The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1995

  • PMQT – 20 April 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20 April.

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

    Mr. Evennett: Did my right hon. Friend see last night’s Labour party political broadcast? Can he confirm that, contrary to the information in that broadcast, under his Government since 1992 expenditure on education, health and law and order has been substantially increased? Would he care to comment on that deplorable use of television to mislead the public?

    The Prime Minister: In answer to my hon. Friend’s direct question, no, I did not see the Labour party political broadcast last night. I was much better occupied meeting health authority chairmen to discuss the success of our health reforms, but I do understand from the substantial publicity generated that it contained a number of inaccuracies.

    Over recent days, the Labour party has claimed that council tax is lower in Labour areas. It must know that, on a fair comparison of like for like and band for band, that is not true. Band for band, Labour councils cost more in each and every band. The Labour party must know that spending on health has gone up, spending on education has gone up, and spending on the police has gone up, contrary to what it has led people to believe. The new Labour party has had a lot to say about trust, so I hope that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will withdraw the inaccuracies from the broadcast last night. If I may quote him, he has reached “a defining moment”.

    Mr. Blair: On the Tories, truth and tax, will the Prime Minister confirm as a matter of fact that, having fought the election on a pledge to cut tax year on year, as a result of the 20 new taxes since he was re- elected, the average family is £800 a year worse off? Is that true or false–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The answer is that the right hon. Gentleman’s figures are wrong. The House will have noticed that he has not taken the opportunity to withdraw the blatant untruths that he and his right hon. Friends have been peddling in recent days. He knows that those things are factually inaccurate. He continues to repeat them. He appears at press conferences where they are repeated. On that basis, if he had any trust, he is throwing it away.

    Mr. Blair: Let the country be the judge then. It is right, is it not, that on 27 March 1992, days before the general election, the Prime Minister pledged specifically that he would not extend value added tax? When the Labour party said that he would, we were accused of dishonesty and scaremongering. It is true, is it not, that at the very next Budget after that election, he extended VAT to fuel and power? Who told the truth then? Was it the Labour party which warned that the Tories would extend VAT or was it the Conservatives who promised that they would not?

    The Prime Minister: On matters of fact, within the last 48 hours, on matters readily determinable, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have told untruths and repeated those untruths. I set it out before the last election that I wished to see tax reduced. That was my position and it remains my position. When it is prudent to do so, we shall return to tax cutting. On that occasion, I hope that we will have the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. As to the earlier point, I repeat that within the last two days, the Opposition have stated repeatedly facts which they must know to be untrue. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw them?

    Mr. King: On behalf of this House and our country, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convey to the President of the United States and to the people of the United States our deepest sympathy for the terrible terrorist outrage that they have experienced? Will he assure the President that any assistance that we can give through intelligence or other sources to help bring to justice those responsible for that outrage will be given? Will he reaffirm to the President our welcome for his firm assertion that terrorism must be fought from whatever quarter it may come?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is hard to convey the depth of feeling that everyone will have in their hearts about the hideous act of barbarism and terrorism that occurred in Oklahoma and the misery and death that it has caused. I have been in touch with President Clinton and I have expressed our profound sympathy to him, to that country and to the bereaved and injured. I told the President that we are ready to help in any way we can and, as events will show, we are assisting.

    Mr. Ashdown: I am sure that the whole House will support what the Prime Minister has just said. On the subject of cuts, will the Prime Minister accept that, as schools face the crisis caused by the Government’s cutting of education funding across the country this year, they will be perplexed to understand why the Government have increased the funding on education quangos from less than £3 million in 1987 to more than £98 million this year? Why is that?

    The Prime Minister: We have increased funding on education right across the board, consistently year after year. That is why more than 50 per cent. extra has been spent on every pupil up and down the country since we came into office. That is why more than 50 per cent. more is spent on school books and it is why there are far more people in classrooms helping the teachers. It is why children are getting far better education results and why more of our youngsters are going on to university; it is because we have given a priority to education at primary level, secondary level, specialist level and university level, and will continue to do so.

    Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the light of the appalling tragedy at Oklahoma and the terrorist incident at Yokohama, it would be absolute folly to reduce expenditure or in any way to cut back on security and intelligence?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the vital importance of security and intelligence and the important priority that we have given it. In addition, of course, to the appalling attack that we saw in Oklahoma, it was also a day on which we saw terrorist attacks in Spain and possibly also in Japan.

     

    Q2. Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Janner: As we all join in sympathy with the mourners and sufferers in the unspeakable terrorist outrage in Oklahoma, will the Prime Minister please consult the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary about the ways in which international terrorists are abusing our laws on asylum and sanctuary? Notorious criminals such as Ganouchi, who are seeking to escape justice in their own countries, are turning Britain into a well-known haven for terrorists. As international terrorists know no boundaries and no frontiers and as no one knows where they will strike next, please will the Prime Minister give that matter absolute priority?

    The Prime Minister: I reject the suggestion that this country is in any way a haven for terrorists, but I share with the hon. and learned Gentleman the importance of dealing with the problem. We attach a very high priority to countering any activity in the United Kingdom by international terrorist groups, and I can confirm to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are at the moment looking into the law on asylum, with the intention of making improvements and bringing them before the House. I hope that we will have widespread support across the Floor of the House for the measures against terrorism. I look forward to seeing the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends in our Lobby on that particular matter. It is a matter to which we attach the very greatest importance.

    Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the general public that there is no need for local authorities to dismiss teachers? Their income is not hypothecated. If they have to make savings, they can make them across the whole range of local government services. They could get rid of administrators or social workers, or stop printing political newspapers.

    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated to the House on previous occasions, we regard education as a priority for the Government. It will remain a priority. I believe that within local authority budgets, and education budgets in particular, the classroom teacher should remain the priority.

     

    Q3. Mr. Purchase: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Purchase: If the support grant settlement that applied to Westminster Tory council were applied to English authorities generally, would not 95 per cent. of Labour councils have no rate increase this year? Is the Prime Minister aware that, by contrast with Westminster’s inflated grant, Wolverhampton has lost £8 million in grant and has had to make £7 million of cuts in its budget? Is not it time that the Prime Minister stopped taxing by stealth, came clean and put the formula correctly to the people of England?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is repeating yet more unsubstantiated and inaccurate Labour smears, as I will now demonstrate. The grant is determined by an objective formula which takes into– [Interruption.] What the hon. Gentleman does not know is that the previous Labour Government were more generous to Westminster as compared with, say, Liverpool, than the present Conservative Government. In 1978, they assessed Westminster’s need per head at 49 per cent. more than Liverpool, compared with 42 per cent. more this year. The hon. Gentleman did not know that, because he just picked up the latest smear from Transport House. He should check his facts and withdraw.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that we do not allow– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. We must hear the question.

