The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1993

Mr Major’s Comments on Party Unity (I) – 23 July 1993

Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the unity of the Conservative Party, made during an interview held in London on Friday 23rd July 1993.

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked if the Party’s unanimous support in the vote of confidence was genuine].

PRIME MINISTER:

I do not think there is any doubt that the Conservative Party is united, you will have seen the atmosphere in the House throughout the day and certainly in the Division Lobbies. The European discuss that we have had, the debate, the difficulties, we have drawn a line under that in the Division Lobbies today. What we now move forward to is the agenda upon which we are wholly united – returning to the difficulties of dealing with crime matters, I am very keen to look at that in the next legislative programme, it will be the centre-piece of our programme, and also of course to return to growth in the economy where more statistics released today show yet again that the economy is growing.

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked if he had shown himself to be a weak leader].

PRIME MINISTER:

The Government must have its legislation, if the Government cannot carry its legislation the Government cannot stay in office. There was no doubt that there was a huge majority for the European Community’s Amendment Act, it was an act, it had been passed by Parliament, it had had Royal Assent from the Queen. What was happening was frankly an unscrupulous cross-party alliance with the Labour Party and the Liberal Party voting against what they believed in simply to embarrass the Government, that was what had caused the blockage and the difficulty, it was necessary to unblock that and that is what I did.

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked if he regretted the way he got the legislation through and also the way he made the social chapter such a large matter].

PRIME MINISTER:

But the social chapter would be very damaging for this country, I did not make a big issue of the social chapter, it is a big issue. Every businessman and every business lobby in this country will tell you the same thing, the social chapter may sound very benign, it does, it really is a job destruction programme. I want to put people back into work, I do not want to have them forced out of work, I simply cannot understand the enthusiasm of the Labour party and the Liberal Party for more controls, more regulation, more costs on employers and greater unemployment, that is what is would to, I want no part of that.

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked if he was referring to low-skilled jobs as Labour had suggested].

PRIME MINISTER:

They have produced some of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard in Parliament about this. Go and talk to the people who actually provide the jobs in this country.

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked if those in work had rights as well].

PRIME MINISTER:

Indeed they do and one of the rights they have is the right to keep their job and not be forced out of it by excessive costs on their employers. Ask the people who provide jobs in this country, it is not the Government, it is not the Labour Party, it is not the Liberal Party, it is the businessmen who run the large companies in this country. Ask Denys Henderson, the Chairman of ICI, one of the biggest employers in the country, he will tell you very crisply that the social charter is bad news for employment, so will every large businessman. The Labour Party may choose to say the trade unions like it, therefore we are in favour of it, but it will cost people jobs and I think that is unscrupulous.

July 23, 1993
Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Maastricht Treaty – Social Policy Protocol – 23 July 1993

Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made in the House of Commons on the 23rd July 1993 on the Maastricht Treaty – Social Policy Protocol, following defeat the previous night. The motion was also a confidence motion in the Government.

PRIME MINISTER:

The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): I beg to move,

That this House has confidence in the policy of Her Majesty’s Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy. After yesterday’s motion, the Cabinet thought it right to bring this motion immediately before the House. I said yesterday to the House that European policy had created a division in British politics for 20 years. We have seen the effects of that vividly over recent months. If asked, most people in the country would say that the House has spent most of its time in the past year doing nothing but debate the European Communities treaty. It has, indeed, been fully debated, but the House has done a great deal more. In one parliamentary Session, it has passed a large number of reforming Bills–on education, asylum, housing and urban renewal, trade union reform, and personal pensions. One third of our manifesto at the last election will have been enacted by the end of this parliamentary Session, and that is much to the advantage of the British nation.

Most of that will have been masked from public gaze by the disputes over European policy. Not only has that legislation been passed, but, over the same period, we have moved clearly from recession to growth. It is now clear that growth prospects for the year are likely to exceed earlier forecasts.

Those are some of the realities of what has occurred over the past year. Britain is now moving back into recovery, ready for significant sustained growth with low inflation. At the general election, that was the prescription which we promised and it is now becoming clearer day by day that that is what is being delivered to the British nation.

Against that background, it is in our national interest that we keep up the pace of reform and the pace of recovery. Parliament must put this stalemate over Europe behind it. I am not prepared to let it poison the political atmosphere any longer. The boil must be lanced, and it must be lanced today. Therefore, I shall set out in the clearest possible terms the implication for today’s debate. We have before us a motion of confidence in the Government, with all the implications that flow from that. Lest there be any doubt in the mind of any hon. Member, the issue of confidence also extends to the Opposition’s amendment. No hon. Member should be under any misapprehension about that, even though its terms are intended to entrap the unwary. It is precisely the amendment that was defeated yesterday.

At the conclusion of this debate, either the Government will have won the vote of confidence and we can proceed with our policy, subject to one outstanding court case, or we shall have lost and I shall seek a dissolution of Parliament.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later. I want to make a little progress now.

This debate is about the Government’s policy of rejecting the social chapter. I shall spell out the disadvantages so that no one can misunderstand me. Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) quoted from the social chapter. He made it sound innocuous, harmless and even benign. If he wants to keep his blinkers on, so be it–but let Conservative Members be in no doubt about the costs and the implications of the social chapter. Measures that the Community has already brought forward, which abuse health and safety provisions, show us the scale of the costs likely to be involved in the social chapter’s provisions.

The working time directive originally would have cost British industry £5 billion ; by our efforts, that figure has been substantially reduced. The part-time directive originally would have cost £1 billion ; largely by our efforts, that directive has been stalled. The young workers directive would cost up to £150 million. Those are just three provisions, but they add up to more than £6 billion in potential costs. I could add to that list. If the social chapter came into being, those costs would be added to for every single business in this country, with the inevitable effect on jobs.

Even the right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that employers would have to meet those costs, and more, under the social chapter. There would be higher prices, lost jobs and less competitiveness. That is the policy which the right hon. and learned Gentleman espouses. He may wish to indulge himself by voting for the social chapter–he has the luxury of being able to strike attitudes–but we must deal in realities. He would not have to pay the price of his attitudes. The price would be paid by millions of men and women working hard to hold down jobs, bring up families and improve their working conditions.

At any time, the social chapter would be an unwarranted intrusion into British life; but now, just when recovery is beginning to emerge, it would put recovery at risk. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to take my word for it, perhaps he will take the word of the chairman of ICI– [Interruption.] Labour Members may choose to scoff and sneer at the chairman of ICI, but it is his company which provides jobs in their constituencies. It is the policy of Labour Members which would cost their constituents those jobs. What the chairman of ICI had to say–perhaps the Opposition would care to listen to and reflect upon it–was :

“Continental Europe is currently in deep recession while the UK has the beginnings of an economic recovery It is … absolutely vital that business does not have imposed upon it additional costs which are unnecessary and which, in turn, could hinder the recovery.” Those are not my words, but the words of one of the most senior business men in this country.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want to hinder the recovery, or does he think that he knows more about British industry than Sir Denys Henderson, who runs ICI? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really want to impose the social chapter and hazard the recovery now coming through, especially the five consecutive monthly falls in unemployment? It is self-evident that that is exactly what he wishes to do. The most fatuous comment this House has heard for months was his assertion yesterday that the social chapter would create jobs, not cost them. Only in the unemployment offices would it create jobs.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): What does my right hon. Friend say in response to the argument put forward by many respectable business men that if we ratify this wretched treaty but we do not have the social chapter, things will be done through the social chapter by the other 11 countries which, through other aspects of the treaty, will then be imposed on the United Kingdom? If we are not there, we cannot control and restrain them.

The Prime Minister: I would say what many business men would have said to my hon. Friend had he asked them–that he is talking nonsense. The business men of this country have made it absolutely clear that they support ratification of the Maastricht treaty without the social chapter. I fail to understand why my hon. Friend wishes to impose extra costs on companies in his constituency of Northampton, North and put his constituents out of work. I hope that he can justify that to them.

I repeat that the Government cannot afford to, and will not, throw away the recovery. The social chapter is a risk which we will not take.

Mr. Benn: In making this debate a vote of confidence, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have said that if the Government lose there will be a general election. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a straightforward question : has he asked the Queen to grant a dissolution? Has she agreed to grant a dissolution? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that–as has happened in the past–she might say, “It is only a new Parliament. There are other leaders who might take it on”? She might refuse a dissolution.

The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear that if we lose the Division today I will seek a dissolution of Parliament. If the Government cannot carry their business, a dissolution of Parliament would undoubtedly be granted. The fact is that yesterday a disparate group of Members, voting for different interests on the same matter, chose to defeat the Government on a matter for which there is a genuine majority in the House. I repeat that the Government regard this as an issue of confidence and we will seek the dissolution of Parliament if we are defeated today.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister, during proceedings in this House, to say that a dissolution would undoubtedly be granted, thereby appearing to put words in the mouth of the sovereign?

