The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1991

  • PMQT – 2 July 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Harry Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

    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. Ewing : Is the Prime Minister aware that the prospectuses for PowerGen and other privatised industries say that Her Majesty’s Government do not expect to use their shareholding to vote on resolutions before the annual general meetings of those companies, but–this is the important point–that they reserve the right to do so? Will the Prime Minister, for once, act decisively, do as he did in the case of the chairmen of the banks and call in the chairmen and chief executives of all the privatised industries and make it clear to them that he will use the power given to him in the prospectus to intervene and stop the obscene salary increases that they are granting to themselves–or is this yet another example of all talk, all dither and no action?

    The Prime Minister : I have made clear my view on the large increases on a number of occasions. I have also made it clear that the freedom given in the prospectus is not to be used in that fashion. The hon. Gentleman has been told that before and I reiterate it now.

    Mrs. Roe : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to look into the effect on the employment of women of implementing the provisions in the social charter which relate to part-time work? Will not the social charter, which is fully supported by the Labour party, destroy job opportunities for women and restrict the flexibility of part-time work from which so many women benefit?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. We are able to support parts of the social charter, but the draft directions on part-time work would add substantially to the cost to British industry and, in so doing, cost the jobs of many people.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister still certain that, as he promised just two weeks ago, Britain will come out of recession in the second half of this year?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I still believe that we will see the economy move out of recession during the second half of this year. That view is echoed by a number of independent commentators and I see no reason to revise our previous forecasts.

    Mr. Kinnock : The engineering employers, steel makers, car manufacturers and retailers are all telling the Government in clear terms that the serious losses of jobs, output and capacity will continue for the rest of this year and even into 1992 and beyond. What evidence does the Prime Minister have to demonstrate that those people, who certainly live in the real world, are wrong?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the latest CBI survey is precisely in line with the Red Book forecasts, which show that the economy will come out of recession in the second half of this year. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that the G7 Finance Ministers agreed that the world economy was moving out of recession and back into growth. The impact of that will certainly assist our recovery in the second half of this year.

    Mr. Kinnock : As for the forecasts of recovery from the world recession, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which other major industrial country has had a zero-minus-growth rate this year– [Interruption.] Under the policies of this Government– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Interruptions take a lot of time.

    Mr. Kinnock : Under the policies of this Government, a zero growth rate would be an improvement.

    Can the Prime Minister tell us which other major industrialised country has has a growth rate of minus 2 per cent. this year? What sort of recovery can the right hon. Gentleman look forward to, when every manufacturer in Britain clearly records a loss of capacity and of confidence that have eroded the British manufacturing base for the second time in 10 years?

    The Prime Minister : As for the long-term strength of British industry, the right hon. Gentleman should read the recent comment by the director general of the CBI. He said :

    “Virtually everything associated with our manufacturing base is better today than it was in the so-called golden era’”

    to which so many people look back fondly. The director general was right– that was the era of strikes, loss of delivery, lost market shares and Labour.

    Sir Ian Lloyd : My right hon. Friend will doubtless have had reported to him the serious news that the Japanese research and development total exceeded £9 billion for the first time last month. Of that sum, £1.5 billion is spent by the five largest semiconductor firms in Japan, exceeding the total research and development expenditure on semiconductors of the United States and western Europe. Had this matter been considered by the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology, which my right hon. Friend chairs? If it has, does that committee share the views of the congressional committee on semiconductor dependency about the serious implications that that has for the defence and the industrial base of the western world?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend rightly makes the point that the huge research and development in the private sector has brought about the remarkable improvement in Japanese productivity in recent years. I shall chair a meeting of ACOST in the near future and I expect that that is one of the matters that we shall discuss.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Nellist : Is the Prime Minister aware that 16-year-olds on youth training have had their allowance frozen at £29.50 for several years and that, had their allowance risen since 1978 in line with average earnings, it would be £68.60 today? How does the Prime Minister think that those youngsters feel when they again read reports in the press that the heads of newly privatised industries such as PowerGen are awarding themselves pay rises of up to 163 per cent? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that those youngsters are worth so much less than Mr. Wallis?

    The Prime Minister : As I said a few moments ago, I have made my opinion on these large increases perfectly clear. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have a more substantial employment package for young people than this country has ever had and it was added to just a fortnight ago by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

     

    European Single Currency

    Q3. Mr. Janman : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the benefits accruing from a single currency in the European Community to the United Kingdom and other European Community countries either now or in the future.

    The Prime Minister : Theoretically, a single currency within a single trading area can save industry the risks and costs of exchange rate transactions. It also saves ordinary travellers cost and inconvenience. Of course, all those advantages apply to a common currency such as that which the United Kingdom has proposed. But the economic benefits of a single currency can be exaggerated and they carry economic risks with them. If widely divergent economies are forced into the straitjacket of a single currency, the strains in the system may be unsustainable.

    Mr. Janman : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Was he in the Chamber last week to hear the critical but interesting observation that a federal state bears three distinguishing marks? One of those marks is the existence of a single currency and of a central bank. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sentiments behind that observation, made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), fly in the face of the Labour party’s policy on Europe?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that the Labour party is split on the question of Europe.

    Sir Russell Johnston : If the Prime Minister is saying that he agrees that a single currency is acceptable in principle, is not it also logical that a European central bank should control European-wide interest rates?

    The Prime Minister : What I have said repeatedly about a single currency is that if it is market driven and if it is required, it is acceptable to us in principle. However, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say yesterday, we have maintained our reserve on the prescriptive single currency which is at present before the Community.

    Mr. Favell : With my right hon. Friend’s successful Luxembourg conference behind him, will he reject any new proposals to interfere with the Government’s right to tax, to spend and to fix interest rates, as otherwise the non-imposition of a single currency could be but a hollow victory?

    The Prime Minister : We are still at the very early stage of negotiations on economic and monetary union. I have already made it clear that I am as jealous as any other hon. Member of the rights of the House.

    Mr. Spearing : Is the Prime Minister aware that last Friday I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what studies had been made into the benefits for the United Kingdom of economic and monetary union? He answered by referring in column 541 to a written answer that he had given to me on 7 December at column 216. Both answers showed that no study had been made of the benefits. As the First Lord of the Treasury, will the Prime Minister tell us why that is so?

    The Prime Minister : I set out in my original answer to my hon. Friend a few moments ago what the theoretical advantages of a single currency would be. The hon. Gentleman may care to read that answer.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Hayward : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Hayward : Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the impact on income tax of a massive increase in public spending? Will he in particular say whether he has received any detailed written response to the analysis of the Labour party’s programme which was issued by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about a fortnight ago?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend makes a telling point. I can confirm that I have received no such written response. The Opposition are remarkably coy about their spending plans. These days they set great store by the Financial Times, but, as that newspaper said recently :

    “Any Labour Government would face clear choices : either unsustainable borrowing, or significantly higher taxation, or a great many disappointed hopes for higher public spending”–

    or, of course, all three.

     

    Q5. Mr. Eadie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Eadie : In view of the Government-inspired vendetta against the miners and their union, which is now in disrepute, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that we are not on the verge of another scandal? As the Government have authorised Rothschild bank, Touche Ross and Geoffrey Chancer to advise the Government on the privatisation of the coal industry, will the Prime Minister give us an assurance today that the £6.5 billion miners pension fund will not be used as bait to sell off our coal industry?

    The Prime Minister : There is no vendetta against the miners. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to Question Time a few days ago, he would have heard of the number of miners in Nottinghamshire, for example, who now earn well over £20,000 a year, so little is the vendetta of the Government.

     

    Q6. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Field : May I refer my right hon. Friend to my ten-minute Bill on 29 June 1988, at column 399 of the Official Report, when I proposed financial penalties on parents of perpetual truants? In the process of introducing the Bill, I referred to the 1985 Home Office report on parental supervision and delinquency. Has not the case been proved that if parents are careless of the whereabouts of their children, the children are more likely to offend? Is not it high time that we tightened up the rules on truancy? As my old friend, ex-prison governor and Isle of Wight broadcaster C. A. Joyce used to say, “I never met a criminal from a loving and caring home.”

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is vital that parents fulfil their duty to secure their children’s education. As my hon. Friend will know, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill, the maximum fine for the parents of truants will rise to £1,000. We are very concerned to bring an end to truancy and, through that and other policies, we will seek to do so.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nuclear Test Veterans

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet Mr. Kenneth McGinley, chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on 18 April 1991 at column 568.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Luxembourg European Council – 1 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on the 1st July 1991 on the European Council held in Luxembourg held from 28th-29th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Luxembourg on 28 and 29 June. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom.

    It was clear from the events there that Yugoslavia must be the first item on our agenda. I discussed the overnight position with Prime Minister Lubbers and with Chancellor Kohl before the Council opened. We were able to reach rapid agreement in the Council on invoking the emergency mechanisms of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and a meeting is taking place in Vienna this afternoon. We also agreed to dispatch to Yugoslavia the Foreign Ministers of the troika–Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Italy. Their visit brought some respite in the conflict, but the situation was very fragile yesterday and the Foreign Ministers returned to Yugoslavia yesterday afternoon. They secured agreement to the appointment of Mr. Mesic of Croatia as the next President of Yugoslavia and to other measures to defuse the crisis. The situation remains very volatile and the Community will need to be closely involved over the coming weeks. In the meantime, Community aid to Yugoslavia has been suspended. British citizens have been advised to leave Slovenia.

