Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 November 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th November 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Draft EC Treaties

    Mr. Benn : To ask the Prime Minister under what legal authority he would sign any treaties agreed at Maastricht; and what force such treaties would then have in British law.

    The Prime Minister : Signature of any treaty agreed at Maastricht would be an Executive act and as such would have no force in the United Kingdom law. Ratification of any treaty is a prerogative act, exercised by the Government on behalf of the Crown. Before the United Kingdom could ratify any treaty signed at Maastricht, its provisions would need to be incorporated into United Kingdom law by amending the European Communities Act 1972.

     

    European Central Bank

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the potential benefits and penalties that would arise from the full operation of a European central bank as currently proposed in the Dutch draft treaty for economic and monetary union.

    The Prime Minister : That judgment can be made only if and when the adoption of a single currency becomes a realistic prospect. Under the treaty now under negotiation the earliest date envisaged for the introduction of a single currency is some years away. It will be for the Government and Parliament to assess at that stage the potential benefits and penalties of a European central bank.

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has declined to appoint a special adviser nominated for appointment.

    The Prime Minister : The appointment of special advisers is a matter for the relevant Minister in consultation with me. It would not be appropriate to give the information requested.

     

    Political Advisers

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answers of 5 November, Official Report, column 42 and 11 November, Official Report, column 353, listing current political advisers, if he will list the names of the advisers alongside the Ministers and Department which they serve.

    The Prime Minister : The special advisers (political) who are currently serving are :

    Name |Department |Minister

    —————————————————————————————————————

    Mr. K. Adams |Agriculture, Fisheries and Food |Minister

    Mr. H. Harris-Hughes |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    Mr. J. Hill |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    Mrs. S. Hogg |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    Mr. A. Rosling |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    Mr. N. True |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    Miss B. Wallis (part-time) |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    Ms. S. Hole |Cabinet Office (Chief Whip’s Office) |Chief Whip

    Mr. P. Moman |Cabinet Office (Privy Council Office) |Minister of State, Privy Council Office

    Mr. J. R. M. Gardner |Defence |Secretary of State

    Mrs. T. Keswick |Education and Science |Secretary of State

    Mr. D. Ruffley |Education and Science |Secretary of State

    Mr. T. Collins |Employment |Secretary of State

    Mr. G. Black |Energy |Secretary of State

    Mr. A. Kemp (part-time) |Environment |Secretary of State

    Lady Strathnaver |Environment |Secretary of State

    Ms. A. Broom |Environment |Jointly to the Ministers for Local

    | Government and the Inner Cities;

    | Environment and Countryside;

    | and Housing and Planning

    Mr. E. Bickham |Foreign and Commonwealth |Secretary of State

    Mr. M. Fraser |Foreign and Commonwealth |Minister of State for Foreign and | Commonwealth Affairs

    Ms. L. Campey |Health |Secretary of State

    Mrs. K. Ramsay (part-time) |Health |Secretary of State

    Mr. R. Marsh |Health |Secretary of State

    Mr. T. Kerpel |Home Office |Secretary of State

    Mr. C. M. Grantham |Home Office |Jointly to two Ministers of State

    | (the Right Hon. John Patten and

    | the Right Hon. Mrs Rumbold)

    Mrs. E. Laing |Privy Council Office |Lord President of the Council

    Ms. S. McEwen |Privy Council Office |Lord Privy Seal

    Mr. A. Young |Scottish Office |Secretary of State

    Mr. I. Stewart |Social Security |Secretary of State

    Mr. Anisfield |Trade and Industry |Secretary of State

    Mr. J. Mayhew |Trade and Industry |Secretary of State

    Mr. P. Miller |Transport |Secretary of State

    Dr. W. Robinson |Treasury |Chancellor of the Exchequer

    Mr. A. Ross-Goobey |Treasury |Chief Secretary

    Mr. W. Lightfoot |Treasury |Financial Secretary

     

    South Africa

    Mr. Richard Page : To ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking to help prepare black South Africans for a role in public administration under a post-apartheid constitution.

    The Prime Minister : Our growing aid programme for black South Africans emphasises education and training as the key to enabling black people to play their rightful role in a post-apartheid South Africa. In this context, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Minister for Overseas Development has announced the Government’s plans to help to train those who may become officials within the new political system. This help is open to black South Africans of all parties and to those without political affiliation. We have invited nominees from various political groups, including the African National Congress, the Inkatha Freedom party, the Pan-Africanist Congress and AZAPO, as well as from non-political bodies. A course for potential senior officials will start in January at the Civil Service college. My right hon. Friend is preparing plans for further help in this area.

     

    Environmental Policy

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the priority Her Majesty’s Government attache to environmental policy against the Government’s other policies.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 14 November 1991] : The Government aim to integrate environmental concern into all policies, as explained in detail in the White Paper, “This Common Inheritance” (Cm 1200) and “This Common Inheritance : The First Year Report”. (Cm 1655)

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Unveiling of Bust of Nehru – 14 November 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s address to mark the unveiling of the bust of Nehru at India House, on Thursday 14th November 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    High Commissioner, thank you very much indeed for your very generous introduction. It is a very great honour to be here today. If I may say so, I accept that honour just not on my own behalf but – looking around the room I see some distinguished parliamentarians from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords of all the major parties who are here – as the clearest possible indication of the very deep and extensive ties of friendship that exist between this country and India which is so aptly expressed with the presence of so many senior colleagues here today.

    It is a remarkable honour to be invited to unveil this bust on the 102nd anniversary of Pandit Nehru’s birth. By any reckoning, Nehru was one of the very great men of the century, an architect of independent India, a world statesman who in that role helped lay the foundation of the modern Commonwealth. A patriot, a democrat and a champion of liberty in a way that no one can deny. And especially aptly, if I may mention it, as an Englishman, especially a true and consistent friend of Britain throughout all these years.

    Nehru did a very great deal to foster and encourage friendship and co-operation between Britain and India. He laid sound and enduring foundations which we have been able to build on as generations have succeeded. I am delighted at the excellent shape our bilateral relations are in at the present time and I had the very great pleasure of meeting Prime Minister Narasimha-Rao in Harare when we were able to have extensive discussions and it was, I hope, the first of many occasions when I hope to have the opportunity of meeting him and discussing matters of interest to us both.

    If I may, High Commissioner, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate publically what I have said to you before privately and it is something I believe also would be a view expressed across all shades of opinion in this country and that is how profoundly shocked we were at the appalling assassination of Rajiv Gandhi earlier this year following particularly upon the earlier assassination, some time ago, of Indira Gandhi. The depth of feeling in this country about that spreads far beyond the large and welcome Indian community who live here and I am delighted to have this opportunity to reiterate again how very sad we felt those events were and how much we felt for India and the Gandhi family at that time.

    One of the most remarkable things that have come out of those terrible events is the extent to which they have shown to those people who would challenge democracy, that democracy in India has taken root, is going to be persistent and will not be shaken even by terrorist acts of that sort. So it is perhaps particularly a tribute to the Indian democracy, to which Nehru was so passionately committed, that Indian elections in the summer were held successfully despite this latest appalling tragedy. I offer my congratulations to the Indian politicians and the Indian public on the fact that that was possible.

    And let me offer my assurance to you, High Commissioner, that we will continue to work closely with India to defeat the evil of terrorism in every possible way that we can. In so far as we can help with rooting it out you may be certain that we will continue to do that both in this country and with our partners in Europe in the way in which policies develop in the future.

    We have High Commissioner, in our country, a community of over 800,000 people of Indian origin. I believe they make an important and enterprising contribution to our national life. I have had some direct experience of that. I think there is no doubt in the minds of everyone who looks at the matter dispassionately that the Indian population in this country have been a very considerable asset to life in this country and if I may say so too High Commissioner they are welcome and I wish them continued prosperity.

    It is therefore entirely appropriate that the bust of Nehru, for all he has done, for all he stands for, for all the inspiration he has given in the past, does give today and will I believe give in the future, that his bust should have a prominent place in the heart of London. And I can think of no more appropriate prominent place than here. So it gives me very great pleasure indeed to unveil it as a perpetual memorial of a very great man.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 November 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th November 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 14 November.

    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.

     

    Tibet

    Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister what factors he regards as part of the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : We believe that human rights, as set out in the universal declaration of human rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, should apply to all people.