Madam Speaker: It is for all hon. Members and Ministers to make their own comments, not for the Speaker of this House to interpret them or comment upon them.

The Prime Minister: It is interesting to know in reality how unready the Liberal Democrats are for an election– [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members rose —

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take a point of order.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister’s speech, and his whole case, is based upon what he considers to be the evils that are contained in the social chapter–a document which was issued in 1989 and was referred to in the reply to yesterday’s debate.

From the researches of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), it emerged yesterday in a written answer that he received from a Minister that the social charter has never been presented or published by Her Majesty’s Government in Britain. Is it not the case that that charter, which is at the heart of this debate, has not been published by the Government, is not on the Table of the House, and is not in the Vote Office, so how can we proceed sensibly to consider this matter? Is it not the case that this whole debate is being conducted on hearsay and prejudice without the proper documentation being before the House?

Madam Speaker: We are proceeding today under an Act of Parliament that has already passed through this House.

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that I spent nearly four years in the Whips Office — [Hon. Members :– “Oh.”] During that time, I was instructed not to apply any overt duress– [Laughter.] I will rephrase that, for the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members who are unable to follow the narrative. I was advised not to apply pressure or duress overtly in order to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote one way or another. I tried to obey that advice. Is not the Prime Minister’s reference to the prospect of a general election creating improper pressure on the many Conservative Members whose seats are in jeopardy?

Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I, too, was in the Whips Office, in support of a Government who did not have a majority–and I know all about duress.

The Prime Minister: The House is full of former Whips. At this moment, Britain is uniquely placed in regard to the rest of Europe–a “paradise for investors”, as M. Delors so kindly put it. There is no doubt that Britain–with low inflation, low interest rates, competitive labour costs and competitive interest rates–has the leading edge in the marketplace in Europe. The Government have no intention of throwing away those hard-won advantages, as the social chapter would compel us to do.

The obsession that some Opposition Members have with the social chapter is bizarre. They want more regulation and more social costs just as the rest of Europe is seeking to draw back from extra social costs. France is curbing spending on health and pensions. Holland is freezing social security benefits. Germany is cutting back unemployment assistance and job creation schemes. They are doing so because they realise that Europe must keep all its costs down to compete in the world.

Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about competitiveness in Europe, but Europe must compete with the United States and Japan as well. All across Europe people know that Europe is losing competitiveness at present. Twenty years ago, the unemployment rate across Europe was 60 per cent. of that in the United States. Today, it is 60 per cent. above the United States. That is largely because of the extra costs that we have placed on our businesses, running their competitiveness and damaging their employment prospects.

The Opposition may seek to make gestures and price people out of work, but the Government’s job is to put them back in work–and that is the policy which we shall follow.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): The Prime Minister is making another knocking speech against the social chapter. The reality is that he believes that he can politically survive today only if he threatens his entire party with self-destruction in a general election campaign. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how often and how long such a tactic can be successfully employed?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, with his curious voting pattern on Europe, represents a part of the United Kingdom which has done remarkably well out of inward investment because of our membership of the European Community–a membership which he would have done well to support in the Lobbies last night with the Government. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will have noted how he voted.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. History shows that down the years sordid deals on the Floor of the House have cost the lives of countless people in the north of Ireland. Does not the Prime Minister have a duty today to tell the House what deal he did with the nine Ulster Unionists to buy their votes yesterday, contrary to their manifesto? Will you, Madam Speaker, also ask the Prime Minister to rule that the definition of an honest man is one who, once he has been bought, stays bought?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that those matters are not for me but for debate.

The Prime Minister: I will clear up the matter for the hon. Gentleman so that he is left in no doubt. Nothing was asked for, nothing was offered, and nothing was given. So perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to withdraw his remark. He might also bear in mind that unemployment in the part of the United Kingdom that he represents is very high, as he never ceases to remind the House. He, too, would make it higher, by the way that he cast his vote in the Divisions that we have had.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way–particularly, given his latter remarks, as I am wearing the Anglo-Irish tie. Further to his comments yesterday, which he has just repeated, does he agree that so severe has the recession become in the other European countries that, although no specific proposals for the social chapter have yet been made, when they are published in due course we shall find that they are milder than the social action programme that the Government already accept under the social dimension? May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend what all the fuss is about?

The Prime Minister: I will tell my hon. Friend what all the fuss is about. Once we adhere to the social protocol, it will be there for good– not just for the brief period in which our partners in Europe may be wary about bringing matters forward.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford): Given that the motion deals specifically with the adoption of the protocol on social policy, will my right hon. Friend tell me how we shall be able to go ahead with it when it is expressly excluded by the Act of Parliament that was passed last week but is included in the treaty that my right hon. Friend signed?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend, despite his close study of the matter, has perhaps misunderstood the domestic legislation that we have been examining. If he cares to read it more carefully–perhaps he could take some time to do so before we vote this afternoon–he will understand the whole matter a little better. The Government were elected just over a year ago with the largest popular vote in British history. It was a vote for policies for economic recovery, which we are now getting, for private enterprise, which we will sustain, and for individual freedom, which we are extending.

Mr. John Hume (Foyle) rose–

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have generously given way, and I wish to make some progress.

The social chapter would put much of that at risk. What the electors did not vote for at the last election was the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s policies : increased inflation, corporatism and state intervention, a reverse of trade union reform, and craven compliance and abject surrender in the face of every regulation coming from Brussels. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are only too ready to advance socialism through Europe, never ready to stand up to battle for British ideas and British ideas in Europe.

One whiff of a new regulation, a new burden or a new cost from Europe and the right hon. and learned Gentleman yelps that he wants it too. No doubt as a small boy he was avid for measles and desperate for chicken pox as well. What is more, he says, without these new burdens Britain will become a sweatshop economy. It would be a great help if, during the recess, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would go out into industry and meet some of the people who run it. What would the social chapter do to much of other parts of legislation? Gone, reluctantly and sadly in the minds of Opposition Members, are the days when the trade unions held such sway in this country. They held it to ransom month after month, year after year. Now all they hold is the right hon. and learned Gentleman to ransom, issue by issue–not the Leader of the Opposition, but the trade unions’ glove puppet when it comes to policy. The social chapter would put much of that in reverse gear. The last thing we want is a Government committed to putting union bosses back in the boardroom, and I cannot believe that the House will vote for that.

Many countries in the European Community are now going into recession, and that is where the obsession with extra regulation would put us back as well, just as we have emerged from it. I cannot understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants us to adopt the social chapter when other countries are beginning to realise its costs and burdens. As the president–

Mr. Hume rose–

The Prime Minister: I have given way sufficiently.

As the president of the CBI said in The Times yesterday– [Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not like these quotes from people who understand business but they are going to get them. He said :

“A Commons vote tonight leading to inclusion of the social chapter in the ratified Maastricht treaty would set back the cause of common sense and competitiveness in Europe by several years.”

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will shortly be the first Labour leader to speak to the CBI; perhaps before he goes he should start listening to the CBI, too.

Other countries around the world are beginning to realise the effect of excessive social costs. The chairmen of our leading banks yesterday may it perfectly clear that their concern– [Interruption.] The Opposition do not care. I am talking about the people who run industry and commerce, but the Opposition do not care. They do not mind how many people are unemployed if they can salve their consciences. The chairmen made it clear that people outside, European business men, are

“concerned about the costs and over-rigid labour and social benefit structures in their own countries, and see the social chapter as adding to this problem.”

Only Opposition Members fail to be able to see that.

The choice because the House today could not be clearer. The Government have opened up new opportunities for people with low inflation and for union members to have more say in their affairs, more opportunities for home owners and more opportunities for business to compete abroad. By contrast, the Opposition offer policies of opportunism, not opportunity, at every level. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said last year :

“I do not think we should oppose the Maastricht treaty”, yet that is exactly what he did last night. He claims to be an ardent European. He said:

“I have always believed that Britain’s future lies in Europe, and that we must take a confident and leading role in the European Community.”

So what has the ardent European done in the last year? He voted against Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. He voted against Maastricht in the paving debate; he voted against Maastricht last night. What did he do on Second Reading of the Single European Act, this ardent European? He abstained. What did he do on Second Reading of the Maastricht Bill, this ardent European? He abstained. On Third Reading, the ardent European abstained. Mr. Valiant-for-Abstention–the ardent European. Perhaps, out of sheer habit, he will abstain when we come to the vote this afternoon. Some European, and some principles! As Dr. Johnson said of a man with allegedly good principles, “He does not wear them out in practice”; and neither does the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He wears his principles lightly so that he may discard them whenever convenient.

This country cannot afford to let this stalemate on European policy continue. It is against the interests of government in this country to do so. This House must decide today whether it is prepared to sustain the Government in office or encourage me to seek a dissolution. We did not lightly bring this motion forward, but the matter could not have been left any longer. It has to be decided, and the only way to decide it is to reject the social chapter. If this country were to accept it, it would mean an end to recovery, a return to corporatism, and an end to competitiveness. That is not the way forward for this country, and I hope that the House will decisively reject it.

