The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1994

  • PMQT – 15 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th February 1994. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Rev. Martin Smyth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Moscow for a series of meetings, including meetings with President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin.

    Rev. Martin Smyth : Has the Lord President of the Council noticed the response of Mr. Reynolds in Dail Eireann when Miss Mary Harney asked what representations had been made to the United States over the Gerry Adams visit? His response is that we do not get involved in trying to tell foreign Administrations what decisions to make. Will the Lord President press the Prime Minister to exercise the same restraint with the United Kingdom, especially Northern Ireland?

    Mr. Newton : As the hon. Gentleman will know, the issue of the visa was a decision for the United States authorities, although our own advice, as the House knows, was clear. The hon. Gentleman will know that we believe it to be right and in the interests of all people in Northern Ireland that the British and Irish Governments should work closely together. As he knows, the talks process brings together the two Governments and the main constitutional parties who will work together to find an accommodation. I believe that is right.

    Mr. Day : Would my right hon. Friend agree that the appearance of Gerry Adams on “Walden” proved beyond any doubt that whatever Sinn Fein says, it has rejected the Downing street declaration? Would he join me in urging Sinn Fein to reconsider its position and would he also agree and confirm to the House that the Government will never do what Mr. Adams requests–become a persuader of the people of Northern Ireland to join an united Ireland? Does he recognise that many Conservative Members remain committed to the Union of Northern Ireland and Great Britain?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend has on many occasions made clear the position of the British Government on the question of persuasion. Of course, I suspect–in fact, I know–that everybody in the House would urge Sinn Fein to consider seriously a positive response to the joint declaration.

    Mrs. Beckett : As Ministers are still proclaiming that “back to basics” is the lodestar guiding Government policy while the Prime Minister is dodging all questions about it, does that not show yet again that “back to basics” is making the Government a laughing stock?

    Mr. Newton : I do not know whether I am sorry to have to say that the right hon. Lady is a bit out of date. My right hon. Friend has today given a clear explanation of the “back to basics” theme and has once again made it clear that it is especially important in such spheres as standards in education, law and order and the provision of public services, and it applies also to the range of our increasingly successful economic and business policies.

    Mrs. Beckett : I notice once again that the Lord President’s list, and presumably the Prime Minister’s, does not include standards in telling the truth about tax. Why are the Government refusing to come clean about the size of the further tax increases that British families will face in 1995?

    Mr. Newton : What I and my right hon. Friend will continue to emphasise is the contribution that our tax policies are making to the economic strength and improved standards of living in this country.

    Mrs. Beckett : As the Lord President must be aware, my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary has tabled questions about the extra taxes that people will pay in 1995, but no answers are being provided. The Government must have the figures–we know that the Government have the figures–and the people of Britain will have to pay the extra tax, so why do the Government not have the guts to tell people how much they will have to pay?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. and hon. Friends have answered many questions and will continue to answer the questions that the right hon. Lady’s colleagues ask– [Hon. Members :– “Answer this one.”]–but what we want to know from the right hon. Lady is when the Labour party will come clean about its public spending policies which will put up taxes.

    Mr. Shersby : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue yesterday told the Public Accounts Committee that some £550 million of unclaimed tax remains to be picked up by taxpayers who have been affected by changes in the tax regime in the past couple of years whereby, for example, women are now assessed independently? Is he further aware that amounts to about £880,000 per parliamentary constituency? Will the Government do everything possible to ensure that the Inland Revenue makes that fact known to every taxpayer?

    Mr. Newton : The Government and, I am sure, the Inland Revenue are always anxious to ensure that taxpayers are properly informed of their rights and receive their correct entitlement. I am sure that every effort will be made to achieve what my hon. Friend seeks.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Jones : As the real value of pensions has been falling for many years, following the breaking of the link with earnings, the value of pensions in the United Kingdom is out of line with virtually every other comparable European country, the compensation package for value added tax will not compensate pensioners in full as was promised, and we have had extremely cold weather for the past week, will the Government now introduce a special heating allowance for pensioners?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman must have a rather curious source for his statistics, because the truth is that not only have the Government protected the real value of the state retirement pension but the combination of our policies on social security and pensions and in the economic world have led to a position in which pensioners’ average real incomes have risen by more than 40 per cent. since the Government took office.

     

    Q3. Lady Olga Maitland : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Lady Olga Maitland : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the nonsensical advice given by Liberty to truanting schoolchildren that they should defy police and is it not typical that the Labour party tends to support them?

    Mr. Newton : I would certainly join my hon. Friend in condemning the advice which has been reported in the papers today. The Government’s efforts to improve the campaign against truancy and to succeed in getting errant pupils back to school–which is where they should be–is, and should be, widely supported. For Liberty to oppose it in the way it does shows that it does not remotely understand the best interests of our children or our schools.

    Mr. Jamieson : Will the Leader of the House therefore express his concern that at the end of the March, when the Tory party conference comes to Plymouth, 135 children will miss one and a half days’ schooling because of that conference?

    Mr. Newton : I do not suppose that they will be playing truant.

