on 3rd February 1992 on President Yeltsin and the UN Security Council.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about President Yeltsin’s visit to London on 30 January and about the special meeting of the UN Security Council in New York on 31 January. I was accompanied to New York by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Both meetings came at an important time in Russia’s relationship with the rest of the world and at a critical time for world peace and stability. Russia has, in President Yeltsin’s own words, thrown off the shackles of communism. She remains a nuclear super-power. As such, and as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, she has world responsibilities. It is essential for our own peace and security that Russia continues to play the positive role on which President Gorbachev embarked and which President Yeltsin is set to continue and to develop. I believe that we should offer them our support in this.

    I called the meeting in New York during our chairmanship of the Security Council so that the council could meet at the highest level to reaffirm and develop its commitment to peacekeeping and peacemaking. The timing was particularly apt following the appointment of a new Secretary-General and with Russia taking the seat in the Security Council formerly held by the Soviet Union. The meeting was successful, and I should like to highlight the key points.

    This was the first time in the 47 years of its history that the UN had met at the top level. For the first time ever, the Heads of State and Government of the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain sat around the same table and pledged themselves, with the other members of the council, to collective security, to international law and to our commitments under the United Nations’ charter.

    A statement was agreed by all the members of the Security Council. Copies are in the Library of the House. In it we reaffirmed that all disputes between states should be resolved peacefully in accordance with the provisions of the charter. We committed ourselves to the fight against terrorism. We asked the Secretary-General to make recommendations for a more effective role for the United Nations as peacekeeper and as peacemaker. Under article 99 of the charter, the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. We hope the new Secretary-General will use those powers. He will report to us within six months with his recommendations. We committed ourselves to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and to the conclusion of a chemical weapons convention this year. The council endorsed the idea put forward by the British Government, and recently endorsed by the General Assembly, of a UN register of conventional arms transfers. During his visit to London, President Yeltsin noted that Britain had been the first country to denounce the August coup, and the first to recognise Russia; the first to propose Russian membership of the International Monetary Fund; the first to propose an April deadline for that membership; and the first to support a stabilisation fund for the rouble.

    It is essential that Russia join the IMF at the earliest opportunity, and I believe that a stabilisation fund may need to follow if Russia is to have a prospect of establishing a successful market economy. There is, of course, a financial cost in this, but the cost of failure and a return to dictatorship and the cold war would be infinitely higher. It is in our national interest and in the interests of the west as a whole to help Russia, and we shall continue to take a lead in doing so. I undertook to make it one of the priorities of our presidency of the European Community later this year to carry through an improved trade and co-operation agreement with Russia.

    In our discussion of arms control issues, President Yeltsin committed Russia to further significant reductions in the Russian strategic and international arsenal. I told him that we had already committed ourselves to a cut of one half in our sub-strategic nuclear weapons and to smaller conventional forces. I told him also that Britain’s only strategic weapon would be the minimum deterrent constituted by Trident.

    President Yeltsin accepted that Trident was indeed a minimum deterrent and that the focus of arms control negotiations should be on the arsenal of the two super-powers. We agreed to co-operate in handling surplus Soviet weapons and in safeguarding nuclear materials. I offered to send a technical mission to Moscow to assess the immediate needs at first hand. I have also offered to send a small number of officials from the Ministry of Defence to the Russian Ministry of Defence to advise on the restructuring and control and financing of armed forces in a democratic society. We discussed the problem of the possible leakage of expertise from Russia in the field of weapons of mass destruction. President Yeltsin has made proposals for handling this problem, and we have offered our help as part of an international effort. The President and I agreed to establish a secure telephone link between our two offices. This is not meant as a crisis hot-line ; it will enable us to conduct the significant amount of business we have to undertake.

    We signed a joint declaration–the text of which is in the Library of the House–on relations between our two countries. It will form the basis of a treaty which the President and I hope to sign during the official visit to Britain which he will make later this year. It will be the first such treaty since 1766.

    This is a time of great hope in international affairs, but also of uncertainty and potential instability. The two meetings on which I have reported to the House have shown our determination to work for a safer world and a new partnership with Russia in the cause of peace.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Departmental Management

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list (i) for those Departments with a financial management initiative management system (a) the name in each case, (b) when it was established and (c) the name of the Minister who has direct supervision of the system; and (ii) those Departments which do not have a financial management initiative management system.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    This information is not held centrally and the question should be addressed to individual Ministers.

     

    Western Sahara

    Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to discuss the future status of the western Sahara during his forthcoming meeting at the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The subject may arise in discussion in the margins of the special meeting of the United Nations Security Council, but there is unlikely to be time for any detailed discussions of regional issues at the meeting itself.

     

    Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy at the forthcoming special meeting of the United Nations permanent members of the Security Council on proliferation (a) to establish agreed criteria for the completion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, (b) to urge President Mitterrand to finalise French membership of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to halt nuclear testing in the Polynesian islands in the Pacific and (c) to establish the basis for the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations under article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to negotiate nuclear disarmament with other treaty signatory states.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply. The main purpose of today’s special meeting of the UN Security Council is to reaffirm the importance of the UN’s role in maintaining international peace and security. This may include discussion of arms control agreements. However, we have no plans to raise the issues referred to in the question.