     

    Redistribution of Wealth

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government towards reducing the gap between the richest and the poorest 10 per cent. of the British population.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s policy is to improve incentives to work and to save. Over the period 1979 to 1988–the latest available information–real incomes in all parts of the income distribution have risen.

     

    EC Regional Body

    Ms. Quin : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the proposals to establish an EC institution representing the regions of the EC; what are his proposals regarding United Kingdom regional representation on the body ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : We support proposals in the intergovernmental conference on political union for a new consultative body to represent the regions at Community level. Negotiations continue on the detailed arrangements. United Kingdom representation will be considered after the IGC.

     

    Minister for Youth

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will expressly designate a Minister with specific responsibility for youth.

    The Prime Minister : No. The opportunities and problems facing young people are often not specific to that age group, and young people are themselves not a homogeneous group. They can best be served through specific actions spanning a range of Departments.

  • PMQT – 14 November 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th November 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. French : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. French : Has my right hon. Friend seen the opinion poll in The Guardian this morning which shows very strong support for his stand on Europe, with the vast majority of people having confidence in the benefits for business purposes of a single market, but showing understandable scepticism about the implications of a single currency? Did he also notice that twice as many people would trust him to negotiate on Europe for this country as would trust the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I did notice with some interest that particular survey. I believe that a majority of people in this country want to make a success of our membership of the Community. There have been many positive developments, a large number of them led by this country such as the introduction of the single market. I see no reason for us to be fearful of developments in the Community–it is often an opportunity, not a risk.

    Mr. Kinnock rose — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This takes a lot of time out of Question Time.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to tell us why over the last year the unemployment record of his Government is by far the worst of any in the European Community?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, unemployment is rising right across the industrial world almost without exception–in the United States, Japan, Italy, France and Canada. What we are beginning to see in this country–and I welcome it very much–is a sharp slowdown in the rise in unemployment. This is the third successive month that that has happened. I very much hope that that trend will be continued. It is too early to be entirely sure, but it looks as though the tide may well have turned.

    Mr. Kinnock : In the last 12 months net unemployment in the whole of the European Community has gone up by 940,000. Of that total, 768, 000–80 per cent.–has been in this country. Is not it clear from those figures that the unique disadvantage suffered by the people of Britain is that they have this Government with the right hon. Gentleman’s policies, which depend on putting people out of work?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman might look close to home before he makes that general assertion. Unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 37 per cent. since the last general election. The number of new vacancies notified to jobcentres is now beginning to rise. That is a welcome sign. The change in the unemployment position is welcome and I very much hope that it will continue. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that and not tried to isolate the problems of this country as he is well aware that they are occurring everywhere else.

    Mr. Kinnock : My reference arose because the Prime Minister was trying to obscure his record. If he is interested in looking close to home, he should note the fact that while unemployment in my constituency has, tragically, gone up by the figure he mentioned in the course of the past 12 months, it has gone up in his constituency by 110 per cent. That is very close to home.

    Will he now answer the question why in the other 11 countries of the European Community the total rise in unemployment in the past 12 months has been 130,000, while in this country, for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, unemployment has risen by nearly 800,000?

    Hon. Members : Answer!

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Shouting of that kind does not help.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman mentioned his constituency and mine, but he neglected to mention that in both constituencies the latest figures show a fall in unemployment. If the right hon. Gentleman was genuinely concerned about unemployment, he would now withdraw from the table his minimum wage policy–a policy which would increase unemployment dramatically.

    Mr. Butcher : Given the opinion poll results in The Guardian today, which show that a clear and growing majority of people are against further moves towards European monetary and political union, does my right hon. Friend find it rather curious that both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party favour unilateral disarmament on the question of federalism? To what does he attribute their unaccustomed bravery on that issue?

    The Prime Minister : I find Opposition Members’ position on Europe curious. They appear to be prepared to sign up indiscriminately to anything –to a federal Europe, to huge extensions in competence and to control over foreign policy, defence and immigration. There is no sign from either the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) or the Leader of the Opposition that they would draw the line anywhere on transfer of authority to Brussels.

     

    Q2. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Beith : Does the Prime Minister agree that although there is scope for compromise on many matters at Maastricht, the one issue on which it is impossible to compromise is the difference between those who believe that Britain could and should join in a single currency and those who believe that we should not do so at any price and that we should never even have joined the exchange rate mechanism? Had he not better make that clear to both the Conservative and Labour Members who still believe that Britain could stay out of the developments that will take place in Europe?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might also bear in mind the fact that his party should take account of many of the dangers of what is proposed, for at the moment the Liberal Democrats seem prepared to sign up indiscriminately to what is proposed from anywhere within Europe.

    Mr. David Evans : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party is proud to have reduced the basic rate of tax from 33p in the pound to 25p and the upper rate from 98p to 40p? Can he confirm that we shall have one Budget next year and shall not burden the British people with a massive payment of back tax, as is suggested by crackpot Opposition Members?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that we shall have one Budget next year–and that we shall have one the year after and the year after that, as well.

     

    Q3. Mr. Flannery : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Flannery : When will the Prime Minister apologise to the British people for the disgraceful inequities and sheer misery caused all over the country by the poll tax, which he was one of the first people to promote? Does he realise that his failure to do so brings his integrity into severe question? May I suggest that he apologises in a broadcast from No. 10 Downing street, which I understand he occupies temporarily, and that he should give some thought–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is taking a long time. If that is done, I hope that it can be done here.

    Mr. Flannery : He could then give some thought to the inequities of the council tax, so called, which is the nasty twin brother of the poll tax and which will leave debris–caused by the Prime Minister and the Conservative party–all over the country.

    The Prime Minister : In case the hon. Gentleman has not noticed, we are in the process of replacing the poll tax.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones : May I remind my right hon. Friend of today’s unemployment figures for Wales, where both the actual and the seasonally adjusted rates have fallen? Does not that confirm that what we really need is a continuation of my right hon. Friend’s policies, not a regional assembly for Wales, which would be an unnecessary quango that would cost the people of Wales £1 million a week?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree. Unemployment has fallen not only in Wales but in Scotland and in the northern region and I hope that it will soon fall elsewhere, too.

     

    Q4. Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Wigley : How does the Prime Minister reconcile the welcome emphasis that he placed at the Commonwealth conference on the extension of democratic government throughout the Commonwealth with the continuing reluctance of the Government to give any form of democratic control over their own lives to the people of Wales and Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : As I have told the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions, I believe that union in the United Kingdom and the present system of government serve us extremely well. There was a referendum on devolution some years ago and the people of Wales forcefully expressed their view against the principle of devolution on that occasion.

    Mr. Marlow : Could my right hon. Friend reinforce the point that he has just made? There are two alternatives. One is the preferred alternative for Scotland and Wales : the status quo. The other alternative for Scotland is independence. The crackpot halfway-house idea of the Labour party, in which Scottish institutions look after Scottish affairs and Scottish Members of Parliament dabble in English affairs, would be unacceptable to the people of England.

    The Prime Minister : I am in no doubt that the right future for this country is to maintain the union between the United Kingdom and Scotland. Other proposals have no credibility. The self-styled Scottish convention was self-appointed and is unrepresentative, and the introduction of tax-raising powers for Scotland would make it the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom and would destroy and inward investment that has done so much for its standard of life.

     

    Q5. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Will the Prime Minister take time this week to write to the broadcasting authorities to say that he is willing to take part in a live, televised debate between the party leaders during the next general election campaign?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows better than to put questions like that now.

    Mr. Bill Walker : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Scottish Conservative party has debated devolution and that the proposals now on offer from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are flawed and fraudulent? Will he further confirm that they were not an issue in the recent by-election in Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, the Government remain fully committed to the union–a point which is well recognised in Scotland. The reality of change is certainly understood by the Scottish business community which well knows the impact that some of the alternatives would have on Scotland–they would not have a happy impact.

     

    Q6. Mr. Sillars : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Sillars : When will the Prime Minister of England and that lackey of his in St. Andrew’s house admit that they are bereft of all moral and political authority to govern the people of Scotland? Why will not the Prime Minister accept the challenge of a referendum? Is he feared that he will lose and that independence will win?

    The Prime Minister : The right to govern Scotland flows from general elections. The hon. Gentleman may have noted what a Labour Member said the other day :

    “The party which holds a majority in the United Kingdom Parliament has a mandate for the whole United Kingdom.”