    The main item of scheduled business was to discuss progress in the two intergovernmental conferences launched last year, one on economic and monetary union and the other on political union. Discussion centred on the issues raised in a draft treaty text circulated by the presidency, though there was no detailed negotiation of the text itself.

    This European Council–as we had wanted–was a stocktaking. It was not the occasion to take decisions, but we have registered the considerable progress made in the Luxembourg presidency as well as our collective will to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December. The conclusions, which have been placed in the Library of the House, incorporate a number of points of importance to the United Kingdom.

    I made it clear that I welcomed the structure of the present draft of the treaty, although some other partners in the Community disagree with it strongly. The present text means that some things are done on the basis of the treaty of Rome but others on the basis of intergovernmental action in which the treaty of Rome does not apply and the Commission does not have the sole right of initiative. I welcomed the concept of a common foreign and security policy set firmly within the context of the Atlantic alliance and stressed the need to work by consensus in this crucial area.

    There is agreement on the preparation of proposals to improve the implementation of Community law. That reflects a British proposal that would enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states that fail to comply with Community legislation. We have long argued for a level playing field and for full respect of the rule of law, and we are determined to get it. We have a good record on implementation and we believe that all states that sign up to Community law should implement it.

    The conclusions call for early progress on the remaining legislation needed to complete the single market. This means in particular measures on insurance, and air, sea and road transport, which are of importance to this country.

    The Council discussed the need to strengthen the Community’s external perimeter boundary if free movement of people is to be able to take place within it. We also agreed to better co-ordination in the fight against international drug trafficking and organised crime through the establishment of a European Criminal Investigation Office.

    The conclusions also commit us to strengthening the Community’s links with the countries of central and eastern Europe. This will initially take the form of association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Government hope that those countries–and probably others–will be ready for full membership in due course.

    I also made it clear that there were things in the present draft treaty with which I could not agree, and it was understood that nothing could be agreed until everything is agreed at the conclusion of these discussions. I explained that even though to many federal union implies decentralisation, the term carried the reverse implication in this country and would not be acceptable in a text to be agreed at the end of the year.

    I explained our reservations about the existing text on the role of the European Parliament. We see a strong case for an increased role for the European Parliament in areas such as control over the Commission through audit of expenditure and measures to safeguard the rights of Community citizens, including the appointment of a European ombudsman. The text entirely reserves our position on the issue of co-decision. The present proposal, involving a complicated conciliation procedure, would not in our view improve Community decision-taking.

    In the discussion on economic and monetary union I maintained our reserve on a single currency and a single central bank. We discussed the issue of economic convergence. The need for such convergence is increasingly recognised by our partners, but the nature and extent of that convergence and its relationship with possible target dates for moves to stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union are still for negotiation. All other member states understand that there must, in any case, be a separate decision by the Government and this House on whether the United Kingdom would move to a single currency and, if so, when.

    The European Council has issued a number of political declarations which are also available in the Library of the House.

    The Council endorsed the initiative that I took in April to establish a United Nations register of conventional arms transfers, and we will together table a draft resolution on this at the United Nations General Assembly.

    The Council also endorsed a British and German initiative to improve the co-ordination of disaster relief within the United Nations system. We envisage the appointment of a high-level co-ordinator, with direct access to emergency funding and with the authority to pull together the whole disaster relief operation. We are taking that initiative forward in the United Nations now. At British initiative, the Council agreed a text on human rights, the first such declaration ever adopted by the European Council. The Community will use its leverage to promote human rights through the economic and co-operation agreements which it makes with third countries.

    We welcomed the abolition in South Africa of the remaining legislative pillars of apartheid. We also declared our support for the renewal of sporting links with South Africa on a case-by-case basis where unified and non-racial sporting bodies have been set up. The establishment of such an independent and non-racial body for cricket was announced on the same day.

    I believe that this European Council was a good example of the Community at work. We took rapid action to respond to the crisis in Yugoslavia and will continue to work together for a peaceful settlement. We took stock in a businesslike way of the progress made under Luxembourg’s chairmanship. There are difficult issues still to be resolved. As in any negotiation, there will have to be give and take and a judgment will have to be made by the Government and by the House on the overall package at the end of the negotiation. There was a common determination in Luxembourg to work for an agreed outcome to the negotiations by the end of the year. I shall continue to argue for what I believe to be in the interests of our own country and the interests of the Community as a whole.

  • Luxembourg European Council Presidency Conclusions – 29 June 1991

    Below is the text of the European Council Presidency Conclusions following the Luxembourg European Council held on the 28th and 29th June 1991.

    The European Council heard a statement by Mr BARON, President of the European Parliament, devoted mainly to outlining the European Parliament’s position on current discussions in the Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union and that on Economic and Monetary Union.

    Intergovernmental Conferences

    The European Council took note of the draft Treaty prepared by the Luxembourg Presidency in the light of proceedings at the two Conferences. It welcomed the considerable progress that had been made since the two European Councils held in Rome.

    The European Council confirms that the proceedings of these two Conferences should continue in parallel. The final decision on the text of the Treaty on Political Union and on Economic and Monetary Union will be taken by the Maastricht European Council so that the results of the two Conferences can be submitted for ratification simultaneously during 1992 and the new Treaty can enter into force on 1 January 1993.

    The European Council considers that the Presidency’s draft forms the basis for the continuation of negotiations, both as regards most of the principal points contained in it and the state of play at the two Conferences, on the understanding that final agreement by the Member States will only be given to the Treaty as a whole.

    Political Union

    The European Council’s discussions have gone into greater detail on some issues for which a solution is crucial to the success of the negotiations. It has established the following general guidelines:

    Principles

    The European Council considers that the Union should be based on the following principles, as decided at the European Council in Rome on 13 and 14 December 1990: full maintenance of the “acquis communautaire” and development thereof, a single institutional framework with procedures appropriate to the requirements of the various spheres of action, the evolving. nature of the process of integration or union, the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of economic and social cohesion.

    The European Council also stresses the importance of establishing Union citizenship as a fundamental element in the construction of Europe.

    Common foreign and security policy

    The Presidency’s draft reflects the unanimous desire to reinforce the identity and role of the Union as a political entity on the international scene, as well as the concern to ensure the consistency of all its external activities. The decision-making process for implementation of the common foreign and security policy has still to be examined. Common foreign and security policy will extend to all questions relating to the security of the Union.

    The European Council has agreed that the question of strengthening the defence identity of the Union will be decided at the final stage of the Conference. That identity will take account of the traditional positions of certain Member States. The role of the WEU, which is an essential part of the process of European integration, will be clarified.

    The Community Member States which are party to the Treaty on the Atlantic Alliance, in accordance with the guidelines established at the recent meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Copenhagen, regard the ultimate reinforcement of a European defence identity as an important contribution to the strengthening of the Atlantic Alliance. In the immediate future, they will endeavour to work out common guidelines with a view to the forthcoming NATO Summit in Rome.

    Democratic legitimacy

    The European Council considers the Presidency’s draft to contain significant proposals strengthening the European Parliament’s political, legislative and monitoring role, which must go hand in hand with development of the Union. The European Council has also noted that achieving a consensus on the principle of a co-decision procedure will be an important political part of the final agreement. In the Presidency’s view, this procedure will initially be applied to a number of suitable areas, with the possibility of extending it further as the Union progresses.

    For some Member States, acceptance of the co-decision principle is linked to overall progress in the development of Community policies, particularly in the social and environmental fields, in accordance with the proposals contained in the Presidency’s draft.

    Social policy

    The European Council emphasized the need to strengthen the Community’s social dimension in the context of Political Union and Economic and Monetary Union. It thinks that the Community’s role in this area should be stepped up and its action made more effective, with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and the respective roles of the Member States and the social partners, in accordance with national practices and traditions. This general approach must not call into question or in any way affect national social security and social protection schemes.

    Economic and social cohesion

    The European Council believes that ever closer economic and social cohesion is an integral part of the general development of the Union and it considers that this aspect should be embodied in the Treaty in an appropriate way.

    It heard a statement from the President of the Commission on the effects of the policies currently being pursued by the Community from the point of view of economic and social cohesion, and on the outlook in this area. It asked the Commission to clarify the various ideas put forward in the statement in time for the next European Council.

    The European Council has already stressed the particular importance in this context of establishing major infrastructure networks at European level.

    Implementation of Community Law

    The European Council agreed in principle to the approach in the Presidency’s draft, designed to improve the implementation of Community law.

    Home affairs and judicial co-operation

    The European Council noted with interest the practical proposals submitted by the German delegation, which supplement the work already carried out in this area (see Annex I).

    The European Council agreed on the objectives underlying these proposals and instructed the Conference to examine them further with a view to revision of the Union Treaty.

    Economic and Monetary Union

    The Intergovernmental Conference has revealed, with its draft Treaty and the draft statute of the ESCB annexed thereto, that there are broad areas of agreement on the basic components of EMU. At the next European Council these draft texts should be finalized according to the guidelines worked out there and in keeping with the European Council’s conclusions of 27 and 28 October 1990, recalling the United Kingdom reserve attached thereto.

    The European Council emphasizes the need to make satisfactory and lasting progress with economic and monetary convergence as of now, and as part of the first stage of Economic and Monetary Union, with particular reference to price stability and sound public finance.

