The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the European Union – 10 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Union, made in an interview in Edinburgh on Thursday 10th December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Denmark’s no vote on the Maastricht referendum].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are certain things that are necessary in the agreement that we must reach. We cannot change what is actually in the Maastricht Treaty – that is agreed. We must ensure there is no re-ratification – that also is necessary, but I think there are ways of meeting the particular difficulties the Danes have. We have put forward some proposals; they are a long way towards agreement. There are still some difficulties to be handled. I hope we will be able to reach agreement over the next two days. I can’t promise it, but we will certainly try.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if national self-interest was now more dominant than ever].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The European Community is made up of a number of nation states; they all have their national interests; there is nothing new about that; that has always been the case. At the end of the day, they tend to reach agreement. There are some particularly intractable problems that we have to face at the moment. Some of them are intractable but they are also vitally important. The need for enlargement of the Community I think is self-evident. You cannot call it a European Community; it is a part of European Community at the moment. We need the EFTAns to come in and in a longer time-scale we want to see many of the Eastern Europeans join as well so that is a vital issue. But that is just one of a number of important issues to be determined in the next few days.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Spain’s demands for more money].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have to wait and see what happens at the end of the negotiations. Lots of people have set out their position; there is nothing unusual about that. There are often sharply differing positions before the Community enters into summits, nothing new. On this occasion, I do accept the fact that it will be particularly difficult to reach agreement on some issues but we will have to see how far we can get.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 December 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Energy Policies

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the development of (a) coal policy, (b) renewable energy policy, (c) nuclear research and development policy and (d) energy conservation policy in the European Community during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council.

    The Prime Minister : The Energy Council discussed European coal issues on 30 November, during which the Commission presented its new proposals on subsidies for coal mines. The Council agreed on the text of a decision intended to foster the development of new and renewable energy sources. The Council noted the progress officials had made in discussing a proposed directive designed to increase energy efficiency in buildings, industry and road vehicles. The Council had earlier adopted a directive on energy labelling of appliances. Progress on nuclear R and D was satisfactory.

     

    Exchange Rate Mechanism

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in consolidation of the exchange rate mechanism during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council.

    The Prime Minister : Following the severe financial turbulence which affected a number of ERM currencies in the autumn, I called the European Council in Birmingham on 16 October. This decided that the mechanism should be analysed in the light of developments in capital markets and in the European and world monetary systems. The work was remitted to ECOFIN. Further strains have recently confirmed the need for this work.

     

    Sees and Titles

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister;

    (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham of 18 May, Official Report, column 5, whether the consultation of Church authorities includes the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales;

    (2) what changes he proposes to official recognition of territorial sees of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland or, in so far as restrictions apply, in Northern Ireland;

    (3) when he expects to propose changes to official recognition of territorial sees and titles of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.

    The Prime Minister : Consultations with Church authorities and others about the official recognition of Roman Catholic territorial designations within the United Kingdom are making good progress but have not yet been completed. We shall be seeking the views of the relevant Roman Catholic authorities as part of that consultation.

     

    President de Klerk

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the documents he received from President de Klerk during the President’s recent visit to the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : No, as the correspondence involves matters of national security.

     

    Civil List

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister what is the time-lag between the annual payments into the civil list and the reinvestment of specified annuities to the Consolidated Fund.

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Member is referring to Her Majesty’s reimbursement of the Consolidated Fund for the section 3 annuities, refunds are normally made each November, for payments made during the course of the calendar year. The timing follows that of the first voluntary reimbursement by Her Majesty in November 1975.

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if interest on the early-years surpluses on the civil list under the current 10-year agreement is retained within the civil list.

    The Prime Minister : Yes. Any surplus at the end of the 10-year period would be carried forward and taken account of in the settlement for the next period.

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister what investments the royal trustees consider appropriate for the early-year surpluses on the civil list.

    The Prime Minister : The surpluses are prudently invested in the United Kingdom from within a range approved by the royal trustees.

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy adopted by Ministers if hon. and right hon. Members request that replies to letters concerning constituents abroad come from Ministers and not from chief executives or departmental heads of agencies.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s policy on dealing with letters from hon. and right hon. Members on agency matters was most recently set out in the Government’s reply to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee’s 1990 report on the next steps initiative, Cm 1263, which said :

    “It is for Ministers responsible for particular Agencies to respond in the way they consider most helpful and appropriate to inquiries raised by Members. Ministers will normally ask the Chief Executive to reply to letters which concern day-to-day operational matters delegated to the Agency.”

    The fact that a Member’s inquiry was made on behalf of a constituent who lived abroad would not in itself provide a reason to change this approach.

     

    Alois Brunner

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with his counterparts in the European Council a joint approach to the Syrian Government in support of Germany’s request for the extradition of Alois Brunner for Nazi war crimes against humanity.

