The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: South Africa

  • PMQT – 3 May 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Rev. Martin Smyth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

    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.

    Rev. Martin Smyth : While congratulating Mr. Mandela and Mr. de Klerk on the success of the recent elections, does the Prime Minister share with me praise for the South African people who, in the face of terrorism, came out in such numbers to exercise their vote with enthusiasm and good manners? Is not there a real lesson for any dissident group that it cannot, by terror, overthrow the will of a people dedicated to democratic practice, especially in this nation?

    The Prime Minister : I agree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman about that. I think that the democratic elections have been an enormous success for the people of South Africa, for Mr. Mandela and for Mr. de Klerk. I am delighted that we had so many British parliamentary observers there, of which I believe the hon. Gentleman was one. I am delighted also that British personnel and police were able to help with the elections.

    I spoke last evening to Mr. Mandela and assured him of our continuing help as his Government carry forward reform and change in South Africa. What has clearly happened in South Africa, as the hon. Gentleman intimated, is that the power of the ballot box has prevailed over force of arms. That should apply everywhere.

    Mrs. Peacock : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great support in the United Kingdom that there would be for the introduction of identity cards, particularly if the cards could incorporate a photograph and a driving licence?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, I have considerable sympathy with that view. Two examinations are under way at the moment : first, identity cards particularly in so far as social security is concerned; and, secondly, a wider look at the prospect of identity cards more generally. As I have said to the House before, there are some practical difficulties, but we are examining them to see whether they can be overcome.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister think that it is a quite extraordinary situation that, even before the local government election campaign is over, a senior member of the 1922 Committee should demand, on grounds of incompetence, the resignation of the chairman of the Conservative party and the Secretary of State responsible for local government?

    The Prime Minister : Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have not faced senior members of my party emigrating to New Zealand.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. [Interruption.] Why? Because if you are here you must come to order, that is why; otherwise you can leave the Chamber.

    Mr. John Smith : But can the Prime Minister tell us why he presides over a Government in which one Cabinet Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, openly condemns Cabinet colleagues for plotting against his leadership? Was she right to do so?

    The Prime Minister : The whole Cabinet is completely determined to carry through the programme on which we were elected, and we propose to do so. That means low inflation, less regulation, low interest rates, strong defence, an active foreign policy and moving Europe in our direction. There is complete unity on that matter, much to the dismay of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Mr. John Smith : If the whole Cabinet is united, does not the Prime Minister think that he should remind some members occasionally to demonstrate that fact in their public utterances? While Ministers are permitted by the Prime Minister to squabble and plot as they please, is he surprised that public confidence in his Government has almost completely broken down? If he cannot control his own Cabinet, is it any wonder that we doubt whether he can run the country?

    The Prime Minister : I must say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought perhaps to look more closely at what is said by many members of his own shadow Cabinet and his own party from time to time. What we are in the process of doing is moving this country into a position of the most sustainable growth with low inflation that we have seen in this country for several decades. That will affect to the good the living standards of each and every person in this country and it will be as a result of the policies followed unitedly by this Cabinet.

    Mr. Ottaway : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent Wellcome Foundation report on sexual attitudes and behaviour revealed that 19 per cent. of Britain’s teenagers under the age of 16 were sexually active? Under those circumstances, does he agree that, where such children have been prescribed contraceptives at the discretion of their GP, there might be cases where it is inappropriate to report that fact to the parents?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that anyone condones that sort of activity by under-age children. I think that it is the responsibility not only of parents but of other people in responsible positions to try to put sexual activity in a proper context for young people.

    Mr. Beith : Does it remain Government policy that British participation in a single European currency is not ruled out but will be decided by Parliament at a later stage? If so, how can the Prime Minister have a senior Treasury Minister who believes and states that to join a single currency would involve giving up government of the United Kingdom? Have things gone so far that he cannot sack the young pretender?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend has made it clear this morning that he fully supports our policy on a single currency, a policy agreed by the whole Cabinet of which he is a member. So that there need be no misunderstanding anywhere about it, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what that is. We shall retain the right, confirmed in the opt-out that I negotiated in the Maastricht treaty, to make our own decision on whether to move to a single currency for Europe. That will be the subject of a separate decision by our Parliament here at Westminster if and when that decision needs to be taken, and it will be taken then in the light of our interests and needs. It will not be taken now. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has made it clear that he subscribes wholly to this position.

    Mr. Jacques Arnold : Has my right hon. Friend noted that the councils charging the highest council tax band-for-band are all controlled by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I had heard that, and I also hear the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) shouting at me, “Some £40 less.” I am pleased that he shouts that out because in front of me I have a quote from the deputy director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies who said :

    “Labour figures are misleading. The average bill may be higher not because of higher charges but because the average house is worth more”.

    Like for like, the Labour party is charging far more council tax than the Conservative party and so, although not quite so severely, is the Liberal party. However the hon. Member for Blackburn wriggles, that remains the case.

     

    Q2. Mr. Donohoe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

    Mr. Donohoe : Will the Prime Minister take a cursory glance at his own Front Bench and tell the House who he thinks Brutus will be?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman has mistaken the time of year. We are past March.

    Mr. Waterson : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that, under the national health service, all patients are treated according to clinical need, irrespective of age? Thus, for example, in Eastbourne the 25 per cent. of the population who are over 65 account for 64 per cent. of the total resources and bed days.

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to accept the figures used by my hon. Friend. I am in no doubt not only that people over retirement age are given excellent treatment by the national health service but that they are entitled to that treatment as of right. They are given the best possible treatment and, where appropriate, are referred to specialists to obtain it.

     

    Q3. Mr. John Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

    Mr. Evans : Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that during the current local election campaign he has had a great deal to say about the levels of council tax charged by various local authorities? Is he aware of the fact that if Westminster city council had received the same rate support grant per head of population as the borough of St. Helens it would have been forced to charge £1,079, instead of £245, for a band D property? Will the Prime Minister explain to my constituents how a rate support grant system that throws up such huge disparities is not politically corrupt?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman makes his usual assertion without any real examination of the facts. If he looks at the local authorities that lost a lot of money under the standard spending assessment this year he will find towards the top of the list Wandsworth borough council, which he neglected to mention. If he wants to know why Westminster sets the lowest council tax in England I can tell him that it is because it has tendered out more services than other councils. It saved £11 million on compulsory competitive tendering–equivalent to £110 on the council tax. The tendering of street cleaning is saving £1.8 million per year, yet the council spends more on arts than any other London authority. Those are some of the reasons why Westminster is so efficient and some of the reasons why the council deserves to be re-elected.

    Mr. Evans : On a point of order, Madam Speaker ; in view of the ineptness of that reply from the Prime Minister I wish to give notice of my intention to raise this issue on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

    Mr. Streeter : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the International Monetary Fund’s recent assessment of the British economy as being one of the few economic bright spots in the world? Is not this in stark contrast to the days, in the 1970s, when the Labour Government had to go, cap in hand, to the IMF to bail them out? What a difference 15 years makes.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. Not only do we have both inflation and interest rates at historically low levels, but we have exports running at record levels and growth this year running at twice the rate in any other significant European country. This is expected to continue next year. It is a result of the policies that the Conservative Government have followed.

     

    Q4. Mr. Salmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

    Mr. Salmond : May this Bench join in the general celebrations and best wishes for President-elect Mandela and the new South Africa? Do the Government intend to redeem the Prime Minister’s clear pledge of three years ago that the Rosyth naval base would be sustained? Can Scotland have a yes or no answer to that question, and not more waffle?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear last year that the Rosyth dockyard has a programme of allocated work stretching– [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait for just a moment. It was made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend that the Rosyth dockyard has a programme of allocated work stretching well into the next century. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman shuts up he will get his answer. So far as the naval base is concerned, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that all defence bases are being examined as part of the defence cost study. Rosyth is being treated on the same basis as other naval bases. The study is continuing, and my right hon. and learned Friend has not yet received proposals.