     

    Q4. Mr. Whittingdale : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Whittingdale : Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the recent annual survey of grant-maintained schools, which shows that since becoming grant maintained the schools have been able to recruit more teachers, improve their results and offer better facilities to their pupils? Does he not therefore find it extraordinary that the Labour and Liberal parties remain committed to the abolition of grant-maintained schools, and that in local government they are waging a relentless campaign of hostility against GM schools, as typified by the behaviour of Essex county council?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend is right that the latest survey confirms the benefit of grant-maintained status. Those schools are achieving improved academic results, better staying-on rates and lower pupil-teacher ratios. They are popular with parents and it is no surprise that well over 1,000 schools have voted in favour of such status. As to my hon. Friend’s worries about Essex–his constituency borders mine–he will be as pleased as I am to know that in Essex there are now 63 secondary and 55 primary schools operating with grant-maintained status. That represents 60 per cent. of secondary schools and 17 per cent. of primary schools. In spite of the endeavours to which he refers on the part of Essex county council, the latest school to decide to hold a ballot on such status is The Notley high school, Braintree.

     

    Q6. Mr. Bryan Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Davies : When my constituents complain about high fuel bills and watch the bosses of privatised utilities coining money, am I to say to them that so far as the Prime Minister is concerned it is nothing to do with him?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman’s question appears to be founded on a rather curious premise. Electricity prices have decreased by 6 per cent. in real terms in the past two financial years. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know another interesting statistic, I can tell him that, in 1979, the electricity companies–then nationalised–lost the equivalent at today’s prices of £465 million. In 1992-93, they paid £420 million to the Exchequer in corporation tax.

    Mr. Butcher : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the use of American, French and British planes to bomb the hills around Sarajevo may not necessarily produce lasting peace in Bosnia? Does he further agree that if the idea is to achieve a demilitarised zone, policed effectively, around Sarajevo, the best chances of so doing are by ensuring that Russian soldiers in United Nations uniform, in integrated units with British and French forces, help in the policing of that zone?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend knows well that the purpose of what has been said and what is being considered in relation to air strikes is to bring about the cessation of the type of bombardment that has taken place in Sarajevo. I think that everyone will want that effort to be successfully completed.

     

    Q7. Mr. Foulkes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Foulkes : Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will announce today, by means of a written answer, an increase of 50p in the prescription charge? Why will there be no oral statement in the House ? Is it because, having taxed the disabled and the divorced, the Government are afraid to face the music and announce that they are to increase tax on the sick?

    Mr. Newton : First, I confirm that an announcement will be made today. Secondly, I confirm that it is not usual for such announcements to be made by way of oral statement. Thirdly, 80 per cent. of prescribed items are now free of charge, compared with 60 per cent. in 1979. Fourthly, prescription charges will raise nearly £300 million in the forthcoming year. Fifthly, that amount will pay for more than 200,000 cataract operations or more than 70,000 hip operations. Sixthly, will the hon. Gentleman tell me where he would find the money?

     

    Q8. Mr. Nigel Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Evans : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report from 3i–Investors in Industry–which surveyed 500 of the companies in which it invests? The confidence of those businesses is higher now than it has been since the 3i started the survey in 1988. Is that not further evidence that the Government have the right policies for British business and the British people?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend is right. The survey shows that firms in both the north and south of the country report greater improvement than in the previous survey and that they have become more optimistic about their prospects. British business is now increasingly confident about the economy and about the Government’s policies for business.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Russia (III) – 15 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Russia, made during an interview given in Moscow on Thursday 15th February 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Russian leadership felt left out over Bosnia].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think that is remotely the feeling from the discussions I had this morning. There is a vast range of areas where there is complete agreement and has been for some time between Russia, the United States and the other Western Allies over how to deal with the problems of Bosnia. There has, for example, been complete agreement that the only final settlement is going to come about as a result of negotiation; that needs to be so if it is to be a political settlement that will last. There is complete agreement about the need to corral the heavy weapons around Sarajevo and complete agreement that the Owen/Stoltenberg route is the way forward and there is also complete agreement that Russia, the United States and the European Community countries need to use their political influence separately upon the combatants in this dreadful dispute to try and help bring it to an end.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Boris Yeltsin’s comments that Russia needed to be part of the solution”.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He was referring then to a final political settlement and of course Russia is going be involved in it because of the special influence it has.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Russia still disagreed with the policy of air strikes].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I think there is a much greater understanding of what the position is as a result of our discussions this morning, his previous discussions with President Clinton and also of course the debate that is currently going on in the United Nations. There was, I think, a fear earlier that what NATO was talking about was generalised air strikes. We are in fact looking at specific air strikes specifically in regard to the particular circumstances of Sarajevo.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Russia (II) – 15 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Russia, made during an interview given in Moscow on Thursday 15th February 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what the results of his Russian visit had been so far].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it has been an extraordinarily successful series of discussions both with President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. The President said this morning that in his judgement the relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia was better today than it has been for decades and I think that is true.

    Quite a few matters of substance have emerged from this particular visit. We certainly thickened and improved our economic relationship and I will have some more announcements to make about that before I go home tomorrow. Secondly, we have signed a number of agreements, a double-taxation agreement, a cultural agreement – that too is more progress. Thirdly, on military matters we have agreed mutual de-targeting of nuclear weapons and we have also agreed to hold military exercises together, Russian troops and British troops, in Russia and in the United Kingdom.

