The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Back to Basics

PMQT – 17 February 1994

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th February 1994.

PRIME MINISTER:

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 February.

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

Mr. Welsh : Does the Prime Minister accept that the withdrawal of guns from Sarajevo is not the end of the story if they are freed for use elsewhere in Bosnia? Does he accept reports from one of my constituents that Bihac has been under constant shellfire since the day after the Sarajevo massacre, that 18 people died in a direct hit on a hospital last Monday and that there is hand-to-hand fighting? In wishing him success in Sarajevo, can I ask him what follows from that?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that, although Sarajevo is central to our concerns at the moment, there are many other areas of grave difficulty besides Sarajevo. The only satisfactory conclusion that we will get is by pursuing the political negotiations to achieve a satisfactory, agreed political settlement. Those political negotiations will proceed. The United States is clearly going to take a higher profile than previously in the peace negotiations and that will be extremely welcome.

Q2. Sir Ralph Howell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 February.

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

Sir Ralph Howell : In view of the Government’s excellent record of and commitment to safeguarding the value of pensions, is it not remarkable that last night the Opposition voted against uprating? Is this not a case of fine words and weasel actions?

The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend is right about the vote yesterday. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. This is enormously time-consuming. I urge the House to be quiet.

The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is still right in what he said a moment or so ago. We shall judge Opposition Members by their deeds and not just by their words, and last night they were in the wrong Lobby.

Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell us why, in his article in today’s Daily Express entitled “What I mean by Back to Basics”, there is no reference whatsoever to taxation? Is this deliberate or accidental?

The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well–for I have told him from this Dispatch Box on previous occasions– that “back to basics” runs right across the whole of Government policy, including the economy. He will know that, as a result of the sensible economic policies that we have been following, we now have growth unmatched by other countries across Europe.

Mr. John Smith : If “back to basics” covers all these things, why, in the article, is there no reference to taxation? I remind the Prime Minister that, speaking to a rally on 7 April–two days before the general election–he told his audience :

“More tax cuts for all : that is our basic Conservative belief.” Why did such a basic belief disappear suddenly?

The Prime Minister : The reality is that the Conservative party is the one which cuts taxes, and it always has been. Not even the right hon. and learned Gentleman can conceive of any circumstances in which, or any occasion when, taxation would be lower under a Labour Government than under a Conservative Government.

Mr. John Smith : Is not the truth that the Prime Minister was so gravely embarrassed by the duplicity of his Administration before the election and by their incompetence since the election that he dared not even refer to taxation in his article on “back to basics”? The right hon. Gentleman, in his article, goes on to claim–perhaps understandably–that this is not a moral crusade, but he does say that it has a moral dimension. Does not that moral dimension include telling the people the truth about tax?

The Prime Minister : Over the last 14 years, the Conservative party has cut tax after tax after tax in Budget after Budget. What did the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) have to say? He said :

“The Budget decisions the Conservatives made in the 1980s” those that cut taxes

“were completely unacceptable.”

The hon. Gentleman is nodding and confirming that those tax cuts were unacceptable. I am delighted, for we now know that the Opposition are not in favour of tax cuts, even when the opportunity presents itself. That can mean one thing and one thing only : the Opposition thought then that tax cuts were unacceptable, and they have no intention of cutting taxes in the future.

Mr. Quentin Davies : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this country there is very widespread recognition of the fact that his decision that we should join in the ultimatum to the warring factions in Bosnia was a very difficult one, was characteristically courageous and, in the circumstances, was absolutely right? Will he give the House an assurance that if we have to take military action our troops will receive all the back-up support and air cover that they require? Does he share my conviction that, if called upon to act, our forces will behave with all the bravery and professionalism that they have demonstrated on similar occasions?

The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that the British contingent of UNPROFOR has performed with the highest distinction and I am certain that it will continue to do so. The United Kingdom and a number of other countries have received several further requests from the United Nations. We are able to meet some, but not all of them. The most immediate is for help in consolidating and monitoring the ceasefire at Sarajevo. The Government agreed this morning to provide some urgent assistance. Two companies of the Coldstream guards will be redeployed from central Bosnia to help in the demilitarisation of Sarajevo. We shall also provide a mortar-locating troop of around 60 soldiers equipped with Cymbeline radar. The United Nations also asked for additional battalions from– [Interruption.] I should have thought that the House might be interested in what is happening in Bosnia. The UN also asked for additional battalions for UNPROFOR from several countries. As Britain already had a large contingent there, we decided not to send an additional battalion as part of the general– [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister is answering a– [Interruption.] Order. [Hon. Members :– “It is a statement.”] Order. I am prepared to name people today. The Prime Minister is giving a serious answer and I want us to hear the end of it in silence.

The Prime Minister : The House may not have heard the last few words that I said. I made it clear that although the United Nations has asked for additional battalions from several countries, as we already had a large contingent there, we decided not to send an extra battalion as part of the general reinforcement.

Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that answer will be taken as a “no” to General Rose’s request for further troops in Sarajevo? Does he realise that will be heard as music to the ears of the Serbs? Should the proper response of the British Government to a British general who asks for the resources to do the job that we have asked him to do, not be if, but and maybe, but yes?

The Prime Minister : Due to the noise from Opposition Members, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said a moment ago. I told him– [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will listen now and not ask such stupid questions in future. I said that the most immediate need is to help in consolidating and monitoring the Sarajevo ceasefire. That is what General Rose asked for and I said that the Government agreed this morning to provide that extra assistance. Two companies of the Coldstream guards will be redeployed from central Bosnia to help the demilitarisation. That is what I told the House a moment ago and, based on that, the right hon. Gentleman’s question is an absurdity.