    Mr. Bottomley: May I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that we do not allow the north American habit of paid political advertising on television? It might lead to an extension of the kind of broadcast that was shown last night, which demonstrated that the person who authorised it is unprincipled, untrustworthy and should not be allowed to control public expenditure. He cannot tell an increase from a decrease.

    The Prime Minister: I certainly share that view about paid political broadcasting on television. I think that very few people would wish to see that. What we really saw last night was that behind the high-flown language of new Labour lies the gutter politics of old Labour. That is the case. It has always been the case and it is now becoming obvious.

     

    Q4. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Illsley: First, let me assure the Prime Minister that this question does not come from Transport House. Does he realise that, if Barnsley local authority received the same amount of Government grant per head as Westminster council, it would not have any need to levy a council tax at all and could re-pay each council tax payer a staggering £867 each, rather than having to face council tax capping, which will mean sacking teachers and increasing still further some of the largest class sizes in the country? Why should children in my constituency have to suffer to subsidise a corrupt council?

    The Prime Minister: If every council in the country had the same grant as Tower Hamlets, they could make a bigger reduction than they could for Westminster.

    Mr. Rowe: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Liberal-Labour coalition, which now tries to control Kent county council, discovered at its recent meeting that it had underspent by £17 million, yet nevertheless flatly refused to fund the teachers’ pay increase? Is that not a cynical abuse of the children in our schools for party political purposes?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a fair point that could be echoed by many of my other hon. Friends who are unfortunate enough to have either Labour or Liberal Democrat councils.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Saddam Hussein – 19 April 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Saddam Hussein and the war with Iraq, made on 19th April 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the UK was involved in the war against Saddam Hussein]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The UK I think had several interests after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, they were interests of principle and interests of practice. In terms of principle I don’t think you can stand by and see one country raped by another in that fashion. In terms of practice, what would have happened after Kuwait? Where would Saddam have gone? Would he had gone right down the Gulf? What economic disruption would that have caused? So I think on both grounds of principle and practice it was essential to stop what he was doing, stop it comprehensively and stop it straight away.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 April 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Annual Reports

    Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s fifth annual report for 1994 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 4(6) of the Security Service Act 1989. The confidential annexe to that report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 4(7) of the 1989 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and in providing assistance to the tribunal as provided in the Act. I note that he is satisfied that the Secretaries of State have exercised their warranty powers in accordance with the provisions of the 1989 Act.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: A copy of Lord Nolan’s annual report for 1994 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential annnexe to that report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the 1985 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and in assisting the tribunal as provided for in the Act. I note that he is satisfied that the powers under the Act are exercised with care and with a strong sense of duty.

     

    Teachers and Administrators

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 21 March, Official Report, column 112, concerning the ratio of teachers to other manual and non-manual staff employed by education authorities, if he has anything to add to his oral statement of the same day, Official Report, column 140, concerning the ratio of teachers to administrators in their authorities.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 April 1995]: No. I made the position clear in my oral statement of 21 March, Official Report, column 141, and my written answer of the same day, Official Report, column 112.

     

    Conservative Party Health Group

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister on what basis and on whose authority Conservative central office has dispatched a summons and agenda paper for a Conservative party meeting to be held at the headquarters of the Department of Health in Richmond terrace in April.

    (2) if the Cabinet Secretary approved the conducting of Conservative party health group meetings at the headquarters of the Department of Health in Richmond terrace in 1994-95;

    (3) how many Conservative party health group meetings, for which agenda and summonses were dispatched on Conservative central office notepaper, were held at the Department of Health in Richmond terrace in 1994-95.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 April 1995]: One Conservative party health group meeting was held during 1994 95 at Richmond house. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health held another meeting on 4 April. These meetings did not incur additional cost to the taxpayer. No civil servant, apart from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s special adviser, was involved in preparing for or servicing these meetings. Approval was not required.

     

    Official Box, House of Commons

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister what instructions and advice is given to special advisers who occupy the civil service box inside the Chamber of the House as to their conduct, behaviour and impartiality during Question Time, statements and debates; and if he has any plans to amend or review this advice; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Attendance in the Official Box is by permission of Madam Speaker who has laid down clear rules on officials’ behaviour. These require officials to conduct themselves discreetly at all times. I expect these rules to be scrupulously observed.

     

    Mr. Ghazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister what is the current position regarding representations made on behalf of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali who is in prison in Azad Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 April 1995]: We continue to raise our concerns over the delays in the hearings facing Ghazanfer Ali. We understand that the hearings continue to be adjourned.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 March, Official Report, column 453, regarding the concrete evidence on Lockerbie if he will (a) name the relevant authorities and (b) make a statement on the result of his approaches to the United States embassy on the issues of alleged forgery of the telex to which the question refers.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 April 1995]: I have asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to look into the matters raised by the hon. Member. It has consulted the Crown Office and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary as the prosecuting and investigating authorities in this case, our security and intelligence services and the United States authorities. The consultations with the United States embassy are intended to check the authenticity of the document in question, and are still continuing.

  • PMQT – 18 April 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Mandelson: Will the Prime Minister endorse Labour’s condemnation of the minority of militants who behaved so badly at the National Union of Teachers conference in Blackpool last weekend? Does he agree that the best way to isolate those individuals is for the Government to start listening to what governors, teachers and, above all, parents across the country are saying–that it is madness to trade cuts in the education of our children this year for tax cuts next year?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly share in the condemnation of the behaviour that we have seen at the National Union of Teachers conference in the past few days. Millions of parents would have been concerned about the behaviour that they saw. It was, frankly, disgraceful. It was loutish. If I may say so, Labour’s Front-Bench education spokesman was appallingly treated by those militants. I am happy to share in the hon. Gentleman’s thorough condemnation of the behaviour of that minority of teachers. I also very much regret the fact that their conference has decided today to ballot on strike action, against the advice of their executive committee. I strongly hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that teachers will decide that their job is to be in the classroom teaching their pupils, not outside teaching bad habits to their pupils.

     

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

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

    Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive boost that he gave to British prestige by his decision to use Concorde for his recent visit to meet President Clinton in Washington? Will he take this opportunity to declare his pride in travelling in that magnificent advertisement for British technology?