    The series of agreements would have been quite unthinkable a few years ago; today we have managed to conclude them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he saw future relations between Russian and the United Kingdom].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it will develop. I have invited the President to return back to the United Kingdom later this year, and the Prime Minister also, and I believe both of them will do so, so I think the relationship is going to increase. What we need to see in parallel is an increasing relationship between British business and Russian business. There are tremendous opportunities for increased trade and for increased mutual investment and that will be to the advantage of Russia and to the advantage of Britain, but we must open the doors politically and economically to that increased flow of trade.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he was visiting Nizhniy Novgorod].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Nizhniy is one of the areas that have carried the reform process in Russia furthest and fastest and I want to have a look at that; there are a number of projects there. I also want to look at some projects that the British are funding out of their Know-How Fund to help the development of the reform process in Russia so I want to go there, have discussions with Governor Nemstov and others and see what is happening on the ground in terms of practical reform.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he viewed the Russian reform process].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think they have now gone a long way. I think people perhaps tend sometimes to underestimate how far the Russian reforms have gone. If one had said a few years ago that you would have had an elected President with a new constitution, parliamentary elections, I think people would have shaken their heads and doubted very much whether that could be achieved; it has been achieved. There have also been very remarkable changes in price liberalisation and perhaps above all in privatisation and the freedom to own land. Again, they are very dramatic changes.

    The reform process has gone a long way, too far for anyone to go back to where they started from. I think that is now impossible and nobody wishes to do so but it hasn’t yet reached the stage where all the benefits of the reforms are yet felt by the Russian people; they are in an intermediate stage and Russia needs to push forward with what help the West can give so that it can move to take advantage of a market-based system.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Russia (I) – 15 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Russia, made during an interview given in Moscow on Thursday 15th February 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what his image of Russia was now].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think many of the old stereotypes and images as you referred to them have been replaced by a new reality and a new understanding. As President Yeltsin said this morning, the relationship between Russia and the United Kingdom is better today than it has been for decades. One of the reasons for that is that it is closer, we know more about one another. Trade has expanded between us, political contacts have expanded between us, high-level visits have expanded, there is a much greater understanding of what is happening in Russia amongst the British and a much greater understanding among the Russians of what the British stand for.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there were disagreements between the countries].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We haven’t identified many areas of disagreement today, I must say. We have identified a very large number of areas of agreement. We, for example, very strongly support the very courageous economic reforms that are currently being undertaken in Russia; they are painful, we know that, they are very difficult. It is quite difficult to move from the sort of system that Russia had before to a free-market system but it has great benefits when it is reached. At the moment, people in Russia have seen the change from the old system, they are enduring some of the difficulties and the pain of change but the advantages that will come from it – and they will come from it – are not yet apparent so the principal areas I must say are of agreement and encouragement and as far as we can help, we wish to.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how agreement could be reached].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Truly, there are very few areas currently bilaterally between the United Kingdom and Russia where there are points of disagreement and where there are we are seeking to remove those points of disagreement. What is quite striking is that whereas four, five, six, maybe seven or eight years ago one would have been able to produce a very large number of disagreements between Russia and the United Kingdom, these days they are not so readily found. What is readily found is an agreement about reform, an agreement about Russia’s entry into GATT, an agreement about Russia’s entry into the Council of Europe in due course, agreement about the way to produce a final and definitive settlement that will last in Bosnia, an agreement that we reached today not to target Russian nuclear weapons at the British and the British not to target British nuclear weapons at the Russians. They are a substantial measure of agreement.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he predicted the future for Russia].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think as time proceeds we want a much greater understanding and cooperation economically. Although there has been quite an expansion in trade between the United Kingdom and Russia, really that is just scratching the surface. The potential for a much greater flow of trade between our two countries is enormous and so is the potential for a much greater flow of investment between the two countries. I think that will benefit Russia and it will benefit Britain and I think as the reforms proceed, the attraction of Russia as a place for foreign investment will grow dramatically and so will the trade relationship with the western countries as a whole, but of course Britain in particular.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked to say some words to the people of Russia].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have watched from afar with very considerable admiration as Russia has made the most remarkable political reforms over the last four or five years, very courageous reforms, very difficult. Very few people in Britain six or seven years ago would have imagined you would have had an elected President, a new constitution, an elected parliament that was televised in the fashion that you have. Equally, very few people would have imagined the remarkable economic changes you have seen here, the vast degree of liberalisation of prices, the tremendous amount of privatisation and the determination to move to a free-market system. It will take a time, it is difficult, it cannot be done without difficulties and pain, but Russia seems determined to move in that direction and we thoroughly support that.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Moscow – 15 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech in Moscow on Tuesday 15th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Mrs Yeltsina. Since we dined at Greenwich 15 months ago, there have been momentous developments in Russia. The voice of your people has twice been heard in nationwide democratic votes. In April the Russian people endorsed your Presidency and your policies, and in December Russia’s new democratic and federative statehood was sealed by the first fully democratic parliamentary election and by the adoption of a new constitution.

    Mr President, your conviction and your courage made it possible for the Russian people to exercise their fundamental democratic right, the right to decide what sort of state they wish to live in, the right to choose how they wish to be governed. In all this you have had our full support, you have led Russia to a place in the councils of the world’s advanced democracies.

    Britain and Russia are partners in the United Nations Security Council, we work together on international problems, from the search for peace in the former Yugoslavia, to prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I hope we shall be partners for peace in Europe, partners with the European Union’s forthcoming agreement with Russia, partners in the Council of Europe and partners in the political work of the summit process.

