The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Nigeria

  • PMQT – 5 December 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    GP Fundholders (Lichfield)

    Q1. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet a delegation of general practitioners from Lichfield to discuss the future of fundholding.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Fundholders’ views on developing the success of the scheme are always welcome. Any detailed recommendations will, of course, be considered.

    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that every general practitioner in Lichfield will be a registered fundholder? The reason is that those GPs believe in the Conservative party’s crusade for choice: they believe that it is right for them to be able to choose the consultant and the hospital that are right for them. Does my right hon. Friend realise that they are appalled at the Labour party’s plan to abolish fundholding? Does that not give the lie to Labour’s crusade for schools, which is evidently empty rhetoric– just another empty soundbite?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that GP fundholding has improved patient care and increased patient choice up and down the country. An increasing number of doctors are choosing to become fundholders, and I welcome that, in Lichfield as elsewhere.

    There is, of course, all the difference in the world between a policy that genuinely believes in choice–as ours does in relation to both health and education–and one that believes in choice for marketing reasons. We saw an instance of that this morning.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

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

    Mr. Morgan: Does the Prime Minister agree with me, and with all the other users of the Great Western main line from Paddington to south Wales and the west of England, that the signals for railway privatisation are now firmly stuck at red? Now that the consortium Resurgence Railways, led by the Prime Minister’s Huntingdon Tory crony, Mike Jones, has been rejected because it cannot raise the money, and the second-choice preferred bidders–led by the present management team at Western Region–cannot raise the money either, should we not be singing the old song “Let’s call the whole thing off”?

    The Prime Minister: That was rather contrived, I must say. Rail privatisation is going ahead, for one simple reason: it will deliver a better service for rail passengers. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends really think that, over the past 40 years, the public have had the rail service that they would like, I do not know where he has been.

    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend believe that, if he appointed Scottish-based Members of Parliament to key Cabinet posts such as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Chief Whip, and then proposed to set up a Parliament in Edinburgh that failed to address the West Lothian question, that would be good for the Union of the United Kingdom and for relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK?

    The Prime Minister: I do, of course, have a number of very distinguished Scots in my Cabinet and in my Government, but I certainly agree with the thrust– [Interruption.] Not at the moment, it is true. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is distinguished, but he is not a Scot. The thrust of my hon. Friend’s point is surely right–if the devolution plans proposed by the Opposition parties were to proceed, they would undoubtedly lead to conflict between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that, even at this late stage, the parties advocating those policies will consider what they would mean in practice both for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom and will decide that extra taxation for Scots alone is not a way to improve the prosperity of Scotland.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree, as the Government’s report “Lifetime Learning” which was published today confirms, that Britain’s skills and education attainments are nowhere near where they should be? Rather than encouraging a small number of children to leave state schools for the private sector, should we not be raising educational standards for the 7 million children who are educated in the state sector, many of whom do not get the education that they deserve?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have produced a whole series of plans to raise educational standards over recent years, many of which, alas, have been strongly opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know where in the education sector there is failure, he might look at Hackney for example. [Hon. Members: “Islington.”] I shall come to Islington. The right hon. Gentleman might look at Lambeth, where the secondary schools are so bad that the Office for Standards in Education has to inspect every one of them. He might, of course, look at Islington, which has just come absolutely bottom in the table of GCSE results. What is consistent among all those is that they are all Labour-controlled education authorities.

    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate SCM Chemicals in my constituency, a subsidiary of the Hanson Trust group, which yesterday announced a massive expansion of its titanium dioxide plant? Is that not clear evidence that international investment is making my constituency the chemical capital of the world?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is a formidable advocate for his constituency and his constituents. I hope he will agree that Government policy as well as his advocacy might have played some part in bringing that investment to his constituency.

     

    Q3. Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

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

    Mr. Taylor: Will the Prime Minister explain to the people of Cornwall and Devon why they should accept the Government’s conclusions today that Government spending in the region compares favourably with that in the rest of the country, when every independent report shows that spending in the region is 10 per cent. less Department by Department, education to industry, than that in the rest of the country, despite high unemployment, low wages and a high cost of living?

    The Prime Minister: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a number of measures to deal with those problems in the west country and elsewhere, and it is extremely important that those problems are dealt with. We are determined to address them and to improve the living standards and opportunities for people in the west country. That is what we have been doing and what we shall continue to do. It is pity that the hon. Gentleman seeks to denigrate every effort that is made.

    Mr. Devlin: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports of the disgraceful intimidation and browbeating that is going on in Hurworth in my neighbouring constituency where the Labour party is trying to prevent a local school from opting out? Apparently, the whole affair is being organised by none other than the Leader of the Opposition, aided by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn.)

    The Prime Minister: I believe that any form of intimidation of parental choice is to be condemned. Parents have a natural and a legal right to decide whether they want the school to which their child goes to opt out and they should be able to exercise that right without intimidation, either by the education authority or by anyone else. If there is evidence of that, I hope that those implicated in it will examine it without delay.

     

    Q4. Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

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

    Ms Quin: My question concerns the appalling human rights abuses in Nigeria, together with reports in the press today of confidential information from Home Office files being leaked to Tory central office and thence to the press. Will the Prime Minister order an immediate inquiry into those leaks and further assure the House that there will be no deportations to Nigeria of people at risk from that murderous regime?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, our position on Nigeria is clear and, in company with others, we set that out clearly at the Commonwealth conference. The case in today’s newspaper to which she refers was one where the applicant or his representative had chosen to make public details of their cases and allegations about their consideration. In those circumstances, the Home Office gave information that was necessary to set the record straight in response to telephone inquiries that it received and, subsequent to the information being given by the Home Office, it was also used by others.