     

    Q7. Mr. Arbuthnot : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Arbuthnot : Can my right hon. Friend comment on the recent improvements unveiled in the Guy’s hospital patients charter, with 3, 500 more patients treated in the first six months, with better staff conditions and with lower waiting lists? Can he compare these facts about the national health service with the fictions put out by the Labour Front Bench?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Just a few months ago, Opposition Members were telling us that trust hospitals would fail and that they should be judged by the simple test of whether they do more or less work on NHS patients. With regard to Guy’s, we now know that they do more and are a success. We will have more of them.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the NATO Summit in Rome – 12 November 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on the NATO Summit in Rome, held on 12th November 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the NATO summit in Rome on 7 and 8 November which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Last July, in London, NATO agreed to adapt its strategy to the changed situation in Europe and to build up a new partnership with the countries of central and eastern Europe. At the summit we agreed on how to carry forward both those tasks.

    The strategic concept reflects the British Government’s objectives. These were to ensure that NATO remains the linchpin of western security, charged with dealing with whatever security problems might threaten. The strategy reaffirms the need for a collective defence based on NATO’s integrated military structure; and also on the need for both nuclear and conventional forces, kept up to date where necessary, but at significantly lower levels. Alliance forces in every NATO country will be smaller, more mobile and more flexible. At the summit we endorsed the establishment of new rapid reaction forces, in which the United Kingdom will command the land element. The summit declaration establishes a North Atlantic Co-operation Council. This forum will enable NATO to discuss common security issues with the Soviet Union, the Baltic states and the countries of eastern Europe. At Britain’s suggestion, the first such meeting will be held at Foreign Minister level in Brussels in mid-December. We have agreed a wider role for NATO. Henceforth, NATO will not just be keeping the peace ; it will be actively promoting peace. It will be prepared to help the countries of eastern Europe in planning defence forces in a democracy, with civilian-military relations, and in converting defence production to civilian purposes. The relationship may well develop still further.

    The NATO summit also, for the first time, considered in depth the European defence identity and the alliance. We affirmed some important principles : first, the principle that NATO is the essential forum for consultation and agreement on policies bearing on the security and defence of alliance territory; secondly, endorsement of the British proposals to use the Western European Union as the means of strengthening the European pillar of the alliance; thirdly, the need to establish clear and open relations between NATO and the Western European Union and to involve other allies on issues discussed in the Western European Union which affect their security.

    Heads of Government received a report on Yugoslavia following a meeting of Community Foreign Ministers with Lord Carrington. In view of the grave situation in Yugoslavia and the repeated breaches of the ceasefire, Community Governments agreed in Rome on a series of restrictive measures. They include suspension of the trade and co-operation agreement; suspension of benefits under the general scheme of preferences; suspension of the PHARE–Poland and Hungary Assistance for Economic Restructuring– programme; and the restoration of quotas on textiles. Community Governments asked those member states that are members of the Security Council to promote measures in the Security Council to tighten the arms embargo, and to take steps towards imposing an oil embargo. We are now consulting other members of the UN Security Council about the introduction of such measures.

    Community Governments also decided that positive action should be taken to benefit the parties which were being co-operative in the peace process. Taken together, these measures will increase the pressure on those responsible for appalling bloodshed and suffering in Yugoslavia. NATO Heads of Government issued a separate statement making clear the allies’ strong support for the efforts of the European Community to promote peace in Yugoslavia.

    We also discussed developments in the Soviet Union. We publicly supported economic reform and democratisation. We stressed the need for the authorities in the republics, as well as at the centre, to respect their obligations–on human rights, on arms control and on economic policy. In particular, we urged them to do everything necessary to implement the CFE– conventional forces in Europe–and strategic arms reduction treaties, and to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    We are living through a dramatic revolution in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We have to use all the means at our disposal–the European Community, the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and NATO– to help them to build stable democracy in their countries. NATO remains the core of our defence. Were we again to face a military threat, NATO would be there to meet it ; but NATO is now reaching out to the countries of eastern Europe to help to provide stability and a sense of security. All of us at last week’s meeting agreed that the continuing American and Canadian presence in Europe is vital to both defending and promoting peace in Europe. Britain will have a central part in that task, both in the alliance and in the European Community.

    The decisions of the NATO summit provide important guidelines for the negotiations leading to the European Council in Maastricht. I hope that the House will welcome the outcome of the summit as a significant contribution to a sound defence and to democratic stability in Europe.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 November 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th November 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:
     
    Overseas Visits
    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to the Exchequer of his visits abroad in 1990.
    The Prime Minister : The cost of my visits abroad as Prime Minister in 1990 was £93,830.
    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister how many days he has spent abroad since assuming office.
    The Prime Minister : I have spent 41 days abroad on official duties.
     
    Engagements
    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 12 November.
    The Prime Minister : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
     
    BCCI
    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received from Gibraltar concerning the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
    The Prime Minister : I have received many representations concerning BCCI.
     
    Indonesia
    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister when he last met representatives of the Indonesian Government ; and what was the purpose of that meeting.
    The Prime Minister : I met Dr. Habibie, the Indonesian Minister for Research and Technology on 19 June. We discussed a number of issues including commercial co-operation, particularly in the aerospace sector.
     
    East Timor
    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had regarding the Indonesian occupation of East Timor; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister : We receive frequent representations on the subject of East Timor. We support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General to promote a settlement acceptable to all parties.
     
    No. 10 Downing Street
    Mr. Gould : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what recent assessment he has made of the current standards of horticulture in the gardens of 10 Downing Street;
    (2) what consideration he has given to the security implications of the proposed contracting out of the management of the Downing Street gardens.
    The Prime Minister : The security implications of a contractor maintaining gardens in Downing Street are considered in the same way as they are when other contractors’ staff undertake work in Downing Street or its gardens. The standards of gardening in 10 Downing Street are high. Those standards will be maintained or improved when the work is bought in from the private sector.

  • PMQT – 12 November 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th November 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Trimble : Now that the by-election in Kincardine and Deeside has focused attention on the issue of Scotland once again, and with the continuing difficulties in establishing a democratic local administration in Ulster, will the Prime Minister consider initiating consultations with other parliamentary parties with a view to reaching agreement on common structures of government throughout the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister : I understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that point, given all the difficulties in Northern Ireland and the historical perspective there. It is precisely to deal with those problems that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been having so many discussions over the past year.

     

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

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

    Mr. Ashby : Has my right hon. Friend seen the good producer price figures issued today? Do not these support the contention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the economy is beginning to turn around?

    The Prime Minister : I saw the producer price figures issued this morning, and they are good news. They show a continuing collapse in inflation and that can only help the competitiveness of industry and thereafter the growth of the economy and the creation of jobs.

    Mr. Kinnock : Given that the Prime Minister correctly said last night that Maastricht will be an important stage on the road to even closer European union, what does he say today to those of his right hon. Friends who say that he has already gone far enough down the road to political and monetary union and, in their words, we should stay where we are?

    The Prime Minister : I have made it clear over recent months, and am happy to repeat today, that we are seeking an agreement at Maastricht that will be acceptable to the House and will enable Europe to move forward together. That is true on economic and monetary union and on political union. There is some way to go before I could sign the political union treaty that is before us. There are still matters to be agreed on the monetary union treaty, but in both cases we are making progress.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister says that he recognises, in his words, the

    “potential impact on our influence and prosperity were we to take a different decision from our principal competitors”.

    In saying that, is he recognising that isolation would mean the sacrifice of influence that is essential to the vital interests of the British people — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The Leader of the Opposition.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this advice : “We have nothing to gain by sitting on the margins while others frame new structures without us”?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this Conservative Government have been the leader in Europe for the past 12 years. The single market would not have come about but for this Conservative Government. The change in rebates would not have come about without the Conservative Government. The Fontainebleau abatement would not have come about without the Conservative Government. We propose to remain within the centre of the Community, framing the future of the Community in the interests of the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe.

    Mr. Kinnock : So now perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer my first question; what does he have to say to those of his right hon. Friends who say that he has gone far enough and should stay where he is?

    The Prime Minister : I answered that question some moments ago.