    The Prime Minister : The case of Alois Brunner is not on the agenda for the European Council. Member states are aware of the continuing strength of feeling behind calls for his extradition. Most recently, Germany has made clear to Syria its own and wider European concerns on this matter.

  • PMQT – 10 December 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th December 1992. Tony Newton deputised for John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

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

    This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet before departing to Edinburgh for the European Council meeting.

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Does the Leader of the House agree that the extent of marriage breakdown in Britain, and especially its implications for the children involved, is a matter of great concern to the nation as a whole? Will he press on the Prime Minister the need properly to fund the conciliation and counselling services undertaken by organisations such as Relate and the National Children’s Home? Does he recognise the direct connection between the Government’s policies and the current incidence of marriage breakdown?

    Mr. Newton : As it happens, I know well from my own previous and, indeed, present association with Relate that a great deal is going on between the Government and that organisation and others to help in this very important matter. I shall take the hon. Gentleman’s question as an expression of his support for our encouragement of those organisations.

    Mr. Thomason : Will my right hon. Friend invite the Prime Minister to come to my constituency of Bromsgrove, where he will find a well managed and well run local authority which is Conservative-controlled? Will he also suggest to the Prime Minister that he might choose to visit Monklands, the constituency of a member of the Opposition, where he will find a local authority riddled with nepotism?

    Mr. Newton : I think perhaps the proper response to that question is that it is to be hoped that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who is also holding a meeting in Edinburgh, might pay a visit to Monklands and look into it himself.

    Mrs. Beckett : Has the Lord President seen the growing number of references to the likelihood that we shall soon see the emergence of an explicitly two-tier Europe? Which tier will Britain be in?

    Mr. Newton : I have seen the references and I know that Britain will be in the fast lane. I also know that if the Labour party had its way, we should have been forced into the slow lane.

    Mrs. Beckett : The position that the Lord President describes is certainly that which should exist, but I do not think that anyone else will think that it is the position which does exist. Does he recognise that a two-tier Europe with Britain in the second tier is just what British business has long feared, and that if that happens, it is not only likely to be extremely damaging but will be in no small part due to the incompetence of the Government’s economic policy and their chaotic mismanagement of the British presidency?

    Mr. Newton : I do not quite know on what basis the hon. Lady puts her point that nobody agrees with us. The whole of British industry knows that Labour policies in relation to the social chapter, tax policies and payroll tax would mean that Britain would be in the slow lane throughout the world.

    Mr. Gallie : Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday 9,000 Rangers fans travelled to Germany at a cost of £300 per head to witness Rangers’ magnificent win over Moscow? Does he agree that on that basis there is light at the end of the recessionary tunnel?

    Mr. Newton : I did not know about the 9,000 figure, but I am delighted at the result and my hon. Friend makes a good point.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Leader of the House respond to the question of which I gave him notice yesterday so that he might have a chance to discuss the answer with the Prime Minister? In view of the deteriorating situation in the area, will he give us a categorical assurance that the Government, working with others, are not prepared to allow the city of Sarajevo to fall to the aggression of the Bosnian Serbs?

    Mr. Newton : I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Yeovil for his courtesy. I can tell him that the British Government see no justification whatever for continued Serb aggression in Sarajevo or anywhere else in Bosnia. Clearly, the western powers to which he referred could give the sort of undertaking that he seeks only by introducing a massive injection of foreign military power. The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that they do not believe that such an intervention would contribute to a solution of the crisis. The right hon. Gentleman will know, however, that after the steering committee meeting of the conference on Yugoslavia here in London there will be a meeting in Geneva next week when the main item on the agenda will be the war in Bosnia.

    Miss Emma Nicholson : Will the Lord President lead the House in condemning the religious violence which has now spread worldwide? Will he also agree that the International Moslem Foundation, a moderate organisation, and the Al Khoei and Ul-Bayt based in the United Kingdom, are just as horrified as we are by the violence and are solid and sincere members of the United Kingdom?

    Mr. Newton : I very much endorse the concern and support that my hon. Friend has expressed and also the calm support by numbers of people, including the Indian Prime Minister, throughout the world.

     

    Q2. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave a moment ago.

    Mr. Banks : I say this with no disrespect to the Leader of the House, but this is like getting 24 points on the football pools and finding that the first dividend is only 50 pence. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any regrets about the fact that the Conservative party sent two experts from its dirty tricks department to help President Bush, that the Foreign Secretary sent a telegram to James Baker saying “happy shooting just before the election, and that some idiot authorised a search of Bill Clinton’s files? Is it any wonder that in Arkansas the Prime Minister is regarded not so much as an FOB as an SOB?

    Mr. Newton : If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West were to win as much as 50 pence on the pools, he would be doing better than I did in the days when I did them. On his question, he may like to know that there have been some very friendly exchanges between President-elect Clinton and the British ambassador only yesterday evening, and that President-elect Clinton has made it clear that he looks forward very much to meeting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister after the inauguration.

