Category: Uncategorized

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Huntingdon – 16 December 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s doorstep interview with the press, in Huntingdon, on Friday 16th December 1994.


    QUESTION:

    What’s your reaction to the by-election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it was a very poor result and I don’t think one can possibly say anything else. It was fought against a very unpromising background indeed in the last month, and I don’t think that the Conservative candidate can have done anything else…… But yes it was a poor result.

    QUESTION:

    How does it make you feel to lose with the biggest swing in political history since the war?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it wasn’t the biggest swing since the war. There have been bigger. There was a much bigger swing against the Labour Party in Bermondsey, for example, some time ago. But I don’t draw very comfort from that. As I say it is a poor result. But I think some good can come out of it. Providing people realise within the Conservative Party that they must pull in the same direction and for the same cause, at the same time, and against the same opponent, then I believe that will dramatically transform the political environment in the United Kingdom.

    There is no doubt that a great deal is going right, economically and in other ways. But that message simply isn’t getting through to people at the moment. It is masked. We must try and whip that mask away and let people see that this country is steadily moving into much more promising economic future.

    QUESTION:

    You say it’s a poor result, other people have described it more as a disaster. What are you going to do about it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think I have just indicated what needs to be done. When one has unpopularity in mid-term there are two things that need to be done. One is that you need to ensure that the policies are right and that those policies are working. Self-evidently, economically those policies are working, not even our fiercest critics would deny that now. The second thing is to make sure that the whole of the party is actually promoting those policies, talking about those policies and not being diverted into other, no doubt, interesting matters. Now that’s what the Conservative Party must do.

    QUESTION:

    What were the critical factors, that you would say, were the voters’ reasons for not voting for you this time?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think they feel the economic recovery yet. People can see that the country is doing much better, but people themselves don’t feel that they and their families are yet doing any better. And I think that they are very upset about that. In due course that will become apparent to them. And I think also that is is scarcely possible to have found a more unpromising background over the last four or five weeks in which to have fought a by-election. A great deal has happened, none of it terribly helpful to the Conservative candidate.

    QUESTION:

    Has the VAT vote given ……. the way they voted?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I dare say there are a range of things that would have had an impact upon the way they voted, no doubt that was one of them.

    QUESTION:

    What would you need to do now to actually get the voters back for maybe the next by-election or certainly for the next general election?

    Obviously they are very unhappy at the moment.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it isn’t a unique phenomenon of course in mid-term. I don’t wish to brush it away or be complacent about it. I am not remotely complacent about it. But by-elections that are very poor for the government of the day in mid-term are not unusual and this has been a cycle that has got progressively worse in every Parliament, I think, since the 1950s. People to tend to protest. It is an unusually volatile electorate at the moment. They do tend to express their feelings very forcibly at by-elections. What we have to do is to show people that we have the right long-term policies and above all that we have got an economic recovery which is going to improve their prospects. And if one looks at what is happening: unemployment has fallen by half a million over the last two years. Now, if we had stood here two years ago after a by-election, everyone would have been asking me questions about when we were going to get employment beginning to rise and unemployment beginning to fall. It is doing, and doing so in quite dramatic terms. Growth is running at a very high level at the moment – 4% – inflation is at an historically low level. I think these things are created in a much happier environment, they make people feel better and show that the country is doing better. But it isn’t yet apparent to them. It will be. But it isn’t yet.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible question]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, the question is showing people what we are doing is in the country’s interest. I believe that what we are doing is in the country’s interest. The whole of the western world has been through a dreadful recession. In this country we have now come out of it in better shape than almost any other country in the world. There is no country in western Europe that has the growth that we have at the moment and that has the combination of rising exports, very low inflation and falling unemployment. Only in the United Kingdom has that happened. Now, that hasn’t yet become apparent to people. They say that they are not concerned at what happens in other countries, and are concerned about the difficulties we have here and I understand that. I certainly understand that. It has been a difficult time for them. But what they wish to see is that their country is doing well, increasingly that is what they are going to see.