July 23, 1993
Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Maastricht Treaty – Social Policy Protocol – 22 July 1993

Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made in the House of Commons on the 22nd July 1993 on the Maastricht Treaty – Social Policy Protocol.

PRIME MINISTER:

The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): I beg to move,

That this House, in compliance with the requirements of section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, notes the policy of Her Majesty’s Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.

The debate we have in the House this afternoon is without precedent. After months of discussion, Parliament has passed the European Communities (Amendment) Act with huge majorities. In this House, there was a majority of over 240 on Second Reading and of 180 on Third Reading. In the other place, there was a majority of well over 100 on Third Reading and of 269 in the showpiece vote over a referendum. Rarely in recent history has Parliament shown its will so effectively. Today’s debate is an attempt to frustrate that will. I believe that ratification of the Maastricht treaty is in the interests of this country. I negotiated the treaty because I believed that it was in the interests of this country, and that is why I signed it. That is why I refused to ditch it or to change it, even though there was plenty of opportunity to do so over the past year. Let me set out to the House the reasons why I regard it as vital for this country, for the reasons do not just relate to what is within the treaty itself, but go wider than the treaty and relate to the general position in the European Community.

We took the decision to join the Community–the right decision, I believe–over 20 years ago. From the day we took the decision, across both sides of the House, it has often been a matter of controversy. Sometimes it has been bitter, sometimes it has flared up, and at other times, for a while, it has been quiescent. Always that schism between the parties has rested there, and it has damaged the influence that this country has been able to exercise within the European Community.

Too often, as a result of those divisions within this House and sometimes beyond it, this country under successive Governments–I make no party point –has allowed itself and its interests to be sidelined. If it had not been for those disputes, and if we had been able to play the full part in the Community that I believe we should have done, it might not have developed in the way it has, and many of the concerns that some hon. Members have might well have been dealt with.

In that period, we have had many successes in the Community. The British rebate was a great negotiating success. The single market was one of the greatest changes in the EC since its conception. The reform of the common agricultural policy, the enlargement of the EC–each and every one, in its own way, is a big issue that has affected every aspect of the EC. All of them were British successes.

It shows that we can win the arguments at the European table. Despite that, we have still not exercised the influence that we should have, or shaped the EC in the fashion that was possible.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I wish to deal with serious matters rather than frivolous interruptions at the moment.

Too often over the years, the dominant political attitude has been to object to the ways others have wanted to develop the EC, rather than to set out our plans, our prospects and our hopes and then fight for them to deliver the type of community that is right for this country.

Many hon. Members are right in their opposition to the way in which the EC operates. Some of the ways that it operates need to be changed–I strongly support that. I want to see the EC reformed, as do my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members, but if we are to reform the EC, Britain must have influence in the EC. We will not have influence if we do not ratify the treaty that we have agreed after consultations in the House.

I did not initiate the negotiations. I have made it clear that I thought that they were premature, and I said so to our partners during our negotiations. I did seek to negotiate what I believed to be the best outcome for Britain. I did so within a remit I had obtained from the House, and after seeking the views of Parliament and negotiating within them.

I believe that, as a result of that discussion and debate within the House, it was right for me to decline to accept the social chapter–and the single currency without the express will of the House.

I believe that the events which have followed the conclusion of the negotiations have proved that judgment to be correct. As I have told the House before, in my judgment Europe is not yet remotely ready for a single currency, and the present economic circumstances across Europe mean that it cannot afford the ambitions of the social chapter.

The House and the Government must accept the obligations we entered into and that Parliament approved in the European Communities (Amendment) Act. There is a straightforward self-interested reason for this country why we must do that. If we fail to do that, no British Government will have influence in Europe for many years. Europe is a market of vital interest to our companies, and to this country’s future prosperity and future employment. If we wilfully throw away our capacity to defend our interests and promote our policies in that market, I believe that this country will pay a dear price for that folly in the years to come. I would ask every hon. Member–including some of my hon. Friends–to reflect deeply on that point before they vote this evening.

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber): I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. He has forcefully and clearly made the argument for our remaining within the EC in order to argue our case and develop our position. Surely the same argument exactly applies to the development of social policy. How can this country influence the development of European social policy by opting out ?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government accept that there is a social dimension to the EC. We have the best implementation of the social dimension of any European country. Perhaps if Opposition Members were better informed, they would not talk such rubbish so much of the time.

I know the hon. Gentleman’s affection for Europe, but I say to him that a good European does not accept every piece of nonsense from Brussels just because it has a European label. If we believe that the social chapter is bad for employment–and I do believe that–then it is right for us to argue against it, and to try to persuade our partners to argue against it also.

I believe that that is what we are doing, and increasingly in Europe, businesses and employers are saying what we have said in this country and what I have said from the outset–the charter will destroy jobs across the EC.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister: I should like to make a little progress. I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later.

For the first time in 20 years, we are beginning to see a material move in the European Community agenda in the direction that Britain has long sought. It would be absurd for us to throw away our influence in the Community at this moment. We are seeing enlargement. We are seeing increasing moves towards the repatriation of responsibilities in this country–I hope for concrete progress on that in December. We are seeing proper budget control both within the Commission and right the way across the Community.

The European Community will continue to develop, whatever else may happen. But we need to influence the way of that development and to see that it moves in a way that is congenial to the British interest.

I want a wider European Community. I regard the present Community as but a fragment of Europe. That is why I wish to see the European Free Trade Association countries join, and a little later, our old friends in central and eastern Europe. The wider that we can spread the European Community, with a free market concept not only in economic terms but in military and security terms, the more we shall be able to hand a glorious bonus to the next generation that we should not throw away.

So I want that wider Community–a free-market Community, a Europe with the minimum necessary centralisation, a Europe that exercises more powers through the elected Governments of its member states and fewer powers through unelected commissioners, a Europe in which national Governments exercise undiluted control over genuine domestic policy matters from national elections to our education system, from health care to religion. That is the sort of Community that has been our agenda for a long time, and we are beginning to make progress in encouraging others to support the development of that sort of Community.

We seek a Community that emphasises co-operation between Governments, not imposition from the centre. We seek a Community where member states freely decide the agenda and the outcome. We seek a Community which limits common rules and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to matters such as free trade and free competition, where they are genuinely necessary for any level playing field to be established. That is the Community that we seek to develop and shape.

However, we can do that only from the inside. If we are inside the Community fighting for that with allies elsewhere in the Community, we can build properly in the interests of our future. It is a process that we can take much further as a fully committed member of real influence.

Mr. Benn: I have listened intently to the Prime Minister. Has it occurred to him that he can do the things of which he speaks only if he carries the full-hearted consent of the British people? He has the power through the House of Lords and the House of Commons, with a majority, to force the treaty through and ratify by the prerogative, but he has absolutely failed to tell the British people that they have any role in the matter, any interest in the matter or any right to determine the matter. As a result, he is carrying into the Community the establishment of Britain but not the British people. He will pay a heavy price for that, and so will the Community.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has been a passionate opponent of much of the Community for many years. He has not changed his views, and I respect him for that. He spoke in the House the other day of the rights of Parliament in this House. We are a parliamentary democracy. Decisions such as that to which the right hon. Gentleman refers should properly be taken in the House, and are taken in the House.

I do not want to see either a centralist or a federalist Europe. I mean federalist in the sense in which we refer to it, not in the sense in which other countries refer to it. They mean something different by it. Yet when I say that to some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, they are apt to say to me, “What about this country or that? There are federalist countries in the Community.” That is true. There are. That is why we need influence and allies in Europe to build the sort of European Community we want.

What is the alternative to that approach? To leave the Community? Very few right hon. or hon. Members would go into the Lobby for that proposition, today or any other day. What is the other alternative? To stand aside and let other people run the Community in a way of which we would not approve? That is hardly the right way to exercise influence in the Community.

I have never understood why so many people who claim to be the most pro-British–whichever party is in government–have the least faith in our arguments and our capacity to prevail in the European argument.

Mr. Cryer: This is not a frivolous point. One of the threads of the Prime Minister’s argument is that, unless we become enmeshed more deeply in Europe through the Maastricht treaty, we will not have any influence, and that the differences between political parties are inhibiting that influence.

On one matter there has been consent between all the political parties–the common agricultural policy. It is wasteful, costly and out of control. That has not changed. The reforms that the Government have instituted are costing more. The food mountains are growing ; they are imposed on world food markets and are damaging developing nations. We have not done a thing to change it, and we cannot.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may say that we have not yet gone far enough, and I share that view ; I think that there are further reforms to be made to the common agricultural policy. Which way are we most likely to get them? By standing on the sidelines and throwing stones at the Community, or by being inside, seeking allies in other countries?