    Mr. Luff : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, among the many issues facing the Edinburgh summit, the Government attach the highest possible priority to the future financing of the Community, and especially to securing Britain’s abatement?

    Mr. Newton : I assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely the case. Future financing, enlargement and finding a solution to the Danish problem are important key items on that difficult agenda. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will certainly make it clear that Britain has no intention of compromising on the abatement.

     

    Q3. Mr. Kilfoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Kilfoyle : As we approach Christmas, may I draw the Lord President’s attention to the publication today of “Sick to Death of Homelessness” by the housing charity, Crisis, and to the “This Week” television programme this evening entitled “Dying for a Home”? One of the conclusions drawn is that of the 617 deaths of homeless people up to 31 August this year, 65 per cent. were preventable, given proper housing and good medical care. Is that not a terrible indictment of the callous disregard with which the Government treat those least able to help themselves?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman might have been more persuasive if he had mentioned that, as a result of measures introduced by the Government during the past year, the number of households accepted as homeless has fallen, the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation has fallen by nearly a quarter, and the number of people known to be sleeping rough on the streets of London has dropped by about 60 per cent. according to an assessment made by the voluntary organisations themselves.

    Mr. Hargreaves : Notwithstanding the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about our intervention in Sarajevo, will he consult the Prime Minister to ensure that an undertaking is given to come to the House and provide a debate before any British troops are used for anything other than strictly humanitarian aid purposes?

    Mr. Newton : I note my hon. Friend’s point, and I shall of course draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

     

    Q5. Ms. Glenda Jackson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Ms. Jackson : Is the Lord President aware that more than 7,000 homeless families will spend Christmas in bed-and-breakfast accommodation without the means or resources to prepare the simplest of meals? In the light of the growing body of evidence of the ill health and malnutrition suffered especially by the children of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it time for a boarder premium to be paid to such families so that while they wait for the right to a home at least their children have the right to a decent diet? Or is he prepared to allow the increasing poverty and homelessness on our streets to be accompanied by scurvy and rickets?

    Mr. Newton : I have already commented on the general question of homelessness. The hon. Lady will know that, in addition to what I have already said, it has recently been announced that the Government are to put a further sum of nearly £90 million over three years into the rough sleepers initiative to tackle some of the problems which worry her. She will also be aware that, as a result of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security a few weeks ago, there will be a real increase in the value of income-related social security benefits next April.

     

    Q6. Mr. Clappison : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Clappison : Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the great interest that parents have recently expressed in information about their children’s examination performance–information which they have every right to have and which the Government have allowed them to have, but which the Opposition would deny them–parents would feel huge disappointment if some teacher unions boycotted their children’s tests?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. A boycott of the tests would betray the pupils who have been working hard at the national curriculum and who deserve to have their achievements recognised. Her Majesty’s inspectors’ reports on the trial tests have said that they were a great success. It is absolutely right to say that it is time that the Opposition stopped opposing everything that helps to improve the quality of education and choice for parents.

    Mr. Boyce : Given the state of the economy, the homelessness and the poverty in this country today, does the Leader of the House agree that the worst possible scenario is that the Government know what they are doing?

    Mr. Newton : When the hon. Gentleman makes such a point, he might remember that in the past two years the rate of inflation has been more than halved and interest rates have been more than halved. We see exports at record levels and we see increases in retail sales. In the past three months, we have seen a 20 per cent. increase in car production.

     

    Q7. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Duncan : Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who try to criticise the basis on which houses have been valued for the purposes of the council tax risk severely misleading the public? Does he agree that it is relative house prices and not absolute house prices that matter? Does he agree that we have devised a fair basis for the fair implementation of a very fair tax?

    Mr. Newton : I of course agree with my hon. Friend that the purpose of the valuations is a comparison between relative property values. I agree even more with him that a system that takes relative values into account– alongside other factors, including rebates–will be far fairer than the discredited rating system to which the Labour party wishes to return.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 December 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister when he first became aware of the 1988 amendments to the 1985 Howe guidelines for defence-related exports to Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : The development and application of the guidelines will be a matter for the Scott inquiry.

     

    Ministerial Travel

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total cost to the Exchequer of his travels within the European Communities to meet his counterparts since 1 July 1992.

    The Prime Minister : The total cost is not yet available.

     

    Ministerial Meetings

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by date all meetings and telephone conversations he has had with his European Community counterparts during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council.

    The Prime Minister : I have had frequent contacts with my EC colleagues, most recently during a tour of EC capitals to prepare for the Edinburgh European Council.

     

    Iraq and Iran

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to discuss arms and nuclear exports to Iraq and Iran from European Community countries during the European summit of the European Council.

    The Prime Minister : We are committed to strengthening nuclear non-proliferation regimes and to controlling arms exports. The United Kingdom presidency has taken forward work on nuclear non-proliferation and on the harmonisation of conventional arms export policies in European political co-operation. We have no plans to discuss EC arms and nuclear exports to Iraq and Iran at the Edinburgh summit.