    In this context, the European Council notes that in the near future several Governments intend to submit specific multi-annual programmes designed to secure the requisite progress on convergence, which will quantify the objectives and the means of securing them. The European Council would encourage other Governments to submit such programmes and calls upon the Commission and the ECOFIN Council to report regularly on the implementation of these programmes and on progress with convergence.

    Internal Market

    1. The European Council points to the importance for business and consumers and for the future development of the Community of the internal market being completed within the time limits laid down. It notes that three quarters of the measures provided for in the White Paper have been decided. In particular it welcomes the agreement reached at the latest ECOFIN Council on the alignment of VAT rates and excise duties which opens the way to the completion of an area without frontiers on 1 January 1993. The European Council records with satisfaction that the approximation of excise duties on diesel oil will make it possible, as it requested at its meeting in Rome, to substantially reduce distortions of competition in the road transport sector within the context of a comprehensive and coherent transport policy. As regards road transport, liberalization should be extended to transit third countries. The European Council calls upon the Council to finalize the dossier on the taxation of road transport with reference to the aspects which have still to be examined in depth, namely the tax on commercial vehicles and the subject of tolls. The European Council also noted the recent progress made in the field of insurance, the opening up of public procurement, road safety, controls on the possession of arms and veterinary and plant-health legislation.

    The various Community institutions must do everything in their power so that the entire legislative programme required for completing the large market may be adopted by 31 December 1991 at the latest, due regard being had to the time needed for implementation at national level.

    1. In this context, the following deserve particular attention during the next half year: public procurement in the service sector, financial services, co-operation between undertakings, and in particular the Statute of the European Company, definitive arrangements in the field of insurance, pharmaceuticals and the veterinary and plant-health sectors. In the field of indirect taxation, all the necessary decisions will have to be taken as soon as possible to give effect to the agreement reached in the ECOFIN Council.

    Alongside harmonization of the conditions of competition in the transport sector, the necessary measures will have to be adopted before the end of the year in preparation for the final phase of air transport liberalization; progress will also have to be made before the end of the year on liberalizing cabotage.

    On a more general level, the European Council recalled the importance of ensuring that the competitiveness of European industry can develop under favourable conditions. It emphasized in particular the need for the industrial sector to adapt continuously to structural changes, subject to respect for the principles of an open and competitive economy.

    1. Lastly, the European Council emphasizes the importance for the credibility of the integration process under way of correct and proper implementation by the Member States of the acts adopted by the Community and ratification of conventions signed by the Member States. It notes with satisfaction that the situation has improved regarding the incorporation of Directives into national law and invites each Government to take all necessary steps to make up for time lost so far and the Commission to report back to it for its next meeting.

    Social Dimension

    The European Council notes that the progress made in the completion of the internal market has not been accompanied by comparable progress in the field of social policy. It emphasizes that the Community, the Member States and the representatives of employers and employees should play a role in the implementation of the principles contained in the “Social Charter” according to their respective responsibilities.

    It requests in particular that the discussions begun in the Social Affairs Council on the Commission’s action programme for implementing the Charter should be intensified so that the necessary decisions can be reached, at an early date, having regard for the specific situation and practices of each Member State.

    Free Movement of Persons

    The European Council welcomes the fact that all the Member States have signed the Convention on Asylum.

    The European Council notes with satisfaction that a very important step towards the creation of an area without internal frontiers where persons may move freely under the terms of the Treaty will be accomplished very shortly when full agreement is reached on the Convention between the Member States on the crossing of their external borders.

    The European Council requests the Ministers with responsibility in this area to finalize agreement at their meeting on 1 July, taking as their model solutions adopted in the past with a view to overcoming the outstanding difficulty.

    The European Council asks the ad hoc Group on Immigration to put in hand without delay the measures necessary for this Convention to be effectively applied, with a view to adoption of those measures as soon as possible after the Convention enters into force. The European Council also instructs the ad hoc Group on Immigration to embark on discussions for a Convention on the protection of individuals in relation to the processing of personal data. Work on that Convention must be completed by 30 June 1992 at the latest.

    The European Council also records its agreement to the recommendations submitted by the Co-ordinators’ Group and requests that action should be taken on them as soon as possible.

    Regarding immigration and the right of asylum, the European Council has agreed on the objectives underlying the German delegation’s proposals as set forth in point B of Annex I and requests the Ministers with responsibility for immigration to submit proposals before the European Council’s next meeting in Maastricht.

    Drugs

    The European Council has taken note of the first report from by the relevant Committee (CELAD) on the implementation of the European Plan to combat drugs. It emphasizes in particular the importance of the recent adoption of Community legislation on money laundering.

    It approves the principle of setting up a European Drugs Monitoring Centre on the understanding that the practical arrangements for its implementation, e.g. its size, institutional structure and computer systems, are still to be discussed.

    The European Council instructs CELAD to continue work to that end and bring it rapidly to a successful conclusion, in liaison with the Commission and the other relevant political bodies.

    Regarding the fight against international drug trafficking and organized crime, the European Council has agreed on the objectives underlying the German delegation’s proposals as set forth in point B of Annex I and requests the Ministers with responsibility for drugs matters to submit proposals before the European Council’s next meeting in Maastricht.

    The European Council emphasizes the importance of ensuring that Community action is taken in close co-operation with the United Nations Plan for combating drugs.

    External Relations

    At a time when arrangements for its internal reinforcement are under debate in two Conferences, the Community wishes to reaffirm its determination to play an active and open role externally and seek close co-operation with all other international partners, whether bilaterally or multilaterally.

    USSR

    1. The European Council heard the Commission report on the situation in the Soviet Union and specifically on the implementation of the guidelines adopted in Rome on 14 and 15 December 1990. It noted with satisfaction that the necessary decisions have now been adopted for granting food aid amounting to ECU 750 million. Food deliveries have begun.

    With regard to technical assistance, the figure for the 1991 programme (ECU 400 million) and the implementing arrangements with the Soviet authorities have been adopted.

    1. The European Council fully supports the endeavours of the President and the Government of the Soviet Union to accelerate the reforms undertaken and to ease the Soviet Union’s integration into the world economy. It considers that a substantial programme for reorganizing and modernizing the economy is necessary.
    2. Economic and financial co-operation between the USSR and the Community is intended to foster this process. The Community is ready to continue contributing to this venture in the framework of concerted international action. In this context, the European Council requests the Commission to put forward proposals on the amount of technical assistance in 1992.

    The European Council refers to the wish it formulated at its Rome meeting to see the USSR assume its place in international financial institutions. With regard to the EBRD, the European Council reiterates its desire for a revision of the current provisions which restrict the possibility of loans to the Soviet Union.

    1. The European Council invites the Commission – by extension to its Rome II conclusions – to begin exploratory talks on a major agreement between the Community and the USSR covering not only economic questions but political and cultural matters as well.

    European Energy Charter

    The European Council also noted with satisfaction that the proceedings of the negotiating conference for the preparation of a European Energy Charter would open in Brussels on 15 July 1991 with the aim of adopting, by December 1991, a Charter instituting long-term European co-operation in the energy sectors on the basis of equal rights and obligations for the signatory countries.

    Uruguay Round

    The European Council considers the Uruguay Round to be the first priority in international economic relations, and stresses the importance of concluding these negotiations before the end of this year.

    If a balanced agreement covering all areas is to be reached within that period, important policy decisions will have to be taken without delay.

    The European Council calls on the Council and the Commission in its capacity as negotiator to continue their efforts to enable the Uruguay Round to come to a satisfactory conclusion.

    European Economic Area

    The European Council considers that the creation of a European Economic Area is an important component of the future structure of Europe.

    It welcomes the recent decisive progress and fully endorses the two parties’ commitment to overcome the remaining obstacles before 1 August, which would enable the agreement to enter into force on 1 January 1993.

    Central and Eastern Europe

    The European Council welcomes the progress towards political and economic reform in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. It recognizes the positive role played by members of G24 in underpinning structural adjustment and democracy and asks all sides to play a full part in that endeavour. The European Council reaffirms its determination to strengthen the Community’s links with these countries. It notes with satisfaction the progress achieved to date in the negotiations on Association Agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and hopes that these negotiations will culminate in the conclusion of overall agreements before the end of October 1991.

    The European Council hopes that conditions permitting reinforcement of the links between the Community and the Balkan countries will soon obtain.

    Situation in Yugoslavia

    The European Council examined the course of developments in Yugoslavia. It heard a report from the Ministerial Troika on its return from Belgrade and Zaghreb and expressed satisfaction at the results of this mission. However, the European Council remains concerned about the situation in this country and requests the relevant organs of European co-operation to remain seized of this situation and to follow developments closely.

    It took note of the fact that Luxembourg has invoked the emergency mechanism in the CSCE framework in view of the extreme gravity of the situation in Yugoslavia.

    Baltic States

    The European Council expresses its deep concern at the continued acts of intimidation and violence which have taken place in the Baltic States since the events in January, most recently in Vilnius on 26 June.

    The European Council urges the Soviet authorities to put a stop to all such arts and activities, and to ensure that those that have already taken place are fully and impartially investigated. It notes with satisfaction the recent statement of the Soviet President to this effect.

    The European Council against appeals for serious negotiations to be engaged between the Soviet authorities and the three Baltic States with a view to finding a solution which will fulfil the legitimate aspirations of the Baltic peoples.

    Middle East

    The European Council examined the state of play on the Middle East peace process and adopted the declaration in Annex II.

