The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1995

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the US and UK Economies – 4 April 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the US and UK economies, made on 4th April 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the US and UK economies]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think if you look around the world, you will find most people in government dealing at the tail end of a recession having made difficult decisions in order to get their countries out of the recession in good order but those decisions hurt. If you found someone who was very popular in one of the western democracies, then I suspect you would have found somebody who hadn’t taken the decisions that were necessary so I think that is the first point I would make.

    The second point about the United Kingdom is this: we are a very outward-looking nation, we are a free-trading nation. We have huge interests with and in the United States, we are the largest investor by far in the United States, we have well over 100 billion dollars invested in the United States; the United States are the biggest investors with us so there is a huge relationship there, but similarly, we have massive investments in western Europe, in Asia and elsewhere so we are very concerned about free trade. We require a global foreign policy, we realise that in many cases it is desirable to pool the resources we have, to discuss with the United States and others what a joint approach may be and those were the sort of issues we were examining at the conference you referred to.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Washington – 4 April 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Washington on Tuesday 4th April 1995, following his meeting with Mr Newt Gingrich.

    QUESTION:

    How did your meeting with Mr Gingrich go?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It was an extremely interesting meeting, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there is a [indistinct] of a contract for Britain and what ideas did you develop for 1997?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have got a whole series of ideas for 1997, Peter, we are looking for a wide range of ideas for 1997 and beyond, not just for the election, than I think anyone has looked at for a long time, but I will unveil those when we finish them.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] your conversation with the Speaker, can you tell us about them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No.

    QUESTION:

    Have you heard suggestions that American aid for Northern Ireland might be linked to the question of decommissioning of arms, and would you approve of it if that link were to be established?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that may be a matter on which I will have the opportunity of listening to the views of the Foreign Relations Committee in a few moments, so I will comment perhaps after that.

    QUESTION:

    How are you hoping your visit is going to play back home?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I come here regularly. We have a whole series of intricate relationships with the United States on a whole range of issues – security issues, intelligence issues, trading issues, foreign policy issues – and right the way round a whole range of areas we have a very close relationship with the United States. Now you don’t retain a close relationship, keep it in fresh repair, unless you are able to talk to people face to face. So we come here, the United States Administration comes to see us. It is very important to keep that in good repair. What I am doing here is talking about a whole range of issues. And what strikes me very forcibly is the huge range of areas where there is a dramatically similar, if not identical, point of view on international issues between the United States Administration, the United States opinion generally, and the United Kingdom. So I find that always very refreshing.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think the American political community understands the position in Northern Ireland now in relation to Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams’ reception?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Last evening we had a very substantial number of Senators join us for dinner, we had the opportunity of very free and frank discussion on that. Similarly with the Foreign Affairs Committee and the House of Representatives, and in a few moments with the Senate. So I think [indistinct].

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Bill Clinton – 4 April 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Bill Clinton, held in Washington on Tuesday 4th April 1995.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Good afternoon. Please be seated. I am delighted to welcome Prime Minister Major back to the White House. Throughout this century the United States and the United Kingdom have stood together on the great issues that have confronted our people. Our common cause has been at the heart of our success in two World Wars and of course in the Cold War. In just the last two years British/American cooperation has played an essential role in allowing us to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction, in promoting peace around the world and certainly in expanding free trade.

    Today we have continued working in that tradition. We have had excellent discussions, we have covered a broad range of issues, we have, as always, found much to agree about.

    On security issues we agree that the inevitable process of NATO expansion must proceed smoothly, gradually and openly, without any surprises. This is essential for extending stability, democracy and prosperity throughout Europe. We believe that in parallel with the enlargement of NATO the Alliance must develop and maintain close ties with Russia.

    We affirmed our shared commitment to a political settlement in Bosnia, based on the Contact group plan. The conflict is being prolonged because of Bosnian Serb intransigence. Renewed fighting will not end the conflict but only lead to more bloodshed and continued stalemate. The Prime Minister and I also vowed to continue working together to contain the Iraqi threat to stability in the Persian Gulf region. We are deeply concerned that Saddam Hussein could be regaining the ability to build weapons of mass destruction. We are determined that Iraq must meet all its United Nations obligations. This is no time to relax sanctions. The Iraqi people are suffering tremendously under Saddam’s tyranny and they do deserve the help of the international community. But easing up on a regime that oppresses people will not help them. So while there can be no compromise, the United States, the United Kingdom and Argentina have put forward new proposals at the United Nations to get food and medicine to the people of Iraq. We hope other nations will join these efforts and support our Security Council Resolution and pressure Saddam Hussein to stop the needless suffering of his innocent citizens.

    Prime Minister Major told me a great deal about his recent trip to the Middle East. We both strongly believe this is a hopeful moment for broadening the circle of peace. The United States and Europe must continue to fight the efforts to derail the peace process by those who prefer destruction to peace. It is clear that for peace to take root in the region more economic assistance is vital. Peace and prosperity depend upon one another. I applaud the United Kingdom’s investment programme in the West Bank in Gaza, as well as its debt relief measures for Jordan. We must all continue to support those who take risks for peace.

    Nowhere is this more true than in Northern Ireland. I salute the Prime Minister for the tremendous efforts he is making to bring an enduring peace to Northern Ireland. Today Northern Ireland is closer to a just and lasting settlement than at any time, in a generation, thanks in large measure to the vision and courage of John Major. He and Prime Minister Bruton of Ireland together introduced the joint framework which provides a landmark opportunity to move ahead towards a political settlement, one that will be backed by both of Northern Ireland’s communities. We also agreed that the paramilitaries of both sides must get rid of their weapons for good so that violence never returns to Northern Ireland. And we must work to increase economic opportunity in that area, their prospects have been blighted by bloodshed for too long.