     

    Tax (Wales)

    Mr. Gwilym Jones : To ask the Prime Minister what is the total tax paid by the people of Wales, including to local councils; what is the total expenditure from that taxation in Wales by Government, local councils and all other bodies so financed including the relevant proportion for Wales of any expenditure on a wider basis; and what these figures are per head of the Welsh population.

    Mr. Mellor : I have been asked to reply. Information on the total tax paid by people in Wales is not available. Information is, for example, not available for capital gains tax. Data is available on income tax payments and the latest information, which relates to 1988-89, is given in table 2.10 of the 1991 issue of Inland Revenue Statistics. Precise figures for receipts from indirect tax payments paid by people in Wales are not available but it is estimated that the Welsh share of United Kingdom taxes collected by HM Customs and Excise in 1990-91 was about £2 billion. The latest information on community charge and non-domestic rate payments indicates that at 31 March 1991 local authorities had received an estimated £360 million (£125 per head) in community charges for 1990-91 and that payments of non-domestic rates by businesses for 1990-91 were an estimated £430 million (£150 per head) at the same date. Information on general government expenditure in Wales in 1990-91, other than that incurred for the benefit of the UK as a whole, is given in tables E6a and E6b of appendix E of the statistical supplement to the 1991 Autumn Statement (Cm. 1920).

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in New York – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in New York, held on Friday 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had a very wide-ranging and satisfactory debate thus far in the Security Council. I set out this morning some of the key elements that I thought would be the substance of our discussion, the powers of the United Nations peace-making, peace-keeping, non-proliferation, disarmament, and they and others have indeed proved to be the substance of what we have been discussing thus far.

    What is particularly noticeable I believe is the atmosphere in which the discussions have taken place. It is certainly within the memory of many of the people in the United Nations today when President Khrushchev was here banging his shoe on the table. We have seen a solid consensus that the United Nations needs strengthening and that we should set about that particular work speedily.

    So thus far it has been a very satisfactory meeting and I look forward to our conclusion later on today.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    You are going to announce restrictions on biological material this afternoon, can you tell us the extent of the problem and how those restrictions would work in practice?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a domestic matter, that is a matter of UK legislation. We do have controls at present in the United Kingdom on items that can be exported that might be used for biological weapons. We propose to strengthen those and make them a matter for specific legislation and we will be setting out the full details of that shortly.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Yeltsin said that the success of the new world order you were discussing this morning depended in no small measure on the success of his reforms at home. What kind of things does he leave with to help believe that will occur?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think he came with something as well, he came with a permanent membership of the Security Council, he came with membership of the International Monetary Fund now firmly in view, he came in the belief that is being shown to be correct that there is widespread goodwill for assisting Russia throughout the world to ensure that their reforms are successful. I share his judgement, I think it is vitally important both for Russia and for everybody else that those reforms are successful and it is for that reason that the United Kingdom believes he should be given substantial help.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] Shi’ite prisoners, what is your reaction to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen those pictures yet, I am hoping to get a report on that later today and I will comment on it when I have had the report.

    QUESTION:

    What is your reaction to President Yeltsin’s call for [indistinct] security system?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have to examine precisely what that means and precisely how it would work. One of the features of the debate this morning is that a whole series of ideas have been produced, ideas in many cases that no-one was expecting. I think that is very refreshing and they are matters we will have to discuss in the future.

    QUESTION:

    Is there not some urgency in all of that because we shall not have the Secretary General’s report until July, the IMF probably until April, is there urgency there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe there is urgency. The idea for this particular meeting, the first time in 47 years we have had a meeting of the Security Council at Heads of Government level, that idea has been produced and acted upon very speedily, the response from the governments concerned has been very speedy, the Heads of Government have come. Now I believe that is an indication of the importance that people give to this meeting and taking the opportunities that exist at present to make this a safer world. That is why disarmament, non-proliferation and matters of this sort are the very substance of what is being discussed today.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with UN Secretary General – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the United Nations Secretary General, Mr Boutros Ghali, in New York on Friday 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I proposed this meeting because it seemed to me that the time was right, with a new Secretary General, with Russia taking her seat in the Security Council, it seemed to me that the time was right for the Council to meet at the highest level to reaffirm its commitment to peace-keeping and to peace-making.

    There is of course a symbolic significance in the meeting, to have round the same table the Heads of State or Government of China, Russia, the United States, France and Britain for the first time in the history of the United Nations symbolises the transformation from confrontation to cooperation in the work of the organisation.

    Over the last few years that transformation has enabled us to unite to free Kuwait; to bring independence to Namibia after decades of frustrated negotiations; to start the peace process in Cambodia; and to tackle other international disputes.

    So to an extent this meeting was a celebration of the fact that the Charter of the United Nations has once again become the handbook, the handbook, of those whose job it is to make the peace and keep the peace, and that is the handbook that can do it.