    The Prime Minister: Although the technology is now 25 years out of date, it is a magnificent aircraft, it is unequalled across the world and I congratulate all those with the wisdom to travel in it. Mr. Blair rose — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: I see that the recess has not improved Conservative Members, Madam Speaker.

    On education, I agree that strike action would be wrong and misguided, but the Prime Minister’s Secretary of State for Education admitted last week that, as a result of the Government’s refusal to fund the teachers’ pay award, some schools would face hard choices and might be unable to absorb the pressures put upon them. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to those schools?

    The Prime Minister: The fact is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that this Government have consistently made education a priority, benefiting parents, pupils and teachers. We have given parents more choice over their children’s education and more information about how they are progressing. Even this year, with the funding levels about which the right hon. Gentleman complains, we are spending record amounts on education, as he will know. We are spending almost half as much again per pupil as when we first took office. We are on top of inflation and we now spend more per secondary pupil than Germany and Japan and more per primary pupil than Germany, France and most of the European Union. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we are dealing fairly with education now, as we have in the past.

    Mr. Blair: I do not. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that the pupil-teacher ratio has worsened under his premiership. The actions of a few extremists in the teaching union should not obscure the hard work and professionalism of the vast majority of teachers; nor should it allow the Government to escape their responsibility for their own brand of extremism, which is forcing education cuts on schools the length and breadth of the country.

    The Prime Minister: Our extremism has been to give people more choice and more information, to put far more of our young people into further and higher education than ever before, to increase spending on pupils by 50 per cent. and spending on school books by 50 per cent. over and above inflation, and to increase some areas of ancillary spending by more than 130 per cent. since we have been in government. If that is extremism in education, it is extremism that every other budget in Whitehall would have been happy to have.

     

    European Legislation

    Q3. Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to monitor the implementation by other EC countries of European Community legislation passed by their legislatures.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend–no, I do not. My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade– [Interruption.] I see that the recess has not improved Opposition Members, either, Madam Speaker.

    My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his Department work actively on behalf of British firms. We remain ready to intervene when we feel that other member states have failed to fulfil their obligations and to take the Commission to court if we believe that it has failed in its responsibility to monitor implementation and enforcement of European Community legislation.

    Mr. Steen: Since the European Community has a poor and inconsistent track record of enforcing directives and regulations, will the Prime Minister consider employing some of our own people in our embassies to do a little detective work to find out whether other countries gold plate and over-zealously interpret regulations as we do, at a cost to the consumer, our industry and our people? As deregulation is a cornerstone of this Government’s policy–one that I wholly support–will he take a look at the activities of the Deregulation Committee, whose first deregulation proposal was on greyhound racing?

    The Prime Minister: On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, we have successfully pressed the Commission to increase its efforts to improve member states’ compliance with Community law. I assure my hon. Friend that our embassies already actively monitor the position so that action can be taken quickly when shortcomings are identified. The single market compliance unit in the Department of Trade and Industry also helps firms disadvantaged by other member states’ failure to implement.

    The greyhound racing proposal is one of a large number. On the same day as it was put forward, we also started consultation on proposals to give friendly societies and credit unions more flexibility and to streamline procedures under the Building Act 1984. We shall continue to pursue deregulation.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Wray: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Wray: Does the Prime Minister agree that my constituency has the worst unemployment figures, health record and infant mortality rate in Britain? Why is it costing £34 million to keep my constituents unemployed? Does not the Prime Minister agree that he and the Government have been a failure? When will he do something? Should he not resign?

    The Prime Minister: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman about unemployment in particular. Although he may not have noticed it in his constituency, during the period when I have been Prime Minister, unemployment in Glasgow, Provan has dropped by 28 per cent.

    Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Royal Navy will maintain its policy, which goes back some centuries, of curbing Spain’s maritime pretensions, and that the Royal Navy will go to the assistance of any British fishing boat that is prevented from going about its legal business by Spanish action?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that for my hon. Friend. We believe in strict enforcement, and the fisheries protection vessels of the Royal Navy will ensure that rules and agreements are respected.

     

    Q5. Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Turner: Will the Prime Minister confirm that almost 800 candidates in the forthcoming elections are calling themselves Conservatives? Does he agree that it is understandable that they do not want to knock on doors as Conservatives in those elections? Will he confirm the rumour that he intends to stand as an independent in Huntingdon at the next general election?

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that that question was very carefully thought out, but I fear that there was a little problem in delivery at the beginning. I think that I know what the hon. Gentleman had in mind. He might have had in mind some Labour councils: for example, in Berwick Labour is fielding four candidates out of 28; in Craven, three out of 12; in Forest Heath, 17 out of 25. There are a large number of other illustrations that I might give the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps they have their concerns about Labour policy.

     

    Q6. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my opinion, his personal beliefs and instincts command the overwhelming support of the people of this country on such issues as the economy and taxation, the national health service, education and the European Community, including fishing? Will he assure me and the country today that his personal instincts will be translated into Government action and policy during the next 12 months?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am happy to give him that assurance. We have a very clear agenda of core beliefs: prosperity for all, extending opportunities, common-sense, decent values, first-class public services, the lowest credible level of taxation, pride in our nation and protection of our interests, both at home and abroad. I assure my hon. Friend that that is our programme, not just for the next year but for the rest of this Parliament and the next Parliament.

     

    Q7. Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Pike: Does the Prime Minister recognise that many former employees of the Bellings Group, which went bankrupt three years ago, lost a great deal as a result of abuses and fraud relating to that company’s pension fund? Will he give an undertaking to those former employees that they will receive at least equal treatment to that given to members of the Maxwell pension fund?

    The Prime Minister: The scale of the Maxwell crisis and the large number of parties involved justified the exceptional action taken at that time by the Government. I do not think that we can necessarily adopt that model for general application. I understand that the independent trustee appointed to the Bellings pension fund is still continuing to pursue the recovery of assets missing from that fund. I think that we should better await the outcome of that investigation.

     

    Q8. Mr. Marlow: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the single most important factor affecting our children’s education is whether our teachers, as a body, wish to be looked upon as a respected, ethical profession or a primeval Scargillite rump?

    The Prime Minister: I am entirely happy to agree with my hon. Friend upon that proposition. Although a minority of teachers have let down the profession in which they serve, I believe that the majority of teachers will strongly disagree with their behaviour. I hope that they will show their disagreement within their teacher unions, as well as publicly.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at European Bank for Reconstruction – 10 April 1995

    Below is Mr Major’s speech at the fourth annual meeting of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, held at the Barbican Centre in London on Monday 10th April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman, let me first thank you for so ably launching this fourth annual meeting.

