The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Jacques Delors – 1 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Jacques Delors, held in London on Wednesday 1st July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to add my welcome to the President of the Commission and the other Commissioners to London this morning and to say we [indistinct] looking forward for the last year or more to the Presidency of the Community at what, it seems, will be a crucial period for its future.

    We have had the opportunity today of discussing the very heavy agenda that lies ahead in the period between now and the Edinburgh summit. We have had some very worthwhile discussions this morning, it was very useful to have the views of the Commission on the workload that lies immediately ahead and I have no doubt that will help us in the efficient conduct of Community business as the individual councils begin to meet.

    We paid tribute at the outset of our meeting this morning to the work accomplished by the Portuguese Presidency that was brought to fruition at Lisbon over the weekend. The predominant part of our discussions this morning was a forward look at the agenda facing the United Kingdom Presidency. There are a particularly large number of matters that lie on the table requiring action and determination.

    Amongst the major themes clearly are the completion of the single market, we have a deadline for completing that at the end of this year; the future financing negotiations that we have touched upon but no detailed discussions have yet begun; the preparations for enlargement negotiations with the EFTAN countries; the development of relations with other applicants to the Community, and also with the countries of central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; the consistent search for a conclusion to the GATT Round; we had discussions also this morning on proceeding with Maastricht ratification and on the way ahead to entrench subsidiarity as a way of life within the Community; we also spent some time discussing Yugoslavia and the need for humanitarian aid, and proposals are at present being put together for extra aid that I hope will reach a conclusion fairly speedily.

    Let me say also that the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out our Presidency priorities in the House of Commons in a debate tomorrow and the Foreign Secretary of course will make the traditional Presidency programme speech in the European Parliament on 8 July.

    We look forward very much to working with the Commission, with the European Parliament and with our Community partners in all the member states over the forthcoming six months. I think at the outset that is all I wish to say, but I will invite the President of the Commission to add any points that he may think are relevant and then we will seek to take your questions.

    DELORS:

    The Commission and I take this opportunity to fulfil the preparation of the British Presidency and to concentrate our minds on the priorities designed by the British Presidency. And you must understand that in the spirit of the Community, during those following months, the Presidency and the Commission are on the same side, with the same purpose to make progress and to succeed.

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman):

    Delors said that the Presidency and the Commission would be on the same side, do you see any areas where there is a tension between the British position and the position of the Presidency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are the Presidency so there is no distinction between the Presidency and the British position. But we will be discussing the areas that are difficult throughout the Community, both with the Commission of course and bilaterally with our Community partners. We have a dual responsibility during the Presidency, the first, of course, is to maintain the British interest and that we will do. But the second responsibility we have in the Presidency of the Community is to bring together the disparate views and seek a conclusion that is the right way ahead for the Community at large and in that we will work very closely indeed with the Commission and I have every reason to believe we will reach successful conclusions on many of the outstanding matters.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    How important is it for the success of the British Presidency for the House of Commons to ratify the Maastricht treaty before the Presidency ends and before the Edinburgh summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will bring the Bill back to the House of Commons at some stage, I cannot be quite clear yet when it will come back, we will need to see precisely what is going to happen with the difficulties that at present exist in Denmark, we need to give the Danish government some time to determine how they propose to deal with that difficulty, I think that is perfectly reasonable. So we will take stock again when the House of Commons resumes in the autumn and decide what the right procedure is for bringing the Bill forward. It would be desirable to finish it by the end of the year but it is not essential.

    QUESTION:

    Your predecessor, Mrs Thatcher, called the Community ‘socialism by the back Delors”, do you agree with that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been in the Community now for 20-odd years, during that period we have helped frame the policies of the Community. The single market is a particularly strong British initiative in the Community, that has been the driving motor of the Community over the last two or three years, that embraces open competition, that certainly is a British concept, I do not know what others may call it, but I would say it is a concept of open liberal markets, that is what the single market is about.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Delors, how significantly do you think the British government’s position has changed with the advent of Mr Major as Prime Minister; and do you think that Lady Thatcher’s current comments are consistent with her Presidency of the Community and the attitude she took as Prime Minister?

    DELORS:

    I have not the intention to enter into the internal debate of Great Britain. I say that it would be possible to work frankly and friendly with the Prime Minister and the duty of the Commission is to help the Community to make progress, no more. And if we must have discussion, we have discussion on technical matters between the Minister in charge and the Commissioner in charge, no more.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how does your Presidency intend to interpret the principle of subsidiarity, it is at the heart of the Maastricht treaty and how do you hope to have a good relationship with M. Delors who represents the federalist intention of the Community?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first thing I think I should say about subsidiarity is that whilst we feel very strongly that it is something that ought to be entrenched in the Community principles and practices, so does the President of the Commission who has made that position entirely clear on a number of occasions both publicly and privately. We are both committed to looking at ways in which the principle of subsidiarity can be enshrined as a natural part of the Community’s instincts rather than something that is just wheeled out from time to time when it is convenient. And the President is examining ways, the Commission will be examining ways, with our guidance and assistance, over the next few months to determine precisely how we carry that principle into practice. We have a number of ideas we are looking at, many of those are not yet right for public discussion, but I assure you progress is being made on that, we are determined to make progress on that as the British Presidency and the President of the Commission and the Commission are equally determined to make progress on it. We will report to the Edinburgh summit.

    QUESTION (John Cole – BBC):

    A question to M. Delors, please. How do you think a country which has opted out of the Social Chapter and reserved its own position on the single currency can give the kind of lead to Europe that you think it ought to have in the next six months?

    DELORS:

    The twelve member states accepted the two opting out in the Maastricht summit. This is not the first time there was an opting-out and it is frankly possible to manage the Community and to make progress in those conditions and the Maastricht Agreement obliged all member states and the Commission on all aspects of the treaty draft.

    QUESTION:

    A general and a specific question on the British presidency’s hopes to improve environmental concerns in Europe throughout your time. What will you do to, in a general sense, enforce improvement in environmental legislation in the EC and specifically on the question of Norway’s and Iceland’s attitude to whaling? Given Britain’s anti-whaling position, will the British presidency be able to lead the EC to perhaps take action against those two countries perhaps through trade sanctions to prevent them whaling?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They are both important matters. We weren’t able to discuss them this morning, not least because as of this moment the Community does not have an Environment Commissioner. Ripo di Meana, who was the Environment Commissioner is now a member of the new Italian government and a new Environment Commissioner has not yet been appointed so we have not had the opportunity of discussing those matters this morning. I have no doubt, when we have a commissioner, that we will wish to discuss with him how to make progress on environmental matters – that we will do.

    On the subject of whaling, I think the British position is very clear both on whaling and on the smaller animals, the dolphins and others. Our position has been spelt out by John Gummer on a number of occasions. We will try and persuade other people in the Community and beyond it that that is the right way to deal with the present problems of whaling.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley):

    A question for M. Delors, if I may. It was agreed at Lisbon that there could be no official enlargement negotiations for the Community until both the ratification of the treaty by all twelve member states and the settling of the budget but the British presidency has talked of unofficial negotiations starting on enlargement. How much do you, M. Delors, believe can be achieved by unofficial negotiations? How far can they go and are they a meaningful concept?

    DELORS:

    Practically, there is no difference between my colleague, the Vice-President Andriessen. We are in discussion not only with Sweden, for which we prepare an opinion but also with Austria, with Finland and so on and the objective of the British presidency is to be ready as soon as possible to start with official negotiations and during the following months the Community will do its best to accelerate the preparation of the opinion for Sweden and after for Finland and Switzerland and also to take in place the things which allow official negotiations starting as I hope since the beginning of 1993.

    QUESTION:

    I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. In view of improving the relationship of the European Community with Turkey, will that include the adoption of the 4th Financial Protocol? My second question in about Yugoslavia. What are the next steps that the British presidency is planning to take with the government of Giro Gregorov [phon] in Skopje?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    As regards the first question, I hope that the Foreign Affairs Council will discuss later this month the whole question of the Community’s relationship with Turkey on the basis of a working paper which the British Government was asked to prepare some weeks ago and which is now ready but certainly one element of that in our view should be the fulfilment of what the Community has already undertaken in the financial protocol.

    I have nothing at the moment to add to the Conclusions of the Lisbon Council on the question of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia.

    QUESTION (David Buchan – Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, where you have a conflict between subsidiarity and the single market as you well might have – decentralisation might cause unevenness in the single market – which would your highest priority be?

    Could I ask President Delors about the environment? When do you plan to nominate an Environment Commissioner? Do you intend to give that dossier to one of your colleagues and will the Commission in general terms pursue your court case against the UK Government on the issue of bathing water?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Shall I deal with the first part of the question?

    I actually made clear in the House of Commons the other day that there is sometimes a conflict between subsidiarity and achieving a level playing field across the Community – that is undoubtedly the case. The single market requires a level playing field and often that does require action at the Community level. We would have to look at the conflict between those two principles in terms of each individual matter that may arise but we are committed under the Single European Act to reach a single market and we do make sure there is a level playing field on the major matters of competition throughout the European Community so that clearly has a very high priority but we would have to look at each individual item to see whether the balance of advantage lay wholly with an unreconstructed level playing field or whether on occasions subsidiarity would have to take precedence but generally I think we would want the level playing field.

    DELORS:

    As you know, the Commission is a college and I intend to propose tomorrow to the college that a commissioner take by interim the portfolio on environment until the Italian Government appoint a new commissioner and with the interim commissioner in service, we intend to discuss the problem you raise concerning bathing water.

    QUESTION (Jon Snow – ITN):

    Delors, do you accept that it is the ambition of the British presidency to ensure that your last two years as President are less powerful than your first?

    DELORS:

    The most important for me is not to appear as powerful. The most important is to be useful, useful for the Community, that is all and evidently I do not please articles in the British press but this is not my problem. My problem is that the twelve member countries consider that the Commission will be useful to make progress in the Community – no more – and the problem of power, the problem of nomination of the President of the Commission is not of interest to me; even for French politics it is not interesting. [Laughter].

    QUESTION:

    Regarding M. Delors’ comment on the issue of subsidiarity, what he, thinks about what kind of work should be done. Does it infer that in some way there could be some danger for the Commission itself.

    DELORS:

    I put my ideas over a dinner with the Chiefs of State and Government and those ideas I think are welcomed by the twelve Chiefs of State and Government and those ideas are put in the communique of Lisbon. Evidently, it is very difficult to draw the line between what is best done at Community level and what is best done at national level but we make an effort to conciliate for example as one of your colleagues raised the problem, the necessity to have an efficient single market and also the political necessity to bring closer the decision from citizens. It is not always easy but the Commission has has two debates on this question and is fully prepared to apply the principle of subsidiarity even before the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in the line of the [indistinct] given by the European Council in Lisbon.