    Mr. Dunn : Given that industrial disputes are at their lowest level for decades, does the Prime Minister agree that the reintroduction of sympathy strikes would cause a nightmare at the workplace?

    The Prime Minister : I have no doubt that that is the case. Last year, the sum total of working days lost was about 600,000. In 1979, in one month alone–January, I think–more than 3 million days were lost. There is no doubt of the damage that sympathy strikes would do. Equally, there is no doubt of the damage that would be done if our trade union reforms were repealed, and people were again encouraged to take their disputes on to the streets rather than to some form of satisfactory agreement.

     

    Q5. Mr. McFall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

    Mr. McFall : Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to endorse the remarks by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said that water in Scotland will never be privatised? In addition, will he give an assurance that value added tax will never be levied on water and sewerage charges in Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister : I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. His party has been running a campaign referring to the privatisation of water in Scotland, yet he has just admitted that water in Scotland has not been privatised. I hope that he will now withdraw everything that he and his colleagues have been saying in recent months. They have been misleading the people of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman knows that Scottish Water is to be restructured into three new public water authorities. I hope that he will now go out and tell that to everyone in Scotland.

  • PMQT – 26 April 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th April 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

    Mr. Morgan : Does the Prime Minister agree with the words of the Home Secretary to the Institute of Directors convention this morning, when he said that the police, the courts and the prison services were having to pick up the pieces for the failures of others? Does he agree that the word “others” may include those who have been governing this country for the last 15 years?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen the text of what my right hon. and learned Friend said, but I am sure that he was seeking to convey that the causes of crime are many and varied; that it is not possible to let all the aspects of crime simply be dealt with by the police and others; and that everyone in authority, whatever that authority may be, may have to, and should be prepared to, take their share of responsibility.

    Mr. Rathbone : Will the Prime Minister send a special message of encouragement to South Africa as the democratic elections continue there in order to welcome this final step away from apartheid ? Will he continue to bend his energy to bringing South Africa back into the Commonwealth?

    The Prime Minister : I think that people around the world welcome the elections that are taking place in South Africa and hope that they can be concluded without any more of the violence that has scarred events in the last few days. When the election is concluded and a new multi-racial government is formed, I very much hope that South Africa will decide to rejoin the Commonwealth. As far as this Government is concerned, it will be a very welcome entrant.

    Mr. John Smith : How can the Prime Minister justify his Government’s spending £500 million of taxpayers’ money in fees to private consultants when, as is revealed in today’s Financial Times, only £10 million was gained as a result?

    The Prime Minister : Let me set out some of the points related to that, because I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may tend to agree with much of what I have to say about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking questions that I myself asked, which is the reason why the scrutiny was established in the first place. It was set up because of the growth in expenditure on consultants and in order to find out whether it is good value for money or whether better value for money can be obtained. If it confirms that the expenditure is producing good results, we will maintain it ; if not, we will make the changes required.

    As far as savings are concerned, the spending is on specialist advice to support programmes. It is not a search to find savings especially.

    Mr. John Smith : In other words, it is true : another grotesque waste of taxpayers’ money has occurred. Is not the Prime Minister’s game to delay this and any other bad news until after the local and European elections are over? Why not tell the truth for once before an election?

    Hon. Members : Withdraw!

    Madam Speaker : Order. I believe that I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly and found nothing unparliamentary in what he said, but would he care to repeat it so that it is clear to all of us?

    Mr. John Smith : What I suggested to the Prime Minister was that for once he should tell the truth before an election.

    The Prime Minister : If there was an intention to hide anything, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could explain why we established the scrutiny in the first place–it is precisely to determine that the expenditure is conducted properly. However, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to judge without having seen the report, before the report is completed and without any understanding of the report or what is in it, let me give him a little more information. The examination of where the money is spent includes matters such as helping to design and evaluate weapons systems for the armed forces–not something that the civil service could do–and conducting feasibility studies on technical aspects of the road programme, which is not something that could be done without specialist advice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should find out some facts before he smears.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister realise that families all over Britain–the real quiet majority–who are now paying huge tax increases imposed by his Government will bitterly resent this further example of the Government’s now legendary incompetence?

    The Prime Minister : The whole House will have noted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to criticise, was wrong and was not prepared to apologise. I am glad at last that he is taking a closer interest in value for money and efficiency. I hope that he will apply the same test to Labour local authorities up and down the country–every single one he knows. If he were really concerned about tax, perhaps he would indicate what aspects of public expenditure restraint he would support. If he were concerned about local authority tax, perhaps he will explain why he and his party oppose compulsory competitive tendering despite the savings that it has made in councils up and down the country. Every single thing that he has said today is bogus.

    Mr. Rowe : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite having inherited a remarkably sound economy and having driven up the council tax quite unnecessarily, the Labour-Liberal coalition which runs Kent has decided to cut the police budget? Will he comment on the amazing gap between the statements of the Front-Bench spokesmen of the two Opposition parties and what they do when they have office?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has made the point very clearly. I am not familiar with the particular illustration that he produced, but there are many similar illustrations of which the House is well aware.

     

    Q2. Mr. Callaghan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

    Mr. Callaghan : Is the Prime Minister aware of the statistics that have just been produced by the North West health authority which show a 60 per cent. increase over three years in the number of youngsters aged 18 and under who have to attend hospital for treatment for drug abuse? In view of those alarming figures and the fact that there is a connection between serious crime and drug abuse, as evidenced by the number of murders in our cities, will the Prime Minister tell the House exactly what he intends to do to combat the evils of drug abuse and serious crime?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman touches on a very important matter and I am pleased to respond to him. The sum total of expenditure by the Government on drug-related programmes and other matters related to drugs now exceeds £500 million a year. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Lord President to bring together the expenditure all across Government to make sure that we can target it at the right Departments and at the right problems to begin to cope with the problem of drugs, which exists right across the world but which I think every hon. Member would wish us to tackle at the roots as speedily as possible.

     

    Q3. Sir George Gardiner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

    Sir George Gardiner : In the course of his day, my right hon. Friend may have time to look at the final draft of the Conservative manifesto for the European elections. When he does, will he make doubly sure that it emphasises the crucial choice that faces our people in those elections– between Conservative resistance to further moves towards Euro federalism, while we protect British jobs by staying out of the social chapter, and Labour and Liberal eagerness to sign up to anything, to hand over control to the Eurocrats in Brussels and to saddle us with employment costs that would hit directly at British jobs?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is a sharp contrast between our policies on Europe and those of both the main Opposition parties, whose policies are almost indistinguishable. We believe in a free trade, deregulated, outward-looking Europe of independent nation states–unlike either of the Opposition parties, both of which want regulation, intervention and more high spending in a federal European state. That is not for us and I do not believe that it is the wish of the British nation either.

     

    Q4. Ms Quin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

    Ms Quin : Following the previous question, and as the Prime Minister feels that he has a lot in common with the four countries that hope to join the European Union next year, will he tell the House how many of them have supported his Government in requesting an opt-out from the social chapter?

    The Prime Minister : I think that one will find that across Europe– [Interruption.] Across Europe, as the hon. Lady knows, countries are recognising that Britain is more competitive because we had the courage to stand up and say that destroying jobs in Europe was not a good idea. There are 19 million people unemployed in Europe; only in this country is unemployment falling. Only this country is becoming more competitive, and that is because we were prepared to say no to policies that destroy jobs and yes to policies that create jobs.

     

    Q5. Mr. Kynoch : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

    Mr. Kynoch : Although controlling inflation is not an end in itself, does my right hon. Friend agree with me and the many business men in my constituency that it is, however, a precondition for falling unemployment, low interest rates and, ultimately, sound and stable economic growth?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The necessity to get inflation down is self-evident, as is the necessity to keep it down to have the economy growing steadily. As a result of the disinflationary policy that we have followed, we have now had growth for eight successive quarters, unemployment has fallen by a quarter of a million and we have a higher growth pattern than any other nation in the European Community. A CBI survey published this morning showed business optimism continuing to rise. That is a scenario which most other nations in Europe would be pleased to have.