    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the outstanding success of Operation Christmas Cracker? Is he aware that some 12,000 police officers in 40 force areas today made a number of staggered raids in which more than 2,000 suspects were arrested, and recovered property ranging from bicycles to reptiles? Does he agree that that is one of the best Christmas presents that people could have?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who touches on a matter that is of importance to everyone. I certainly welcome the priority given to today’s operation, which involves some 40 police forces and has occasioned more than 2,000 arrests. There is no doubt that, over the past couple of years, innovative policing methods have made a distinct impact on the crime level, and we are now beginning to see the crime statistics fall. It is policing of that sort that can give people considerable reassurance. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may scoff about crime falling, but it is a matter of importance to the public out there.

     

    Q5. Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

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

    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister seen the astonishing reports in the press that the official video of the party conference has been doctored to make the party chairman appear good, and to play down the popularity of the Secretary of State for Defence in the party? If the Conservative party cannot tell the truth about its own conference, is it any wonder that no one trusts it on tax?

    The Prime Minister: From the party that has more spending pledges and higher tax in the pipeline than anyone else, I find that ironic. On the newspaper reports, the hon. Gentleman should look at reality, not newspaper reports.

    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that high-quality textiles from Yorkshire were used in the new James Bond film? James Bond may be ruthless in what he does to his enemies, but he is also particular about what he wears. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the three west Yorkshire textile companies that were involved in that project?

    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to congratulate west Yorkshire and the textile industry and I hope that, as a result of that extra advertisement, they will sell far more of their textiles at home and abroad.

     

    Q6. Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December.

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

    Ms Corston: The Prime Minister describes himself as a one-nation Tory. Will he therefore tell us which is fairer–abolishing capital gains and inheritance taxes or implementing a starting rate of income tax of 10p?

    The Prime Minister: I see that the shadow Chancellor is here. One of his hon. Friends, also a Front Bencher a year or so ago, referred in very scathing terms to precisely the sort of proposition that the shadow Chancellor made. It is a gimmick and the shadow Chancellor knows it. What is fair is to lower the basic rate of tax to 20p, which is what we are doing by raising thresholds so that one in four people now pays tax at 20p, by cutting the tax on savings for all basic-rate taxpayers so that they only pay 20p, and by reducing the basic rate of tax.

    The hon. Lady reveals the deep innate distaste of the Labour party for cutting taxes. It is a spending party and a tax-raising party, while we cut taxes.

    Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which I gave you prior notice. You will have just heard the Prime Minister refer to what appears to be a major change in the long-standing policy of the Home Office not to disclose to a third party confidential information concerning anyone involved in immigration or asylum applications. In view of the disclosure by Conservative central office of information concerning a Mr. Igbiuidu, a Nigerian national seeking asylum in this country, could you, Madam Speaker, arrange for the Home Secretary to make an early statement about what changes the Home Office has made in its policy of not disclosing information about individual applications?

    Madam Speaker: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice of his point of order. I certainly heard the Prime Minister’s response today. I understand that the information was released by the Home Office. I, as Speaker, have no responsibility for the actions of Government Departments, but even so I took the opportunity this morning to look at the matter and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is precedented.

    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to look in the Official Report tomorrow at question No. 1 to the Prime Minister, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). He asked a closed question. We all understand the ground rules. A closed question prevents any supplementary from being asked, other than in relation to the subject matter of the question.

    My complaint is that the Prime Minister did not respond either in detail or by implication to the question, which specifically asked whether he would meet general practitioners from Lichfield. There was no mention of Lichfield in the Prime Minister’s reply, and certainly not in relation to general practitioners. If the rules are to apply, a Minister has to respond to a question, or it is unfair to Opposition Members.

    Mr. Fabricant rose–

    Madam Speaker: Sit down. I am taking no further points of order on this matter. Indeed, it was not a point of order anyway. I am not responsible for the answers given by Ministers. We shall now get on with the business of the House.

    Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Many of us could not hear what you said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). For clarification, could you tell us whether you said that the procedure was precedented or a precedent?

    Madam Speaker: It is precedented. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come to see me I will give him the information.

  • PMQT – 21 November 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Taylor: Can the Prime Minister confirm that despite the Government’s policy of not issuing entry visas to senior representatives of the Nigerian Government, on Sunday, the Nigerian Attorney-General, no less, and a senior legal adviser to the leader of the Nigerian military Government were admitted into this country? What signal does that send about this Government’s determination to address the killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues?

    The Prime Minister: The action taken at the Commonwealth conference has made it clear how we feel about the matter. On the specific point, I was not aware that the two people concerned were granted visas, and they did not see me. I will, however, make inquiries about the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

    Sir Donald Thompson: At the risk of sounding disloyal, does my right hon. Friend realise that, despite pressure from both sides of the House, he completely failed to make it rain in Yorkshire this summer? Will he therefore ensure that he and his Cabinet colleagues see to it that there is no impediment to prevent Yorkshire Water from filling the reservoirs by any means possible?

    The Prime Minister: I know that Yorkshire Water is making great efforts to ensure an adequacy of water. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside is taking a close interest in the practical action that is under way.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, as a result of the 21 different tax rises introduced by him since the general election, which he fought on the platform of cutting tax year by year, the average family tax bill has risen by £800 a year or by at least 7p on the standard rate of income tax? Is that figure of 7p on the basic rate of income tax correct or not?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, for I have said it in the House before, we increased taxes in the recession and we did so to protect people who were vulnerable. [Interruption.] I am bound to say that, if the decision to raise taxes to protect people who were vulnerable in the recession–I believe that that was the right decision–had not been taken, we would not have been able to get interest rates down from 15 per cent. to around 7 per cent. and we would not be in our present position this year, when people on average earnings will see an extra £250 a year in net disposable income.

    Mr. Blair: As the right hon. Gentleman said that the purpose was to protect the vulnerable, will he confirm that, in the 10 years from 1985 to 1995, with all the Tory tax changes, those on incomes of more than £100,000 a year have gained massively, whereas the vast majority of families on average income have either gained little or lost money? Does not that show that the real divide is not between high and low tax, but between fair and unfair tax, and that the Tories are the party of unfair taxation?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may try very hard, but he will never convince the people of this country that his party–[Interruption.] Hon. Members would be wise to wait. He will never convince the people of this country that his party will not spend more and tax more than the Conservative party. Alas, the deputy leader of the Labour party is not with us this afternoon, but a year or so ago he admitted:

    “There’s . . . going to be a higher top rate than we have . . . High income levels are going to pay considerably more”.