Mr. Bates : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the latest edition of “Teesside 2000”, which gives details of some 20 separate investments totalling some £3.5 billion in the Teesside area? Is not that good news for Teesside and an adequate demonstration of how the Government’s policy of Government agencies and the private sector are succeeding in regenerating the north-east, whereas the policy of state hand-outs to inefficient nationalised industries from the Opposition failed?

The Prime Minister : There is no doubt about the attractiveness of Teesside and of other parts of the United Kingdom to investment from overseas. Of course, that relates to a number of things–the general economic situation, the tax structure and the fact that investment in the country is welcome and is producing a good return for overseas investors.

Q3. Mr. Denham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 February.

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

Mr. Denham : The Prime Minister is paid £78,292. Is he aware that only people who are paid more than £64,000 a year will have seen their tax bill fall under the Conservatives? Has it ever occurred to the Prime Minister that if people in his position were prepared to pay a little more tax towards funding the national health service, millions of tax losers would not be facing 50p on their prescriptions?

The Prime Minister : Even the hon. Gentleman should have heard about the vastly increased resources that taxpayers are providing for the national health service. When the hon. Gentleman’s party left office, the expenditure on the national health service was about £8 billion. It is now well over £35 billion. That has come as a result of increased investment in the national health service by a Conservative Government.

Mr. David Atkinson : Following my right hon. Friend’s successful visit to Moscow earlier in the week, will he assure the House that everything possible is being done to encourage and assist the Russian people to become good democrats and to avoid the fascist, ultra-nationalist policies of Vladimir Zhirinovsky and his party in the forthcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia in two years’ time?

The Prime Minister : We have to continue to do all that we can to build the relationship between the western nations and Russia. I reached a series of agreements with President Yeltsin during the visit over the past couple of days that contribute towards that. There is no doubt about the scale of assistance that is going to help Russia deal with its economic problems. I believe that it is right to provide that assistance ; right for Russia, and right for us because it is in our interest to ensure that Russia remains, not only in the short term, but permanently, a good neighbour to the democratic nations of western Europe.

Q4. Mr. Salmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 February.

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

Mr. Salmond : Does the Prime Minister recall the bit in the taking stock initiative about the Union being a partnership? If so, is he aware that British Gas has announced the locations of the headquarters of its five new business units? None is going to Wales and none to Scotland, which supplies the bulk of the gas; all five are going to England. Is the Prime Minister prepared to condemn the unequal distribution of headquarters units by a so-called British company–or is that something else which is not a matter for him?

The Prime Minister : I shall no more condemn that individual action than I would wish to condemn the actions of many companies that have specifically decided to invest in Scotland over the past decade, to such an extent that Scotland now receives more inward investment, and has made greater changes in its quality of life over the past decade, than in any previous decade.

February 17, 1994
PMQT – 15 February 1994

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

PRIME MINISTER:

Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

February 15, 1994
PMQT – 27 January 1994

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th January 1994.

PRIME MINISTER:

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Garrett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

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. Garrett : In all the ministerial dodging and weaving on “back to basics” and in all the Prime Minister’s vapid speeches on social policy I have never heard anything about child poverty. Has the Prime Minister read the recent report that 3 million children in this country live in poverty, that most of them are undernourished and that this country has the fastest growing rate of child poverty in western Europe? What is more basic than nurturing and cherishing our children?

The Prime Minister : I do not think that Conservative Members need any lectures from the hon. Gentleman on nurturing and protecting children. We have not only ensured and enshrined the system of child benefit but introduced family credit and a range of other benefits specifically to help people who face particular difficulties. That has been so over many years, it is an intrinsic of social policy, and the hon. Gentleman in his heart knows that that is the case.

Q2. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

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

Mr. Field : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to have lasting economic recovery, any promises of public expenditure must be subject to the closest possible scrutiny, whether they are made inside or outside the House and whether they are made by blank cheque socialists or by the man who has made more false starts in British politics than a jockey in the Grand National–the leader of the Liberal Democrats?

The Prime Minister : Yes, of course I agree with my hon. Friend. As for pledges inside or outside the House, that point might have been better directed to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) than to me. I am not at all sure about pledges from the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends. A large number have been made and a large number now seem to have been denied by the hon. Gentleman. It now seems that there is a new doctrine : if a promise is made by the Opposition outside the House, even at their party conference, even to business men, anywhere, nobody should believe a word they say, according to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Smith : How does the Prime Minister explain the devastating catalogue of incompetence, mismanagement and waste of public money by his Government and their agencies announced today in the Public Accounts Committee report?

The Prime Minister : I welcome the report issued by the PAC today. It provides a useful check list. It suggests that there has been no decline in standards. It quite rightly says that improving the efficiency of the public sector is not inconsistent with propriety. The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question surprises me, because the bodies in question are run by public servants. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not criticising public servants.

Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister welcome the fact that the situation is so grave that the Public Accounts Committee felt compelled to make such a report for the first time in its 130-year history? Does the Prime Minister welcome the fact that the report reveals that the national health service management executive wasted more than £100 million in the mismanagement of a hospital project ; that the Property Services Agency wasted £65 million, detected by the PAC; and that millions of pounds have been wasted in the health service, in named examples–in Wessex and West Midlands? What does the Prime Minister say about those and the many other fiascos revealed in the report?

The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in his general role of making all-purpose charges. He clearly has not studied the report with the care with which he would wish people to believe he has. It states clearly that there has been no decline in standards. The PAC quite rightly criticises breaches, but says that there is no suggestion of deficiency in the public sector financial framework itself. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that that is the case?

Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that the report says that there has been a departure from public standards that have been observed for 140 years? Does he not understand that the British public now clearly understand that one of the reasons why his Government are a Government of high taxation is that they are also a Government of waste and incompetence?