    QUESTION (George Jones – Daily Telegraph]:

    A question for both Mr. Major and M. Delors. Earlier this week, British Employment Minister, Mrs. Gillian Shepherd, cast some doubt over whether Denmark would be the next presidency of the Community and there were some suggestions at the Lisbon summit that because of the referendum Denmark should not take it because its commitment to the European Community was now in doubt. Are there going to be sanctions against Denmark?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me answer that first. Denmark have confirmed to us this morning, I think, that they are going to be part of the Troika, that is to say the immediate past presidency, the current presidency and the future presidency and the implication for that is that Denmark proposes to take the presidency of the Community at the beginning of next year and it is our view that that is the right way for them to proceed.

    The wish across the Community is to give the Danes some time to sort out the difficulties that they have so that they may then decide how to proceed but that is a decision that Denmark must take. They are in the Community and they take over the presidency on 1 January next year.

    DELORS:

    I share the same point of view and the Commission is ready to prepare tomorrow the next Danish presidency.

  • Press Release – Prime Minister’s Comments on the Middle East – 30 June 1992

    Below is the text of the Conservative Party Press Release on Mr Major’s comments on the Middle East. It was issued on Tuesday 30th June 1992, reference 884/92.

    PRIME MINISTER SPEAKS ON THE MIDDLE EAST

    “As great friends of Israel, Robert [Rhodes James] and Michael [Latham] – like everyone here tonight – will have watched last week’s General Election result [in Israel] with interest,” said the Rt Hon John Major MP, Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party, in remarks to a Conservative Friends of Israel dinner in London in honour of Robert Rhodes James and Michael Latham, who retired from the House of Commons at the General Election.

    “Perhaps I could say just a few words about what I think the result means.

    First of all, I think it offers an opportunity to all concerned – Israel, the Arabs, and other interested parties including the Europeans – to renew their efforts to pursue peace.

    For my part I can say this: helping to achieve peace in the Middle East will be a very high priority during the British Presidency of the European Community.

    It is most definitely not for outsiders to try to dictate to Israel the terms of a peace settlement. These must be freely negotiated and agreed. But we ought to give our views on the solution of a problem which carries such dangers for Europe and the rest of the world.

    It would be unwise to exaggerate the EC’s influence over negotiations. It should not puff itself up beyond its influence. But we, during our Presidency, will do all we can to assist the bilateral negotiations. We stand four-square behind the American-led peace process. We shall do everything we can to help.

    We shall also be fully involved in the work of the multilateral groups. During our Presidency, we shall be chairing the regional economic development group meeting in Paris. We will be active in the other groups – refugees, arms control, water, environment. But much depends on progress in resolving the central political issues which are addressed in the bilateral negotiations.

    If we are to have a lasting settlement, I believe that there will have to be agreement on three key principles.

    First, we must ensure the security of the state of Israel. This must be the key to any agreement. We are 100% committed to it.

    No-one living through the Iraq conflict can doubt it. I believe the Gulf War was a turning point in many ways. For Israel it demonstrated the West’s commitment to the state of Israel. For us in Europe and the wider world, Israel’s mature response in what was undoubtedly a very frightening and difficult situation increased understanding and improved Israel’s standing considerably. So let there be no doubt, the state of Israel came of age politically during the Gulf War.

    And public opinion in the West is united on the overriding need to ensure the security of Israel.

    But that security means that there must be a settlement to the problems of the Middle East. And that means there must be self-determination for the Palestinian people. There is no solution to the overall problem, no peaceful future for the states of the region until the Palestinian problem is solved.

    It has to be a solution that is acceptable and will endure. Not a solution that is imposed and will not endure. Not a solution that is imposed and will give rise to future conflict.

    We have every reason to believe that the new government in Israel will be determined to make very early progress in the negotiations on the five year interim autonomy arrangements and elections in the Occupied Territories. This will be a great fillip to the prospects for peace.

    We have always taken the view that there will have to be some kind of territorial compromise. More and more people accept this. Here too, we look to the parties in the negotiation for flexibility and imagination.

    There is no doubt that settlement activity has been a major impediment to the peace process. So we also hope that a new Israeli government will move to curb settlement activity in the Occupied Territories. There is no doubt that nothing would do more to help build confidence than curbing new settlements. And in response, I would expect the Arab states to lift the iniquitous boycott on trade with Israel.

    I believe that we now have the chance further to strengthen links with Israel. To build on the traditional friendship between our countries and to increase opportunities for trade. I also very much hope to visit Israel and meet the new Prime Minister.”

  • PMQT – 30 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th June 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

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

    Mr. Robertson : On behalf of the people of Aberdeen, South, I extend to my right hon. Friend every best wish as he prepares to take on the presidency of the European Council. Given that there is concern about too much centralism in Europe, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Maastricht treaty, with its emphasis on subsidiarity, starts to reverse many of the centralising tendencies of previous treaties? Does he recall that it was in the Single European Act that the first commitment to economic and monetary union was based and that qualified majority voting was extended to a number of key areas?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The Single European Act was very far reaching. It secured, first and foremost, the single market commitments which are necessary to fair trading throughout Europe. It also represented the most far-reaching amendments since our entry into the Community under the treaty of Rome. It increased majority voting by a significant extent and did a great deal to transform relationships between members of the Community. In the Maastricht treaty, we look forward to decentralisation, and the House had ample opportunity to discuss that yesterday.

    Mr. Kinnock : When Mr. George Nissen, chairman of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, honourably resigned yesterday, he said :

    “for some years we have been telling the Government of the problems of pension and trust law.”

    Why did the Government take no effective action in response to those repeated warnings from the regulatory body?

    The Prime Minister : I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman said and, as he knows, we have made a series of announcements about how we propose to deal with the problem in the short term. We are still waiting for further information and we have made it clear that in due course further information will be released.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister suggesting that Mr. Nissen, who had no reason to mislead anyone, was seeking to mislead those listening to him yesterday and those reading his words today? Is it or is it not the case that over a period of years, and long before the Maxwell scandal, the regulatory body was giving warnings of the problems to the Government? As I am inclined to believe Mr. Nissen’s word, as is everybody else, I again ask why the Government did nothing in response to those warnings from that authoritative body.

    The Prime Minister : I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s conclusions. When Mr. Nissen resigned on 29 June, he said : “We have freely acknowledged that we are open to a share of reproach although much of that criticism, to those who knew the facts, is misplaced. In these circumstances, I think it right that I should resign the Chairmanship.”

    That is what he said.

    Mr. Kinnock : Mr. Nissen also said that, while he accepted his full share of responsibility, as the Prime Minister has indicated, no one should attach the blame solely to IMRO. He then uttered the sentence that I have quoted to the Prime Minister. As Mr. Nissen has taken his share of responsibility and has honourably resigned, can we expect the Government to take their share of the responsibility? When can we expect Ministers to follow Mr. Nissen’s example?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman, as he did last year in respect of another matter, is seeking in a truly disgraceful manner to spread blame where it does not belong– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I insist that there be order in the house so that the Prime Minister may be heard.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman may seek to smear, but he will have to wait until the information is available. As I said to the House the other day, the Securities and Investments Board will wish in due course to publish as much as possible of the IMRO review. We have made it clear that it may not be possible to publish the review in full, and we have made clear why that is so. I am advised that publication of the full review by the Securities and Investments Board or by the Government would be severely prejudicial to criminal proceedings. Would the right hon. Gentleman like us to damage criminal proceedings? Is he so concerned to make a party point that he is unconcerned with the law of the land?

    Mrs. Peacock : My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance to the textile industry of this country of a successful outcome to the GATT round. Can he today assure the House and the industry that during his presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Community he will endeavour to secure a successful outcome?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that we are looking for a successful outcome that is satisfactory to all elements of British industry and will bring the GATT round to a satisfactory and early conclusion.

     

    Q2. Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

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

    Mr. Alton : Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the decision made by the House of Lords last week in connection with Kirklees council and the Shops Act 1950? Does not he agree that the private Member’s Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) deserves the support of the whole House to ensure that Sunday is kept as a special day by defeating those vested interests who continue to trade illegally on Sundays?

    The Prime Minister : I am, of course, aware of the Bill that is before the House. I think that it would be premature to take a view on any Sunday trading legislation before we know the position in Community law, which is something that we await. Before the election, we made it clear in our manifesto that once the law was clarified we would bring forward a Bill so that the House of Commons might make its decisions and put the law in a state of grace.

    Mr. Haselhurst : In view of the critical situation over the European fighter aircraft project, can my right hon. Friend say what discussions he has had with the Italian and Spanish Governments, and whether there is still full accord between them and the British Government about the future of that vital project?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has spoken to both the Italian and the Spanish Governments about the EFA. On more than one occasion I have spoken to the German Government, and in particular to Chancellor Kohl, about it. It is possible that a decision on the European fighter aircraft will be taken by the Germans today, tomorrow or perhaps later this week. The Government and many right hon. and hon. Members have been in close touch with the German Government to try to persuade them to stay in the project. I tried again in my discussions with the Chancellor at the weekend. It is our view, on military grounds, that there is a clear and continuing need for an aircraft with the capabilities of the European fighter aircraft. If the Germans withdraw, as I believe my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence may have indicated earlier this afternoon, we shall need to discuss the future with our Spanish and Italian partners. But we await a decision.

    Mr. Stevenson : Is the Prime Minister aware that thousands of people throughout the country are being denied access to his social fund as the result of a mistake that is admitted by the Department of Social Security? Does the Prime Minister accept that nonsense will be made of the much- vaunted citizens charter until mistakes by public authorities and bodies are acknowledged and the people who have suffered are recompensed? What action does the Prime Minister intend to take to ensure that those thousands of people are protected from mistakes made by his Government?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion without backing it up. If he would care to back it up, I shall examine it.

    Mr. Butterfill : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the principle of subsidiarity had been built into earlier European treaties, many of the decisions of the European Court of Justice might have been different?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, but subsidiarity exists and is legally judicable. We propose to build on it during the British presidency.

     

    Q3. Mr. Nigel Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

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

    Mr. Jones : Is the Prime Minister aware that the chief constable of Gloucestershire recently announced a 32 per cent. increase in crime, yet when he asked for 56 extra officers a year ago, the Government allowed him only one? When will the Government allow chief constables the resources that they need to crack down on crime?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should have the grace to recognise that no party has a monopoly of concern about crime and that no Government have provided more resources to tackle crime than the Conservative Government in recent years. He should also acknowledge that the Government have consistently ensured that the police have adequate resources. We have provided almost £5.5 billion on police services in England and Wales, which is a rise of three quarters since 1979. Total manpower is up by 30,000– [Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not like it because their record in government was lamentable. There were many reasons why we won the last election and they lost it. One of the reasons why they lost was their criminal neglect to deal with crime in their manifesto.