    That is not, I may say, what the leader of the Labour party told the Confederation of British Industry last week.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister wants to prove that he wants fair taxes, why does he not abandon his long-term objective of abolishing capital gains tax and inheritance tax, which would benefit only a few people at the top, who have already benefited greatly, and agree with us that the money could better be used to help lower and middle-income families through a lower starting rate of tax?

    The Prime Minister: We have widened the band dramatically, and people start at 20p. Many people in this country pay tax only at 20p in the pound. But

    “Britain needs successful people in business who can become rich by their success through the money they earn”– [Interruption.] I am surprised to hear some comments from the Opposition, because I was quoting what the leader of the Labour party said a few days ago.

    It is not credible for Opposition Members to ask day after day, in intervention after intervention, for more spending–in their speeches 40 per cent. of them ask for more spending–and then to pretend that Labour would even hold taxes steady, let alone reduce them. Labour is the high-tax party, and always has been–and it would be the high-spending, high-tax party in the future, if it ever had the chance.

    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing the sympathy of the whole House to my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Paul Betts, whose daughter Leah died last week? Will he confirm that the war against drugs remains the Government’s highest priority, and does he share the hope of Leah’s parents that her death may serve as a warning, and may help to save the lives of other young people?

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending sympathy to Mr. and Mrs. Betts for the appalling loss that they face. There are those who believe that Ecstasy in particular, but also other soft drugs, are harmless. I do not share that view. The vast majority of people who move on to hard drugs do so through the medium of soft drugs, and it is important that people up and down the country, especially young people, understand that. I hope that, as a result of Leah’s tragic death, that matter will get the publicity that it deserves, and that young people will realise that there is nothing glamorous whatever about soft drugs. They are dangerous, not only in themselves but because they can lead on to hard drugs, which are potential killers time and time again.

     

    Q2. Mr. Purchase: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Purchase: The Prime Minister will know that the figures released yesterday for the third quarter show that the amount of unsold goods in industry is rising, that imports are growing faster than exports and that, unfortunately, unemployment has plateaued. The level of activity in the economy is slowing down, and construction figures are falling. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that those facts illustrate clearly an economy running out of steam? Or does he believe that those figures represent merely a state of mind, just as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry believes that unemployment and the fear of unemployment are simply a state of mind?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the economy grew by 4 per cent. last year, faster than any other western European country; the economy is growing again this year, and it is forecast to grow faster than the others next year. Manufacturing investment is rising, export volumes are up by more than 6 per cent. and unemployment has fallen by more than 700,000. There are more people in work in this country than in any other major country in Europe, and we have a lower rate of unemployment than any major country in Europe.

    That has been achieved while underlying inflation is at low levels never dreamed of by the Labour party. The reality is that we have a platform for prosperity for the future that has been hard to achieve. We propose to sustain that platform, which offers an opportunity for long-term prosperity for all the people in this country.

    Sir Peter Hordern: If this or any future Government were to sign up to the social chapter, would not this country be bound by majority vote within the Council of Ministers? Would not that make it impossible to pick and choose the directives that should apply to this country? Does not that make total nonsense of the claims made by the Leader of the Opposition last week?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I fought for–and won–the right to opt out because I wanted to put British jobs and British business first. For that reason, I will not sign the social chapter. The social chapter is not just a set of principles. It is not something that one can pick and mix, by deciding to have the bits one likes but not the bits one does not like. Most of the measures may be decided by qualified majority voting, and the British vote on its own would not be sufficient to block matters that the British Government may not like. It is for that reason that we are right not to sign the social chapter. Were we to do so, we would be creating unemployment for a lot of people who have jobs at present.

     

    Q3. Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Canavan: If the Prime Minister refuses to disown the President of the Board of Trade for his insulting comment that job insecurity is just a state of mind, will he be hiring a team of psychiatrists for himself and the Cabinet when we come to the next general election?

    The Prime Minister: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is determined, as I am, to continue with our policies to bring unemployment down and to ensure that people are in work, as they are in higher numbers not only in Scotland but right across the United Kingdom because of the policies that we have followed, and not the policies advocated by the hon. Gentleman.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain’s international status and prosperity depends upon our having a powerful and constructive role within the European Union? Does he further agree that the development of the Union must be based on control over Brussels bureaucracy, and that the synchronisation of economies–which may take years to achieve–is essential before a single currency can be contemplated or made workable by the leading members of the Community?

    The Prime Minister: I want to see a strong Britain in a strong Europe, and I believe that that means looking at the values in Europe that create jobs. We must ensure that Europe is competitive, and increase the existing job total. There are at the moment more than 20 million people unemployed in Europe, and we need to get that figure down dramatically. We must look at any proposal for a single currency in the light of Britain’s own national economic self-interest. Last night, I spelled out some of the fundamental questions that underlie the implications of a single currency. Those issues must be answered within the EU before the decisions are made on whether anyone should proceed with a single currency or not. The price of error if those questions are not answered is very high for Europe collectively, and for each country individually.

    Mr. Trimble: Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is and will continue to be the policy of the Government that, before Sinn Fein-IRA can move fully into dialogue, it must establish its commitment to exclusively peaceful methods by beginning a credible process of actual decommissioning?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary spelt that out in his speech at Washington. The hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to the Washington three conditions. That remains the Government’s position.

     

    Q5. Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Rathbone: As First Lord of the Treasury, will my right hon. Friend bang a few heads together there in order to stop the bureaucratic interference in the private finance initiative, so that more customers, clients and patients can benefit from it?