The Prime Minister : On the contrary, the report supports our drive for efficiency. Either the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misread or he is misrepresenting the substance of the report. He should look at it more carefully and come to the House and correct what he has said this afternoon. Perhaps he believes that he can convince people that the public service in this country is not, as I believe it to be, of the highest calibre of any public service anywhere in the world. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not share that view, he should.

Q3. Dr. Goodson-Wickes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

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

Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the House has to endure the ritual gibes of Opposition Members about reductions in the number of hospital beds, the truth is that more and more elective surgery is carried out in general practitioners’ surgeries, in out-patient departments and, most important of all, on a day surgery basis? The Royal College of Surgeons predicts a figure of 50 per cent. in the near future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that proves that the Opposition are as out of date as ever? Is it not about time that they got behind the Government’s reforms and stopped alarming patients?

The Prime Minister : I would certainly agree with that. We know from what has been said in the past 24 hours that there would be no more spending on the national health service from the Labour party, even though that is described as “obvious rubbish” by leading members of the Opposition. The reality is as my hon. Friend suggests : record numbers of patients are now being treated in the health service and there are record numbers of day cases. Not only is there better value for money in the health service but it is providing what patients and their families want. That is the reality of what is happening under our reforms. They have been an enormous success and they will continue.

Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister understand the anger that will be felt by many ordinary people who are asked to pay unprecedented levels of taxation only to see his Government hand that money over to quangos and executive agencies to throw away on waste, corruption and fraud?

The Prime Minister : I hope the right hon. Gentleman can substantiate what he has just said and will be prepared to do it. I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that it is his party’s stated position to increase taxation.

Mr. Harris : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report issued to Members of Parliament today by the Trustee Savings bank on the affordability of mortgages? The report says that the typical first-time buyer of a house now pays no less than £110 a month less than he did a year ago because of the dramatic fall in interest rates. It also says that the fear of negative equity has virtually disappeared.

The Prime Minister : Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right about that. Indeed, the saving on the average mortgage from the peak level of interest rates to today is about £160 to £170 a month. The result is shown quite clearly in the extent of the personal expenditure that has helped to steer the recovery. We are now recovering, and recovering more comprehensively than any other European economy.

Q4. Mr. Cummings : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

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

Mr. Cummings : What words of advice and comfort can the Prime Minister give to my constituent who has a child of 10 with double curvature of the spine whose operation has been cancelled because the joint health commissioning board has run short of cash? Does he not find it extraordinary that while there is a cash shortage for patient care, loads of money can be found for loads of posh cars and loads of managers with hugely inflated salaries in a needlessly expanding national health service bureaucracy?

The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Gentleman knows as well as any other Member of the House the extent to which patient care has expanded and improved in the national health service. We now know that there is going to be no more money for the health service from the Labour party. We can have no more of this nonsense week after week from Labour Members whenever anything happens, saying that there will be more money, because all their promises are “obvious rubbish,” as the Opposition Front Bench has told us.

Q5. Mr. Lait : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

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

Mrs. Lait : Does my right hon. Friend accept that I, along with millions of parents, welcome the new emphasis that he wants put on competitive sports at school? Does he agree that such sports teach children not only team skills but the competitive skills that children need to succeed in their future lives?

The Prime Minister : I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend has to say. I think children need to learn about competition. I have no doubt that team sports instil that spirit of competition in children, quite apart from enhancing their school days and their childhood generally. Any revision of the curriculum is a matter initially for independent advice from Sir Ron Dearing. He is considering the future place of team games in the school curriculum. When we receive his report, we shall study it very carefully.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Will the Prime Minister join me in asking the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to pay back to the ratepayers of Westminster the £50,000 profit that he made when he arranged through an intermediary to buy the council house next door? Will he join me in asking for the repayment of that money?

The Prime Minister : I have no intention of going down that road with the hon. Gentleman.

Q6. Mr. Clifton-Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

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

Mr. Clifton-Brown : Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in The Guardian today commenting on remarks by the German Economics Minister, who says that our Government’s policy of deregulation and privatisation is outstanding and that, indeed, he is going to copy it? Does my right hon. Friend know that Black and Decker has moved its international headquarters from Europe to Durham? Does not that demonstrate that the United Kingdom is the leading country in which to do business, and does not it show the folly of the Opposition’s policy of supporting the social chapter, which is bad for industry and bad for this country?

The Prime Minister : There is absolutely no doubt about that. If we want jobs in this country, we certainly must not add costs through the social chapter or in any other way. Black and Decker is just the latest in a long line of companies leaving other countries and setting up in the United Kingdom because of its tax structure and its prospects, which make it a very competitive place to do business. Companies like our industrial relations, they like our system of business tax and they like the fact that we have no social chapter.

January 27, 1994
Mr Major’s Comments on Back to Basics – 26 January 1994

Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments during an interview held on 26th January 1994 relating to Back to Basics.

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked about whether back to basics had a moral element]

PRIME MINISTER:

But it does. It is genuinely extremely difficult to present a complex position like this with total clarity.

The whole concept of “back to basics” wasn’t the title we gave it. I referred to “back to basics” with a small “b”, other people put a big “B” on it later if I could make that point.

But the principle of it has a moral dimension, that is certainly true. The civic obligation that people have to other people, that clearly is a part of “back to basics”, the belief that you should accept the implicit responsibilities that go with your own extended family and the obligation that you naturally owe to people who are your neighbours. We don’t want to see a society in which every tiny unit is cocooned in their own self-interest with no concern for the people or neighbourhood that surrounds them. Clearly, that is part of what we seek in the policy so it does have a moral dimension.