     

    Legal Expenses

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister on what dates, in what circumstances and at what cost, contributions have been made, at public expense, towards the legal expenses of officers of Her Majesty’s Government, officers of the House of Commons who are Members of the House, persons working in the private office of Ministers and accounting officers for Departments of state since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 3 December, Official Report, column 307.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Separation of the Prince and Princess of Wales – 9 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement on the break-up of the Prince and Princess of Wales, made on 9th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that Buckingham palace is at this moment issuing the following statement. It reads as follows :

    “It is announced from Buckingham Palace that, with regret, the Prince and Princess of Wales have decided to separate. Their Royal Highnesses have no plans to divorce and their constitutional positions are unaffected. This decision has been reached amicably, and they will both continue to participate fully in the upbringing of their children.

    Their Royal Highnesses will continue to carry out full and separate programmes of public engagements, and will from time to time attend family occasions and national events together.

    The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, though saddened, understand and sympathise with the difficulties that have led to this decision. Her Majesty and His Royal Highness particularly hope that the intrusions into the privacy of the Prince and Princess may now cease. They believe that a degree of privacy and understanding is essential if Their Royal Highnesses are to provide a happy and secure upbringing for their children, while continuing to give a whole-hearted commitment to their public duties.”

    That is the text of the announcement.

    I am sure that I speak for the whole House–and millions beyond it–in offering our support to both the Prince and Princess of Wales. I am also sure that the House will sympathise with the wish that they should both be afforded a degree of privacy.

    The House will wish to know that the decision to separate has no constitutional implications. The succession to the throne is unaffected by it; the children of the Prince and Princess retain their position in the line of succession; and there is no reason why the Princess of Wales should not be crowned Queen in due course. The Prince of Wales’s succession as head of the Church of England is also unaffected. Neither the Prince nor the Princess is supported by the civil list, and this position will remain unchanged.

    I know that there will be great sadness at this news. But I know also that, as they continue with their royal duties and with bringing up their children, the Prince and Princess will have the full support, understanding and affection of the House and of the country.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the European Union – 9 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Union, made in an interview in London on Wednesday 9th December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about President Mitterrand’s comments that there might have to be a Europe of ten].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You cannot have a Europe of ten, it is not possible. Europe advances as Twelve or Europe cannot advance, that is the position taken by a number of governments, the German government made it clear on a number of occasions that Europe advances as Twelve. Chancellor Kohl has said it publicly on a number of occasions, it is the British position as well and I think it will remain the position.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked that President Mitterrand said it was legally possible to implement Maastricht without the Danes].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not believe that is true.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was no legal way of achieving this].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are a Community of Twelve and it is our intention to move ahead as a Community of Twelve and I think that is the way we must approach all negotiations and that is the way we do approach them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what would happen if the Danes did not ratify the Maastricht Treaty].

    PRIME MINISTER:
    Then we cannot ratify Maastricht, you cannot ratify Maastricht without the Danes, Maastricht is an agreement amongst twelve, not an agreement amongst eleven.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Maastricht Treaty was therefore dead if it was not ratified by the Danes].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If it cannot be ratified by all twelve it cannot proceed. We believe it can be ratified by all twelve and we want it ratified by all twelve and we are doing everything we can to make sure that an agreement is reached, but it must be an agreement by all the members of the Community.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what could be done for the Danes].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have set out a very comprehensive plan to meet the difficulties faced by the Danes, it involves a decision by the member states on certain sensitive matters, it involves European Council conclusions, a declaration by the European Council and declaration by the Danes. But the points that are relevant are these: it does not change the terms of the Maastricht Treaty, there will be no need for fresh ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and it calls for flexibility on behalf of the Danes and of the rest of the Community. I do not propose to go into details on the propositions we have put forward, but I hope we will find they are generally acceptable at Edinburgh this weekend.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 December 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Cold Weather Credits

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister when he will be replying to the letter of 21 October from the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits.
    The Prime Minister : A reply was sent on my behalf by the Department of Social Security on 2 December 1992.

     

    World Summit for Children

    Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the progress made towards the goals established at the World summit for children in 1990.
    The Prime Minister : The Government published a “Report on United Kingdom Implementation of the Goals agreed by the World Summit for Children” as a Command Paper on 24 June 1992.

  • PMQT – 8 December 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms. Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

    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.

    Ms. Hoey : Does the Prime Minister agree that the present 999 emergency service is highly efficient, flexible and adaptable? Will he assure the House and the thousands of people lobbying Parliament today that he will put his foot down and stop the Oftel report which will–if its proposals are implemented–destroy the system and endanger the lives of millions of citizens?

