The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT – 12 November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Garrett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Garrett : Today’s unemployment figures confirm that Britain is in the longest recession since the 1930s and is still heading for the deepest recession since the 1930s. How would the Prime Minister describe his stewardship of the economy, when to most people it has been incompetent and callous?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know the difficulties that are faced not only here but elsewhere across Europe and beyond Europe. What the hon. Gentleman characteristically forgot to mention is that, this morning, notwithstanding the fact that every single figure in the unemployment increase is a personal tragedy, that increase is smaller than the average monthly increase has been for some considerable time. I hope that that will prove to be a welcome trend. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out some measures later on today of which I think the hon. Gentleman may approve.

     

    Q2. Mr. Devlin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Devlin : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since his recent chat with Mr. Delors, it was reported in yesterday’s American press that the French Government are hinting that a compromise on GATT may now be only just around the corner? I do not know what my right hon. Friend said to Mr. Delors when he popped into Downing street recently, but, for the sake of all those manufacturing industries in the north of England, will he keep on saying it please?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly keep pressing the case for an early conclusion to the GATT round. I certainly welcome the assurance that the President of the Commission gave me last Friday about an early resumption of talks with the United States. I am delighted that that has subsequently been endorsed by the full Commission and equally pleased that Mr. MacSharry will be rejoining the talks. We will certainly continue to press for a very early conclusion. I believe that the Commission hopes to regroup on 20 November. It would be very agreeable if it were able to report a success with the United States so that the matter could then go to Geneva for final settlement.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister tell us when he first knew that the Government guidelines on the export of arms-related machinery to Iraq were being breached?

    The Prime Minister : Let me try, for the sake of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members of the House, to disentangle the true issues from some of the misunderstandings and wilder allegations of recent days. Let me make the first and fundamental point that the issues raised by the Matrix Churchill case have been referred to an independent judicial tribunal. All the papers that the inquiry seeks will be available to it. All Ministers and officials who are asked to give evidence to that inquiry will be required to do so and the inquiry will be free to publish whatever material it wishes.

    The second point relevant to the whole House, I think, is that every relevant aspect of the conduct of all Ministers will be open to scrutiny by the inquiry and I thoroughly welcome that. I will, if I may, clear a third point and that is that Ministers, in claiming public interest immunity, were doing what they were obliged to do by law. They signed such documents only as advised by counsel and the Attorney-General. It follows that they were not concealing information from the court. On the contrary, they were making available the relevant documents to the court. It was then for the judge to decide which of the documents should be protected by public interest immunity and which should not. I hope that that will clarify matters.

    Mr. John Smith : Instead of answering a clear and direct question, the Prime Minister has issued a prepared statement. I remind him that this question goes right to the heart of the credibility of his Government. I ask him it again. When did he first know that the guidelines on arms- related exports to Iraq were being breached ; what date, please?

    The Prime Minister : It is not clear at all that they were breached. The first allegations that they might have been breached were made by The Sunday Times in late 1990. Following that article, I, together with the Cabinet Secretary, had a meeting with Mr. Alan Clark. At that meeting he told me that it was totally false to suggest that he was advising the companies concerned on how to prepare licence applications in such a way as to conceal military use. Mr. Clark took the same position in the written witness statement which he provided to the court. It was not until his testimony in the case, therefore, that I had any reason to believe that what he had told me and what was in the written witness statement might not correspond with his oral evidence.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister understand that if he thinks that the guidelines were not breached, he must be about the only person in this country who has arrived at that conclusion? Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, when he gave replies, in particular a reply to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on the Liberal Benches on a previous occasion about exports to Iran being conducted in the light of the guidelines, that was the whole truth as he knew it at that time?

    The Prime Minister : Every parliamentary answer that I have given or letter that I have dispatched has been based on the position as I understood it to be. I am utterly confident that that will be clear in Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry.

    Mr. Duncan-Smith : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is quite appalling for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to go on the media and accuse my right hon. Friends of dishonourable conduct before– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat unless he questions correctly. The Prime Minister has responsibility only for Government activities. Will the hon. Gentleman frame his question correctly or not?

    Mr. Duncan-Smith : Yes, indeed, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that all that he has said so far this week indicates that there will be a complete inquiry and that all will be revealed, honourable conduct included?

    The Prime Minister : The House has that complete assurance. Indeed, if I had wished there not to be a complete inquiry and hon. Members to be open to questions, I might have followed the proposal of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and had an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, which would have made the matter sub judice in the House.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is it not the case that the Prime Minister and the Government knew as early as July–that is, six months before the Prime Minister’s letter to me–that the machine tools being exported to Iraq by Matrix Churchill and other companies were beyond peradventure being used to make munitions for the Iraqi army?

    The Prime Minister : I have replied to the right hon. Gentleman’s letter and the many media appearances that he has made. As he will see when he receives my letter, his second letter shows that he has completely misunderstood the position. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked a question ; he might have the courtesy to listen to the answer. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my letter of 6 December and wrongly claimed that I misled him by concealing knowledge of the Matrix Churchill case when I explained the Government’s policy on export licences for Iraq. That is not the case. If the right hon. Gentleman reads my letter, he will see that I refer in the second paragraph to an investigation by Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise which was into Matrix Churchill. I made it clear that I could not comment in case I prejudiced any proceedings. That is the rational explanation for which the right hon. Gentleman asked. He failed to understand my correspondence.

    Mr. Anthony Coombs : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest figures, for October, for manufactured car exports show an increase of no less than 37 per cent. on last year? Is he also aware that the Textile Alliance anticipates that the exports of the textile industry from the United Kingdom, at £4.8 billion, will be a record for this year? Does he agree that a newly competitive exchange rate will give British exporters the opportunity to improve even on that excellent performance?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. That is certainly the case, and there is no doubt that car production rose very dramatically in September, and the figures for October, which were released today, suggest that production is holding up. I have no doubt that our present competitive exchange rate will improve that position.

     

    Q3. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Cryer : Instead of passing the buck continually to a vague and unsatisfactory inquiry, will the Prime Minister clean out the cesspit of the present Government by sacking all those Ministers who conspired to pervert the course of justice in the Matrix Churchill case in order to cover up a Government policy of encouraging the sale to Iraq of machinery which they knew was to be used for the manufacture of munitions and nuclear weapons? Or would that involve sacking himself?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is one of the foremost conspiracy theorists in the House and an acknowledged expert at muckraking. But not even he can call an independent judicial inquiry anything other than an impartial, clear-cut and independent inquiry. That is what we have ordered and that is what we shall have.

    Mr. Tredinnick : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great scandal that some local authorities are obstructing schools that want to become grant-maintained? Will he join me in welcoming the statement by the Secretary of State for Education that the law will be changed to make that obstruction impossible? Does he agree that most of that obstruction has come from Labour-controlled local authorities?

    The Prime Minister : I think that that is a matter of fact and not conjecture. I very much welcome the action taken by my right hon. Friend in the Education Bill to ensure that parents have a proper choice. It is intolerable that some local education authorities should deliberately scare parents by claiming, entirely falsely, that by voting for grant-maintained status, they will damage their children’s education. It is equally unacceptable that LEAs, as teachers’ employers, should put pressure on staff to resist the ballots of parents.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mrs. Mahon : Does the Prime Minister intend to retain the nurses’ pay review body? If so, does he agree that, if that body is to have any relevance to the pay that nurses actually receive, the Government must accept its recommendations and fund them?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady will be able to hear my right hon. Friend’s statement very shortly.

    Mrs. Peacock : Is my right hon. Friend aware that a private sector proposal to work the Markham Main colliery has been with British Coal for almost three weeks without any acknowledgement? Does he agree that that may suggest that British Coal does not want competition?

    The Prime Minister : I shall pass my hon. Friend’s remarks to the President of the Board of Trade. I have no knowledge of that particular proposal, but I have no doubt that it will be brought to British Coal’s notice very speedily.

     

    Q5. Mr. Don Foster : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Foster : Does the Prime Minister agree with those Conservative councillors in Bath who this week supported a motion expressing dismay at the deterioration of the national health service in Bath? Or does he support the comments of the Secretary of State who, on a recent visit, said of the closure of wards at the district hospital, of the loss of beds for the elderly mentally infirm and of the increased waiting lists for elective surgery that she thought they were “mere teething problems”?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman is just a little selective. He makes no mention of the fact that health service expenditure is up by more than 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979 or that, for every pound spent in 1979, nearly £4.50 will be spent this year. Neither did he mention the fact that the national health service will spend nearly £2,500 a year for every family of four in this country. No other Government would have provided those resources.

    Mr. Ottaway : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sunday trading at Tesco superstore in Purley has resulted in an increased turnover, more jobs and a surplus of staff who want to work on a Sunday, and it is very popular with my constituents? Will he introduce legislation that clarifies that area of the law before an unacceptable compromise is introduced to the House in January?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we have a manifesto commitment to bring forward proposals for reform once the European Court of Justice has settled the compatibility of the current law with the free trade provisions of the treaty of Rome. We expect that judgment in the Court in November and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will then make an announcement to the House about legislation.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 November 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance

    Mr. Alex Carlile : To ask the Prime Minister what is the average hill livestock compensatory allowance payment to eligible farmers in Wales and the comparable figures for England; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The average payment during the 1991-92 financial year was £2,570 in Wales and £2,781 in England.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Chancellor Kohl – 11 November 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Chancellor Helmut Kohl, held at Heythrop Park in Oxfordshire on Wednesday 11th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say firstly that the Chancellor and his colleagues are very welcome indeed here at Ditchley, we know each other so well now we were able to get down very rapidly to business and it has been a very productive summit for both of us.