    QUESTION:

    When is it going to be apparent?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is already apparent to any people in business. If you talk to businessmen and if you have a look at the export figures for example, our export figures are running at record levels. Many people said when we came out of recession that inflation would rocket – well it hasn’t rocketed. They said that we would have a balance of payments crisis. Well the balance of payments is narrowing. So it is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone in their own household and in their own individual circumstances. They are still worried about employment prospects, even though unemployment is falling. And we’ve learnt in the past that historically this takes time. It takes a while for people to see over a period of some time that things have been steadily getting better. Even as we speak that is happening. And it will eventually become apparent. I can’t say when but it will happen.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 March 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Malaysian Airlines

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the dates occupants of his office, or members of the Cabinet Office, have used the Malaysian airline MAS, for each year since 1985, including this year to date, on official business; and what was the cost of each flight to his Department.

    The Prime Minister : My Office has not used Malaysian airlines for official travel. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in respect of members of the Cabinet Office.

     

    Building Projects

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister what major building projects, valued at over £1 million are being, or have been, wholly or partly financed in (a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Wakefield by the Cabinet Office; and what was the cost of each project to his Department.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Isle of Man

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the Chief Minister of the Isle of Man.

    The Prime Minister : I have not had the opportunity to meet the Chief Minister of the Isle of Man as Prime Minister, and I do not recall meeting him prior to November 1990.

     

    Euphrates River

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what information is available to Her Majesty’s Government about the amount of water taken from the Euphrates and its tributaries and sources by water requirements in (a) Turkey and (b) Syria.

    The Prime Minister : There are a variety of figures available on the quantities of water withdrawn from the River Euphrates and its tributaries and sources, by Turkey and Syria. The following figures are taken from the World Resources Institute report for 1990-91. Within the national boundaries of Syria 4,500 million cubic metres of water per year–MCM/yr– were generated and 4,700 MCM/yr extracted. The figures for Turkey were 28,200 MCM/yr generated and 3,100 MCM/yr extracted.

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what evidence is available to Her Majesty’s Government that draining constitutes the reason why water courses, linked to the Euphrates river, are dried up.

    The Prime Minister : A stretch of 70 km of the Euphrates river is dry. On the evidence available there is no other possible explanation.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 November 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th November 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    UNESCO

    Dr. Spink : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received in the past three months regarding United Kingdom membership of UNESCO; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Since the beginning of August, I have received representations from a member of the House of Lords, four Members of Parliament, the Honourable Hector Wynter of the Caribbean Democratic Union, plus a petition with 99 signatures from the Deal branch of the United Nations Association. All have called for the United Kingdom to resume membership of UNESCO.

     

    European Council

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement on the special meeting of the European Council, Official Report, 1 November, Official Report, column 20, whether the new transparency measures for operation of the Council will include agreement to make public petitions submitted by European citizens to the Council.

    The Prime Minister : There are no formal procedures for petitioning the Council. Letters addressed to the Council by members of the public are passed to the presidency by the Council Secretariat for appropriate action. Article 138d of the Maastricht treaty establishes a right of petition to the European Parliament. It is for the Parliament to decide whether such petitions should be made public.

     

    Cyprus

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he is to have with the Turkish Government on the question of illegal settlers entering northern Cyprus from mainland Turkey following the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government communique on this issue; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting communique covered a number of aspects of the Cyprus dispute, including the question of settlers from Turkey, and called for the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. We take every suitable opportunity to reiterate to the Turkish Government the need for all parties involved to adopt a constructive attitude.

     

    Professor R. V. Jones

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from General Doyle Larson of the Central Intelligence Agency in relation to Professor R. V. Jones.

    The Prime Minister : I have received no such representations regarding Professor R. V. Jones, though I welcome the decision by the Central Intelligence Agency to recognise his outstanding achievement in the field of scientific intelligence.