    The Prime Minister : I agree that, generally, over the years, the present system has been efficient, although, as the hon. Lady will know, there have been drawbacks, which have been brought to people’s attention from time to time. The consultants’ report will be carefully considered by all the interested parties. I give great consideration to ensuring that the new arrangements will at least maintain, and preferably improve, the current high standard of response to calls. If the hon. Lady has specific propositions to put, I know that the director general of Oftel will be happy to receive them.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Lait : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

    Mrs. Lait : While recognising that my right hon. Friend will be under enormous pressure at Edinburgh from our European Community partners to give ground on the rebate, may I tell him that he will have the total support of Conservative Members in resisting any such pressure?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her mention of the Edinburgh summit. There is no doubt that a large number of complex things are to be decided at Edinburgh–the enlargement negotiations are difficult, the future finance negotiations will undoubtedly need a good deal more work and we are committed to finding, if we can, a satisfactory conclusion to the Danish problems. What is quite clear, as I told the House last week, is that there can be no change in the British abatement to the budget.

    Mr. John Smith : On the issue of the Edinburgh summit, at a time when unemployment is rising faster in Britain than in any other country in the Community, should not a programme of jobs and recovery be at the top of the agenda for the Edinburgh summit? Why did the Prime Minister not even mention that in his reply?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to know that there will be a discussion among the Heads of Government on the European economic situation, and Britain, as President, specifically invited the Finance Ministers to Edinburgh. The economy has been a main topic of discussion at all the meetings that we have had in Europe in recent months, and a team of Treasury officials has been travelling throughout Europe to co-ordinate positions. I very much hope that co-ordinated measures will emerge from those discussions, but we shall have to wait to see what our partners feel at Edinburgh this weekend.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that the obligations of being President of the Community entail more than chairing interesting discussions ; that it is action that is required? Why have all the suggestions–increased support for research and development, more investment facilities for the European investment bank, infrastructure projects in transport and other areas, and emergency action on unemployment –come from others and nothing from the President of the Community?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is characteristically mistaken, as he will find from the presidency paper that has been placed for discussion this weekend. On the subject of action during the presidency, he has clearly overlooked the agreement sought for a long time between the United States and the Community on agriculture, the fact that agreement has now been reached on more than 50 single market measures, which means that we will be able to declare the single market open as at the end of this year, the resolution on making the single market work, the London conference on Yugoslavia, and the preparations for enlargement ; and he has overlooked, or chosen to overlook, a great deal more as well.

    Mr. John Smith : Why, in that litany, did not the Prime Minister mention unemployment? Why has no action been taken before now? Why was unemployment not on the agenda for the Birmingham summit? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that when 750 manufacturing jobs are being lost each working day in this country it is high time action was taken? His presidency will be condemned for gross inaction.

    The Prime Minister : I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is desperately trying to recover his European gloss after the shameful way in which he and his colleagues have been behaving over the Maastricht Bill. As for providing opportunities for growth and jobs, he might bear in mind that we have the lowest corporation tax in the Community or the G7, the lowest interest rates in the Community, inflation down well below 4 per cent., low direct taxation, exports at record levels, car production growing, and retail sales growing–the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not like any of this because it shows what we have done and how things are going to change.

     

    Q3. Mr. Clifton-Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown : My right hon. Friend will be aware that since the autumn statement and the abolition of car tax, car sales since last October have increased by 22 per cent that Honda has created another 1,100 jobs at Swindon, Nissan has created another 1,800 jobs at Sunderland and that Toyota is about to create a great many more jobs in Derby. Is not that excellent news for the car industry in particular and the economy in general? [Interruption.] Does it not demonstrate that low taxation boosts consumer demand, whereas the high-taxation policies of the Opposition destroy jobs?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is learning that Opposition Members are not too keen on hearing good news–no doubt we shall hear a good deal more of that in the months to come.

    People sometimes forget how far the motor car industry has come since the early 1970s. It was then a national disgrace; the trade unions wrecked it day in, day out. The fact that it has come so far is a great tribute to the work force, to the management and to the legislation passed by successive Conservative Governments.

     

    Q4. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Given that the Prime Minister was elected, in his own words, to create a nation more at ease with itself, how does he reconcile that objective with the fact that between 3 million and 4 million people are unemployed in this country, with the number still rising, and that more than 17 million people are unemployed in the European Community? At the end of two years of his premiership and six months as President of the European Community, does he believe that he has succeeded in achieving the target that he set himself so few months ago? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : When the hon. Gentleman has ceased being heckled by Opposition Members on the Front Bench below the Gangway, I will try to answer him. As he knows, I set out a programme for a full Parliament. He will be able to criticise if we do not realise our objectives by the end of this Parliament, by when he will see that we will have achieved them.

    Mr. Harris : My right hon. Friend made some welcome remarks about doing away with excessive and bureaucratic regulations in this country. Will he perhaps start by looking at the regulations on meat hygiene and inspection which pose a real threat to small and medium-sized slaughterhouses in this country and, although a welcome start has been made, will he carry that even further?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, I have asked my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade to co-ordinate a considered examination right across the Government, local government and the European Community on the extent of regulations. I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the specific examples which my hon. Friend mentions.