    I think everyone will know the length to which I and the Chancellor have both gone to persuade the Community and the United States to negotiate to reach a successful conclusion in the GATT round. I am delighted that the Commission have today announced that they intend to restart talks again next week. I think that is vital. What the world economic situation calls for at present is calm discussion and not sabre rattling and we do need that GATT settlement comprehensively and as speedily as possible. I have no doubt whatsoever that a very valuable prize in the form of that GATT settlement is within our grasp and it will bring with it a boost of some 200 billion dollars to world incomes.

    And I think there is a further point about GATT that the Chancellor and I have been able to discuss this morning and it is simply this. The rich countries of the world owe it to the developing countries of the world not to hold up a deal, the poorer nations would gain around 90 billion dollars from the GATT round and that is of course twice the level of total official aid and I think that does place a very considerable impetus on the need to secure a successful outcome for the Uruguay Round.

    On bilateral and European matters, the Chancellor and I discussed in detail the agenda for the forthcoming Edinburgh summit and I explained how, in our Presidency role, we intended to handle the Danish proposals. We agreed specifically on the need to take firm decisions at Edinburgh on subsidiarity. By that I mean the Community only doing what the Community needs to do and with greater openness. And we agreed also that we needed to make progress on enlargement of the Community, starting with the EFTAN states. Both of us want to see the early accession of those EFTAN countries into the European Community.

    We discussed also this morning the difficult question of the Community’s budget. Germany of course is the largest net contributor and the United Kingdom is the second largest. We both agreed that it is necessary to keep the Community’s finances under control and to ensure that we get the best possible value for money for the money that is spent communally by the European Community.

    One of the many positive aspects of the Maastricht Treaty is that it will help achieve that goal and whilst I mention the Maastricht Treaty let me commend to you the booklet produced today by the British Government which translates some of the Eurocomment into English and copies will be available for people and I hope they will find it very useful.

    At the plenary session with our Ministerial colleagues we discussed a number of matters, amongst them the European Fighter Aircraft, a very important European collaborative project. The recent four nation study has shown that we can cut the costs very substantially and I very much hope that future studies will confirm that we have a basis for going ahead with such a new fighter aircraft, we have not reached that position yet but the discussions will continue between our Defence Ministers in the weeks ahead.

    Ministers also discussed the former Yugoslavia, we welcome the news of a ceasefire although we remain cautious about how lasting it will prove. Douglas Hurd can respond to that in greater detail if there are specific questions on it.

    Let me also report straight away some excellent progress in combating international crime and drug smuggling. Community member states are working together on an intergovernmental basis to establish the first stage of Europol by 1st January next year and this stage will include a drugs intelligence unit which will involve officers from all member states of the Community. They are expected to work in support of national police forces to strengthen the hands of the police in the battle against organised crime.

    Those are just a few of the matters we discussed this morning, by no means a comprehensive list. A few examples are the areas of cooperation between Britain and Germany and very clear proof that relations between our two countries remain extremely good. I was very pleased this morning to be able to tell the Federal Chancellor how much The Queen had enjoyed her recent state visit.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    John, Ladies and Gentlemen. First of all I should like to thank you most warmly for the friendly and hospitable reception which we have received here today and I am thanking you on behalf of the German delegation also. These consultations have taken place in a very warm atmosphere and I think this is an atmosphere which reflects the relationship between our two countries and indeed reflects the friendly relations which exist between John Major and myself.

    I should like to take this opportunity before the British public here also to explicitly and expressly thank you for the State Visit of Queen Elizabeth II to Germany. We were especially pleased that the focal point of this visit was in the new Federal states which reflected the particular interest which Great Britain has shown in the development of the new federal states and I think the programme of the visit also shows that today, and this has been mentioned, Great Britain has moved into second place amongst foreign investors in the new federal states of Eastern Germany.

    At the forefront of our consultations, the Prime Minister mentioned this of course, were the preparations for the European Council in Edinburgh. It is in our joint interest for this meeting in Edinburgh to be a great success, In the course of the special meeting in Birmingham we conducted much useful preparatory work and we agreed that it is now time to ensure in these few weeks in the run up to Edinburgh that we lay down clear guidelines and above all criteria for the application of the principle of subsidiarity, we need to develop these criteria, this is going to be a most decisive point for our consultations in Edinburgh and this also corresponds with the wishes of our population.

    The Prime Minister and myself agree, and I think almost all our colleagues in the Community agree, that we also need to discuss in Edinburgh the wrong developments which took place in the past and we need to correct these false developments.

    Against the background of the discussions which have taken place over the last few months in connection with the Maastricht Treaty it is now time for us to do everything we can in order to ensure that we develop the picture of a democratic Europe which is close to its citizens and in which we respect national identity and culture of all member states. Maastricht is not, as occasionally is said here in Great Britain, the starting point for the development of a centralist Europe, nobody wants this. We wish in future with the Maastricht Treaty as Germans, Britons, Italians and French, we wish to remain within our national identities.

    We agreed that at Edinburgh we shall discuss the question of new states, of EFTA states, to the European Community. I hope that we will be successful in ensuring that at the beginning of 1993 negotiations can begin, and this is another area where we agree.

    A further focal point of our discussion of course concerns ratification and the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty. Prime Minister Major explained to me once again the reasons why the ratification procedure in Great Britain has been postponed to the first half of 1993. I wish to state quite clearly that I of course respect this decision, this is a British decision, l have much comprehension for the problems and the difficulties which have been encountered and which have led to this decision. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister will undoubtedly ensure that the treaty is ratified and this is my particular wish and that of the German people.

    What is decisive for us is that the treaty should remain unchanged and should be ratified by all states within the Community so that it can then come into force in 1993. As you know, but I will repeat this once again, we shall be discussing the treaty and ratifying the treaty at the end of November in the Federal Parliament and then the second Chamber will discuss this in the middle of December and ratify the treaty also.

    We also wish to undertake all we can and we agreed on this point, the Prime Minister and myself, that we must find a way for our Danish friends to ratify the Treaty of Maastricht for as far as the German position is concerned I would emphasise once again that we wish to move into the future with all Community states, it is not our objective to create a Europe with two or three speeds, but we also do not want to have a Europe a la carte.

    Prime Minister Major, just to mention the GATT round, and I can only support everything that he said, both of us over the last few weeks, I think up to the last few hours, have been conducting joint work on this subject and trying to ensure that the GATT round comes to a successful conclusion. The situation of countries of the Third World, the situation as regards a recession in our economic development should force us to sensible action and should then help us to move towards a compromise.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Can you tell me, Chancellor, how the negotiations on the EFA project went on and whether the two Ministers came closer together?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    This is a question I would like to reply to. I am very keen that we speak to all our partners, with the UK, Italy and Spain, and achieve a sensible agreement. We have found that the project as it is at present has become too expensive in its general configuration and we made great savings and intend to make great savings and now new calculations are available and I am certain that we will have a sensible result. For the German side I would say very clearly that we wish to have a common European solution but no lack of confidence vis a vis our American friends are quite incapable of having that, but it is a precondition for our future development in Europe and there is a performing aircraft and aircraft industry and that is why I think we will achieve a sensible solution here.

    QUESTION (Edward Stourton, ITN):

    Could I ask the Chancellor whether he was upset by what the Prime Minister has said recently about the ratification process of Maastricht and whether he thinks it will threaten the Danish referendum or the outcome thereof? And the Prime Minister whether he agrees with what the Chancellor said about Maastricht remaining unchanged?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me answer the second point. We certainly do not want to change the substance of the Maastricht Treaty, that is the Treaty that I agreed to in Maastricht and we do not wish to change that. What Denmark wants to do is to make some amendments outside the Maastricht Treaty and that is what we will be examining in the discussion at Edinburgh and no doubt beyond Edinburgh. But the substance of the Maastricht Treaty is the treaty that we agreed before.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Would you allow me a frank comment concerning the whole of the subject after the debate in the UK? When I became Federal Chancellor, Ladies and Gentlemen, 10 years ago the most used word in Europe was Eurosclerosis, it was the concept of a bad illness going together with the concept of Europe. If 8 or 7 years ago we had held a press conference here and we had said we are able to work out the Maastricht Treaty, most of you would have commented that they must have gone quite mad, there is no chance at all.

    Now we drafted the Maastricht Treaty together, of course the Maastricht Treaty is a compromise, all sides of course have made efforts to achieve this compromise and we now have a new situation, it is a new milestone in the life of European peoples. Although in spite of the Maastricht Treaty we will remain Britons and Germans, we are not going to give up our homeland, our mother tongue, our nationality, we remain Britons and Europeans and Germans and Europeans. But particularly on a day like this, which is an historical date if we look at this century, we will have to look back at the long way we have come and I would put it to you quite simply, if one of our friendly countries, the UK, has for its own reasons the wish to say please give us a few months time, why should I criticise the British for that? I have every confidence in the Prime Minister that he will achieve his objective. I also have all confidence in the fact that the majority of the British understand that the future lies in a peaceful and economically successful. Britain in Europe. So if it is a matter for us to give some time to the UK, I would quite agree to say OK, proceed like that, I am quite confident that things will be successful and I have no reason to get excited about that.