    Next month our White House Conference on Trade and Investment in Ireland will help to expand the ties between the United States, Northern Ireland and Ireland’s border counties. Building those kinds of bonds will help to lead to a better life for all the people of the region. The Prime Minister and I discussed some other issues. We agreed on the need for an indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the review conference that begins this month. To further the cause of non-proliferation the Prime Minister joins me in calling for full implementation of the framework agreement we negotiated with North Korea to end that country’s nuclear programme. And we discussed the need to adapt our international institutions to the challenges of the next century at the G7 Summit in Halifax. I was particularly impressed by the thinking that the Prime Minister has done on this profoundly important issue. The United States and the United Kingdom, after all, helped to shape those institutions, they have served our interests for the last half-century.

    With the extraordinary relationship between our countries as important as ever, I am confident that we can make the changes necessary and work together to advance our shared values and our common interests, to promote peace, democracy and prosperity in the years ahead and of course in the century ahead.

    Finally let me say that we discussed the ceremonies that will mark the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. Because of my prior commitments I have asked the Vice President to represent me and all Americans in London on 8 May at services that will commemorate the great wartime bravery and sacrifice of so many Britons. And I look forward to seeing Prime Minister Major when we go together to Moscow on 9 May to pay our respect to the heroism of the Russian people in that conflict.

    Mr Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, thank you very much.

    We have had the opportunity today for a good humoured, worthwhile, productive and very far-reaching series of exchanges on a whole range of matters. The President has set out much of the agenda we discussed and I will not reiterate what the President said except to say that in his remarks he spoke not just for the United States but for the United Kingdom as well. I share the views he expressed and I will not reiterate them.

    We spent some time looking forward at two separate matters which I think are of some importance to both our countries and of wider importance as well. The first of them the President just touched on, and that was the review of the Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations that we agreed with the other G7 Heads of Government at Naples last year that we should undertake and return to at Halifax later this year. We have given a great deal of discussion to that and I think for a range of reasons the time is right to look at a fairly comprehensive reform of some of those institutions and we exchanged some ideas today on precisely how we might do that and agreed that we would exchange further ideas before we came to the G7 Summit. I think there is scope to rationalise some of the international financial institutions.

    We wish to look particularly, in addition to that, at the United Nations where there are a number of overlapping functions. I am a very strong supporter of the United Nations and I wish to see the United Nations a successful organisation for the year 2000. It does seem that looking at some of the areas of the UN could well do with up-dating, refreshing, to make sure that they are entirely applicable to the problems they will have to face in the late 1990s and beyond the turn of the century. And I hope very much that we will be able to get together with some more of our ideas and float those in greater detail when we get to the Halifax Summit later on this year.

    We also spent some time looking at the commonality of interest that exists between the United Kingdom and the United States. There are a huge range of areas where there is common interest, not just those that were discussed, the agreements that we have in terms of policy towards Russia, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, Bosnia and a range of other areas. But beyond that I think there is a commonality of interest in the future security and prosperity of the Central and East European states, and also with two other matters. First, the further extension of free trade, to which I wish to return in just a second, and second with looking together and combatting together some of the problems of instability, extremism and terrorism that we can begin to see in parts of North Africa, parts of the Levant and parts of the Middle East, and we spent some time considering how we might address some of those problems in the future. It was necessarily a discussion that dealt with problems that may arise, and dealt in some cases frankly with generalities, but it was an opportunity to look forward rather than to just discuss the immediate topical problems that we face at the moment.

    One area of growing importance that we touched on was the possibility of seeing how we can build on the Uruguay Round agreement of a year or so ago, and see how we can move forward to deal with much freer trade in financial services, for example, removing many of the non-tariff barriers that still exist between western Europe and the United States, and seeing how, step by step, we can move forward to a much greater element of free trade between North America and the Western European nations. That is something that needs to be done, I think it is something that is of immense benefit, and I found our discussion on that immensely productive and it is one I know that we will both return to in the future.

    So I found the discussion, not just on contemporary matters of use, but I found the sharing of ideas about how we deal with the development of the transatlantic relationship to deal with the problems that are going to arise in the future, and also the examination of the common transatlantic view on many of the international problems around the world to be a very worthwhile and a very refreshing discussion and I am delighted we were able to have it.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, I would like to ask you about two tax matters at home. Congress has sent you a bill that would provide health and insurance tax reductions for self-employed people, but it also allows billionaires to avoid taxation by renouncing their citizenship. Will you sign or veto that measure? And secondly, the House tomorrow takes up the Republican tax bill that provides benefits for a range of businesses and also a 500 dollar child credit for families earning up to 200,000 dollars a year. I know you have your own approach but can you live with this Republican approach?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    In answer to your first question, I strongly support restoring deductability to self-employed people for the cost of their health insurance, I think it is untenable to have a different standard for them than for corporations, and that was a big part of my Health Care Reform Bill last year. So I am on record strongly in favour of that, as a matter of fact I would like to see it expanded. I am deeply troubled that the Conference Committee took out a payment mechanism by simply asking billionaires who made their money as Americans, who largely made their money in the United States, to pay the taxes they owe and instead to let them evade American income taxes by giving up their citizenship now that they have it made. So I am going to have to look at that very closely and examine whether there might be some other opportunities to achieve that objective. But it is just wrong for us to walk away from that, that is just wrong.