    Mr. John Townend : Will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government’s commitment to financial rectitude and lower taxes? If so, will he remind his colleagues that, due to the continuation of the recession, receipts from revenue are falling and they must reduce their expenditure demands this year if the Government are not to be faced with increasing taxes or the public sector deficit? As a gesture of support to the Financial Secretary, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the £100 million additional spending as a result of the biodiversity treaty will have to come out of the existing overseas aid budget?

    The Prime Minister : On the latter point, that is a matter for discussion in the public expenditure round when we look at all those subjects but I expect that the £100 million will, over a period, be additional to the resources currently provided in that budget. We shall look at the expenditure position as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been holding early discussions this year with Departments on how their departmental spending programmes relate to total spending plans. As usual, this year our programme will be based on what the country needs and can afford. That is absolutely essential.

     

    Q4. Mr. Wray : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

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

    Mr. Wray : Does the Prime Minister realise that the police do not have enough money and resources to deal with the escalating problem of drug dealing and murder in the streets? If the Prime Minister visits cities throughout Britain he will find it commonplace that 12 and 13-year-old kids are involved in drug dealing. What plans has the Prime Minister to eradicate the problem of that evil trade?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged the action that we took through the European Community at the summit last year and the domestic action that we have taken here. Clearly, he also missed my mentioning a moment ago the extra 30,000 policemen during the period of Conservative Government to deal with all problems of crime, including the important problem of drugs.

     

    Q5. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

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

    Mr. Townsend : While we are all greatly aware of the human tragedy and suffering in the former state of Yugoslavia and the need for humanitarian aid, is it not clear that one cannot impose peace from outside on centuries-old feuds? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the British Government will not commit infantry or armoured units to that part of the world without first having a debate and vote in the House of Commons?

    The Prime Minister : I share many of the reservations on the difficulties of putting troops on the ground in Yugoslavia set out by my hon. Friend. Indeed, I set some of them out in answer to questions yesterday when I made a statement on the Lisbon summit. Following yesterday’s meeting of the Security Council, United Nations forces are now at Sarajevo airport and it is hoped that the relief operation, at least, can get under way soon. We have offered up to four Hercules flights a day and our aircraft are ready to take off at short notice. That is a different operation from ground action which, as my hon. Friend suggests, would be extremely hazardous. At present, we do not have such action in mind.

     

    Q6. Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

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

    Mr. Wigley : Is the Prime Minister aware that, whereas 90 per cent. of the housing stock in Sweden is insulated to a standard as good as or better than that required for new-build houses, the corresponding figure in Britain is only 16 per cent? Does he accept that a drive to improve insulation standards would not only reduce the demand for energy, which would be favourable for the environment, but assist people such as pensioners, the disabled and those on low incomes, and create jobs in a labour-intensive industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?

    The Prime Minister : We have examined the broad principles of what the hon. Gentleman suggests and I have some sympathy with the points that he makes. The budget of the Energy Efficiency Office has been increased substantially this year to £59 million–a 40 per cent. increase on the previous year. A further increase in the public expenditure plans–to £75 million–is already set out in those plans for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 29 June 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th June 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Disabled People

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the occasions in the last Session of Parliament on which Ministers have stated the Government’s policy on whether a legislative approach is the right way to deal with discrimination against people with disabilities; which Minister has the principal responsibility in this matter; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s view was stated principally on 31 January during Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People at column 1251.

     

    Security Services

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards the monitoring of hon. Members by the security services.

    The Prime Minister : The policy remains as stated in 1966 by the then Prime Minister, the Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and as applied by successive Governments since. In answers to questions on 17 November 1966, Lord Wilson said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament, that remained the policy of the Government and that, if there was a development which required a change in the general policy, he would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative make a statement in the House about it. The Government regard this undertaking as still applying to both postal and telephone interception.

     

    Earth Summit

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what attempts will be made by Her Majesty’s Government to encourage sufficient states to sign the Rio treaties on climate change and biodiversity respectively to permit the consequent entering into force of the treaties.

    The Prime Minister : By the end of the Earth summit, 153 states and the EC had signed the conventions on climate change and biodiversity. For the conventions to enter into force, 50 states, in the case of climate change, and 30 states, in the case of biodiversity, must ratify them.

    I have written to the leaders of all EC and Group of Seven countries about the need to maintain the momentum generated by the summit and I have proposed that they draw up a plan of action to include the prompt implementation of both conventions.

     

    War Crimes

    Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister whether, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) of 13 May, Official Report, column 106, concerning documents relating to the wartime Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands, he has completed his inquiries; and whether he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The current review of the documents to which the hon. and learned Member refers is proceeding. Considerable work is involved. I will write to him as soon as inquiries have been completed.

     

    China

    Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the proposed human rights fact-finding visit to the People’s Republic of China.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 26 June 1992] : I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 13 March 1992 at column 687. We are in contact with Sir Geoffrey Howe and the Chinese authorities over detailed arrangements, including timing, composition and itinerary.

     

    Youth Training

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the extent to which the difficulties experienced by young people in obtaining suitable training, to which he referred in his letter of 4 June to the general secretary of the TUC, have now been removed, and of the adequacy of the measures taken to prevent hardship to young people experiencing such difficulties now or in the future.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 June 1992] : The Government are using the contractual relationship with training and enterprise councils to ensure that the difficulties experienced by a minority of young people are addressed urgently. Every TEC is contractually obliged to meet the forecast covered by the Government’s youth training guarantee. The Government are committed to seeing that the guarantee is met.

    The severe hardship provision of income support provides a safety net of benefit for those young people seeking work or a YT place who are at risk of hardship.

    The Government continue to monitor the position closely and seek to improve and streamline the administration of benefit wherever possible.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the 1992 European Council in Lisbon – 29 June 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on 29th June 1992 on the European Council in Lisbon.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about last week’s European Council which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The conclusions of the European Council have been placed in the Library. The meeting took place on the eve of our presidency of the Community and dealt with a range of issues which the United Kingdom will now carry forward. These include preparations for enlargement, the future financing of the Community, the issue of subsidiarity and the Uruguay round. We also discussed the deteriorating situation in Yugoslavia. We agreed to reappoint the President of the Commission for two years. Thereafter, a new five-year appointment will be made of the whole Commission.

    On enlargement, we secured agreement that work should start immediately on the negotiating mandates for the EFTA countries which have applied to join the Community–Austria, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland in the first instance. Much of the ground work has already been done. I hope that we can agree negotiating mandates by the end of our presidency, so that formal negotiations can start at the beginning of next year. The Community has also agreed to step up its dialogue with the countries of central and eastern Europe in preparation for their membership. We plan to hold a meeting with the Visegrad three at Head of Government level during the presidency. The Council also discussed the future financing of the Community. There was widespread recognition that the existing ceiling for the Community’s budget will be adequate for at least the next two years. The agreed language in the communique on help for the poorer countries of the Community reinforces that view. It makes no commitment to the doubling of resources that the Commission had proposed.

    All Heads of Government reaffirmed their commitment to the Maastricht treaty. At Maastricht we won agreement to the principle of subsidiarity and its inclusion in the treaty. At this meeting, we have taken that a stage further. Under our presidency work will go ahead on how to turn that general principle into reality in the working practices of the Community. The steps immediately envisaged include : rigorous scrutiny within the Commission on whether new proposals are necessary–any such proposals must be justified–and examination of existing legislation to see whether it could be modified or even scrapped. The Commission and the Council will report to our European Council in Edinburgh on progress made.

    The European Council reaffirmed its commitment to negotiating a successful conclusion of the Uruguay round. The remaining gap between the European Community and the United States on agriculture issues is narrow. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has calculated that a GATT settlement would give a boost to world growth worth $195 billion annually in extra world income. Over $90 billion of that would go to developing countries and former communist countries. I hope that those of our partners who are still hesitating about an agreement will reflect on the enormous advantages of success and the price of failure.

    We also discussed the deteriorating situation in Yugoslavia. I proposed that all member states should make an immediate pledge of aircraft and transport personnel for the Sarajevo humanitarian airlift; that, with the help of the Commission, we should start to assemble humanitarian material at a suitable base now; and that we should demonstrate our condemnation of Serbian actions by not allowing Serbia to have part in any international organisations, including the CSCE.

    With the Security Council about to meet, we agreed not to rule out the use of military means by the United Nations to achieve our humanitarian objectives. However, the United Nations has rightly been cautious about organising humanitarian operations in the absence of an effective ceasefire, and about trying to interpose itself in a civil war.

    During the course of the weekend we have had discussions with the United States, the United Nations secretariat and others. The prospects for a ceasefire and for a humanitarian mission look slightly better than they did 48 hours ago, but the Serbian militia and others are numerous and well- armed. It would take only one ground-launched missile to cause serious loss of life. We stand ready to take part in a humanitarian airlift but will want to be sure that it can happen with the minimum risk to British and other lives. We adopted conclusions on a number of other foreign policy issues. These are attached to the conclusions which are in the Library of the House. I draw the House’s attention in particular to the statement on nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Community has committed itself to increase its help for improving the safety of nuclear power plants. Britain has taken a lead on this issue and will be seeking a co-ordinated initiative at the economic summit next week.

    I also draw the House’s attention to the statement on Southern Africa, which calls on all the parties to resume negotiations in CODESA. We continue to be in close touch with the South African Government and the ANC on this.

    Many of the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council constitute the agenda for the British Presidency, which starts on Wednesday. They are a huge challenge for the Community and a great responsibility for the United Kingdom.

    All the issues on which I have reported to the House–subsidiarity, enlargement, future financing, the GATT round–will fall to us to manage and, we hope, to bring to a successful conclusion. Yugoslavia too will be very high on our agenda. Many difficult matters must be resolved in the months ahead.

    The plain fact is that the future of Europe is at stake and it needs to be addressed with coolness, commitment, and with careful calculation.

    Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn): I begin by commending President Mitterrand’s initiative in going to Sarajevo. I hope that the action taken by the French President and the statement made by the Lisbon Council will have the effect, at the very least, of enabling humanitarian aid to be delivered, and maintained when it is delivered, to the wretched people of the area around Sarajevo.

    We support the emphasis placed by the Lisbon summit on ensuring that any action taken in relation to the former Yugoslavia must be on the basis of agreed United Nations Security Council resolutions. Will the Prime Minister ensure that our country plays a full part both in providing humanitarian aid and in efforts to ensure the strongest possible United Nations stance against the continuing bloodshed and misery in what was formerly Yugoslavia?