    It discussed the situation in Iraq and adopted the declaration in Annex III.

    Western Sahara

    The European Council noted with satisfaction the progress made in the process of self-determination of Western Sahara, in particular the adoption by the Security Council and the General Assembly of the Secretary-General’s report, as well as the setting up of the UN Mission for the referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). The Community and its Member States will assist in the implementation of the process that is under way.

    The European Council reiterates its support for the persistent efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and his special representative to ensure that the process goes forward smoothly.

    Algeria

    At the initiative of France, the European Council took note of the situation in Algeria and of the Algerian authorities’ request for Community support. It decided on the principle of balance of payments aid, its amount and the arrangements to be settled, on a proposal from the Commission, at the next meeting of the ECOFIN Council.

    Relations with developing countries

    The European Council is determined that the Community should play its full role in improving the economic and social situation of the developing countries. Lome IV, which is due to come into force very soon, and the new assistance and economic co-operation programmes in Asia, Latin America and the Mediterranean countries mark the opening of a new era. The European Council reaffirms its conviction that certain aspects with an important bearing on these relations, such as broader-based democracy, respect for human rights, and economic reform, are bound to develop further.

    Relations with the United States, Canada and Japan

    The relations of the Community and its Member States with the United States and with Canada, which are developing on the basis of the joint declarations signed in November 1990, will continue to play a crucial role in the prosperity and security of the Western world.

    With the same considerations in mind, the European Community wishes to strengthen its links with Japan on the basis of a similar declaration.

    Southern Africa

    The European Council examined the positive developments in South Africa and adopted the declaration in Annex IV.

    The European Council welcomes the South African Government’s decision to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it considers an important contribution to the stability of the region and to the strengthening of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

    The European Council welcomes the positive outcome of the negotiations concerning the peace process and democratisation in Angola and expresses its appreciation for the mediation carried out by Portugal.

    It also hopes that the talks taking place in Rome, under Italian auspices, will lead to an early peaceful settlement of the conflict in Mozambique.

    Human Rights

    The European Council adopted the declaration in Annex V, which should guide the future work of the Community and its Member States.

    Improvement of emergency assistance

    The European Council adopted the declaration in Annex VI.

    Non-proliferation and arms exports

    The European Council adopted the declaration in Annex VII.

    Tropical forests

    The European Council notes with pleasure that the Commission, pursuant to the conclusions of the Dublin European Council, has submitted a proposal, prepared together with the World Bank and in consultation with the Brazilian authorities, on a large-scale pilot project for the preservation of the tropical forest.

    The European Council supports the broad thrust of the project and confirms that the Community’s contribution to the preliminary stage will be US $15 million in financial support, to which contributions from the Member States will be added. It requests the other participants in the London Economic Summit to confirm that they too will contribute.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference at Luxembourg European Council – 29 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference, held in Luxembourg on 29th June 1991.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (John Palmer):

    Prime Minister, on political union, can we take it that what you have said implies that your objection to any extension of qualified majority voting and Parliamentary co-decision save for the environment for example remains an issue of principle; and secondly, I think you said about federalism that most other member states were clear that it meant decentralisation, not centralisation. Can you tell us who you think means by federalism centralisation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you had better ask that of our colleagues, they must answer for themselves and I will answer for me. On the earlier point on qualified majority voting we are still very reserved about how much additional qualified majority voting would be acceptable and co-decision in principle is not something we find at all attractive. There are areas where we can extend the powers of the European Parliament but we are not generally attracted to a legislative role for it.

    QUESTION (Alistair Campbell, Daily Mirror):

    Has it crossed your mind that the initials for ever closer union – ecu – might fit in with if not being tied to federalism certainly being tied to a single currency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is intriguing you should say that, Alistair, no I had not.

    QUESTION:

    Your meeting with Mr Haughey, what did you discuss and was the question of an accelerated strand 1 procedure discussed and the idea of moving to the strand 2 with the Dublin government involved?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That was not discussed, we were essentially discussing European matters in the discussion we had today, we touched upon the present situation of the talks but the talks are continuing in Strand I and we had no proposals to alter the present direction or pace of them.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Telegraph):

    In view of the reserve that you have now placed on EMU are you opposed to the setting of dates for moves to a single currency or not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not a new reserve on EMU, this is the reserve on the principle of the single currency that we have had for some time. There was nothing fresh or new, it was simply a reiteration of the position that existed some time ago and it was expressed so there was no doubt and no misunderstanding in anyone’s mind. So there is nothing new about the reserve.

    As for the dates, I have made it clear for some time that there are two important factors in any progress towards economic and monetary union. It is perfectly acceptable for dates to be set for progress to Stage 2 and Stage 3, but they can only be indicative dates, they cannot be rigid, fixed and firm dates, they can only be indicative and on the basis that the right level of convergence of the economies has been reached. If one were to go forward without such convergence then you would face very real economic difficulties indeed and some member states I think would face such economic difficulties that they would face truly horrendous problems.

    So for us the dates are much less important than the principles and necessity for convergence and at the moment we still maintain our reserve on the principle of the single currency.

    JOHN COLE (BBC):

    Prime Minister, in an earlier draft we saw there was no reference to dates and we were given to understand by some of your colleagues that the prolonged session was an argument as to how that came about. For those who have not seen the final conclusions could you explain what happened?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you think the whole session was taken up in discussing economic and monetary union I can assure there were other matters of some communal interest that took quite a lot of tine as well so it was not all on the subject of economic and monetary union.

    There were a number of earlier drafts; I don’t know which one you may have seen; the drafts are prepared by officials, they go forward, they are refined and eventually the Presidency lays one before colleagues and that is agreed or amended.

    There were a number of important matters and there were amendments made in many parts of the draft laid before us but without seeing the early draft that you have in mind, it is difficult to be precise on the points you raise.

    JOHN COLE:

    But are dates in now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. There are no firm dates in the Conclusions that we have agreed today. There are no firm dates for the progress to economic and monetary union.

    JOHN COLE:

    Not even a reference back to Rome 1?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a reference back to Rome 1 and Rome 2 with the reserve that we expressed at the time of Rome 1 and Rome 2 there is no fresh and separate reiteration of the dates. The reserve, of course, was Rome 1 only, not Rome 2.

    PHILIP STEVENS (FINANCIAL TIMES):

    Why do you think it is, Prime Minister, that the rather sort of friendly, sober discussion of these issues that you spoke about at the Council does not seem to be possible to replicate in the House of Commons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Philip, you should attend the House of Commons more often – it is very friendly and relaxed! It is a serious answer.

    QUESTION:

    From an earlier draft which we saw, there was talk of incorporating into a treaty the point put forward by Chancellor Kohl about a common immigration and asylum policy and one or two other matters in that light. Is that something which has survived? What are your thoughts on it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There ought to be no misunderstanding about precisely what was discussed there. There are two related points:

    There is a considerable degree of economic migrancy from East to West and from South to North and I think the expectation is that that may well continue in years to come. The United Kingdom expressed a view that was endorsed by a large number of countries – indeed I think no-one dissented – that we needed stronger perimeter fencing against that economic migrancy and we are examining that. That may well result in a treaty but it would probably be a treaty outside the Treaty of Rome but within the Union Treaty.

    JUDITH DAWSON (SKY NEWS):

    I wonder if I could ask you to characterise the discussions, particularly on the question of federalism and the question of a single currency? Would you say there were spirited exchanges?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There was very little discussion of the term “federal union”. That is in the chapeau at the moment but it was not a matter that was the subject of any great discussion at all. When we were discussing the Political Union IGC yesterday, I expressed my views on federal union; I said it was not an acceptable term to us and we would expect to see it removed before we had a treaty that we would be in a position to sign. Other colleagues around the table expressed the view that it was true that “federal” had more than one meaning. For example, Judith, if you were to look at the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, you would find five different meanings of “federal union”; if you were to look at the Longer Oxford Dictionary you might even find more; and if you were to look at a dictionary in any other language of the Community, Heaven alone knows how many illustration of that you would find, so that was accepted and there was not a great deal of discussion about it.

    There was not a great deal of discussion about the single currency. There was some discussion about how we framed the Declaration, that is true, but the economic and monetary union discussion was a round-table discussion last evening in which views were particularly invited upon the staging to Stage 2 and Stage 3 and other matters of principle but it was not a particularly extended discussion – it lasted perhaps an hour and a half.

    GERRY FOLEY (TV.AM):

    Prime Minister, you said that with a little bit of goodwill and good luck there was every possibility that you would be able to, all twelve, sign a treaty in December. Where do you see the greatest possibility for compromise and how would you sum up the nature of the negotiations that Britain is going to face over the next couple of months?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think, Gerry, that depends on compromise by whom. Based on the discussions that we have had over the past few days, I think there is no-one in the Community who will not have to compromise in some regard if we are going to successfully get agreement and that is true in most of the principal areas under discussion. It is not the case that all the particular difficulties concentrate in a particular area. The closer you get to it in the substructure, there are all sorts of difficulties for other nations so it will be a tremendous job for the Dutch Presidency; they will have a very large job to do between now and December but I think it is in good hands with the Dutch and I think that there is a considerable will amongst European Community partners to try and reach an agreement.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (THE TIMES):

    Prime Minister, you say that you will never sign a treaty including references to federal union. Does the same apply to any treaty giving the European Parliament power to initiate legislation in any field and could I ask you secondly whether there was much comment on the change of style and tone in Europe since you became Prime Minister? Can you point to any practical concession that you feel you have made as an evidence of your eagerness to put Britain at the heart of Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The European Parliament can call for legislation now and I think there are areas where it is appropriate to increase the powers of the European Parliament and I spoke of some of those earlier. Other partners in the Community have other suggestions as to where those powers can be increased so I think there will be changes in the way in which the European Parliament operates but I would not myself expect that they are going to involve substantial initiation of legislation powers.