    On the second matter, you know what my views are on that. We have two objectives here. I support the tax relief for the middle class, I support greater tax standards. I think it should be much more focused on things that will raise incomes in the short-term and in the long term, so I favour a sharp focus on educating people and raising children, on families and education, but we cannot afford a cut of that magnitude and do the right thing by the deficit. And we should not be cutting taxes in ways that benefit very wealthy Americans and require us in turn to cut education which will weaken our country as a whole. Education is the middle class social safety net, if you will, it is the key to our economic future as well. So I think that is a big mistake, I think it is too big, we need to focus on the deficit and we don’t need to be cutting education and investment in our future to give tax relief to people who don’t really need it.

    QUESTION (John McIntyre):

    Could I just ask the President whether he accepts the British Government’s analysis that Sinn Fein has not yet gone quite far enough on the decommissioning of arms to justify ministerial talks and also could I ask the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the backing he has got from the Administration on that issue?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I think it is a decision entirely for the British Government to make in negotiations with Sinn Fein when ministerial talks are appropriate.
    I will say this: I was very clear when the Adams visa was granted with permission to fund raise that there must be an agreement – a commitment — in good faith to seriously and quickly discuss arms decommissioning. Without a serious approach to arms decommissioning, there will never be a resolution of this conflict so I would hope there would be no difference in our position on that because I think the Prime Minister is right about that, we have to deal with this arms decommissioning issue and I know that there is an attempt by the Government to work with the paramilitaries on both sides to achieve that objective and that is what I think should be done.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just add to that point. We have already started discussions at ministerial level with the Loyalist paramilitaries on decommissioning and those discussions are proceeding. What we are seeking to do is to have exactly the same discussions on exactly the same terms with Sinn Fein. If Mr. Adams is serious about moving towards peace – and he has repeatedly spoken about it – then he needs to discuss with the British Government the question of the modalities of decommissioning the arms. We need to know how it can be done, when it can be done, what needs to be done, a whole series of details but that matter has to be discussed.

    I think it is right for that matter to be discussed at ministerial level with Sinn Fein and we have made it perfectly clear that providing they are prepared to discuss that matter – we have suggested what the agenda might be and we are in discussion with them about that – then I think it is right for us to move to ministerial discussion on the decommissioning of arms.

    What is absolutely clear is that unless we are able to make progress on decommissioning of arms, there will be no possibility of Sinn Fein sitting down with the other democratic political parties in Northern Ireland, they simply won’t be prepared to talk about reaching a settlement until there has been progress on decommissioning of arms so I very much hope Mr. Adams will embark upon those discussions speedily.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, could you elaborate on something you said in your opening remarks about your concerns with Iraq in their apparent ability to build weapons of mass destruction?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I didn’t say they had the apparent ability, I said they could be regaining it. I want to be very specific about it. What I mean by that is that unless Mr. Ekeus and the international inspectors can certify that they are in full compliance with all the relevant United Nations Resolutions, then we have no assurance that they are not regaining the capacity to move forward with weapons of mass destruction. That is what I mean but that is all I mean about it.

    QUESTION:

    Do you say you don’t have the evidence?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    That they are doing that now, I do not and I want to make clear that is why I used the word “regaining”.

    The United States position, which the United Kingdom has supported and for which I am very grateful, is that we should not relax these sanctions until there is full compliance with the Resolutions. The Resolutions were not passed in a careless way; they are carefully worded Resolutions designed to assure the international community that this cannot happen and unless those, Resolutions are complied with, the international community cannot know that this cannot happen.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you share that view?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I share that view absolutely and I think we need to await Mr. Ekeus’s report; from all I hear, it is not going to be satisfactory about the way Iraq are behaving. We are concerned about the humanitarian aspect of people in Iraq; there is a Security Council Resolution which I trust is going to be passed which will open up a better possibility for Saddam Hussein to sell oil in order to feed people in Iraq; it is an option that will be there, I very much hope he will take that option but on the general relief of sanctions, until he has met the Security Council Resolutions in full and we have seen independent verification that he has met the Security Council Resolutions in full, then we entirely agree that there can be no relief whatsoever from the sanctions that have been imposed.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, having broken bread with Gerry Adams, could you person-to-person, man-to-man, recommend that he speak with Gerry Adams himself?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    That is a decision for the Prime. Minister to make in the context of the peace process. I said on St. Patrick’s Day when I spoke then and I will say again that we are where are today because of the risks that John Major has been willing to take for peace and they have been considerable risks to himself, to his party, to his government because he knows that this matter must be resolved and I applaud that.

    The details of the decision-making must be made by the participants and that is a decision for him to make.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, with all due respect, your nuclear policy is filled with inconsistencies. You want to stop Russia from building a nuclear reactor in Iran; you want to ease sanctions against Pakistan which we believe is developing nuclear weapons; you want Egypt to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty along with other states in the area and you never try to persuade Israel, which does have a nuclear arsenal, to sign the treaty. Can you explain?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    First of all, the United States does not want Russia to give the capacity to Iran because we don’t want that to be the beginning of their increased capacity to develop nuclear fuel and technology for other purposes and given their conduct, I think that is the right policy and I don’t have any problem with it.