     

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

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

    Mr. Day : Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the massive increase in health spending that the Government recently announced, which shows beyond doubt the Government’s commitment to the principles of the national health service? Does he agree that that is in stark contrast to the contributions that have been made by Opposition Members, who have nothing to offer the NHS but smears and attacks on staff and patients, and on the care that patients receive? Will he give the House some positive information about the success of the reforms that the Government are making, which will save the NHS for the year 2000?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. There has been yet another substantial increase in resources for the NHS, and that will enable a continuing reduction in waiting lists and better service for all those who use the NHS. Trusts are effective and efficient and they are the future. Increasingly, they are proving that.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of the vote that will take place on Thursday to think again about Scotland? Does he realise that the real potential danger to the Union of Scotland with Britain lies not with the separatists but with his Government’s refusal to listen to the voice of the people of Scotland? So I ask him again : will he listen and will he think again?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman sounds from what he has just said as though he is a separatist. I can tell him frankly that the Government are not separatist. The Government remain fully committed to the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

    Mrs. Roe : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £24 billion programme for public housing over the next three years detailed by the Department of the Environment yesterday? Will he join me also in condemning the inefficiency of Labour councils, whose failure to collect rents and fill empty properties is a major barrier to the provision of homes for the homeless?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As people can see throughout the country, the reality is that Labour authorities leave houses empty even when people are in need of them.

     

    Q4. Mr. Andrew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Smith : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Cowley workers, the trade unions and the management on the launch today of the excellent and new Cowley-designed and Cowley-built Rover 800? Will he explain why, at the hands of his high-tax Government, the car will face total sales taxation of 27.3 per cent., when its BMW competitor faces tax in its domestic market of only 14 per cent ? Is it not time that he started backing the British car industry in the way that the Germans support theirs?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman can certainly be certain that I congratulate Rover on its splendid new product, and I hope that it will be immensely successful. As an owner of Rover cars for many years, I am sure that it will be. Rover and other car manufacturers are now so successful that they are exporting to Japan and elsewhere.

    Sir Gerrard Neale : Can my right hon. Friend find time during his busy day to congratulate the management and staff of Rover on the fact that over the past 12 months not one single minute of production time has been lost through industrial disputes? Will he contrast that excellent achievement under Conservative trade union law with the undoubted industrial chaos that would result in the unlikely event of the Labour party’s returning to government?

    The Prime Minister : What my hon. Friend has said is certainly the case at Rover, but it has also been the case throughout industry during the past year, when there was the lowest number of strikes for more than 45 years. I welcome that very much. Of course, if we were to revert to legalising secondary action, flying pickets and the other actions that the Opposition propose, I do not doubt that strikes would return.

     

    Q5. Ms. Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.

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

    Ms. Hoey : What has the Prime Minister to say about the comments of the last Conservative leader of Lambeth council, who in a letter published in The Guardian on Saturday said– [Interruption.] I want to quote it, and he said, “The Government is failing in its treatment of the mentally ill”– [Hon. Members :– “No quoting.”]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Lady can paraphrase, and she is doing so.

    Ms. Hoey : Conservative Members do not want to hear what a former Conservative leader has to say. He said that the Government were out of touch with homelessness and with the hopelessness of large sections of society, and that they had forfeited their right to govern.

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen the remarks quoted by the hon. Lady, and neither have I seen the context in which they were put or what else was said. However, I say to the hon. Lady and to the alleged author of that statement that, frankly, I disagree. As a former Minister with responsibility for the disabled, I am well aware of the immense amount of work and care that has gone into the care of the disabled. As a former Lambeth housing chairman, I do not take lectures from anyone in Lambeth about housing.

    Mr. Burt : Is my right hon. Friend aware that he carries the support of the vast majority in this House and in the country in his refusal to rule out a single currency on our terms at some future time? In displaying the consistency of involvement and leadership in the Conservative party with regard to Europe, is he not finally giving this country the role that it lost with the empire?

    The Prime Minister : We must consider the long-standing interests of this country when we make decisions on the treaties, and that is what I will do.

     

    Q6. Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagement for Tuesday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Cohen : As crime in London increased yet again last year–by 13 per cent.–has the Prime Minister read the comment by police commander David Stevens that the police are not responsible for crime any more than doctors are responsible for disease, and that crime is an indicator of economic and social malaise? As the Conservative party has been in power for 12 years, who does the Prime Minister think is responsible for the economic and social malaise?

    The Prime Minister : Crime prevention begins in the home and in the treatment of people from an early age. On the questions of prevention and punishment of crime, the Government have taken committed and sustained action for more than a decade. That includes providing a strong and effective police force. We are spending 67 per cent. more, over and above inflation, than in 1979. No Government could have done more against crime than we have, and no future Government would be able to do more than we will.

     

    Q8. Mr. Bowis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Bowis : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of community charge or council tax depends partly on the efficiency of the local council and partly on the proportion of local government spending which is required to be raised by local taxation? Does he further agree that if that proportion were to be raised to 20 per cent., overnight every household bill would rise by 50 per cent? Is he not astonished that that is the Labour party’s proposal?

    The Prime Minister : No, I am not astonished because, two years after announcing its local government plans, the Labour party still does not know how they would work. My hon. Friend makes some pertinent points. We will make sure that local tax bills are restrained and, where councils are extravagant, unlike the Labour party, which would let extravagance run wild to the cost of the local taxpayer with no let or hindrance, we will cap them.

    Mr. Speaker : Mr. Sillars–question 9.

    Hon. Members : Where is he?

    Mr. Speaker : I call Mr. Dennis Turner.

    Mr. Turner : Has the Prime Minister one shred of sympathy for Britain’s beer drinkers? Prices have increased way beyond the rate of inflation and the Government’s legislation to check monopolies is a complete fiasco. When will the Government do something to protect the British beer drinker?

    The Prime Minister : With regard to having sympathy for them, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I am one of them.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 November 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th November 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Irish Republic (Legislation)

    Mr. Stanbrook : To ask the Prime Minister in how many cases proceedings in the Irish Republic under their Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976 have been requested by United Kingdom prosecuting authorities since 1976; in how many cases proceedings in the United Kingdom under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 have been requested by prosecuting authorities in the Irish Republic since 1975; and if he will make a statement on this reciprocal legislation.

    The Prime Minister : Since 1976 there have been 32 applications by the United Kingdom prosecuting authorities for proceedings in the republic under the 1976 Act. There have been no applications from the prosecuting authorities in the republic under the 1975 Act, but 18 persons have been prosecuted in the United Kingdom under that Act for offences allegedly committed in the republic.

     

    Voice

    Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his reply to a letter to him from “Voice” dated 11 October.

    The Prime Minister : No. It is not my normal practice to do so.

     

    Political Advisers

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his reply of 5 November columns 42-43 about political advisers to Ministers, whether any of the individuals work for Ministers of lower rank than Secretary of State or equivalent.

    The Prime Minister : Yes. Six do so.

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his reply of 5 November columns 42-43 about political advisers, whether there is any limit on the number of political advisers who can be appointed by individual Ministers.

    The Prime Minister : My approval is required for the appointment of all special advisers.

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his reply of 5 November, columns 42-3, about political advisers to Ministers, if he will list the names of the individuals concerned.

    The Prime Minister : The names of the special advisers (political) currently serving are as follows :

    Mr. K. Adams

    Mr. L. Anisfield

    Mr. E. Bickham

    Mr. G. Black

    Ms. A. Broom

    Ms. L. Campey

    Mr. T. Collins

    Mr. M. Fraser

    Mr. J. R. M. Gardner

    Mr. C. M. Grantham

    Mr. H. Harris-Hughes

    Mr. J. Hill

    Mrs. S. Hogg

    Ms. S. Hole

    Mr. A. Kemp (part-time)

    Mr. T. Kerpel

    Mrs. T. Keswick

    Mrs. E. Laing

    Mr. W. Lightfoot

    Mr. R. Marsh

    Mr. J. Mayhew

    Ms. S. McEwen

    Mr. P. Miller

    Mr. P. Moman

    Mrs. K. Ramsay (part-time)

    Dr. W. Robinson

    Mr. A. Rosling

    Mr. A. Ross-Goobey

    Mr. D. Ruffley

    Mr. I. Stewart

    Lady Strathnaver

    Mr. N. True

    Miss B. Wallis (part-time)

    Mr. A. Young

     

    Civil Service (Sexual Harassment)

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister if he will develop a female contact point in the civil service management structure where women can seek guidance when suffering from sexual harassment.

    The Prime Minister : The civil service is committed to providing a working environment which is free of harassment for all staff. Departments and agencies are advised to ensure that women who feel that they have been subjected to sexual harassment are able to go to a woman officer for advice and support in dealing with the problem. In many departments and agencies there are specially designated women officers to contact in case of sexual harassment. Specific training is available for those dealing with complaints of sexual harassment.