    As to the second half of the question in terms of putting Britain right in the centre of Europe, I think the mark of a good European is a country that will put itself in the middle of the debate and argue for what it sees as the right way ahead for Europe, not necessarily argue for the consensus that previously existed and what I am doing and will continue to do is to argue for what I think is the right future for Europe in both the medium and the long term and that does mean we have to look not just at the deepening of relationship between the existing Community structures but that in bringing about that deepening we don’t throw such a girdle around the Community that we prevent its widening at a future stage. That is what I mean by being a good European.

    The other illustration perhaps I may give is this: it is not possible in a partnership of at present twelve and in the future more, always on each and every point to win the argument and have the result go precisely as you would wish it to. Sometimes you will win and you will gain something that your partners don’t wish to surrender; sometimes you will have to surrender something that your partners wish to gain that you don’t wish to give up. That is a matter of negotiation and that repeatedly has happened in the Community; it will happen again in the Community; there is nothing fresh about it but equally, there is nothing fresh about the fact that upon some subjects there will be a national reserve of such importance that the nation concerned will not be able to move and as in the past it will be so in the future – the partners of that nation, I believe, will understand that.

    QUESTION (THE OBSERVER):

    Could you tell me exactly how likely now you think it is that Britain will be able to sign up at the end of the year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I see no reason to suppose at the end of this European Council that it is any further away than it was when we came to this European Council. We have made a good deal of progress over the last few months. In particular, many of the matters that we particularly wished to be discussed have now come very much to the front of the Community’s collective minds: convergence, for example, in terms of economic and monetary union springs immediately to mind, we are by no means the only nation in the Community who have reservations on the scale of co-decision that was set out in the Presidency’s text, so as we move forward the areas of difference that are apparent narrow. That has been the way the Community has always operated and I think it is operating in that way now. There is a natural process that pulls partners together as you get nearer the dates by which a conclusion must be reached. That is starting but six months is a long time in the life of the Community – it still has some way to go. I am optimistic.

    BORIS JOHNSON (DAILY TELEGRAPH):

    Did the Government push for anything to be included in the communique about the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which after all represents the preponderant part of Community spending and if not, why not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were predominantly discussing the Inter-Governmental Conferences; there were many Community matters that we did not particularly discuss yesterday and today. The question of GATT was discussed and that has a clear relationship to the Common Agricultural Policy. There is, I think, a growing view in the Community now, if not perhaps entirely general, that we will need to reform the Common Agricultural Policy yet again; there is absolutely no doubt about that. It was not necessary for me to restate it or for others to include it particularly. If we had all included everything that isn’t in this communique that might have been, I daresay the communique would have been two or three times as long as it is, but it was not a subject of substantial discussion; it was not on the agenda this week-end and therefore it is not included in the communique.

    BORIS JOHNSON:

    Do you think there is a case for a special Summit to discuss it, Prime Minister, in view of the importance of the issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly would not rule out a meeting at some stage but I think it is premature to say that we would have a special Summit to discuss it. There are some proposals that the Agricultural commissioner has produced; I believe some nations, not the British as it happens, have expressed reservations about these fresh proposals that have been published. They will need to be discussed by Agriculture Ministers in the first instance and then it may be they will need to be discussed by others but I think we had better let our Agriculture Ministers look at it first.

    JOHN McINTYRE:

    On the Social Charter, an earlier text that we saw suggested something much more friendly to the British than we might have expected. Do you believe that you have made some progress on this issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is some misunderstanding of the British view about the social dimension of the Community. There is a social dimension to the Community and under the broad Social Action Programme I think there are round about 50 different Directives that are important – a number of them have already been agreed. There are some that are not agreed and that it will be very difficult to agree but the reason it will be difficult to agree I think is one that will be understood throughout the whole Community.

    What is the prime purpose of the Social Action Programme? It must be, I believe, to increase the levels of employment and diminish the levels of unemployment and the areas of greatest controversy in the Social Action Programme are those where on practical economic grounds we believe that what is proposed would work in the reverse direction and cost jobs and not create jobs.

    If I may refer to my answer some moments ago to Robin Oakley, I think it is right to argue for what is in the interests of the Community, not what happens at any one time to be a consensus view in the Community and upon that basis I will continue to argue against those parts of the Social Action Programme that I think are damaging to Europe.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Luxembourg European Council – 29 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at the Luxembourg European Council meeting on 29th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have seen again with this Council the Community’s capacity to act in agreement at the time of an international crisis. In April we took a decision to set up safe havens in Iraq, yesterday we decided to put Yugoslavia at the top of our agenda. As you all know, the Troika returned here this morning and reported to us. We have invoked the emergency procedures of the CSCE to provide a framework in which dialogue can take place but the situation in Yugoslavia is and remains very fragile indeed.

    Jacques Santer has provided excellent chairmanship throughout this meeting, as indeed have he and his Luxembourg colleagues throughout the six months of what I believe can be seen as a very successful Presidency. A great deal of progress has been made, made in both the inter-governmental conferences and the careful preparation for this particular meeting has clearly paid off. Prime Minister Santer has himself visited London twice and in preparation for this Council I had preliminary meetings, substantial preliminary meetings with President Mitterrand. Chancellor Kohl, Mr Lubbers, Sr Gonzales, Mr Haughey, as well as conversations with other colleagues. And I saw both Mr Lubbers and Chancellor Kohl again yesterday morning.

    This European Council was a stock-taking European Council. It was not the occasion to take decisions but we have registered the very considerable progress made in the Luxembourg Presidency and we are all aiming to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December.

    The text of the conclusions, which I imagine you will now have seen, incorporates a number of points of importance to the United Kingdom. Firstly, I made clear that I welcomed the structure of the present draft of the treaty, that is to say the three pillared approach which means that some things are done on the basis of Community treaties and others on the basis of intergovernmental action outside the Treaty of Rome and the competence of the Commission, but within the framework of the union.

    I welcomed also the concept of a common foreign and security policy set firmly in the context of the Atlantic Alliance. There is also agreement on the preparation of proposals to improve the implementation of Community law and that reflects particularly a British proposal, a proposal that will enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states who fail to comply with Community legislation. We have argued for a long time for a level playing field and for full respect of the rule of law and we are determined to get it in this treaty.

    The conclusions also give new impetus to the single market which has always been a very high priority for us. They cover issues such as insurance, air, sea and road transport. They also contain in the conclusions a very strong reference to strengthening the Community’s links with the countries of central and Eastern Europe.

    I made perfectly clear in our discussions that there were things in the present draft treaty with which I could not agree and it was understood that nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed, hopefully by the time we have concluded our meeting at Maastricht in December.
    On the political union IGC I explained that federal union was a term capable of misunderstanding. We will insist on its removal before we are able to sign any treaty in December. Most of our partners interpret it as decentralisation rather than centralisation but in any treaty we have to be clear what we mean. It would therefore be far better to use the term in the original Treaty of Rome – ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.

    We looked in depth in our discussions at the role of the European Parliament. I explained our view that there are a number of areas where the authority of the European Parliament should be increased, including audit of expenditure, control over the Commission and the appointment of a European ombudsman. But I said that the present proposals for co-decision about the European Parliament were not proposals that we could accept. Apart from the basic issue of whether or not we want co-decision, the complicated conciliation procedures in the present Presidency text are not a way of giving the European Parliament a satisfactory role or of improving Community decision-taking. All that will have to be looked at further in detail before we get to Maastricht.

    In the discussion on economic and monetary union, I made it clear that we still wish to maintain our firm reserve on a single currency and a single central bank. We need to be clear about the importance of economic convergence before any of us could take the considerable economic risk of moving either to Stage 2 or to Stage 3. And I again explained that one of the advantages of Britain’s proposal for a hard Ecu is that it would allow that convergence to take place and for a single currency to emerge because it made economic sense, not regardless of whether it made economic sense. So the issue of hardening the Ecu is a very current one and will be pursued further in ECOFIN.

    The Council has agreed a text on human rights, a British initiative, and the first such declaration ever adopted by the European Council. That text affirms our determination to use the community’s influence to promote human rights through the economic and cooperation agreements that we make as a Community with third countries. We welcomed also in the declaration the abolition in South Africa of the Land Acts, the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act and have declared our support for the renewal of sporting links with South Africa on a case by case basis where unified and non-racial sporting bodies have been established. We have also welcomed South Africa’s adherence of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a significant gain for which we have been working for some time.

    We have also condemned the attempt by Iraq not to reveal nuclear equipment held by Iraq and which has to be removed under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. The Community has also endorsed a British and German initiative to improve the coordination of disaster relief within the United Nations system. I think this is an important initiative, it would involve the appointment of a high level coordinator who would pull together the whole disaster relief operation and have direct access to emergency funding.