    With regard to Pakistan, the simple question there is whether the policy we have pursued in the last few years is achieving its objectives and whether we will be a stronger force for peace and reconciliation and ultimately for the defanging in terms of weapons of mass destruction in the area if we change our policy or if we stay with it. I think we should seriously review the policy. If you look at the number of people in those countries in South Asia, the potential they represent for the future and the powder keg on which they sit because of their problems, the United States it seems to me has an obligation to do the very best we can to bring about the best result and the most peaceful result and that is all we are doing.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct but about producing weapons]

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We don’t support that. We want everybody to be a member of the Non-Proliferation regime; we want everybody to do that and that is why I said what I did to President Mubarak of Egypt. Our position is that we want the largest number of people possible to participate in the Non-Proliferation regime and to go forward with its requirements and we want to keep as many states non-nuclear as possible and we are doing our best to reduce the nuclear threat by reducing the number of nuclear weapons that we have in agreement with the Russians and the states of the former Soviet Union.

    I think that our policy is consistent if you look at what the objective is; the objective is to reduce the threat of nuclear war to the world in the future and to reduce the threat of other weapons of mass destruction. There still is no more significant obligation I have to future generations and that is the common thread running through all these policies.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton):

    Given that the Tories [indistinct] ideologically and given that we understand that Tony Blair of Labour may be coming here soon I wonder if I could ask you how important you think your personal relations are for the relations between our two countries?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    First of all, I think that in foreign policy the differences are not easily discernible by party. We have, as you heard today, a broad overlap and indeed in our country the differences among us here in America as Americans in foreign policy don’t tend to break down along party lines. For example, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader supported the position I took on debt relief for Mexico which was opposed by a number of members of their party and a number of members of mine so I think that at the end of the Cold War in this country and I sense throughout Europe perhaps there are forces arguing for a kind of inward-looking approach, a little bit more if not more isolationist, a disengaged approach and there are others who believe we must still continue to broaden the frontiers of relationships, to expand trade in order to support democracy and prosperity. I am in that latter group, Prime Minister Major is in that latter group. Last year, at the G7 meeting, we were the two strongest proponents of expanding opportunities for economic integration of the countries there so I just don’t believe that there is a necessary partisan breakdown to our common objectives in the world community.

    Secondly, I think we have got a good personal relationship and I feel very comfortable about where it is; I think it is honest and open and it endures occasional disagreements but the agreements are far more numerous and over the long run should be the shaping factors of our relationship.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The fact of the matter is that we know one another well enough and the relationship is good enough to have those disagreements and it doesn’t affect the broad swathe of agreement that exists between the two countries. I was fascinated to see that you referred to differences between parties, not within parties, and I think that is a great advance [Laughter]. I am delighted you put it that way!

    Let me just make a broader point really about the Anglo-American relationship.

    At almost any time, it would be astonishing if there wasn’t some measure of difference on an issue between two sovereign governments whether they happen to be Conservative or Labour in the United Kingdom, Democrat or Republican in the United States but against that, I think you have to look at the huge range of things in which the instinctive outlook between the United Kingdom Government and the United States Government is exactly the same.

    If you run down most of the great issues of the moment, relationship with Russia, relationship with the Middle East, relationship on terrorism, relationship with Iran, relationship with Iraq, present policy on Bosnia, you won’t find a scintilla of difference between the British Government and the United States Government. If you look at the two nations that were foremost in propounding a free trade agreement – the GATT Agreement – and taking that forward, you will find the same relationship between the British and American governments.

    As for looking forward, I spoke a few moments ago of two areas where we have actually been looking forward today together at what we might actually do in the future and as for whether the relationship is good enough, perhaps I can just give you a practical example.

    If you were to spend a weekend, Adam, on one of our nuclear submarines, you would find a Trident missile on it. I am not sure you could travel on anyone else’s submarine and find a Trident missile on it and I hope very soon in the future that you will be able to see Tomahawk Cruise missiles in the United Kingdom armoury and I am not sure anybody else will have those. They are practical illustrations of the extent of the closeness of the defence, security and other relationships between the United Kingdom and the United States and the fact of the matter is it is sufficiently close – and has been sufficiently close for a large number of years – to enable the President and I to have the occasional disagreement if we want without any harm coming of it.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to go back to the issue of Russia. You said that you do not want the Russians to go forward with their plans to sell nuclear plant to Iran. What, if anything, did you talk about in terms of putting some real pressure on them? Is there anything you can do at this point to stop it from going forward and if they do go forward, will this put a damper on the Western relationship with Russia?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We are continuing to have negotiations and discussions with them about it and I think that is all I can really say at this time because we are in the midst of our conversations.

    I thought Helen was going to ask me the question which I thought you asked me the last time which is are we trying to discourage Russia from selling to Iran the technology we are trying to finance in North Korea? The difference is that when I became President I found a full blown nuclear programme in North Korea which I am trying to take down and I don’t want to leave some future President of the United States and the people of Britain with a problem in Iran. If they have to try to take it down, I am going to do the best I can to deal with it.

    QUESTION:

    A lot of Americans are still questioning whether you can really rely on Russia in any way?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Let’s don’t jump the gun here. We are having these serious discussions, we are working it through. We have a lot of interests in a democratic and a reformist Russia and the Prime Minister and I talked about it at some length today and I think that they have done better economically than either the Prime Minister or I thought that they would a couple of years ago in terms of pursuing the path of reform. They have continued to honour their constitution and their electoral system and obligations to democracy and we are going to have differences from time to time but I wouldn’t assume we can’t work this one out; we are going to keep working hard on it.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, the President mentioned your ideas on the Bretton Woods institutions and the UN. How much have you worked that up in detail and what would it actually involve?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is developing rather than been developed. We agreed last year that we needed to look at some of the overlap there was in the Bretton Woods institutions and see how we could look at bringing the United Nations a little more up-to-date.