    The Lisbon summit made the beginning of formal negotiations about the enlargement of the European Community conditional upon achievement of agreement on the Delors 2 package. Given that precondition, how does the Prime Minister intend to pursue what he described as his highest priority of enlargement when he is opposed to Delors 2 or anything close to it? Remembering that it is not enough now to satisfy the condition of ratification of Maastricht but that he has also to gain agreement on Delors 2, how does the Prime Minister believe that he can go ahead with promotion of enlargement without the satisfaction of both of those preconditions?

    We note with satisfaction that the Heads of Government at Lisbon urged member countries, in the words of the communique, to “pursue efforts in the social field as the necessary complement to the realisation of the Internal Market.”

    The Prime Minister agreed to that section of the communique, but does it faithfully reflect his Government’s attitude to the social dimension when they refuse to adopt the social chapter and resist application of the social charter? Is there not an inconsistency between the Prime Minister’s words in the communique from Lisbon and his actions in opposing the social dimension?

    In view of the decision, made at Lisbon, to increase substantially the resources devoted to actions in the context of common external policy, can the Prime Minister tell us what the substantial increase will be and what will be the basis for its calculation and the mechanism for its use?

    On the question of subsidiarity, is the Prime Minister aware that no one can sensibly argue against the democratic principle that relevant and accountable powers should be exercised at national, regional and local levels of government? So, as he takes up the presidency of the European Council this week, can the Prime Minister tell us the main components of his concept of subsidiarity and how he would expect it to work in practice? Can he, for instance, tell us what emphasis he would put on achieving safeguards against some member countries’ lowering environmental standards, or following unfair industrial or economic policies, or reducing social and employment conditions and encouraging social dumping? I have no particular country in mind at this juncture, but we should be interested to hear the Prime Minister on the subject.

    May I express surprise and disappointment that no time appears to have been given at the Lisbon summit to discussion of rising unemployment in the Community? Since Britain, under the present Government, has by far the fastest rising rate of unemployment in the Community, does not the Prime Minister think that he should have taken the lead in promoting such a discussion and in advancing proposals for co-ordinated action to combat the rise in joblessness? Will he give us now an undertaking that he will not allow any future summit to go by without ensuring that unemployment and the means of combating it are included on the agenda?

    Finally, since the Lisbon summit has not really provided any further clarification of the political and legal status of the Maastricht treaty, following the Danish referendum result, is the Secretary of State yet in a position to say what form of report he will put to the House before there is any proposal to return to consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for some of his earlier comments, and I agree with his remarks about the courage and vision of President Mitterrand’s visit to Sarajevo. It was an excellent initiative, and I thoroughly commend it. On that subject, I should say that General MacKenzie, the chief officer of UN forces in Sarajevo, has recommended within the last couple of hours that the United Nations should take control of Sarajevo airport on the basis of assurances he has received from the Serbs. We shall need to see if those assurances are matched by others–notably the Muslims, who were shelling Sarajevo over the weekend while President Mitterrand was there. But the development clearly improves the prospects of the United Nations humanitarian mission, and I thoroughly welcome it.

    On the question of enlargement, the condition to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is one that was set at Maastricht some time earlier. We propose to proceed by preparing the Community mandates, which must be prepared prior to the opening of formal negotiations between now and the Edinburgh summit. The target and the expectation are that we shall be able at that summit to reach agreement on future financing. The way would then be open for us to continue negotiations with the EFTA countries on a more formal basis.

    With regard to some of the areas of substantially increased expenditure, one of which relates to the increased expenditure that will undoubtedly be necessary in the Community and beyond to assist countries in eastern Europe to deal with the very difficult problem of their nuclear establishments, the Community has committed a substantial sum–from memory, I think, 150 million ecu thus far. Clearly, there will need to be further commitments, and it is impossible at this stage to know precisely how far we shall need to go. This is largely because we do not yet know what contributions might come from the United States, from Japan, from Canada, and perhaps from other sources. I anticipate that that will be discussed further at the Munich summit in a few days’ time.

    As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we agree with the social dimension, but we do not agree with the social charter itself. [Hon. Members :– “What is the difference ?”] If hon. Members understood the difference, they would understand the point of that. The present treaty allows adequate progress on social issues. Twenty-five of the 38 measures tabled under the social action programme have been agreed–including measures on health and safety, the free movement of labour, training practice, equal opportunities and employee rights. The United Kingdom has not blocked a single proposal under the social action programme.

    On the point about subsidiarity, we agreed at the summit to examine in detail how we turn the principle into a working, living practice within the Community, with examples during the period of the British presidency. There are areas in the Community where subsidiarity is not appropriate, and we should recognise that.

    If we wish to have a single market with a level playing field, as we have frequently said in the House in recent years, there is a need for some action at a Community level. What we are saying about subsidiarity is that, where there is unnecessary intrusion, it must cease. We were no longer alone in our pleas for that at the European Council; we were joined by a number of other member states.

    On the question of employment, and as a straight matter of fact, the unemployment rate is rising faster in Spain than it is in Britain. Nevertheless, it is rising faster here than we would wish. The point about GATT, is that the growth in trade would especially help with the problem of unemployment, not just in this country but in a number of other countries. Unemployment was mentioned in that context at the summit, but not as a specific subject.

    The right hon. Gentleman’s final question related to the political and legal status of Maastricht. It is too soon to decide in what form we will report to the House. We will be having the routine six-monthly debate on Europe later this week. That is separate from the debate promised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, which will be held at a later stage when we have a clearer indication, most notably from the Danes, of how Denmark proposes to deal with its problem.

    Several Hon. Members rose–

    Madam Speaker: Order. Now that we have had the opening statement and questions, may I seek the co-operation of hon. Members’ Many hon. Members wish to put questions to the Prime Minister, but that can be achieved only if each Member puts just one question, and does so briskly– and, please, if the Prime Minister gives a brisk reply.

    Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing): Is my right hon. Friend aware that no renegotiation of the Maastricht treaty is likely to produce more favourable terms for the United Kingdom than those that he has already achieved? However, if we are to protect the principle of subsidiarity, some renegotiation of the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome is needed.

    Has my right hon. Friend noted the appalling inconsistency of those who are now advocating a referendum? They did not do so when we joined the Community, they voted against one subsequently, and they certainly did not suggest one when they were forcing the Single European Act through the House.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I agree with what he has said. It has traditionally been the position of the Conservative party that we do not accept referendums. That was our position when my right hon. and noble Friend led the Conservatives into the Lobby in 1975. I recall that she quoted Lord Attlee’s view of referendums as a device of demagogues and dictators.

    On the question of subsidiarity and the Single European Act, I cannot do better than echo what my right hon. Friend has said.

    Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): Does the Prime Minister agree with the definition of subsidiarity given by the Danish Foreign Minister–that member Governments should decide what goes up to European Community level, not that the European Commission should decide what comes down to Governments?

    In view of the near-hysterical remarks of the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor on television yesterday, will he make it clear that his definition of subsidiarity includes institutional reforms, more openness, more accountability and more decentralisation–and where better to begin than in Edinburgh?

    The Prime Minister: I am intrigued to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, and I substantially agree with him. I am not entirely sure that the leader of his party agrees with him, but I put that to one side. We must examine all the opportunities for subsidiarity. There is no doubt that there will be different views on that matter within the Community. There is equally no doubt that we shall need to define subsidiarity very carefully because there are areas that would ensure that the Community did not function in any way unless they were dealt with at the European level. The whole House has seen illustrations of that.

    Mr. John Biffen (Shropshire, North): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Court of Auditors described the recent MacSharry proposals accepted by the Agriculture Ministers as “a recipe for fraud”? In those circumstances, is it not clear that the mechanics of administering the common agricultural policy are wholly in disarray? Do they not need the application of subsidiarity to bring about better control? Will every effort be made during my right hon. Friend’s presidency of the European Community to establish ways in which the CAP can be recast consistent with his ambitions concerning subsidiarity?

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, at Maastricht the Court of Auditors was made a Community institution, so it is now under better control than it was previously. The common agricultural policy has been substantially reformed–a remarkable achievement on the part of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. We will continue to study whether further improvements can be made. No aspect of Community activities will be ruled out of discussion by us while we review subsidiarity.

    Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): Having returned yesterday from Copenhagen, in that democratic country of Denmark, I assure the Prime Minister that there is not the slightest prospect of the Danish people changing their minds about Maastricht before the end of this year. That being so, what is the point of writing into the opening paragraphs of the communique the importance of ratifying the treaty so that it can come into force on 1 January 1993? Is that just hot air, or is it something more sinister–an attempt to override article 236 of the Rome treaty?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not see plots where none exists. He makes his own judgment of what may happen in Denmark. We must wait to see what events actually occur there, and what action the Danish Government take–either saying in concrete terms to the Community, “We cannot and we will not ratify the treaty”, in which case the treaty cannot proceed ; or explaining to us how they intend to proceed with the ratification of the treaty. Once the Danish Government do that, we will be in a position to proceed with the ratification here.

    Mr. Michael Alison (Selby): As my right hon. Friend charts the course ahead for Maastricht, will he recall that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members–certainly on this side of the House–endorse his vision of Britain at the heart of Europe? With my right hon. Friend at the heart of Europe, we shall have not a weak heart, a hard heart, or a bleeding heart, but a stout heart–which won my right hon. Friend the last election, and which he shares with his predecessor as Prime Minister. Like him, she won many important improvements to the basis of our membership of the Community.

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend that, while we remain a member of the European Community, there is no alternative to our being at its centre and exercising influence. It may be the ambition of some to leave the Community, in which case they should say so and make their position entirely clear. If that is their position, they should also explain what would happen, if we left the Community, to inward investment, jobs, prosperity, and much else. If we are to remain in the Community, it is the overwhelming view of the House–and I believe of the country–that we need to be at its centre, exercising our influence and determining by our own efforts the direction in which the Community goes. I for one am not prepared to see this country sit on the sidelines of the European Community while other countries take decisions that determine its direction and the livelihood of every person in this country.

    Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North): The declaration on South Africa rightly drew attention to the dreadful massacre in Boipatong. Does the Prime Minister accept, however, that simply asking the people to back the Conference for a Democratic South Africa is a weak response? Is it not time for a fundamental reappraisal of policy on South Africa, to compel President de Klerk to negotiate in a genuine fashion?

    The Prime Minister: My understanding is that President de Klerk is prepared to negotiate, and we want negotiations to start again. In the context of what is now happening in South Africa, it is not helpful for all kinds of miscellaneous advice to appear suddenly and gratuitously, spreading the blame on one side or the other. What we need is a resumption of the talks as soon as possible.