    The Prime Minister: I will certainly be happy to continue doing as my hon. Friend has said. The private finance initiative is central to the plans for improving the country’s infrastructure. My hon. Friend should be in no doubt about our determination to succeed. Later on this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will make a speech on the PFI. I welcome his determination to increase the amount of contribution to the health service from private finance. I think a similar contribution can come from the PFI across the Government’s programme.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Auckland – 12 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Auckland, on Sunday 12th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a few words at the outset about the last week, since I left the United Kingdom. We have had a series of unexpected and unusual events. What has been a consistent theme through the week has been the number of occasions one has been reminded of the price that people can pay for peace, for democracy and for freedom.

    At the beginning of the week I was in Jerusalem to attend the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin, who was murdered for seeking peace. This morning, Remembrance Sunday, I was at a small War Memorial in Arrowtown, it was a beautiful setting and a really rather lovely occasion, accompanied by both British and New Zealand veterans, the British veterans having travelled with me from the United Kingdom. At those two ceremonies I paid tribute to British and Commonwealth Servicemen who gave their lives for freedom in both the World Wars this century.

    And over the weekend, at the Commonwealth meeting, although we had many other things to discuss, a large part of our discussions were overshadowed by the issue of freedom and human rights and by the judicial murder of 9 people, including Mr Ken Saro-Wiwa. That was murder, callous and brutal. It was a direct challenge to the Commonwealth. It was not to be tolerated. The death sentences were confirmed on the very eve of the Commonwealth meeting. They were carried out in the middle of the meeting, despite pleas for clemency from Jim Bolger, the Chairman of the meeting, from Nelson Mandela, from myself and from many others, pleas addressed to the Nigerian regime, in public and in private, and all set aside and ignored by them. Neither was this a single incident, it followed a long series of abuses against human rights and democracy over many years.

    We have tried quiet diplomacy for some time with the Nigerians, and clearly it hasn’t proved sufficient. I believe the Commonwealth had no choice but to respond swiftly and decisively. It has done so by suspending Nigeria’s membership of the Commonwealth and making its readmission dependent upon a return to civilian democracy and the release of the political prisoners now held in jails there. If Nigeria does not comply, it will be not suspended, but expelled from the Commonwealth.

    I believe this action is merited. And I would go further than that. If the Commonwealth had not risen to this challenge, if it had not decided that it would make living the Harare Principles on good government, then it would have been apparent to people that those principles were not worth the paper they were written on. I think after the last couple of days people know that the Commonwealth are serious about those principles, serious in the short term and serious for the future.

    What we will now consider urgently with our partners is the most effective way of following up these immediate steps. Let me set out some preliminary thoughts for you.

    I think that there should be the widest possible embargo on defence sales to Nigeria. The policy we have in the United Kingdom is already highly restrictive. We shall now bring in an immediate ban, on a national basis, and we shall ask our partners to do the same.

    The Commonwealth has also put in place some permanent machinery for tackling violations of the Harare Principles. We have agreed upon a ladder of measures, of increasing severity, to encourage and persuade governments to return to acceptable behaviour. And those measures can result in suspension or expulsion from the Commonwealth. They are especially designed to tackle military regimes which have overthrown a constitutionally elected government, but of course they will be applicable in other circumstances as well.

    We have also set up a standing body whose job will be to monitor the implementation of the Harare Principles and make recommendations for action whenever that might be necessary.

    Before we had our discussions on Nigeria, we had an afternoon’s discussion on nuclear testing, and on this occasion we failed to reach agreement. I don’t think that was a surprise to anyone. I had spelled out on a number of occasions beforehand the principles upon which the British position rests: firstly, a recognition of our responsibilities as a nuclear weapon state; secondly, a determination to achieve a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996; and thirdly, a refusal to condemn France for the tests that it is carrying out. In the light of that, I was not prepared to endorse, or to stay silent on, a position which contradicts those principles and does nothing to achieve a test-free world.

    I believe that it is a measure of the Commonwealth’s resilience and maturity that after a crisp disagreement amongst friends on nuclear matters we were able rapidly to work together to take decisive action on Nigeria and the Harare Principles.

    So I think the outcome has been a good week for the Commonwealth. It has also been an outstandingly good week for British/New Zealand relations. And I would like to express my thanks to the New Zealand Government for this morning’s exceptional Remembrance Service.

    I will take back, as I think Norma will as well, a very deep impression of a friendly country, a prosperous country, a modern country, a country with very old links with the United Kingdom, but very close links today as well.

    Let me just tell you finally that this morning Commonwealth colleagues accepted my invitation to hold the next Heads of Government Meeting in 1997 in the United Kingdom, and we will take that forward over the weeks and months ahead.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    On the Ken Saro-Wiwa case, do you wish now that you had actually met his son for the image and impression that would have given to Nigeria?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Lynda Chalker actually did meet Mr Saro-Wiwa Junior and he was aware, even before that meeting, of the support that he had from us. If you recall, I set out my position some time ago. I also set out very clearly yesterday morning the action that I thought the Commonwealth ought to take over Nigeria, and I am delighted that the Commonwealth did take that action. But I think we now know that those sentences were confirmed some time ago.

    And I very much regret that the Nigerian government do not seem to have been open to any of the pleas made by myself, by Mr Mandela, by Mr Bolger on behalf of the Commonwealth Conference, and by many others. And what I should say is that we have been making representations to Nigeria over a range of matters, not just over the last 48 hours but over some time.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds):

    I don’t know whether you can answer this question, having been locked up in Queenstown, but John Bruton, the Irish Prime Minister, has made a speech in which he said the support for the British government for a reasonable compromise on the remaining issues for all-party talks is now needed to move the process forward. Is that something you would favour?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends what is meant by a reasonable compromise. We had a position, before the summit that never was some time ago, that was an extremely good compromise, and it was not the British government that backed away from that compromise, it was the Irish government that did not proceed with that meeting because it came under pressure from Sinn Fein and from other people. So it is very frustrating for John Bruton, and for me, that we have not yet had a summit and that we have not yet been able to provide the conditions for all-party talks. And I know the Irish government have been under very considerable domestic pressure over the fact that they have not been able to make progress on those talks.