    If I could just give you a couple of illustrations, if you mean have we yet got a detailed worked-out position between the United Kingdom and the United States, the answer is no, we haven’t. We have both been looking separately, as we agreed we would do at the G7 summit last year, at the sort of ideas we might bring forward for discussion with partners at Halifax later on this year and the sort of the things that we are looking at – by “we” I now mean the United Kingdom – in terms of the financial institutions, you will be of the idea we have had in the past of selling some IMF gold to help some of the poorer nations – that is still on the agenda as far as we are concerned.

    Looking at perhaps a greater degree of rationalisation of some of the activities of the IMF, OECD and the World Bank is an area we are looking at.

    We would like to look at the way in which poverty is dealt with through the UN; there seem to us to be a number of overlapping agencies, a certain amount of duplication, which could credibly be looked at. In terms of trade, we would like to see what can be done to bed down the World Trade Organisation satisfactorily. In terms of environment, I would suggest that there are some areas of overlap as well – in the UN Environment Programme and the Commission for Sustainable Development, there seem to be areas of overlap.

    They are just specimen samples of the sort of things we are looking at. I emphasise we are in the early stages of that examination. We haven’t reached any conclusions but I think those are matters we must examine.

    Other things I would like to see us examine at the summit would be to look more comprehensively at crime, drugs and money-laundering; we had a G7 task force on money-laundering some time ago, that has been successful, I think we should re-visit that given the nature of the problem and given the problem that exists internationally with crime and drugs and I think we would like to look a little more carefully at what might be done in terms of conflict prevention. Those are just broad headlines of some of the areas we are looking at; we shared them in general outline today; we will come to them in detail at the summit.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you very much.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 April 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Malaysia

    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Malaysian authorities about trade relations between the United Kingdom and Malaysia.

    The Prime Minister: I welcome Dr. Mahathir’s positive remarks, during his recent visit to Britain, that Malaysia wants to continue building the strongest possible ties with Britain, and is putting behind her the two countries’ recent trade problems. This was a constructive initiative. Britain has close and long-standing links with Malaysia. We look forward to working with Malaysia to develop these to their full potential in the future.

     

    Deregulation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss during his visit to Washington, the United States’ experience of deregulation and the lessons learnt by the administration which can be applied to the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister: I am always interested to hear new ideas to take forward the Government’s deregulation initiative.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Washington – 3 April 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep interview following his meeting with Senator Dole in Washington on Monday 3rd April 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, did you gather from the Republicans whether they intend to lift the arms embargo now against the Bosnian Muslims?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say I think that debate will come in May, probably not before May, and heaven alone knows what the outcome of that will be. I took the opportunity this morning when seeing the Majority and Minority leader of running through a whole range of topics. I was particularly pleased to thank Senator Dole for his activities over the Uruguay Round where we were very pleased to get a settlement and he played a very material part in that. We looked at Bosnia, Russia, NATO expansion and a number of related problems like that. I don’t know what the outcome will be on lifting the arms embargo, I think the British government’s position on that is very clear.

    QUESTION:

    But you have not been able to persuade Senator Dole to hold off on that one?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is a matter for Senator Dole at a later stage. I understand the very strong emotions that exist about that matter. We have a lot of troops on the ground in Bosnia and we don’t ourselves believe that that is the right way to proceed. But no doubt the House will debate that later in the year.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you why you feel you cannot help Mrs Ingram to save her son from the electric chair?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set out the position. I replied to Mrs Ingram’s letter. I gave it very long and careful thought before replying to it. Clearly I understand fully the very deep distress that she must feel. She has written to me again, I have replied today and I think my reply will be given to her very shortly.

    QUESTION:

    Are there no grounds for you to intervene?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is anything further that we are in a position to do.

    QUESTION:

    What sort of practical help are you expecting from the US Administration on pressuring Sinn Fein into decommissioning of arms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is no doubt that the American Administration are keen to see these talks continue and keen to see the decommissioning of arms, but I don’t wish to go further than that.

    QUESTION:

    Once this row over Ireland is finished, Prime Minister …

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that matter is behind us. We had a disagreement about that, I think it is well known we had a disagreement about that. In the best [indistinct] circles that sort of thing happens from time to time, but I think that is now behind us.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Warren Christopher – 3 April 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Warren Christopher in Washington on Monday 3rd April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just say I am delighted to have had the opportunity of talking to the Secretary this morning. We have been able to touch on a wide range of issues where there is very substantial agreement between the British and the United States Administrations. We have looked at the present situation in Bosnia and how that may turn out in the future, we have looked at Russia, Iraq, a number of NATO questions and some bilateral issues as well. We will take a couple of questions in a few moments. I will not traipse through all the detail of what we have discussed except to say I think it was an extremely worthwhile discussion and I am delighted that the Secretary was able to join me this morning.

    MR CHRISTOPHER:

    Thank you very much, Mr Prime Minister. I am honoured and pleased to be here this morning for breakfast on this gorgeous spring morning, and the presence of those wonderful trees. We did have a good discussion over about an hour. I think it shows the high degree of congruence on our policy on some of the most difficult issues we are facing. We are very good colleagues and friends on these issues and I think the Prime Minister and I were able to exhibit that, but also to wrestle with some of the difficult on-going questions we have over the next several weeks and months relating to NATO and Bosnia and so forth.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, the special relationship – defunct, could be better, better than ever – which one of these best describes it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have never referred to it as a special relationship. There is a relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of shared interests, we have had that relationship of shared interests for very many years. We tend to look at the same problems in the same way. Occasionally there are spats, as there are in the best of families, but they are very rare.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] no longer being a relationship, is it justified in your view?