     

    Q5. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Has the Prime Minister been briefed on the murder of the British journalist Jonathan Moyle in Santiago and, if so, what is his response to the Chilean judge charged with the investigation of the murder, that his investigation was obstructed by the unwillingness of British officials to co-operate? How does the Prime Minister explain British officials briefing the press that Mr. Moyle died while masturbating when he was murdered by a lethal injection in the heel? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is any link with the fact that Jonathan Moyle was investigating the arms trade of Carlos Cardoen, the main arms procurer for Iraq, who was responsible for the transmission of Matrix Churchill equipment and was also the associate of Mark Thatcher?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman makes a series of unsubstantiated comments to which he knows I have no intention whatever of replying. If the hon. Member has detailed evidence that he believes should be examined he should take it to the proper authorities.

     

    Q6. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

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

    Sir John Hannam : My right hon. Friend will recall the meeting he had recently with hon. Members from the south-west when he was made aware of the particular problems of differential electricity and water charges. Has he seen the latest survey by Exeter chamber of commerce which shows that 60 per cent. of businesses there have increased their sales in the past three months, that 25 per cent. are expecting to increase their labour force and that only 4 per cent. to reduce their labour force? Will he continue his efforts to reduce the regulatory burdens which bear down on business expansion?

    The Prime Minister : The figures that my hon. Friend mentions are encouraging and I am grateful to him and my other hon. Friends for the comments they made to me recently. I fully accept how important all those factors are to the prosperity of the west country, but they have similar importance for the economy of other parts of the country as well. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be doing all that we can to lift the burden from all companies–large, medium and small.

     

    Q7. Mr. Raynsford : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Raynsford : What has the Prime Minister to say to the thousands of parents of children in Greenwich who are deeply concerned at the adverse effect of Government-imposed cuts on the standards of education for their children in schools in Greenwich? Why have this Government failed entirely to respond to the concerns expressed in the signatures of thousands in the petition that I presented a few weeks ago? Why have they not bothered to make any observations on that petition or to those concerned?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind which Government published information about what is happening in schools and how children are being taught and what their results are. When he and his right hon. and hon. Friends are prepared to release that sort of information he might be in a position to issue such pious lectures.

     

    Single Currency

    Q8. Mr. Sweeney : To ask the Prime Minister whether the establishment of a single currency within the union remains the policy of Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister : The Government believe that it is too soon to consider whether or not the United Kingdom should move to a single currency. The United Kingdom is not obliged or committed to such a move and no decision to move to a single currency will be made without the specific approval of Parliament.

    Mr. Sweeney : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that under article 109J of the treaty we shall be driven inexorably towards a single currency whether we want it or not?

    The Prime Minister : No, I do not accept that. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a specific provision that will enable us at an appropriate time to decide whether or not we take part in a single currency. That provision does not prevent us from preparing with our Community partners for their move into a single currency, but we remain uncommitted until and unless the House decides that we should move into one.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose–

    Madam Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Lady that this is a closed question.

     

    Engagements

    Q9. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Michie : In view of the Prime Minister’s stated commitment to defend this nation’s heritage, will he and his colleagues call for a moratorium on all supermarket developments in green-field sites and launch an investigation into their value, compared with the amount of heritage that is lost under the concrete and car parks of supermarket development? The right hon. Gentleman can start the survey with Meadowhead in Sheffield.

    The Prime Minister : Such matters must be dealt with on a case-by- case basis, as they have been in the past, are now, and should continue to be in future.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7th December 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Radiation

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the division of responsibilities between each Government Department in investigating the risks posed by exposure to radiation.

    The Prime Minister : The Department of Health is responsible in general terms for the protection of public health against radiological hazards. The Department’s specific responsibilities relate to obtaining expert advice; initiating relevant research; and ensuring an effective health response in the event of a radiological emergency.

    The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food’s responsibilities are to protect the population from exposure to unacceptable levels of radioactivity through food chain pathways; and to minimise the impact of radioactive waste on the food, farming and fishing industries and the marine environment.

    The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for civil nuclear safety in relation to the generation of electricity. The Department of Employment is responsible for the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985, which concern the protection of workers and the public from radiation doses received as a result of any work involving ionising radiations. On this the Department is advised by the Health and Safety Commission and the regulations are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.

    The Department of the Environment is responsible for establishing a radioactive waste management policy and for monitoring the environment for radioactivity. Within the Department, the regulators–Her Majesty’s inspectorate of pollution–have the statutory responsibility in England and Wales for authorising uses and disposals of radioactive substances.

    The Ministry of Defence is responsible for defence nuclear and radiological safety.

    The Department of Transport is responsible for the safety aspects of the transportation of radioactive material.

    The Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office are responsible for all civil aspects of radiological safety in relation to their respective parts of the United Kingdom. The National Radiological Protection Board is responsible under the Radiological Protection Act 1970 for advancing knowledge of radiological protection and for informing and advising Government Departments and others on protection from radiation hazards.