     

    Q6. Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

    Mr. Williams : On this historic day in South Africa, will the Prime Minister congratulate Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress and everyone else involved in the anti-apartheid movement for bringing democracy at last to South Africa?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to extend my congratulations to Mr. Mandela, to President de Klerk and to everyone else who over the years has worked towards a non-racial South Africa. That will be welcomed by people across the world, and I hope that it will bring greater stability for South Africa in the future.

    Mr. Jonathan Evans : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the recent extensive and co-ordinated press attention to concerns about the Government’s proposals to deal with new age travellers? Perhaps I can tell my right hon. Friend that the quiet majority in my constituency very much support the Government’s plans as contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which will give them real protection from those unlawful activities.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. New age travellers have been an immense nuisance, not least, of course, in the west country over recent years. The legislation proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will give the police far more powers to deal with them. In view of the difficulty that there has been in the west country, I am surprised that we have not had more support from the Liberal Democrats on that matter.

     

    Q7. Mr. Enright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

    Mr. Enright : How does the Prime Minister square the suppression of the sleaze about Westminster on the “Panorama” programme with his aim of open government?

    The Prime Minister : No Government have ever been more open than this one and there is no suspicion of sleaze.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview after meeting with the UN Secretary General – 1 March 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview after the meeting with the UN Secretary General, Mr Boutros Boutros Ghali, held in New York on Tuesday 1st March 1994.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I have had an extremely worthwhile hour with the Secretary General, we touched on a range of different subjects, we spent some time on Bosnia, to which I would like to return in just a moment if I may, also South Africa, Cyprus and the Middle East peace process.

    If I could go back to the question of Bosnia, I think many of you may know that the United States and the United Kingdom announced this morning that we would be sending a team to Sarajevo to look at the situation on the ground and determine what practical assistance might be needed to help return the town to normal, that team will be despatched very speedily, within 2 or 3 days, and I hope they will return with a much clearer indication of the assistance that is actually needed there.

    What I have been discussing with the Secretary General over the last hour, amongst other things, is the possibility of establishing a United Nations fund for the relief of Sarajevo to which anybody would be invited to contribute to, both those who are already making a practical contribution to solving the problems in Bosnia and those who as yet have been unable to do so. And that is a matter we were able to discuss over the last hour or so.

    We discussed also South Africa and the rather hopeful signs that have emerged from the meeting between Mr Mandela and Chief Butholezi this afternoon, those, together with discussions about the Middle East peace process and the developments in Cyprus. If I could just say a word or two about Cyprus, we have indicated again our willingness to assist in ensuring that the confidence building measures are successful and I was delighted with the pro-active role that the United Nations are taking to bring the two sides together and see if we can find a settlement to this very long standing and hitherto intractable dispute. So a very worthwhile meeting and I look forward to seeing the Secretary General again I hope in the not too distant future in London.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] sending any troops to Bosnia after General Rose’s request?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen the details of what General Rose said, we have a significant number of troops in Bosnia at the moment, that is not a matter I have been discussing this afternoon with the Secretary General.

    QUESTION:

    On Hong Kong, do you have any thoughts about the possible souring of relations between Britain and China if the Hong Kong situation continues to simmer?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are seeking to find a way through in Hong Kong that will enable us to proceed with the democratic reforms. The Governor of Hong Kong has passed the first phase of the democratic reforms through LEGCO, he has laid the legislation to the second phase in front of LEGOO, But we are perfectly prepared to continue to discuss the whole circumstances in Hong Kong with the Chinese and I hope we can continue to do so amiably.

    QUESTION:

    Did you discuss the Russian involvement in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the Russian involvement in Bosnia is a thoroughly helpful process, I have seen the reported details of the discussion in Moscow today, I have not had proper confirmation of it yet but from what I hear it sounds very promising. I think it is very desirable for the Russians to become involved diplomatically and to use the pressure that they have to help bring about a settlement in Bosnia.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] resolution here that Britain and France are considering?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is under discussion at the moment, I think the news from Tuzla this afternoon was very helpful but quite what will happen with the resolution at the moment is unclear.

    QUESTION:

    As far as the Middle East is concerned in your discussions, did you discuss an international presence in the occupied territories?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, well there is a small UN presence there and we did talk about that, we did not go on to address the question of whether there should be more and if so from where, we did not discuss that this afternoon.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that the international community should send troops or a military observer or civilian observers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are some UN observers there and I think they are doing a very good job, whether there requires to be more is a matter for the Secretary General to consider and I am sure he will do so.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, the British and the Americans, it is a very practical measure. What we are doing is just sending in a team of experts to actually have a look at what the situation is like on the ground in Sarajevo and what needs to be done to improve the quality of life and in particular return the utilities back to full operation in Sarajevo. They will come back and report, when they have reported the implication is that both the United States and Britain will contribute towards meeting the difficulties that are apparent there and we will invite other people to do so as well. What I have just been discussing with the Secretary General, since this may be a substantial undertaking, is the prospect of the United Nations itself establishing a fund so that anyone may contribute resources, cash or kind perhaps, towards solving the problem in Sarajevo.

    QUESTION:

    Has the Attorney General been in touch [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not discuss those matters with the Secretary General.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 26 October 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th October 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Overseas Journeys

    Mr. Roy Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total cost to public funds of his journeys abroad since 9 April 1992.

    The Prime Minister : The cost to public funds of my journeys abroad since 9 April 1992 is estimated to be £1,979,000.

     

    Yasser Arafat

    Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet Mr. Yasser Arafat; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I hope to see Mr Arafat in London before the end of the year.

     

    Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

    Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus.

    The Prime Minister : With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I attended the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Cyprus from 21 to 25 October. The final communique of the meeting and accompanying documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

    The emphasis of the meeting was on the practical and constructive work of the Commonwealth. Agreement was reached on a range of important subjects. The “Limassol Statement on the Uruguay Round” expressed the Commonwealth’s strong collective commitment to a comprehensive, equitable and balanced conclusion of the round by 15 December 1993. Commonwealth Heads decided to send a mission of Ministers from Barbados, Canada, Ghana, Malaysia and Mauritius to call on the GATT Director General in Geneva, the European Commission in Brussels and selected capitals to press for urgent progress in the trade talks. Nothing will do more to promote growth and jobs for developed and developing countries alike. The meeting called for additional measures to reduce the debt burden of developing countries to sustainable levels and, in particular, for the full implementation of the Trinidad terms. These discussions confirmed me in the view that the neediest countries, with a trace record of economic reform, should be offered early and sufficient reduction on their whole stock of official debt. We will continue to press for this.

    I secured strong support for my proposal that Commonwealth countries should strengthen their co-operation in combating the international menace of financial crime. There was agreement to work towards implementation of the 40 recommendations of the financial action task force set up in 1989 at G7 initiative. The United Kingdom is the current chairman. This means that Commonwealth countries will seek to adopt best international practice in this area. Law and Finance Ministers are following up in detail. This will also help Commonwealth work on drug abuse and proceeds of illicit trafficking. I encouraged all Commonwealth Governments not yet party to the relevant 1988 United Nations convention to do so as soon as possible and put in place enforcement mechanisms.

    We agreed that the Commonwealth observer mission to South Africa was making an important contribution towards helping to stem the violence and should remain there until after the election next year. We also agreed that a Commonwealth group should observe the elections as part of a wider international presence to build confidence in the electoral process. We looked forward to welcoming South Africa back into the Commonwealth at the earliest possible opportunity after democratic elections, if South Africa decides to reapply for membership. In lifting all economic sanctions still in place, we endorsed the appeals by President de Klerk and Dr. Nelson Mandela for foreign investment in, and increased trade with, South Africa to help overcome the social and economic legacy of apartheid.