    QUESTION (Hans Slegermann):

    Chancellor, did Premier Major ask you to exercise more pressure on the French as regards the GATT round of negotiations?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Not at all. That would have been a quite nonsensical activity, quite nonsensical if John was to exercise pressure on me and it would be just as ridiculous if I were to try to exercise pressure on the French. Anyone who understands the psychology of nations knows that this is the worst recipe for action that you can imagine.

    We are both convinced of the same thing and this I think is a conviction which is largely shared by our French friends. We need to conclude the GATT Round. It will be a compromise because without free world trade, positive development of the world economy is unthinkable.

    Before I look at the industrial countries, I would name the Third World as an example. If for example GATT is not successfully concluded, if we withdraw into a fortress mentality with declarations of a trade war, we will not be able to move forward into the future. It won’t be mainly the French, German and English who will pay although they will be paying – it will be the countries of the Third World who pay the most and if you look at the sums of development aid in the budgets of all the industrial countries and lump them all together then you still won’t get anywhere near the sum which you might achieve if you can guarantee free trade through GATT.

    We need to exercise international solidarity and we must have a commitment towards GATT and we need Free World trade if we believe that jobs in Germany, Great Britain or France can be secured and new jobs can be created. If we withdraw into Fortress Europe and the Americans withdraw into Fortress United States, then this would be an idiotic form of politics. That is quite simply a fact. We need GATT. We need a sensible compromise.

    I can only say quite critically that over many months we have been prepared to compromise and have wished for a compromise. I don’t want to place blame upon anybody involved but if the acting President and the future President of the United States are listening, I would like us to reach a conclusion and this is the vote we have put to the EC Commission in Brussels and I think we have a good chance of achieving this.

    As far as the French are concerned, France is an exporting country as we all are; they have agricultural problems as we do too but I am absolutely against now pillorying the French, which has happened occasionally over the last few weeks.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds – BBC Radio):

    Prime Minister, do you feel in any way weakened in your negotiations by your domestic problems? You have had problems with monetary matters, the miners, Maastricht and now munitions for Iraq. Do you feel that you are reversing the Teddy Roosevelt dictum about speaking softly and you are speaking loudly yet carrying a small stick?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to your question is quite straightforward and quite simple – no. You asked me a direct question; I gave it a direct answer.

    No, I don’t. The negotiations we have carried out in Europe have been clear-cut and crystallised from the beginning by a clear set of objectives. That was the position and remains the position and I think on many of those matters we have negotiated very successfully with our European Community partners.

    In any negotiation there is always a degree of give and take. If there is not, it is not genuinely a negotiation. That is what has happened. I think our European partners have seen that we have negotiated with them in a straightforward and satisfactory way and I believe we have received a very satisfactory result as a result of those negotiations.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    May I add one comment, John, although the question was not addressed to me.

    I must say frankly that I think it would be bad policy if one of us were to have difficulties internally and we were to try and exploit those difficulties. The Europe which I wish to achieve must always be a Europe which comes together and those who want to really make the last possible calculations on this will fail.

    QUESTION (David Foley – BBC Newsnight):

    Prime Minister, how much damage did the withdrawal from the ERM cause to Anglo-German relations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it has caused damage to Anglo-German relations and I think you can probably see that quite clearly today. I didn’t seek a withdrawal from the Exchange Rate Mechanism; market compulsion made it necessary but I think that is well understood amongst our partners in Europe and I believe it has done no damage whatsoever. It is fully understood.

    QUESTION (George Jones – Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, the German Chancellor appears to have suggested that he is willing to see several months delay and understands the need for that over the Maastricht Treaty. Can the Prime Minister now give us an assurance that if the Danish referendum is delayed beyond May, perhaps to the summer or even the autumn, that he will proceed with the Third Reading of the Maastricht Bill in the spring of next year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made the position perfectly clear about our proposals on the Bill. What is now clear as a result of the vote last week is that there is no way in which the Government can in future rely in any sense on the Labour Party supporting the passage of the Maastricht Bill. We cannot be certain that they will do that. Their vote and their tactics last week make that perfectly clear.

    That means that to ensure the passage of the Bill, which must be my first priority, I must win the arguments in the House of Commons and that will mean encountering a great degree of opposition from some and it will mean countering at length the arguments of those opposed to the Maastricht Treaty. They have already put down a large number of amendments so it will be a lengthy process and I would not expect the Committee Stage to be finished by May but we have said repeatedly that we are determined to ratify the Bill during this session of Parliament and I am happy to repeat that today. I believe we will have the Third Reading some time after the expected date in May of the Danish referendum and I expect to ratify the Bill during this session of Parliament.

    QUESTION (Michael Insted – BBC German Service):

    Did you discuss at all the question of Britain taking more refugees from Bosnia?

    May I also put a question to the German delegation? Are you satisfied so far with the number of refugees accepted by the UK?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will ask the Foreign Secretary to respond to that. Although the Chancellor and I discussed it, the Foreign Secretary and Herr Kinkel had more lengthy discussions on the matter as indeed did the Home Secretary.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    You may have followed what the Home Secretary announced last week, that after a period during which many thousands of Yugoslays have come here but in an uncoordinated way to the UK, there is now a visa regime except for Slovenia and Croatia and we have expressed our willingness to accept particular numbers of people identified by the humanitarian agencies as requiring a home beginning with an offer of 150 – that is heads of families so maybe 4/500 with their dependants – an offer which has not yet been taken up but which we are discussing. Over and above that, we have expressed our willingness on that basis to do more.

    At the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday, Klaus Kinkel, sitting at the end there, made a very eloquent plea from Germany that all of us in the Community and the Americans, Canadians and other friends should rally round and make it clear that between ourselves we are willing to accept those 6,000 who have so far been identified from the camps as requiring places outside the former Yugoslavia and we as Presidency are now taking that up and identifying country by country who is able to do what.

    HERR KINKEL:

    Perhaps from the German side I may add that the Twelve discussed the problem of refugees from the former Yugoslavia very intensively in the last few weeks and also the question of the camps.

    As regards the refugees – and this is no secret – we certainly had to bear the main burden in the Federal Republic. We had to take more than 135,000 refugees and at last Monday’s Council we said that in any case we want to take on those people from the camps in Bosnia and other areas before Christmas who have to live under terrible conditions there. According to indications received by the Red Cross, there are about 6,000 people. As Europeans, we have committed ourselves to taking these people and for the Federal Government, with the help of the Federal Chancellor I have been able to say that we will be able to take 1,000 of the 6,000. I think this is a humanitarian gesture, to see that before Christmas, before the winter comes, the camps are emptied if this is at all possible.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton – Sky TV):

    John Smith, the Labour leader, today told a meeting of the TUC that Britain opting out of the Social Chapter of the Maastricht would mean that British workers were better placed to compete with the Taiwanese than with the Germans. As right-of-centre politicians who disagree on this matter, I wonder if you could both comment on that observation.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen what Mr. Smith said but if Mr. Smith is so concerned about the Social Chapter or indeed any part of European development I am rather puzzled that he should have asked his party to vote against the motion in the House of Commons last week. There is no doubt that he put at very great risk the future progress of the Bill. As it happens he lost the division and lost a great degree of credibility, not only at home but in Europe.

    The Labour Party said they had consulted their European socialist colleagues about how they voted. It turned out that Mr. Cunningham had had a conversation with Jean Pierre Kot [phon], the leader of the socialists in the European Parliament, but if that was the position it is rather odd that Jean Pierre Kot subsequently seems to have contradicted him by making the point that the Labour. Party were playing with fire in the way in which they voted on Maastricht so John Smith may be going to a great deal of trouble to try and save his reputation but it is a little late. He threw his European reputation overboard in his tactical vote in the House of Commons a week ago.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, may I put a question to try and overcome a few misunderstandings concerning monetary policy and currency policy.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL

    Well don’t write a book about it!

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    Two months ago, from the German side we heard that Great Britain had been made an offer that they could devalue together with the Italians on the 12/13 September. Mr. Kurda said that, the Secretary of State. On the British side, it was said that no offer was made. Could you perhaps help us and say which version corresponds to the truth?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I can’t help you.

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    I beg your pardon. You were involved with the Bundesbank on the matter.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I still can’t help you, I am afraid, in spite of that. The question is simple. I don’t think there is any point in discussing the past weeks in this context and continuing the discussion which won’t get you any further anyway. All sorts of statements have been made and all sorts of statements have not been made. I see no point in now writing a history book about it. When you are pensioned off and me too, then we will get together and write a third book about the subject together.

    QUESTION (Nick Gowing – Channel 4 News):

    Chancellor, you indicated earlier that you had full understanding for the British position. How much do you fear that the longer the debate about Maastricht goes on, the less the will and the public support there will be for whatever emerges eventually?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I don’t think so. We have all learned more. I have too. The Maastricht Treaty is a milestone in the century towards the development of Europe and certainly as Heads of Government and others have to realise perhaps we have done too little in the field of psychology to really make people understand what a tremendous development this is and even in politics one can learn from the mistakes one has made.

    If I look at the asset side, I must say it is a tremendous thing that at this moment we are capable of going towards this development in Europe, that Europe is growing together, that we will be strengthened vis-a-vis other combinations in the world. In eight years it will be the year 2000 and that will undoubtedly see that in the North American area, the United States and Canada associated with Mexico will have a tremendous region of association. You will see associations like that too in Latin American. We see similar things in Asia if we just refer to Korea and Japan. We act in Europe as if the world is simply passing us by. The achievement at Maastricht of monetary union, economic union and political union really pulls the people of Europe together. It is time that we understand that we are not in 1902 but in 1992 and we have to draw the conclusions from that.