     

    Animal Welfare

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Government Departments concerned with the main areas of animal welfare, indicating their respective responsibilities.

    The Prime Minister : A number of Government Departments have responsibility for the welfare and conservation of animals and related matters.

    The Department of the Environment is responsible for policy on stray dogs; the protection of birds; wildlife and endangered species.

    The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for the welfare of livestock kept on agricultural land; the welfare of livestock at market and the welfare of horses, cattle, sheep, swine, goats and poultry in slaughterhouses and knackers yards. The Ministry is also involved in the campaign against illegal poisoning of wildlife and in the International Whaling Commission, and has responsibility for the impact of fishing practices on cetaceans. The Home Office is responsible for ensuring the adequacy of the law on cruelty to animals in general and in some specific areas, and for the law on the use of living animals in scientific procedures. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office works to raise the profile of animal welfare issues abroad, both bilaterally and with international organisations concerned.

     

    Maastricht Treaty

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister how many representations his office has received on the Maastricht treaty from 1 January to 1 December giving a disaggregated breakdown between those originating in the United Kingdom and those from abroad.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a substantial number of representations on the Maastricht treaty covering a wide range of issues.

     

    Legal Expenses Insurance Policies

    Mr. Alex Carlile : To ask the Prime Minister if he will require Ministers to take out legal expenses insurance policies.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so.

     

    Freight Traffic

    Mr. Adley : To ask the Prime Minister if it remains his Government’s policy to seek the transfer of freight traffic from road to rail; and if he will report on the extent to which freight has been transferred to rail since April 1992.

    The Prime Minister : The Government believe that freight should be transported by rail whenever that makes commercial sense to customers and rail operators alike. The best way to facilitate this is to end British Rail’s monopoly of rail services, as proposed in the White Paper “New Opportunities for the Railways”, Cm 2012. Detailed information about rail freight carryings since April 1992 is a matter for British Rail.

    Mr. Adley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will order an immediate inquiry into the reasons for and effect of the fall in the volume of rail freight traffic.

    The Prime Minister : Rail freight has been in decline for many years. The Government’s proposals for the privatisation of British Rail’s freight operations, and the opening up of the rail network to new entrants, are aimed at improving rail’s prospects for the future.

     

    Tropical Timber

    Mr. Meacher : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom Government’s position in respect of the preparatory committee for renegotiation of the international tropical timber agreement to be convened in Quito, Ecuador, in January 1993.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom had hoped that a second preparatory committee in Quito, Ecuador would be unnecessary; however, the tropical timber-producing countries require more time to develop their positions before discussing them with the consuming countries. The Quito meeting will provide a valuable opportunity for the producing and consuming countries to identify the issues they wish to renegotiate. The United Kingdom intends to participate in the second preparatory meeting and will work with its European neighbours for a speedy renegotiation of the 1983 agreement.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty’s Government took during 1990 and prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, to halt the export to Iraq of furnaces constructed by Consarc Engineering of Bellshill, near Glasgow.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 December 1992] : It is not normal practice to discuss the affairs of individual companies.

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what requests Her Majesty’s Government received from the United States Administration to stop the export to Iraq of two furnaces constructed by Consarc Engineering at Bellshill, near Glasgow, during 1990;

    (2) what communications Her Majesty’s Government received from the United States Administration during 1990 and prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, concerning involvement by British companies in equipping a missile factory called Badr General Establishment.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 December 1992] : Communications between Governments are confidential.

     

    Civil List

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister what items or headings of expenditure have been transferred from the royal family’s expenditure funded from the civil list to the Government since 1972; on what dates; what is the current cost to the Exchequer of each such item or heading; and what was their cost at the time of their transfer.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 December 1992] : So far as I am aware, no items or headings of direct expenditure have been transferred from the civil list to the Government since 1972. However, following advice taken in 1987, consistent with government fees and charges policy, the royal household took on board the feasibility of charging full costs for certain administrative services. These included, for example, charging for the accommodation and support services provided to staff based in the royal household but who are employed by Government Departments. Similar charges are made on behalf of the civil list to the household’s royal collection department and to the Prince of Wales’s office. The cost to Government Departments in the years 1987-90, which should be seen in the context of the “1990 Royal Trustees Report”–HC 629–are as follows :

    |£

    ————————

    1987 |83,372

    1988 |138,310

    1989 |132,809

    1990 |162,810

    The separate identification of full costs for administrative services is in line with the Government’s policy of identifying costs across the public sector.