    Our partnership is not just words but deeds. Today for example we have agreed to detarget our nuclear weapons and to hold joint military exercises, these are practical signs of a new era. We are economic partners as well. Economic reform offers the prospect of taking that partnership much further. Britain is nothing if not a trading nation, trade is our life-blood, we have huge investments overseas, we would like to invest more in Russia and to trade more with Russia. Already our firms and our experts are cooperating closely. I shall see some of the results in Nizhniy Novgorod tomorrow where British and Russian experts have worked together on the privatisation of land and of transport. shall be announcing some new proposals there, not just for economic cooperation but to increase the range of contacts between our peoples. We are welcoming ever more Russians to Britain, over 60,000 last year, and I want to see more Britons coming here, not only as visitors, but to work here and to live here.

    No-one doubts the difficulty and social hardships of modernising Russia’s vast economy, it will require the fortitude and the patience and the determination for which the Russian people have been famous down the ages, but it is the right path. This is the time to remind ourselves of what the Russian people have already achieved, of the new place which Russia enjoys in the world and of the goodwill, the friendship and the active support which will go with you in carrying through this historic transformation.

    Mr President, Norma and I are privileged to be your guests here this evening, may I ask all our British guests to join me in proposing a toast to you, to Mrs Yeltsina and to the people of Russia.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Consultancies

    Mr. Mullin : To ask the Prime Minister how much the Government spent on employing private sector consultants for each year from 1979.

    The Prime Minister : This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with any of his EU counterparts on the environmental and proliferation implications of THORP.

    The Prime Minister : I meet my European Union counterparts from time to time, when we discuss a range of issues.

     

    Sir Peter Levene

    Mr. Mullin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the report of Sir Peter Levene into the Government’s use of external consultants.

    The Prime Minister : At this early stage of the scrutiny no specific decision to publish has been taken but it is the normal practice for efficiency unit reports to be published.

     

    Northern Region

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

    (2) whether he will list, by Government Departments, the principal aid given to the northern region in each year since 1983.

    The Prime Minister : Since 1983, Government policy and programmes have helped with the transition of the economy of the north-east region to its present more diversified base.

    This process has been substantially helped by overseas investment of over £2 billion. The Department of Trade and Industry has also committed over £1 billion in assisting industrial and commercial projects, helping to create or safeguard around an estimated 50,000 jobs. Unemployment in the north-east has fallen from a peak of 19.6 per cent. in 1986 to 12.7 per cent. now.

     

    Visits, Scotland

    Mr. Salmond : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 January, Official Report, column 406, what were the dates and locations of each of his 13 visits to Scotland.

    The Prime Minister : In 1991, I made five visits to Scotland, including Edinburgh, Glasgow–twice–Perth and Deeside.

    In 1992, I also made five visits to Scotland, including Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, Strathclyde and Deeside.

    In 1993, I made three visits to Scotland, including Glasgow, Edinburgh and Deeside.

     

    Railway Manufacturing

    Mr. Bayley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the representations made to him by the Design Council about the future of the British railway manufacturing industry and a copy of his response to the Design Council.

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

     

    Car Industries

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will urge the German, French and Italian Prime Ministers to encourage the sale of their indigenous car industries.

    The Prime Minister : The commercially-driven trend towards more cross-border, joint ventures and strategic alliances is expected to continue in the European car industry. I am sure that my German, French and Italian opposite numbers will not stand in the way of this process, which will strengthen Europe’s global competitiveness. I am delighted that the French Government are following the United Kingdom’s example and going ahead with their plan to privatise Renault.

     

    Cyprus

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the President of Cyprus on the talks now taking place under the role of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : I discussed United Nations efforts to resolve the Cyprus problem with President Clerides during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting last October. I have not had any discussions with him about the talks due to begin on 17 February. However my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has been in close touch with the parties. He met the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Michaelides, on 2 February.

     

    Biodiversity Convention

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what action he is taking to co-ordinate the policy of the FCO and the Department of the Environment in relation to the ratification of the biodiversity convention to include the land and marine environments of Ascension Island, British Indian Ocean territory, the Cayman Islands, Chagos Archipelago, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Island, St. Helena, South Georgia and the south Sandwich Islands, Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos Islands and Virgin Islands.

    The Prime Minister : The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has overall responsibility for the administration, and direct responsibility for certain external relations, of the United Kingdom’s 14 dependent territories and two dependencies.

    Policy towards the territories is co-ordinated through an inter-departmental group, including the Department of the Environment, chaired by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. That group has endorsed a strategy for consultation with the dependencies on whether they wish to be included in the United Kingdom’s ratification of the biodiversity convention and, if not, whether they envisage the convention being extended to them at a later date.

    As part of that process dependent territory Governments need to consider taking on the new commitments arising from Rio. The FCO is helping the dependent territories to assess the costs and benefits to them of any new legislation required.

     

    Government Car Service

    Mr. Soley : To ask the Prime Minister what is the procedure for recording the use of ministerial cars; and what arrangements are made to allow inspection of it by hon. Members.

    Mr. Baldry : I have been asked to reply.