What I don’t think it was expressly designed to do was to deal with the individual and personal peccadilloes of people. We are an imperfect race we humans and to draw black and white rules about individuals’ personal behaviour is extremely difficult to do because they are all different and the circumstances of each case are never identical – they may superficially look identical but they are not.

One of the “back to basics” characteristics that I think is very prevalent in the British is the degree of tolerance and understanding they tend to show and I think in areas of personal, human indiscretions that tolerance and understanding is an important part of the moral dimension itself.

Of course, what people are concerned about is the standard set by public figures – that is what you meant by the question – and I do believe that although one can’t set down absolutely black and white hard and fast rules, there is a general obligation upon people in public life to try and maintain high standards. I think that is right.

January 26, 1994
PMQT Written Answers – 21 January 1994

Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st January 1994.

PRIME MINISTER:

Mr. Gerry Adams

Dame Angela Rumbold : To ask the Prime Minister if a response has yet been made to the letter he received from Mr. Gerry Adams dated 7 January; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister : I received an unsigned letter on Mr. Adams’s headed notepaper, dated 7 January 1994, last week. I have placed in the Library a copy of that letter and of a reply from my private secretary which was sent on 20 January. Mr. Adams seeks to open issues for renegotiation by pointing back to a position which he asserts the Irish Government put forward in June last year. The joint declaration of 15 December was the result of many months of discussion between the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. It is a fair and balanced statement of constitutional principles and political realities, which safeguard the interests and aspirations of both sides of the community. As the Taoiseach and I have made clear, there can be no question of renegotiation of the joint declaration.

Back to Basics

Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what are the implications of the Government”s “Back to Basics” policy for his office during 1994.

Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the scope and effectiveness of his “Back to Basics” social policy.

Mr. Rendel : To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what working definition of “back to basics” he uses; and what he has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

The Prime Minister : “Back to basics” is intended to ensure that Government policies are based firmly on the common sense values of the British people and, in particular, that they encourage individual responsibility. The “back to basics” policy is especially important in such areas as education, law and order, and the provision of public services, but it applies across a range of other Government policies as well.

Paymaster-General

Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the Departments to which the Paymaster-General has been attached since 1979.

The Prime Minister : The Departments to which the Paymaster-General has been attached are listed.

Date and Department to which responsible

April 1976 to May 1979 – Department of Education and Science

May 1979 to January 1981 – None

January 1981 to September 1981 – None

September 1981 to June 1983 – None

June 1983 to September 1984 – Not applicable : post vacant

September 1984 to September 1985 – None

September 1985 to June 1987 – Department of Employment

June 1987 to July 1989 – Her Majesty’s Treasury

July 1989 to July 1990 – Her Majesty’s Treasury

July 1990 to November 1990 – Her Majesty’s Treasury

November 1990 to April 1992 – Northern Ireland Office

April 1992 to date – Her Majesty’s Treasury

Note : Except where noted, responsibility for Customs and Excise held by other Treasury Ministers.

Included responsibility for Customs and Excise.

Responsibility for Customs and Excise passed to the Economic Secretary in 1988.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

Dr. Lynne Jones : To ask the Prime Minister what are the procedures which apply in (a) the United Kingdom Parliament and (b) the European Parliament on the ratification of the Uruguay round of the GATT.

The Prime Minister : The Government intend to present a White Paper to Parliament on the results of the Uruguay round later this year. The agreements will also be laid before Parliament, as with other international agreements. The European Community decision approving the results of the round will also be subject to United Kingdom parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. The European Parliament is likely to be consulted, but the procedure used will depend on the treaty provisions which apply.

Habitats

Mr. Morley : To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends that all Secretaries of State should have a duty to comply with the requirements of the European Union directive 92/43 EEC on the conservation of natural habitats of wild fauna and flora; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister : The Secretaries of State will have duties, both general and specific, as appropriate and commensurate with the requirements of the directive.

International Year of the Family

Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking to encourage and promote the International Year of the Family.

The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on 6 December 1993, Official Report, columns 29-30.

January 21, 1994
Mr Major’s Press Conference at NATO Summit – 11 January 1994

Below is Mr Major’s press conference in Brussels at the NATO Summit on Tuesday 11th January 1994.

PRIME MINISTER:

This has been only the 11th NATO summit in a period of 35 years and the first NATO summit we have had since the summit in Rome in November 1991. It was a summit I think with a very clear purpose and that purpose was to give a clear direction to the Alliance at a time of totally new challenges. Without question, I believe, the summit has been successful and it has given that new sense of direction, it has reaffirmed NATO’s core function to provide for our collective security. The United States have renewed unequivocally their commitment to Europe and their determination to leave a large number of United States troops on the continent of Europe. NATO is bent on bringing Europe together, it has launched what I believe is both a practical and an imaginative process in Partnership for Peace. It said that it would welcome: “Expansion that would reach the democratic states to our east as part of an evolutionary process”.

We have reaffirmed at this meeting again our support for reform in Russia, we have agreed on the new concept of combined joint task forces which is a very significant change in NATO’s military organisation. It will I hope and expect improve NATO’s ability to mount peace-keeping and humanitarian operations. It will provide separable but not separate capabilities that will help meet the requirements of a European security and defence identity. We have agreed that we will intensify our efforts for non-proliferation and the tripartite agreement announced by President Clinton on Ukrainian weapons will be a tremendous boost in that respect. And this morning, after discussion last evening, we have reached agreement on important new steps to be taken in Bosnia.

If I may just say a word about Bosnia. It is I think intolerable that UNPROFOR has recently been prevented from rotating its contingent in Srebrenica. We will be drawing up plans now to help UNPROFOR bring in a Netherlands contingent to replace the Canadians. And whilst talking of the Canadians perhaps I could say that the courage and dedication that they have shown there epitomises the very outstanding peace-keeping record that Canada has had over recent years.