    It is all right for some to hawk their consciences around, but the impact of what happens in South Africa affects the people who are poorest. South Africa has 40 per cent. unemployment, 2 per cent. population growth and 0 per cent. growth in gross domestic product. That will not be corrected until the talks are successful, and those who sit here thinking otherwise had better examine the situation with greater care.

    Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills): How does my right hon. Friend reconcile what I think the country wants–a return of powers from Brussels to Britain–with his insistence that we go ahead and legislate for the dead treaty of union? Why does he not suggest that we withdraw the treaty now, and build on his proposals for the return of powers to Britain?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, much in the Maastricht treaty moves in the direction in which he would have the country go. It is perfectly true that both the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act involved institutional changes; but at Maastricht, for the first time, we also secured language establishing the value of intergovernmental co-operation outside the treaty of Rome and outside the concept of the European Court of Justice. That was not in the Single European Act, but it is in the Maastricht treaty.

    We also secured the formalisation of subsidiarity, on which we are still seeking to put flesh–a test to be applied to all Community competence issues. Let me repeat that : the test will be applied to all Community competence issues. That, too, was not in the Single European Act. The Act does, however, contain many of the things about which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and some of my other hon. Friends, now complain.

    Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North): What progress did the Government make at Lisbon in ensuring that the Eurofed would be situated in the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister: There was a discussion about sites over dinner, but the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that no agreement was reached.

    Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham): One of the good things to come out of the meeting was the failure to accept the European budget proposed by Mr. Delors. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European Commission will have plenty to do in cleaning up its own house and keeping an eye on the amount of fraud that is now taking place in the Community? Will not the proposals for a new parliamentary commission of the European Parliament, under the provisions of Maastricht, help in that process, and do not those proposals–and the proposal for subsidiarity–make a very good case for the House to ratify the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with him. There was strong opposition, not just from the United Kingdom but from a number of European states, to the Commission’s over-ambitious proposals to increase own resources to 1.37 per cent. of gross national product by 1997. I am certain that those proposals will be rejected, and equally certain that there will be no increase in the 1.2 per cent. ceiling, at least until 1995. Other options were discussed, including a longer period for the future own-resources perspective–perhaps seven years instead of five. A range of views was expressed in a lengthy discussion at Lisbon. The matter will need to be determined over the next six month, but we are clear about the fact that there is now plenty of room within the existing ceiling without an increase in own resources.

    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): If the Prime Minister lost Maastricht in the House, would he consider resigning?

    The Prime Minister: We shall not be losing it in the House.

    Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be more than a little perverse for anyone concerned with national sovereignty to promote in one Parliament the Single European Act that made no provision for subsidiarity and in the next Parliament to attack the Maastricht treaty, which does include subsidiarity, as “a treaty too far”?

    The Prime Minister: I think I am able to agree with my hon. Friend.

    Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth): In the context of subsidiarity, did the Prime Minister discuss how to counteract the centralised and bumbling bureaucracy that is the British Board of Trade, which has delayed RECHAR for far too long already? Did the Prime Minister go on to say that he would put that down to local government to implement?

    The Prime Minister: Stressing more control over British institutions is hardly subsidiarity.

    Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside): With regard to the level playing field that my right hon. Friend mentioned, does he acknowledge that, both at Maastricht and at Lisbon, he managed to move the goal posts in favour of Britain without upsetting our European partners, to the extent that they now believe that it was they who invented subsidiarity? Must that not bode well for Britain’s presidency, when we shall be able to set the agenda for future meetings?

    The Prime Minister: It is perfectly clear that the principle of devolving–“subsidiarity” is, we can all agree, an ugly word–means ensuring that we have a less intrusive Community and making sure that as much as is appropriate is done at the national rather than the European level. That means that the test should be that, if it cannot be done at the national level, perhaps it should be done at the European level. If it can be done best at the national level, it should be done at the national level.

    Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli): Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the concept of subsidiarity that he is particularly fond of will be applied to the heart of the Maastricht treaty–that is, to economic and monetary union?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a decision for this House, and it will be placed before this House. Whether we go into economic and monetary union, a concept well understood in this House, will be determined by this House at an appropriate time.

    Mr. George Walden (Buckingham): Is my right hon. Friend aware that, every time the word “subsidiarity” is used in this House, we lose 99 per cent. of the audience outside, who are confused and apprehensive about its meaning? As someone who is confused and apprehensive about its meaning, I would encourage my right hon. Friend to fight for a legally binding clarification of the Maastricht treaty so that we can understand what it means.

    In order to dispel the confusion and apprehension about the treaty itself, I would also suggest that my right hon. Friend should keep an open mind to a referendum on any entry into a single currency which may come about, as that is a very clear, specific and momentous issue–by far the most important part of the Maastricht treaty. Whereas I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no case for–

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Walden: I am just finishing, Madam Speaker. Whereas I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no case for a referendum on the present treaty, should there ever be any question of entry into economic and monetary union, the people must have a say on that very specific and very momentous issue.

    The Prime Minister: Subsidiarity is already a legally binding issue under article 3b of the treaty. What we are seeking to do is to set out how in practice that will work, rather than simply waiting for cases to go to the European Court of Justice and for rulings at that stage. The concept of making it legally binding is already there in the Maastricht treaty. I repeat what I said a moment ago about economic and monetary union : I believe that that is a matter for Parliament and for a future Parliament.

    Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West): In view of the need for a more considered response to the baronial intervention by his predecessor, who called for a referendum on the treaty of Maastricht, does the Prime Minister not realise that he could probably keep most people happy by agreeing to hold a referendum in return for agreeing to implement the suggestion by the Tory chairman of the European Movement : that he should appoint Baroness Thatcher as Governor of the Falkland islands and dispatch her there forthwith?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that we already have a governor.

    Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster): Does my right hon. Friend further accept that now is the time to build on and to consolidate the achievements of Maastricht rather than constantly to carp and criticise, which some people are all too inclined to do? On the question of subsidiarity, may I impress on my right hon. Friend the urgent need to get a position out of the Commission and a decision out of the Council as soon as possible–preferably under his leadership during the British presidency?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the latter point. That is precisely the remit that we have obtained. Equally, he is correct on his former point.

    Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): On an issue that is so vital to the sovereignty of our country, why is the Prime Minister so reluctant to allow a free vote on this side of the House? Is the reason because he is fearful of– [Laughter].

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants a free vote on that side of the House, he had better discuss that matter with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster).

    Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West): On the question of a referendum, does my right hon. Friend recall that his predecessor, in opposing a referendum in 1975, not only prayed in aid the dictum of Lord Attlee but argued strongly that a referendum was contrary to parliamentary sovereignty?

    The Prime Minister: I did not have the privilege of being here on that occasion, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): In considering the potential for the enlargement of the Community–a goal that many of us believe is not only desirable but achievable–will the Prime Minister advise us whether the Council considered that additional protocols pertaining to accession to the European Community will be written into the Maastricht accord, and, if so, will they be based solely on economic criteria or will other factors come into play?

    The Prime Minister: No, that point was not discussed in the enlargement discussions. What was discussed was the method of preparing the mandates immediately for the Eftans and the position to be taken in respect of other countries–most notably the Visegrad countries–such as Turkey, Malta and Cyprus that have expressed interest in joining the Community. We are proposing to take all those matters forward in different ways. We must wait and see how that turns out for Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, or perhaps the Czech Lands and Slovakia. I hope that we will have a meeting between the presidency and those countries later in the year. It will clearly be many years before they are ready to become full members.

    Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey): Did my right hon. Friend remind his fellow Heads of Government in Lisbon of the historic fact that, during the 1939-45 war, the Germans had to keep nine divisions in Yugoslavia, six of which were in Serbia alone, and yet still were able to maintain control of only the main roads? Comforting talk about humanitarian aid, attractive as it seems when one sees the appalling scenes in Sarajevo, should not blind any of us to the grim reality that we can hope to restore order in that part of the world only with a massive military intervention, which would inevitably lead to large-scale casualties.

    The Prime Minister: I think that that point was very much in the minds of a number of us in the discussions that we had on Yugoslavia. Although concern predominantly is centreing on getting humanitarian aid into Sarajevo airport, unless there is a ceasefire that is likely to be an extremely hazardous and difficult operation. But even if the humanitarian aid arrives in the airport, that is not the end of the matter ; it will then have to be taken, presumably by the Red Cross, to areas where it is needed, and military escorts may be needed to safeguard the position of the Red Cross. This is an extremely difficult and hazardous undertaking and it is being discussed by the United Nations–I believe, even as we speak.

    Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill): Notwithstanding the difficulty of putting large numbers of troops on the ground, does the Prime Minister agree that the establishment of a sky shield–an area free from bombardment for civilians–would be one way of trying to save lives? Would not he like to see an extension of his idea of safe havens for the Kurds? Will he discuss that with his European colleagues? Did President Mitterrand discuss his visit to Sarajevo with the Prime Minister before he left?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that he discussed it with none of the other Heads of Government, as far as I am aware, before he left. I am certainly not aware that he did so.

    The idea of air cover is certainly one that has been considered. It is, of course, extremely hazardous. The bombing and mortaring of people in and around Sarajevo is being done from the land, not from the air, so air cover would not necessarily prevent it. However, air cover would be a juicy target for missiles from the ground if anyone were tempted to aim at them. It is an extremely difficult proposition. Of course, we also considered the prospect of an air drop of supplies, but that also has great logistical difficulties, and we were not advised to proceed with that course.

    Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West): Will the Prime Minister confirm that the agreement on European money was a mere holding operation? Will he also confirm that, if there has to be a continuance of a fixed exchange rate moving towards a single currency, it demands convergence, and that convergence in its turn demands the free movement of people–namely, the abolition of all immigration controls within the European Community and a massive increase in regional and social funds?

    The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend believes all that, I can understand why he is so opposed to it. I do not believe all that. As for it being a mere holding operation, it was an agreement that there was no agreement to be had. We and others could not agree the proposals put forward at the weekend, and we must now discuss them to see whether agreement can be reached by the time of Edinburgh. That is the way one normally reaches an agreement–through negotiation over time.

    Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East): Since the Prime Minister now claims to champion the principle of subsidiarity, will he explain to the House why he does so so enthusiastically for the United Kingdom within the European union while ignoring it completely for Scotland within the British Union?

    The Prime Minister: We are a single united kingdom.

    Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South): Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that it has taken this country about 50 years to be accepted as a leading player in the European Community? Is it not sad that, on the very eve of our taking the presidency, in our best position for years, with the twin themes of subsidiarity and enlargement on our lips as we do so, there are still those among us who wish to hark back to the glorious days of Britain’s history which are no longer relevant in the late 1990s?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that there are very few Conservative Members and, I suspect, very few–if any– hon. Members who want to see a centralised European Community and the nightmare prospect proposed by some of a central European state. We do not want it, it will not happen and it is an unreal prospect–the stuff of nightmares for a few people–but if we wish to build the sort of Europe that this House wants, we can do so only if we play a full part in the decision-making process and do not, by our own actions, marginalise ourselves on areas of discussion where decisions need to be taken now.

    Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Will the Prime Minister explain, if he believes in honest negotiation, on what basis he will negotiate with the four applicants, Switzerland, Finland and so on–on the basis of Maastricht being agreed or on the basis of Maastricht not being agreed? If it is the former, why does he not have the courage to put the Bill before the House now, or is he merely playing for time?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening earlier. The preparation of the mandates is on the basis of Maastricht being agreed. That is the working assumption under which all the negotiations will take place. In due course, when Maastricht is agreed, the official negotiations can start. It is quite possible that not only the mandates but unofficial discussions towards accession to the Community can take place before ratification of the treaty, but the formal accession of any new state could not take place until after the Maastricht treaty is ratified.

    Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West): Does my right hon. Friend accept that the whole House would wish to thank him and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary–[Hon. Members– : “No.”]–the whole House–for pointing out the dangers of the situation in Yugoslavia? He has made it clear that command and control in Yugoslavia is vested in the United Nations. During the months of the presidency, will my right hon. Friend ensure that that is made clear to every member of the Community? We are all working in the same army for the same aim, but under one single command and control.

    The Prime Minister: I will seek to make that clear. As my hon. Friend said, we may not carry the whole House with us, but perhaps we carry the whole of the thinking part of the House with us.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): While, Muggins-like, Britain goes along with sanctions against Libya, the Italians cheerfully turn a blind eye to their relations with Libya and to any obligations they have given. What consideration is the Prime Minister giving to the letter from Mr. John Lace, the managing director of Babcock and Wilcox, who argues that thousands of jobs may be involved in various propositions from the British engineering industry in Libya? Why should we lose out on them when our partners are not keeping to any agreements that may have been made?

    The Prime Minister: Without necessarily accepting the premise on which the hon. Gentleman launched his question, I have seen the letter from Babcock and Wilcox to which he refers. I will take the opportunity to discuss that with the new Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Amato, when I meet him at Munich in a few days’ time.

    Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): Given that the people of this country have no faith or confidence whatever in the pocket Napoleon who has been running the Commission for the past eight years, is it not insensitive, to say the least, for our European colleagues to force him on us for the next two years? Or is Machiavelli at work–are they trying to ensure that the British people throw out the wretched treaty with the referendum which is becoming increasingly desirable, necessary and relevant?

    The Prime Minister: There was only one candidate for the presidency of the Commission. There was no other candidate around who was credible and who would have been likely to have the support of any other nation state at the summit. It would have been perfectly possible, if we had thought it desirable, for us to put forward a different candidate. He–[Hon. Members :– “Or she.”]–or she would have had no prospect of success, and he or she would have needed to be an existing member of the Commission. There is no point is getting out of the frying pan and stepping straight into the fire.

    Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough): The House will have noticed the Prime Minister’s reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in relation to unemployment. Will he not accept that it is hardly any solace for those losing their jobs to learn that the rate of unemployment is rising faster in Spain than it is here, or that the only Government proposal to bring down unemployment is the successful conclusion to the GATT round? As the presidency begins on 1 July, will the Prime Minister give the House a categorical assurance that he will make the fall of unemployment a high priority within the exchange rate mechanism?

    The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure what that last point means. I simply corrected the point of fact made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I also made the point, if I remember accurately, that I did not necessarily suggest that we had unemployment rising at the rate we would like. Clearly we would like to see it fall ; I do not deny that for a moment. I was correcting the simple factual point about unemployment. Although it is an important matter, it falls within a wide parameter of policies. It is not necessarily a matter that can be determined by Europe-wide policies at a European Council meeting.

    Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe): Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his exchanges with his colleagues at Lisbon further demonstrated that there is growing support throughout Europe for the concept of a Community which is effective and united, but which is not unnecessarily centralist?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has defined precisely the sense of the meeting at Lisbon on Friday and Saturday. There is a strong feeling, not just among politicians, people in this country and people in Denmark, but in a number of other countries, against excessive centralisation. That was reflected in our debates in Lisbon.

    Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): The Prime Minister has told us that he is seeking a definition of subsidiarity. Does he agree that such a definition should be inserted in article 3b? Contrary to popular belief, it is not yet there. Does he agree that, to make it a practical reality and to make it justiciable, as it must be in the end, there must be some suggestion of a separation of powers? However, is not the separation of powers the hallmark of a federal constitution, which the Prime Minister says he wishes to avoid?

    The Prime Minister: The definition is there in article 3b, as I said earlier. It is therefore justiciable, and I am happy to confirm that again to the hon. Gentleman. We have the definition. We are seeking to put flesh, in practical working terms, on the definition that already exists and is already justiciable.

    Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the one thing that my constituents are very clear about is that they do not want to see the surrender of any more important powers by the Westminster Parliament to the European Community? If that is what we mean by subsidiarity, is it not time that it was better and more clearly defined, so that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take the British people with him at the end of his successful presidency?

    The Prime Minister: As I said a little earlier, I share my hon. and learned Friend’s implicit view that “subsidiarity” is not a very attractive term. We need to find a way of expressing it that will make it readily understood by people up and down the country so that they are aware of what it means and how it will operate. I am open to any helpful proposals on that point, but we shall be considering it further.

    Mr. Peter Hain (Neath): When the Prime Minister bullied the Baroness Thatcher into signing the exchange rate mechanism or the European monetary system, did she insist to him then, as she did yesterday, that the pound was set at far too high a level?

    The Prime Minister: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman has not met my noble Friend.

    Mr. William Powell (Corby): The emphasis that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister laid upon the successful conclusion of the GATT round is most welcome. Does he agree that nothing would give the world economy a greater boost or boost confidence as well as economic activity than the successful conclusion of the GATT round? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend urge the French President to show the same generosity in solving the GATT problems as he is showing in trying to solve the difficulties in Sarajevo, by reaching a satisfactory compromise over 300,000 tonnes of grain?

    The Prime Minister: That is an extremely fair point, which has not been lost upon the European leaders. The point has been made to those holding up the agreement at present. Quite apart from the growth of world trade that would follow and apart from the helpful effect that that would also have on unemployment, it would be an immense help to the developing countries and the less-developed countries to have a GATT agreement that opens the richer markets of the west to those countries. There is no point in us handing out sums of aid with one hand and effectively taking them away with closed markets with the other.

    Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): With regard to Yugoslavia, is the European Community sure that, although the sanctions against Milosevic are justified and may bring about a change in Serbia, they will lead to peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Do not Presidents Izetbegovic and Tudjman have some responsibility for what is happening in that part of the world? What pressure is the Community placing on them–or is the even-handed approach by the British Government before 19 January being thrown away in order to achieve concessions on Maastricht?

    The Prime Minister: There are two points in relation to the important points raised by the hon. Gentleman. First, we are putting pressure on President Tudjman as well. Secondly, we are seeking to persuade the Serbs to assert control over the Serbs in Bosnia. That is the substantive point.

    Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch): Does my right hon. Friend accept that his comments in his opening statement about coolness and commitment are widely shared by a high proportion of his colleagues alongside and behind him? Does he agree that the cacophony of inconsistency from down the Corridor is a sign that very rarely are the best wines made with sour grapes?

    The Prime Minister: We need to look very carefully at precisely how we carry the debate forward. It is critical that we get the right conclusions from the debate and that we ratify a treaty which for the first time begins to turn back a centralising trend which was evident in the treaty of Rome and in the Single European Act, and which became more evident as time passed. We are now in a position to begin to turn that tide back. It would be folly if we were to sideline ourselves when we have an opportunity to achieve that.

    Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin): Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Prime Minister must have seen weekend reports that, if Maastricht were not ratified by the House, he would resign. I am sure that he agrees that it would be quite wrong to raise the hopes of the British people on the basis of a false premise, but, in view of the right hon. Gentleman’s determination to sweep away the cobwebs of government, will he come clean on this matter and tell us whether, if Maastricht is not ratified, he will resign?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises his question on a false premise, which is exactly what he said he would not wish to do–it is going to be ratified. As one of my hon. Friends indicated a moment ago, the hon. Gentleman may have overlooked it, but we had the largest single popular vote in the previous election that any Government have ever received.

    Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): While the Prime Minister and our new friend Mr. Jacques Delors may be entirely confident that this matter is going to go through without difficulty and with the free will of members, does he accept that there is an important democratic issue when a Bill is put through without a free vote, without a referendum, and without the people of the country being told what is involved when there is a major surrender or a major passing over of freedom and liberty? If he doubts that, should we not take a message from the sad countries of eastern Europe about the tragedy of forcing people to go into a single centralised state with common citizenship and without frontiers, without being consulted at all? Surely there is a case for at least looking at telling the people and asking their views.

    The Prime Minister: No one fights more fiercely for parliamentary control in this country than my hon. Friend. With my great respect for him, I find it inconsistent that such a firm advocate of the parliamentary system should also be an advocate of referendums. I believe that the parliamentary system is right. It is the way in which we took through legislation in the past on constitutional matters. It is the way in which we took through the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. This Bill has already been debated, before I went to Maastricht and after I came back, for a longer period than that spent discussing the Single European Act, and that is before we enter the Committee stage.

    Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend): In the context of subsidiarity, will the Prime Minister confirm that there is no truth in the rumours that environmental policy is to be repatriated to the nation state and that, instead, in his presidency he will give priority to the creation of a European environmental agency to make sure that important, cross-boundary environmental matters are properly tackled?

    The Prime Minister: It is agreed that there should be a European environmental agency, and it has been for some time. What has not been agreed is where the European environmental agency should be sited. That, too, failed to find itself a matter of agreement over the weekend.

    Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East): May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s dedication to the concept of enlargement of the Community, so that, one day, we will get to the stage at which Europe really means Europe? Is it not clear that a Community of 15 or 20 more states can exist only on the basis of individual agreements and pillars– precisely the sort of Europe envisaged at Maastricht?

    The Prime Minister: Yes. They have agreed to apply on the basis of the Maastricht treaty being agreed. That opens, of course, the option of intergovernmental agreement, as I said earlier, rather than simply agreement under the treaty of Rome. No doubt, over time as the Community enlarges, there will be further agreements and, no doubt, further institutional change. We must make sure that we are sufficiently influential in the Community to ensure that the institutional change that takes place and the future agreements that may be necessary are agreements and changes of which we approve.