    Getting all-party talks is what all of us want. But there is no purpose whatsoever in launching all-party talks until we have a basis that will make sure that there is some chance that those all-party talks are likely to succeed. It is not the Taoiseach’s fault that we are not yet in that position. And neither is it the British government’s fault that we are not yet in that position. The problem, above all, lies with Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein’s complete reluctance to tackle the question, even with an international body, of how their arsenal of weapons and explosives are going to be taken out of commission. And that is important. That is not a semantic point.

    When we keep hearing from Mr McGuinness and Mr Adams that there is a fear of violence returning, I ask: from what source is that violence going to return? It is going to return from the IRA and that is effectively what they are warning. And when they are warning that they might return to violence, it is hardly surprising if other people say: before we will sit down with you in round table talks, we want some evidence that you are not going to return to violence. There is no point in Adams and McGuinness saying to us over months, we are set on peace, if a few days later they start making statements which suggest that unless they get their way, on each and every issue, with conceding nothing themselves, that they will return to violence, it is hardly surprising that the Unionists and others believe that we need to be more certain about what their long-term actions are.

    So I share John Bruton’s frustration that we are not yet ready to move forward to all-party talks, but the blockage to all-party talks is Sinn Fein and their reluctance to address the problem that must be addressed, of ensuring confidence in the community in the north and ensuring that there is going to be no return to violence. And when I hear Martin McGuinness and others warning that violence may return if parties don’t come to the table, he makes precisely the reason why the other parties will not sit down with him because they fear that that is the position that the IRA will take. So the blockage is theirs and no weasel words to the contrary will change that hard reality.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley):

    How many other Commonwealth countries do you see in danger of falling foul of the new disciplinary machinery? And with what the Commonwealth has decided on Nigeria, how worried are you about a backlash on British and European companies with large investments in Nigeria?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Upon the latter point, I cannot say what the reaction of the Nigerians will be. But Nigeria is an important country where there are very substantial human rights abuses. What we are seeking to do is to take action against them to persuade them to return to a proper democratic way of life where there will then be long term advantages both for Nigeria and for the companies trading with them. So I can’t judge what their response will be.

    As far as other countries are concerned, there is no country in exactly the same position as Nigeria or the same situation would have arisen over the weekend and they too would have been suspended. There are some countries about whom there are concerns and the Commonwealth will be seeking to persuade them to move to early elections and back to civilian governments and there was some discussion over that at the weekend. If they don’t then I think the Commonwealth would judge them in the same way, and with the same criteria and for the same reasons that they have acted against Nigeria over the last couple of days. But I don’t think that is imminent. we will look at the countries in difficulties

    [Small section indistinct]

    QUESTION (Simon Walters – The Sun):

    Do you fear that Mr. Bruton’s comments might be taken by some people as bolstering the case put by McGuinness and do you think it was rather inappropriate for Mr. Bruton to make these remarks in London while you are away on Remembrance Sunday of all days?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    John Bruton has worked very hard to try and promote the circumstances where we can move forward to all-party talks and get complete agreement. While I have been here, I haven’t had the chance to read the details of all he had to say. All I can say is that it is usually in character for him to try and find a way forward, not to frustrate a way forward, so I don’t quite know. Perhaps it was frustration that lay behind this particular speech but the important thing is for us to continue to work together and to make sure that the democratic governments and the democratic parties set the right sort of conditions so that we can have all-party talks.

    I have to make this clear: what is not a starter is for people make it clear that they would resort to violence if they don’t get their way in talks and then expect to be admitted to talks on that basis. That isn’t on, it isn’t on for us, can’t be on for the Irish Government, other governments that have an interest, the Unionists or any of the democratic parties. We need evidence of good faith and words suggesting a return to violence hinder the chance of talks, they do not add to them.

    QUESTION (Philip Johnston – The Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, you are returning home to quite a critical time in the political calendar with the budget coming up and the Queen’s Speech. How do you propose over the next year getting out of the position you are in at the moment, 40 points behind in the polls and facing a likely election defeat at the hands of the Labour Party?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to know which part of the political calendar isn’t critical. I’m open to suggestions as to when it may be. In the 16 years I have been in the House of Commons, I have never found a part of the political calendar that wasn’t critical for one reason or another and the last opinion poll I saw was nothing remotely like the one you just quoted, in fact it was rather half that and rather less than half of that and if one tends to look at what is happening in the local election results, you will see a different picture already beginning to emerge so the opinion polls will begin to change.

    What is substantially the basis of my confidence about the next election is when you look at the really big issues to see whether things are going well or badly. If you look at the economy, for example, I am not sure if any of the distinguished people here this afternoon can recall an occasion when we had inflation so securely under lock and key, interest rates so relatively low, growth at the upper end of the European level, unemployment having been on a downward curve for over two years and growth in the economy fuelled by investment and exports rather than a short-term artificial consumer boom.

    That position is becoming more apparent month after month and I could range over a series of other issues as well. I think in terms of other policies, European policy, there is now a much greater understanding of our policies that were criticised both abroad and at home some time ago and it is becoming apparent to people that the long-term position we have taken is right and not wrong so I am confident. I remain confident about the future position and I always enjoy the run-up to an election period even though it may be a lengthy run-up to an election period. We may well have another 18 months or so before the election but I shall no doubt enjoy every day of it.

    QUESTION (Ian Black):

    On Nigeria, Prime Minister, you talked about the widest possible embargo on defence sales. How will that differ from the existing embargo on defence sales? On punitive measures, there have been quite a lot of calls in the last 24 hours for tougher action against Nigeria including economic sanctions, oil exports and so on and so forth. Are you contemplating anything beyond what you have just referred to?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I said there should be the widest possible embargo. Of course, I was speaking beyond the United Kingdom when I said that. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I went on to say there will be an immediate ban on a national basis. That differs from the present situation, which is highly restrictive but not a complete ban, so that is the extent to which it varies there.