    Our British friends have their own history and their own traditions, and we only have to look at the history of the British Parliament which is not without reason called the “Mother of Parliaments” to see that we have to take account of this. The essence of friendship is that we make concessions to each other and the basis of my friendship with John Major is that we aim at helping each other, not obstructing each other. That is my view of European solidarity and European policies.

    QUESTION (Hella Pik – The Guardian):

    You have both today emphasised the unity of purpose and have obviously sought to minimise any differences. What Chancellor Kohl has said is somewhat in contradiction to what was said in Bonn on the eve of your visit here. You and your Foreign Minister were reported as being rather critical of the British delay in the ratification debate. I am just wondering whether you feel you have for presentational purposes today emphasised the positive and ignored the negative and whether you have any comments on that?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I don’t know who said that to you in Bonn. I didn’t say it and under the German constitution it is I who decides the policy line and nobody else. I am not sure if you read some sort of magazine on the subject but you should stop reading them I think.

    Such a statement was not made by me and neither legitimised by me. I don’t know who else could have said that in Bonn and that is all I have to say on the subject.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is much to add to that.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 November 1992

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Economic Policy

    Q9. Mr. Raynsford : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s new economic policy including his forecasts for growth in the financial years 1992-93 and 1993-94.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s central objective remains to achieve sustainable and non-inflationary growth. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out details of the Government’s economic policy in his Mansion House speech of 30 October. He will be announcing the Government’s spending plans and publishing a new forecast for the economy in 1993 in the autumn statement.

     

    Official Statistics

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what provisions are made to ensure that Ministers and others in Government service are not permitted to take personal advantage of access to official statistics before they are published.

    The Prime Minister : “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” makes and the civil service code make it clear that both Ministers and civil servants should avoid any conflict of interest between their official duties and private interests. Ministers and civil servants are bound by the provisions of the Companies Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985. Copies of “Questions of Procedure” and the code are in the Library.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

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

     

    Pit Closures

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he arranged for the telephone line in his office for views on pit closures to be closed and callers told to write instead; and what arrangements he is making for more telephone lines to his office to enable the public to make calls, the substance of which can be logged for record purposes ;

    (2) if he will publish the telephone numbers to his office which members of the public may telephone if they wish to record protests about pit closures and other matters; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I do not propose to change the existing practice.

  • PMQT – 10th November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

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

    Mr. Cox : Does the Prime Minister recall the many promises that he made at the last election that there would be no increase in taxation? Against the background of those promises, will he confirm in the House that there will be no increase in national insurance contributions, or are the people of this country to see in the very near future yet another broken election promise from an already totally disgraced and devalued Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman ought not to get himself into such a tiz. He will know the answer to his question soon enough. On the subject of income tax, I seem to recall the Labour party contesting the election on the basis of increasing tax and the shadow Chancellor saying only yesterday that the Opposition are not proposing raising income tax at this time. Some U-turn.

    Sir Peter Hordern : Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, notwithstanding the efforts of Mr. Mitterrand and Mr. Delors, the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations will be brought to a successful conclusion?

    The Prime Minister : We are doing all we can to make sure that the Community re-engages in negotiations without delay so that we can reach a satisfactory GATT settlement in a matter of weeks at the outside. I hope that we shall reach agreement between the Community and the United States ; then the remaining aspects of the GATT round ought speedily to be determined. It is the first priority for international economies at the moment to make sure that there is a GATT agreement and no single country should be permitted to stand in the way of it.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister recall assuring the House in January 1991 that

    “for some considerable time we have not supplied arms to Iraq”?–[ Official Report, 31 January 1991 ; Vol. 184, c. 1102.]

    How does the Prime Minister reconcile that assurance with the revelation in the Government documents produced at the Matrix Churchill trial that as late as 27 July 1990, only six days before the invasion of Kuwait, machine tools known to be intended to make fuses for missiles and artillery shells were supplied to Iraq?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that from 1985 until the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the Government operated under guidelines first set out by the then Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Howe. Since the invasion, we have operated, and we continue to operate, the full embargo to which I referred in answering the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel).

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister understand that there are two aspects of this matter that are causing grave concern to the British public? The first is that equipment was supplied to Iraq which could have been valuable to it in hostilities against British service personnel ; and the second is that the truth about a secret change of policy appears to have been concealed from the House and also from the British public. Will he now set up an inquiry under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 to make the fullest investigation into this deeply disturbing matter?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there have been some extraordinary stories about this matter and I agree with him that they must be clarified beyond any measure of doubt.

    I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to make a statement on the matter later this afternoon. My right hon. and learned Friend will tell the House that the Government will be setting up an independent judicial inquiry, which will have full access to all the papers and will be able to take evidence from all the Departments and all the agencies concerned.

     

    EC Financing

    Q2. Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the issue of contributions by member states.

    The Prime Minister : The European Community’s future financing arrangements are currently under review. This will be one of the issues on the agenda of the European Council meeting at Edinburgh in December.

    Sir Teddy Taylor : As Britain’s net contribution this year will be £2.6 billion, which is about £4 per week per family of four in Britain, and as the Court of Auditors has told us that much of that is spent on waste, fraud and food destruction, will the Prime Minister advise President Mitterrand and the others that it would be wholly unacceptable to expect the people of Britain to pay a great deal more for the potential huge extra costs of Maastricht when life is so hard for everyone in Europe at the present time?

    The Prime Minister : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend on the continuing need for restraint in Community spending overall. I have already made it clear that President Delors’ future proposals are excessive and that we will not be able to support them. The Community, as with each individual member state, should not spend more than it can afford. It will remain our priority in the negotiations up to and including those at Edinburgh to secure firm budgetary discipline and value for money for all Community spending.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Roy Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Does the Prime Minister recall black Wednesday when the sharks and speculators made a real killing? Now we are approaching black Thursday with the autumn statement, when it will be the poor and needy in Wales and elsewhere who are likely to be affected as a result of cuts in public expenditure. When will the Government realise that those cuts in public expenditure will only hinder Britain’s long-term recovery, or is this yet another example of a “Major” vision of a nation at ease with itself?

    The Prime Minister : I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits until Thursday.

    Sir George Gardiner : Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the House hardly needs lectures from President Mitterrand on how to organise its own business? Does he accept that when he gives his word to this House that we will not consider the Third Reading of the Maastricht Bill until after the Danish referendum, we know full well that he will keep it?

    The Prime Minister : I have expressed my views on President Mitterrand’s reported remarks in a private letter to the President, but I am quite prepared to state publicly that the passage of the Maastricht Bill is a matter for the British Parliament and the British Government. The crucial immediate issue before Europe is achieving a GATT settlement and avoiding a trade war. I note that in the same interview President Mitterrand described a global settlement as

    “not only useful but necessary.”

    I agree with that; a delay on GATT really would be unacceptable. I set out the answer on Third Reading in reply to the House earlier last week.

    Mr. Ashdown rose — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is very time consuming..

    Mr. Ashdown : Is the Prime Minister aware that there are at this moment more than 6,500 refugees who could be free but remain trapped in Serbian prison camps, living in the most indescribable conditions and without any kind of adequate shelter, because no third country can be found for them to go to? Does he not realise that temperatures will drop to minus 17 deg C in that area during this month? Does he not realise that the consequence of his Government’s disgraceful decision to limit refugee entry from that area, together with his failure to put together an adequate programme of co-ordinated action by the European countries, will soon mean that some of those people risk paying for his failures with their lives?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman really should get his facts straight on what the European Community has done and on what the British Government have done. The United Kingdom has received more than 30,000 visitors this year from the former Yugoslavia. More than 3,000 have applied for refugee status and no one will be forced to return to the conflict zone. We fully support the view expressed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that the best solution is for the displaced to remain close to their homes, making eventual repatriation a much more possible proposition. The visa regime, which has clearly activated the right hon. Gentleman, needs to be seen in the context of overall asylum applications, and that point has been made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

    Mr. Michael Brown : Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the British Airports Authority on its outstanding results, just announced? Will he take the opportunity to remind it that it has an obligation to ensure that regional airports, such as Humberside airport, have the opportunity of flying regional flights into Heathrow? Is he aware that failure to enable that to happen leads to business men in Humberside having to fly to Holland –to Schiphol–thereby depriving British Airways of good business?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right to offer congratulations to BAA, which has had an outstandingly successful period, and I am happy to add my congratulations to his. I agree unreservedly with the balance of his remarks.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

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

    Mr. Cohen : In relation to the Matrix Churchill trial, will the Prime Minister be a little less economical with the actualite and say whether he thinks it is proper that three innocent men might have been imprisoned because Ministers tried to suppress the evidence? Has it not clearly emerged from that trial that the former Foreign Minister, now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, knew that the sales breached the arms embargo but agreed to the deception? Should he not be considering his position in the Government, or the Prime Minister be considering it for him?

    The Prime Minister : I advise Opposition Members not to go down the route that so many of them took with BCCI just a year or so ago. They would be wise to await the Attorney-General’s statement. I have already said that there will be a full, independent judicial inquiry, and I repeat that to the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Hayes : Does my right hon. Friend agree that public interest immunity must be claimed, that it is at the sole discretion of the judge and that it cannot be waived by Ministers? Hence, all the talk in the tabloid press about a cover-up is nothing more than arrant nonsense.

    The Prime Minister : Ministers have a duty to claim public interest immunity where appropriate and that duty cannot be waived. It is then for the courts to consider where the balance of interest lies, and successive Governments have acted in that way.