There is only one way in which we could find ourselves with the centralist, federalist Europe that we do not want, and that would be to sideline ourselves, through our own efforts, and let other nations determine the future development of the Community. That would be a folly of historic proportions for the country and the House. That is why we need to seek allies in the Community, and why we need to honour our obligations and to ratify the treaty that Parliament has approved.

The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and I do not differ on the importance of the treaty, if he stands by what he said some time ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said :

“I do not think we should oppose the Maastricht Treaty.” We have seen what the right hon. Gentleman has done over recent months, and what he will seek to do this evening. But it is a matter of huge importance to this country that we honour the obligation that we entered into after consulting the House, and then continue to build the Community that we wish to see.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): The Prime Minister emphasised a moment ago that we are a parliamentary democracy. Notwithstanding his own feelings and those of his Cabinet on the social chapter, if the House decides to support the Opposition amendment in favour of the social chapter, will the Prime Minister, as a democrat, accept that resolution and implement it?

The Prime Minister: I expect that the will of the House will be to support the Government. If by some mischance that were not to be the case, we would make our position clear at the conclusion of today’s business.

Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central): My right hon. Friend knows that, for many years, I have opposed the social chapter because of the effect that it would have on companies such as ICI in Stowmarket, which is in my constituency. I urge the Prime Minister to continue to oppose the social chapter as strongly as he can. I will be voting against the social chapter and in support of the Government in the Lobby tonight. [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I hope that the gesture of the hon. Member for Durham Central (Mr. Lord) referred to ICI. ICI is one of the biggest employers in the country– [Interruption.] –and provides jobs in the constituencies of many of the hon. Members who are shouting at me. Its chairman, Sir Denys Henderson, has said :

“The Prime Minister is right to seek ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and, equally, it is vital that he continues to insist on the Social opt-out provision which he successfully negotiated last year.”

That is the view of a business man whose company will employ many thousands of people in the constituencies of many hon. Members who are contemplating voting for the amendment.

Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) rose–

The Prime Minister: I should like to make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

The Opposition amendment seeks to impose the social chapter on us. I believe that it would be profoundly damaging to jobs and growth in this country, as do business men–although, having quoted Sir Denys Henderson, I will not detain the House with a large number of other quotes that I could offer to that effect.

There is no true majority for the social chapter in the House. It is wholly opposed by those who understand the economic damage that it would cause. There is an alliance of Members, for differing reasons, who may seek to come together and vote for the amendment, but it is not an alliance based on any conviction whatever.

My hon. Friends are aware of the deficiencies of the social chapter, yet I know that some of them are tempted to vote for the Labour amendment or against the substantive motion. They do not believe in it, but they have convinced themselves that it will prevent ratification of the Act.

Other hon. Members may have considered voting in a similar way. They, too, know and understand in many cases the damage of the amendment. They do not want more unemployment and they do not want a more centralist Community. I hope that those Members will reflect again on the cynicism of such a vote, and on the damage that it will do to this country.

Parliament is no longer debating the merits of the Maastricht Bill. The Bill is now an Act and, in due course, the treaty will be ratified. What Parliament is debating is whether we should negotiate a new treaty to add Britain to the social agreement. The treaty in the Maastricht Bill–the European Communities (Amendment) Bill–is now law, as the House well understands. Royal Assent has been given to the Act, so the treaty will be ratified. Seventy-one separate votes in favour of the Bill should not be frustrated by one parliamentary motion expressing an opinion to the contrary.

The House knows that to vote for the Labour amendment today is a cynical and unscrupulous vote which does not represent the true will of the House. It is an alliance of different parties with different interests, voting for the same amendment for different purposes. In any genuine free-standing vote in the House, the social chapter would be defeated, as any Member of the House knows. As the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal Democrat party has said : “The social chapter opens the way to European- wide collective bargaining arrangements. They are wrong for this country’s future and contrary to the Liberal party’s belief in decentralising wage bargaining. It is an approach that failed in the 1970s and one that could not work in the 1990s. It is too costly, too inflexible and too rigid”–

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps he would like to know the facts that made me change my mind and support the Government tonight. A manufacturing company in my constituency has interests in Europe but is now considering closing down those interests because the costs imposed by the social chapter, and will be bringing those jobs back into this country and into my constituency. On that basis, my right hon. Friend will appreciate that there was no way that I could support the treaty chapter.

The Prime Minister rose–

Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey): May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his latest convert?

The Prime Minister: I am always delighted to accept a sinner returning home. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) back supporting the Government. The Opposition amendment is a stratagem by an Opposition who have lost their principled concern for the Community. They are seeking solely to embarrass the Government, and a small number of Back Benchers want to obstruct the treaty. Anyone who is concerned with the interests of this country would regard the attitude of the official Opposition as incomprehensible, and that of the Liberal party, given its previous statements, as, frankly, contemptible.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil): Since the Prime Minister has for, if I recall, the third or fourth time quoted my words–incidentally, quoted words that were uttered before the treaty was signed–may I say to him that his speech so far has been a most passionate and, if I may say so, effective statement about why it is important to be inside European institutions helping to shape them, not outside suffering from them.

I do not understand how the speech that he has given so far, which is about being included in European institutions, can be used to justify an opt-out from European institutions. It is entirely true that my party and I have reservations about the social chapter, just as the Prime Minister has reservations about the Maastricht treaty, but he has argued that it is in our country’s interests to be inside the treaty changing them, not outside complaining about them. What applies to the Maastricht treaty also applies to the social chapter. If the Prime Minister genuinely believes that Britain’s interests are served by being within Europe shaping its institutions, why is he recommending to the House that we should be outside complaining and suffering from them?

The Prime Minister: I recall going fishing many years ago when somebody caught an eel. “My,” they said, “look how it wriggles.” Wriggle though the right hon. Gentleman may, the quotes that I have used support my case and not his–as, since the right hon. Gentleman tempts me, does this one :

“The action Labour is taking will prolong Britain’s uncertainties about Europe, delay inward investment, delay sterling recovery and lose jobs. I am not going to vote for Labour for one night of fun at the Government’s expense and ask the British people to pay in more lost jobs.”

Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that or not?

Mr. Ashdown: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman, and his party, believe that. I remind the Prime Minister that, were it not for the votes of our party, there would be no Maastricht treaty before the House. I remind him that our position was then, as it is today, that, if it is a question of ratification of the treaty, there is no doubt where our votes stand, but this is a question of whether Britain shall be inside the social chapter of the treaty or outside. Our view consistently has been that we should be inside, and we shall express that view tonight.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has just made a statement of immense significance, for he and his party were asking earlier about the will of the House. If the Labour amendment is defeated and the main motion is now laid before the House, the only conclusion from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is that he will be in the Government Lobby on the main motion. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, and I invite him to intervene again if he wants to correct me.

Mr. Ashdown: Let me make it clear to the Prime Minister that, if the circumstances he describes arrive tonight, we shall continue to vote to express our wish that the social chapter should provide benefits to Britain and to Britain’s work force, which has nothing to do with ratification of the Maastricht treaty, as the Prime Minister knows full well.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman becomes more ludicrous by the intervention. By that time, the amendment will have been lost. The party that talks about the will of the House, within seconds of having seen that amendment lost, would seek not to vote with the logic of its argument. How like a Liberal. Usually it takes a day for them to change their minds; this time it is rather quicker.

Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. If he thinks back to the story of the young boy fishing, does he recall that not only is an eel “one that wriggles”, but that eels are excessively slippery? [Laughter.]

The Prime Minister: This is becoming more fun than I had imagined.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): Does my hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding what might happen if we were to adopt the social chapter, this country’s experience with the European Community has taught us that it has many ways of destroying jobs? That is shown by the fishing industry, which is practically on its knees, and by the meat processing industry–the latest to be decimated by European regulations.

During all the years that I have run a small business and other firms have come to me with their problems, European regulations have consistently destroyed jobs in this country. The idea that we will be able to control the European Community’s imposition of those regulations on employers in this country is pie in the sky, and the triumph of hope over experience.

The Prime Minister: In that case, my hon. Friend should be in the Lobby against the social chapter this evening. As a small business woman, my hon. Friend will know that 60 per cent. of our exports go to the European Community, and that a massive amount of inward investment comes to every part of this country partly because of our membership of the European Community.

Let me turn directly to the social chapter. Through qualified majority voting–not unanimity–the Community would have the power to determine social and working conditions. The social chapter would allow the Community to restrict part-time work, whether or not we agreed in this House. It could set a rigid framework for rules and conditions of employment, which would replace the rules developed in this country, and few areas, if any, would be exempt. Trade unions across Europe could forge deals and translate them into Community law, over the heads of individual workers and without the involvement of the British Parliament.

Mr. Ashdown rose —

The Prime Minister: I will spare the House another quotation from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). Above all, the social chapter would mean that many who are now employed would be likely to become unemployed. Many without jobs would stay without jobs. The main right that workers would get would be the right to become unemployed.