We have also agreed to examine how Tuzla airport can be opened with the intention that it should serve as a conduit for humanitarian relief. And we have also looked again at the situation in Sarajevo and are seeking an urgent improvement there. The bombardment of the town has diminished over the past few days but it has been, as you will all know, the subject of some very bitter fighting..

After this press conference this morning I will be meeting the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, the Chairman of the Military Committee and a number of other top NATO Commanders at lunch. And the purpose of this lunch is to discuss how the summit’s decisions will be implemented on the military side and to benefit from their professional advice on Bosnia and on other security problems.

Quite apart from the central agenda at this meeting, I have taken the opportunity to compare notes with the Heads of Government of a number of other NATO countries. I met the Turkish Prime Minister, Mrs Ciller, for the first time yesterday, we discussed Iraq and a number of other subjects. I saw the French Prime Minister and the German Chancellor yesterday afternoon and the Italian Prime Minister this morning. At the end of our discussions this morning I had a brief discussion with President Clinton about Bosnia and Northern Ireland and we discussed the agenda that we might tackle on my arrival in Washington at the end of February.

If one looks at the declaration that we published today, one sentence of it I believe encapsulates the meeting: “The fuller integration of the countries of central and Eastern Europe and of the former Soviet Union into a Europe whole and free cannot be successful without the strong and active participation of allies on both sides of the Atlantic”.

I believe that very strongly and to make a reality of that is going to require hard work and patience and all the countries will have a part to play. I have, for example, kept in very close touch with Boris Yeltsin during his Presidency and I hope also to be going to Moscow as well as to Washington within the next few weeks.

I do believe that it is extremely important to build up our partnership with the democratic leaders of Russia, as well as with those of central and of Eastern Europe. They are our friends, they have founded new and democratic institutions, they have liberalised their economies. For example in Russia, 70 percent of small and medium enterprises have now been privatised and nearly 7,000 large firms. Inflation has come down quite sharply in recent months in Russia, entrepreneurs are increasingly beginning to appear and the benefits of reform are beginning to be seen quite clearly in many parts of Russia.

Russia has a hugely important part to play in the world. Partnership between Russia and NATO can only be to the benefit of both sides and to the benefit of the international community. What we have been seeking to do at this meeting is to build a stable framework for the most profound changes in modern history.

This summit, I believe, has made a big contribution to that objective and I think it can fairly be described as a complete success.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

QUESTION:

Are you now more willing to consider the use of air power, either in the case of Sarajevo or in the instances of ensuring the rotation of troops and the reopening of the airport in Tuzla, have you come closer to that as President Clinton and the Secretary General said that they thought there was a greater determination in these conversations to use air power?

PRIME MINISTER:

There is a great determination, let me take the different points that you raise. As far as Sarajevo is concerned, we agreed in August in the agreements of 2 and 9 August that in appropriate circumstances NATO would use air power there. That was the situation, we have reaffirmed the fact that that could be used. As far as Tuzla and Srebrenica are concerned, it was in fact an Anglo-French proposal that we should specifically include these objectives in the declaration and I set out a moment or so ago why. I do believe it is intolerable with a United Nations UNPROFOR force there that the Canadians and the Dutch are unable to complete their rotation, I simply do not think that is acceptable and I believe therefore that it is necessary to ensure that rotation takes place, and it is quite clear from the declaration that if it is necessary to use air power to achieve that then we would be prepared to do so.

As far as Tuzla is concerned, there were some plans drawn up from Tuzla, they are not finalised, the plans, that is why the wording is precisely as it is in the declaration. We will ask the NATO Commanders, the UN UNPROFOR, to draw up final plans to see what is practicable to do to open Tuzla airport for humanitarian reasons. And the answer to your question is that there is a very real determination to carry out what is stated in the declaration and I believe it is a universal determination amongst all the Heads of Government who were present here this morning.

QUESTION (Mark Leighty, BBC):

Could you tell us whether you think that we are more likely to use force, say, in Srebrenica and Tuzla and that the British are very much less keen to use force around Sarajevo? If that is so, why are we so much more worried about shelling around Sarajevo and using air strikes there than we are about using them at Srebrenica. And what are the Canadians saying to you, they do not appear to be keen in public?

PRIME MINISTER:

The Canadians, I have no knowledge of what Canadians allegedly may have been saying to people in private, I do know what has been said at the meetings and the Canadians have agreed to this declaration, there was no dispute about it, there were minor discussions about the clarity of the wording, I think three or four words were added in this context in paragraph 25 just to make clear that it was in the context of air strikes, and there was one other word added to make it clear that we were talking about the rotation of troops at Srebrenica. So there was no dispute about it, I do not know where these suggestions of dispute arise, but I can assure you that there was no dispute about this at our meeting last evening or in our discussions this morning.

Of course there are concerns about it, these are not easy propositions to carry out, that is why we have got to examine the plans and make sure how they can be done. But as I indicated a moment ago, there is a determination to carry out those objectives that we have set out in this declaration and that is true whether they relate to Tuzla and Srebrenica or whether they relate to Sarajevo. Of course the nature of the operations would be different and without going into lengthy treaties of that, we have to take that into account. But it is intended that what is written in this declaration shall be carried through as and when necessary.

QUESTION (John Palmer, Guardian):

You call into question any suggestions that there were divisions, but only half an hour ago President Clinton told us that while he was keen to support the Anglo-French ideas on Srebrenica and on Tuzla, he had to resist pressure to substitute the wording on Srebrenica and Tuzla for the references reiterating the position on Sarajevo, he said that 3 times that he had to resist pressure to do and refuse to do so, would we be correct in assuming that the UK was one of the member states that wished that wording as a substitute. If not, where did this idea come from?