    The 1991 Harare declaration on good governance has proved its worth. Since 1991, five out of the nine Commonwealth members without democratic government then have held multi-party elections. The Commonwealth has sent observer missions to each of these countries and has provided technical assistance to help the process. Much work on fundamental political values remains to be done. We recognised that in this field the Commonwealth has its particular vocation. We mandated the Secretary-General to give it a high priority. In this context, the meeting considered Cameroon’s application for Commonwealth membership. It agreed to welcome Cameroon to membership at our next meeting in 1995, on the condition that current efforts to establish a democratic system, consistent with the Harare Commonwealth declaration, were by then completed.

    The meeting discussed a wide range of international political matters, including Bosnia and the Cyprus problem, and agreed that the Commonwealth action group on Cyprus should continue to monitor developments.

    Commonwealth Heads accepted with pleasure the Canadian invitation extended to all governments to participate in the Commonwealth Games in Victoria, British Columbia during 18 to 28 August 1994.

    Commonwealth Heads also accepted with pleasure New Zealand’s invitation to them to hold the next meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in 1995.

     

    Lockerbie Bombing

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will obtain for the library of No. 10 Downing street a copy of the book, the details of which have been supplied to him, relating to the loss of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 October 1993]: No. A copy is already available in the Treasury library.

     

    Mr. Patrick Doyle

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a list of all meetings held and correspondence exchanged in the past 10 years between his Office and Mr. Patrick Doyle, now of AST Training; what was the nature of such meetings or correspondence; what plans he has to meet Mr. Patrick Doyle; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 October 1993] : I am unaware of any such contacts and have no plans to meet Mr. Doyle.

     

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President de Klerk – 26 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President de Klerk, held in London on Sunday 26th September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had a very worthwhile and constructive meeting this afternoon, we have been able to touch on a wide range of bilateral matters and some other matters as well.

    I wonder if it would be helpful, before I ask President de Klerk to say a few words, if I could just fill in some of the background of our discussion and the present circumstances.

    The South Africa Parliament adopted a few days ago legislation to set up a transitional executive council. I think it would be difficult to over-estimate how important a step that was, it has placed South Africa now very firmly on the road towards full non-racial democracy, it is what many people have sought for a long time and it is now well in hand. And I think the progress that has been made within South Africa has now opened the way for her to take her place in the international community, that is now much more widely recognised and I very much welcome that.

    The trade, the economic and the financial sanctions imposed by the European Community have already been lifted. The Commonwealth Secretary General has announced that Commonwealth sanctions are being lifted and South Africa should now have access to the international financial institutions, access to resources from the World Bank, and that is immensely helpful.

    We shall support lending both by the World Bank and of course the International Monetary Fund to South Africa, we will support other steps to encourage investment in South Africa, including the conference on South Africa which the CBI is holding on 12th October.

    I warmly welcome the lifting of economic sanctions. The South African economy has huge potential, I do not think anybody should have any doubt whatever about that, and outside help to regenerate it and to create more jobs will be absolutely vital to the transitional process and to future prosperity and employment for all South Africans.

    One of the questions that will lie there for a future South African government and for the Commonwealth will of course be South Africa’s future relationship with the Commonwealth. I speak personally now, for this will be a matter for a future South African government, but personally I very much look forward to seeing South Africa playing a full part in all international bodies and I hope returning in due course to the Commonwealth.

    There is still quite a lot to be done before we reach that goal, of course. The next step will be to reach agreement on an interim constitution governing next year’s elections and I hope that all South Africans, without exception, will support the process of transition and participate fully in the future democratic life of their country. I hope no-one will be encouraged to continue with any form of violence in South Africa.

    The opportunities that have been so carefully crafted over the past two years or so are remarkable. I hope that everyone will take the opportunity of taking advantage of the opportunities that now lie immediately ahead.

    As for the United Kingdom, we will do whatever we can to support the transitional process, we and our partners in the European Community and in the Commonwealth are ready to offer help in the holding of elections, we will continue to support South Africa with development aid and will continue to keep in close touch with all of South Africa’s leaders.

    I am delighted this afternoon to have heard of the changes that have been made at first hand from President de Klerk, if I may say so they owe much to his courageous leadership, often in very difficult circumstances. The Foreign Secretary and I have had meetings this year with Chief Buthelezi and I shall be seeing Mr Mandela again in another fortnight’s time, and I much look forward to that discussion.

    We will take all those opportunities to register our commitment to help the transition which is now beginning. It is a remarkable moment in time for South Africa, they are poised after a most difficult period to return fully to the community of nations and I think that is a source of great hope, not just for South Africans but for many people beyond South Africa who wish the country well.

    PRESIDENT DE KLERK:

    Thank you, Mr Prime Minister. From my side firstly a public thank you for a very warm reception, I valued the opportunity to discuss important matters of bilateral interest with you, to inform you of the dynamic process in South Africa to bring you fully up to date on a first-hand basis, to discuss some of our regional problems in southern Africa with you, and also to share with you a few thoughts with regard to future developments as we see them.

    May I say that the historical week which is ending today, the week in which South Africa has really returned to the international fold, can be regarded also as a vindication for the foreign policy which your government has followed over a number of years. When it was not popular to accept that the process was irreversible your government, and you Mr Prime Minister, have accepted our assurances in that regard and took a lead in opening doors for South Africa and in helping the normalisation of our international relations along. And we say thank you to the United Kingdom for this constructive approach which it has constantly followed with regard to South Africa.

    We are confident that the process which we have started will be taken through to its logical conclusion, namely the acceptance of a new constitution by Parliament before the end of this year, hopefully during November, a constitution in terms of which the first general election will be held in which all South Africans will vote and which will result in the establishment of a government of national unity which will for a period of five years focus on reconciliation, on ensuring economic development, on ensuring stability in our country. Violence continues to plague us, hopefully the transitional executive council which has as one of its main tasks to create an atmosphere conducive to free and fair elections will, with the multi-party cooperation which will take place within that transitional executive council, also make a valuable contribution towards bringing down the levels of violence.

    I sincerely also believe that when we produce final agreements, when the package is on the table and there for everybody to see, the mere fact that we have reached agreement will also have a marked effect on the levels of violence, because some of the violence which we have in the political sphere is aimed at derailing or delaying the constitutional negotiations, when the agreements are finalised I expect that those who are trying in a last gasp effort to interfere with the negotiations will obviously be in a position of having failed to do so.

    I have no doubt and I am confident that we will reach agreement and that those agreements will be inclusive also of some of the major role players who are at the moment not directly part of the multi-party negotiations, we are making good headway with bilateral discussions with the Inkatha Freedom Party resulting from an eight and a half hour meeting which I had a little bit more than a week ago with Chief Minister Buthelezi and my latest information is that in the bilaterals which results from our meeting, good progress is being made and constructive discussions are taking place.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Why should Britain invest in a country which many will still say is far less stable, far less peaceful than others markets such as those nearer home?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Britain is perfectly prepared to invest and I think the prospects for South Africa over the medium and long term are very good indeed, I think that is well recognised by United Kingdom investors. And I have no doubt once the confidence in the political settlement is clear that there will be a substantial amount of investment from this country and I suspect from many other countries as well.

    QUESTION:

    President de Klerk, what place will there be in the new South Africa and new constitution for those who claim still to want some kind of white homeland?

    PRESIDENT DE KLERK:

    I do not think there is any place for any form of race discrimination in the new South Africa. I think it is fundamentally necessary in South Africa to accommodate the fears and anxieties of cultural minorities in the cultural sense and therefore already in the draft bill of rights which is taking shape we are reaching consensus on issues such as the protection of the right of cultural groups with regard to culturally based and religiously based education, there must be effective protection of vested language rights and in the constitution provision will be made, it is taking shape at the moment, for the devolution of power to strong regional governments. In that I think also the aspirations of our many cultural groups, the many nations which together compose the South African nation, can to a great extent be fulfilled and most of those aspirations can, within a system of regional government, based on federal principles, be reasonably accommodated. But there is no place for racial discrimination, we dare not ever consider again in South Africa to have first and second class citizens.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] talks between the ANC and the Afrikaaner [indistinct].