    Gone are the days, I hope forever, when the United Nations was the last body that you turned to for effective action. Now it is the first body, as we have seen only this month over Lockerbie and as we see day to day as the screw of economic sanctions is turned on Saddam Hussein and as the international commission slowly but certainly uncovers evidence of his weapons of mass destruction and then destroys them.

    In a world which is more hopeful than for many years, but still unstable, we need an organisation that can settle disputes, contain conflicts and keep the peace. The United Nations is that organisation. And the reason for coming here at Head of Government level was to demonstrate our commitment to that organisation.

    You will have heard the statement which I read out on behalf of members of the Council. In it we pledge ourselves to collective security, international law and our commitments under the United Nations Charter to resolve disputes peacefully, to fight against terrorism, to pursue arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and to conclude a chemical weapons convention in 1992.

    That statement, as ever, is written in the polite language of diplomacy. But it contains a hard cutting edge that can be used against those who breach their obligations. The document states that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction constitutes a threat to international peace and security. That places the issue firmly within the confines of the Security Council with scope for action to that end. Member States are committed to take action to prevent the spread of technology related to weapons of mass destruction. The statement reinforces the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Authority and it commits the Council to take action in cases of violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty notified to them by the International Atomic Energy Authority.

    The statement also asks the Secretary General to recommend how we can strengthen the United Nations’ action in preventative diplomacy, peace-making and peace-keeping. And this includes the use of the good offices of the Secretary General.

    Under Article 99 of the treaty he is authorised to bring to the attention of the Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. That article has been little used, partly because in the days of the Cold War the Secretary General’s role was heavily constrained by the former Soviet Union. Those old constraints no longer apply.

    The statement also includes a number of welcome references to human rights, to progress in democracy and responsive forms of government, to election monitoring, to human rights verification, and in the very last words of the declaration, to the promotion of a better life for all in larger freedom.

    Those are substantial achievements. The most substantive achievement of all is that Heads of Government of countries whose arsenals could between them destroy the world have met as colleagues and partners in a common enterprise to make the world a safer place. And they did so here today under the auspices of the United Nations.

    MR GHALI:

    I have just a few words. I have spent only four weeks as Secretary General in this institution and I am still a beginner. But those four weeks I have spent in this organisation show: (1) that there is a political will to play a role in international affairs; (2) that the Security Council will not act unless there is a consensus and that all the decisions which have been adopted during this month have been taken by consensus, after deliberation, and this deliberation proved that we have reached a degree of democratic [Indistinct] in the Security Council.

    And I just want again to thank the Prime Minister of Great Britain for this summit meeting because the summit meeting will help me in my new role, will assist me in the new function and as he mentioned Article 99, I hope not to use very often this article, but in case I will see that there is a necessity to use Article 99 I assure you that I will not hesitate to use this prerogative.

    Once more I want to thank the Prime Minister of Great Britain for this summit meeting here in New York.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION (Mr Osborne):

    On behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association I would like to welcome you as our guest at this press conference. In terms of a consistent worldwide peace-keeping effort, President Mitterrand suggested in his speech that a more effective role be given to the UN military staff committee and even volunteering to contribute some 1,000 peace-keeping troops to such an effort. Would the United Kingdom also support such an effort and would you also contribute troops to a peace-keeping effort. I would also like to ask the Secretary General if he would respond, does he see this as a proposal which should be encouraged in the agenda of his reforms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think this is a proposal that should be examined, but I would prefer not to commit myself to any proposal until we have seen the Secretary General’s report, we have invited him today to report, he has a very wide remit to report, to come back on what he believes is the right way for us to proceed. We know what the objectives are: better peace-keeping, better peace-making. I would prefer to see the Secretary General’s report before we can make up our mind as to what particular actions, either singly or perhaps a whole cluster of actions, are necessary in order to meet that objective. This is certainly one that should be considered.

    MR GHALI:

    I will give my response on 1 July because according to the decisions which have been taken, I have to present my report before 1 July.

    QUESTION:

    Are there any significant changes in the final statement from the first draft or the second draft prepared by you. And if so, would you like to mention one or two by way of illustration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is one of the more optimistic questions I have ever had I think. The answer is that there are not really significant changes between the drafts, there are minor changes when you have 15 draftsmen sitting round the table in order to agree a document that affects national sensitivities as well as an international commitment, there are always going to be drafting changes. And of course that was the case, some of them were additions, some of them were minor drafting changes. But there were no changes of a real and substantive nature between the earlier drafts and the later one, except that the later one is in many ways a good deal sharper and tougher in its commitments than the earlier drafts were. This is altogether a stronger, more forceful, document than we anticipated it would be possible to agree a few weeks ago, or even perhaps a few days ago.

    QUESTION:

    Do you not find it is a little bit strange that the Secretary General of the UN was not invited to the Moscow conference while you are inviting all the Heads of States to meet in the Security Council and to give a push to the role of the Security Council and the United Nations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I happen to believe that the role of the United Nations is very important, it has changed and is changing. There was a time when the role of the United Nations was effectively stuck in the mud by the differences that often appeared between some of the larger and more powerful states in the world, it rendered agreements in the Security Council in particular, amongst the Permanent Five in particular, very difficult to achieve.