PRIME MINISTER:

I have absolutely no idea. The United Kingdom proposal was to add the proposals on Tuzla and the proposals on Srebrenica to what was previously agreed in August and I believe in the unaccountable fashion that occasionally occurs at these great events, what was proposed to be the final declaration was circulated and many of you will have seen it in its earlier form in which there was a reiteration of the position as far as Sarajevo was concerned. The Anglo-French proposal last night was not to delete that but to add to that the proposals on Srebrenica and Tuzia and that was agreed last evening. There was never any question whatsoever in the British mind of diluting the agreements that we had reached on 2 and 9 August about Sarajevo.

PETER ARMAND (DAILY TELEGRAPH):

Up to now, much of the problem on the ground has been the requirement to negotiate your way through road blocks and it has led to situations where one man with a gun can stop a whole UN convoy. Do you now envision that we will force our way through these road blocks and if attacked then air strikes would be called or are you suggesting that air strikes might be called in advance of moving forward?

PRIME MINISTER:

I don’t think it would be appropriate to go into details of that sort. Clearly, if you can negotiate your way through that is the best way. Nobody who reads this declaration can be in any doubt about out determination to carry out what is set out in the declaration. I hope that is read and I hope that is understood.

QUESTION (IN FRENCH):

[Not translated]

PRIME MINISTER:

We established the London Conference some time ago because we wanted to put the process towards peace to give it a firm political backing. That was the underlying reason for establishing the London Conference and from that of course the negotiating activities on behalf of all of us by David Owen and successive partners. That has always been our position.

One of the concerns we have had right from the outset, self-evidently a military concern, is the danger that the conflict would spread south down to Kosovo with the obvious danger then that it would widen and intensify quite deeply. I think our concerns about Kosovo have been made clear publicly and certainly clear privately to all the combatants on many occasions; they are in no doubt about how seriously we would view that sort of development.

STEVE DOUGHTY (DAILY MAIL):

Prime Minister, was your initiative on Srebrenica and Tusla launched in order to head off pressure in any measure from other Alliance members for more punitive or large-scale bombing in Bosnia?

PRIME MINISTER:

No, it was not. It was not intended to be a joint Anglo-French initiative. When I met Prime Minister Balladur yesterday afternoon and we discussed it, we both had precisely the same idea about how we could deal with the particular problems of Tusla and Srebrinica so it was not something that was pre-cooked some time ago. we both discussed it yesterday, we both raised the matter again last evening. As a result of that we proposed some text, we agreed the text with the French and we placed the text in front of our partners this morning and it was agreed.

No, it was not an attempt to divert from anything else. It was taken on its merits. Clearly, for humanitarian reasons, it is wholly desirable to have Tusla airport open and as far as Srebrenica is concerned, I simply think it makes a nonsense of the whole operation if the natural rotation of replacing Canadian troops with Dutch troops is unable to take place and therefore we have decided to take the action that we set out in the declaration.

ADAM BOULTON (SKY NEWS):

Prime Minister, I wonder if I could ask you how you plan to re-establish the authority of your premiership when you get back to London given that in your absence several Cabinet ministers, John Redwood, John Patten, have directly contradicted you and said that personal morality plays a part in “Back to Basics” and also given the widely reported comments of grass-roots Conservatives that they feel the Government is applying double standards to its own behaviour and the behaviour it expects of the public.

PRIME MINISTER:

I don’t think you represent the position as I understand it at all. I have indicated quite clearly the width and depth of the programme of “Back to Basics”. People will see it in great clarity this very day for example for a central core of it, the Criminal Justice Bill, has its Second Reading in the House of Commons.

JAMES ROBINS (BBC):

Prime Minister, John Patten did say yesterday that he had never known a time in the past fifteen years since you and he went to the Commons for the first time when things had been so difficult. Is he right?

PRIME MINISTER:

Times are difficult from time to time, subsequently they get easy.

I recall having questions from you and Adam twelve months ago which were suggesting to me that the economy would never return to growth, unemployment would never fall and we would find ourselves in very great difficulties. What has happened over the last year is that unemployment has fallen by 180,000, the economy has begun quite clearly to grow, exports have been running at level levels. We have now taken in two successive budgets last year decisions that will bring down the fiscal deficit. So the prospect for this year, the prospect that will impact upon the lives of everyone in the United Kingdom, is for renewed and accelerated growth, a low level of inflation, lowish interest rates, unemployment continuing to fall, exports continuing to rise and investments continuing to rise. I think, had you asked me the question you just asked me twelve months ago and I had forecast that to you, you would have been dubious about whether it was likely to be accurate. Now, most people accept that it is accurate.

FREDERICK BOLLARD:

If I may bring you to NATO, Prime Minister, with a question concerning a remark you made about a partnership between NATO and Russia. That I presume you did not then envisage to be on the basis of the Partnership for Peace agreements because that is a comparatively low level agreement. Are you envisaging in fact a partnership whereby a political agreement is made with Russia about the importance of maintaining the values and the peace that we want to maintain?

PRIME MINISTER:

Partnership for Peace certainly need not be at a low level. think there may be a misunderstanding there. It certainly need not be at a low level and it may be variable as between one country and another so certainly an invitation to Russia and for that matter Ukraine to participate in Partnership for Peace has been issued. We very much hope they will accept.

But I think quite apart from the normal semantics of politics and diplomacy, the reality of life is that Russia is a different nation from any others in the world. Its huge military power and its worldwide significance necessarily make it so, so in a whole range of ways – with NATO, with the European Union, with the United States, with other countries in the West – it is in all our interests to develop the best possible relationship with Russia.