     

    Single Parents

    Mr. Battle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all Government policy initiatives taken since 1987 which aim to assist single parents.

    The Prime Minister : The information is set out in the table.

    Policy initiatives taken since 1987 to assist lone parents

    Department / Date |Policy initiative

    —————————————————————————————————————————————–

    Employment (September 1988) | Lone parents who have been in receipt of Income Support for at least 26 weeks may enter Employment Training even if they do not meet the usual eligibility criteria.

    Health (Since 1987) | The National Council for One Parent Families and Gingerbread have received over £1 million in core grants.

    Health (Since 1987-88) | Gingerbread has received a total of £90,000 for its local groups from the Department’s under fives small grants scheme.

    Health (Early 1988) | Over £1 million of the RPI error monies was spent by 10 voluntary organisations on many different projects for lone parents.

    Health (Since 1989-90) | The second Under Fives Initiative includes 4 local projects, costing in all over £300,000, to help understand better the effect of childcare services on the economic circumstances of lone parents.

    Home Office | In the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991 |1991 the Government has given courts additional powers to enforce the payment of maintenance which will help to ensure that single parents receive the monies to which they are entitled. The Act will be implemented in spring 1992.

    Lord Chancellor’s | Single Parents can benefit from the new 1989 |orders provided under the Children Act 1989. One of the Act’s main principles is that parents should, wherever possible, come to an agreement about the future of their children without the intervention of the court. The Act also gives unmarried fathers the chance to apply for formal parental responsibility for their children.

    Social Security | The structure of personal allowances in April 1988 |Income Support provide that all lone parents aged 18 or over receive the full adult rate of benefit, normally only available from age 25. The Income Support lone parent premium is paid on top of the family premium to those lone parents who do not qualify for another type of premium. Income Support earnings disregard is £15 a week for lone parents, compared with a £5 disregard for most single people. Family Credit introduced: a much more generous scheme for all low income families than the Family Income Supplement scheme. In Family Credit lone parents get the same adult credit as two parent families. One Parent Benefit is ignored when calculating entitlement to Family Credit. Higher levels of lone parent premium in Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit. Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit rules for lone parents generally aligned with those in Income Support. October 1989 | Lone parents under 18 who have to live away from home entitled to the over 18 rate of Income Support personal allowance. April 1990 | Lone parent premium in Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit increased. October 1990 | Earnings disregard for those lone parents not on Income Support but receiving Housing Benefit or Community Charge Benefit increased from £15 to £25 a week.

    Planned for April 1992 | Reduction in qualifying hours rule in Family Credit from 24 to 16 hours a week. Corresponding change in Income Support. Introduction of £15 maintenance disregard in Family Credit, Disability Working Allowance, Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit. Child Support Unit Becomes operational and takes on existing liable relative work in preparation for the establishment of the Child Support Agency. Planned for | Child Support Agency becomes operation- Spring 1993 |al. The Agency will trace absent parents, assess, collect and review child maintenance, and ensure that payments are made regularly.

    Welsh Office | Gingerbread is helped through the Support for Child and Family Services’ grant scheme. 1991-92 | A total of £24,440 has been awarded toGingerbread to meet part of the costs of their Swansea office and of a development officer in North Wales.

     

    Disabled People

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make the European Community’s policy for disabled people one of his priorities at the Maastricht summit.

    The Prime Minister : We believe that existing provisions for disabled people at the European level are satisfactory. In addition, a number of new proposals relating to disabled people are under consideration.

     

    London Government

    Mr. Tracey : To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received calling for a directly elected council for the London conurbation; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : As far as I am aware none, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has received a dozen or so, mostly in response to consultation on the review of local government outside London and the metropolitan counties. I am aware that the main opposition parties and the Association of London Authorities want to recreate a Greater London council in all but name. I have no plans for changing the basic structure of local government in London.

     

    Child Benefit

    Mr. Meacher : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy not to allow names and addresses of child benefit claimants to be sold or passed on outside the Department of Social Security.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 8 November 1991] : It is Government policy that all personal information, including names and addresses, held in social security records should be regarded as confidential and should not normally be disclosed to a third party without the consent of the person concerned. Information may normally be disclosed without consent to assist the police in the investigation of a serious crime; to meet the welfare needs of the individual concerned; to meet statutory requirements, for example, to other Government Departments or organisations which act as agents of the DSS in paying benefit; and to prevent the duplication of payments from public funds. We have no plans to change this policy.

     

    Executive Agencies

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what changes have been made in the arrangements regarding the sending of letters from chief executives of executive agencies to hon. Members in response to parliamentary questions when the House is not sitting.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 8 November 1991] : The aim of the arrangements for chief executives to write direct to hon. Members is to ensure that the replies are full, prompt and as helpful as possible. It is for individual Ministers to determine how they will achieve this, including when the House is not sitting.

    Mr. Meacher : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each Department and each executive agency which employs its target quota of people with disabilities.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 8 November 1991] : All departments and agencies work to increase opportunities for people with disabilities, whether registered or unregistered, under a civil service code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities. The civil service compares favourably with the private sector and in 1990 six departments and agencies exceeded a 3 per cent. level of staff registered as disabled. The Government will continue to seek to ensure that disabled people have opportunities for employment in departments and agencies which are at least as good as those of able bodied people.

     

    Offensive Odours (Cardiff)

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he has had concerning the Butetown main foul sewer and offensive odours in the area of the Cardiff bay pierhead broadwalk.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 8 November 1991] : During my visit to Cardiff bay on 20 September the problem was raised by local residents.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet – 11 November 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, held at the Guildhall in London on Monday 11th November 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    My Lord Mayor, My Late Lord Mayor, Your Grace, Lord High Chancellor, Your Excellencies, My Lords, Aldermen, Sheriffs, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    May I begin by thanking you for your toast this evening to Her Majesty’s Ministers. And My Lord Mayor, I would like if I may also to congratulate you both on your recent election and on your speech, nothing I believe could be more apt than the theme that you have chosen for your Mayoralty – serving Europe.

    You said a few moments ago that you had started in the City in 1960. I started in the City in 1959, alas my career never took off. I enjoyed your joke, My Lord Mayor, about Arthur Wood, but I hope you will forgive me if I finish it. He did get to the wicket with 770-odd runs on the board, he then scored half a century, as I recall, and returned to the pavilion when the score had advanced around 870-odd for 7. He then turned round in the dressing room to the England team and said: “Fifty-three runs, always at my best in a crisis.”

    My Lord Mayor, we owe Sir Alexander Graham a very special debt of gratitude for hosting the welcome home parade for our troops who performed so magnificently in the Gulf. It was a day I believe that the City can look back on with pride and your predecessor can look back on his whole year of office with equal pride, he has served London magnificently.

    I am delighted to make my debut on this platform with His Grace, The Archbishop of Canterbury. Our predecessors forged a long and popular double act, may we too be yolked together for many years to come. Your Grace, if you speak for God I promise to speak for Mammon, and I must say, I wonder which of us has a majority here this evening.

    My Lord Mayor, you have expressed your determination to safeguard the economic prosperity of London and of those who live and work in our great city. London is by far the largest city in Europe, its population three times that of Paris. It is a giant in the world of finance, it is Europe’s largest equity market, leader in the Eurobond market and the world’s largest foreign exchange market.

    It scores also in its variety of attractions, its theatres, its music, its galleries and museums, its historic buildings, its parks, its shops. It is the most visited city in the world, overseas visitors spent 4 billion pounds here last year.

    You spoke, My Lord Mayor, of transport. In the last few years the government has approved plans for eight new rail and tube links for London – the East-West crossrail, a new line for Heathrow, the Jubilee Line extended to Docklands, and in addition we have chosen a route for the Channel Tunnel rail link which approaches London from the East, and that I believe is where so much of London’s future development will lie.

    Tonight I can announce one further step. Less than three miles from here a third London city is rapidly emerging in Docklands, its success depends upon good transport, the immediate key to this is the Docklands Light Railway. The best way to put the DLR into the hands of a body with a single clear objective – that is the way forward, that is the way to make a success of Docklands – and we have decided therefore with that in mind to transfer responsibility for the DLR to the London Docklands Development Corporation. And I am delighted to tell you this evening that one of your Aldermen, Sir Peter Levine, has agreed to take over as DLR’s Chairman in addition to his other responsibilities.