I strongly support our membership of the Community, but I support a Community which does not intrude into areas that are properly the domain of the member states. That, I believe, is what the social chapter does. There is already concern across the House, not just on the Conservative Benches, at the Commission’s attempts to use health and safety powers for social legislation. We will oppose any abuse of those powers. We shall, if necessary, challenge the Commission’s legal base–as we are doing over the working time directive. In the social protocol, through the opt-out that I negotiated with the consent of the House and a massive majority to do so, I have preserved the right of the House to decide. Yet, in the amendment to the Government’s motion, the Opposition seek to remove that right. They are supported by the Liberal Democrats. On the social chapter, as on defence, value added tax and much else, the Liberal Democrats say one thing and do another. They change their principles from doorstep to doorstep, week to week and issue to issue.

This week, the hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) were both parroting the facile proposition that, without the social chapter, Britain would have a sweatshop economy. Good slogan; rotten argument. The Labour party says it. So does the Liberal party, naturally. That is nothing surprising–they are usually indistinguishable, and usually both wrong.

The truth is that Britain has the best health and safety record in Europe, the best occupational pension scheme in Europe and the best system for caring for vulnerable people in Europe. Rather than talking such nonsense, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should talk to business and learn what he is talking about. Business knows that the Community must compete or contract. If we add to social costs, we will not compete and we shall contract. We shall lose jobs in the short term and the long term. The one certain impact of the social chapter is that jobs will be lost and unemployment will be worse. That is what is at stake.

Is it worth it? Go and ask our industrialists. Will it help them to grow? Will it pay high wages? Will it guarantee jobs? Ask good investors whether the social chapter will attract them to Britain. Listen to the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation, the British chambers of commerce and the Institute of Directors–every single British organisation. They know that playing games on the social chapter is a dangerous game with the British economy. Everyone knows, except Opposition Members who would impose those burdens on British industry and the British work force.

Uncertainty about Britain’s commitment to the Community is damaging to the country. It would undermine our standing, our influence and our national interests. That uncertainty undoubtedly will arise if Parliament does not now implement the Act that we have approved in Parliament. It must clear the way for the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. I believe that the treaty embodies the genuine will of a parliamentary majority, not the will of a coalition of disparate minorities simply to obstruct.

As the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said : “we should not consort with people who are just completely, fundamentally anti the European Community.”

I hope that he stands by that.

During the past few years, Britain has had an increasingly strong voice in the Community. As never before, we have influenced its future direction. So long as we remain a fully committed member, we can have an even stronger voice in the future.

That does not mean accepting everything wanted by our partners. It means being in there in the Community; arguing, debating, shaping the future of our Community and carrying alliances with us. Europe is beginning to move in our direction. In France, in Germany and in Britain, a large majority looks not to a super-state, not to a united states of Europe, but to a Europe of nation states. Those states co-operate closely and enjoy a single market embracing 340 million people, but they retain their identity and sovereignty.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): My right hon. Friend will know of my strong opposition to and reservations about the Maastricht treaty. I have been greatly encouraged by what he has said about how he envisages Europe’s future and the influence that he can bring to bear on Europe from within Europe. In his speech this afternoon, will my right hon. Friend help me by assuring the House and me that this country will not move towards a single currency and return to the exchange rate mechanism as long as he is in power? Will he assure us that we in this country, who are proud of our sovereignty, integrity and place in the world, will be able to continue to have control over our foreign and security policies?

The Prime Minister: I have repeatedly said to the House on a number of occasions that I do not envisage that we shall be able to move towards a single currency–a matter on which the House makes the decisions–in anything remotely like the time scale previously set out. That is increasingly becoming the view of other people. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has said on several occasions, there is no prospect of our returning to the exchange rate mechanism in the near future, as the conditions are simply not right. I do not envisage that they will be right for some considerable period of time.

Britain’s interests demand that we play a leading part in the Community. Common sense demands that we retain the freedom of action which I secured in signing the social protocol. That is why the Government are determined to ratify the treaty I signed and to oppose last-ditch efforts to delay or distort it. It is a matter of national interest that we proceed in that fashion, and it is upon that basis that I ask the House to put aside and reject the Opposition amendment, and to adopt the motion.

July 22, 1993
PMQT Written Answers – 22 July 1993
Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd July 1993.

PRIME MINISTER:

Bermuda

Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Bermuda Government about bringing the law on consensual sexual relations between adult men in private into line with the legislative position in Britain.

The Prime Minister : This is primarily a matter for the Government of Bermuda.

Ministerial Advisers

Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 November, Official Report, column 216, if he will publish the current list of special advisers attached to Ministers stating the Minister they work for, the date of their appointment and the name of their previous employer before their initial appointment as a special adviser attached to a Minister.

The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 July 1993] : There are currently 41 special advisers attached to Ministers. The names of the advisers, the Ministers they work for, the date of the appointment and the name of their previous employer before their initial appointment as a special adviser is as follows :

Name |Minister(s) served |Date of appointment |Previous employer

———————————————————————————————————————————————–
1. Adams |Secretary of State for the Environment |28 May 1993 |Rt. Hon. John Gummer
2. Barnes |Secretary of State for Social Security |3 May 1993 |Boston Consulting Group
3. Blunt |Secretary of State for Defence |15 February 1993 |PI Political Consultants
Sir R. Braithwaite* |Prime Minister |1 June 1992 |Foreign and Commonwealth Office
1. Burke* |Secretary of State for the Environment |10 April 1992 |Green Alliance
2. Caine |Secretary of State for Northern Ireland |17 June 1992 |Conservative Central Office
3. Cameron |Jointly to the three Ministers of State and |21 June 1993 |Conservative Central Office
the Under Secretary of State in the Home Office

Dr. E. Cottrell |Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food |27 May 1993 |Conservative Central Office

Dr. W. Eltis* |President of the Board of Trade |1 January 1993 |National Economic Development Office

Sir C. Foster* |Secretary of State for Transport |1 June 1992 |Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte
1. Fraser |Minister of State for Overseas Development |10 April 1992 |Conservative Central Office
2. Grantham |Secretary of State for Education |11 April 1992 |Westminster Briefing
3. Gray |Jointly to the Ministers for Local |27 May 1993 |GNI Ltd.
Government and Inner Cities; Environment and Countryside and Housing and Planning
1. Green |Prime Minister |1 June 1992 |Business Television
Professor P. Hall* |Secretary of State for Environment |27 May 1993 |University of California

Mrs. S. Hogg |Prime Minister |10 April 1992 |Daily and Sunday Telegraph

Ms S. Hole |Chief Whip |13 April 1992 |Lord Rothschild
1. Kemp* |President of the Board of Trade |28 May 1992 |CDP Nexus Ltd.
Mrs. T. Keswick |Chancellor of the Exchequer |28 May 1993 |Cluff Investments and Trading

Mrs. E. Laing |Secretary of State for Transport |13 April 1992 |Shopping Hours Reform Council
1. Leggett* |Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food |21 June 1993 |National Farmers Union
2. Loehnis |Secretary of State for National Heritage |7 November 1992 |Sunday Telegraph
3. Mackay |Secretary of State for Scotland |8 May 1992 |Pieda plc
4. MacLay |Secretary of State for Foreign and |19 July 1993 |The European
| Commonwealth Affairs
1. Marsh |Secretary of State for Health |21 April 1992 |Conservative Central Office
Ms S. McEwen |Chief Whip (House of Lords) |29 June 1992 |Namara Cowan Ltd.
1. McManus |Secretary of State for Employment |28 May 1993 |Conservative Central Office
Dr. J. Nicholson* |Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster |1 September 1992 |John Nicholson Associates Ltd.

Sir I. Pearce* |Secretary of State for Transport |16 June 1992 |Richard Ellis and English Estates

Lord Poole |Prime Minister |13 May 1992 |James Capel

Mrs. K. Ramsay |Prime Minister |2 June 1992 |Conservative Central Office
1. Rock |Home Secretary |28 May 1993 |Conservative Central Office
2. Rosling |Prime Minister |10 April 1992 |Hanson plc
3. Ruffley |Financial Secretary |28 May 1993 |Clifford Chance
4. Salmon* |Secretary of State for Transport |18 January 1993 |Cuff & Co. Ltd. and Fund Holdings Ltd.
5. Stewart |Lord President |27 April 1992 |Conservative Central Office
Lady Strathnaver |President of the Board of Trade |21 April 1992 |Haymarket Publishing Services Ltd.
1. Swift* |Secretary of State for Transport |18 January 1993 |Barrister
2. True |Prime Minister |10 April 1992 |Public Policy Unit
3. Wilton |Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster |27 April 1992 |Conservative Central Office
4. Young |Secretary of State for Scotland |8 May 1992 |-
* Special advisers fall into two categories, political and those with specialised expertise relevant to their appropriate Secretary of State. The latter are indicated by an asterisk.