     

    Q5. Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

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

    Mr. Madden : What action does the right hon. Gentleman propose, through the United Nations, to stop the partition of Bosnia? Why were Her Majesty’s Government prepared to breach the arms embargo to allow Iraq to wage war, but now refuse to lift the arms embargo to give the Government Bosnian forces the means with which to defend their independent country, to stop genocide, to stop ethnic cleansing and to stop the displacement of thousands of men, women and children who face death?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman would be wise not to tie his questions to allegations that are as yet uninvestigated. A few moments before I came into the Chamber, I was advised–as yet, it is not confirmed- -that there is said to be a cease fire in Bosnia from midnight tomorrow. We have heard that before. If it is sustained it will be extremely welcome news, but we must wait and see whether it is sustained. The hon. Gentleman should not seek to misrepresent the Government’s position.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House and British industry fully support his efforts to force Mr. Jacques Delors and the bureaucrats of Brussels to pull their bootstraps up and get cracking to find an urgent and equitable solution to the stalled GATT round? Although the cricket season is now over, will my right hon. Friend promise the House that he will not put his bat away until that matter is sorted?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to say that I share my hon. Friend’s view entirely about the imperative need to get an early GATT settlement. There is no doubt that there is no longer a great distance between the United States and the Community on the substantive issues that need to be determined. I, myself, cannot accept that it is impossible to reach an agreement that will be acceptable to both the Community and the United States. At the moment that agreement is reached, the GATT round can be concluded in Geneva without further delay. The damage of there not being a GATT round is too profound to contemplate. I assure my hon. Friend that that is a matter of primary importance to the Government and we will pursue it in each and every forum until there is an agreement.

    Madam Speaker : Time’s up. I call the Attorney-General to make a statement.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9th November 1992

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Library and Information Services

    Mr. Cousins : To ask the Prime Minister what inter-departmental co-ordination of Government policy towards library and information services exists; and what steps he is taking to improve such co-ordination.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage liaises with colleagues on library and information matters where these are not within a specific departmental interest. Department of National Heritage officials have close working relations with other Government Departments. The National Heritage Secretary is considering how far these links need to be strengthened, and will initiate action as necessary.

     

    Security Services

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in regard to permitting serving members of the security services to give evidence in court cases held in the United Kingdom on matters related to their responsibilities.

    The Prime Minister : There is no objection of principle to serving members of the security and intelligence services giving evidence in court cases held in the United Kingdom on matters relating to their responsibilities, subject to considerations of the public interest, including protection of identification, and to the condition of relevance being satisfied.

     

    European Parliament

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy in regard to examining reports produced by the European Parliament committees.

    The Prime Minister : Departments in London closely follow European Parliament–EP–developments on subjects within their responsibilities. Councils in Brussels take account of EP resolutions relating to their current business. Each Foreign Affairs Council considers resolutions recently approved by the European Parliament and the presidency draws attention to resolutions of particular importance.

     

    Edinburgh Summit

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government will support the proposals to be made at the Edinburgh summit by the Government of Denmark.

    The Prime Minister : The proposals submitted by the Danish Government on ratification of the Maastricht treaty will form the basis for our discussions with other member states. Our objective is to agree the framework for a solution at Edinburgh.

     

    Indonesia

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will review the Government’s opposition to an arms embargo against Indonesia.

    The Prime Minister : No. I do not believe that a review is necessary.

     

    European Union

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what opportunities exist for citizens of the United Kingdom to make suggestions to the European Commission for proposals to the Council under the provisions of the treaty on European Union.

    The Prime Minister : Any citizen of a member state may make suggestions to the Commission.

     

    Maastricht Treaty

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he will put forward to enable the Danish request for exemption from part two of the treaty on European union, concerning citizenship, to be met.

    The Prime Minister : A memorandum was presented by the Danish Government to Community member states on 30 October. This will now be discussed within the Community.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister in what areas of policy covered by the treaty on European union will the Commission’s role be solely advisory.

    The Prime Minister : There are provisions in the treaty on European union for the Commission to be consulted on a proposal by another party; for example, article 168a–court of first instance–and article N– amendment of the treaty.

     

    Government Employees

    Mr. Ralph Howell : To ask the Prime Minister what is the number of persons employed in general Government using the figures for (a) 1961 and (b) 1991; and what is the percentage increase that the 1991 figure represents.

    The Prime Minister : The information required is available in the Central Statistical Office publication “Economic Trends”, December 1991– Table D of “Employment in the public and private sectors”. A copy is available in the Library.

     

    Public Record Office

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister how many papers his Department has currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office; if he will list their titles; and when he estimates that they will be returned.

    The Prime Minister : About 30 files of papers on open deposit at the Public Record Office are currently requisitioned for departmental use in London as permitted under the legislation, but the number may change from day to day. They have mainly been requisitioned for purposes of official historical research. A member of the public applying for access to any such file has only to cite its title and number, by reference to the shelf lists held at the Public Record Office, and arrangements can normally be made for its early return to the public reading room for as long as may reasonably be required.

     

    Health Pay Review Boards

    Mr. Blunkett : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to suspend the health pay review boards; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 November 1992] : The Government see a continuing role for these review bodies, whose advice it has greatly valued. We have made clear to the review bodies, and more generally, the importance we attach to tight control over public spending and borrowing. As part of this, the Government will be seeking to maintain firm downward pressure on growth in the pay of public sector employees, including those whose pay is subject to the recommendations of the pay review bodies.

     

    President Yeltsin

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make representations to President Yeltsin concerning the Russian seal cull at his forthcoming meeting; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 November 1992] : The Russian authorities are well aware of public concern in the United Kingdom about seal culling. The EC banned the import of harp and hooded seal pup skins in 1983. The United Kingdom persuaded the Community to extend the ban indefinitely in 1989.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Yeltsin – 9 November 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Yeltsin, held in London on Monday 9th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like firstly to express the warmest possible welcome to President Yeltsin and his colleagues on his visit here today. think it is an important visit. The visit is about our joint commitment to democratic values and economic reform and fittingly President Yeltsin will mark it tomorrow by addressing Members of both Houses of Parliament.

    The meeting is about the success of the partnership which we founded here in London when last we met in January and at that particular meeting we pledged ourselves to work together on a range of different issues, on international problems, on economic cooperation, on Russia’s membership of the International Monetary Fund, on the debt of the former Soviet Union and for a new agreement between the European Community and Russia and on closer defence contracts and on the control and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

    I would like to say to you today that we have delivered upon those proposals. Our governments, together with our international partners, have made important progress on all of those vital issues and on many more besides. We have signed today the first general treaty between Britain and Russia in over 200 years, together with five other agreements.

    So that is my first message today. The path ahead is undoubtedly very difficult, the transition to a post-Soviet, post-communist world will take years to complete. But as we look ahead to those difficulties I do not believe we should overlook the positive achievements that have been made in under a year.

    My second message is that the President and I have spent today looking ahead, we have mapped out an agenda for the next stage. First, the President has underlined the importance he attaches to his objectives in the field of controlling inflation, developing markets and privatising industry. We fully support these efforts through our bilateral programmes, through the European Community, the IMF, the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

    Second, following from that, we both seek conditions which will boost trade and investment in Russia and we are giving this special emphasis. Mr Shokhin and Mr Heseltine, the President of the Board of Trade, have today signed an economic cooperation agreement, they have set up a new United Kingdom/Russia steering committee on trade and investment which has already met once and which brings together Ministers and businessmen. Our 280 million pounds sterling export credit cover for the former Soviet Union is now ready for allocation. Several major projects involving British companies are looking promising and are strongly supported by the President of the Board of Trade.

    Indeed, the President and I can announce, following the discussions between the President of the Board of Trade and the Russian Deputy Prime Minister, initial arrangements for the allocation of export credit guarantees for Russia. We agreed that subject to agreement between the parties concerned, the following projects should proceed: the John Brown Gasprom Polyethelene complex at Noviurengoy is to go ahead with some urgency with ECGD credit support. Gasprom will place orders with Rolls Royce for replacement gas turbines and parts for main transition lines and that will be done on a cash basis. Following further clarification of the details, a new terminal building at Domidanova Airport and the extension of the Comstar telephone project will also go ahead with ECGD support. All of these projects must depend on final contract terms.

    I am pleased also that the President has informed the Russian Federation that they intend to begin to repay the outstanding debts of the former Soviet Union to British firms shortly. They intend to make first payments to smaller British companies.

    Thirdly, President Yeltsin and I have agreed that we want to strengthen links between the European Community and Russia. Britain is pressing for the freest possible trade. We want to see negotiations for a partnership and cooperation agreement completed as soon as possible and this will start the process of trade liberalisation and build up dialogue on international questions.

    Fourthly, we look forward to the benefits technical assistance will bring in such areas as developing financial and private sector activity. Britain has a triple commitment, we shall play a full part in the new consultative group convened by the World Bank at Russia’s request. We are major contributors to the Community’s technical assistance programme, the largest of its kind, worth 450 million Ecu this year alone. And the British Know-How Fund for this region has made an excellent start and I am announcing today that we shall extend it beyond the existing three years and are committed to doubling its size.

    Fifthly, the problem of nuclear power stations needs more urgent treatment. The European Community has earmarked substantial funds, we are urging faster delivery of practical help. I have also offered British help in waste management regulations. A bilateral nuclear energy agreement is close to completion.