    And this transfer has another advantage, it will enable London Transport to concentrate on its massive investment programme, now totalling 3.5 billion pounds over the next three years. My Lord Mayor, we are determined that London shall have a transport structure which meets its needs and marks its status as the world’s finest city.

    Just a few days ago the Chancellor delivered the traditional Mansion House address on the economy. Many of you were in this room to hear it then so I will be brief this evening in case I say too many of the same things or perhaps, even worse, say something different.
    In the Autumn Statement the Chancellor set out our spending plans for the next three years. He was able to announce some carefully targeted expenditure on priority areas, such as transport and health, as well as the necessary increases in programmes which tend to arise at this stage of the economic cycle.

    At the same time he was also able to demonstrate that prudence in fiscal affairs which has been the hallmark of this government and that has earned us over the years the support of the financial markets.

    As a proportion of national income, public expenditure will still be sharply lower, some 5 percentage points lower, than it was in the early 1980s at a similar stage in the economic cycle. And I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that with steady growth in the years ahead we will see that proportion decline further. While sticking to our policy of balancing the budget over a run of years, we will be able once again to cut direct taxation.

    Ask any businessman what he really needs from government. I think I know what he will say: certainty, low inflation and a stable currency.
    Against that background I have no doubt about the most important economic development of the last year – our historic decision to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism. The City had long supported our membership, events I believe have amply justified our membership. Our inflation rate has been more than halved, at 4 percent it is now below the European Community average. Interest rates have been cut eight times while sterling has remained stable. Our trade has flourished with record exports to the Community and a much reduced deficit with the rest of Europe and the world. For the third year running our share of world trade expanded.

    The speed and the scale of these achievements are rightly recognised. But I often wonder whether their economic and social significance has yet been grasped. For the first time in 50 years, we are now in a position to achieve on a lasting basis that greater certainty that businessmen want. That is a great prize, it has been hard won and it must not be thrown away.

    The opportunities in the 1990s will be unprecedented, so will the competition, not least from Eastern Europe, the Pacific Rim and even South America. Those who backslide on inflation will lose orders and lose markets, their growth rate will falter, there will be fewer jobs. The competitive atmosphere will be unforgiving and the lesson to be drawn from that is unmissable.

    I make no apologies for our crusade to get inflation down and keep it down. The 1990s present us with a simple, stark challenge, to create the jobs we need and the just society we want we must keep inflation down permanently, there is no other way.

    My Lord Mayor, in the last few months we have witnessed one of the most dramatic revolutions of this century, the Soviet Union has shaken off 70 years of tyranny. In September, when I went to Moscow, there was a tremendous sense of euphoria, a feeling that oppression had had its last desperate throw. There was real belief that democracy would now take root.

    Since then, I have received a succession of leaders from the Soviet Union and the republics at 10 Downing Street. I am told that there are 120 languages in the Soviet Union but these visitors spoke a language that was unknown there a few years ago, the language of democracy and free markets. They are wrestling with the strong forces of nationalism on the one hand and the need for a continuing central structure on the other, the need for a single army, central control over nuclear weapons, a single market, a coordinated foreign policy.

    There is no easy transition from tyranny to freedom or from an inefficient command economy to a free market. The people of the Soviet Union have chosen democracy but it is not yet stable democracy. Whether the Soviet Union survives as a recognisable entity or breaks up into individual republics must be a matter of negotiation, not coercion. The situation is volatile. The August coup failed because the Free World refused to accept what had happened and because the Russian people refused to be cowed but a number of leading representatives from Russia and other republics have expressed to me their fears for the future, fears of a renewed attempt to overthrow legitimate government if lack of food, lack of goods, old rivalries and lack of political leadership overwhelm that euphoria that followed the August events.

    We cannot dictate what happens in the Soviet Union. We can and we must help create the conditions in which stable democracy has a chance to succeed. That is why with our G7 and European Community partners we have launched a $10 billion lifeline of food and medicines to be drawn on this winter as necessary; that is why the special association status of the Soviet Union with the IMF agreed in principle at the London Economic Summit here in London in the summer has now been made a reality; and that is why the G7 countries and the IMF are urging the Soviet authorities and the republics to move decisively towards economic reform. If they fail to do so, all our plans to help them will be undermined.

    The Soviet Union is looking for help with its foreign debt. For their part, the republics must assume their responsibility for servicing that debt; this and the pursuit of reform are essential for future credits and for the continuing support of the international community. The republics must honour too those international agreements signed by the Soviet Union, especially treaties on arms control and proliferation and they must exercise restraint in developing their own military forces – that too will be a condition of our future assistance.

    The events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe pose perhaps the greatest challenge to the West since World War II. The republics of what was the Soviet Union have a chance to join the Western family of democracies but there is a risk, a risk that they could fall into a dark abyss of political conflict and economic hardship. If we are to avoid the tragedy of Yugoslavia on a larger and more dangerous scale, we have to adapt the political structures of the West to accommodate the new democracies of the East. The changes that we have made in NATO, the development of the CSCE have both helped but it is the European Community which offers them the best prospects for political and economic stability.

    It is right for the European Community not to neglect its own development but it would be foolish to be so preoccupied with internal development that it became an end in itself. We have to hold out to the countries of Eastern Europe and perhaps to some of the new republics in the Soviet Union as well the prospect of closer association with the Community and in due course membership of the Community.

    My Lord Mayor, the shape of the Community they join is being set now in the negotiations under way in Europe. Those negotiations are important for the Community but no more important than the Community’s obligations to the rest of Europe. We will never create a genuine European union if we exclude those countries that most want to join, countries which for the first time since World War II are free democracies. It would be unforgivable if when they are ready to join we made it impossible for them to do so [applause] and it would be tragic if twenty years from now there was an economic iron curtain across Europe, an iron curtain forged by the wealthy member states to keep out our democratic neighbours to the East.

    The influence of the European Community has never been greater. Some see that as a threat but truly it is an opportunity. Its attraction was shown in the recent negotiations with the EFTA countries. They were prepared to accept the rules of the Community, which they had no part in drawing up, in order to attain the prize of access to the Single Market. To maintain its influence, the Community must continue to look outwards and be a liberalising force in world trade.

    In the GATT talks, we have a unique opportunity to create a free and open trading structure that will last well into the next century. Our future prosperity depends upon the success of this effort. The completion of the Single Market would be undermined if we had meanwhile unleashed a world trade war of unprecedented proportions. Success in the GATT talks, too, is crucial for the world’s poorest countries. There is something immoral in the fact that they lose more from the distorting effects of subsidies than they gain from aid from the West. If you give a man a fish, you give him food for a day; if you teach him how to fish, you give him food for a lifetime; but if you teach a man how to fish and then stop him selling his catch, you create injustice, hardship and resentment and we should not do that. There is as much at stake in the GATT talks as there is at Maastricht.

    My Lord Mayor, the European Council at Maastricht is only a month away; the issues are momentous. We have an opportunity to take decisions which will carry the Community on a sound basis into the next century. Yesterday in Bonn, I discussed these matters with Chancellor Kohl. We are both aware of the opportunities and the risks that lie ahead, of the responsibility to take decisions which will enable the Community to give a lead to the whole of our continent as it emerges into democracy, decisions which underpin the vital relationship with the United States, decisions which avoid narrow nationalism but which safeguard the best traditions of our national life.

    Good progress has been made in the negotiation of the treaty on economic and monetary union. There is some way to go but I hope it will be possible to reach an agreement. There has been increasing recognition by our partners of the point we have consistently made, that to move to a single currency without the convergence of national economies would be an economic catastrophe. That is why we are negotiating a treaty which would permit economic and monetary union only when strict economic conditions on convergence are met and that treaty must also allow the British Government and the British Parliament to take the decision on whether to join such a single currency when the option is a realistic one. Only then can a balanced judgement be made.

    When that moment comes, we shall need to weigh carefully the issues of sovereignty and accountability raised by a single currency against the potential impact on our influence and prosperity were we to take a different decision from our principal competitors. It would be wrong to decide now to join a single currency but it would be equally wrong to decide now that in no circumstances will we ever do so.

    We still face huge problems in working for an agreement on political union. No-one should assume that simply for the sake of agreement we could accept some of the propositions now before us – we couldn’t.