    It is a genuine pleasure to welcome to London this morning the Governors and delegates from 57 member countries, the European Commission and the European Investment Bank.

    Though this may be the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, some of you have come from far beyond Europe – from Australia and New Zealand, from Korea and Japan, from Egypt, from Canada, Mexico and the US.

    This wide support which the Bank enjoys, and the help given by countries far afield, is one of its great strengths.

    One glance at the list of those present testifies to the Bank’s organisational skills. To the nearly 2000 here now, we should add around another 2000 who will play a part in the programme for the annual meeting. This makes the meeting one of the largest of international financial gatherings. The EBRD has come a long way in a short time.

    Mr Chairman, two weeks ago I spoke at another large conference here in London, on the subject of “Britain in the World”.

    I stressed then that – as an island with a trading and a seafaring tradition – the UK had always looked outwards. We depended on our external links and our foreign trade. One of the aims of our foreign policy was actively to promote democratic values and liberal economics – not only because they are desirable in themselves, but because we saw them as the best guarantors of peace and stability.

    These values are reflected in our support for the EBRD. We are proud to have the Bank’s headquarters here in London.

    We are glad that its close access to the City’s financial institutions is a factor in its success.

    We value Britain’s partnership with the Bank.

    And we will continue to give it our strong backing.

    Mr Chairman, I spent part of last week in Washington and I’d like to say a little about a subject I discussed there with President Clinton and his colleagues.

    We are all very conscious of the dramatic consequences of the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War for the countries to the East.

    But rather less attention has been paid to the effect on countries and trends in the West.

    For over 40 years, the Cold War did more than anything else to underpin the cohesion of the Western democracies. Even among other difficulties there was a common threat about which we were always wholly united.

    That cohesion was of huge value to international stability. It was a driving force in the world. It served as a focus, not only for the geographical West, but for great democracies further away.

    Now the Soviet Union has collapsed. The Warsaw Pact is no more. The old threat has gone. We are liberated from the Cold War. These are very different circumstances. But the old democracies must not lose the habit of working together. We must not take it for granted. It is too valuable a habit to be lost. Even though, in some ways, we may have to work at it a little harder than before.

    I see two focal points for the renewed, reinvigorated Transatlantic partnership which President Clinton and I discussed. And I know that there is support for this concept also in European capitals.

    Both of these points are directly relevant to the EBRD.

    First, I believe there is no more important objective in the years immediately ahead than to extend prosperity and free markets, security and stability, from West to East; and, in so doing, to ensure that no new dividing lines are drawn on the map of Europe. We want no economic iron curtains across any part of our Continent.

    Second, trade liberalisation must not rest with the Uruguay Round agreement. We must take advantage of the new World Trade Organisation to press forward continuously. One by one, we should tackle the many non-tariff barriers which still abound. This will benefit us all.

    This work should not wait for some grand review in some years time. We should continue with it now. And it is particularly important to the Eastern countries in transition that the West should open its markets. There can be no better way of helping them than through trade liberalisation. Closed markets and closed minds would be to miss an historic opportunity to bring our Continent together.

    In the Cold War period, we made a huge collective effort to defend the security and democratic values of the West. In today’s changed circumstances, Western security will best be served by spreading those values.

    This will require another collective effort. It will not happen automatically. We are not on an inevitable route to universal democracy. The beneficial changes we’ve seen are in their infancy and need our help. So we must adapt some of our institutions, such as the OSCE, NATO and the European Union; and develop some new institutions, of which the EBRD is a prime example.

    Change is required in both East and West, and change will benefit both East and West.

    When I spoke to your second annual meeting, two years ago, I said it was not surprising that many people in the East were daunted by the political, social and economic change which they faced.

    People are much less daunted now. Even in a short time, they have begun to see some striking improvements. Free and fair elections have been held throughout Central Europe, in Russia and Ukraine, and in other countries represented here.

    The Central and Eastern European countries have moved into growth. Privatisation has spread widely.

    Over the past year or so, I have been able to see some of these changes at first hand.

    I went to Russia early last year, and look forward to going there again next month. By virtue of its sheer size, Russia faces as daunting a task as any country. But Russian inflation fell from over 2,400 per cent in 1992 to around 300 per cent last year and is targeted by the government to be down to 2 per cent or less a month by the end of 1995. Over 60 per cent of Russian industrial workers are now in the private sector.

    I was taken around Nizhniy Novgorod by Governor Nemtsov, whom I am delighted to see at this meeting. I met entrepreneurs and saw privatisation in action in Russia’s third largest city. I understand that over 1,200 businesses in Nizhniy Novgorod have now applied for help from the EBRD’s “Russia Small Business” fund, which was set up through a G7 initiative at the Tokyo Summit.

    Poland, where I went last August, recorded 6 per cent growth in GDP last year, and has now got its mass privatisation programme under way.

    After Poland, I met the Prime Ministers of the Baltic States in Vilnius. In their separate ways, the three Baltic States have made rapid progress in privatisation and developing trade. They have also largely resolved the sensitive problem of Russian troop withdrawal – through negotiation and in a way which does credit to all concerned.

    In December I attended the CSCE Summit in Hungary where the beneficial effects of foreign investment are plain to see. With support from the international financial institutions, the Hungarian Government is now tackling its budget deficit and large foreign debt.

    Without taking you on a tour of all 25 countries, there are of course many other encouraging indicators. In Ukraine, under President Kuchma, there has been remarkable progress over the past year. Ukraine’s accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was an important step forward for stability in Eastern Europe; and the President’s economic measures have already produced a sharp fall in inflation and in the budget deficit.

    I think it important to make these points because all too often we hear of problems rather than progress. There are deep problems – but the overall picture is much better, much sooner, than most observers dared to predict. It is a success story we do not hear enough about and we must do all we can to ensure it continues.

    A balanced picture, Mr Chairman, must of course take account of areas of concern.

    Nuclear safety is one which confronts many Eastern countries. They depend on energy supplies from reactors but too many of those reactors fall short of international safety standards. Nuclear safety needs a high priority and a coherent approach.

    I hope that the Western-backed action plan for Ukraine, which would involve the closure of Chernobyl, can soon be implemented. And the improvements which have been made to nuclear plants in Bulgaria and Lithuania, with the help of the EBRD Nuclear Safety Account, need to be matched elsewhere.

    I know the difficulties of this issue but it is important and it must not be pushed aside in the hope that another accident may never occur.

    The conflict in the former Yugoslavia has directly or indirectly affected several of the countries represented here – especially the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. And it has provided a sobering example of the damage which ethnic tensions can bring.