One of the greatest prizes that could be handed on to the next generation and the generation after that would surely be if we were able to sufficiently support the reform process so that Russia became a genuine good neighbour, a genuine democratic country where the reformers win the argument and Russia can enter fully – as I hope to see it do – the democratic family of western nations. It is different from the others because of its size and because of its significance to all of us and I believe that is undeniable.

SIMON WALTER (THE SUN):

Do you agree with Conservative MPs who say your “Back to Basics” campaign is now in crisis and do politicians have any special responsibility to behave in a moral fashion?

PRIME MINISTER:

I don’t believe the remarks about crisis. The “Back to Basics” policy, as I have spelt out time and time again, runs right the way across the whole thread of Government activity: “Back to Basics” in economics: I set out the changes that there now are in our economic prospects; in terms of law and order, the Criminal Justice Bill, the most wide-ranging Criminal Justice Bill, essentially based on the principle of “Back to Basics”; the changes we are proposing in education, the changes we have introduced and those we are proposing to introduce absolutely fundamental to “Back to Basics”; the changes we made for example recently in adoption law, throwing away rather silly old-fashioned theories that children should not be adopted if the adopting parents were of a different race – absurd, old-fashioned theories that really need to be thrown away if you get back to good basic, solid common sense.

I will give you another illustration: many of the fashionable thoughts of previous decades with hindsight have turned out to be wrong. It was a mistake to put so many people in tower blocks in the middle of the inner cities; it has produced very dramatic social problems. We are reversing that. We are not building any more tower blocks. Where we can, we are replacing those that exist and trying to produce communities that have a better community feel about them. Again back to basics.

All those are part of a very wide-ranging “Back to Basics” campaign and one that I believe, despite the furore that appears from time to time as people dance on the head of a particular pin, is something that appeals to the basic instincts of the overwhelming majority of people in the United Kingdom so we will pursue this programme. We will pursue it because it is right, we will pursue it because it is necessary and I believe as we go through the next few weeks and months and people see the real substance of the programme, what it is about for themselves and their lives and what it is expected to mean, then I think the very warm initial reception that it had will be maintained in the future.

QUESTION:

Does it have a moral dimension at all?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think there is a distinction to be drawn. Of course, it is about good standards and good values, of course it is about that. What it is not is a witch-hunt against individual transgressions but of course we want good standards and good values right the way across not just the public service but elsewhere but it is not our job as politicians to preach about that. We need to deal with the problems that arise where there are difficulties, that is clearly the responsibility of politicians. We are not in preaching mode, we do want to see high values but I am not in the business of individual witch-hunts for individual transgressions.

RAY MOSELY (CHICAGO TRIBUNE):

Prime Minister, your Government has expressed concern in the past about the threat to British troops if there are air strikes in Bosnia. Do you not have those same concerns if Srebrenica is subjected to air strikes?

PRIME MINISTER:

That is why, if you look at the wording of the declaration, we make it clear that we have to draw up plans. Those plans will need to take account of the safety of the troops. That is one of the paramount concerns. That is not a point of difference between anyone there this morning. It is self-evident that whatever is done needs to take primary account of the security of the United Nation troops be they British, Canadian, Spanish, French, who happen to be there. That will be an absolutely central part of the plans that will be determined.

RAY MOSELEY:

Does that mean you would want to see your troops withdrawn before air strikes take place?

PRIME MINISTER:

No, it doesn’t necessarily mean that.

January 11, 1994
PMQT – 11 January 1994

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th January 1994. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

PRIME MINISTER:

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Denham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

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

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the NATO summit in Brussels.

Mr. Denham : Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a certain amount of confusion about the precise nature of the “back to basics” policy? Will he confirm that honesty is one of the “back to basics” values? If it is, why did the Conservatives promise at the last general election not to put up tax and then impose £10 per family per week?

Mr. Newton : Our concern as a Government is with good standards in education, strengthening the fight against crime and, not least, ensuring a sound economic foundation on which all other objectives must rest. Our policy on taxation and in all economic matters is directed towards that end and it is manifestly bringing about the growth that people want to see.

Dr. Michael Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the barometers of the British economy is the housing industry? Does he therefore share my satisfaction– [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. It is good to start the new year in good humour, but I should like to hear the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark).

Dr. Michael Clarke : Does my right hon. Friend therefore share my satisfaction with the figures revealed yesterday, which show that private sector housing starts are on the increase?

Mr. Newton : I do indeed share my hon. Friend’s pleasure in those figures. Private sector housing starts increased significantly in November, as in the previous month. Indeed, in November they were the highest since October 1989, and 42 per cent. higher than a year earlier. That is very good news and it shows the benefits of the policies to which I referred a few moments ago.

Mr. John Smith : Is it not now abundantly clear that “back to basics”, a slogan which was devised to get the Prime Minister through the Tory party conference, has spectacularly backfired on a Government who are now in hopeless confusion and disarray about what it means, particularly when applied to themselves?

Mr. Newton : I have already made it clear, in answer to the first question asked of me this afternoon, that our concern is with raising standards in education, strengthening the fight against crime and, above all, strengthening the British economy. Those are objectives which the British people support and want to see achieved, and they know that they would not get them from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. John Smith : Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the problem is that the current definitions are so markedly different from the moralistic speeches of Minister after Minister at the Tory party conference? Does he recollect the Home Secretary saying to the conference that the distinction between right and wrong had to be sharpened instead of blurred? Why is it all so different now?

Mr. Newton : My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was absolutely right to make that point in the context of the fight against crime, which the House will debate later today. The objectives of what the Government are seeking to bring about remain and will remain as I have stated them and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set them out at that conference.