    The procedure is that car log sheets are maintained for recording the use of all ministerial cars. The log sheets are retained as internal documents.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on Salman Rushdie – 12 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on Salman Rushdie.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is now five years since the late Ayatollah Khomeini, Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, issued a death threat against Salman Rushdie and others associated with the publication of his book, “The Satanic Verses”.

    I met Salman Rushdie last May to demonstrate the Government’s full support for his fundamental rights. I have been heartened by the way in which many governments around the world have demonstrated their support both by meeting Mr Rushdie and in their discussions with the Iranian government. We all want to make clear to the Iranian government that they cannot enjoy full and friendly relations with the rest of the international community unless and until we can be satisfied that there is no further direct or indirect threat from the Iranian authorities to Mr Rushdie’s life, or to that of others associated with his book.

    I hope very much that they will listen to the message.

  • Mr Major’s Speech Marking 25th Anniversary of Carparo – 11 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at a lunch to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Carparo.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to be here today as a guest in my own constituency on this very special occasion of the 25th anniversary of Carparo. It has during the last hour and a half or so provided the odd surprise or two. When I heard a motion from the House of Commons, or at least a message from the House of Commons. I have to confess to you, for a fleeting second there was a twinge of concern. I cannot think for the life of me why this should be, but it most certainly was. But it is a rare event to have a motion of that sort. Rare, but I think justified because the motion referred not only to the contribution of Dr Paul, not only to the remarkable success of Carparo, but it also referred to the success of a British manufacturing enterprise and I was delighted to have that motion put down by colleagues from more than one party in the House of Commons.

    Before I turn to other matters can I just say how pleased I am personally to see the High Commissioner, Dr Sindha. He is, in my own experience, and I think in the judgement of many better judges than I of these matters, an outstanding High Commissioner who served India’s interest with great skill. But in doing so remains a very close friend to this country as well and I am delighted to see him here today. What a remarkable achievement, to have built Carparo up in such a time, on such a scale, across such a wide range of different activities. When I heard that motion about the British manufacturing industry, what came immediately to my mind was this thought – too often in this country we underestimate what can be done in this country and what is done. As I go around the country and see what is actually happening in manufacturing and non-manufacturing enterprises alike. I see stories of success, of innovation, of skill, of far-sighted judgement -of which we hear far too little in this country. We hear the bad news so frequently. It would be of more use to all of us – in industry, commerce and private citizens alike, if we were to hear a little more of the remarkable successes of so much of the British manufacturing industry.

    I have taken the opportunity in the last few weeks and I will return to this in a few moments, of going around the country, having a look at some of these remarkable examples of success, and I propose to do that again in the future. Because the success that Dr Paul has achieved, is a remarkable example of what can be achieved by hard work and enterprise. The success of Carparo is symbolic of what is happening in a large part of the British manufacturing industry more generally, and I’d just like to say this about manufacturing. There is more than one school of thought about manufacturing. There is a school of thought that regards it almost as marginal to the success of British industry, and there is a second school of thought that regards it as fundamental to the success of British industry. I take my stand with the second school of thought. I don’t regard manufacturing as a Cinderella part of British industry. Making things matters in this country and we must make it clear to everyone that all of us believe that making things matters. It has changed manufacturing. Changed in a remarkable way. Both in image and content, over the last 20 years or so. What we need in manufacturing is more of the best brains, the best skills, that our young people can produce. We need to build up those skills. We need to change the culture in this country, in the way in which typically we look at the manufacturing industry specifically and commerce more generally.

    I saw with some interest, just a day or so ago, a remarkable survey published by the CBI and I’m delighted to see Howard Davies, the Director General with us this afternoon. It was a survey of a wide ranging series of aspects of manufacturing. It showed manufacturing orders rising strongly, right across the United Kingdom. It showed business optimism increasing. It showed companies expecting output and demand to rise. Business optimism, at its highest level for 4 years. Orders up, exports up, exports even up in difficult markets as an increasingly competitive British industry penetrates even markets currently in recession on the continent and elsewhere. It showed costs under control, unit labour costs down over the last 12 months, and for the first time since the recovery slowly and painfully began in June, getting on for nearly 2 years ago, 20 months ago now. We began to see more companies expecting to increase investment over the next year, with engineering perhaps doing particularly well. That was from the industrial trends survey, which over the last 30 years has perhaps shown itself to be the most reliable indicator of what is going to happen in our economy. The prospects for the future look even brighter and for those who believe that the tax changes will perhaps put a break upon the recovery, as Howard Davies said just a few days ago, looking, and I quote directly, looking at the experience of previous tax increases in the late ’60s, the early ’70s and the early ’80s, that shows that tax increases will not halt the recovery. The key is confidence and we should not talk ourselves into pessimism which is not justified by the facts. I believe that is absolutely and entirely right. Because potentially at the moment, if you look across the range of economic indicators and the increasing competitiveness that British and commerce, we have potentially, the best circumstances for sustained growth with low inflation that we have known in this country for very many years.

    I have taken the opportunity of escaping from that Whitehall/Westminster nexus to go and look out in the real world at some of the things that are happening. Earlier this week in the East Midlands, I visited Triumph Motorcycles. Not all that long ago within the memory of everyone, every adult in this room, the British motorcycle industry just ceased to exist. They disappeared. An attempt to revive it as a cooperative failed. It seemed that another industry had fled the country and gone for good. But now Triumph have brought it back. Substantial capital investment and training is now growing and exporting to Japan, to Canada, to Germany, to New Zealand and to countries all around the world. A week earlier, in Yorkshire, to see in the textile industry Firth Carpets, again an industry that many people thought were in real difficulties and yet now, after suitable investment and good management, it’s competing with the best in the world and will take the advantages that spring from some of the changes in the Uruguay Round. The week before that, at Perkins Engines in Peterborough, another area where success for the future seems to be guaranteed and today of course, the truly remarkable success story of Carparo.