    Sixthly, we shall extend our close foreign policy cooperation, based on UN Security Council membership. Conflict and instability in regions neighbouring Russia is a particular concern and we shall work together to enhance the efforts of the United Nations and the CSCE. Both can assist, for example, in the Baltic States where I believe that Britain and her partners can help very actively in the search for solutions.

    Seventh, we are consigning the Cold War to history, our citizens can now travel freely in each other’s country. We are making joint arrangements to investigate allegations concerning British prisoners of war and our military staffs are working ever more closely together. We have signed today two important defence agreements on the transport of nuclear weapons and the expansion of contacts.

    Eighth, the Defence Secretary has offered Defence Minister Grachev help on the resettlement of Russian military officers. This new initiative brings together the MOD’s experience in resettling UK personnel, Know-How Fund money for business oriented retraining and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s readiness to consider providing capital to help new enterprises established by Russian ex-servicemen.

    This visit has not yet reached its half-way point and President Yeltsin has a series of very important meetings still to come. But I think I have said enough already to show that our talks have, as always, produced very significant results. And I conclude what I began by saying at the outset, that the President and his colleagues are very welcome guests indeed in the United Kingdom and to say, in conclusion, that I have been very happy to accept the President’s invitation to visit Russia at a date to be agreed in the future.

    PRESIDENT YELTSIN:

    I thank you, Mr Prime Minister, for your statement. I must say that today is really an historic occasion for relations between Russia and the United Kingdom. We have just signed the treaty on the principles governing relations between the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and it is difficult to over-estimate the significance of that document. It provides a legal framework for the firm resolve of our two countries to make full use of the huge potential of mutually beneficial and fruitful cooperation to the benefit of our two peoples.

    In the field of international security and control over weapons our two countries intend to work together to effectively reduce arms and promote disarmament to strengthen trust and confidence in the military field. In the sphere of economics it is our goal to create favourable conditions for closer cooperation of the businessmen of the two countries in various industries for the benefit of our two peoples.

    We believe that we shall build our relations on the basis of friendship, peace, close cooperation, extensive and reliable partnership. The era of confrontation has been committed to the past and the strategy of whipping up military hysteria, the policy of ideological intolerance, has also been committed to the heap of history. The new and democratic Russia will build its relations with the outside world on the basis of the universally recognised norms of international law and human morality. In the field of international security we shall regard this treaty as an extensive programme for joint actions between Russia and Great Britain because I believe that this document will be a document to guide this and the coming generations of the Russians and the people of Britain because the noble aims of that document is to promote and strengthen relations of peace and friendship between our two countries and peoples.

    We shall actively work to promote contacts and exchanges in the field of culture and education and in the human [indistinct] sphere in general. In its significance, its scope and the prospects it is opening, this is a document of extraordinary importance, not only for bilateral relations between our two countries but also for the European and international environment in general. Our cooperation does not damage any other country. I am convinced that the closer working together of such powers as Russia and Great Britain will promote international stability and peace and is in the best interests of the international community. We are firmly committed to the goals and principles of the United Nations Charter and on the papers of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

    Back in 1766, on the eve of the signing of the first Russo/British treaty, the head of the Russian diplomacy, Earl Panin [phon] referred to Britain as an old and natural ally of Russia and he also said that Russia cherishes friendship and mutual trust and confidence with Britain. He stressed this is our way of thinking and this is the guiding thread of our behaviour towards this country.

    Today, relations between Russia and Great Britain are taking a new stride. But, as 226 years ago, Russia reiterates that its strategic purpose in relations with Britain is achieving real allied relationship and sincere friendship. Our joint history is not rich in documents of that sort, we [indistinct] value we attach to the treaty we have signed today. What is most important today is to give it specific and real content and make it work. In order to make it work, in order to get benefits from it, our people should feel its real fruits and for that we require the efforts by all of us, politicians and businessmen, people of culture and science and of ordinary citizens, we bear the huge responsibility for the destinies of the Russian and British peoples for their life today and for the life of generations to come. I express my firm confidence that we shall be as good as the tasks that we have been instructed to deal with.

    And in conclusion may I also say that I have invited the Prime Minister, Mr Major, to pay a return official visit to Russia. As you have just heard, he has said that he is accepting the invitation and he added the usual proviso that the time of the visit will be confirmed through diplomatic channels.

    Today we have signed in fact not one but six most important documents: the treaty on the principle of relations; the agreement on economic cooperation; the agreement on the establishment of a direct communications link between the Kremlin and No 10 Downing Street; the memorandum on the programme of bilateral Russo/British military contacts for the years 1993 and 1994; the memorandum of understanding on the assistance to Russia in safe transportation of the nuclear weapons reduced in order to speed up its dismantling and destruction; and the last is the memorandum of understanding in the field of air aviation safety.

    All in all during today’s discussion the Prime Minister and I have covered both in our private discussions and in the plenary session with the attendance of the delegations twenty items of various nature and I must say that the discussions which we have held and the agreements that we have reached today will provide a strong impetus and impulse for the further development of close cooperation between the two great powers – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Russian Federation.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Russian TV):

    Mr. Prime Minister, when holding talks today with the Russian delegation and signing the documents with the Russian President, were you setting ground for a relationship of partnership or alliance between the two great nations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were setting out to create a new and improved relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia. Over many generations, the relationship has been fractured with mistrust and with difficulties. We believe Russia has begun a new future, a democratic future, and President Yeltsin and I agreed in January that we would set the framework for a range of international agreements. The treaty we signed today and the other bilateral agreements are the fruits of that agreement that we made in January and I believe that it does set the groundwork for a better relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia than we have known for many generations. It is by no means the end of the relationship. It is setting the ground-rules for an ever closer and improving relationship between our two countries and I have no doubt that that is what we will be able to achieve.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton – Sky TV):

    I imagine both your peoples are most concerned about the state of the economy, I wonder if I could ask you both to talk about the prospects as you see them in your countries over the next year and whether the Prime Minister stands by his promises during the election not to increase taxes? [Laughter]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you know very well, Adam, for I have expressed it often enough, the prospects I see for the United Kingdom economy but the Chancellor will set out all that in the Autumn Statement and other matters too towards the end of this week and I think you had better wait for that.

    PRESIDENT YELTSIN:

    For the Russian economy the year of 1992 is a difficult year indeed. On January 2, 1992 the economic reform was launched and I must say today that the greatest difficulties are behind us. Of course, the problems remain and things are yet difficult in Russia but I want to repeat that the greatest difficulties are already behind us.

    In February, March, April and May and in October, we had prophecies that the economy of Russia would collapse; it is still there and it is going strong. Our output, true, is falling but we have instituted stringent budgetary controls; we have raised our taxes; and we are taking every measure in order to improve the functioning of our economy.

    We are going to lower taxes; for instance, as of January 1, 1993 our Value Added Tax, which today stands at 28%, will go down to 20% and our tax on profits will also be reduced; the number of percentage points by which it will be reduced is still a matter of discussion.

    QUESTION: [originally in Russian, but also rephrased by the questioner in English]

    My question was the assessment by Mr President of the grade of understanding concerning the domestic problems of Russia including economic and financial problems.

    PRESIDENT YELTSIN:

    I have visited many countries on official visits and without casting a shadow over any of the visits paid by me so far, I would like you to know that today we have covered a wide field of questions and we raised many points with the Prime Minister but there was not one single point on which we differed. Indeed, this is a very remarkable occasion because for the two countries which until very recently were regarding each other as potential enemies, one of the countries being a communist totalitarian regime and the other a truly democratic country, it is really a unique thing to witness that today they have no differences over which to disagree.

    We discussed a whole gamut of subjects – political, financial, environmental, organisational, military – and we have found that after proper discussion and debate we could agree. We went from general political matters to specific matters of economic cooperation and speeding up the economic progress of our two countries and we agreed every time. What is remaining now is to translate into life the understandings that the two governments have reached.

    I would like to take this occasion to thank personally the Prime Minister, Mr. Major, for his profound understanding of Russia, of its reforms because the reforms in Russia are unique and I would also like to thank him for the understanding that he displayed towards the President of Russia.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 November 1992

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Library and Information Services

    Mr. Cousins : To ask the Prime Minister what inter-departmental co-ordination of Government policy towards library and information services exists; and what steps he is taking to improve such co-ordination.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage liaises with colleagues on library and information matters where these are not within a specific departmental interest. Department of National Heritage officials have close working relations with other Government Departments. The National Heritage Secretary is considering how far these links need to be strengthened, and will initiate action as necessary.

     

    Security Services

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in regard to permitting serving members of the security services to give evidence in court cases held in the United Kingdom on matters related to their responsibilities.

    The Prime Minister : There is no objection of principle to serving members of the security and intelligence services giving evidence in court cases held in the United Kingdom on matters relating to their responsibilities, subject to considerations of the public interest, including protection of identification, and to the condition of relevance being satisfied.

     

    European Parliament

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy in regard to examining reports produced by the European Parliament committees.

    The Prime Minister : Departments in London closely follow European Parliament–EP–developments on subjects within their responsibilities. Councils in Brussels take account of EP resolutions relating to their current business. Each Foreign Affairs Council considers resolutions recently approved by the European Parliament and the presidency draws attention to resolutions of particular importance.

     

    Edinburgh Summit

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government will support the proposals to be made at the Edinburgh summit by the Government of Denmark.

    The Prime Minister : The proposals submitted by the Danish Government on ratification of the Maastricht treaty will form the basis for our discussions with other member states. Our objective is to agree the framework for a solution at Edinburgh.