    As far as other matters are concerned, we will look at the options. The High Commissioner has come home and we will have consultations with him over the next few days and make our announcements in due course.

    On the general question, traditionally with things like oil embargoes and trade sanctions, they tend generally to function only under a United Nations mandate when there are threats to international peace and security. The difficulty is that the judgement we have to make on things like that is whether within the Nigerian economy they would cause worse unemployment, worse poverty, worse misery and worse starvation that is already being suffered and those are judgements we would have to make.

    In the long term, what we seek is economic improvement for Nigeria, not economic destruction for Nigeria, not least for the reasons I set out a moment ago about the Nigerian people but at the moment we haven’t had a chance to consider these matters in detail and some of them, such as the one you raised, would need to be considered internationally in any event.

    QUESTION (Chris Buckland):

    Prime Minister, you have spoken about how well you got on with Mr. Bolger and how prosperous New Zealand is. Mr. Bolger’s government is well known for its drastic cuts in the welfare state. Have you learned anything from him on this and are you tempted down this road? Do you think it would be successful?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will tell you what I did learn from Mr. Bolger, very much and it is probably relevant to the question Simon nearly asked but didn’t quite get in! There was a time before the last election when Mr. Bolger seemed a long way behind in the opinion polls and nobody thought he was going to win but he did win and that is a very useful thing for everyone to observe I think. We will look at control of public expenditure and we will make our announcements at the end of this month in the budget speech.

    QUESTION (Nick Wood – The Times):

    Prime Minister, you have been pressed repeatedly, I think, in the last months to rule a single European currency in the next Parliament. Do you see any prospect of you so doing at some point in the run-up to the next election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have set out our position and I have nothing to add to it today.

    QUESTION (Simon Walters – The Sun):

    The point I wanted to make was that you are that far behind – 40 points behind or 20 points behind on your figures – and the arguments that you put of inflation, the economy and other factors have been put for the last one, two, three years.

    The fact is it is having no effect whatsoever. Your deficit in the polls has stayed exactly the same, the election is now getting closer and closer and it is becoming harder and harder to see you overtaking the Labour Party and not least, look at the way that Keating is behaving; Blair is going there for Christmas and they are acting as though they think Tony Blair is Prime Minister in-waiting.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you had had my conversations with Paul Keating, you would have been better informed.

    Let me deal with the question of the opinion polls. When you have two opinion polls within a week that are 23 points apart, I think you might have a certain scepticism about opinion polls. I have very great scepticism about opinion polls and you see that phenomenon occurring to a greater or lesser degree in places all over the world where opinion polls change very rapidly. To take a separate example, if you look at the referendum in Canada, at one stage the people in favour of separation were ahead by double figures within two or three weeks of the campaign, then they were 7 points behind and in the event it was almost a dead heat. That suggests not just in the United Kingdom but in other places as well – I will give you other examples if you wish – opinion polls are becoming an increasingly erratic and unsatisfactory guide and I think that is the case.

    I prefer to look at what has happened in the past, look at what is beginning to happen in the local elections which is beginning to show a marked improvement and also recall what happened in the last General Election where five days before polling day I don’t think there was a single newspaper represented here this afternoon who did not write off our chances of winning the last General Election. We were actually 7 points ahead on polling day. I think there may be one here that thought we would win but most of them didn’t. On the back of that, Simon, you will understand my scepticism over your assertions.

    QUESTION (Simon Walters):

    Is a dead heat the best you will get?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That’s not what I said, Simon. Even you can’t produce that headline out of what I said.

    QUESTION (John Deans – The Daily Mail):

    Prime Minister, will the suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth have implications for British immigration or asylum policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have to look at that. We will have to look at what all the ramifications are but at the moment they are suspended from the Commonwealth, they are not expelled from the Commonwealth. Let me make that point but I will need to look at precisely what the position is. I am not aware that it is likely to have an impact upon individual Nigerians and for this reason: our squabble is not with individual Nigerians, our squabble is with the Government of Nigeria so I think we would look with that in mind at any internal changes in the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION (Evan Black):

    Going back very briefly to the seminar, do you think that the behaviour of Patrick Nicholls asking questions and then asking for shares from the company concerned is helpful to your fight back?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about. I have been in Arrowtown and I am not going to answer it on the basis of your assessment of it, Evan.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley – BBC):

    Prime Minister, you mentioned the row over the French nuclear testing in the Pacific. There was a lot of puzzlement among people here at CHOGM that you played it as toughly as you did afterwards in the sense that Australians and New Zealanders felt that their leaders had been a little bit soft and maybe given away too much to you. Why were you so angry? Were you perhaps just deliberately picking a fight for presentation at home?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought it was grandstanding to be blunt. I was angry because I think they were wrong. It was grandstanding. Britain has been seeking a comprehensive test ban treaty, they have encouraged other people to have a comprehensive test ban treaty but the world is not yet safe enough for the nuclear-weapon states not to have nuclear weapons. If you are going to have nuclear weapons, you need to make sure they are safe.

    Britain is in the position that it doesn’t have to test. France is not in the position that it doesn’t have to test. Am I to say to the President of France: “Throw away your nuclear weapon because you mustn’t test!” and diminish the security of Western Europe? I don’t think I am likely to say that and I also took the view, to be blunt, that there were a large number of people present at the Commonwealth meeting who in case of need would certainly look to Britain for support and help on matters military just as in the past when we needed help they came to our side so I thought there should have been a better understanding of the position.

    I looked at it as a matter of principle. It wasn’t a matter of tactics, it wasn’t a matter of picking a row or any of that nonsense that I read about, it was a matter of principle. It is not yet safe in my judgement for there not to be nuclear weapons. When it is safe, no-one will be more pleased that I am but the happy day hasn’t yet dawned.

    We didn’t need to test, the French did. I think the fact that there is a British deterrent and a French deterrent makes the world safer than it would be without them and if one looks at any of the less stable states who may be near to nuclear weapons or biological weapons or chemical weapons, I think you see the strong reasons why Britain wants to maintain its nuclear weapon and will retain its nuclear weapon until we consider it safe not to.