     

    Joint Intelligence Committee

    Mr. Cousins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the dates on which the Joint Intelligence Committee met (a) between 31 May 1989 and 1 August 1990 and (b) between 1 November 1991 and 1 April 1992.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the booklet on the “Central Intelligence Machinery” published by HMSO on 1 October, which states that the Joint Intelligence Committee is responsible for producing a weekly survey on intelligence. The committee meets each week for this purpose. It did so throughout the periods cited except for two weeks during each of the Christmas-new year breaks at the end of 1990 and 1991. I do not propose to list all these meetings individually.

     

    Mr. Mohammed Hashemi

    Mr. Byers : To asks the Prime Minister on how many occasions since December 1990 Mr. Mohammed Hashemi has attended functions or meetings at 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister : As far as I am aware, Mr. Mohammed Hashemi has not attended any functions or meetings at 10 Downing Street since December 1990.

     

    Conservative Party Conference

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, (Mr. Betts) of 18 November, Official Report, column 57, what factual briefing was provided by civil servants for his speech to the Conservative and Unionist party conference in Blackpool.

    The Prime Minister : In preparing for this speech, I drew on factual information already available in my office, and on other sources.

     

    House of Lords

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now bring forward proposals to reform the Second Chamber.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Official Secrets Act

    Mr. Allason : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2 November, Official Report, columns 90-91, what permission is required under section 1(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 for former officials to publish memoirs; on what dates that permission was applied for by (a) Mr. Desmond Bristow and (b) Mr. Brian Crozier; and what rights have been reserved by the Crown with regard to legal action in each case.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will shortly be writing in response to the hon. Member’s letter of 26 October to the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about Mr. Bristow and Mr. Crozier. That reply will take into account the points now raised.

     

    Telephone Sex Lines

    Dr. Spink : To ask the Prime Minister what action he is taking to discipline those who use Whitehall telephones to make 0898 sex line calls at public expense; and what action has been taken to stop these calls.

    The Prime Minister : Unauthorised use of official telephones is a disciplinary matter which is dealt with under normal departmental disciplinary arrangements. These disciplinary arrangements are set out in the “Civil Service Management Code–Rules of Code and Practice.”

    Central guidance recommends that Departments take action to bar outgoing calls to certain destinations, including recorded information line numbers. Call barring and call logging have already been implemented on many Government exchanges. Central guidance on these matters will be strongly reinforced in the light of the recent National Audit Office report on the management of telephone services.

     

    Prime Minister’s Office

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister how many staff were employed in his Prime Ministerial offices, and in what categories of work, in 1989-90 and at the latest available date.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 November 1993] : The information is as follows :

    |1989 |1993

    —————————————————————————————————-

    Private Secretaries, Appointments and Honours |19 |21

    Policy Unit |10 |13

    Press Office |8 |10

    Filing, Records, Correspondence and support staff not included in the above |31 |37

    Messengerial support grades |N/a |<1>26

    |——-|——-

    Total |68 |<1>107

    N/a Not available.

    <1> As a result of delegated budgetary arrangements, 26 support grade staff who were on the Cabinet

    Office central budget in 1989 have been transferred to the No. 10 budget and manpower count.

     

    Press Office

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister how many people were employed in the No. 10 press office in 1979, 1989 and the latest available date.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 November 1993] : Including secretarial/typing support, the figures are :

    |Numbers

    ————————

    1979 |8

    1989 |8

    1993 |10

     

    Government Car Service

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister what changes took place in the allocation of charges to his office by the Government car service in 1984-85; and what is the latest annual cost.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 November 1993] : In 1984 -85 arrangements were introduced for charging my office direct, in common with all other users, for the use of the Government car service. Previous to this, the cost of this service was met from central funds. The charge to my office for the use of the Government car service in 1992-93 was £469,747.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 June 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th June 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Correspondence

    Ms Ruddock : To ask the Prime Minister when the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, can expect to receive a reply to her letters of 8 February, 31 March and 4 May regarding the concerns of her constituents, Paul and Elisabeth Towlson.

    The Prime Minister : Shortly.

     

    Public Expenditure Review

    Mr. Dewar : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects the current review of public expenditure being carried out by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to be completed.