    PRESIDENT DE KLERK:

    We are also having bilaterals with them, I welcome the fact that such talks are taking place. I also welcome the fact the progress is registered if one analyses what Mr Mandela recently said and what General Fulyun [phon] is reported to have said about them. Also in our bilateral discussions with General Fulyun and a team from his organisation we are making some progress, slow progress. I am convinced that we can find a reasonable basis within the framework of the demographic realities of South Africa, the economic realities, as I have just in the previous reply stated, to lay a foundation which can offer a feeling of security to the various cultural groupings in South Africa and which can offer a form of self-determination with regard to that which is dear to the various cultural groups, which should satisfy any reasonable demands in that regard. So I welcome the progress which is being made.

    One must remember that until very recently we were called traitors because we were talking to the ANC and I welcome the fact that people who took up the attitude that they would not ever talk to them are now actually negotiating with them, negotiation is the only way to ensure peaceful solutions.

    QUESTION:

    Are we contemplating any concrete help to South Africa in the run-up to the election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends what you mean by concrete help, there has been a certain amount of help and aid in the past and certainly we will continue to look at that. But I think both concrete and I suppose you may say ephemeral help, we are certainly there to help ensure that there is a satisfactory settlement, that has been an objective of British foreign policy for a long time. I am delighted that with the frankly courageous decisions taken both by President de Klerk and by Mr Mandela and others from time to time, we are now reaching the prospect of a genuine settlement and elections for a non-racial government, I welcome that very much. We will help in whatever way we can to help bring that about.

    QUESTION:

    No doubt President de Klerk will have told you that for democracy to work in South Africa there will have to be a lot of aid, new funds, I noticed Mrs Chalker was around, were you able to assure him that you will be able to increase aid to South Africa?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did not discuss that in particular. What we did discuss of course is something far more important than bilateral aid, however important that may be, and that is of course of availability of resourcing from the international financial institutions, the World Bank and the IMF in particular, I suspect there will be an IMF programme at some stage, very possibly a structural adjustment programme, we will have to wait and see, but that will be of critical importance. But I would strongly suspect that the President will agree with the next point – the point of greatest importance is the fact that South Africa will be open again to investment from the international community and the availability of resourcing from the financial institutions, the impact of that is likely to dwarf any bilateral or multilateral aid, though I would strongly suspect there may well be significant multilateral aid in the years ahead.

    PRESIDENT DE KLERK:

    Yes, I fully associate with that reply, we really are not asking for handouts from anybody, we just want to qualify for schemes and facilities which are available to all countries throughout the world and we are prepared to meet the conditions which are set before you can qualify for such aid.

  • PMQT – 6 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.

    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. Fabricant : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quantity of advertising spend is a sensitive barometer of the state of the economy? Is he aware that the amount of advertising for retail sales is up 4 per cent. on the first quarter this year and the amount of advertising on television is up 7 per cent. on the first quarter of this year? Does he think that that is an excellent advertisement for not only the Conservative party but its economic policy?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is correct about advertising being an indicator of activity in the economy. It has been increasing. I was not precisely aware of the figures that my hon. Friend has set out but I have no doubt– [Interruption.] I must have missed them in the welter of other encouraging economic news that I have seen.

    Mr. John Smith : Yesterday the Prime Minister boasted to the Newspaper Society about the number of manifesto pledges he claimed to have carried out during the year. Why was there no reference whatever to taxation in that speech?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in no position to talk to anyone about taxation. I recall that it was his talking about taxation that played a significant part in the fact that we are sitting here and he is sitting there.

    Mr. John Smith : The House will have noticed that the Prime Minister studiously avoided answering the question. Is not the real reason why he forgot to mention taxation that he wants the voters in the elections today to forget that his Government’s VAT and national insurance increases will cost the typical family in the United Kingdom another £8.50 every week?

    The Prime Minister : How interesting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should say that because I have in front of me a quote that I shall read :

    “I favour the higher band income tax and the removal of the ceiling on national insurance contributions that Labour’s 1992 Shadow budget proposed. Failing that, I would remove zero rating for VAT on all items.”

    That is the noble Lord Desai, an Opposition spokesman on economic matters in the House of Lords.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister knows well–because Lord Desai has written to him–that the noble Lord was on the Back Benches when he said what he said– [Interruption.] He also knows–

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it not the case that–let the Prime Minister understand that he cannot run away from this–in the general election he made clear and specific promises not to increase VAT and national insurance contributions? Surely the last thing that he wants people to remember today is that his promises and Tory promises are worthless.

    The Prime Minister : Clearly the right hon. and learned Gentleman has lost touch with his own party. The quote that I used, far from being elderly, is in Tribune today.

    Sir John Wheeler : Will my right hon. Friend find time to examine the growth of bureaucracy which is seriously impeding the work of the police and the criminal justice system? Is my right hon. Friend aware that even the simplest case these days requires a trail of paperwork and that the more serious cases are such that the expensive time of detectives is now more likely to be spent on paperwork than on the investigation and detection of crime?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my right hon. Friend about that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, like me, wants to see police officers solving crime, not pushing paper. That is why he is setting out proposals to see how much paperwork can be cut. The more we can free our police from that work, the better they can do the work that I and every other hon. Member of this House would like to see them carrying out.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Roche : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.

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

    Mrs. Roche : In view of Asil Nadir’s breach of bail, should not the Prime Minister come clean about Nadir’s contribution of £1.5 million to Tory party funds?

    Madam Speaker : Order. May I make it clear to the House that, while that matter may be of some interest, there is no Government responsibility- – [Hon. Members :– “Yes, there is.”] Order. There can be no Government responsibility for finance given to a political party.

    The Prime Minister : Well, Madam Speaker, you are of course entirely right about that. I notice that the hon. Lady does not mention the remarkable sums that the Labour party received from the late Robert Maxwell. I cannot, of course, comment on the details of Mr. Nadir’s case, which is currently before the courts.

    Mr. Waller : Because the Bosnian Serbs possibly doubt the resolve of the United Nations to act forcefully against the atrocities that we have seen in recent weeks and months perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs against the relatively defenceless Bosnian Muslims, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the House that we and our allies will not abnegate our responsibilities to take any action that may be deemed necessary to bring those atrocities to an end?

    The Prime Minister : Our highest priorities have to be to secure implementation of the settlement plan, to deter further Serbian offences and to sustain humanitarian relief. In one important aspect, things have changed in recent days. President Milosevic of Serbia has committed himself to the Athens agreement. Whatever views may emerge from the self-appointed Bosnian Serb assembly, the international community expects President Milosevic to make good that commitment. He should do so, in our judgment, by closing Serbia’s borders with Bosnia, cutting the supply of weapons and other goods and exerting all other possible pressure on the Bosnian Serbs. The Serbian people must realise that they will come under mounting pressure from throughout the international community until there is a peaceful settlement. That is the essence of the common approach that we have agreed with our allies.

     

    Q3. Mr. Worthington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.

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

    Mr. Worthington : Could the Prime Minister devote some time to the appalling situation in Sudan, from which the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and I have recently returned? There is mass starvation, the interruption of food supplies, the harassment of the Christian churches and the prevention of the international aid agencies from doing their work. Will the Prime Minister take up the matter with the Security Council to bring an end to the appalling 10-year civil war and allow uninterrupted work by the Christian churches and the international aid agencies, which are doing valuable work there?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. I fully share his concern and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) about the distressing situation in Sudan. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we took a lead in the United Nations General Assembly last December when it adopted a resolution condemning the Sudanese Government’s human rights record. Also, of course, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has decided to appoint a special rapporteur. We are looking at the moment to the negotiations under Nigerian auspices. We hope that they will succeed in ending the civil war. I certainly would not rule out a future role for the Security Council. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend could perhaps let me have a more detailed report of what they saw in Sudan. I would welcome that as I should like to discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Dr. Michael Clark : Is my right hon. Friend receiving letters, as I am, from pensioners and others receiving benefit who are concerned in case that benefit should be paid exclusively into banks and building societies? Will he confirm that benefit will continue to be available from post offices and sub-post offices, thus giving the customers a choice, in line with Conservative policy?