    In Croatia, President Tudjman’s agreement to accept a continued UN presence is a welcome sign of realism. I hope that last December’s economic agreement between Zagreb and Knin will now be implemented, and will lead towards a political settlement within Croatia. The Bank, with other institutions, can help to demonstrate the economic benefits of peace there.

    The situation in Bosnia is less encouraging UNPROFOR and international aid agencies have done an enormous amount to sustain the population through three terrible years, and to damp down the conflict. But the cessation of hostilities is now being breached, and the risks to UNPROFOR and aid workers are again rising. There has been renewed shelling of Sarajevo over the past few days, and UNPROFOR has appealed to both sides to respect the ceasefire.

    The parties to the Bosnian conflict should heed this appeal. They are literally playing with fire. If they rekindle all-out war, I do not believe that any of the participants can make lasting gains. But what is certain is that UNPROFOR’s ability to operate would be placed in jeopardy, and the civilian population – men, women and children – would endure further casualties and suffering.

    No responsible leader should choose such a course. War will not produce a settlement.

    There is an alternative.

    The Contact Group have proposed a basis for a peaceful settlement. The Bosnian Government are ready to negotiate on this basis. But the Bosnian Serbs have so far set their face against the Contact Group’s proposals. While they refuse to negotiate, they will remain under sanctions and in self-imposed isolation.

    In the absence of direct negotiations between the parties, the Contact Group is aiming to promote mutual recognition as a step towards more stable relations. To carry this forward and to try to reinvigorate negotiations, a Contact Group mission will visit Belgrade, Sarajevo and Zagreb later this week.

    However hard the task, the Contact Group should continue its efforts and pressure to encourage direct negotiations between the Bosnian parties, because the alternatives are bleak. And no-one could question Bosnia’s need for a lasting peace which would allow reconstruction of the country to begin.

    Moving further Eastwards, ethnic tensions and war have also had a terribly destructive effect in the Caucasus.

    In the northern Caucasus, the Russian army’s misconceived operations in Chechnya are not yet at an end. Civilians have been killed in large numbers, and their homes destroyed. I hope the Russian Government will now cooperate fully with the OSCE, and seek a negotiated solution.

    Georgia has been ravaged by civil war, and the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh has blighted the development of Armenia and Azerbaijan. All three countries desperately need peace so that their economies can make the transition and begin to grow.

    Mr Chairman, as Bosnia has shown only too vividly, there is only so much the international community can do to help if the parties to a conflict are not prepared to help themselves, and to take responsible decisions. But the success of the EBRD, and the willingness of so many countries and institutions to support the Bank, is a graphic illustration of what the international community can do, where the necessary conditions exist.

    So let me turn now to a success story.

    I shall not say a great deal about the Bank, Mr Chairman, because others will do so more expertly during this meeting.

    But let me pay a sincere tribute to the Bank’s President, Jacques de Larosiere, and his staff.

    In only eighteen months, Mr de Larosiere’s clear and strong leadership has transformed the Bank, redirected its activities, and restored confidence in it.

    We have seen a large growth in efficiency, and significant savings in overheads and administrative costs.

    Nearly three-quarters of the EBRD’s commitments last year were in the private sector; it has moved into profit; and it has spread its representation and the reach of its projects.

    In short, the EBRD is now doing what it was set up to do. It is playing a large part in helping countries to emerge from the ruins of Communism. The transformation of these economies, as we have always known, will take years to complete. They will not move at a uniform speed. There are a great many obstacles to be overcome. There may be setbacks as well as advances. But there are now many more encouraging signs, much visible evidence of progress.

    The EBRD deserves its share of the credit. On the course charted by its President, the Bank will remain in the forefront of our collective effort to extend prosperity and pave the way for Europe’s enlargement.

    It has an important role to play that will grow with the years. It deserves our continuing confidence and support.

    It will receive that from the UK Government and I hope, in that, I can speak for everyone.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 April 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Parliamentary Delegations

    Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the “Information Bulletin” on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union for the period July 1994 to February 1995, which has been sent to him.

    The Prime Minister: I have done so today.

     

    Mr. Nicholas Ingram

    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the US state of Georgia regarding the proposed electrocution of a British subject, Nicky Ingram; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 31 March 1995]: My sympathy is with any family who find themselves in this difficult position. My own views on capital punishment are well known. However, after careful consideration, I am advised that there are no proper grounds for the British Government to intervene. I have therefore not made any representations on Mr. Ingram’s behalf.

     

    Ministers (Car Hire)

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the rules concerning the use by members of the Government in their official capacity of cars hired from the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    The Government car service may provide private car hire facilities for members of the Government where a Government car service car and driver are not available.

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister, what has been the cost of cars hired from the private sector for the transport of members of the Government for each year from 1987 to date.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    The information as requested is not available.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty’s Government will hold discussions with the British relatives of Lockerbie victims before taking action on any decision of the United Nations to implement wider oil sanctions against Libya and other actions as a result of the meeting of the American Lockerbie relatives with White House officials.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    We shall keep representatives of the British relatives of the Lockerbie victims informed of developments at the United Nations concerning sanctions against Libya and continue to take their views into account in considering how to ensure that those responsible for the bombing are brought to justice.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 April 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Members of Parliament (Contacts)

    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister what central record is kept of requests by groups of hon. Members seeking to discuss issues with Ministers.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. So far as my right hon. Friend is aware, none.

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Government policy on official contact between civil servants and spokespersons in Her Majesty’s official Opposition.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. Opposition spokesmen may request briefings on departmental organisation or policies, or in advance of overseas travel. Ministers would expect to be asked to give their authority for such meetings, and to be present if sensitive matters of public policy are to be discussed. Civil servants may also on occasions have dealings with Opposition spokesmen on Ministers’ behalf; again, Ministers would expect to authorise such meetings.

    The conventions relating to confidential pre-election contacts between senior civil servants and opposition parties are described in a memorandum submitted to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee by the Cabinet Office in November 1994, printed at page 29, vol II of the Committee’s Fifth Report, Session 1993 94. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has agreed that such contacts should be permitted from early 1996 in advance of the next general election.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that all of the documents (a) seized by Ministry of Defence police from the offices of British Manufacture and Research Company in April 1990 and (b) held by the receivers of Astra Holdings and British Manufacture and Research Company are made available to the Scott inquiry.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. All the documents taken from the offices of the British Manufacture and Research Company were sent to the receivers for Astra on 22 June 1993. The question of the provision of any of these documents to the Scott inquiry is one for the receiver and the inquiry.