    What I found very striking in that whole episode was the way in which the British Labour Party jumps around trying to score domestic points that can have only one implication and the implication is that the British nuclear weapon would not be safe if there was a British Labour Government. It is another illustration where the gap between what they say and what they really think is very wide and when what they really think comes out, as it did in their attempts to be difficult on that issue over the last few days, you see that they have not moved nearly as far in policy as they have occasionally with their oratory. There is a great gap between what they think, what they really believe and what they say and that was exposed yet again over this issue.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley – BBC):

    If your scientists came to you tomorrow and said you needed to test, you would test?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My scientists have come to me and told me I don’t need to test so it won’t arise but that wasn’t the happy position that President Chirac was in.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Ken Saro-Wiwa – 9 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Ken Saro-Wiwa, made in an interview on 9th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Nigeria could stay in the Commonwealth following the trial of Ken Saro-Wiwa].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It was a bad trial, a bad judgement and an unjust sentence and the Commonwealth will make that point very clear to Nigeria when it asks for clemency, but my principal concern at the moment is to save the lives of the people who are presently under threat and we will use all our endeavours to do that. I don’t think going beyond that and uttering threats of what might happen subsequently is a helpful way of securing that primary interest – saving the lives of the people who are at present at risk.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if anyone else could exert pressure on Nigeria].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think a number of countries can exert influence, certainly the leaders of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, President Mugabe of course, President Mandela self-evidently and others will all have a particular role to play and I believe they will play that role.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about whether Nigeria’s actions would just be forgotten about].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, of course not but one needs to remember that the Commonwealth concern about Nigeria and other countries was on our agenda before the sentences on Mr Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues; it isn’t something that has just blown up at a result of that particular trial and those particular sentences, it was on the agenda beforehand and has been for some time so self-evidently we will be looking to see what can be done.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Auckland – 8 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Auckland on Wednesday 8th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can I ask you what specific action you would like to see CHOGM take in an effort to pressure the Nigerian authorities into clemency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Firstly, let me say that I think it was a flawed trial and I think it was an unjust verdict and the sentences that have been feared, and sadly, I hear, confirmed, should not be carried out. I will certainly be asking the Nigerians for clemency and I imagine many others will at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference. What action will be taken subsequently I think is a matter we will have to discuss over the next day or so.

    QUESTION:

    Will you seek a specific meeting with the Nigerian representative here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will make sure that they are aware of our view and aware of the fact that we believe clemency should be offered.
    QUESTION:

    Do you think the time is approaching when there should be consideration of suspending Nigeria from the Commonwealth?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the first thing to do is to determine precisely what can be done to help Mr Saro-Wiwa and the other defendants who are at present under sentence of death. I think that is the matter most on my mind at the moment. Subsequent action will have to await and see what happens as a result of our appeals for clemency.

    QUESTION:

    Does not their action though deserve pariah status, as Mr Saro-Wiwa’s son suggests?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Mr Saro-Wiwa’s son is performing magnificently on behalf of his father. I don’t think that he can do much more than he is and he has my support in what he is doing. But for the moment I don’t think it is helpful to anyone other than to concentrate on making sure these sentences are not carried out.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there is a particular onus on black African leaders to attempt to exert influence on Nigeria in this situation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not had the chance of meeting my fellow Commonwealth leaders from Africa yet in this conference. But I would be very surprised if they did not share my views.

    QUESTION:

    In particular Mr Mandela perhaps?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Mandela will speak for himself. But I would think most of our colleagues from Africa will share exactly the views I have just expressed.

  • PMQT – 24 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Quin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

    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.

    Ms Quin : In view of the leaked letter in the Daily Mail today, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say where he thinks the borderline lies between a ministerial misjudgment and a resignation offence?

    The Prime Minister : I have stated before in the case to which the hon. Lady refers, and I reiterate today, that I believe that my hon. Friend has acted with complete propriety in raising with the Attorney-General concerns that had been put to him about Mr. Nadir’s case. I have no criticism of my hon. Friend on that account, or of his performance as a Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office.

    My hon. Friend has been to see me this afternoon. He told me that he deeply regretted the embarrassment being caused to the Government by continuing speculation about his role. On those grounds, and on those grounds alone, he asked me if he could stand aside from his duties. With regret, I have accepted his resignation.

    Mr. Ian Bruce : May I ask my right hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. We are wasting valuable time.

    Mr. Bruce : As my right hon. Friend has personal knowledge of Nigeria, may I ask him to say what reaction Her Majesty’s Government have to the declaration by the military regime in Nigeria that they will overturn the results of the general election for the president, particularly in view of the fact that all the international observers and internal monitors felt that the election was free and fair?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that this is an important matter. I wrote to President Babangida last week to support the transition to civilian rule. I deplore the military Government’s subsequent decision to ignore the results of elections which British and other observers considered free and fair. We are, as a result, reviewing our relations with Nigeria, including new aid, and we have taken a number of immediate steps.

    We are withdrawing our military advisory team and will not provide new military training courses. We have suspended the issue of visas to members of the Nigerian armed forces and the privileged treatment of visa applications by Government officials. We are consulting European Community partners and other allies on possible further measures. I hope that the Nigerian Government will take full account of the strength of international feeling and will reconsider what I believe is a gravely mistaken decision.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it not deplorable that the lack of any industrial policy or of a proper strategy for our defence industries has resulted in a polarised choice between Rosyth and Devonport for the Trident contract and a loss of thousands of jobs at both yards? Why do the Government not accept that, for industrial and defence reasons, this country needs the capability and expertise of both dockyards and their highly skilled management and work force?

    The Prime Minister : I must say that the right hon. Gentleman neglected to mention in that supplementary question precisely what the circumstances might be if the defence cuts that his party proposed should ever come into being. He proposed defence cuts that would probably have meant that we had no yards at all, no capacity to defend ourselves, very few soldiers, hardly a Navy and barely a plane.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it not a matter of record that the Government announced in the House in 1984, and repeated in 1985, that the refit contract would go to Rosyth and that such a commitment was repeated to the work force at the time of privatisation? What weight does the Prime Minister attach to specific promises given to either Rosyth or Devonport?