    The Prime Minister : We expect to complete the reviews by the end of this Parliament, although preliminary conclusions from the first four reviews of social security, health, education and home affairs should inform this year’s public expenditure survey.

     

    India

    Mr. Llwyd : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he made and what assurances he received on human rights from the Indian Government during his visit to the country in January this year; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I raised British concerns about human rights with the Indian Prime Minister. He assured me of his Government’s commitment to respect human rights and determination to take firm action against wrongdoers. He also confirmed that he would be introducing legislation in the spring session of the Indian Parliament to set up an independent Human Rights Commission. This legislation was tabled on 14 May.

     

    Allivane International

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received since January 1991 on the role played by Allivane International in exporting arms and military equipment to Iran.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations from the hon. Member and from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) since January 1991 on the role of Allivane International in exporting arms and military equipment to Iran. Allegations about illegal exports by this company were investigated by Her Majesty’s Customs in 1987-88. No prosecution was begun.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

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

     

    Overseas Visits

    Mr. Sedgemore : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions the procedure of paragraph 74 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” has been invoked in relation to official visits overseas; and at what total cost for the latest available year.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 14 June 1993] : The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1993 Conservative Central Council – 6 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1993 Conservative Central Council meeting, held in Harrogate on 6th March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yesterday this Conference paid its tribute to Nick Ridley.

    He was an original. A one-off. And whatever he did he faced the world square on and never once flinched.

    The Commons was the poorer when he left it. And the Party is the poorer for his loss.

    Mr Chairman, in the last two years events have thrown at this country everything they could.

    Abroad – we’ve had the Gulf War, the Yugoslav war, a world recession that gets worse abroad as it gets better here. There have been plans from Europe that we’ve had to water down or reject. At home we have had our share of world recession, a difficult general election, and conflicts on Europe that strike deep at the instincts of many in our Party.

    Mr Chairman, on these issues it’s right that we should have vigorous debate. When people feel strongly they should express their views. Argue their case. Fight their corner.

    But once we have taken our decisions on how to proceed, then I believe we should all support those decisions. The British people put us back in power to carry on with the full range of our policies. They gave us five years to beat inflation, create growth and jobs, improve choice, fight crime and maintain the unity of the United Kingdom.

    Mr Chairman, that is what I want to see this Party and this Government do. And I want to see us do it now – and I want to see us do it together. It is in difficult times like these that the Conservative Party most needs to be united – and to stay united.

    At the last election we had one of the biggest leads in votes ever recorded. But only a 21 seat majority – now, sadly, for the moment only 20. So these are difficult days. We no longer have a cushion of 100 seats, and those who want us to be successful know what that means. Let me say it bluntly – disunity is a luxury we cannot afford.

    Mr Chairman, none of us should forget the scale of the responsibility placed upon us. On April 9th last year, 14 1/4 million people turned to us – people of all ages, all walks of life, from all corners of Britain. Every one different. Each with their own personal hopes and fears. They all trusted us with the hard job that lay ahead.

    We must live up to that trust. That does not mean responding to every short-term whim. It does not mean avoiding difficult decisions. It does mean holding fast to the long-term course that will bring us prosperity, growth, and jobs, even in the teeth of short-term difficulties.

    Those short-term problems have often caught the headlines. But they have not prevented progress towards our long-term objectives. So let me put it all in perspective. Let me remind you of what we have done in the last eleven months – smack in the middle of a world recession.

    I’ll start with the Health Service. Remember what Labour said about health. They said if we won it would be the end of the Health Service. One year on, we have more National Health Service Trust hospitals and more GP fundholders providing better care to more patients than ever before.

    The end of the Health Service? One year on, it’s not the NHS that’s falling apart; it is Labour’s scares that have fallen apart. Remember that truly disgraceful election broadcast? That was the one in which Robin Cook predicted the end of the NHS. Well today the Health Service is moving on – and Robin Cook has been moved on. Out on his Jennifer’s ear – and deservedly so.