Engagements

Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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 this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Olympic Bid

Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister how many times (1) he has met the leaders of Manchester city council to discuss the bid to stage the Olympic games; (2) how much financial support the Government have committed to the Manchester bid to stage the Olympics; and how much money has so far been paid over.

The Prime Minister : I have met the leader of Manchester city council with other members of the bid committee three times to discuss the British Olympic bid; I launched the formal bid document with the committee at Downing street on 17 February; and I have met them informally on a number of other occasions.

Up to £75 million has been made available by the Government for the bid itself and for the construction of key facilities. Of that, some £22 million has been spent to date. If the bid is successful, the Government will ensure that all the necessary facilities are built by a mixture of private and public finances and that the funding necessary to stage and organise the games is provided.

Meetings

Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister when he last met (a) Sheikh Zayed of Abu Dhabi and (b) the Pakistan high commissioner to the Court of St James.

The Prime Minister : I last met Sheikh Zayed of Abu Dhabi on 25 July 1989 when I was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I last met the Pakistan high commissioner on 29 March this year.

Yugoslavia

Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister what pressures Her Majesty’s Government are putting on the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina to attend and fully co-operate with the peace talks in Geneva; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister : We are encouraging the Bosnian presidency to engage in direct negotiations with the other parties under the auspices of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg. We have repeatedly made clear that a lasting and equitable peace can be achieved only by a negotiated settlement freely agreed by all three parties. We will not accept a territorial solution for Bosnia dictated by the Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Bosnian Muslims.

Wild Birds

Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to discuss the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds at the forthcoming United Kingdom/French summit; and if he will make representations to the French Government over the fulfilment of the directive’s protection for migratory birds from netting, shooting and trapping; (2) what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of France concerning the requirements under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds to control the hunting and shooting of wild birds.

The Prime Minister : I am not aware of any proposals by the French Government for the amendment to the birds directive. Nor do I expect the matter to be raised at the meeting between Heads of State currently planned. There have been discussions by EC Environment Ministers on proposals by the Commission to amend annex III of the directive, but no agreement has yet been reached.

Security Service

Mr. Allason : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the directive circulated to former members of the security service regarding the biographer of the late Sir Dick White.

The Prime Minister : There is no authorised biographer of Sir Dick White. Although the Government have recently taken a number of significant steps towards greater openness for the security and intelligence services, they continue to attach the highest importance to maintaining the principle that members and former members of those services are under a lifelong duty of confidence to the Crown in relation to information deriving from their employment.
July 22, 1993
PMQT – 22 July 1993

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd July 1993.

PRIME MINISTER:

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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

Mr. Hinchliffe : Is it not a fact that the Government’s position on the social chapter is totally at odds with the views and real interests of the British people? If the Prime Minister loses the vote tonight, will he do the honourable thing : resign, go to the country and let the people decide?

The Prime Minister : That was a brave stab in the dark at the beginning of Question Time. I think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong about the social chapter. Perhaps I may quote to him what the president of the Council of British Chambers of Commerce in Europe has said of the social chapter that, if it were enacted, it “would result in the closure of many small and medium-sized businesses, creating even higher unemployment”.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to see that in his constituency or any other.

Q2. Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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

Mr. Atkinson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures released yesterday, which show that retail sales are now at a record high level, are good news for British high streets and further evidence that our economy is recovering and that prosperity and confidence are being restored?

The Prime Minister : I believe that it is good news for everyone, not just retailers. Retail sales were up 1 per cent. in June, up yet again to another record level, and have been on an upward trend for more than a year. They follow a run of good economic figures and are further compelling evidence of the fact that we are coming out of recession into recovery, with sharply brighter prospects than many imagined some weeks ago.

Mr. John Smith : Following the collapse of Astra Training Services less than three years after the privatisation of the skill centre network, what do the Government intend to do to clear up the shambles that privatisation has caused to skill training?

The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wholly wrong about the position of skill training in this country and about privatisation. One of the matters that the President of the French Republic will wish to discuss with me next Monday is the success of our privatisation programme, as there are plans to introduce a similar programme in France.

Mr. Smith : Bearing in mind that Group 4 recently delivered a prisoner to a museum instead of a court, does the Prime Minister think that it might be time to review the mania for privatisation?

The Prime Minister : I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like the Government to own everything, control everything and determine everything, but we believe in private enterprise, private ownership and privatisation, which has served this country well. Although the British Labour party does not like it, countries all around the world are following the privatisation trail blazed by the Conservative party in the 1980s.

Mr. John Townend : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government today face two problems–first, the budget deficit and, secondly, over-regulation, much of which comes from Europe and which is destroying many of our small businesses? Will he make an announcement that will help both those problems and announce a reduction of 10 per cent. in the number of inspectors, which would not only save money, but would show that the Government are serious in reducing the burden of regulation on business?

The Prime Minister : I do not have an announcement to make of precisely the sort urged on me by my hon. Friend, but we are looking at regulation–domestic regulation, European regulation and the enforcement of regulation in this country–in order to reduce the burdens on businesses, both large and small. Regulation has got out of any reasonable context, there is a need for action, and we propose to take it.

Mr. Ashdown : Are Her Majesty’s Government prepared to allow the city of Sarajevo to fall to the Serbs?

The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of what I have said to the House on a number of occasions. He may be an enthusiast for putting British troops in the middle of Bosnia ; I am not.

Mr. Devlin : Has my right hon. Friend seen today’s survey by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Lloyd’s bank commercial service review, which show that in 180,000 firms throughout the country confidence and orders are improving, output is up and investment is being generated? Is that not a massive vote of confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’s economic policies?

The Prime Minister : Yes, I have seen that survey and I agree that its message is very encouraging. I am delighted that the good news seems to be shared by both service and manufacturing industries. They have gone to great efforts to shake off the problems of recession. It is now clear that economic recovery is under way–there has been no help from the Labour party, but recovery is nevertheless under way.

Q3. Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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

Mr. Byers : Can the Prime Minister tell the House of any occasion on which a Government have ratified an international treaty against the wishes of the House of Commons? Does he agree that a Government adopting such a course of action would deservedly lose the confidence not just of the House but of the whole country, and would not such a Government rightly stand condemned for acting as an elected dictatorship?

The Prime Minister : On the understanding that the hon. Gentleman is talking about a contemporary treaty, may I say that the Act carrying that treaty into law has been passed with massive majorities on Second and Third Readings, both here and in the House of Lords.

Mr. Spring : When my right hon. Friend meets the French Prime Minister on Monday, will he congratulate him on the launch of the French privatisation programme? Will he assure him that privatised companies are better companies once the dead hand of state control has been removed?

The Prime Minister : I entirely share my hon. Friend’s view, which is increasingly shared by companies, countries and Governments in every part of the world.

Q4. Ms Short : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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

Ms Short : Is the Prime Minister aware that an all-party group of which I was a member went to visit the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation headquarters recently and were told that preparations are being made for the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolution on safe areas, which only requires 8,000 troops and changes in the rules of engagement? That has not been done and Sarajevo will fall. Has not the Prime Minister allowed that to happen?

The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady knows, we have had a substantial troop presence in Bosnia for some time. A large number of other countries said in the past that they may be prepared also to put troops into Bosnia. We have made our contribution. A large number of other countries were signatories to that particular Security Council resolution. I think that it is right for them also to make their contribution to the collective carrying out of that resolution.

Q6. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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

Mrs. Gorman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the social chapter issue is a red herring and that if we sign up to Maastricht the European Court will have the power to impose the conditions on us, whether we vote in this House for them or not, and that therefore those people who do not want the social chapter conditions should vote tonight to try to defeat the ratification of the Maastricht treaty?

The Prime Minister : This is one of those rare occasions when I am unable to share a view with my hon. Friend. I believe that she is entirely wrong and I hope that she will reconsider her position before 10 o’clock. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. Save that for later.

Mr. Patchett : Given that the Prime Minister has informed us of his official engagements for today, can he inform the House of his plans for tomorrow?

The Prime Minister : I am looking forward to tomorrow immensely.

Q7. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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

Mr. Coombs : My right hon. Friend will have seen yesterday’s trade figures, which show that our exports to non EC countries have improved once again and are hitting record levels, and that our trade gap has narrowed for the fourth consecutive month. Are not those figures the clearest possible evidence of the underlying strength of British industry and of the rapidly improving strength of the British economy?

The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend is right, both on the specifics of exports and on the general point. [Interruption.] Exports to non-Community countries were up 15 per cent. last year. [Interruption.] That is a real credit to British industry. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down now.

The Prime Minister : That is a real credit to British industry. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. The House is using up valuable time. Members are waiting to put important questions to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister : I am delighted to see the support for British exporters. British industry is becoming more competitive and I think that British industry can take great credit for it.

Mr. Barron : Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he believes what he says about the social chapter? What do he and his Government believe will happen to this country if we endorse the social chapter? Does he believe that the Governments of the 11 other member states are mad?