    Our host referred earlier to our joint date with destiny in 1968. I was elected to Lambeth Council and ended up here today, he had £5,000 and ended up where he is today. If only I’d had £5,000. In 1968, the success of the company is of course the stuff of dreams. But not only dreams, hard work, skill, aptitude, risk, application and yes luck, are the ingredients that have helped make the company what it is today.

    Perhaps a talisman of some of the other changes that have taken place. What I passionately believe is that at the moment people simply do not realise the transformation that is taking place in the British economy and it’s vital that they do so that they take the opportunities that that transformation is about to offer. We are in this country, frankly, not very good at talking about our successes. We should be. Because success will breed further success. It will breed confidence, it will breed investment, it will breed growth, it will breed tax revenue, it will breed jobs and it will breed a better quality of services that the tax yields that follow will enable us to fund.

    People abroad can recognise our successes and the changed climate. Why else would so much external investment from the European Community, from Japan and America, be coming to this country. Because they have seen the change with their perspective from abroad in the way that so many of us in this country have not yet recognised it. They know the opportunities here. They know what can be done by the right sort of investment over the long term in the United Kingdom economy and increasingly we should recognise it ourselves in this country. We should be more self-confident. We should say more about our successes and I hope we will. Exports at an all time high and Carparo playing its own part as a previous winner of the Queen’s Award for Export Achievement.

    We still have in the United Kingdom some of the best and some of the biggest companies in Europe. 14 United Kingdom firms in the top 25 in Europe. That inward investment I referred to from Japan, the United States and elsewhere. These companies don’t come here for the weather, they come here for the business climate. The low taxation climate, in terms of business. The increasing aptitude and willingness of people to seek skill training and I wish to turn to that in a moment. The number of companies moving from Europe to the United Kingdom. Black and Decker of course being a recent example, not just inward investment, but companies bringing their whole enterprise to actually establish it here in the United Kingdom and they come because the conditions are right. I wonder how many people in this room can last remember when we had inflation around 2 per cent for a full year. Certainly not since 1960. With interest rates at the lowest level since the mid-1970s, with productivity improved, with manufacturing output up, with unemployment having fallen in 9 months out of 11, while alas in so many of our competitive countries in Europe, it’s still rising sharply and with industrial relations wholly transformed. If I had stood here 12 years ago and said to you that we would have at the present time, the lowest number of days lost to strikes since records began and a relatively clement industrial relations attitude between workforce and management that exists in this country today, frankly most of you would not have believed that it would be possible. But it’s happened and it is of vital interest to manufacturing industry.

    But there is one other change that I wish to refer to and it relates particularly to industry. There is an artificial cultural distinction between blue collar and white collar workers that has existed in this country for too long and has done too great a damage over too long a period. We do need those people who work in industry to have the esteem they deserve and those artificial distinctions between blue and white collar workers are outdated, absurd, damaging and they should be put in the dustbin immediately and never taken out again. What we need, if we are to have the success in the future that I believe this country is capable of, that is going to be built on the right macro economic structure created by government and the right investment and vision undertaken by business. If we’re to achieve that, not just this year, next year, the year after, not just in good years but in difficult economic years as well, then we need to attract more of our brightest and best brains into industry.

    The world is more competitive today that it has ever been. It is going to get more competitive. We’re not just competing with our friends and colleagues in the European Union, in France and Germany and Portugal and Spain. The competition comes also and here we must gear our competitive structure to meet it. The competition comes the Pacific Basin, from Japan, from the United States and unless we lift our eyes to make sure we can compete with those countries, then we will not remotely begin to achieve the success that is necessary in the future. That is why we need to keep our industrial costs down. That’s in a nutshell, why I myself thought it wrong to accept the provisions of the Social Chapter and decline to agree it in the Maastricht Treaty negotiations. That is why I myself believe that we must do all we possibly can to reskill Britain in manual skills of all sorts. We do need those skills to meet that more competitive world that lives out there, which you as businessmen must compete. We need more apprenticeships. We need to see the increasing thrust of our young people going into higher education. We had a target of one in three of our young people getting into further and higher education by the turn of the century and we have achieved that target this year, six years ahead of schedule. We need that to continue. We need to put an increasing weight and interest and acknowledgement of vocational qualifications of one sort or another. This is a revolution. A revolution in culture, a revolution in business management, a revolution in thought, about the way in which we look at business and industry.