    As hospitals have become self-governing – running their own affairs – so have schools. Over 500 have chosen the new freedom to become Grant Maintained. They have moved out of the hands of local authorities and into the care of governors and parents.

    And we’re promoting subject teaching in primary schools – so much more important than vague topic work and generalised themes. So it’s maths, geography, science and history lessons. And putting emphasis right from the start on standard English and on the 3Rs.

    That, Mr Chairman, is the right Tory agenda – and we have put it in place in the first year. We’re supporting good teachers and putting the spotlight on the bad. Publishing the exam results of every school.

    Mr Chairman, those results should never have been hidden in the first place. Now we’ve brought them into the open. And they will never be hidden again.

    And, one more thing, Mr Chairman. When we talk of publishing the facts, I must say this to those teacher unions that are threatening to boycott tests – you are wrong. Life is a test. You do pupils no good by hiding them from reality.

    To teach children what they need to know, we must find out what they don’t know. Tests are an essential part of good schooling. Tests are here to stay. And I hope the teacher union leaders get that message loud and clear from this Conference. And, before I leave education, here’s something for the history books.

    By 1996 nearly a quarter of a million extra students will be in college – the biggest expansion ever. And when they are there they won’t have to join the activities of the National Union of Students – because we are ending the NUS closed shop.

    That’s the right Tory agenda – and all in the first year. And it is not only the NUS monopoly that is going – remember Neddy, that hangover from the 1960s, that corporatist relic?

    Well, that’s gone, too. Unlamented. We have scrapped it. And not before time. We are giving new freedoms to members of Trades Unions. And new powers for every individual to act in court to stop wildcat strikes. All part of the right Tory agenda – and in hand in the first year.

    And the Tory programme to promote ownership is rolling forward, too. We have introduced a new incentive for personal pensions. One that will help millions enjoy their retirement in comfort and security.

    In housing, we are back on course for the home-owning democracy. We have a new scheme to help tenants become homeowners by treating rents as mortgage payments. We’re giving leaseholders the right to buy their freeholds. And later this spring Michael Howard and his team will launch a new campaign to spread the Right to Buy.

    That’s the right Tory agenda – this Government’s agenda. Never mind the news – that’s the reality.

    All that sounds like a full menu for a full Parliament. Yet all I have done is to give you a selection of starters. Your starters for 5, 10, 20 years, years in which we will indeed – build a stronger and better Britain.

    Fine words, you say. But fine words butter no parsnips. What about jobs? I know that the main thing so many people seek above all is a worthwhile job. That is why, from April, we will have in place the most comprehensive package to help people back to work that we have ever seen in Britain: youth training, Training for Work, Restart, Job interview guarantees, business start up schemes. Schemes that will help up to 1 1/2 million of our fellow citizens keep in touch with the world of work.

    And those schemes all have one thing in common. Every one was opposed by the Labour Party. How can they defend that? They call for help for unemployed people and then vote against it.

    We want our training schemes to lead to full-time jobs. It’s permanent jobs that people want. The only way to get people permanently back to work is to help the economy grow. To improve our skills. To promote our exports. To widen our manufacturing base. And to make it worthwhile to start new companies.

    That’s the road back to jobs. Permanent jobs. Jobs with prospects. And that’s the road we are travelling. The outlook for our economy is good. Interest rates down. Inflation down. Strikes down. Manufacturing productivity up. Retail sales up. Exports up. That’s what’s happening. And that’s the way back to work for Britain. The only way.

    The prospects for the Nineties are good. It’s been slow, frustratingly slow. But we are on our way. And don’t just take it from me. Over the next two years Britain is forecast to have the highest rate of growth in Western Europe.

    If we have confidence in ourselves others will have confidence in us. And when confidence grows jobs must follow. Some people still haven’t quite grasped the progress we’ve made.

    So let me put this way. 1954 – that’s 39 years ago, the year Roger Bannister ran the 4 minute mile – that was the last time the January inflation rate fell to 1.7%.