Mr. John Smith : Does the right hon. Gentleman not yet appreciate that what the British people dislike intensely is the hypocrisy of double standards which “back to basics” has now become? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us and the public why there should be one set of rules for the the people and another set of rules for Ministers and Tory Members of Parliament?

Mr. Newton : What I think that the British people most dislike is the hypocrisy of a party which talks like that and then opposes every move to raise educational standards and every move to fight crime, and which pursues policies which could only damage Britain’s economy.

Mr. Matthew Banks : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain continues to maintain a flexible and responsive approach to military action in Bosnia? Does he agree that, until recently, Britain has been entirely right to resist premature calls for air strikes in the region, which would have led to extreme danger for our troops on the ground who were sent there to police a United Nations ceasefire, not to take part in guerrilla warfare?

Mr. Newton : I can say that, after some very fruitful meetings in Brussels this morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in speaking there, has made it clear that we will be drawing up plans to help UNPROFOR to bring in a Netherlands contingent to replace the Canadians in Srebrenica and has also agreed to examine how Tuzla airport can be opened, with the intention that it should serve as a conduit for humanitarian relief. My right hon. Friend has also made it clear that if it is necessary to use air power to achieve those objectives, we would be willing to do so.

Q2. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

Mr. Connarty : Does the Leader of the House now think that morality is very important also in public life? Is he aware that, in the Forth valley enterprise area, thanks to the diligent investigation by the local paper, The Falkirk Herald, it has been revealed that £2 million in grants from the enterprise board has gone to people who sit on the board? In fact, just recently, the secretary of the board resigned after an investigation by Scottish Television. There are allegations of training grants to companies that had no trainees and allegations of the register of companies’ interests being falsified, and there is still £50,000 missing. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that appointees who have a self interest to pursue will not look after the public interest and that running the country by quangos, as the Government have tried to do, will lead to corruption inevitably?

Mr. Newton : In view of some of the things that have emerged about, for example, Labour local authorities, I think that that is a curious charge for the hon. Gentleman to make, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will examine anything that needs to be examined in the light of that or any other event of that kind.

Mr. Waterson : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the Dun and Bradstreet report, which shows increased business confidence in trading conditions at the moment? Does he agree that that augurs well for the future of the British economy in the next 12 months?

Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The survey published today shows that United Kingdom businesses are more confident about trading conditions in the current quarter, with well over half forecasting higher profits and nearly a third expecting to take on more staff. That shows the benefits of the policy of low interest rates and low inflation which the Government have successfully been pursuing.

Q3. Mr. Eric Clarke : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

Mr. Clarke : I wish you, Madam Speaker, and the rest of the House, a happy new year. Will the Leader of the House make it a happy new year for the disabled miners who are at home and worried because of the lack of guarantees for the future of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, a worthwhile organisation which looks after them and their families? If the Leader of the House wants a moral crusade, I would name that one.

Mr. Newton : First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes for the new year, which I much appreciate. With regard to the substantive thrust of his question, he will of course have an opportunity before long to raise that and any other point during discussions on the Coal Industry Bill. I will of course draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the remarks of Tom Donnett, a Liberal county councillor in Somerset, who has described villagers whose views he disapproves of as being no better than yids, nignogs, eyeties and Pakis? Does not my right hon. Friend find a curious distinction that the Liberal Democrat party leader in his appearances in the House adopts a tone of self-righteous pomposity while harbouring people within his party whose views would not be tolerated in the National Front?

Mr. Newton : In line with the good wishes for the new year, I had better say that my hon. Friend might say that, but I cannot possibly comment. I understand that the remarks have been referred to the Commission for Racial Equality. Perhaps we shall see not only what the commission has to say, but in due course what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his party have to say.

Q4. Ms Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

Ms Hoey : Will the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister, in what will obviously be a review of his “back to basics” policy, to consider a “back to basics” in foreign policy? Does he agree that part of that should be a basic understanding that aggression should not be rewarded? Does he further agree that it is crucial that the siege of Sarajevo be lifted and that the Government call for immediate air strikes to take out the artillery surrounding that city?

Mr. Newton : Without for one moment accepting the suggestion in the first half of the hon. Lady’s question, I think that the need with these policies is to get on and ensure that they are effective, which is what we seek to do. On the second part, with reference to Bosnia–the hon. Lady mentioned particularly Sarajevo–I referred earlier to another couple of issues : the position at Srebrenica and the position at the airport at Tuzla. I think that the hon. Lady would be well advised to read full reports of the understandings that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reached with our allies in Brussels today about further action in those areas.

Mr. Dickens : Concentrating still on important matters, does my right hon. Friend welcome the improvement in the balance of trade figures announced yesterday?

Mr. Newton rose– [Hon. Members :– “Come on.”] I was caught out by my hon. Friend’s unaccustomed brevity, but I am grateful both for his brevity and for the good point that he raised. I am delighted to see the improvement in the balance of trade of something like £500 million in October, with exports outside the European Community up by some 12 per cent. on a year ago. It is further convincing evidence of the success of our policies. I look forward, although without much expectation, to the Opposition congratulating not only British industry and British workers but the Government on the conditions that have helped to bring that about.

Q5. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

Mr. Skinner : Will the Government be demanding of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that he repay the £50,000 that he got out of his housing fiddle on the second council house in Westminster? How can the Government justify bailing out the firm owned by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) at £200,000 when thousands of firms in Britain have gone to the wall and millions of people have been made redundant? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman demand that the hon. Member for City of Chester foots the bill himself?

Mr. Newton : I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has said in recent days. I imagine that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) appreciates that the position of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) is exactly the same as that which would arise with any other company which does not succeed. Neither the company nor my hon. Friend has been treated differently from any other company or any other individual in similar circumstances.

January 11, 1994