    Much of the debate centres on defence and foreign policy. I welcome the idea of Europe doing more for its own defence – it should – but we have to remember that we are not writing a new policy on a blank sheet of paper. There are existing organisations, NATO and the Western European Union, which have successfully provided for our defence for over forty years. It makes sense to take our existing defence structures and enhance them with increased European cooperation. I can agree to that. I could not agree to undermine them with a new competing and therefore damaging European defence structure. The same message came through loud and clear from others at the NATO Summit last week.

    In foreign policy, we have increasingly developed the habit of cooperation and common action among the Twelve – it has worked well. Common action cannot work miracles but it magnifies our influence. Consensus is a strength and not a weakness. It would be a serious mistake to replace that habit of consensus on common action by majority voting – we might take more decisions but we would wield less influence – nor is it conceivable that we would give up our right as a nation to take vital foreign policy decisions. [Applause].

    But there are areas such as the environment, which transcends national frontiers, where it may make sense to extend the competence of the European Community but we should not be afraid to say “No” to the general clamour for wide-ranging extensions of Community competence.

    I am thinking especially of the social area. Under existing Community rules, we are already faced with unnecessary intrusive and costly proposals. The proposed Working Time Directive would cost British employers 5 billion pounds in the first year. That proposal is more than unnecessary – it is damaging. It would blunt our competitive edge. It would not be European workers who would benefit but those in the United States and Japan. It is not in the interests of Europe and we cannot allow the Community to extend its power to burden business with unnecessary proposals. [Applause].

    The principles that must apply are those of subsidiarity and accountability. The Community should not interpose itself in areas best dealt with at national level. The Commission is unelected; it must be made more answerable to elected members of the European Parliament. [Applause].

    My Lord Mayor, our partners know there are certain principles that are vital for us in these negotiations. They equally know that the British Government will go on working over the next crucial weeks for an agreement at the European Council in Maastricht.

    Maastricht will be an important stage on the road to ever closer union among the peoples of Europe. I believe that the basis for an agreement can be found but it has to be an agreement which all twelve member states accept – that will require give and take on all sides. We have to find an agreement which will command the support of twelve national parliaments and which all member states not only support in theory but will actually implement in practice. An agreement of that kind is in our interests. It is in the Community’s interests. It would be the best outcome in these negotiations for our own country and for the Europe we hope to build together. [Applause].

  • Text of the NATO Agreement – The Rome Declaration – 8 November 1991

    Below is the text of the NATO Agreement – The Declaration on Peace and Cooperation, issued on 8th November 1991.


    DECLARATION ON PEACE AND COOPERATION

    Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council (“The Rome Declaration”).

    1 – We, the Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, have gathered in Rome to open a new chapter in the history of our Alliance. The far-reaching decisions we have taken here mark an important stage in the transformation of NATO that we launched in London last year.

    2 – The world has changed dramatically. The Alliance has made an essential contribution. The peoples of North America and the whole of Europe can now join in a community of shared values based on freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. As an agent of change, a source of stability and the indispensable guarantor of its members’ security, our Alliance will continue to play a key role in building a new, lasting order of peace in Europe: a Europe of cooperation and prosperity.

    A New Security Architecture

    3 – The challenges we will face in this new Europe cannot be comprehensively addressed by one institution alone, but only in a framework of interlocking institutions tying together the countries of Europe and North America. Consequently, we are working toward a new European security architecture in which NATO, the CSCE, the European Community, the WEU and the Council of Europe complement each other. Regional frameworks of cooperation will also be important. This interaction will be of the greatest significance in preventing instability and divisions that could result from various causes, such as economic disparities and violent nationalism.

    The Future Role of the Alliance: Our New Strategic Concept

    4 – Yesterday, we published our new Strategic Concept . Our security has substantially improved: we no longer face the old threat of a massive attack. However, prudence requires us to maintain an overall strategic balance and to remain ready to meet any potential risks to our security which may arise from instability or tension. In an environment of uncertainty and unpredictable challenges, our Alliance, which provides the essential transatlantic link as demonstrated by the significant presence of North American forces in Europe, retains its enduring value. Our new strategic concept reaffirms NATO’s core functions and allows us, within the radically changed situation in Europe, to realise in full our broad approach to stability and security encompassing political, economic, social and environmental aspects, along with the indispensable defence dimension. Never has the opportunity to achieve our Alliance’s objectives by political means, in keeping with Articles 2 and 4 of the Washington Treaty, been greater. Consequently, our security policy can now be based on three mutually reinforcing elements: dialogue; cooperation; and the maintenance of a collective defence capability. The use, as appropriate, of these elements will be particularly important to prevent or manage crises affecting our security.

    5 – The military dimension of our Alliance remains an essential factor; but what is new is that, more than ever, it will serve a broad concept of security. The Alliance will maintain its purely defensive purpose, its collective arrangements based on an integrated military structure as well as cooperation and coordination agreements, and for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of conventional and nuclear forces. Our military forces will adjust to their new tasks, becoming smaller and more flexible. Thus, our conventional forces will be substantially reduced as will, in many cases, their readiness. They will also be given increased mobility to enable them to react to a wide range of contingencies, and will be organised for flexible build-up, when necessary, for crisis management as well as defence. Multinational formations will play a greater role within the integrated military structure. Nuclear forces committed to NATO will be greatly reduced: the current NATO stockpile of sub-strategic weapons in Europe will be cut by roughly 80% in accordance with the decisions taken by the Nuclear Planning Group in Taormina. The fundamental purpose of the nuclear forces of the Allies remains political: to preserve peace, and prevent war or any kind of coercion.

    European Security Identity and Defence Role

    6 – We reaffirm the consensus expressed by our Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Copenhagen. The development of a European security identity and defence role, reflected in the further strengthening of the European pillar within the Alliance, will reinforce the integrity and effectiveness of the Atlantic Alliance. The enhancement of the role and responsibility of the European members is an important basis for the transformation of the Alliance. These two positive processes are mutually reinforcing. We are agreed, in parallel with the emergence and development of a European security identity and defence role, to enhance the essential transatlantic link that the Alliance guarantees and fully to maintain the strategic unity and indivisibility of security of all our members. The Alliance is the essential forum for consultation among its members and the venue for agreement on policies bearing on the security and defence commitments of Allies under the Washington Treaty. Recognising that it is for the European Allies concerned to decide what arrangements are needed for the expression of a common European foreign and security policy and defence role, we further agree that, as the two processes advance, we will develop practical arrangements to ensure the necessary transparency and complementarity between the European security and defence identity as it emerges in the Twelve and the WEU, and the Alliance.

    7 – We welcome the spirit in which those Allies who are also members of the Twelve and the WEU have kept the other members of the Alliance informed about the progress of their ongoing discussions on the development of the European identity and about other issues, such as their peace efforts in Yugoslavia. Appropriate links and consultation procedures between the Twelve and the WEU, and the Alliance will be developed in order to ensure that the Allies that are not currently participating in the development of a European identity in foreign and security policy and defence should be adequately involved in decisions that may affect their security. The Alliance’s new Strategic Concept, being an agreed conceptual basis for the forces of all Allies, should facilitate the necessary complementarity between the Alliance and the emerging defence component of the European integration process. As the transformation of the Alliance proceeds, we intend to preserve the operational coherence we now have and on which our defence depends. We welcome the perspective of a reinforcement of the role of the WEU, both as the defence component of the process of European unification and as a means of strengthening the European pillar of the Alliance, bearing in mind the different nature of its relations with the Alliance and with the European Political Union.

    8 – We note the gradual convergence of views in the discussions concerning the developing European security identity and defence role compatible with the common defence policy we already have in our Alliance. We feel confident that in line with the consensus in Copenhagen, the result will contribute to a strong new transatlantic partnership by strengthening the European component in a transformed Alliance. We will help move this development forward.

    Relations with the Soviet Union and the Other Countries of Central and Eastern Europe: A Qualitative Step Forward

    9 – We have consistently encouraged the development of democracy in the Soviet Union and the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We therefore applaud the commitment of these countries to political and economic reform following the rejection of totalitarian communist rule by their peoples. We salute the newly recovered independence of the Baltic States. We will support all steps in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe towards reform and will give practical assistance to help them succeed in this difficult transition. This is based on our conviction that our own security is inseparably linked to that of all other states in Europe.