    And 1956 – 37 years ago, the year Jim Laker took 10 Australian wickets for 88 at the Oval and, no, drat it, I wasn’t there! – that was the last time mortgage rates for first time buyers were as low as they are, now.

    So, for goodness sake, let’s not belittle what we’ve done. Let’s not run our prospects down. Let’s leave that to the Labour Party. Day after day they attack us for ‘talking the economy up’. What a crime. What a dreadful thing to do. Trying to instill confidence.

    Well, it’s about time we got after them for talking the economy down. When did you last hear John Smith say a good word about Britain?

    And another thing, is there anyone here who’s ever seen Gordon Brown smile? No one. I thought not. Is there anyone anywhere who’s ever seen Gordon Brown smile? Is there anyone who wants to see Gordon Brown smile? And by the way, has anyone yet seen Gerald?

    Mr Chairman, there’s something else that is absolutely crucial to business confidence – the certainty that Britain will help determine policy in Europe, and not be dragged along behind a policy made by others. We should remember what we have achieved for Britain in Europe this year. We have every right to be proud of it.

    We have completed the biggest free trade area the world has ever seen. We have reformed the Common Agricultural Policy after years of squabbling. We have put a ceiling on EC spending right until the end of the century. We have opened up the Community to new members. And we are changing the course of Europe – away from centralism and returning powers to member states.

    That is the classic British agenda for Europe. It is not the federalist agenda. On crucial issues we are making sure the final say sits where it should be – right here in Britain. So let’s not fear the future in Europe. Let’s go out and shape the future of Europe. Shape a market of 340 million, where businesses can compete, export and invest wherever they like – where future generations will have opportunities we never dreamed of to work and to travel.

    And we must shape a wider Europe. That’s what we decided at Edinburgh – to bring in new member nations, first from Scandinavia and later from central Europe. And we won agreement – against all expectations – that our old friends, the Poles, the Hungarians, and the Czechs would eventually join us.

    Do you remember how as the Iron Curtain fell we welcomed them to our Party Conference two years ago? Well, we are still working on their side. And now – in time – we look forward to them joining the European Community, too – as a result of our influence.

    The present Community is but a fragment of Europe. Our long- term vision is a Europe without trade barriers, a vast continent of free democracies, from the Urals to the Atlantic and from the Baltic to the Mediterranean.

    A Europe full of trade and free of war. We won’t achieve that speedily – but isn’t that what we should work for for future generations? So let me tell you what’s at stake. I know the concerns and passions aroused by arguments over our future in Europe. I see them in the House of Commons whenever we debate the Treaty of Maastricht.

    I understand the instincts and the patriotic feelings that motivate many in our Party who have doubts about the Treaty. I understand, and share, their pride in Britain’s great past. But we have to build a great future. So let me tell you, clearly and frankly, that I believe the fears of those who resist our European policy are mistaken.

    Mistaken because they underestimate what we have achieved in our negotiations in Europe.

    Mistaken because they have failed to focus on our wider vision of Europe.

    Mistaken because if we step aside from what we have agreed there would be an enormous economic price to pay.

    There would be an immediate blow to economic recovery. International investors, who have poured money into Britain, £100,000 million in the last five years, would turn their backs on us.

    Those investors want access to the European market. And if we sidelined ourselves they would no longer be certain that that would be the case. That is why the price of standing aside from the agreement we freely made would be heavy. As Douglas Hurd told you yesterday, it would be £50 billion off our national production over the next five years. I wonder how many jobs that would cost?

    And then there is that Social Chapter – another threat to jobs. Surely no-one in this Party – for any reason – would give houseroom to that. Where we want to be is on the inside track to prosperity, and outside the grasp of bureaucracy and socialism. Inside Europe and outside the Social Chapter.

    I know our Party. I cannot believe that anyone, when they have considered all the facts, could want to let slip those opportunities before us.

    Let me tell you what I believe. To do so would be to take a conscious decision to become irrelevant in Europe. That would be a decision not only for our time, but for our children’s also. It would be the surest possible way to impoverish our country and damage our standing in the world – almost beyond repair.