    Our discussion has also looked forward to the Economic Summit which I will be chairing in London in a fortnight’s time. We have urged a conclusion in the GATT round before the end of this year, we have given an impetus to non-proliferation of weapons of all kinds, the Council endorsed also an initiative which I took in April to establish a United Nations register of conventional arms transfers and we will together table a draft resolution on this at the UN General Assembly. Over the dinner we had last evening, we discussed our approach to President Gorbachev’s visit to London. Both in our analysis of what is happening in the Soviet Union and in our assessment of what we can do to help, our positions in the Community are very close.

    I believe in summary that this European Council has shown the Community working as it should, we faced up to the crisis in Yugoslavia, we have dealt with our own business in a friendly and businesslike way, looking for solutions. I have no doubt there are still difficult negotiations to come but I think the Dutch will start their Presidency knowing that everyone in the Community wants to reach agreement by the end of the year. With good luck and goodwill I hope and believe that can be done.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Luxembourg European Council – 29 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at the Luxembourg European Council meeting on 29th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have seen again with this Council the Community’s capacity to act in agreement at the time of an international crisis. In April we took a decision to set up safe havens in Iraq, yesterday we decided to put Yugoslavia at the top of our agenda. As you all know, the Troika returned here this morning and reported to us. We have invoked the emergency procedures of the CSCE to provide a framework in which dialogue can take place but the situation in Yugoslavia is and remains very fragile indeed.

    Jacques Santer has provided excellent chairmanship throughout this meeting, as indeed have he and his Luxembourg colleagues throughout the six months of what I believe can be seen as a very successful Presidency. A great deal of progress has been made, made in both the inter-governmental conferences and the careful preparation for this particular meeting has clearly paid off. Prime Minister Santer has himself visited London twice and in preparation for this Council I had preliminary meetings, substantial preliminary meetings with President Mitterrand. Chancellor Kohl, Mr Lubbers, Sr Gonzales, Mr Haughey, as well as conversations with other colleagues. And I saw both Mr Lubbers and Chancellor Kohl again yesterday morning.

    This European Council was a stock-taking European Council. It was not the occasion to take decisions but we have registered the very considerable progress made in the Luxembourg Presidency and we are all aiming to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December.

    The text of the conclusions, which I imagine you will now have seen, incorporates a number of points of importance to the United Kingdom. Firstly, I made clear that I welcomed the structure of the present draft of the treaty, that is to say the three pillared approach which means that some things are done on the basis of Community treaties and others on the basis of intergovernmental action outside the Treaty of Rome and the competence of the Commission, but within the framework of the union.

    I welcomed also the concept of a common foreign and security policy set firmly in the context of the Atlantic Alliance. There is also agreement on the preparation of proposals to improve the implementation of Community law and that reflects particularly a British proposal, a proposal that will enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states who fail to comply with Community legislation. We have argued for a long time for a level playing field and for full respect of the rule of law and we are determined to get it in this treaty.

    The conclusions also give new impetus to the single market which has always been a very high priority for us. They cover issues such as insurance, air, sea and road transport. They also contain in the conclusions a very strong reference to strengthening the Community’s links with the countries of central and Eastern Europe.

    I made perfectly clear in our discussions that there were things in the present draft treaty with which I could not agree and it was understood that nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed, hopefully by the time we have concluded our meeting at Maastricht in December.
    On the political union IGC I explained that federal union was a term capable of misunderstanding. We will insist on its removal before we are able to sign any treaty in December. Most of our partners interpret it as decentralisation rather than centralisation but in any treaty we have to be clear what we mean. It would therefore be far better to use the term in the original Treaty of Rome – ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.

    We looked in depth in our discussions at the role of the European Parliament. I explained our view that there are a number of areas where the authority of the European Parliament should be increased, including audit of expenditure, control over the Commission and the appointment of a European ombudsman. But I said that the present proposals for co-decision about the European Parliament were not proposals that we could accept. Apart from the basic issue of whether or not we want co-decision, the complicated conciliation procedures in the present Presidency text are not a way of giving the European Parliament a satisfactory role or of improving Community decision-taking. All that will have to be looked at further in detail before we get to Maastricht.

    In the discussion on economic and monetary union, I made it clear that we still wish to maintain our firm reserve on a single currency and a single central bank. We need to be clear about the importance of economic convergence before any of us could take the considerable economic risk of moving either to Stage 2 or to Stage 3. And I again explained that one of the advantages of Britain’s proposal for a hard Ecu is that it would allow that convergence to take place and for a single currency to emerge because it made economic sense, not regardless of whether it made economic sense. So the issue of hardening the Ecu is a very current one and will be pursued further in ECOFIN.

    The Council has agreed a text on human rights, a British initiative, and the first such declaration ever adopted by the European Council. That text affirms our determination to use the community’s influence to promote human rights through the economic and cooperation agreements that we make as a Community with third countries. We welcomed also in the declaration the abolition in South Africa of the Land Acts, the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act and have declared our support for the renewal of sporting links with South Africa on a case by case basis where unified and non-racial sporting bodies have been established. We have also welcomed South Africa’s adherence of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a significant gain for which we have been working for some time.

    We have also condemned the attempt by Iraq not to reveal nuclear equipment held by Iraq and which has to be removed under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. The Community has also endorsed a British and German initiative to improve the coordination of disaster relief within the United Nations system. I think this is an important initiative, it would involve the appointment of a high level coordinator who would pull together the whole disaster relief operation and have direct access to emergency funding.

    Our discussion has also looked forward to the Economic Summit which I will be chairing in London in a fortnight’s time. We have urged a conclusion in the GATT round before the end of this year, we have given an impetus to non-proliferation of weapons of all kinds, the Council endorsed also an initiative which I took in April to establish a United Nations register of conventional arms transfers and we will together table a draft resolution on this at the UN General Assembly. Over the dinner we had last evening, we discussed our approach to President Gorbachev’s visit to London. Both in our analysis of what is happening in the Soviet Union and in our assessment of what we can do to help, our positions in the Community are very close.

    I believe in summary that this European Council has shown the Community working as it should, we faced up to the crisis in Yugoslavia, we have dealt with our own business in a friendly and businesslike way, looking for solutions. I have no doubt there are still difficult negotiations to come but I think the Dutch will start their Presidency knowing that everyone in the Community wants to reach agreement by the end of the year. With good luck and goodwill I hope and believe that can be done.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Women’s Conference – 27 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Conservative Women’s Conference in London on June 27th 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you for your generous introduction. I’ve been looking forward to this Conference. I knew it would add spice to an otherwise dull week. As you will all know, it’s been pretty quiet recently. Not a lot has happened. This afternoon is typical. I’ve just come from answering questions in the Commons – always a gentle occasion. Full of charm and old world courtesy. You may have seen it.

    Next I’m off to the European Council – equally gentle. Full of balm and Euro-courtesy. At least I hope so. But for now, have no doubt. I am delighted to be here in the very midst of our Party to say to you how grateful I am for your welcome and your support.

    As I have said, immediately after this session I shall be leaving for negotiations in Luxembourg on economic, monetary and political union. Our European partners know where we stand on these vital issues.

    So today I will say just this. There are only three options for our future in Europe. We can leave the Community. That option is barely credible. It is advanced by those who have not thought through the consequences.

    Or we can sit on the sidelines. Treat Europe as a spectator sport. Join the game too late to affect the outcome. And then, in the end, inevitably be forced to follow where others lead. That is no role for us.

    Or there is a third option. We can put ourselves at the very heart of the Community. Initiate policy. Form alliances. Debate wholeheartedly. Fight for the future Europe we want to see. That will not be a federal superstate, but a Europe of ever closer union between Governments and peoples.

    I am in no doubt that is the way ahead for us. And when we have finished our negotiations, we will place the results before Parliament. In the meantime. I know I will carry the full support of both the Conservative Party – and people outside it. And with that support I am confident we will achieve the right outcome for the future.

    But today I want to seize the opportunity to consider our domestic agenda.

    To talk about what we stand for – as well as what we must stand against.

    We stand – as we have always done –

    – As defenders of the peace: for personal security at home and abroad

    – For a society of opportunity.

    – For the freedom and dignity of personal ownership.

    – For free enterprise and sound money.

    – For quality and choice in public services.

    Those are the principles of our Party. They are the values which go to create a nation that is both confident – and at ease with itself.

    Everyone’s attitudes are influenced by personal experience, judgment and instincts. I know mine are. But I also know that many of the themes I care about most will strike a chord with you.

    They will do so because it is women who are most familiar with the changing pattern of life. It is women – still – who bear most of the daily burden of caring for the very young. And tending to the very old.

    So I believe you will instinctively understand the ambition I have – to create a country in which the generations live in harmony with each other.

    In peace.

    In prosperity.

    In personal and financial security.

    And I know you will share my aspiration to create an opportunity society. For women as well as for men. For women are now reaching forward, outside the home, taking up opportunities in every field of endeavour. Into Boardrooms, not just backrooms. Even into the Lords and Commons – if not yet into the MCC!!!

    Today more women want what most men take for granted: career, marriage and family. Sometimes in combination; sometimes in sequence. It must remain a matter for individual choice. But the role of Government is to set a framework so that women can make their own choices.

    And that explains much of recent policy. It explains why, in the Budget, we not only increased child benefit but safeguarded its value for the future. For child benefit goes to all mothers. It does not discriminate between those who go out to work and those who do not.

    It is why we reformed the taxation of married women.