    MR CHRISTOPHER:

    There will always be a relationship, as the Prime Minister said, based upon so many things – a common history, common language, common interests, issues such as NATO – and I see that relationship being a very strong one in which we look to our British colleagues, and they look to us, on so many issues for advice and counsel. So I think it is very strong relationship and it is in very excellent shape.

    QUESTION:

    What does the Administration think about a lifting of the arms embargo?

    MR CHRISTOPHER:

    We certainly are strongly opposed to a unilateral lifting of the arms embargo. That issue may arise again. I sense that there is a better understanding now in the Congress of the dangers of unilaterally lifting the arms embargo, both for the effect it would have on other UN resolutions but also on the effect if might have for involving the United States more deeply in that conflict.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There was a time a year or so ago, maybe 18 months ago, when there was some difference in Bosnian policy between the United States Administration and the British administration, that has substantially come together and I agree entirely with what the Secretary has just said.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Secretary, would you say that the US Administration was closer to Gerry Adams or John Major on Northern Ireland?

    MR CHRISTOPHER:

    John Major is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and a long-standing relationship. We have certainly had the relationship with him on a great range of issues where we have so much in common. As the Prime Minister has said about that particular issue, the issue that arose a few weeks ago is now ancient history and we are pulling together, as I say, on the broad range of issues we have here this morning. So we are really delighted and honoured to have the Prime Minister in our country as the leader of one of our most important allies, and that is a much different relationship than any other.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am less concerned about Mr Adams’s opinion than I am about Sinn Fein deciding they will come and talk about decommissioning. The important thing now is that Sinn Fein honour what they have been implying for some time, that they decide that they mean what they say, that they come along, that they engage in constructive discussion that leads to the decommissioning of arms and taking them out of Northern Ireland politics. That is what concerns me and that is what I wish to hear from Mr Adams.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on New Labour – 3 April 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on New Labour, made in an interview on 3 April 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Tony Blair rather than him could deliver a nation at ease with itself].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe that is the case. When one thinks of what one needs to have a nation at ease with itself, I think there are several very important ingredients. The most important ingredient of all of course and the one that many people are worried about is security, security in every aspect of the sense and the first thing one needs for security is a secure currency, low inflation. We have set out right from the outset to try and do something absolutely fundamental in terms of the British economy and that is to break the inflationary psychology. I remember ever since I was a boy the relative boom and bust cycles, the economy did well, the economy did badly, did well, did badly. What we are trying to do is to break that. That is a very difficult thing to do. The recession was longer than we thought, harder than we thought, but I think most dispassionate observers believe we are closer to breaking the inflationary psychology today perhaps than we have ever been.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was forced into attacking Labour].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is rather curious to see what they are doing in fact. What in practice they are doing is dismantling the whole of their past at least in their oratory, at least in their leader’s oratory, and trying to strike out, saying: “All the things we believed in in the past, we no longer believe in!”. Labour’s soul has gone. The things they cared about, the things they fought for, they have apparently gone; they have apparently moved over to the values that people have accepted for the last four elections and I think will accept at the fifth election, essentially Tory values and I think what they have done is realised that the old message that the Labour Party had is no longer a message that people wish to hear.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that had now made them electable].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I think the real point at issue is whether what they say is what they can deliver. If you have to choose between a real Conservative Party and a quasi-Conservative Party where the Labour Party says one thing but the Party’s heart and soul is elsewhere, then I believe people will go for the real thing.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 31 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Advertising

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for spending by that body or agency on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional 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, for each year since 1979-80 or for each year since 1979-80 or for each of its existence if it has been created since then; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96.

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

     

    Mr. Rupert Pennant-Rea

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister whether he approved the terms of the letter sent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Mr. Rupert Pennant-Rea in answer to his resignation letter; and what is the Government’s policy on standards of behaviour of senior public officials.

    The Prime Minister: My approval was neither sought nor required to the letter my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent to Mr. Rupert Pennant-Rea. I have now read it and agree with it. The Government’s policy is to uphold the highest standard in public life.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 30 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 March.

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

     

    No. 10 Downing Street (Disabled Access)

    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made at No. 10 Downing Street to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access, with special reference to the fitting of a permanent ramp for wheelchairs; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: No. 10 Downing Street already has a number of facilities for the disabled: portable ramps are available to give access to the house; a passenger lift which can accommodate wheelchairs and gives access to all floors; and a stair climber to enable wheelchairs to be taken up the main stairs. An additional lift to enable disabled people to move more easily to the state rooms and a disabled toilet will be installed shortly.

     

    Commonwealth Youth Ministers Meeting

    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Prime Minister which Minister will be representing Her Majesty’s Government at the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Youth Ministers in Trinidad; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom delegation to this meeting will be led by the British High Commissioner of Trinidad and Tobago, assisted by a social development adviser from the Overseas Development Agency and the vice-chairman of the British Youth Council.

     

    Bank of England

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what recent assessment he has made of whether confidential matters can safely be discussed between the Chancellor and officials of the Bank of England;

    (2) what account he will take in considering candidates for appointment to the deputy governorship of the Bank of England of reports concerning their private lives;

    (3) if the usual steps were taken to check Mr. Pennant-Rea’s background before he was appointed Deputy Governor of the Bank of England.

    The Prime Minister: I will take all relevant considerations into account in deciding who should be appointed Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. Mr. Pennant-Rea was subject to security vetting before he took up his appointment. I am satisfied that sensitive matters can be discussed in confidence between the Chancellor and bank officials.

     

    Child Care

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister what are the child care or nursery facilities within his Department; and what is the breakdown in their use (a) by grade and (b) by gender.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose my office 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.