    The Prime Minister : This is a matter on which concern is raised from time to time. We have made no proposals to make those changes. If we had any firm proposals to make those changes we would bring them before the House.

     

    Q4. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will the Prime Minister find time during a busy and probably worrying day for him to reflect that when he and I were leaving school student grants were adequate and most discretionary awards were paid for higher degrees? Does he not think that the present situation, where higher degrees are not awarded grants by local authorities, is a deterrent to less-well-off students and the nation will lose their skills? Is it just that he is unconcerned because he got where he is with three O-levels?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in most of the things he says. His essential mistake about the future is that he entirely overlooks the vast increase in the numbers of young people going into higher education. Virtually one in three young people now goes on to further education. Those are wholly different circumstances from when the hon. Gentleman and I left school.

    Mr. Congdon : Is it not good news that British Telecom is to reduce the cost of connection charges by £40? Does this not show the benefits of privatisation combined with a tough regulatory regime?

    The Prime Minister : It certainly does and it certainly would not have been so efficient without privatisation. Privatisation has brought better service and lower charges for gas, electricity and telecommunications and that is why we continue to support it, unlike the Opposition who have supported no new idea of any sort for years.

     

    Q5. Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.

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

    Mr. Parry : The Prime Minister will be aware of the meeting last night in the Grand Committee Room where Mr. Nelson Mandela met Members of all parties and both Houses. The meeting was well attended and Mr. Mandela got a standing ovation on both entering and leaving the room. What help can the Government give to South African in the forthcoming general election, particularly in investment from Britain?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I separately met Mr. Mandela during his visit to the United Kingdom. We had the opportunity of discussing a whole range of issues : the difficulties with violence, the progress with the talks and the prospects for transition to a peaceful, multiracial democracy in South Africa. We discussed the range of ways in which we could help, both personally and publicly.

    One area that would be of immense help when the transitional Government is formed would be the immediate removal of sanctions and that is now of great importance to Mr. Mandela, as he probably mentioned last evening. The underlying concern that exists there is extremely serious. South Africa has nil economic growth, 7 million people unemployed, a 3 per cent. annual growth in the birth rate and badly needs international investment and the removal of sanctions. The sooner that can be agreed by all parties in this House, the better it will be for South Africa.

    Mr. Alexander : Will my right hon. Friend hesitate a little before deciding to abolish the May day bank holiday? Ideological considerations apart, is it not a fact that more people enjoy having an early summer day’s break than would enjoy a break at the beginning of winter? Is it not further the case that the May day bank holiday gives a welcome and much- needed kick-start to the leisure industry which a holiday at the end of October could never begin to do?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s advice on that important matter. When we have an announcement to make, we will bring it to the House.

    Mr. Shore : The Prime Minister will recall that yesterday the European Communities (Amendment) Bill was debated and that in the course of the debate an amendment was passed, as a result of which the House has unanimously agreed to strike out the protocol that the Government had previously negotiated for an opt-out from the social chapter.

    Can the Prime Minister now tell us whether his respect for the views of the House of Commons is sufficient for him not now to pursue his previous goal of completing the ratification of the treaty? If he is not prepared to give that guarantee to the House, will he at least now let the people of this country have a chance to vote on their future, when the House of Commons is unable to influence the Government even by a majority vote?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as any hon. Member the implications of being a parliamentary democracy. We are a parliamentary democracy, and I am not in favour of referendums. The sole effect of the amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is to remove the social protocol from being incorporated into United Kingdom law, but the opt-out remains part of the treaty. So let me repeat very clearly that we will ratify the treaty which I signed at Maastricht : no change, no social chapter, no back-door socialism.

  • PMQT – 20 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Parry : Will the Prime Minister today decide when he intends to visit Liverpool, where he can meet local trade union leaders to discuss the very high level of unemployment? Incidentally, he might visit Liverpool, Riverside, which has the highest level of unemployment in England, Scotland and Wales–32 per cent. Will he also consider visiting Liverpool next month for the commemoration of the battle of the Atlantic and western approaches? Her Majesty the Queen is coming and, in 1940, Mr. Winston Churchill, the then Prime Minister, came several times, as did King George VI. Will the Prime Minister consider coming there?

    The Prime Minister : I have indeed received an invitation to attend the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, in which Liverpool and its people played such a significant part. I have accepted that invitation and I look forward to that event very much indeed.

    I am aware of the very high level of unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It has fallen over recent years, but it is still far higher than in many areas in the United Kingdom and is one of the worst pockets of unemployment anywhere in the country. I will not be able to visit Riverside on this occasion, but I understand the particular problems faced by the hon. Gentleman and if he, with a small delegation of his constituents, wishes to come to see me to discuss the problem, I will be happy to meet them.

    Mr. Ottaway : Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of Norway’s largest ship owners, Gearbulk, has recently decided to relocate to London, giving as its reason that it wants to be at the centre of things? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates that Britain, with a low corporate tax structure and a Conservative Government, remains the best place in the world in which to do business?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of that piece of welcome news and I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has said. We very much welcome inward investment from both within and beyond the European Community. We are determined to maintain in this country the economic circumstances and the relatively low on-costs to employment which will continue to attract inward investment.

    Mr. John Smith : While it is essential that the sanctions against Serbia be intensified and properly enforced, as indeed they should have been months ago, is it not now necessary for a clear ultimatum to be issued to the Serbs that they will not be allowed to continue their aggression unchecked and that, if they continue that aggression, their lines of supply within Bosnia will be subject to air attack?

    The Prime Minister : We had a lengthy statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday in which he set out the present position and the discussions we are having with our partners in the United Nations. The House recognised yesterday that the road to further action, particularly if it leads to military action, which is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question implied, is fraught with peril. Once one goes down it, there is no turning back. We must first be confident that that is the right direction.

    Mr. John Smith : While there are risks in any course of action, and I would not seek to minimise them, do not they have to be weighed carefully against the possibly greater risks of non-action? Surely what is badly needed is a demonstration of United Nations determination. How will the Government respond, for example, if the Serbs proceed to take the crucial towns of Gorazde and Zepa? Should not they be warned now that such action on their part will not be tolerated?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend say again yesterday, we are not excluding those options ; we are considering them seriously and discussing them with our allies. I have spoken recently with both the French and American Presidents, but we have not yet reached a decision about the balance of advantage in those particular courses. They could cause fighting to escalate, civilian casualties to rise and an end to the humanitarian operation.

    On that last point, I remind the House that it was the expectation in the House some months ago that over the winter hundreds of thousands of Bosnians would die of starvation and lack of medicine. That has not happened because we have managed to sustain the humanitarian operation. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I would willingly throw that away.

    Mr. Dickens : Following the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of many British citizens who were members of a cult in the United States of America, will my right hon. Friend have conversations with the Home Secretary with a view to setting up a working party to see how we can best limit the recruitment of British citizens into those evil cults?

    The Prime Minister : There are a number of undesirable cults and I share my hon. Friend’s concern. It would be difficult to focus legislation to restrict the establishment of cults or religious movements because it would be difficult to determine what groups should be included in the legislation and what groups should be excluded. However, we have powers under the criminal law and we are prepared and willing to use them to regulate the behaviour of individuals when they may infringe the rights of other people. We also have powers under the immigration laws to prohibit the entry of people who may wish to establish such cults, if it is thought that they would be damaging to our interests.

    Mr. Ashdown : In the Prime Minister’s previous answer, he rightly referred to the importance of humanitarian aid. Has he noticed that today the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has called for the establishment of a United Nations protected safe haven in Zepa and Gorazde? How will he respond to that question?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will know that the UNHCR wants to set up safe areas by agreement with the parties in those areas and does not want the United Nations to be an active participant in the conflict. To that extent, it differs quite radically from the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to me about some days ago.