    That is no longer the case and the effect of those changes is that we are now in the position to put the United Nations closer towards the objectives and goals of its original founders when the charter was devised than we have ever been at any stage before. That opportunity was clear to the United Kingdom and we wish to take the chance afforded by our Presidency of the Security Council to bring together Heads of Government in order to give a particular push to that objective. I think today we have actually been successful in that.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, The Times):

    [Inaudible] the Security Council of the need for further economic support for Russia, how soon do you think you will be able to persuade the United States in particular and other G7 members to back a stabilisation fund for the rouble?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first objective before anyone can produce a stabilisation fund, or indeed any other form of support, there is no reason to suppose that will be the only nature of support required, but the first and necessary preliminary is for Russia to become members of the International Monetary Fund.

    At a meeting a week or so ago the United Kingdom pushed for that to be concluded as soon as possible and not later than April. That is also the position of the United States. But as to what help follows after membership of Russia in the International Monetary Fund, that is a matter that will be determined then.

    And I believe that two things will happen when they become members of the IMF: firstly they will have access to the advice and assistance that the IMF are uniquely well placed to provide; but secondly as members they will also be enabled to receive the significant financial assistance that I believe they are likely to need in the months ahead. So the first thing is to get them in the IMF and then to agree precisely the scale and nature of the assistance they require. If it can be done earlier than April I would like it done earlier than April and it is my impression that that is also the view of the United States government.

    QUESTION:

    You have been given extensive new tasks to perform on the world scene in peace-making, but nothing has been mentioned about the funds that will be necessary to support this operation and it is obvious that there is plenty of money due to the UN because of delinquency. Have you given any thought as to how the bill is to be filled and footed according to your outline?

    MR GHALI:

    Yes, I had the occasion to discuss this with the different leaders this morning and they promised to help us to solve the financial problem of the United Nations. As you know, there is a new special fund which has been created and a new coordinator for humanitarian assistance will be appointed in the next few weeks and we hope to receive already 50 million dollars, Great Britain has pledged 5 million dollars, different other members of the United Nations will contribute to this fund and there are many other funds which will be created and I believe, I am sure that we will be able to overcome the financial difficulty of this house in the next few weeks.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say firstly in response to that that my country is not behind in its commitments to the United Nations and I do not anticipate it will become so in the future.

    I hope that one of the effects of today’s meeting and the Secretary General’s forthcoming report will encourage members of the United Nations and their respective legislative assemblies to meet the commitments that they have and pay the money that is due to the United Nations.

    QUESTION:

    How far does this apply to the Middle East problem and the solution of Jerusalem, as the King of Morocco wisely stated today? And if I may ask the Secretary General what he meant by the small states can play a large constructive role?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can answer my part of the question I think very speedily. It is of course United Nations resolutions that are the basis of the peace process, so the role of the United Nations is I think both central and critical.

    MR GHALI:

    Concerning my question, I believe and I have said this morning that a small state with political will and political imagination can contribute a lot to play a role in international affairs and that what is important is the political will. And without naming states, you have small states during the last 50 years which have played very important roles in international affairs and you may have a powerful state who, for reasons connected to their own policy, are not interested to play a role in international affairs. So the political will, I will say, and the political imagination within the United Nations is as important as the economic and military power of the states.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] we believe that he has declared war on the people of Cuba, is there any consideration being given to the crisis in Cuba by the Security Council?

    MR GHALI:

    No we have not discussed this and nobody asked to discuss this problem at the Security level.

    QUESTION (Independent):

    The Prime Minister this morning said that he wanted to see a resolution before the UN about Lockerbie, could he say something about the nature of the resolution he would like to see brought to the UN on the Lockerbie affair, and could he say something about President Yeltsin’s views that in fact human rights should have been given more prominence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first point, we are of course still waiting a response to the first resolution and it is not until we have received that response, which I hope will not be long delayed, that we can determine what other action and whether another United Nations resolution is required.

    If the response is negative, as conceivably it will be, then I think it will be desirable to seek a further resolution from the United Nations and I would hope that would not be too long delayed. But at the moment that is speculation, we have not yet received a response.

    MR GHALI:

    I may just add that I was requested by the Security Council to get in contact with the Libyan government, we sent an Under Secretary of the United Nations with a personal message to the Libyan leader and we received an oral answer saying that they are ready to cooperate with the United Nations. In fact the message was to implement the resolution which had been decided by the United Nations and not a cooperation with the United Nations, thus I asked the Libyan representative to return back to Tripoli and he returned and he is now in Tripoli to give further information concerning what the Libyan authority means by cooperation with the United Nations because I was request the implementation of the resolution which had been adopted by the Security Council. I hope to receive an answer in the next few days from the Special Representative of the Libyan government.

    QUESTION:

    What is the status of the declaration at this time, is it a consensus document? The Indian Prime Minister openly disagreed with the nuclear non-proliferation part of it, whereas he disagreed about whether it should be taken on a global level or on a regional level?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, he agreed the document. What Prime Minister Rao said was that there were some other things he would have liked to have been in there as well but that he agreed with the document as it is produced. So he is as committed to what is in the document as I am and as is every other member of the Security Council who was here today. And the Prime Minister made that very clear in his contribution this afternoon.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible.]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, he wished to add other things, he did not disassociate himself from what was in the agreement, he wished to add other things that were not part of the consensus and are not in the agreement.