     

    Pay Review Bodies

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister what were the total costs of operating the pay review bodies for (a) teachers, (b) doctors and dentists, (c) armed forces, (d) nurses and midwives, etc. and (e) senior salaries, including details for each of consultancy costs, members’ expenses and site visits in the latest year for which figures are available.

    The Prime Minister: The pay review bodies are serviced by the Office of Manpower Economics whose total operating costs, including some functions and activities not related to review bodies, amounted to £1.4 million in 1993 94, the latest period for which information is available. This figure includes staff salaries and costs, office infrastructure and support costs, but excludes rent and rates, members’ travel and incidental expenses and consultancy.

    Members and chairmen of pay review bodies are unpaid. Consultancy costs for review bodies vary significantly from year to year. Details of consultancy costs and members’ incidental expenses are set out in the table.

    £ pounds

    |Members’ travel

    Review body |Consultancy costs|and expenses

    —————————————————————————-

    School Teachers

    Review Body (STRB) |249,096 |5,693

    Doctors and Dentists

    Review Body (DDRB) |164,541 |7,366

    Nurses and Allied

    Professions Review

    Body (NAPRB) |- |5,781

    Armed Forces Pay

    Review Body (AFPRB) |284,015 |23,774

    Senior Salaries

    Review Body (SSRB) |192,992 |4,485

     

    Departmental Report

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the cost of producing and circulating the annual report of the Cabinet Office for each of the last 10 years in real terms; (2) what was the cost of producing and circulating the last annual report of the Cabinet Office; what was the circulation list; how many copies were produced; how many copies were sold; and at what price.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 29 March at column 651.

  • PMQT – 30 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 March.

    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. McKelvey: Does the Prime Minister agree that the greatest asset of the national health service is the loyalty and dedication of its staff? He will know that many NHS workers are greatly angered by the fact that they will receive pay increases of between 1 per cent. and 3 per cent. this year. It is within the Prime Minister’s power to lift the morale of 1 million people by agreeing that no one will be paid less than 3 per cent. this year. He has the power to do that. Why does he lack the commitment?

    The Prime Minister: Of course the greatest asset of the NHS is the skills of the doctors, surgeons, dentists and nurses who work in it. There is no doubt about that. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the 3 per cent. figure, and it may be that many people get precisely that sum. He may also recall that the last Labour Government cut nurses’ pay by exactly 3 per cent.

    Mr. Renton: Did my right hon. Friend note that the question asked by many non-political speakers at yesterday’s “Britain in the World” conference was how could we expect other countries to think much of us if we evidently think so little of ourselves? While some modesty and humility is always welcome, does my right hon. Friend think that it would help British exports, and thus British jobs and morale, if politicians from all parties and the media spent rather more time praising evident British successes and less time indulging in destructive recrimination and criticism?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend may have spoken for millions of people in the country when he called for a more balanced presentation of the many virtues which exist in this country in industry and in our traditional aspects and institutions. I have no doubt that many people would wish to support them.

    Mr. Skinner: Stop whingeing.

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) regards saying anything good about this country as whingeing. That says rather a lot about the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Blair: If, under the new nurses’ pay scheme, substantial numbers of nurses get less than the 3 per cent. which other nurses get for effectively the same job, will he accept that such a system is unfair? Will he undertake to change it?

    The Prime Minister: I cannot give that undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman. As I said a moment ago, nobody wishes to be unfair to nurses or anybody else in the health service–certainly no one in the Government. We gave nurses a review body of their own so that their interests could be looked at dispassionately, and we have scrupulously honoured the recommendations of that review body in full.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister will know that the review body has pointed out that it was acting on the prompting of the Government.

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

    Mr. Blair: That is what the review body says in its own report. Is the Prime Minister prepared to accept a situation where substantial numbers of nurses who are doing the same job are paid substantially less than 3 per cent?

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman still does not understand the point. I shall make it to him again so that it is clearer. We have accepted the recommendations of the review body in full this year, as we have done every year in the past. The right hon. Gentleman must look at the actual offers which are being made to nurses as a result of local pay determination. The majority of those are in the order of 3 per cent. or more, and I am confident that that trend will continue. We set up the review body–which was welcomed by nurses–and it has made recommendations which I think we should stick to.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. Either he believes– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: Either the Prime Minister believes that the nurses deserve 3 per cent., in which case he should deliver it, or he is content for many of them to be paid less than that, in which case he should have the honesty to say so. May I put it to him this way: if some nurses turn out just to get a 1.5 per cent. pay increase, when they already face mortgage and tax rises and the rest, is not the danger not just of a sense of injustice among nurses, but of yet another damaging blow to the morale of the national health service?

    The Prime Minister: It is the right hon. Gentleman who is seeking to have it both ways. He and every hon. Member of this House agreed that it was right for there to be an independent pay review body for the nurses. That is what there is and we have accepted the recommendations that it has made and provided increased funding to the national health service–some £1.3 billion–so that pay awards of that sort can be met. That is the right way to deal with it; it is the way that we are dealing with it; and it is scrupulously fair. I notice that it was this Government who provided an independent pay review body for the nurses and not previous Governments.

    Mr. Harris: Has my right hon. Friend found time to read the report in The Daily Telegraph , which shows once again how Spanish fishermen are plundering stocks, especially by catching undersized fish? Taking into account the events off Canada and the report by his special advisers, under Sir Crispin Tickell, will my right hon. Friend take a personal lead in the matter and try to bring some sanity back into this whole question of conserving fish stocks and ensuring that our fishermen have a future to look forward to?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly understand and share Canada’s desire to preserve fish stocks. That is a perfectly legitimate concern and it is entirely right of Canada to seek to do so. The real issues here are allocation of the quota and enforcement–two separate, but related, issues. The allocation must clearly be resolved by negotiation. Good progress is being made and I see no reason why an accommodation cannot be struck.