    10 – The Alliance can aid in fostering a sense of security and confidence in these countries, thereby strengthening their ability to fulfil their CSCE commitments and make democratic change irrevocable. Wishing to enhance its contribution to the emergence of a Europe whole and free, our Alliance at its London Summit extended to the Central and Eastern European countries the hand of friendship and established regular diplomatic liaison. Together we signed the Paris Joint Declaration. In Copenhagen last June, the Alliance took further initiatives to develop partnership with these countries. Our extensive programme of high level visits, exchanges of views on security and other related issues, intensified military contacts, and exchanges of expertise in various fields has demonstrated its value and contributed greatly to building a new relationship between NATO and these countries. This is a dynamic process: the growth of democratic institutions throughout Central and Eastern Europe and encouraging cooperative experiences, as well as the desire of these countries for closer ties, now call for our relations to be broadened, intensified and raised to a qualitatively new level.

    11 – Therefore, as the next step, we intend to develop a more institutional relationship of consultation and cooperation on political and security issues. We invite, at this stage of the process, the Foreign Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Romania, and the Soviet Union to join our Foreign Ministers in December 1991 in Brussels to issue a joint political declaration to launch this new era of partnership and to define further the modalities and content of this process. In particular, we propose the following activities:

    – annual meetings with the North Atlantic Council at Ministerial level in what might be called a North Atlantic Cooperation Council;

    – periodic meetings with the North Atlantic Council at Ambassadorial level;

    – additional meetings with the North Atlantic Council at Ministerial or Ambassadorial level as circumstances warrant;

    – regular meetings, at intervals to be mutually agreed, with:

    – NATO subordinate committees, including the Political and Economic Committees;

    – the Military Committee and under its direction other NATO Military Authorities.

    This process will contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the CSCE without prejudice to its competence and mechanisms. It will be carried out in accordance with the core functions of the Alliance.

    12 – Our consultations and cooperation will focus on security and related issues where Allies can offer their experience and expertise, such as defence planning, democratic concepts of civilian-military relations, civil/military coordination of air traffic management, and the conversion of defence production to civilian purposes. Our new initiative will enhance participation of our partners in the”Third Dimension” of scientific and environmental programmes of our Alliance. It will also allow the widest possible dissemination of information about NATO in the Central and Eastern European countries, inter alia through diplomatic liaison channels and our embassies. We will provide the appropriate resources to support our liaison activities.

    The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe

    13 – We remain deeply committed to strengthening the CSCE process, which has a vital role to play in promoting stability and democracy in Europe in a period of historic change. We will intensify our efforts to enhance the CSCE’s role, in the first instance by working with the other participating CSCE states to ensure that the Helsinki Follow-Up Meeting in 1992 will be another major step towards building a new Europe. The CSCE has the outstanding advantage of being the only forum that brings together all countries of Europe and Canada and the United States under a common code of human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy, rule of law, security, and economic liberty. The new CSCE institutions and structures, which we proposed at our London Summit and which were created at the Paris Summit, must be consolidated and further developed so as to provide CSCE with the means to help ensure full implementation of the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, and other relevant CSCE documents and thus permit the CSCE to meet the new challenges which Europe will have to face. Our consultations within the Alliance continue to be a source of initiatives for strengthening the CSCE.

    14 – Consequently, we will actively support the development of the CSCE to enhance its capacity as the organ for consultation and cooperation among all participating States, capable of effective action in line with its new and increased responsibilities, in particular on the questions of human rights and security including arms control and disarmament, and for effective crisis management and peaceful settlement of disputes, consistent with international law and CSCE principles. To this end, we suggest:

    – that the CSCE Council, the central forum for political consultations, continue to take decisions on questions relating to the CSCE and the functions and structures of the CSCE institutions;

    – that the Committee of Senior Officials serve as the coordination and management body between Council sessions and that it acquire a greater operational capacity and meet more frequently, with a view to ensuring the implementation of decisions;

    – that the CSCE’s conflict prevention and crisis management capabilities be improved: as one contribution, in addition to the functions entrusted to it by the Paris Charter, the means available to the Conflict Prevention Centre should be strengthened and made more flexible to enable it to fulfil the specific tasks assigned to it by the CSCE Council and the Committee of Senior Officials;

    – that specific tasks based on a precise mandate by the CSCE Council or the Committee of Senior Officials might be entrusted to ad hoc groups;

    – that the decisions taken at the Helsinki Follow-Up Meeting ensure complementarity among CSCE activities in the security field including, inter alia, conflict prevention, arms control and consultations on security;

    – that consideration should be given within the CSCE to develop further the CSCE’s capability to safeguard, through peaceful means, human rights, democracy and the rule of law in cases of clear, gross and uncorrected violations of relevant CSCE commitments, if necessary in the absence of the consent of the state concerned;

    – that the Office for Free Elections be transformed into a broadly focused Office of Democratic Institutions to promote cooperation in the fields of human rights, democracy and the rule of law;

    – that the monitoring and promotion of progress on human dimension issues be continued in the form of periodic meetings of short duration on clearly defined issues;

    – that further political impetus be given to economic, scientific and environmental cooperation so as to promote the basis of prosperity for stable, democratic development.

    Arms Control

    15 – We strongly support President Bush’s initiative of 27th September 1991 which has opened new prospects for nuclear arms reduction. We also welcome President Gorbachev’s response. We particularly applaud the decision of both sides to eliminate their nuclear warheads for ground-launched short-range weapons systems. The Allies concerned, through their consultations, have played a central role in President Bush’s decision which fulfilled the SNF arms control objectives of the London Declaration. They will continue close consultations on the process of the elimination of ground-based SNF warheads until its completion. We will continue to work for security at minimum levels of nuclear arms sufficient to preserve peace and stability. We look forward to the early ratification of the recently signed START agreement.

    16 – We note with satisfaction the recent achievements in the fields of conventional arms control and disarmament. We reiterate the paramount importance we attach to the CFE Treaty and call upon all CFE signatories to move forward promptly with its ratification and implementation. We urge our negotiating partners to work with us to reach substantial agreements in the CFE IA and CSBM negotiations, and remain dedicated to achieving concrete results by the time of the CSCE Helsinki Follow-Up Meeting. We welcome the resumption of the Open Skies negotiations; we look forward to agreement on an Open Skies regime by the time of the Helsinki Meeting as an important new element in greater openness and confidence-building in the military field.

    17 – The Helsinki Meeting will mark a turning point in the arms control and disarmament process in Europe, now with the participation of all CSCE states. This will offer a unique opportunity to move this process energetically forward. Our goal will be to shape a new cooperative order, in which no country needs to harbour fears for its security, by:

    – strengthening security and stability at lower levels of armed forces to the extent possible and commensurate with individual legitimate security needs both inside and outside of Europe;

    – conducting an intensified security dialogue within a permanent framework and fostering a new quality of transparency and cooperation about armed forces and defence policies; and

    – promoting effective mechanisms and instruments for conflict prevention.

    18 – The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of their means of delivery undermines international security. Transfers of conventional armaments beyond legitimate defensive needs to regions of tension make the peaceful settlement of disputes less likely. We support the establishment by the United Nations of a universal non-discriminatory register of conventional arms transfers. We support steps undertaken to address other aspects of proliferation and other initiatives designed to build confidence and underpin international security.
    We also deem it essential to complete a global, comprehensive and effectively verifiable ban on chemical weapons next year. We welcome the positive results of the Third Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in particular the decision to explore the feasibility of verification.

    Broader Challenges

    19 – Our Strategic Concept underlines that Alliance security must take account of the global context. It points out risks of a wider nature, including proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, disruption of the flow of vital resources and actions of terrorism and sabotage, which can affect Alliance security interests. We reaffirm the importance of arrangements existing in the Alliance for consultation among the Allies under Article 4 of the Washington Treaty and, where appropriate, coordination of our efforts including our responses to such risks. We will continue to address broader challenges in our consultations and in the appropriate multilateral forums in the widest possible cooperation with other states.

    20 – The North Atlantic Alliance was founded with two purposes: the defence of the territory of its members, and the safeguarding and promotion of the values they share. In a still uncertain world, the need for defence remains. But in a world where the values which we uphold are shared ever more widely, we gladly seize the opportunity to adapt our defences accordingly; to cooperate and consult with our new partners; to help consolidate a now undivided continent of Europe; and to make our Alliance’s contribution to a new age of confidence, stability and peace.

    21 – We express our deep appreciation for the gracious hospitality extended to us by the Government of the Italian Republic.