    And it is why we have eased the tax burden on women’s savings. It is also why as Chancellor, I opened new avenues – the Tax Exempt Special Savings Accounts, “Tessas” – through which 2 million people have already decided to build up their financial independence.

    But these policies are part of a wider philosophy. Of personal independence and security. For men and women alike.

    There has been much talk recently of “isms”. But there is only one “ism” that I want to talk about. Conservatism. Our joint inheritance.

    The ideas that have carried us with such success from the seventies to the nineties.

    But more than that: the ideas that have carried our party through in an unbroken line from the eighteenth century. And still show no sign of losing their attraction as we move towards the twenty-first.

    It is no surprise that Labour should pretend we are changing one “ism” for another. For their ‘ism” has wilted. Throughout the world it has become a philosophy of yesterday with relevance to the future.

    Socialism today is no longer an ISM. It’s an ISN’T.

    Its demise has left Labour devoid of principles – envious and resentful of the enduring quality of Conservatism.

    For Conservatism is not cobbled together from sociological jargon.

    It is born out of the hopes and aspirations of millions of people. Out of the attributes of the kind of people we would like to be – the kind of people we would like to live among.

    When we talk in terms of Conservative values, we talk in terms all can understand.

    We talk of decency. Tolerance. Hard work. Thrift. Efficiency. Generosity. These are values we can all aspire to. Values that Government should encourage. And never undermine.

    As Conservatives we should not claim too much for Government – or expect too much. For, as a Party, we have an humility about the capacities of government that distinguishes us from Labour. As, too, does our sense of the duties of government.

    First and foremost, a good Government must provide a sense of security for the nation as a whole.

    It must maintain strong defences. For there are battles which cannot be won by force of argument – when we have to resort to force of arms.

    As we did, most recently, in the Gulf. Everything our armed forces were asked to do, they did. With a skill and a courage that all of us in this Party salute.

    As Conservatives, it is our unchallengeable claim that we stood firm on defence – when others were ready to toss it away. We backed NATO one hundred per cent. And we will go on doing so.

    We developed modern, professional armed forces whose quality equals anything in the world. And we will go on doing so.

    We maintained our independent nuclear deterrent to insure our safety in an uncertain world. And I can assure you of this. We will go on doing so.

    But what of others? I call on Neil Kinnock to give an unequivocal pledge. That he will maintain – and where necessary modernise – Britain’s nuclear deterrent, just so long as dictators like Saddam Hussein are plotting to put their finger on the nuclear trigger.

    And if there is no such pledge from Mr Kinnock, the British people will know what we suspect: Britain’s defence is not safe in Labour’s hands.

    But security does not just grow out of the barrel of a gun. It comes from working with friends abroad. From alliances through which – in peace, not just in war – we can secure support for our initiatives. And wield power for good.

    Safe havens for the Kurds.

    Debt forgiveness for the poorest countries.

    New approaches to arms control.

    All these were British initiatives, advanced by persuasion and argument.

    British diplomacy in the 1990s must keep us at the hub of separate, but complementary alliances. Within Europe. Within the Commonwealth. Within NATO and with the United States. Alliances that no other nation in the world can match.

    We stood firm in our friendship with the United States through all those years when the Left’s idea of a day out was to join a mob in Grosvenor Square. We will not change now.

    We have safeguarded our links with the Commonwealth, which brings together peoples from every continent of the world. And we will not change now.

    And we have worked with our partners to make the European Community develop and grow. You can be certain. We will not change now.

    Madam Chairman, I have spoken of a “classless society”. I do not mean by that a bleak uniformity, or a rejection of our rich tapestry of traditions. I do not mean a society in which high-fliers have their wings clipped. Where the politics of envy pin them down. I mean one in which opportunity is not confined to the fortunate few, but wide open to all.

    So of all the initiatives taken by the Government in a busy seven months, I take perhaps greatest pleasure in our education and training proposals – to increase choice and to raise standards.

    I can remember vividly what it was like at 16 to believe that school was a waste of time. I don’t want the 16-year-olds of the 1990s to feel the same way. They must feel that school has given them what they need: the first steps up a ladder of opportunity.

    A ladder offering qualifications in which they can take pride, leading towards jobs in which they can perform confidently and well.

    A ladder not just for some – but for all teenagers.

    They should not be forced to fit in with the system the system should be forced to fit in with them. I want youngsters to have a real choice.

    Choice between academic and vocational qualifications that are respected in the world outside school.

    Choice between different kinds of training. Our new policies put choice into young people’s hands – quite literally – in the shape of a new training credit. A “smart card” they can spend on the kind of training they want.

    That is the way to channel the energies of the young towards the achievements of the future.

    But to help all children, we must first ensure they are present in school to benefit from the education we offer.

    It is a tragedy that too many children are denied opportunity – and often end by drifting into crime – because they stay away from school or are not made to go.

    I am not prepared to tolerate the position in some of our inner city schools, where one child in four is a regular truant.

    Such tolerance does not help children. It fails them.

    So we will be placing tighter control on school registration. We will make sure that unauthorised absence is recorded. And, for schools as a whole, published each year for parents and public to see.

    And if truanting children turn to petty crime, we will see that their parents are brought to court with them.

    This Conference understands the principles of parental responsibility and the value of discipline in our schools. I can promise you this. In the 1990s we are going to spread that understanding into every classroom in Britain.

    We need, in all aspects of national life, a full sense of involvement. And we gain this, most of all, through personal ownership.

    That is why for me, no principle is more crucial than what I call the Right to Own.

    To have a home of your own.

    Savings of your own.

    A pension of your own.

    And your own stake in the business you work for. These things spell independence and security.

    That is something Labour still finds desperately hard to understand.

    No one will trust a Labour Party that still plans to place obstacles in the way of the Right to Buy. That still proposes extra taxes on savings. That admits to tax plans which would condemn millions to working three days a week for the State.

    No-one could trust Labour with all that they have built up through the Right to Own. It’s against nature. Like asking the cat to feed the goldfish!

    So it would be with the Labour Party. For they still believe in the old dictum. From them that hath, the State must take away.

    In the 1990s we will offer new routes to home ownership.

    We will encourage more individuals to take out personal pensions. We will promote more personal savings. And we will sell more state holdings to spread ownership in shares still wider.

    More homes. More savings. More pensions. More shares. That is what everyone in this country would wish – for themselves and their children.

    For the Right to Own carries with it a further right: to hand on to the next generation a proper proportion of the fruits of a lifetime of work.

    Madam Chairman, I know the Labour Party. I grew up with it. It thinks differently from us. It has a vested interest in promoting class division. In keeping people dependent. And, all too often, despondent as well.

    You don’t have to look back to the 1970s to know what a disaster Labour would be. Listen to what the Labour Co-ordinating Committee said about Labour Councils. And I quote: “They demonstrate as far as the public is concerned what a Labour Government would be like, how it would treat people.”

    That’s what they said. Well, let’s take them at their word. Just look, for example, at Liverpool. See how a Labour Council has treated people. How they are suffering. Their own miserable, summer repeat of Labour’s nationwide “winter of discontent”.

    Liverpool is the product of unbroken Labour and Liberal rule. They talk rubbish in the council chamber. And they leave rubbish on the streets.

    Or look at Lambeth – where head-teachers have appealed to the government to save them from a Labour council.

    All of you know the effect of Labour government, both national and local. But we have to ask ourselves: why does Labour so often go wrong? What are they doing, those left-wing councillors who should be raising standards in schools and housing and social services?

    We don’t always know. But sometimes we find out.

    We find a committee laced with the problem of £130 million of debt. And what is their priority? A decision taken in secret to paint the lamp-posts red.

    And you’ll remember, of course, those absurd campaigns to purge children’s literature of childhood favourites, like Enid Blyton.

    What a contest!

    Big Brother versus Big Ears!!

    Or perhaps more aptly. Little minds versus little Noddy!!

    And, no doubt even poor old Mr Plod will be caught by a left-wing ban on policemen in schools.

    Somehow, under Labour, it’s always the man and woman in the street who get hurt.

    In Liverpool, the better-off can put their rubbish sacks in their cars and drive them to a dump.

    In Lambeth the better-off can take their children across the river to schools in Conservative Westminster. Just like Jack Straw, who wants to exercise parental choice himself, while denying it to others. All too often, it is the least well off who suffer from Labour misrule.

    Our approach is different. Because these people matter to us.

    So, for the 1990s, we need Conservative policies that will turn more of Britain’s “Have Nots” into “Haves”.

    To do so, we need a strong economy. And it is all too easy, when I know times are difficult, to lose sight of our achievements. But current problems are not unique to this country.

    This is the worst year for the world economy since 1982. Yet our exporters are entering new markets and setting new records. And while the number of jobless has been rising, our unemployment rate is still far lower than in many European countries, such as France, Italy and Spain.

    But I know that is little comfort to those in this country who have been made redundant. To those here who are looking for their first job.

    I know what it is like when the family business runs into trouble. I remember what it felt like to be a teenager without a job.

    And that is why – whatever it takes – I am determined to secure a stable framework for this economy in the years ahead.

    We need to drive inflation so far into retreat that none of us will have to worry about it, when we take our decisions for the future.

    Decisions about our savings, as individuals. About investment, as businesses. And about exchange rates, when we sell British products into Europe – where our economic future lies. Our opponents simply do not understand the consequences of inflation.

    How inflation destroys profits – and jobs.