    QUESTION:

    What would be the impact of this meeting in the future and are you going to institutionalise it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This was quite literally an extraordinary meeting of the Security Council, there is no intention of institutionalising a meeting at Heads of State and government, though I would hope now we have found that it is a useful instrument, that if it is necessary to reconvene at that level I would hope people would feel free to do so. But I do not immediately think that it is going to be necessary regularly, nor do I think it would necessarily be desirable to do it regularly. The fact that it is such an unusual occurrence has added weight to the decisions that have been made today.

    QUESTION:

    The Secretary General proposed that the Council should meet at summit level periodically, did you discuss this issue during lunch and what issues were dealt with during lunch?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No we did not discuss that during luncheon, the Secretary General and I were seated too far apart from one another over luncheon to discuss that, we would have needed a megaphone. It was a totally social luncheon and we did not discuss it on that occasion. But there will be many opportunities for the Secretary General and I, and indeed other members of the Security Council, to discuss that and a range of other matters, but not today.

    QUESTION (Aviation Week Magazine):

    Mr Yeltsin’s spokesman earlier today indicated that Mr Yeltsin solicited your cooperation in programmes to prevent the brain drain of nuclear programme specialists from the Soviet Union and to convert nuclear warhead material to nuclear fuel. Can you share what was discussed and what your views are on those programmes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Up to a point yes. We did discuss that in the four hours of discussion we had in London yesterday and we have agreed to send a team to Russia to examine what we might do to assist, and in particular what we might do to assist nuclear fuel used in weaponry to be used more satisfactorily for peaceful and for civilian methods. We are going to send a team to talk to the Russians to see how we can help.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible.]

    MR GHALI:

    I received last night a long report of Under Secretary Goulding who went to Yugoslavia, went to Zagreb and to Belgrade. I hope to have a meeting in the next few days with the Special Representative, Mr Cyrus Vance, and with what will be the result of those meetings I will submit a report to the Security Council, but it is too early to say what will be the next step.

    We have already, as you know, 50 observers there and are cooperating with the monitors of the European Community, we are in contact with the European Community, our approach is that we want to cooperate with the European Community in finding a solution, the role of the European Community being the political solution of the problem, the role of the United Nations being maintaining the ceasefire and peace-keeping forces. But it is too early to say what will be done as a second step, we must have a few meetings among our collaborators and then we will decide and we will present a report to the Security Council on what we have reached on this problem.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, I am sure you are committed to the new world order and under the new world order the Baltic States got their independence. How about those people who are struggling for their independence like Kashmiri people and the people of the Sikh community. And what are you doing to maintain the human rights of the minorities in different countries like India?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made my concern about human rights known both publicly and privately on a number of occasions in the past. I certainly took the opportunity of raising them, for example, when I was in Beijing both publicly and privately and I have raised them elsewhere. I do not want to comment on one of the many areas where human rights may be an issue except to say that I think it is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone that the world has a closer and more beady eye on the human rights records of nations today than it has ever done at any stage in the past. And where the United Nations these days finds itself involved in peace-making operations, the position of human rights is an important matter that the United Nations keeps under control, keeps its eye on and takes into account in the proposals that it makes. I am sure that is the right way.

    In terms of the general position on human rights, the best way to continue to ensure that human rights records of a large number of countries are improved is by peer pressure both within the United Nations and beyond the United Nations. And I think for that reason that it is quite right for political leaders and other leaders to speak out and speak out clearly and unequivocally when they see human rights abuses. I am glad to say that increasingly that is happening.

    QUESTION:

    Are you willing to support further independence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to get drawn into the Kashmiri problem, that has not been a subject for today.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Secretary General’s Lunch – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Secretary General’s Lunch at a Special Meeting of the UN Security Council on 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Secretary-General, Your Majesty, Distinguished Heads of State and Government, Your Excellencies.

    At first sight it is extraordinary that in nearly 47 years this should be the first time that the United Nations Security Council has met at the level of Head of State or Government. The reason is obvious: for at least 40 years since the Charter was signed in San Francisco a meeting like this would have been hard to imagine and impossible to arrange.

    There is a temptation to look back on the Cold War as a period of stability. It was not. And its pernicious effects were felt in all our countries.
    A former Soviet Ambassador to London, who worked for President Khrushchev, said that, at the height of the Cuban missile crisis, a report reached Khrushchev by telephone that President Kennedy had gone to hear Mass in Washington. Khrushchev had, commented to his officials that that was good news. It meant that for at least the next hour the United States would not launch a nuclear strike against Moscow. We should never forget how close we came to mutual destruction.

    No-one who lived through those events can forget the tension of those times. It affected us all in different ways and no country, developed and developing, was immune.

    During those years the Security Council had a role but it was too often a negative one. The Council was an arena for the pursuit of conflict by verbal means and too rarely the scene of effective action on behalf of the international community.