The Prime Minister : I do not think that I would put it in precisely that way myself. What I can do is to repeat what the Council of British Chambers of Commerce in Europe has said about the impact of the social chapter. In case the hon. Gentleman did not hear, it said that it would

“result in the closure of many small and medium-sized businesses, creating even higher unemployment.”

That is the view of every CBI employer group across Europe.

Q8. Dame Jill Knight : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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

Dame Jill Knight : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the largest chamber of commerce and industry in the country is in my constituency, which is the centre of a vital industrial area, and that the opinion of the entire west midlands industrial community is that we must stick to the principles that he negotiated at Maastricht and assure the industrial sector that we will not have the social chapter?

The Prime Minister : I think that the business men in my hon. Friend’s constituency share the views of business men right across the country about the social chapter. They know that it would be a serious mistake, that it would add to costs, that it would cost jobs and wreck our competitiveness. It is not a chapter that is of any use to the British at present or in the future and it should not be part of British law.

July 22, 1993
Mr Major’s Remarks at Deregulation Progress Meeting – 20 July 1993

Below is the text of Mr Major’s remarks made at the Deregulation Progress Meeting, held at Number 10 Downing Street on Tuesday 20th July 1993.

PRIME MINISTER:

What I want to do this morning is to review some of the progress that has been made on deregulation over the last year.

I believe everyone in the room acknowledges the importance of that work. Certain regulations undoubtedly, as I am sure John Sainsbury and his colleagues will tell us later, impose substantial extra costs on businesses, and are especially damaging to small businesses. Most of the surveys we have seen of small businesses have indicated very clearly their concerns about the weight and impact of regulations. They have a damaging effect on market entry, and a damaging effect on business generally.

So I want to have a look at that and see, where it is appropriate, whether we are able to remove regulations from business. And I believe it is imperative that we reach a conclusion both that we can do that and that we intend to do that.

We decided last Spring to seek certain outside advice from businessmen and that is why we have such a distinguished range of guests here this morning. Michael Heseltine set up 7 Task Forces to review regulations and to make recommendations as to how we might deal with them. And I am delighted to see John Sainsbury and his colleagues here today and I am grateful to him and them for the work they have done in this respect over the last few months.

There are 4 particular areas that I want us to cover this morning.

First I want to hear from Lord Sainsbury and the Task Force Chairmen about their preliminary findings. I know he is going to focus on how we can make regulations less damaging for small companies.

Secondly, I want to look at the way that enforcement of regulations has become excessive. I think we can and must change this.

Thirdly, I want to look at European regulations. European regulation gets a great deal of harsh comment in the business community and I think much of that is justifiable. We also have to acknowledge that we sometimes add extra regulations to European regulations ourselves and make them even more unpopular. I want to look at a number of specific ways that subsidiarity can prevent future regulation on business.

Fourthly, many people here today have come up with ideas for deregulation. We want to look at some of those and decide how we can embody those in Parliamentary legislation – primary or secondary – in order that we can remove a substantial amount of unnecessary regulations.

We have a great deal to be done and a great deal to cover this morning. What is perfectly clear from the Task Force reports that we have is that there is too much regulation that is damaging business and does need to be diminished. I hope that at the end of this morning’s session we will be able to move towards a substantial Deregulation Bill for the next session of Parliament.

July 20, 1993
PMQT Written Answers – 20 July 1993

Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th July 1993.

PRIME MINISTER:

Stone, Kent

Q7. Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to pay an official visit to Stone, Kent.

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

Council of Europe and WEU

Mr. Ward : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union which has been sent to him.

The Prime Minister : I have done so today.

Engagements

Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 July.

Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 July.

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.

July 20, 1993
PMQT – 20 July 1993

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th July 1993.

PRIME MINISTER:

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 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. Coombs : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that today’s report from the Confederation of British Industry, showing the fastest increase in retail sales for three years, is clear evidence of the recovery that is taking place in our economy? Are not those figures the results of an economic policy that is based on low inflation, low interest rates and falling unemployment?

The Prime Minister : It is a very encouraging report, and the sixth successive increase that retailers have reported. In the past week, we have seen inflation down, unemployment down, manufacturing up and now retail sales up. We have an excellent opportunity to build the lasting recovery that we all wish to see. I do not propose to put that at risk by burdening business with the extra costs that we have spent the past 14 years getting rid of.

Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister accept the opinion expressed by the great constitutional expert, Professor Dicey– [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. These interruptions use very valuable time.

Mr. Smith : I had thought that at least some of the hon. Gentleman and hon. Ladies on the Conservative Benches might have heard of him. Does the Prime Minister accept his opinion that

“the one essential principle of the constitution is obedience by all persons to the deliberately expressed will of House of Commons”?

The Prime Minister : By some time this evening, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will have passed the Lords and Commons and will have Royal Assent. That is clearly the will of the House. Why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeking to obstruct it? Mr. Smith rose– [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. The House will come to order. There is a great deal of nonsense going on. [Interruption.] I shall remove some hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Smith : The right hon. Gentleman has answered a question that was not asked. It is a simple principle : does the Prime Minister accept the will of the House of Commons on whatever subject it is expressed? Can he say yes or no?

The Prime Minister : I might equally ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman–as I just did–exactly the same question, because the clearest possible way to express the will of the House is to pass an Act of Parliament, which will have been done with the Queen’s Assent ratified by the close of business today. I repeat to the right hon. and learned Gentleman : after that Act has received Royal Assent, why is he seeking to obstruct it?

Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that the question before the House on Thursday night is required by the very Bill to which he has referred? Will he tell us whether the Government will accept the decision of the House whatever it is?

The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the House does not support the social chapter. The House genuinely wants the treaty that I signed, and I expect the House to reflect its genuine will in Thursday’s debate.

Mr. John Marshall : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hendon school in my constituency was one of the first schools to become grant maintained? Is he further aware that it is now heavily oversubscribed, and does he agree that what is good for Hendon is good for the country?

The Prime Minister : I think that up and down the country people have indicated that they are in favour of the principle of grant-maintained schools, which have shown that they are very successful. We believe that that choice should be available.

Mr. Ashdown : I understand why the Prime Minister will want time to study in full the Sheehy report on the police, but will he at least dispose of one of its recommendations now? Does he really believe that the battle against crime will be assisted by cutting our already undermanned police force by a further 3,000 as Sheehy recommends?

The Prime Minister : With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he has misread the report. Sheehy does not recommend that. The Sheehy report is independent. We are examining it, and when we have examined it and consulted on it, we will reach conclusions.

Mr. Burns : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Ministry of Defence on placing more than 90 per cent. of its defence procurement requirements with British companies to protect British jobs and British expertise? Will he please use his considerable negotiating skills to impress on the American Department of Defence that it is unacceptable that British companies are stopped by Acts of Congress from competing in the American market for the supply of items such as image intensifiers which are produced in Chelmsford, thus causing unemployment in a company whose product is the best in the country?

The Prime Minister : We believe in free trade and an open market in this as in other things.

Q2. Mr. Roy Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 July.

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

Mr. Hughes : Does the Prime Minister recall his aim of a nation at ease with itself? His Government are imposing 17.5 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel and attacking those who are on invalidity benefit, and now there is a cloud over state pensions. How does he reconcile that contradiction, as a nation can never be at ease with itself when there are such attacks on the underprivileged in society? I suggest that it might have something to do with his family’s circus background– [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. This is Prime Minister’s Question Time.

Mr. Hughes : I suggest that at an early age the Prime Minister was taught to stand on his head– [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. As I have said, this is Prime Minister’s Question Time ; it is not an Adjournment debate.

The Prime Minister : I am afraid that I did not hear the concluding words of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I heard the early part of it. He clearly neglected to mention that last week it was perfectly clear that VAT on fuel was also the policy of the official Opposition and the Liberal party. The official Opposition are still canvassing that. He also neglected in his catalogue many measures that have been taken to help people who are disadvantaged and to reduce tax levels for people on low incomes. Perhaps he should take a more rounded view.

Q3. Sir Roger Moate : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 July.

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

Sir Roger Moate : Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are very much opposed to the Maastricht treaty, but still believe that he scored a great personal and national triumph when he secured the opt-outs from the single currency and from the social chapter so beloved of the Labour party? Quite apart from the costs to industry and the loss of jobs, does he agree that the social chapter would reintroduce the corporatism that did such damage to Britain in the 1970s and before? Will he confirm that he has no intention of ratifying a treaty which contains the social chapter?

The Prime Minister : I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s long- standing views on the European Community and his disapproval of much of the Maastricht treaty. While I do not share his views, I respect the strength and consistency of his feelings. I entirely agree with him about the damage done by the social chapter. It is an unemployment charter which will destroy our future prosperity. It will prevent the creation of jobs. It is a socialist charter and we want nothing of it.