    Those days will, within my political lifetime. But every shred of profit was looked at enviously are surely regarded as absurd by the overwhelming majority of people in this country today. Business itself is willingly accepting more and more social obligations of one sort or another. The generous donation to London Zoo by Carparo and the generous donation to some of the charities Norma works for today is an illustration of that. It stretches right across business, free enterprise, profitable, in increasingly accepting the obligation to assist in sponsorship of arts and other charities and good causes of one sort or another. The old artificial division that existed so many years ago, of hostility for private enterprise, has been steadily draining away over the last 15 or 20 years and in that climate we have to recognise what the underlying philosophy for the future must be. It is a perfectly simple philosophy. If business wins, Britain wins and we need to gear our policies to provide business with the greatest possible opportunity of winning. Business of course has the primary role. Government must provide the right macro economic climate. It can help in other ways. Help with exporters, help with export credit, help with taking trade missions abroad to use political clout to open the doors to businessmen to secure their deals. That is something that I believe is a legitimate responsibility of business and increasingly we will do that and we will use our Embassies and High Commissions abroad to promote the interests of British business. That is in all our interests in this country.

    Carparo has illustrated much of that. Carparo is winning. In many ways has won. Could move from a company with £500 to the multi-million pound concern with interests all around the world that it is today is a truly remarkable success story in private enterprise. I’d like to extend my congratulations to Sir Raj Paul and all his colleagues who have contributed to that success.

    A few moments ago at the conclusion of these remarks, our host invited everyone in Carparo to rise and drink a toast to their guest today. I, for my part if I may, would like to return the compliment. We’re here to celebrate the 25th anniversary of a success story well worth celebrating. I would like to conclude by inviting all the guests to join me in a toast to Sirraj Paul and all who have made Carparo such a remarkable success story.

    Dr Paul and Carparo.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 February 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from professors of law in Scotland about the issue of precedent, and the possibility of holding a trial of the alleged Libyan suspects for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have received no such representations.

     

    Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy at his forthcoming meeting with his Irish counterpart to discuss the Irish Government’s view of THORP.

    The Prime Minister : No.

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 2 February, Official Report, column 702, if he will raise with the Presidents of the European Commission and European Council of Ministers the possibility of making an exception to the convention of confidentiality covering correspondence between the Commission and member states in the case of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to establish from Lord Justice Scott whether he objects to the release by Government Departments of memoranda and other documents that they have submitted for consideration by his inquiry.

    The Prime Minister : No. Lord Justice Scott has discretion, subject to consultation on sensitive and classified material, to publish evidence submitted to his inquiry in his final report. The Government do not intend to anticipate his decisions.

  • PMQT – 10 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Flynn : In a letter to me from the Imperial Tobacco Company, the corrupt practice is exposed that, in the general election, it awarded 1,000 advertising sites to the Tory party because the Tory party promised not to ban tobacco advertising. The Government have now delivered on that promise to their paymasters. The cost will be borne by the nation in several thousand avoidable and unnecessary deaths. Will the Prime Minister promise today that never again will the Tory party accept bribes, favours or money from the tobacco industry?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly overlooks the excellent record that this Government have had in reducing smoking–down from 45 to 28 per cent. He knows very well of the changes in taxation that have been necessary to achieve that. He illustrates that no company that was remotely sensible would support the policies of the Labour party.

    Mr. Waterson : Will my right hon. Friend consider making public funds available so that every business in the land can be sent a copy of the European socialist manifesto so that they may judge for themselves whether it is a constructive business plan or a fast route to failure?

    The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure that would be a proper use of public funds. I very much doubt whether anybody would really wish to read it. It is certainly clear that what is contained in that socialist manifesto, which was signed up to by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)–without, as I recall, reading it–would be desperately damaging for British industry. It is equally true that the decision in the past of Members of the European Parliament who support the Labour party to vote for ending single nation vetoes would in effect mean that we would not be able to sustain our rebate, at a cost of many billions of pounds to the British taxpayer.

    Mr. John Smith : Given the widespread concern throughout the country at the arbitrary and unfair decisions that are being produced by the system operated by the Child Support Agency, why are the Government so opposed to allowing an independent review of its decisions?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there will be a full debate on that issue later today. As I have said on previous occasions, we have made it clear that we shall keep the nature of the system under review and if it seems necessary to make changes we will do so. We are embarking on implementing a principle that is supported uniformly across the House. We need a little more experience of how it works. We will keep it under review. If it is necessary to make changes, we shall make them then, not now.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the Prime Minister aware that the phrase “keeping under review” has been the bromide response of bureaucrats down the decades? Why do the Government–despite all the evidence–stop the Child Support Agency from taking into account divorce or separation agreements involving the transfer of assets, which may be highly relevant to establishing justice between the parties?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously did not listen to what I said a moment ago. I made it perfectly clear that we would continue to evaluate the workings of the Child Support Act 1991 and the agency. We intend to secure a well-accepted, consistent mechanism to deliver a better child maintenance system than we have had in the past. That is why I said that we would keep the matter under review.

    This system is unlike anything that has been tried before. It is generally accepted to be right in principle–not least by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is nodding. It is right to consider it and, having considered it, decide then whether further changes are necessary.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister cannot be so complacent about the anger that is now felt throughout the country–and his Back Benchers certainly should not be so complacent about it. Does not 80 per cent. of the money recovered by the agency go straight to the Treasury? Did the Government intend that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman reveals instinctively that he thinks in terms of “big government”, rather than thinking of the taxpayer. The money is actually returned to the taxpayer who contributed it in the first place.

    Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain’s only interest in Bosnia is assisting in the provision of humanitarian aid? Can he assure the House that we will not prejudice that effort by attacking any of the combatants?