    Mr. Jimmy Boyce (Rotherham): Would the Prime Minister be kind enough to tell us whether, when he refers to workers’ rights, he means an end to the practice of employers unilaterally de-recognising trade unions, reneging on properly negotiated rates of pay and pay rises, and coercing workers into signing new contracts of employment that mean that they have to work longer hours for basic rates of pay?

    The Prime Minister: None of those matters was discussed over the weekend.

    Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel): Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the discussions that have taken place about the parliamentary assize, the group of the 12 Parliaments plus the European Parliament, is a process that will be pursued during our presidency? Does my right hon. Friend accept that that should be an added safeguard in the matter of subsidiarity?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, we shall certainly process the prospect of a further meeting of that sort. Agreements between Parliaments, rather than just between members of the European Parliament and individual Governments, is an attractive way to proceed. I do not anticipate a meeting of the assize during the next six months, but we shall do the ground work and preparation for one to take place thereafter.

    Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East): The Prime Minister will be aware that his predecessor has called subsidiarity “gobbledegook”. Early-day motion 240 gives a more sophisticated analysis of what is wrong with subsidiarity. If subsidiarity is to begin to have a constitutional meaning and legal definition, and is not simply to be determined by the courts in a broad sweep, its definition comes close to the concept of federalism.

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have spent some time in the past hour discussing precisely that point and the necessity of ensuring that a proper definition of subsidiarity is more clear-cut to everyone, including the man and woman in the street, than the definition found in article 3b of the treaty.

    Several Hon. Members rose–

    Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Subsidiarity – 26 June 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on subsidiarity, made in Lisbon, Portugal, on 26th June 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we begin to put flesh on subsidiarity, we make it live, we explain to people what it means. We look at the examples and we decide to examine that further over the next six months. I think that’s how we’ll do it. That’s a wish not just in the United Kingdom but also in a number of other European countries as well I believe.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if agreement would be made at this summit].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we will certainly seek to get some agreements on the principle of subsidiarity over the weekend, yes. But then it’ll have to be carried forward, there’s a great deal of work to be done to make this a living viable way for the community to behave.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 June 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th June 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had recently with the Prime Minister of Pakistan concerning Kashmir; what agreement was reached on representations to be made on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government about Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I discussed Kashmir with Mr. Nawaz Sharif on 17 June. I repeated our hope that Pakistan and India will agree to a means of solving this dispute through negotiation. I made clear our concern about interference in Kashmir by militants from Pakistan, and also briefed Mr. Nawaz Sharif on our representations to the Indian Government about the need to respect human rights and the need for a political process in Kashmir.

     

    Intellectual Property Rights

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the United States Administration on intellectual property rights regarding forestry products and medicines.

    The Prime Minister : All these issues were discussed in the negotiations leading up to the biodiversity convention, in which representatives of the United States Administration were involved.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

     

    Council of Europe

    Mr. David Howell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the composition of the United Kingdom delegation for the 44th session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

    The Prime Minister : The 44th session parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe was opened in Strasbourg on 4 May. The next meeting of this session will be held in Budapest on 30 June, and the delegation from the United Kingdom, for this meeting and the remainder of the session, will consist of 19 Members of the Conservative party, 15 Members of the Labour party and two Members from the minority parties.

    The appointments of representatives and substitutes have been made on the basis of nominations by the parties concerned.

    The same delegation will be representing the United Kingdom Parliament at the assembly of the Western European Union, which next meets in Paris on 30 November 1992.

    Representatives from the Government Benches will be : Sir Geoffrey Finsberg becomes Lord Finsberg on 27 June. He will be a member of the delegation, and its leader, in his capacity as a member of the upper House.

    The hon. Members for :

    Warwick and Leamington (Sir Dudley Smith)

    Calder Valley (Sir Donald Thompson)

    Twickenham (Mr. Toby Jessel)

    Poole (Mr. John Ward)

    Ashford (Sir Keith Speed)

    Medway (Dame Peggy Fenner)

    Lewes (Mr. Tim Rathbone)

    Bournemouth, East (Mr. David Atkinson)

    and the Earl of Dundee

    Representatives from the Labour party will be :

    The hon. Members for :

    Wentworth (Mr. Peter Hardy)

    Tooting (Mr. Tom Cox)

    Wansbeck (Mr. Jack Thompson)

    Newham, North West (Mr. Tony Banks)

    Don Valley (Mr. Martin Redmond)

    Manchester, Central (Mr. Robert Litherland)

    and Lord Kirkhill

    The representative from the minority parties will be :

    The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir Russell Johnston)

    The following substitutes have been appointed to act as necessary on behalf of the delegates :

    From the Government Benches :

    Reading, West (Sir Tony Durant)

    Norfolk, North (Mr. Ralph Howell)

    Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Andrew Bowden)

    Ravensbourne (Sir John Hunt)

    Wellingborough (Mr. Peter Fry)

    Bridlington (Mr. John Townend)

    Newark (Mr. Richard Alexander)

    Lord Newall and Baroness Hooper

    From the Labour Benches :

    Pollok (Mr. James Dunnachie)

    Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Norman Godman)

    Newport, East (Mr. Roy Hughes)

    Easington (Mr. John Cummings)

    Leigh (Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe)

    Leicester, South (Mr. James Marshall)

    Hodge Hill (Mr. Terry Davis)

    and Baroness Lockwood

    From the minority parties :

    Lord Mackie of Benshie

  • PMQT – 25 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th June 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Betts : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Betts : Is the Prime Minister aware of reports that dentists in Huntingdon are to refuse to treat any new patients, including children, under the national health service because of Government cuts in funding? How will the Prime Minister explain to his constituents that, despite repeated excuses, the Government are failing to give the NHS the level of resources necessary to enable it to provide a first-class level of treatment for all?

    The Prime Minister : There is no question of anyone needing to go without a national health service dentist in Huntingdon. Dentists in Cambridgeshire have more patients than the national average because of population growth. A recruitment campaign for dentists has been planned for some time and will go ahead in September. If necessary, the local family health services authority will seek agreement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to employ salaried dentists. Four dentists are already interested in such appointments. If people have any trouble finding dentists, they should go to their family health services authority, which should be able to help.

    Mr. Dykes : May I wish my right hon. Friend well in the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community? Will he ensure that Ministers work hard in the coming months to explain the immense benefits of the Maastricht treaty to the interests of this country– [Interruption.] which will become clearer over time? If that work is successful, it will help to diminish some of the grotesque xenophobia and hysteria of recent weeks.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, the Maastricht agreement was made within the negotiating terms agree by the House, was subsequently endorsed by the House and was agreed at a general election. The Second Reading of the Bill has been approved, it remains Government policy and in due course we shall carry it through.

    Mr. Hattersley : Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government now support the extension of Mr. Delors’ term of office as president of the European Commission ?

    The Prime Minister : It is a matter that will be discussed at the weekend. There is, as I understand it, likely to be only one candidate. If that is Mr. Delors, we shall support him.

    Mr. Hattersley : Since I take it that that answer is as far as the Prime Minister’s reserves of courage are liable to go towards the answer yes, will he give Mr. Delors the Opposition’s congratulations– [Interruption] and tell Mr. Delors that we confidently expect him to continue to implement policies which are necessary for this country, are supported by the Labour party and are anathema to Tory Back Benchers?

    The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure that the right hon. Gentleman carried all his Friend’s with him.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery : Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent survey that showed that 91 per cent. of British exporters reported either good or very good orders for the first three months of this year ? Does he agree that the efforts made by British exporters will lead the way to recovery?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. Last month’s export figures were extremely good. They were up 6 per cent. by value and 4 per cent. by volume. I think that that shows the extent to which our competitiveness has increasingly enabled us to penetrate export markets which were previously not open to us.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Michie : When will the Prime Minister stop going on about his wonderful citizen’s charter which, so far as I can see, has had only one effect until now, which is that British Rail passengers can keep their tickets ? At a much more serious level, pregnant women cannot keep their jobs. What good is a charter which does not allow women to be pregnant without being punished for it ?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman cared to read the whole range of citizen’s charters that we have produced, he would realise that it is a far wider-ranging initiative than he has begun to understand. It puts the consumer and not the producer first, and it will remain right at the heart of Government policy throughout the rest of this decade.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the remarks that he made on Tuesday, when he said that there would be another debate in the House on the Maastricht Bill before Third Reading? May I recommend the attitude of one of his predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who allowed a free vote of the House in similar circumstances when he was piloting the European Communities legislation through the House? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that that would be an excellent way to test the water before we come to voting on the Maastricht Bill?

    The Prime Minister : I was not a Member of the House at that moment, and I am not entirely sure that I recall that free vote. The House has now debated and voted on the Maastricht agreement on three occasions. As I indicated a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), we contested the general election on that proposition–a general election at which all my hon. Friends were returned on a manifesto to which they all subscribed. The Maastricht treaty was negotiated in good faith by all member states. I have no intention of breaking the word of the British Government that was given on that occasion ; nor do I have any intention of compromising what we agreed on that occasion and wrecking this country’s reputation for plain and honest dealing and good faith. In due course, therefore, I shall be inviting my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government and the Bill.

    Dr. Wright : The Government have devoted many millions of pounds and many millions of copies to telling people about the glories of the parent’s charter and the patient’s charter. Will the Prime Minister tell the House how many millions of pounds and how many millions of copies have been devoted to telling the British people about the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : From memory, I think that the House spent 30 hours debating it before we even went to Maastricht. I do not think that there is any doubt about the realities of what the treaty stands for in the minds of the British people. They knew that at the election, and they supported it at the election.

     

    Q4. Mr. Milligan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Milligan : Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Secretary of State for Employment on her triumph in Luxembourg yesterday? It is good news for pay packets, good news for jobs and good news for investment. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that it shows that the best way to fight for British interests is to negotiate strongly, but with a reputation as a country which keeps the agreements that we make and ratifies the treaties that we sign?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I wholeheartedly agree with him. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment achieved an outcome at yesterday’s Economic and Social Council which meets every one of the United Kingdom’s most crucial objectives. She has preserved the flexibility which employers and employees in the United Kingdom enjoy and which is one of our greatest assets. I must tell the House, however, that the directive is still not–and may not be– agreed in the European Community. In any event, it is still our case, irrespective of the negotiating triumph by my right hon. Friend yesterday, that the treaty base under which it has been brought forward is wrong and that if it is passed we may still challenge it in the European Court.

     

    Homelessness

    Q5. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet representatives of London’s homeless.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so at present, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment regularly meets representatives of the voluntary organisations in London who work with homeless people.