    That scene is now transformed. Of course there are differences. But we meet here, not as adversaries, but as partners in a common enterprise.

    Of course the bright dawn of 1989 has been followed by the colder light of day. Of course there is instability. We have after all shaken the foundations on which many of our post-war assumptions were built. But our meeting today exemplifies a new trend in international relations: the will to rally round, to solve problems, not to exploit them.

    We have learned painfully that we are one world, and quite a small one. That we cannot divide the world into them and us. Just us. This morning we welcomed the end of the Cold War. That is not just good news for East/West relations. We can now focus as partners on the needs and difficulties of the South. The developing countries make a distinctive, effective contribution to the United Nations in the Security Council and elsewhere. Collective security is precisely that. If it is to benefit all of us, it must be a partnership between us all.

    This meeting arose out of an idea first put forward by President Mitterrand and made timely by Russia’s assumption of her seat on the Security Council and by the election of a new Secretary General. I believe it is right for us to meet to reaffirm at the highest level our commitment to peace-keeping and peace-making. A great burden of responsibility rests at present on President Yeltsin. I hope he will take back from this meeting the message to the people of Russia and of the new Commonwealth that the rest of the world community are not just interested spectators of great events. Russia has a crucial world role to play. Her involvement is vital to international stability. We in turn must help her to create the economic stability which underpins democracy and reform.

    Fifteen leaders meeting for one day cannot determine every UN issue. But we can send a powerful signal. By meeting we show support for the work of the UN and its new Secretary-General to investigate ways in which the UN’s work can be strengthened. I hope today we can agree that.

    Valuable work needs careful preparation. This meeting does not claim to be the culmination of an initiative. It is a unique response to a unique historical coincidence. But the meeting can be the beginning of a process to prepare the UN for new tasks and challenges.

    The international agenda is shifting from crisis management – in which the UN has for so long played a distinguished role – to crisis prevention. The aim must be to equip the UN to lead in crisis prevention.

    Under Dr. Boutros Ghali’s experienced hand, I am confident the UN will rise to the challenge. Let us join with him whole-heartedly in the enterprise ahead.

  • Mr Major’s Opening Remarks to the UN Security Council – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening remarks to the United Nations Security Council, held in New York on 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The 3046th meeting of the Security Council is now called to order.

    May I turn firstly please to the adoption of the Agenda. The Provisional Agenda for the meeting is before the Council. Unless I hear any objection, I shall consider the Agenda is adopted.

    If there is no objection, the Agenda is adopted.

    The Security Council will now begin its consideration of Item 2 of the Agenda and with the permission of colleagues, I will make a brief introductory statement to our meeting today.

    This is a unique meeting. We are meeting at a time of momentous change. Just a year ago, the Council met the challenge of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the Council did that with great success but today we face new challenges and to set a new course in tackling them it is right, I believe, that we should meet for the first time ever at the level of Heads of State and Government. Today, we must show that the Security Council is working with a common purpose.

    I welcome very much the presence today of so many Heads of State and Government. It is proof of the importance we all attach to the United Nations and of our commitment to the ideals of the United Nations. We come today from all parts of the world. Each of our countries has its own characteristics, its own concerns but we are united in one particular aspect: we are united by a commitment to strengthen the wider community to which we belong, to reinforce collective security and to maintain international peace and security.

    In convening this Extraordinary Meeting this morning, I intended that our discussion could serve four important purposes:

    Firstly, our presence today marks a turning point in the world and at the United Nations. On the international scene, we have witnessed the end of the Cold War; member states of this Organisation have divided and reformed themselves. This presents immense opportunities but it carries with it also new risks. At the United Nations, the term of office of Mr. Perez de Cuellar has come to a close. He has served the international community for many years with outstanding distinction and I am delighted to be able to thank him for that work. We are here not only to wish his successor, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, well but to give him our full backing in carrying out his mandate. A new situation in the world needs new ideas and a new impetus.

    Second, we should today reaffirm our attachment to the principle of collective security and to the resolution of disputes in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. We should send a clear signal that it is through the United Nations and its Security Council that we intend to deal with threats to international peace and security.

    Thirdly today, we should consider anew the means by which collective security is upheld through the United Nations and consider how best to update and to develop them. It is time to review all the instruments at our disposal: preventive action; to avert crises by monitoring and addressing the causes of conflict; peace-making, to restore peace by diplomatic means; peace-keeping, to reduce tensions, to consolidate and underpin efforts to restore peace. These, I believe, are the matters that we should consider in our meeting today and even today as we meet here, peace-keeping operations are under way in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Asia and Europe.

    The need is not likely to decrease in the future. We must consider how we can enhance the United Nations ability to respond effectively and ensure that it has the necessary resources both financial and material to enable it to do so. In all of these, of course, the role of the Secretary-General is vital.

    Fourthly today, we should commit ourselves anew to upholding international peace and security through reinforced measures of arms control. Activity to restrain the accumulation and transfer of arms, to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, that affects all members of the United Nations. Arms control policy has become genuinely global. The role of this Organisation – not just the Security Council but the whole of this Organisation – is an increasingly important one.