     

    Chemical Weapons Convention

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to introduce legislation to ratify the chemical weapons convention.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. The legislation needed to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the chemical weapons convention will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time and the Government’s other legislative priorities permit.

     

    Rail Privatisation

    Mr. Meacher: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 28 March, Official Report, column 823 , which other countries he had in mind as pursuing the same model of rail privatisation as Her Majesty’s Government; and what were the points of similarities he was referring to in each case.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. A number of other European countries including Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Holland have restructured or are restructuring their railways to split responsibility for track and infrastructure from the operation of services. Both Germany and Holland plan to privatise some or all of their railways on this basis.

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister how many times in each year since 1979-80 his Department has written to an hon. or right hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. The information as requested is not available.

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979-80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence;

    (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other official of a non- departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979-80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. None.

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979-80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer;

    (2) To ask the Prime Minister how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979-80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. The information requested is a matter of public record, but it could be provided in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister how many times in each year since 1979 80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report.

    The Lord President: I have been asked to reply. The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Publicity

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list, for 1992-93 and 1993-94 separate figures for the spending by his Department on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotions materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. For this purpose, the Prime Minister’s Department is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science.

  • PMQT – 4 April 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th April 1995. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply. [Hon. Members:– “Oh.”] I am grateful to Opposition Members.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently on an official visit to the United States.

    Mr. Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware of the sad plight of about 3,000 haemophiliacs who have contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood used in their ordinary treatment? Do the Government accept the overwhelming moral responsibility that exists and the case for a hardship and compensation fund? When the Prime Minister returns from America, will the Leader of the House ask him to have a word with the Secretary of State for Health and tell her to stop resisting that claim and allow justice to be done?

    Mr. Newton: The straightforward answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question is that of course I am aware of that tragic position. Indeed, I had some experience of a related one when I was Minister for Health and there was the problem of haemophiliacs with AIDS. I will, of course, do as the hon. Gentleman requests and bring his question to the attention of not only my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

    Mr. Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on Scotland’s continuing success in attracting inward investment. Might that in any way be prejudiced by Opposition parties’ policies with regard to devolution?

    Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that all the signs are that Scotland has just enjoyed another record year for inward investment. I understand that it is attracting inward investment projects at the rate of about 100 a year, examples being Motorola at East Kilbride and NEC at Livingston. One thing is certain: that inward investment is coming as a result of Conservative policies and would be put off by Labour policies.

    Mr. Prescott: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why, if the economy is now so strong that the Prime Minister can offer tax cuts in November 1995 and November 1996, taxes are going up again on Thursday?

    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman well knows that taxes have had to be increased as part of a number of difficult decisions to bring about recovery from recession and the sustained economic growth that is now going on. As my right hon. Friend said once again at the weekend, as those policies pay off we shall seek to reduce taxes as soon as it is prudent to do so. The one thing that everyone in the country knows is that a Labour Government never have, and never will, reduce taxation.

    Mr. Prescott: Is it not the case that the Government are taking £800 a year in new taxes now, so that at the next general election the Tories can bribe us with our own money? Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the British people now know that, when it comes to tax, you can never trust a Tory?

    Mr. Newton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reflect on two facts. The first is that, on average, households are expected to be about £250 better off this year than last, even after tax and inflation, and the second, on which I hope he will reflect, is that, if we had maintained the tax regime that we inherited from the last Labour Government, more than 1 million more people would be paying tax next year.

    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that middle England is not a land that takes kindly to political correctness or positive discrimination? Will he give a firm assurance that under the Conservatives it will never have to submit to either?

    Mr. Newton: I think that I can safely give my hon. Friend that assurance in general terms, but I would want to look carefully at each specific proposition.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pearson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Pearson: Now that the Prime Minister has promised tax cuts in November, will the Leader of the House say whether that is a real promise or the sort of promise that the Chancellor makes on a wet night in Dudley?

    Mr. Newton: It is a point that is reflected in the fact that one in five taxpayers now pays tax at the lower rate of 20p in the pound compared with the basic rate which stood at 33 per cent. when the Labour party was in office. That point is also reflected in the fact that last year’s increased allowances for pensioners took 190,000 people out of taxation– many of them, no doubt, in Dudley.

     

    Q3. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are 56,000 asylum applications awaiting decision? Are not bogus asylum applications damaging to the prospects of honest and true immigrants as well as damaging to race relations? Will my right hon. Friend do something about it? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.

    Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already announced measures to speed up the processing of asylum applications to deal with the backlog. As a result, 7,000 more cases will be processed every year. My hon. Friend will be aware of, and no doubt welcome, the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear last weekend that there will be a new Bill in the autumn to tighten up the asylum rules further. I believe that that will be widely welcomed, as it is, as my hon. Friend said, in the interests of good race relations.

     

    Front-line Services, Sheffield

    Q4. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit Sheffield to discuss funding of front-line services.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

    Mr. Michie: Two years ago, the Prime Minister did have plans, but never arrived. When the Leader of the House answers this supplementary question, will he debate not the past but the present and future in terms of funding in Sheffield? The funding in terms of Government grant is becoming so bad that it is affecting front-line services to such a degree that the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party in Sheffield support a redetermination bid. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to support that bid and to come to talk to the people of Sheffield–the carers, teachers and children–who are suffering under the present regime?

    Mr. Newton: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman, like many other Opposition Members, does not want to debate the past, and I will not do so–I shall come to the present. The latest figures for March 1994 show that there are, in Sheffield, nearly £8 million in council tax arrears, more than 1,200 vacant properties and unspent school balances of £5 million. Perhaps the Opposition should address those problems first.

     

    Engagements

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

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Barron: Has the Leader of the House seen the latest report of the National Federation of Housing Associations, which reveals that because of Government cuts this year, only 17,000 new homes will be built? Given that repossessions in Britain are still running at 1,000 per week, does he agree with me that the Prime Minister’s offer on Saturday of a White Paper on housing is totally inadequate for the needs of the country?

    Mr. Newton: I might pay more attention to the hon. Gentleman if his comments were a little more balanced–for example, if he had acknowledged that last year housing starts were up 13 per cent. and repossessions have fallen by more than a third since the peak in 1991. He might have added that the average mortgage is now down by £140 a month since 1990.

     

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

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Heald: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the Audit Commission report on the performance of local authorities, showing that Conservative authorities provide better services at lower costs, that eight out of the top 10 most debt-ridden councils are Labour and that, typically, a Conservative council has a council tax 40 per cent. lower than a Labour council? Does that not show that Britain is better off under the Tories?