    Mr. Corbyn : Does the Prime Minister realise that the 25 million sq ft of empty offices in London and still more under construction are an insult to the 2,000 people who sleep on the streets of the capital city every night and to the 18,000 people living in hostels? When will the Government direct the construction industry to build houses for rent for those who need them, rather than speculative office blocks to lie idle for the benefit of property speculators? This is a crucial matter and the right hon. Gentleman stands condemned by those who are forced to sleep on the streets at night.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman, standing in a glass house, should be careful where he throws his bricks. Of the top 10 authorities with empty properties, six are Labour controlled and none is Conservative controlled. If the hon. Gentleman were really concerned, he would be putting pressure on Manchester, Salford, Birmingham, Hackney, Knowsley and Newcastle upon Tyne. He might then get homeless people back into accommodation.

    Several Hon. Members rose —

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

    Mr. John Marshall : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that homelessness in London is the result of decades of rent control, which Conservative rule got rid of, and of incompetence by high-spending Labour councils?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. There is scope for the private rented sector to grow and to provide low-cost flexible accommodation. The hostility of the Labour party over the years has cramped that growth and prevented that property becoming available for people who needed it. We have consistently sought to expand the privately rented sector, most recently with our proposed tax exemptions to help people who want to rent a room to do so. I hope that Opposition Members will support that policy.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Beggs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Beggs : May I invite the Prime Minister to make time in his busy schedule to visit my constituency to see for himself why Larne is the second busiest ferry port in the United Kingdom and to hear from the people there why he should use his influence to persuade the European Commission that Larne, Belfast, Stranraer and Dumfries be recognised as Euro-routes to and from Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I should be happy to take up that invitation from the hon. Gentleman. Northern Ireland is well served by its ports and I am confident that they will continue to provide the routes for most of the Province’s business and tourist traffic to Great Britain and onwards to Europe. They have performed magnificently in the past and I believe that they will continue to do so, and to grow, in the future.

    Mr. Mans : Does my right hon. Friend agree that what matters most to people is the amount that the Government take in tax from their wage packets? Bearing that in mind, may I ask him to confirm that he has no plans to follow the tax policies advocated by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) which, even in the view of many Labour Members, contributed greatly to the Opposition’s defeat?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Our policies of low taxation and low inflation were clearly what the electorate wanted at the last general election. I am aware of the dispute about why the Opposition lost the election, and I am sorry to note that for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) the honeymoon is over before the marriage has begun.

     

    Q7. Mr. Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Is the Prime Minister aware of the National Children’s Home report issued this week, which shows that each day in Scotland 41,000 families on income support cannot afford to buy food, that 500 families are now housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and that the city of Glasgow has the highest infant mortality rate in Europe? If the Prime Minister really believes in the family, does he share my disgust at that situation and my desire for urgent action?

    The Prime Minister : The definition used by the National Children’s Home for “poverty” was misleading, as the hon. Gentleman will know. He will also know that this year’s uprating of income support was substantially higher than the retail prices index. The definition used by the National Children’s Home defines someone as poor if he or she spends less than half the national average spending per head. The hon. Gentleman will realise that that measure of poverty excludes a Greek spending the average in Greece, while a richer person in the United Kingdom spending less than half the national average is classed as poor. That definition does not stand up to examination.

    Mr. Rupert Allason : Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to declassify as much material as possible dating from before the second world war before it is all released in Moscow and Washington?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friends will have heard my hon. Friend’s advice.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 June 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th June 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EC Presidency

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the cost of (i) each of the special presidency events and (ii) each of the other special events that will be incurred by the United Kingdom as set out in the booklet “The United Kingdom Presidency of the European Community”.

    The Prime Minister : Of the 79 special events listed in the United Kingdom presidency programme booklet, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is providing funding support for 11 at a total cost of £315, 426. These are :

    |£

    —————————————————————-

    Presidency Art Exhibition, Brussels |100,500

    Britain and Europe Summer School, LSE |5,000

    European Night at the Proms, Albert Hall |22,776

    UK Presidency Conference, QEII Centre |113,650

    EC R&D meeting of Chief Scientists and European Parliamentary Committee, Edinburgh |5,000

    Women of Europe Awards, FCO |2,000

    EC Organ Festival, Bolton |15,000

    Association of European Journalists Conference |7,000

    Advent for Europe Concert, Durham |5,000

    New Years Eve Festival and Concert, Barbican |35,000

    Beacon Europe, throughout Europe |5,000

    Other Government Departments and the EC Commission are helping to organise or finance a further 32 events. EC ministerial meetings in the UK, including the European Council, are being funded from the FCO presidency budget of £9.8 million.

    Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister how many events in the calendar of special events for the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community are taking place in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The presidency programme booklet includes two events in Wales, the informal meeting of EC Employment and Social Affairs Ministers in Chepstow and the presidency concert at the Llangollen international eisteddfod. Further events in Wales are planned but not yet confirmed.

    In addition, the European arts festival includes 58 events in Wales and Beacon Europe will take place throughout the United Kingdom.

     

    Death Penalty

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to abolish the death penalty for those offences for which it remains in force in England and Wales.

    The Prime Minister : The abolition of the death penalty is a matter which only Parliament can decide, each Member of Parliament voting according to his or her conscience. The Government have to abide by the decision of the House of Commons, which voted against the abolition of the death penalty during the last debate on capital punishment in December 1990.

     

    Child Health

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken, or will be taking, to promote as a priority the plan of action for survival, protection and development of children, agreed by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting in Harare in 1991, for improving child health in Commonwealth countries in the present decade; what information he has received from other Commonwealth countries in regard to implementing the plan of action; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I presume that the right hon. Member is referring to the plan of action adopted by the World Summit for Children in 1990.

    In response to the summit’s call for national plans of action, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in conjunction with other Departments, has compiled a report, which was presented to the UNICEF secretariat at the end of February, outlining our policies for children in this country and the work of the United Kingdom’s aid programme of particular relevance to women and children in the third world. The report examines problem areas which persist in developed, industrialised societies and explains what measures the Government are taking to alleviate them in this country; and it reviews those areas of the United Kingdom’s aid programme such as primary health care, water and sanitation, and education which are of greatest direct impact on women and children in the developing countries. We plan to publish the report as a Command Paper before the end of the month.

    We understand that Commonwealth states are at various stages of preparation in work on their national reports.

     

    Nuclear Testing

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the United States Administration during his recent visit to Washington about the resumption of nuclear testing by the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : I had discussions on a range of matters with President Bush and other members of the US Administration. The Government’s position on nuclear testing remains as I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 12 May at column 90.

     

    Libya

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the French Government about United Nations sanctions against Libya.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : We have co -operated closely with France on this issue. Sanctions will remain in force until Libya has complied in full with UN Security Council resoluton 731, including handing over the Lockerbie suspects for trial in Scotland or the United States and meeting French demands over the UTA bombing.

     

    Treaty of Rome

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the privileges of British troops serving in other EC countries when the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome comes into force.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The privileges enjoyed by British troops serving in other EC countries are a matter for the Government and the Government of the member state concerned. Bilateral and multilateral arrangements apply. This provision will not be affected by the entry into force of the proposed new article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the diplomatic and other privileges of the European Commission and its employees when the proposed revised article 8 of the treaty of Rome enters into force.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The privileges and immunities of members of the Commission staff are governed by the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities 1965, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. These privileges and immunities are not altered by the proposed new article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will equalise the tax treatment of United Kingdom and other EC nationals when the proposed article 8b of the treaty of Rome on the right to vote in municipal elections takes effect.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The provisions concerning the right to vote in municipal elections have no implications for the basis of tax liability in this country, which will continue to be primarily determined by the residence status and domicile of each individual.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the diplomatic and other privileges of national representatives working in other member states when the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome enters into force.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : Such privileges are a matter for agreement between the Governments of the member states concerned and relevant multilateral agreements. None of the existing arrangements will be affected by the entry into force of the proposed new article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s reasons for agreeing to dual citizenship of nationals of the United Kingdom under the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The proposed new article 8 of the treaty of Rome would confer upon EC nationals limited additional rights, as citizens of the union, defined in the articles which follows. The Government consider that all these rights would confer worthwhile benefit upon United Kingdom citizens. The addition of further rights would require unanimity and national ratification.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister how he proposes to define the purposes of the proposed articles 8a and 8b of the treaty of Rome; and what legislative or other proposals he has to enable electoral registration officers to know whether a national of another member state is a resident for the purpose of these articles.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The proposed article 8a of the treaty of Rome to be added by the treaty on European union in itself establishes no new rights. Unanimity is required in the Council for any measures to facilitate the exercise of these existing rights or to expand them. No such proposals have been suggested. Proposed article 8b of the treaty of Rome makes it clear that the rights to vote and stand in municipal elections described therein should be exercised under the same conditions as enjoyed by nationals of the member state in question. In the United Kingdom registration on the electoral roll is sufficient proof of resident status for the purpose of voting and standing in elections.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to revise the oath of allegiance to give effect to the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : None. The concept of citizenship of the union confers an additional status on British citizens, and does not replace British citizenship or affect allegiance to the Crown.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister to which Department he proposes to transfer responsibility for relationships with the European Community if the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome enters into force.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The Government have no such plans.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he gave to proposing that the new article 3b of the treaty of Rome should be given retrospective effect.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The proposed article 3b of the treaty of Rome will have effect only when the treaty on European union enters into force. All Community institutions, including the European Court of Justice, will then be under a binding obligation to respect the principle of subsidiarity which it contains. There is, however, nothing to prevent the institutions operating in this way voluntarily, in advance of article 3b coming into effect. As presidency of the Community, the United Kingdom will encourage them to do so. There is evidence that the Commission is already doing this.

     

    European Monetary System

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what is the legal basis for the European monetary system; and whether its status will be changed if the Maastricht treaty takes effect.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The European monetary system is established by a resolution of the European Council. Its legal status will not be changed if the treaty on European union agreed at Maastricht takes effect.

     

    EC Citizenship

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the level of public support for the creation of Community citizenship by the Maastricht treaty.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The Maastricht treaty as a whole is a good agreement for Britain, and has been commended by Parliament. The establishment of the concept of citizenship of the union will be helpful in ensuring that the position of individual citizens within the Community is respected and enhanced, in the areas in question–limited voting rights and consular protection.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 June 1992

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Recycling

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the new plans for recycling at 10 Downing street he announced during his recent visit to Rio de Janeiro.

    The Prime Minister : I gave a pledge, as part of the Tree of Life initiative that bottles at No. 10 would be recycled. A collection point for bottles has been established, from where they will be taken to a bottle bank as necessary.

     

    Engagements

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

    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.