    As we meet to consider the specific responsibilities of the Security Council, the wider concerns of the international community even if we shall not discuss all of them today are also in our minds. It is of course true that without economic development and prosperity we cannot hope to achieve lasting peace and stability but it is every bit as true that only when conditions of security and peace are assured can sustained economic development take place; both are needed and only when we have both can resources be directed to where they are so urgently needed, towards the economic and social needs of the world’s population.

    The opening line of our Charter – the Charter of the United Nations – does not talk about states or governments, it talks about people. The world now has the best chance for peace, security and development since the founding of the United Nations, I hope, like the founders of the United Nations themselves, that we can today renew the resolve enshrined in the Charter, the resolve to combine our efforts to accomplish the aims of the Charter in the interests of all the people that we are privileged to represent. That is our role and I wish the Council well in its work today.

    Members of the Council, we have a great deal to do today. In accordance with custom, with your agreement, I shall make my National Statement when all other colleagues have spoken but we may now, I think, commence our debate and I invite the Secretary-General to address us.

  • PMQT – 30th January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th January 1992. John MacGregor deputised for John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been having important discussions today with President Yeltsin, who is on his first visit abroad as President of an independent Russia. My right hon. Friend will be meeting President Bush this evening after my right hon. Friend’s arrival in New York to chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

    Mr. Jones : I am sorry that I so rattled the Prime Minister with my question at the previous Prime Minister’s Question Time that he has not come to the House today. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies spring budget report shows that Government borrowing is likely to reach £20 billion next year, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have reneged on their promises to balance the books?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman will have to await the Budget statement on matters relating to his question. As is absolutely clear, we have made our spending plans public. They are set out in detail and we have indicated how they are paid for. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear on Tuesday. I note that the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers says :

    “Labour, if elected, would have little scope for increased spending in the early years unless it were willing to increase taxes by more than it has indicated.”

    The country now says, “And how!”

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Does my right hon. Friend agree that too often we lose sight of the fact that the national health service was born as a result of co-operation between three parties? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the founders of the health service would be horrified at the resistance to the reforms so ably carried out by the Government for the benefit of patients throughout the country?

    Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree. It is clear that we have not only substantially increased expenditure on the national health service but that we are the only party proposing credible reforms, the results of which are already showing. I assume that that is why a consultant, who is the nephew of a distinguished former socialist in the House, said yesterday :

    “I do not believe the health service would be safe in Labour’s hands.”

    Mr. Hattersley : When the Prime Minister said on Tuesday that if the Conservatives were re-elected they would not increase VAT, was he giving the House and the country a categorical assurance?

    Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friend made the position absolutely clear on Tuesday.

    Mr. Hattersley : Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister also made the position categorically clear on 6 April, when he said :

    “No honest Government could give a categorical assurance that they would not increase VAT. No Government ever has, and no Government ever will.”

    Was the Prime Minister telling the truth last Tuesday or last April?

    Mr. MacGregor : What my right hon. Friend said on Tuesday is : “There will be no VAT increase we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them.”–[ Official Report, 28 January 1992 ; Vol. 202, c. 808.]

    That is absolutely clear, and it is in clear contrast to the position of the Labour party, which maintains its high spending policies and is all over the place in deciding how to finance them.

    Mr. Hattersley : It is absolutely clear that the Leader of the House has either no authority or insufficient courage to say whether that promise was categorical or whether it was what the country believes it to have been– evidence of a Prime Minister panicked into making a promise that he has no intention of keeping. Is not the truth about Tory policy on VAT revealed in the party’s latest campaign document–that the way to raise taxes is “Wait until they spend the money as that is the right moment to tax them”?

    Mr. MacGregor : I repeat that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position absolutely clear, as we have done on many occasions. It is also clear that in the last two weeks the whole country, as it heard different voices and different noises, has wondered who is speaking for the Labour party. Indeed, on Sunday the right hon. Gentleman was proposing that Labour’s recession package should be introduced after the recession had ended.

    Mr. Dykes : Has my hon. Friend noticed that in recent weeks, as the public have been able to assess our present policies and our future policy offerings, there has been a very sharp and noticeable increase in our opinion poll ratings? That is not just a coincidence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opinion poll improvement in the past few weeks reflects not only our excellent policy range but the fact that the election is getting closer and the best is yet to come?

    Mr. MacGregor : I agree that as we unfold our positive policies over the next few weeks, and as the electorate sees more and more of what Labour is offering–or not offering–what my hon. Friend has suggested will come about.

     

    Q2. Mr. McAvoy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. McAvoy : The Cabinet is split from top to bottom over the Prime Minister’s policy of using Common Market grants for tax cuts instead of for the provision of help to deprived areas. Will the Leader of the House confirm the report in yesterday’s Financial Times that the rules for allocating this money were changed in 1988 with the approval of the Government, and will he give an immediate assurance that the new rules will be obeyed? Why should Britain’s areas of highest unemployment suffer because of Tory party internal divisions?