    The Prime Minister : The measures agreed yesterday at the North Atlantic Council are intended primarily to reinforce the peace process. There will be renewed diplomatic effort to encourage all sides to reach an agreement and stick to it.

    No course in Bosnia is free of risks; that has been the case from the beginning. I do not myself believe, however, that doing nothing would be the right option for the House or NATO to adopt in the circumstances that have now arisen. In the discussions at the North Atlantic Council, we urged our allies to look forward. We do not favour purely punitive action; force should not be used unless it is genuinely necessary, and increases the chance of a peaceful settlement.

    Another relevant point is the fact that NATO has warned all sides to cease their bombardment. It has taken specific and carefully constructed decisions to reinforce the efforts of the commanders on the ground, but the objective is to help the civilian population without changing the character of the United Nations’ role.

     

    Q2. Mr. Cousins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Cousins : Does the Prime Minister agree that, although private matters can be cruelly exposed within hours, issues of public accountability can sometimes lie dormant for years? Can he assure the House that British aid and export packages have never been used to cover the cost of large-scale commissions and backhanders?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of no circumstances in which that has happened. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I hope that he will show it either to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or to me.

    Mr. Cash : Has my right hon. Friend seen the manifesto adopted by the European Peoples party on 3 February? Is he aware that it contains a commitment to a single currency, a central bank, the social chapter, a common immigration policy and a constitution for the whole of Europe? Does he agree that Conservative Members could not possibly accept those proposals, and repudiate them explicitly?

    The Prime Minister : Neither do we have to accept them; nor will we. The Conservative party at the European elections is in agreement and will contest those elections on a distinctively British Conservative manifesto on the future of Europe.

     

    Q3. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Illsley : On the subject of the appropriate use of the taxpayers’ money, does not the Prime Minister agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Department of Employment can waste £59 million on unused computer equipment, when thousands of my constituents are facing cuts in unemployment benefit as a result of his mismanagement, or are bureaucratic waste, sleaze and corruption no longer his responsibility?

    The Prime Minister : The Government always study Public Accounts Committee reports carefully. The lessons in that have already been learnt and put into practice.

     

    Q4. Mr. Alan Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend agree that national health service trusts, general practitioner fundholding and the patients charter are yielding valuable improvements in efficiency and quality of service? Does he further agree that not only the patients, but those who work in the national health service do not want those reforms undone and everything turned upside down, as the Labour party proposes?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The test that we should apply to the health service and efficiency is perfectly straightforward. Is the health service treating more patients? Is it providing better care and is it treating people more quickly? The answer to each of those questions is yes. The national health service treated 2.5 million more patients last year than in 1979. By contrast, the ludicrous document launched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman this morning, contains nothing that would lead to a single extra patient being treated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would like to abolish trusts and fundholding. That is a recipe for inefficiency, upheaval and chaos.

    Mr. Jamieson : Is the Prime Minister aware that his education Minister in the other place announced last week that there would be no extra assistance to grant-maintained schools for their liability to pay value added tax on fuel? Is he aware that grant-maintained schools are now paying £2.50 in every £100 in taxation rather than on books?

    The Prime Minister : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more and more schools are seeking to become grant maintained and doing so week after week?

     

    Q5. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mrs. Gillan : In his very busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to look at the recent Confederation of British Industry survey, which shows that business confidence in Britain is at an all-time high? Orders are up and, in the words of the CBI survey, the recovery is deepening and widening. Does he agree that such good economic indicators and such good signs bode well for private investment in projects such as crossrail?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend refers to one of a number of surveys that have highlighted the improving economic circumstances. The survey to which my hon. Friend refers shows business and export optimism up in each and every region of the country. Orders are up, output is expected to rise and investment in plant and machinery is expected to rise. That is against a background of low inflation with unit costs falling in most regions. The prospects for British business are extremely good. By getting inflation under control, cutting public spending and bringing interest rates down, we have provided exactly the right economic circumstances for long-sustained growth with low inflation and the creation of employment.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Q6. Mr. Macdonald : To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the number of people killed in Sarajevo since the passage of the United Nations Security Council resolution of June 1992 authorising the use of force by UNPROFOR to protect the safe areas.

    The Prime Minister : We do not have reliable estimates for casualties in Sarajevo. The death toll has been high. The killing of 68 shoppers in the market last Saturday was a step change in a deteriorating situation. There can be no guarantee of peace in Sarajevo or in any other part of Bosnia. There is no feasible and certain means of resolving the problem from outside, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s decision yesterday will put the parties under heavier pressure to stop the bombardment and make peace.

    Mr. Macdonald : Does the Prime Minister accept that there can be no logical or moral justification for distinguishing between Sarajevo and the other UN-designated safe areas in Bosnia, and that about 2, 500 civilians have died in all those safe areas since June last year, when the UN authorised the use of force to protect those people? Will he, therefore, undertake to work to extend the ultimatum that has been issued in respect of Sarajevo to those other safe areas?

    The Prime Minister : We have to determine what is practicable. We are already working, as far as Srebrenica and Tuzla are concerned, to try and ensure that the situation improves. We are now doing that having seen the special difficulties in Sarajevo. To follow to its logical conclusion the concern that the hon. Gentleman set out would involve our becoming involved, very probably with troops on the ground, throughout the whole of the area of conflict. However strongly the hon. Gentleman may feel about the matter, or others, that is not a practicable proposition.