    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there has to be further military intervention in Bosnia, it should be done under NATO command with American participation, backed by United Nations resolutions supported by Russia?

    The Prime Minister : I see no other circumstances in which it would be practicable to expect any military authority to be there and to succeed. Anything short of action in the circumstances set out by my hon. Friend would be unacceptable and would be unlikely to be agreed. Those are only the circumstances, but I stress that that would be a very grave step and it is not yet the policy of any of the major Governments in the United Nations.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Ross : Has the Prime Minister had a chance to study the public sector borrowing requirement figure announced today? Does he realise that £9.5 billion is the highest recorded figure of any Government for any one month? It is £1 million more than the Chancellor announced in his Budget last month. Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many forecasters, who believe that that points to a real underlying problem about our economy? What is he going to do about it?

    The Prime Minister : It is an interesting question from the hon. Gentleman. I hope I can assume from it that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about borrowing that he will support our new controls on public spending. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in imposing limits on public sector pay and on keeping caps on council spending. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why he supported the Delors proposals for Community spending which would have cost us millions. He might explain why his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said that he was prepared to debate with the Community over our rebate. All those matters relate to our borrowing requirement ; upon none of them have we ever had the support of the hon. Gentleman or any right hon. or hon. Member in his party. Words from him about restraints on public spending are very hollow indeed.

     

    Q3. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that teachers have a moral duty to do their very best for their pupils and that that means carrying out testing this summer? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Britain spends a higher percentage of its GDP on education than Germany and Japan, but that in Germany children are taught and tested over 1,260 hours per year, whereas children in Britain are taught for as little as 850 hours per year and would remain untested if some teacher unions have their way, supported by the disruptive attitude of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : As a former head teacher, my hon. Friend speaks with particular authority on this matter. A boycott of testing would certainly not be in the interests of our children. We need tests–and need them this year–as Sir Ron Dearing, among others, has made clear. My hon. Friend is right that our principal competitors have national curricula and regular testing. Any attempt to sabotage our reforms could damage our long- term ability to compete and damage the education of our children.

     

    Q5. Mr. Llwyd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Llwyd : The Prime Minister will be aware of the recent integrated administration control system forms which have been issued at the behest of the European Community. These are a great headache to the farming community because they are time limited ; they have to be in by 15 May. Farmers also have to have plans mapped out in hectares. In my constituency, for example, only two thirds of land has been surveyed for that purpose. I urge the Prime Minister and his colleagues to ask the EC to extend the time limit and to consider defraying the expenses of those who have spent on survey fees privately for this purpose.

    The Prime Minister : There are difficulties with this and I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Although I doubt whether it is feasible to extend the time limit, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture is seeking to help farmers in that situation within the rules of the terms of the scheme. Maps that can be used are available, but we have always recognised that some farmers may have difficulty getting maps of the right scale. Where maps cannot be obtained, farmers should provide the best alternative that they can.

     

    South Africa

    Q6. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has recently made to, or received from, the South African Government regarding political change in South Africa.

    The Prime Minister : We are in regular contact at all levels with the South African Government and other parties involved in the current constitutional negotiations. I shall be seeing Mr. Mandela and Chief Buthelezi in the next few weeks. I am also in touch with President de Klerk.

    Mr. Hunter : As the tragedy of South Africa unfolds and, for the time being, the men of violence have their way, will my right hon. Friend urge President de Klerk not to give ground to the enemies of democracy or mob rule, but, rather, to continue negotiations, especially with moderate black leaders, so that the new South Africa may be better than the old?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend knows South Africa well and I agree with him that negotiations are the only way to reach the goal of a non-racial, democratic South Africa. The concessions that the ANC is seeking, covering both the election date and the establishment of a transitional executive council, are matters for the constitutional negotiations. I urge all parties to address issues in that forum.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Connarty : Has the Prime Minister had, as I have, the shared joy of being present at the birth of his children? Does he share with me and the Royal College of Midwives deep concern at the massive increase in the use of Caesarian sections in all parts of the United Kingdom? Is he aware that I have been told in parliamentary replies that the rate has risen from 5.3 to 13 per cent. in England and to 14 per cent. in Scotland and that women are now threatened in one out of eight cases with surgery in what should be the pleasant experience of childbirth? Does he think that it is time that we had a childbirth charter to protect women from the scalpel when they should have a normal childbirth?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the first part of the question is yes, on two occasions. The second part is essentially a matter for the individual mother and her surgeon and doctor. I confess that I was not aware of the growth of Caesarian section births and it is a matter which, in the light of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  • PMQT – 23 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd June 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

    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. Hall : The Prime Minister is aware that local authorities nationally have had £15 billion of assets frozen in the bank because of his Government’s policy. In the light of the national housing crisis we now face, will the Prime Minister give the House a straightforward answer to my question? Why do we not allow local authorities to build houses for rent, which are much needed, with the money that they already have in the bank?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities are perfectly able to use a portion of their accumulated receipts and that has been the position for many years. It is the right position for us to keep and we have no intention of changing it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

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

    Mr. Amess : I believe that what is good news for Basildon is good news for the rest of the country. Does the Prime Minister share my constituents’ delight in Basildon at yesterday’s historic European air fares agreement? Is not it the case that yesterday’s agreement is a particular triumph for Britain and for Basildon, as we pressed for the liberalisation of air markets?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right. I have no doubt that the triumph of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is the very talk of Basildon at the moment. The Community reached an historic agreement yesterday on the final phase of aviation liberalisation. I believe that that is excellent news for the travelling public and it should mean more choice, better services and lower fares. It has been a long time coming, but it is a very welcome agreement.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister now serve the public interest by ensuring that the report by the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation into the Maxwell companies’ pension fraud is published without delay?

    The Prime Minister : I well understand the concerns generated by the whole Maxwell case. I understand that the Securities and Investments Board intends to publish a report on IMRO’s findings and conclusions. However, the House will understand that it will be essential to ensure that publication does not jeopardise either civil or criminal proceedings in the Maxwell affair, including those currently under way against Kevin and Ian Maxwell.

    Mr. Kinnock : I am grateful for that answer. However, I must express the hope that there will not be a delay, even given the requirement to take account of the implications for possible proceedings. Does the Prime Minister accept that the report, as so far recorded in the newspapers, says that the organisation fell short of the high standards which it should have expected of itself and that, therefore, publication is a pressing necessity so that everyone can know just how the organisation fell short, what is the Government’s full responsibility in the matter and how that bears on the future of the Maxwell pensioners who have been robbed?

    The Prime Minister : I understand the important point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but, as I said a moment ago, the report will be published in due course. The SIB intends to publish a report of the findings and conclusions, but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I would wish to prejudice in any way either the civil or criminal proceedings–nor, I believe, would any hon. Member.

    Mr. Kinnock : May I in the meantime put it to the Prime Minister that we now know that in 1987 the Bank of England blocked an attempt by Robert Maxwell to take over a bank, that in the following year, 1988, the Department of Trade and Industry granted an investment licence to a main Maxwell company and that later that year IMRO renewed that licence? Is it not clear that in those circumstances both the Government and the system that they established have a clear and serious charge of negligence to answer and that they must answer it? The main responsibility is not with the SIB to publish the report ; it must remain with the Government and they must account for their actions and omissions in the whole disgraceful episode.

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Gentleman still has not addressed his mind to the necessity of ensuring that nothing is done to prejudice civil or criminal proceedings. That is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman well understands. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I am equally anxious to ensure that the report is considered alongside the SIB’s assessment.

    Mrs. Chaplin : Has my right hon. Friend seen the report that shows that many 14-year-olds like taking tests, in direct contradiction of the many so-called education experts? Is that not another example of how Conservative policy is good for pupils, parents and those who are employed in education?

    The Prime Minister : I warmly welcome the news contained in yesterday’s report about testing. It confirms that we were absolutely right to press ahead with testing in the teeth of opposition from the teaching unions and, indeed, from Opposition Members. I hope that, in the light of what has been said in the last couple of days, the Labour party will stop fighting testing, will support it and will change its policy, as it seems to have done on grant-maintained schools.