    Mr. MacGregor : There are no internal Tory party divisions. The position on the particular issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that for some years now we have pursued the same policy that the money has been, in the formula applied, additional and is reflected in higher public spending plans, and that it is for the Commissioner to honour the pledge that we have had for years past.

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes : Has my right hon. Friend noticed in the past few days the widespread support for our plans to seek better-quality services from councils? Has he noticed that much advice has been given to us on how that should be done? Some of the advice is bizarre. Will he confirm that he will reject advice to use as a role model councils such as Lambeth, Liverpool, Hackney and Southwark–in other words, councils which have high borrowing, rotten services and high community charges and which have lost control of their housing stock, and all of which are run by the Labour party?

    Mr. MacGregor : It is clear that nearly all of the 10 worst councils in terms of rent collection and houses left empty are Labour controlled. It is also clear that many of the high-spending authorities are Labour. The country will draw its own conclusion that under a Labour Administration there are great inefficiencies, high spending and high taxation.

     

    Q3. Mr. Kilfoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Kilfoyle : Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and given the obvious confusion among Ministers about the implications of their electoral promises for the future level of value added tax, can the Leader of the House conjure up the actual figure for value added tax when his Government came to office in June 1979, and the level now as they go out of office?

    Mr. MacGregor : We have, of course, in addition undertaken a considerable change– [Hon. Members :– “Answer.”] I intend to answer. We have undertaken a considerable change from direct to indirect taxes, which is absolutely right because it enables many more people to spend their money as they wish. That is the policy which we have pursued consistently, with the result that direct taxation has come down substantially. However, we did not have the very high rates on many goods such as television sets, which are described as luxury goods but are essentials for many people–rates which we inherited and which I understand that the Labour party would consider again.

     

    May Day

    Q4. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for the future of the May day bank holiday.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The Government have no plans to change the present public holiday arrangements, although we shall continue to keep the situation under review.

    Mr. Field : Why do we not throw off this hangover of socialism and instead celebrate a free enterprise day, a British export day or, better still, a low taxation day? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who think that high taxation is the answer to recession are about to try to convince the electorate that suffocation is a form of first aid?

    Mr. MacGregor : On the question about May day being a bank holiday, I can give my hon. Friend some comfort. Although I know that my hon. Friend is interested in switching it to the autumn, we have no plans to do that because there are different views about it. I think that he will agree nevertheless that on May day, instead of celebrating socialism, we now celebrate the end of socialism.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing : Will the Lord President of the Council, as a fellow Scot, tell me whether he has had the opportunity to study in depth the implications of the ICM opinion poll?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Sadly, the question is about May day.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Bellingham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Bellingham : Will the Leader of the House find time today to plan a journey from south Norfolk to north-west Norfolk to look at the local health services? He is welcome to bring with him Sir Roy Griffiths. He will see that a number of general practitioner practices have become fundholders, that a local NHS trust has already reduced waiting lists by 1,200 in the last year, and that a district authority is about to merge with a neighbour to give itself more clout. Are not those the results of Tory policies working for the benefit of patients?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right. The same is happening in west Norfolk, as well as throughout the country. As a result of the reforms, already in a very short period we see improved services, shortened waiting lists, and so on. Interestingly, we are also seeing increasing support for the reforms from the medical profession itself and increasing take-up of them.

    Mr. Redmond : Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister the request that he restore to Back Benchers–

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not know what the hilarity is about, but please carry on.

    Mr. Redmond : –the right to examine Government legislation and that he stop the appalling use of the guillotine which stifles it?

    Mr. MacGregor : We shall be discussing that matter in a short while. I shall make plain our position on today’s business.

     

    Q6. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is evidence of the growing success of the Government’s education reforms that this year 28,800 people have enrolled for teacher training courses–20 per cent. more than last year and the best figure for 15 years? Is that not in stark contrast with the cynical disregard for educational standards shown by those Labour Members who filibustered on the parents charter Bill last night?

    Mr. MacGregor : Later today we shall be able to debate further the great improvement in standards that we are achieving as a result of our reforms. My hon. Friend draws attention to one of them. I am delighted with the considerable increase in the number coming forward for teacher training. It reflects the fact that we have considerably improved the salary prospects and career prospects of teachers as a result of all the steps that we have taken in recent years.

     

    Q7. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Will the Leader of the House confirm that although few people in Britain would expect the Prime Minister to match President Yeltsin bottle for bottle, they will find it odd that the Government insist on increasing or doubling Britain’s nuclear fire power when both the Russians and the Americans see good reasons for cutting theirs?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue and I want to make the position clear. We welcome the proposals to reduce the super-power arsenals. They are wonderful news for all of us. We must hope that the current plans are implemented. But let us be perfectly clear about the scale of what is involved. The present arsenal of the former Soviet republics is 27,000 warheads, and it will take them many years to implement the current proposals. Even at the end of that process, they will have thousands of nuclear weapons. Our deterrent involves one boat on patrol at all times with no more than 128 warheads. So the scale is very different. I believe that the whole country thinks that with the uncertainties in the world–in the middle east and elsewhere, as well as in the Soviet Union– and looking ahead to the next 10 years, it is essential that we maintain our minimum credible nuclear deterrent.