    Mr. Newton: I sense some support for my hon. Friend and I certainly wish to extend my support to him. The report ties in the indicators in the Audit Commission report with the fact that for the average band C council tax payer, Conservative councils cost people nearly 40 per cent. less than Labour councils and 25 per cent. less than Liberal Democrat councils. The fact is that Conservative councils do cost less and provide better services.

    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister expect a vote of confidence in the Government in the Scottish local authority elections on Thursday?

    Mr. Newton: I envisage that in the Scottish local elections on Thursday people will focus on the fact that in Scotland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, Conservative councils cost them less and give them better value for money.

     

    Q7. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend consider joining me in congratulating the Federation of Small Businesses, which voted at its annual conference to come out of the European Community? Does he agree that most good economic ideas have their origins in small businesses?

    Mr. Newton: I fall short of expressing congratulation in quite the terms that my hon. Friend seeks, but I certainly did note the resolution of the Federation of Small Businesses in Torquay, not least because I happened to be in the west country that weekend and was asked one or two questions about it. We all understand the federation’s concerns, not least about what is sometimes seen as excessive interference and over-regulation. We need to continue to address those real concerns, both by our attitude to subsidiarity in Europe and by our policies on deregulation at home.

    Mr. Winnick: In view of the Government’s deep and continuing unpopularity, can the Leader of the House tell us how far the Prime Minister is safe from internal party intrigues to change the party leadership? Does he accept that the words of loyalty he will no doubt say were used by Cabinet Ministers in 1990? Look what happened to her–she was betrayed by her Cabinet colleagues and repeatedly stabbed in the back.

    Mr. Newton: I recall something else about 1990, which is that the hon. Gentleman was talking about the deep unpopularity of the Government two years before we won the last election.

     

    Q8. Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the continuing waste, bureaucracy and extravagance that mark so many Liberal and Labour local authorities? Is he aware that Suffolk county council, while protesting frugality, is spending some 30 per cent. more on its education bureaucracy than the surrounding counties–money that could be spent directly on schools and pupils?

    Mr. Newton: I was not aware of the specific figures from my neighbouring county of Suffolk. What my hon. Friend said will certainly strike a chord with many Conservative Members. The figures reflect the extremely large number of non-teaching staff compared with teaching staff, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has referred on a number of occasions.

    Mr. Simpson: Will the Leader of the House explain the compelling case for a cut in taxation at a time when the Government will not fully fund the pay awards that they make, or the services that they demand, in health and education?

    Mr. Newton: The compelling case is to strike an appropriate balance between those considerations and the considerations of enlarging choice and improving our economic prospects. The Government have constantly sought to do that and it is reflected in the improvement of our public services, in the strengthening of our economy and in paving the way to cut taxes when it is prudent to do so.

    Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House clearly understands that the butchers, the bakers and the candlestick makers are fed up with regulatory overkill. Will he take this opportunity to confirm to the House that he understands that, when Government make a law, that law impacts most heavily on those who get up in the morning and make something or do something–in other words, those people who create the wealth in our nation and upon whom the rest of society depends?

    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I repeat the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). There is no doubt that our emphasis on reducing unnecessary interference from Brussels through the subsidiarity theme and not least our emphasis on deregulatory measures at home–which we shall continue to drive forward–are of great importance to the business prosperity of this country.

  • US Press Briefing of Mr Major’s Meeting with President Clinton – 4 April 1995

    Below is the text of the US press briefing related to the meeting with Mr Major and President Clinton, held in the Briefing Room of the White House on 4th April 1995.

    PRESS BRIEFING BY THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE COURT OF ST. JAMES, ADMIRAL CROWE AND SENIOR DIRECTOR OF WEST EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, SANDY VERSHBOW

    QUESTION:

    Can we ask you some questions while we’re waiting?

    MR MCCURRY:

    Yes, I’m just going to say — because Admiral Crowe’s got to catch a plane, and I doubt very much you guys are going to need a lot of this. Is that okay? Good. Go ahead.

    Let me just run through, very quickly, a couple of points on the meeting just concluded. The Prime Minister and the President met for about 45 minutes in the Oval Office, longer than they expected, and they had a very lively, and as the Prime Minister said, good-humoured discussion, but then moved over to the Family Dining Room in the Residence for a working — what was to have been a short working lunch before they reconvened. But as they got into the discussion, everything seemed to click about their conversation. It went on briskly, and so they spent an hour and a half over in the Residence, worked right through lunch and continued working, so they didn’t take the break to come back over here to the Residence.

    But the meeting, as it was characterized by both the Prime Minister and the President, as you could tell, was very friendly and warm and enjoyable, and the luncheon was — I suspect some people need to know this, fingerling potatoes and asparagus, roast monkfish on grilled mushrooms, and I can give you — for those of you culinary inclined, I can give you more detail.

    QUESTION:

    What kind of mushrooms?

    MR MCCURRY:

    Portobello mushrooms, with lobster essence and Thai basil sauce. I got to eat some extra peanuts that Dick Holbrooke gave me. And they had a romaine and mustard greens salad.

    Now, with that, we’ll just turn straight over the questions to the U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James, Admiral Crowe; and to Sandy Vershbow from the National Security Council staff, who is the note-taker for both meetings; correct? Correct.

    Why don’t you both, Mr. Ambassador and Sandy, both come up. You guys can hold forth with questions.

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    Shall I call on them?

    QUESTION:

    Did the President and the Prime Minister discuss the Cyprus issue and the Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq against the Kurdish people?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    I wasn’t in the meeting.

    MR VERSHBOW:

    They did not talk about Cyprus. There was some discussion of the Turkish incursion near Northern Iraq. I think there’s agreement between us that, on the one hand, we understand Turkey’s concerns about PKK terrorism and the need to deal firmly with terrorist actions; but on the other hand, the importance that the operation be ended as quickly as possible, and that every effort be made to minimize civilian casualties. There was no difference of view on that.

    QUESTION:

    Was there any discussion of Secretary Christopher’s discussions and clear statements over the weekend that he thinks the United States government should move tougher against Iran and commercial trade with Iran and what Britain’s moves might be to support toughening of those types of sanctions?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    Yes, there was quite a bit of discussion. I don’t know that any real decisions were made, but they are in lockstep on it, and they both agreed that we should move more vigorously and present a firm front on it.

    QUESTION:

    A question on the Partnership for Peace, please. When it was first introduced in Brussels in January of ’94, it was very carefully presented as a gradualist approach, and it was presented that, by no means, necessarily, would the Partnership for Peace lead to the expansion of NATO. Today, the President sounded as if he were saying exactly that, that inevitably, NATO will expand. Is that the interpretation you intend to leave?