Mr. Hume : In the light of the clear evidence that Lord Tebbit publicly encourages terrorism, which emerged yesterday when he spoke on television advising loyalist paramilitaries in Belfast that if they wanted to achieve their objectives they should bomb Dublin, and when last evening those same paramilitaries bombed the homes of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and two leading members of our party, will the Prime Minister now ask the Home Secretary to implement Government policy, issue an exclusion order against Lord Tebbit and send him to Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister : I think that the whole House knows my right hon. and noble Friend very well. He has suffered violently at the hands of terrorists. All his political life he has been a vigorous opponent of terrorism. I may not share his every view, but I believe passionately that he is one of the strongest opponents of terrorism this House has seen now or at any stage in the past.

Mr. Wells : Will my right hon. Friend take some time to read the leader in the Evening Standard last week which ascribed to his leadership the low inflation, low interest rates and low unit wage costs which are leading Britain out of unemployment and into prosperity?

The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, I believe that our prosperity must be based on a low-inflation economy. It has not been easy to achieve ; there have been many sacrifices made by many people and I repeatedly acknowledge that, but we have the lowest inflation rate for 29 years. We need to sustain it and build growth on that low inflation.

Q4. Mr. Jon Owen Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 July.

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

Mr. Jones : Did the Prime Minister find time to see last night’s “Panorama” programme? If he did, he will have seen disturbing evidence suggesting that dental equipment can transmit the AIDS virus and that in America strong evidence suggests that it has already done so in some cases, and perhaps in many. As The Lancet states that more than 75 per cent. of all dentists in Britain do not routinely autoclave their equipment between patients, is it not time that we regulated and inspected our dentists in order to protect our dental reputation and our citizens when they go to the dentist?

The Prime Minister : The straightforward answer is no, I did not see the “Panorama” programme last night ; nor has the hon. Gentleman’s point been put to me previously. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard about the programme and will be examining its findings.

Common Agricultural Policy

Q5. Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the impact of the 1993 reforms of the common agricultural policy.

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

Sir Teddy Taylor : As Sir Simon Gourlay, the former head of the National Farmers Union, has condemned the common agricultural policy reforms as

“terminal insanity with staggering costs and red tape”, as common agricultural policy spending next year will be £29 billion instead of the £23 billion last year, as the mountain of cereals has broken all previous records, and as the average family is now spending an extra £20 a week on their food, might it be a possible compromise in a difficult week if the Government were to decide to postpone further transfers of sovereignty to Brussels until the common agricultural policy was scrapped or until individual member states could be excluded from it?

The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend is a great expert on the European Community, he will know that breaking up the common agricultural policy would be incompatible with the treaty of Rome and with the completion of the single market. But the Government do believe that the common agricultural policy should reflect to a greater extent than at present the needs of the market, the interests of the taxpayer and the dual role of farmers as food producers and custodians of the countryside. In pursuing those objectives, of course we will listen to what Sir Simon Gourlay and many others have to say.

Engagements

Q6. Mr. Lewis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 July.

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

Mr. Lewis : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reinforce statements that he has made in the past that he will not introduce VAT on children’s shoes and clothing and other zero-rated essentials?

The Prime Minister : When the Leader of the Opposition was asked about his tax proposals some time ago, he said very clearly : “Most Chancellors won’t tell you that. If you ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the range and bands … in his tax Budget he will say, Wait until the Budget’.”

That was the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s advice–the only wise advice that he has ever given the House.

July 20, 1993
PMQT Written Answers – 19 July 1993

Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th July 1993.

PRIME MINISTER:

Gulf War

Mr. Tyler : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to be able to provide a substantive reply to the letter from the hon. Member for North Cornwall dated 18 January about the cases of the three Gulf war widows, Mrs. Lyn Hicks, Mrs. Liz Weeks and Mrs. Anne Lennox.

The Prime Minister : A reply will be sent shortly.

Vietnamese Prime Minister (Visit)

Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister what specific human rights issues he raised with the Prime Minister of Vietnam during his recent visit.

The Prime Minister : At my request, the Minister for Overseas Development expressed our concern about Vietnam’s human rights record with the Vietnamese Prime Minister during his visit to the United Kingdom of 3 to 6 July. We also handed over a short list of specific human rights cases.

Child Migrants

Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 July, Official Report, columns 506-7, if he will make available to the Child Migrant Trust personal record files relating to British child migrants for use in confidence in counselling migrants and tracing relatives in the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister : I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to write to the hon. Member.

Overseas Debt

Mr. Meacher : To ask the Prime Minister how many countries which qualify for relief under the Trinidad terms owe money to the United Kingdom; what is their total debt to the United Kingdom; what proportion of that debt could be (a) wiped-out or (b) rescheduled; and what is the total value of debt which could be (i) wiped out and (ii) rescheduled.

The Prime Minister [holding answer 12 July 1993] : Fourteen of the 17 countries that have qualified for Trinidad terms from the Paris club have debt outstanding to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, totalling £774 million.

Countries receiving Trinidad agreements get debt reduction or debt service reduction equivalent to half the value of eligible debt due over the periods of the agreements. Some £174 million of these countries’ debt to ECGD has been rescheduled under these arrangements, and the equivalent value of the reduction in those countries’ debt to ECGD is therefore around half that figure.

Of the 17 countries given Trinidad terms, only Nicaragua has debt outstanding to the ODA, amounting to some £0.6 million. Seven of these countries–Tanzania, Bolivia, Uganda, Honduras, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia and Mozambique–have already received retrospective terms adjustment–RTA– writing off their ODA debt. RTA has also recently been announced for Zambia and Guyana. These agreements, which are awaiting signature, will write off debt of £55.9 million and £53.4 million respectively.

There are further severely-indebted low-income countries which may qualify for Trinidad terms in future, for example once they have agreed reform programmes with the IMF. The Paris club will also consider giving countries which have Trinidad agreements the equivalent of up to 50 per cent. reduction of the remaining stock of debt, provided they establish track records of debt servicing and economic reform over the periods of the agreements. Under present rules this could produce further debt reduction up to 50 per cent. of the total debt to ECGD then outstanding. But the United Kingdom is pressing the Paris club to go further, in line with my original Trinidad proposals, and give immediate stock of debt reduction of up to 80 per cent. for the neediest eligible countries on a case by case basis. In response to United Kingdom pressure, the recent Tokyo summit asked the Paris club to continue reviewing the question of debt relief for these countries, and especially to consider earlier reductions in their stock of debt.

July 19, 1993
PMQT Written Answers – 16 July 1993

Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th July 1993.

PRIME MINISTER:

Heating Costs

Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his estimate of the (a) average, (b) highest and (c) lowest cost of heating a dwelling in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland for (a) the winter months and (b) the summer months, and indicate in each case the cost for (i) solid fuel, (ii) electricity, (iii) oil, (iv) natural gas and (v) bottled gas; and if he will list the locations in each of the countries which were used for samples to estimate these costs.

The Prime Minister : This information is not held centrally, but the estimated comparative cost of heating two, three, and four-bedroomed homes using different types of fuel and power can be derived from a publication entitled “Comparative Domestic Heating Costs in the UK” published by Sutherland Associates, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister what reply he has given to the letter on the THORP from the Japanese group which visited him on 15 June.

The Prime Minister : A reply will be sent shortly.

Ministers (Directorships)

Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers retain directorships of companies; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 107 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”. No central record is held of such information.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 7 June, Official Report, columns 13-14, when he expects to be able to place in the Library the requested document regarding deaths resulting from the security situation in Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister : The production of a comprehensive list of people killed since 1968 as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, and in related incidents in Great Britain, the Irish Republic and mainland Europe, requires extensive and painstaking research. Information on mainland Europe, which is available only after 1978, and Great Britain is nearly complete and will be placed in the Library in the next fortnight. Work on the remaining information is well advanced, and the completed data will be placed in the Library as soon as they are available.

Yugoslavia

Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the actions taken by the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina which Her Majesty’s Government consider to have fulfilled the requirements of the London conference, and the ways in which they have failed to co-operate satisfactorily with the international community’s peace efforts.

The Prime Minister : The Bosnian Government have been unable to realise the objectives of the London conference owing to the actions of their other parties, in particular the Serbs. The international community has repeatedly made clear that it will not accept a settlement in Bosnia which is dictated by the Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Muslims. We hope that the Bosnian Government will soon be in a position to enter into negotiations with the other parties under the co-chairmanship of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg.

Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the actions taken by the Government of Croatia which Her Majesty’s Government consider to have fulfilled the requirements of the London conference, and the ways in which it has failed to co-operate satisfactorily with the international community’s peace efforts.

The Prime Minister : While we consider that the Serbs bear the main burden of responsibility for the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, we are also not satisfied that the Croatian Government have so far fully met the requirements of the London conference to achieve a peaceful settlement in Bosnia. European Community Foreign Ministers will be considering on 19 July whether measures should be taken against the Croatians so long as they are engaged in activities contrary to the London conference principles.

July 16, 1993