     

    Q3. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

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

    Mr. Ross : Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that it was a profound error of judgment for the British Government to press the European Community to lift its package of economic and oil sanctions against South Africa earlier this year? At the European Council meeting in Lisbon this Friday, will he press the EC to reconsider that decision, urge it to support the establishment of an interim Government in South Africa and seek international monitoring of the violence there?

    The Prime Minister : No, I do not believe that that would be the right way to proceed. I share the hon. Gentleman’s anxiety about the recent violence in South Africa. I also note the commitment of the South African Government to bring to justice the people responsible for that violence. The prime responsibility for law and order rests, as it must do, with the South African Government. But they have made enormous strides towards representative democracy. I understand the strength of feeling that exists at the moment, but it is of great importance that the talks do not break down and that they continue, for great progress has been made. The people who will stand to gain most from the successful conclusion of the talks are the people in South Africa who have least and about whom we should be most concerned.

    Mr. John Carlisle : In the tragic and violent disorder that is now regrettably taking place in South Africa, is my right hon. Friend not absolutely right to send a message of support to President de Klerk, who has come so far in his brave and courageous attempt to find a democratic solution which is satisfactory to all parties? In those circumstances, should not the message go to Mr. Mandela and the African National Congress that empty gestures such as suggestions of Olympic boycotts and sanctions will only hinder their chances and restrict the people of South Africa in the wonderful opportunities that they now have in front of them?

    The Prime Minister : Over recent months I have had many opportunities to discuss the present situation in South Africa with both President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela. I remain closely in touch with both of them. What is necessary at the moment is that both of them stand back from the present difficulties and then determine how it will be possible to continue the talks and reach a satisfactory conclusion.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister recall saying on 26 January that the Government’s mortgage rescue scheme had “stopped repossessions”? Is he aware that since then, for every family mortgage rescued, 2,000 homes have been repossessed and that repossessions are now running at 140 families a day? Does he recognise that what he did then, although welcome, was too little and too late and that he now needs to do something more?

    The Prime Minister : No. I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor were there to diminish the number of repossessions–where people are in receipt of income support, the repossession does not proceed. Repossessions are falling and that has been acknowledged, not merely by the Government but by many others. The right hon. Gentleman should examine the facts.

    Mr. Jenkin : Following my right hon. Friend’s meeting with Members of the European Parliament last week and in the spirit of subsidiarity and our right to govern our democratic processes, is the Prime Minister able to assure the House that the European elections in 1994 will be conducted under the present voting system?

    The Prime Minister : That is certainly my intention.

     

    Q4. Mr. Betts : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

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

    Mr. Betts : Would the Prime Minister like to commiserate with the millions of English football fans who have had to endure their team’s performance during the past few weeks? Would he like to reflect on Graham Taylor’s commitment to deal with his European problems by playing it long? Indeed, Graham Taylor might only be happy once he has picked the whole Wimbledon team to play for England. Does the Prime Minister agree that his European problems look just as difficult and troublesome? Does he further agree that, like the tactics of the England team manager, his commitment to play his European problems long, and to avoid an early debate on them in the House, is just as likely to prove to be unsuccessful?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman carries me with him on either proposition. I offer the same support and encouragement to the England football team that I was happy to offer to the Scottish team after its excellent performance in the recent championships. On the European policy of the Government, I have made it clear that we shall have a further debate before the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill. That remains the case, but the time is not yet right to bring the Bill back.

    Mr. Churchill : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the British Government’s part in negotiating the first-ever global ban on chemical weapons. Does he agree that one of the gravest threats to peace in the years ahead will come from the acquisition of a non-conventional weapons capability by third-world military dictatorships, many supplied by European countries? Is it not time that steps were taken to put on notice British defence contractors and others in European countries that they cannot expect Government contracts if they forge documentation, as evidence shows has been happening, to avoid the Government’s embargoes on the export of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right in his strictures on chemical weapons. If he has any detailed information on the second aspect of his question, I should be happy to receive it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Enright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

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

    Mr. Enright : Does the Prime Minister recall that in February the Government announced a settlement of RECHAR and promised action with all expedition? It is now July– [Hon. Members :– “June.”] It is now almost July and no ground rules have been agreed. I have sent two questions to the President of the Board of Trade and have written him one letter, but he still has not replied. Will the right hon. Gentleman sack him and get something done?

    The Prime Minister : It is almost July and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is almost ready to reply.

    Mr. Dunn : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members welcomed the abolition of the National Economic Development Council, or Neddy, last week for it meant an end to trade union domination and the running of the country through the union block vote?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I think that, in its day, Neddy did have a role to play, but that day has passed. I think that the right decision was taken by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade.

     

    Q6. Mr. Meale : To ask the Prime Minister if he will lists his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June 1992.

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

    Mr. Meale : Now that the Prime Minister has returned from Rio, where I hope that he learnt a lot about the environment, will he support moves in this Parliament to ban the hunting of animals, with dogs, for the pleasure of people? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : I am sorry, but if the hon. Gentleman repeats his question, I will try to answer it.

    Madam Speaker : Order. If the hon. Member repeats his question, we will all be able to hear it.

    Mr. Meale : Now that the Prime Minister has returned from Rio, where, undoubtedly, he learnt much about the environment, will he support legislation in the House to ban the hunting of animals, with dogs, for the pleasure of people?

    The Prime Minister : No, Madam. That is a matter of personal choice.

  • Press Release – Prime Minister’s Comments on Foreign Policy – 24 March 1992

    Below is the text of the Conservative Party Press Release on Mr Major’s comments on foreign policy. It was issued on Tuesday 24th March 1992, reference 575/92.

    THE BEST TEAM FOR A DANGEROUS WORLD

    “Some people regard foreign affairs as an optional extra in a British General Election. But, in truth, they are not,” the Rt Hon John Major, Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party, told a press conference at Conservative Central Office, today.

    The last year has been dominated by overseas concerns: the Gulf War, the Maastricht agreement, the future of Hong Kong and its relationship with China, South Africa, human rights, the renaissance of the Commonwealth and the immense turmoil in the former Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe.

    In these events the United Kingdom has played a leading role. We fought as America’s main ally in the Gulf – and successfully. We won an agreement at Maastricht against expectations – and against the opposition of some of our partners.

    We safeguarded the future of Hong Kong, secured the building of the airport and sought better human rights in China and Tibet.

    We promoted South Africa’s position in world talks and supported the peace talks with both President De Klerk and Mr Mandela.

    And we led the way in supporting reform throughout the Russian coup, backed Russia’s application to the IMF, demanded tangible aid for the Russians and signed the first accord with them for nearly 200 years.

    The future will be equally crowded. We must come to terms with the new security situation in Europe and the rest of the world.

    We must fight our corner in the European Community over the Common Agricultural Policy, future financing, the Single Market, and enlargement of the EC. And we must do so as President of the Community.

    We must continue to bind the Commonwealth together and encourage good government.

    We must give a lead at the Rio summit.

    We must retain strong defences, commission the fourth Trident submarine and command the Rapid Reaction Corps in the newly modernised NATO forces.

    These are immense tasks for the immediate future. The question at this Election is a stark one. Whom can you trust to defend our interests and keep Britain safe?”

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    South Africa

    Mr. Caborn : To ask the Prime Minister if he raised at the meeting with Mr. De Klerk on 1 February, the proposition of giving the white electorate a veto on any agreement reached at the Conference for Democratic South Africa or otherwise over the negotiating process.

    The Prime Minister : For President de Klerk to continue with his reforms, he has to have the support of the whole electorate. I discussed these reforms with President de Klerk on 1 February. I believe that the path of reform on which South Africa has embarked under President de Klerk’s leadership is the only course which will allow her reintegration into the international community and enable her to attract the investment she needs for economic growth. That economic growth is in the interest of all South Africans.