    MR VERSHBOW:

    Yes, I wouldn’t agree with your characterization of the original decision on the Partnership for Peace. At the NATO summit in January of ’94, the Allies specifically said that NATO expects and would welcome the admission of new members. So the process of expansion began in January ’94. It was put into higher gear at the December Foreign Ministers’ Meeting when a formal process to define the path to NATO membership was begun.

    The President has been saying that NATO expansion is inevitable for many months now, indeed going back to last year; his Cleveland speech is the definitive statement on this, and I would refer you to that.

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    But I don’t think he meant by that, that the Partnership for Peace would necessarily lead to membership, not everybody who is in that will necessarily become a member of NATO.

    QUESTION:

    Can you say anything more about the discussions around the reform of the Bretton Woods system, what was the nature of the discussion and possibly anything more on Prime Minister Major’s proposal?

    MR VERSHBOW:

    I think I would be getting well ahead of the game given that the Prime Minister, as he said in the press conference, was presenting ideas that are still in formation.

    I think that for our part, we certainly see the Mexican crisis as underscoring the need to look for ways to strengthen and reform the international financial institutions, to deal with the kind of crises we saw there with newly-developing economies being hit by the shock waves of sudden currency movements. And the international institutions aren’t equipped to deal with even one Mexico, much less two, if they occurred at the same time.

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    And it was a free-ranging discussion. I think the Prime Minister’s summary was relatively accurate. These are very, very early stages and more or less just examining what each other thinks.

    QUESTION:

    Admiral Crowe, what kind of discussions, if there were any — what can be done to stop Russia from moving ahead with the nuclear reactors? Was there any discussion between the two as to what alternatives there are out there to put more pressure on Russia?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    I don’t know if —

    MR VERSHBOW:

    That wasn’t really a major focus of these meetings here. I believe the Prime Minister may have discussed it in other meetings in town yesterday, but —

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    He may have with the economic — I wasn’t at the economic meeting at lunch yesterday, but I think, as the President said, it’s still a continuing drama, and it would hardly be appropriate to talk about that in any specific details.

    QUESTION:

    On Northern Ireland, both the President and the Prime Minister indicated that they want Sinn Fein to get cracking on talks on decommissioning weapons. But what evidence does the administration have of Gerry Adams’ readiness to proceed along these lines? He was given the entree of the White House and the right to raise funds on the understanding he would enter into such talks, but so far, nothing has happened. Did he snooker you guys?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    It’s inaccurate to say nothing has happened. There have been a series of exchanges between the British government and the Sinn Fein. They were talking today. As a matter of fact, there was a meeting today, and they’ve got a problem which is well known and they put before the public, and that is the difference between decommissioning and demilitarisation, and the British government’s reluctance to accept demilitarisation as the Sinn Fein has put it forward.

    They are now trying to find ways to go around that, which I think the prospects are fairly good that they will. And that’s going to be the test of what Gerry Adams said that he would do; that is, if, in actual fact, comes out of this some serious talks on decommissioning. But that’s the way it’s structured, and there’s no way to short-cut or to abbreviate that. His commitment is honoured when they have those talks, and if they don’t, why, then, they fail.

    QUESTION:

    Do you have a time line, though, for —

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    No, of course not. No.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to wait on that?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    We’re going to wait on it until it succeeds.

    QUESTION:

    Can you explain what is the difference between decommissioning and demilitarisation?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    In the parlance of the Irish problem, which has been around quite some time, those people that are dealing with it all the time consider demilitarisation shorthand for Brits out, which means that they equate the arms which — the arms of a government, such as a police force or a military have with their arms. And if they give up their arms, those bodies that have been enforcing discipline and so forth, law and order in Northern Ireland now on behalf of the British government for quite some time, including military, would also either be taken out or given up. This, the British government cannot accept.

    QUESTION:

    1996 is going to be a very important year for the European Union. And even the Commissioner in Brussels, Mr. Santer, is not overly optimistic that he is seeing, going to see political agreement making it possible that this 20-member or 22- member European Union on the horizon is going to be able to survive. If that is going to happen and the European Union is falling back on the level of the free trade zone, what would be the option for Mr. Major, politically, strengthening of the trans-Atlantic relationship or focusing more on the common — what do you know about it?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    Well, I think his options are, of course, just as he has laid them out — time again, and that is he intends to thrash this out in his own party and then lead the party and the country into the European Union in some fashion. But that’s the subject of a debate in Great Britain right now, a rather vigorous and spirited debate, which also has caused some dissension and dissatisfaction within the Conservative Party.

    It will be an important year, but I’m not so sure it would be quite as dramatic as you characterized it. I think the EU is probably going to survive —

    QUESTION:

    This goes on to putting a question about it is possible to hammer out a kind of political agreement on the foreign policy as it — security — making this bigger the European Union —

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    There’s no particular hurry about doing this. They’ve got to thrash it out on their own councils first. And they do have some time. One of the interesting things about it is the Conservative Party has started this debate way before they need to. But in any event, they do have that time, and that’s the genius of the system. They will thrash it out in some fashion.

    MR MCCURRY:

    Last question, back here.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Ambassador, did the issue of the British-American, Nick Ingram, who is scheduled to be executed in Georgia on Thursday come up at all?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    I did not hear it come up.

    MR VERSHBOW:

    No, it did not.

    THE PRESS:

    Thank you.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the US and EU Relationship – 4 April 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the relationship between the United States and the European Union, made on 4th April 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the relationship between the United States and the European Union]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are several strands to this.

    Firstly, one has to look at some of the changes there have been in the last few years. Until just a few days ago, there was a common bonding between Western Europe generally and the United States because they faced a common threat, a common enemy, in the Soviet Union. That has fallen away, that is different. What we now have to look at is the future. I am very concerned that there are many people in Western Europe who perhaps have an inward-looking perspective, a protectionist perspective. There is also concern sometimes in Western Europe that in some aspects America is inward-looking. I believe that is very damaging for both countries and I know President Clinton shares that view.

    What I would wish to do is to examine some ways in which we can open up the relationship, make it entirely relevant to the 1990s and the turn of the century. I am not speaking specifically of a formal North American/European free trade area, that is not specifically what I am saying. What I am saying is that on the back of the Uruguay Agreement there is a huge amount that can still be done to expand free trade, financial services most obviously, a whole range of non-tariff barriers that ought to disappear. I think that North America and Europe should begin to discuss that, North America and the United Kingdom most certainly will and that would be of immense benefit to both of us in the years ahead.