     

    Furniture and Furnishings (Regulations)

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department is responsible for drafting the Furniture and Furnishings Fire Safety Regulations; and what consultations are being undertaken on the terms of the regulations.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 3 December 1992] : The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations were made by the Department of Trade and Industry in July 1988. The DTI has recently consulted public on draft amendment regulations proposing to postpone, from 1 March 1993 to 1 March 1994, the date by which furniture included in the letting of accommodation must meet the fire resistance requirements of the 1988 regulations. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow businesses providing furnished accommodation more time to prepare for the fire resistance requirements and to complete the upgrading or replacement of their existing stock of furniture. It will remain a requirement that any additional replacement or additional furniture which they supply from 1 March 1993 must meet the fire resistance requirements.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Ruud Lubbers – 7 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr Ruud Lubbers, held in Edinburgh on Monday 7th December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    I think you talked about the Danish position, can you say something about that issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We talked about the whole range of issues at Edinburgh and beyond Edinburgh. We ran through the agenda. We looked at the question of Denmark and future financing, enlargement, all the issues we expect to face at Edinburgh. I think we are both committed to making sure that Edinburgh is a success and the Community can show it’s on a forward path. I hope very much we will be able to reach an agreement over the weekend that will enable the Danes to put the whole question back to a new referendum.

    QUESTION:

    Why do you think Edinburgh will be a success, because the EC is in a rather desperate position right now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The European Community is a fairly remarkable organisation. Over the years it has had many occasions where it faced difficulties. It has hurdled those difficulties. It has faced them and overcome them. I think that when we get to Edinburgh the many difficulties to be overcome, there’s a general will to overcome them.

    QUESTION:

    There’s a general will to overcome them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There’s a general will.

    QUESTION:

    And you saw that general will as well from Mr Lubbers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ask the Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    Of course we discussed the very useful proposal of the British presidency about the Danish problem and as was said in other capitals, we think it can be improved. Certain elements of it, as I explained to the press in the Netherlands already on Friday. But I see good possibilities. You never know of course. It will be difficult and the same is for the other topics we have to discuss. It won’t be easy. Europe is often at its best when it is difficult.

    QUESTION:

    The Christian Democratic leaders have said last week that they won’t accept the British solution on the Danish issue.

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    Oh, that’s the way we prepare meetings. Always it is the same.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Would you go into a meeting saying I agree with everything if you are just about to go into negotiations? That is the standard way the Community prepares.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what kind of improvements could you bring to this proposal to solve [inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we brought forward for the meeting over the weekend is a compromise between the necessary changes that are there to ensure that Denmark can successfully put the Referendum back and the changes that the rest of the Community are prepared to accept. There are some things that the Community can’t accept. We can’t accept changes to the Maastricht Treaty itself. We can’t accept things that require re-ratification. And there has to be flexibility both on behalf of Denmark and on behalf of the rest of the Community. Now we have put forward a proposal in some small areas where I think there will be further discussion at Edinburgh. I hope it will be possible to reach a conclusion. No-one can be absolutely certain about that. We will have to wait till Edinburgh. But what is perfectly clear, talking to every head of Government across the Community, is that there is a general will to see whether we can reach an agreement. Everybody will be going there trying to reach an agreement and I think that is a very satisfactory way to begin the meeting at Edinburgh.

    QUESTION:

    Will there be a motion to stimulate the European economy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will be discussing the European economy of course.

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    Of course we will do that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that it is still possible that Denmark will take over the European Presidency in January?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, its not only possible, it is certain they will.

    QUESTION:

    Still?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes.

    QUESTION:

    Could we have your comments about the rejection by Switzerland of the EEA? Both of you please.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not a wholly unexpected rejection, given the nature of the Swiss constitution. They needed to win in each and every Canton, so I don’t think it is a great surprise they have said no. I think it is a disappointment for Switzerland and for others. What will now happen, of course, is that the Swiss will have excluded themselves from the largest free trading market in the world, and the free trading market that is getting larger. The other EFTA states will no doubt now hold a conference and decide how to proceed. What I think is absolutely clear is that in no way will this diminish the wish of the other EFTA states to join the Community proper.

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    It is a pity of course, but as the Dutch Prime Minister, I want to pinpoint, make clear that we have a separate agreement with Austria and Switzerland about a very important transit problem, and that was made separately and was accepted by the Swiss population a few months earlier. Frankly speaking, that was the most important part for us and that is not endangered by this Referendum.

    QUESTION:

    But the Edinburgh summit can’t be a failure? You agree with that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Everyone will be working to make sure the Edinburgh summit is a success.

    [Remaining section was in Dutch, and translated to the below]

    QUESTION:

    Have you been given British support for the siting of one the European Institutions in the Netherlands?

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    The British hold the Presidency. They are only looking for consensus and agreement and I do not have the feeling that it has become easier now than it was in Maastricht or in Lisbon. I am talking about the whole question of the siting of institutions.

    QUESTION:

    Your colleague Mr Major has been criticised for being too British in his Presidency. Do you share that criticism?

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    We are now busy preparing for Edinburgh and making the best of it, and in the week to come there should be no criticism – only cooperation.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Lubbers, last Friday you said that you and Mr Major would come with a few suggestions for the Danish problem.

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    That is what we have done. That is why he was looking so cheerful.