    How hard inflation makes it to manage a budget, in industry or in the home.

    How it destroys confidence – and peace of mind.

    But that is hardly surprising. Because there is so much else Labour does not understand.

    How a minimum wage forces people on to the dole queue.

    How public spending promises – a cool thirty five billion pounds of Labour promises – would have to come out of taxpayers pockets, today – or tomorrow.

    You’ve seen it – I’ll say it.

    Labour’s going for broken again.

    We all know what Labour threatens. Interference. Incompetence. Overspending.

    Red roses may grow on trees; but money does not.

    We all want good public services.

    But it is never sensible to judge them simply by what they cost. We focus on what those services provide.

    No one should defend waste and incompetence.

    That attitude shows contempt for the citizens who depend on public service. It also demeans those who give that service. That is why those who work in public services, as well as those who use them, will support and gain from our plans for a Citizen’s Charter.

    The Charter will be comprehensive and effective. It will give the customer more clout and the manager more responsibility.

    And I intend, once and for all, to remove the sense of inferiority and apprehension that too many people still have when they face officialdom across a desk.

    Of course this upsets people who are comfortable with low standards. They would like to dismiss this new idea as an “irrelevance”.

    Tell that to the Parents seeking information from which to choose a school for their children.

    Tell that to the pregnant mother given a so-called hospital “appointment” at the same time as half a dozen others.

    Tell that to the grandmother queuing for her pension.

    Tell that to the midwife who has had to take most of the day off waiting for the gas man to come.

    What these people ask for is simple.

    A service that puts them first.

    They ask for clear information about their services and how they perform.

    They ask for phones that are answered.

    Individuals they can identify to deal with their case.

    And an easily accessible avenue for complaints when things go wrong.

    They ask for explanations and advice that they can understand, and sometimes – just sometimes – an apology.

    So our Charter will do several simple but necessary things.

    First, it will ensure that people know where they stand in dealing with public services.

    We will see that clear performance targets are published, together with full information about what services actually deliver. Why should parents have to battle to find out school results?

    Second, it will give citizens support in exercising their choice – and seeing that higher standards are achieved.

    We are going to toughen up inspection and audit so that sloppy service cannot be swept under the carpet. And we are going to introduce more widely pay that relates to performance.

    Third, we are going to insist on proper courtesy and attention to public needs. We will ensure that the way to complain is no longer shrouded in mystery. And that redress is available for some of the worst levels of service.

    We will publish a White Paper on the Citizen’s Charter shortly. But that will be only the start. It will display the tool kit of ideas for raising standards. We must go on to apply them to each and every service. There will be a series of initiatives – and where necessary we will legislate to put them into effect.

    But in addition we will face a busy parliamentary schedule next year. Leaving aside our European negotiations, we have a full domestic agenda before us.

    We will be putting to Parliament an Education Bill that will transform further and higher education.

    We will be bringing in our new, fairer system of council finance – our vital reform of local taxation.

    We will take action in other fields as well.

    To take forward our successful industrial relations reforms.

    To strengthen the position of charities.

    To improve the training of nurses.

    And to act on safety following the Piper Alpha disaster.

    Through this essential business of government, we will never lose sight of the unifying principles behind both our Citizen’s Charter and our policies on the economy. Their impulse is always to seek to redress the balance between the State and the individual.

    For our Conservatism is about developing personal independence. It is designed to give people a hand up, not a hand out. And it is about placing a restraining hand on the power of the State.

    I believe in simpler Government. More approachable Government. That is the best guarantee that the citizen has against highhandedness. expropriation, and the abuse of power.

    I want Government to leave people with room to breathe. Free to display the best characteristics of the British character.

    Our sense of fairness. Our friendliness. And good neighbourliness.

    I believe we are now seeing a “quiet revolution” in Britain, involving people more in their communities, helping them have a far greater say in the way they are run.

    Since 1979, we have opened up new ways for people to demonstrate the care they have for their families and friends

    The pride they have in their homes and neighbourhoods. From Tenants’ Associations to the Local Management of Schools.

    From Neighbourhood Watch Schemes to Training and Enterprise Councils. People are gaining more involvement in the decisions that affect their everyday lives.

    They are winning back from the bureaucrats control over their own communities and how their future is shaped.

    When I talk about voluntary organisations to a Conservative audience, I know that I am talking to a large extent about you and the work that each of you do. For our belief in personal action and in concern for others is central to our philosophy.

    And a party in which they are honoured can have purpose, pride and confidence for the future.

    For Conservatism is grounded in fairmindedness, a sense of what is right: in shared aspirations and mutual respect. It builds on self-respect, not envy. It seeks to unite, and not to divide. To create, as this Conference asks, a Britain without barriers.

    We must be outward-looking. Open-minded. Ready to embrace new challenges. And in the 1990s we will have many to meet.

    But our first task is to be true to ourselves. To our ideals. And to our country. I have no doubt that Conservatism will be equal to that challenge. That we will go on giving the people of Britain the lead that they look for.

    And the hope they ask for, throughout the decade to come.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Cabinet Advisers

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister how many members of the Cabinet have a special adviser.

    The Prime Minister : Seventeen.

     

    Medicinal Products

    Dr. Hampson : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are made to provide the Department of Trade and Industry with briefing from the Department of Health on the issue of supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products.

    The Prime Minister : There is close co-operation and regular contact between the two Departments, to ensure that health care, industrial and intellectual property issues are reflected in the Government’s approach to the Commission’s proposal.

     

    Farmed Salmon

    Sir Russell Johnston : To ask the Prime Minister which Ministry is responsible for negotiating with the European Commission concerning the dumping of farmed salmon.

    The Prime Minister : The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department are together representing the current concerns of the United Kingdom’s fish farming industry with Norwegian imports to the European Commission. In the event of a formal anti-dumping complaint being made by the industry, the Department of Trade and Industry working in close co-operation with other relevant Departments would represent the United Kingdom interest in Brussels in view of its overall responsibility for anti-dumping matters.

     

    Strategic Arms Reduction

    Mr. Andrew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on the inclusion of the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent in strategic arms reduction talks with the Soviet Union.

    The Prime Minister : The current strategic arms reduction talks are bilateral between the United States and the Soviet Union; British nuclear forces will not therefore be included in the agreement. If United States and Soviet strategic arsenals were further reduced substantially, and if there had been no significant improvements in defensive capabilities, we would consider how best we might contribute to the arms control process in the light of the changed circumstances. But the introduction of Trident in the mid-1990s will provide the minimum capability necessary to maintain an effective independent deterrent into the next century and the reductions in prospect would not reduce our strategic needs.

     

    Indonesian Research Minister

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the Indonesian Research Minister on 19 June.

    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, and the arrangements for Indonesians to study in Britain.

     

    European Council

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he expects to put to the meeting of the European Council in Luxembourg.

    The Prime Minister : I shall make clear the United Kingdom objective of creating an open, liberal and efficient Community. We want to improve foreign policy co-ordination, but the basis of our security in Europe must continue to be the Atlantic alliance. In order to allow European co- operation to prosper, we need a flexible treaty structure distinguishing between Community and intergovernmental activity. We also want the European Council to give fresh impetus to the single market programme. We shall discuss a range of international issues, including the crisis in Yugoslavia.

     

    President Mitterrand

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what matters were discussed during his meeting with President Mitterrand on 24 June.

    The Prime Minister : The talks at the annual Anglo-French summit in Dunkirk on 24 June concentrated on the two intergovernmental conferences and the forthcoming Luxembourg European Council; European security and defence questions; and the situation in Iraq. The talks were fruitful and timely. President Mitterrand and I agreed to meet again on 29 July in Calais on the fourth anniversary of the ratification of the channel tunnel treaty.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27 June.

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    Mr. John Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

    The Prime Minister : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

     

    East Timor

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if, at his recent meeting with Indonesia’s Minister for Research, J B Habibie, the question of the illegal occupation of East Timor was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : East Timor was not discussed. The Indonesian authorities are aware of our views on East Timor.

     

    Injured Grenadiers

    Mr. John Browne : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 4 June, Official Report, column 151, when he expects to complete his examination of the case for making an ex gratia payment to the guardsmen injured at the Batus range on 7 July 1989.

    The Prime Minister : As I have already indicated the proper grounds for paying compensation is on the basis of legal liability.

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will receive a deputation of hon. Members to discuss the case of Guardsmen Sean Povey, Adrian Hicks and John Ray.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 June 1991] : No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) earlier today.

     

    Oil Seed Rape

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish an inter-departmental review of the public health implications of planting crops of oil seed rape near central populations.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office announced in the House on 8 February 1990 at columns 1125-32 that financial support had been offered for a project based at Aberdeen university examining the possible effects on public health which might be associated with oil seed rape. I see no reason for further action at this stage.

     

    Co-operatives

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made to co-ordinate Department’s views on the proposed European statute on co-operatives, mutuals and voluntary organisations.

    The Prime Minister : The European statute proposed by the European Commission on co-operatives, mutuals and voluntary organisations is still at draft stage. Given the wide coverage of the statute, a number of Departments have an interest. There are continuing inter departmental contracts at official level to co-ordinate views as necessary.

     

    Council of Europe

    Mr. Ward : To ask the Prime Minister if he has made any changes to the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the 43rd session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

    The Prime Minister [pursuant to his reply, 20 June 1991, c. 235] : The changes I have made will take effect from Friday 28 June.