     

    Indonesia

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will review the Government’s opposition to an arms embargo against Indonesia.

    The Prime Minister : No. I do not believe that a review is necessary.

     

    European Union

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what opportunities exist for citizens of the United Kingdom to make suggestions to the European Commission for proposals to the Council under the provisions of the treaty on European Union.

    The Prime Minister : Any citizen of a member state may make suggestions to the Commission.

     

    Maastricht Treaty

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he will put forward to enable the Danish request for exemption from part two of the treaty on European union, concerning citizenship, to be met.

    The Prime Minister : A memorandum was presented by the Danish Government to Community member states on 30 October. This will now be discussed within the Community.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister in what areas of policy covered by the treaty on European union will the Commission’s role be solely advisory.

    The Prime Minister : There are provisions in the treaty on European union for the Commission to be consulted on a proposal by another party; for example, article 168a–court of first instance–and article N– amendment of the treaty.

     

    Government Employees

    Mr. Ralph Howell : To ask the Prime Minister what is the number of persons employed in general Government using the figures for (a) 1961 and (b) 1991; and what is the percentage increase that the 1991 figure represents.

    The Prime Minister : The information required is available in the Central Statistical Office publication “Economic Trends”, December 1991– Table D of “Employment in the public and private sectors”. A copy is available in the Library.

     

    Public Record Office

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister how many papers his Department has currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office; if he will list their titles; and when he estimates that they will be returned.

    The Prime Minister : About 30 files of papers on open deposit at the Public Record Office are currently requisitioned for departmental use in London as permitted under the legislation, but the number may change from day to day. They have mainly been requisitioned for purposes of official historical research. A member of the public applying for access to any such file has only to cite its title and number, by reference to the shelf lists held at the Public Record Office, and arrangements can normally be made for its early return to the public reading room for as long as may reasonably be required.

     

    Health Pay Review Boards

    Mr. Blunkett : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to suspend the health pay review boards; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 November 1992] : The Government see a continuing role for these review bodies, whose advice it has greatly valued. We have made clear to the review bodies, and more generally, the importance we attach to tight control over public spending and borrowing. As part of this, the Government will be seeking to maintain firm downward pressure on growth in the pay of public sector employees, including those whose pay is subject to the recommendations of the pay review bodies.

     

    President Yeltsin

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make representations to President Yeltsin concerning the Russian seal cull at his forthcoming meeting; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 November 1992] : The Russian authorities are well aware of public concern in the United Kingdom about seal culling. The EC banned the import of harp and hooded seal pup skins in 1983. The United Kingdom persuaded the Community to extend the ban indefinitely in 1989.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

    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 today.

    Mr. Colvin : Will my right hon. Friend find time during his busy day to decide how to use the diplomatic and negotiating skills which he deployed so effectively at Maastricht to prevent a trade war between the United States and the European Community? Will he pull out all the stops to achieve an agreement on the general agreement on tariffs and trade before President Bush leaves the White House, in the knowledge that agreement on GATT will do more than anything else to pull the world out of recession?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend on his last point– it is a very serious matter. It is for the European Commission, which has the responsibility to negotiate on behalf of member states, to make a deal, and we shall seek to reach a concerted position so that such a deal can be achieved. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement about that a little later.

    Mr. John Smith : Why is it that, in the midst of all our present miseries– [Interruption.] Why is it that, in the midst of this situation, the Government think that it is a priority to abolish wages councils which offer a safety net for 2.5 million people, two thirds of whom are women?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes a very narrow view. When he studies the whole of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, he may have a more enlightened view. As he may know, we have decided that wages councils will be abolished because they distort the operation of the labour market. Abolishing them will lead to more jobs rather than fewer. These days, wages councils are an anachronism. They no longer have a useful role. They were set up in 1909 and they are not relevant to 1992.

    Mr. Smith : Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand the truth that was expressed by Sir Winston Churchill when wages councils were set up, which was that, if there is no wage protection, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad is undercut by the worst? Does he not understand that people in this country are sick and tired of his professing concern about unemployment when 1 million people have lost their jobs since he became Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : It is precisely because of the concern to sustain and maintain jobs that we propose to get rid of the councils that destroy jobs. The fact of the matter is that they create unnecessary bureaucracy and add to the burdens on business. If that is the Opposition’s industrial strategy–more burdens, less business and fewer jobs–the right hon. and learned Gentleman had better make it clear.

     

    Q2. Mr. John Townend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Townsend : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members are in favour of a very tough public spending round this year, especially on the revenue account, even if that means a public sector pay freeze to protect capital projects? Is he aware also that, when we are having to take painful decisions, it is not acceptable for Mr. Delors to ask for an increase in own resources? Will my right hon. Friend tell Mr. Delors that if he wants more cash, he should look to the waste, fraud and corruption revealed by a recent report of the Court of Auditors?

    The Prime Minister : On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I cannot, of course, this afternoon anticipate my right hon. Friend’s autumn statement which he will make to the House next Thursday. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the Commission’s proposals for a massive increase in Community spending are excessive in the present circumstances. No more than anyone else can the Community spend more than it can afford. I believe that, when we consider the future financing, we must be guided by the same principles of budget discipline and sound public finance that we all agreed to put in the Maastricht treaty.

     

    Q3. Ms. Glenda Jackson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Ms. Jackson : Does the Prime Minister recall the pledge that he gave in his election manifesto that the value of child benefit would increase each year in line with prices? Despite the wriggling evident in his previous answer, will he repeat that pledge to the House today?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady must wait for the autumn statement next week, and I will tell her why. When asked to anticipate a financial statement in the election, the Leader of the Opposition said, “You’ll have to wait till next week when I make it.” That applies to us as well.

    Mr. Knapman : Does my right hon. Friend believe that a single currency for Europe is a desirable objective?

    The Prime Minister : I have indicated often enough in the House, not least yesterday, that I do not believe that that is a remotely likely objective to be reached in the time scale set and that one can only determine whether it is desirable in the circumstances of the day, when the decision needs to be made. That is not now.

     

    Q4. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Janner : Does the Prime Minister agree that the closure of the 31 pits would make 30,000 miners compulsorily redundant and destroy the jobs of up to 70,000 people in related industries and that very few of them would have any chance of finding other work? In those circumstances, what does the Prime Minister say in response to the extraordinary revelation made by the chairman of British Coal yesterday to the Employment Select Committee that, when he and the President of the Board of Trade decided to close the pits, he had no discussion, conversation or consultation with the Secretary of State for Employment?

    The Prime Minister : There has been a great deal of consultation in government for some time over the whole question of pit closures and there was a great deal of detailed consideration for some time. The hon. and learned Gentleman now knows precisely what the situation is from a lengthy and detailed statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    Mr. Lidington : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although this country’s links with our friends in Europe continue to strengthen, our special relationship with the United States of America remains as vital now as it ever has been?

    The Prime Minister : It has been a very close relationship. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) referred to it yesterday as an historic relationship. It has remained that for many years. I believe that that results from the shared interests that we have around the world and from a shared historical background. I have no doubt that that will continue.

    Madam Speaker : Mr. Paddy Ashdown– [Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order. Mr. Ashdown.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is it not the case that the decision taken last night by the House, by however narrow a margin, nevertheless means that Britain’s future in Europe has been saved and, with it, tens of thousands of jobs around Britain?

    The Prime Minister : May I say first to the right hon. Gentleman– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear the response from the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : May I say first to the right hon. Gentleman– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister must be heard in the House, as every other right hon. and hon. Member should. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : Thank you, Madam Speaker. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the price of principle is often abuse, but he was right last night in the vote that he cast. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Sykes : Does the Prime Minister agree with the business men of Scarborough and Whitby who say that the social chapter would devastate jobs?

    The Prime Minister : That is a view with which I entirely agree. It is a view expressed not only by the business men of Scarborough and Whitby, clearly with great clarity, but by business men across this country. The social chapter was not in the interests of this country. We were right to reject it.

     

    Q6. Dr. Berry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Dr. Berry : Is the Prime Minister able to explain why he believes that an increase in public expenditure will severely damage the economy while hoping and praying that exactly the same activity by the private sector will get Britain out of recession?

    The Prime Minister : I do not know on what basis the hon. Gentleman produces his question. The Government’s position on public expenditure has always been that it must be prudent, it must be affordable and it must be in the interests of overall management of the economy. That was, is and remains the case.

    Sir Peter Emery : Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to extend an invitation to President-elect Clinton to come to this country, immediately after 20 January, when he can?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to take the opportunity of saying that I look forward to meeting President-elect Clinton before Christmas. I have already had the opportunity of sending my congratulations to him and stating them both privately and publicly, and I look forward to meeting him before Christmas. I hope that it will be possible for him to visit this country.

     

    Q7. Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Fatchett : After the Prime Minister’s poor performance in yesterday’s debate and after his policy failure on unemployment, the mines, British industry and devaluation, does he agree that his recent 16 per cent. approval rating in an opinion poll shows the generosity of the British people?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman was looking for one person in this country who has good reason not to trust opinion polls, he has just addressed a question to him. As to yesterday–right sentiment, wrong leader.

    Mr. Ian Taylor : Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the true test of compassion in public services is not necessarily the amount of money spent but the quality and efficiency with which it is spent? Does he, therefore, share my horror at the lack of compassion of Lambeth council, which has already spent £400,000 of local charge payers’ money on phantom teachers?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I did see that particular report, which illustrated not only that Lambeth council is inefficient but that it is slightly less inefficient than Islington council, which spent rather more on the same matter.