    Enforcement is clearly the key and we need tough rules that are enforced. Again, I understand that we are close to a deal. I believe that Canada is right to take a tough line on enforcement, but I hope that in taking such a line she does not undermine her own good case, which exists at present. There have been discussions about trade sanctions. We have made it clear that we would strongly oppose the imposition of such sanctions.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister think that the director of a company that traded illegally with a foreign power is a fit and proper person to be in his Cabinet?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury dealt with that matter very forcefully and to great acclaim from most of the House just a few moments ago. He has made his position absolutely clear. No evidence has been found to counter that, either by The Independent or anyone else.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend recall Lord Tebbit’s definition of loyalty and commitment to a country as the side that one supports in, for example, a cricket match? Will the Prime Minister join me and this House, therefore, in cheering enthusiastically for Canada in its forthcoming fixture against Spain?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that I am right to say to my hon. Friend that, in 1868 or 1874, Canada beat England at cricket in Canada. As I said a moment or so ago, I think that Canada is right to take a tough line on enforcement. She has our support in doing that and we shall not support the imposition of trade sanctions. This is an area where a satisfactory accommodation between the sides can be achieved, and should be achieved speedily.

     

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

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

    Mr. Beith: Has the Prime Minister seen from today’s Audit Commission figures that spending on education in secondary schools in Northumberland is lower than in any other county? As it is not possible to explain that by how the council allocates its resources because it results from the Government’s spending formula applied in a scattered rural area and the capping limit on council spending, will the Prime Minister stop pretending that there is no problem and try to do something about it?

    The Prime Minister: I think that many interesting things are thrown out by the Audit Commission report; not all of them would be very well received by the right hon. Gentleman when he actually has the opportunity to study them. On the specific matter of education, I have made the point repeatedly to the House in the past and I reiterate it today: there is a question of priorities within the education budget. I do not believe that it is right for education authorities to look, as their first priority for making savings, at the classroom teacher. That is the last place to look, not the first.

     

    Q4. Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 March.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s reassertion yesterday of his absolute determination to continue to maintain Britain’s role as a national power in international affairs? Will he give a commitment that, at the intergovernmental conference next year, he will veto any attempt to include the pillars of foreign and home affairs in the European Union in the supranational Rome treaty?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me advance notice that he planned to raise that detailed matter. I confirm that, at the IGC, what I wish to see is more effective intergovernmental co-operation between Europe’s nation states to fight cross-border crime and promote joint policies internationally. But I shall make it absolutely clear on that occasion that Europe’s foreign policy and home affairs pillars remain outside the treaty of Rome. The United Kingdom’s right of veto on those matters is important to us. It is at the heart of national sovereignty and I shall protect it at the intergovernmental conference.

     

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

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

    Mr. Dafis: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is essential that, at the Berlin climate change conference, the need for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions after the year 2000 is explicitly stated and that we must have a decision to negotiate a reductions protocol to that effect? Does he further agree that, if current strong rumours that the UK and the European Union are prepared to compromise with the Americans and others on that fundamental principle, we shall all stand condemned by future generations?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will attend the Berlin conference and will call on all the developed countries to agree a figure of between 5 and 10 per cent. below 1990 levels for all greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2010. We believe that that represents both a credible and an achievable next step and demonstrates the commitment of the United Kingdom to the framework of the climate change convention. I should say to the House that the United Kingdom is on course to meet current commitments under the convention, and we have been at the forefront of international work over recent years. We were the first country to present our programme up to the year 2000, and my right hon. Friend is now leading the way in calling for agreement on a realistic target up to 2010.

    Mr. Batiste: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in the papers this week that in the middle east seven drugs dealers were executed, but in Leeds a gang of drugs dealers burnt down the house of a black policeman? Is it not time that, in our war against drugs dealers, we treated them as the mass murderers that they are?

    The Prime Minister: I believe everyone in this country shares the distaste for drug dealers to which my hon. Friend refers. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Lord President has been preparing a comprehensive anti-drugs strategy, and the Government have already taken a number of initiatives in line with our European and other international partners. There is no doubt about the danger of that trade, and we will do all that we can, domestically and internationally, to help to stamp it out.

     

    Q6. Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Janner: As we approach the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the Belsen concentration camp by British troops, will the Prime Minister express what I am sure is the wish of us all–that there shall never be such a tragedy again? Will he also consider whether we should not be dealing rather better with Hitler’s heirs in our own country–not least the thugs of Combat 18 and their ilk, who have been sending through the post to constituents of mine, Asians in the city of Leicester and elsewhere, racist, threatening and abusive cards and razor blades? Will he ensure that the police have the resources and the determination to deal with those awful people?

    The Prime Minister: I agree without qualification with the hon. and learned Gentleman about that. Combat 18 is a repellent organisation. The literature that it circulates is utterly disgusting, and there can be no place for its type of politics in the United Kingdom.

    As the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, we have comprehensive anti- discrimination legislation. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced a new imprisonable offence of intentional harassment, which I hope will give the police more powers to deal with serious racial harassment. We are also making the distribution of racially inflammatory material an arrestable offence.

    However, the best reassurance that we can give to victims is the one that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, and that is to help the police to ensure that those people are caught and punished for their crimes.