    The Prime Minister : I seem to recall that at that time the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party were keen to scrap Trident and said so repeatedly. How odd it is, people may think, that the Opposition want to scrap military hardware on one day and then fight for it desperately on another day. One is bound to ask where their hearts really lie.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister accept, as he was reminded by the noble Lord Younger, who had responsibility in the Conservative Government, that a specific commitment was given to the House in 1984? Does the Prime Minister accept that that is the case? If it is, what weight can anyone give to any undertaking that the Government give to anyone?

    The Prime Minister : In view of the total disconjunction between the Opposition’s policies and what they are now saying, that sort of comment from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is barefaced cheek. I suggest that he sets that aside.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hawkins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

    Mr. Hawkins : My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the construction industry has had a difficult time during the recent recession. Will he join me in welcoming the good news yesterday that orders for new housing are now up by nearly 30 per cent. and that building is going on across the country, including in my constituency? Will he join me in saying that that is good news for the construction industry and all those who work in it?

    The Prime Minister : I know that it has been a difficult time for our construction industry throughout the United Kingdom. That is why we announced special measures to help that industry in the autumn statement last year. I welcome the much better news that is becoming more apparent daily. It is good news for builders and for the economy as a whole. In construction, manufacturing, exports and on all sides, our prospects are improving and the economy is strengthening.

    Mr. Ashdown : Last night the Secretary of State for Social Security called for a widespread cross-party public debate on the problems created by our present mountain of debt and the implications for long-term rises in social spending. That is an interesting suggestion. What specific proposals does the Prime Minister have to make it a reality?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it perfectly clear that we are carrying out a review of social security and I understand that, in secret, the principal Opposition party is doing the same. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will also contribute to that debate and we shall be happy to receive any representations from them. However, the day that I get representations from the Liberal Democrats about any difficult decision will be a remarkable day indeed.

    Mr. Roger Evans : Will my right hon. Friend join me in rejecting the impudent talk about an industrial policy from the Labour party and welcome, for example, the success of QPL Holdings of Hong Kong and its new £42 million investment in south Wales? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is the significance in commercial and industrial prosperity of the concentration of enterprise and expertise which attracts orders and creates jobs?

    The Prime Minister : I note with interest that the Opposition scoff at fresh jobs for Wales. It has been a good week for Wales and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. It shows how attractive Britain now is to inward investors. It shows also that the Labour party hates new jobs, wherever they may come from, if it feels any of the credit will rub off on the Government’s policies. We intend to keep Britain attractive for inward investment. There will be no minimum wage, no works councils, no social chapter and none of the nonsense that we hear from the Opposition that represents their industrial policy.

     

    Q3. Ms Coffey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

    Ms Coffey : Is the Prime Minister aware of the escalation in housing association rents, which is causing especial hardship to elderly people who are not entitled to full housing benefit? What has he to say to my constituent, Mrs. Riley, whose rent has increased from just under £26 a week to just over £50 a week? Does he think that that is totally unacceptable and what is he prepared to do about it?

    The Prime Minister : In this country, we have perhaps the most generous system of housing benefit that we have ever seen and if the hon. Lady genuinely wanted a response to her question, she should have provided me with details of Mrs. Riley’s income so that I could have responded.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when Mr. Baldwin, in his day, was under assault from the press barons of that time, his retort was that the newspapers were seeking to exercise power without responsibility, which is the traditional role of the harlot?

    The Prime Minister : I will reply in a parody of the words of another great Englishman : Assault? I see no assault.

     

    Q4. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

    Ms Eagle : Does the Prime Minister share the sense of outrage at today’s revelations that British taxpayers will have to foot a £1 million legal aid bill run up by that generous benefactor of the Tory party and bail bandit Mr. Asil Nadir, who does not seem to be short of a bob or two in northern Cyprus, at the same time as his Government are denying millions of people of modest means any access to legal aid at all? What is the Prime Minister prepared to do about that outrageous use of public money?

    The Prime Minister : It is extremely unusual to hear the Labour party worrying about the taxpayer–refreshing perhaps, but just a touch unusual. As for legal aid, the usual cry from the Opposition Benches is for more and more legal aid.

    Mr. Coe : Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent education and industry initiative that encourages industry to make an input into the future direction of our educational needs? Does he agree that those people who are for ever claiming to speak on behalf of the country’s manufacturing base, and the necessary skills for its survival, do so with no credibility whatever while they are still supporting the boycott of tests this year and the dismantling of our city technology colleges?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, my hon. Friend’s logic is unanswerable. I agree with him entirely. Opposition Members may claim to speak for industry –we build for it.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Anne Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

    Mrs. Campbell : In view of the Government’s decision to cut the defence budget by 15 per cent. over the next five years, will the Prime Minister tell the House when he will announce a proper defence diversification strategy and prevent an appalling loss of skilled jobs?

    The Prime Minister : I can only assume that the hon. Lady was not here for the earliest part of Question Time or she may not have asked such a question. She should consider the impact of her own party’s defence policies before she criticises ours.

     

    Q7. Mr. Rowe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 June.

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

    Mr. Rowe : Can the Prime Minister advise me on how I might reply to a 73-year-old constituent, who is in frail health and is partially deaf and partially blind? She wrote to me about the review of the social security budget and said that the Opposition have no programme whatsoever except to take taxation up and that were this Government ever to be unseated the results would be unthinkable.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend’s constituent is very perceptive. I think that he should say to her that she can rest assured that the Government will stand by their commitment to the weak and vulnerable. Secondly, he could say to her that she should not believe the routine scares that come from Opposition Members day by day. Thirdly, he could tell her that the Labour party has no constructive ideas and, fourthly, he could tell her that we have no intention of doing other than remaining in government for the rest of this century and beyond.