     

    Q8. Mr. Hoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Hoyle : Will the Prime Minister repeat in the House the assurance that he gave to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that he would not introduce the Third Reading of the Maastricht Bill until after the second Danish referendum ? Does that not show that there was no limit to the wriggling of the Prime Minister in his attempt to obtain votes in the Lobby last night ?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman’s last point had been right, there would have been no debate yesterday. It was precisely because I was concerned to get the Bill through that there was a debate yesterday and we will move to Committee stage, and move forward.

    I am happy to make the point entirely clear to the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, the House reaffirmed its assent to the Bill proceeding to Committee stage. In doing so, no thanks to the official Opposition, it reaffirmed our determination to play a leading role in Europe and strengthened our negotiating hand in Edinburgh. As for progress, there will be a limited discussion before Christmas. We will return to the Bill in greater detail in the new year. I wish to have plenty of time for full and proper discussion on all the details of a constitutional Bill which is of great concern in the House. It is important to carry the assent of the House on the Bill. That will take time.

    The present intention of the Danish Government is to hold a referendum in May. Given the Committee timetable that we have in mind and the full discussion that we need, we will need to take the Third Reading after that date in May. That has been and is the position, and that is the point that was made clear yesterday.

  • PMQT – 5 November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

    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 today.

    Mr. Colvin : Will my right hon. Friend find time during his busy day to decide how to use the diplomatic and negotiating skills which he deployed so effectively at Maastricht to prevent a trade war between the United States and the European Community? Will he pull out all the stops to achieve an agreement on the general agreement on tariffs and trade before President Bush leaves the White House, in the knowledge that agreement on GATT will do more than anything else to pull the world out of recession?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend on his last point– it is a very serious matter. It is for the European Commission, which has the responsibility to negotiate on behalf of member states, to make a deal, and we shall seek to reach a concerted position so that such a deal can be achieved. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement about that a little later.

    Mr. John Smith : Why is it that, in the midst of all our present miseries– [Interruption.] Why is it that, in the midst of this situation, the Government think that it is a priority to abolish wages councils which offer a safety net for 2.5 million people, two thirds of whom are women?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes a very narrow view. When he studies the whole of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, he may have a more enlightened view. As he may know, we have decided that wages councils will be abolished because they distort the operation of the labour market. Abolishing them will lead to more jobs rather than fewer. These days, wages councils are an anachronism. They no longer have a useful role. They were set up in 1909 and they are not relevant to 1992.

    Mr. Smith : Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand the truth that was expressed by Sir Winston Churchill when wages councils were set up, which was that, if there is no wage protection, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad is undercut by the worst? Does he not understand that people in this country are sick and tired of his professing concern about unemployment when 1 million people have lost their jobs since he became Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : It is precisely because of the concern to sustain and maintain jobs that we propose to get rid of the councils that destroy jobs. The fact of the matter is that they create unnecessary bureaucracy and add to the burdens on business. If that is the Opposition’s industrial strategy–more burdens, less business and fewer jobs–the right hon. and learned Gentleman had better make it clear.

     

    Q2. Mr. John Townend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Townsend : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members are in favour of a very tough public spending round this year, especially on the revenue account, even if that means a public sector pay freeze to protect capital projects? Is he aware also that, when we are having to take painful decisions, it is not acceptable for Mr. Delors to ask for an increase in own resources? Will my right hon. Friend tell Mr. Delors that if he wants more cash, he should look to the waste, fraud and corruption revealed by a recent report of the Court of Auditors?

    The Prime Minister : On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I cannot, of course, this afternoon anticipate my right hon. Friend’s autumn statement which he will make to the House next Thursday. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the Commission’s proposals for a massive increase in Community spending are excessive in the present circumstances. No more than anyone else can the Community spend more than it can afford. I believe that, when we consider the future financing, we must be guided by the same principles of budget discipline and sound public finance that we all agreed to put in the Maastricht treaty.

     

    Q3. Ms. Glenda Jackson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Ms. Jackson : Does the Prime Minister recall the pledge that he gave in his election manifesto that the value of child benefit would increase each year in line with prices? Despite the wriggling evident in his previous answer, will he repeat that pledge to the House today?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady must wait for the autumn statement next week, and I will tell her why. When asked to anticipate a financial statement in the election, the Leader of the Opposition said, “You’ll have to wait till next week when I make it.” That applies to us as well.

    Mr. Knapman : Does my right hon. Friend believe that a single currency for Europe is a desirable objective?

    The Prime Minister : I have indicated often enough in the House, not least yesterday, that I do not believe that that is a remotely likely objective to be reached in the time scale set and that one can only determine whether it is desirable in the circumstances of the day, when the decision needs to be made. That is not now.

     

    Q4. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Janner : Does the Prime Minister agree that the closure of the 31 pits would make 30,000 miners compulsorily redundant and destroy the jobs of up to 70,000 people in related industries and that very few of them would have any chance of finding other work? In those circumstances, what does the Prime Minister say in response to the extraordinary revelation made by the chairman of British Coal yesterday to the Employment Select Committee that, when he and the President of the Board of Trade decided to close the pits, he had no discussion, conversation or consultation with the Secretary of State for Employment?

    The Prime Minister : There has been a great deal of consultation in government for some time over the whole question of pit closures and there was a great deal of detailed consideration for some time. The hon. and learned Gentleman now knows precisely what the situation is from a lengthy and detailed statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    Mr. Lidington : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although this country’s links with our friends in Europe continue to strengthen, our special relationship with the United States of America remains as vital now as it ever has been?

    The Prime Minister : It has been a very close relationship. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) referred to it yesterday as an historic relationship. It has remained that for many years. I believe that that results from the shared interests that we have around the world and from a shared historical background. I have no doubt that that will continue.

    Madam Speaker : Mr. Paddy Ashdown– [Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order. Mr. Ashdown.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is it not the case that the decision taken last night by the House, by however narrow a margin, nevertheless means that Britain’s future in Europe has been saved and, with it, tens of thousands of jobs around Britain?

    The Prime Minister : May I say first to the right hon. Gentleman– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear the response from the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : May I say first to the right hon. Gentleman– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister must be heard in the House, as every other right hon. and hon. Member should. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : Thank you, Madam Speaker. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the price of principle is often abuse, but he was right last night in the vote that he cast. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Sykes : Does the Prime Minister agree with the business men of Scarborough and Whitby who say that the social chapter would devastate jobs?

    The Prime Minister : That is a view with which I entirely agree. It is a view expressed not only by the business men of Scarborough and Whitby, clearly with great clarity, but by business men across this country. The social chapter was not in the interests of this country. We were right to reject it.

     

    Q6. Dr. Berry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Dr. Berry : Is the Prime Minister able to explain why he believes that an increase in public expenditure will severely damage the economy while hoping and praying that exactly the same activity by the private sector will get Britain out of recession?

    The Prime Minister : I do not know on what basis the hon. Gentleman produces his question. The Government’s position on public expenditure has always been that it must be prudent, it must be affordable and it must be in the interests of overall management of the economy. That was, is and remains the case.

    Sir Peter Emery : Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to extend an invitation to President-elect Clinton to come to this country, immediately after 20 January, when he can?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to take the opportunity of saying that I look forward to meeting President-elect Clinton before Christmas. I have already had the opportunity of sending my congratulations to him and stating them both privately and publicly, and I look forward to meeting him before Christmas. I hope that it will be possible for him to visit this country.

     

    Q7. Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Fatchett : After the Prime Minister’s poor performance in yesterday’s debate and after his policy failure on unemployment, the mines, British industry and devaluation, does he agree that his recent 16 per cent. approval rating in an opinion poll shows the generosity of the British people?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman was looking for one person in this country who has good reason not to trust opinion polls, he has just addressed a question to him. As to yesterday–right sentiment, wrong leader.

    Mr. Ian Taylor : Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the true test of compassion in public services is not necessarily the amount of money spent but the quality and efficiency with which it is spent? Does he, therefore, share my horror at the lack of compassion of Lambeth council, which has already spent £400,000 of local charge payers’ money on phantom teachers?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I did see that particular report, which illustrated not only that Lambeth council is inefficient but that it is slightly less inefficient than Islington council, which spent rather more on the same matter.

     

    Q8. Mr. Hoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Hoyle : Will the Prime Minister repeat in the House the assurance that he gave to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that he would not introduce the Third Reading of the Maastricht Bill until after the second Danish referendum ? Does that not show that there was no limit to the wriggling of the Prime Minister in his attempt to obtain votes in the Lobby last night ?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman’s last point had been right, there would have been no debate yesterday. It was precisely because I was concerned to get the Bill through that there was a debate yesterday and we will move to Committee stage, and move forward.

    I am happy to make the point entirely clear to the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, the House reaffirmed its assent to the Bill proceeding to Committee stage. In doing so, no thanks to the official Opposition, it reaffirmed our determination to play a leading role in Europe and strengthened our negotiating hand in Edinburgh. As for progress, there will be a limited discussion before Christmas. We will return to the Bill in greater detail in the new year. I wish to have plenty of time for full and proper discussion on all the details of a constitutional Bill which is of great concern in the House. It is important to carry the assent of the House on the Bill. That will take time.

    The present intention of the Danish Government is to hold a referendum in May. Given the Committee timetable that we have in mind and the full discussion that we need, we will need to take the Third Reading after that date in May. That has been and is the position, and that is the point that was made clear yesterday.