    So let us put aside the fears and hesitations that hold our Party back. We may have our differences. But they are as nothing to the things that unite us.

    So let us take the chance we have today – to mould Europe in our own image. Don’t let us shirk that challenge. In a thousand years of history we never have. And we must not now.

    Mr Chairman, I want British industry to win not just in Europe, but around the world. I want a different attitude to industry at every level in this country. I want people to see that making things matters. I want more that matters to be made in Britain.

    Our exporters need to know that the Government supports them. And where we can help to open doors and free up markets we will always do so. That’s why in the Autumn Statement we committed £700 million extra to help British companies win new orders. And when our businessmen travel abroad I expect all our embassies to work with them. Cultural exchanges are fine – but I want export deals as well.

    Mr Chairman, exports are booming. Leaving the factories faster than journalists leaving the Daily Mirror. Mirror, mirror, on the wall – are there any journalists left there at all? In the battle for exports I want Government out there in the field foursquare behind our businesses.

    A few weeks ago, I spent the morning in India, lunched in the desert in Oman, and had dinner in a palace in Saudi Arabia. And that day, as a result of months of effort by business and Government working together, we won orders for British goods worth billions and safeguarded thousands of jobs. These days there are no easy exports. The world is too competitive for that. More competitive than ever before.

    Those countries that once were captive markets are now manufacturing themselves or challenging us as rivals. The countries on the Pacific Rim have developed massive industries of their own. China is set to become a huge manufacturing power in the century to come. Against that background, we need to help British companies carve out a bigger place for Britain. But before we export, we have to manufacture. And we have to manufacture quality.

    That’s why we need to build up craft skills and practical training in every part of Britain. End once and for all that senseless prejudice against the best of our brains going into commerce and industry. That prejudice is damaging – and we can no longer accept it.

    Mr Chairman, by helping business I don’t mean artificial subsidies to industries. I mean setting the right economic structure for business. I mean pursuing the right policies for business. I mean having the right curriculum in our schools. I mean reforming vocational training. I mean lifting burdens from the back of businesses.

    Of course, we need some regulations. But there are people in Brussels, in local councils and, yes, in Whitehall who seem to have a mania to hold back the future in a mesh of pettifogging detail.

    So I have told every Department of State: scrap unnecessary regulation. It’s a simple message. Red tape means lost jobs. And that doesn’t only apply to large companies like ICI. It applies to the smallest businesses and local services too.

    You know what I mean. Health and safety enthusiasts bent on eliminating every conceivable – and inconceivable – risk. Local councils badgering good nursery schools when they’d be better employed helping them.

    The food safety people who tell us that what we’ve been eating for generations will certainly kill us if we don’t stop instantly. Well we’ll certainly die a good deal sooner if we do stop eating instantly. Mr Chairman, it’s all gone way over the top. Well, I’d rather it went in the bin.

    Isn’t it barmy? Would Drake have been in time to meet the Armada, and would Nelson have made Trafalgar, if an inspector had been on hand to say ‘Hold everything – we haven’t checked the ship’s biscuits!”

    Mr Chairman, I said earlier that one of the reasons we were elected was to keep up the fight against crime. Vandalism; burglary; car theft. Crimes against property; crimes of violence; crimes involving drugs.

    The fear of crime lies deep in the instincts of law-abiding people. They find it hard to understand how others move outside the law, careless of the interests of their neighbours, preying on the property of others, even threatening their lives. I said last week that we need to understand less and to condemn a little more. That was not a simple cry for retribution.

    My point was this. Unless society sets rules and standards and enforces them, we cannot be surprised if others flout them. It’s true we mustn’t exaggerate the problem. Compared to many others in the world, Britain is still a safe country.

    But those who point to that and say ‘do nothing’ are wrong. I say to those people: even if the problem here is smaller, it’s still far too big. And every single victim of crime in this country will agree with that.

    That’s why this Government has done so much to step up crime prevention and crack down on crime. There are too many violent offences – that’s why we have increased penalties against them, especially for those thugs who go out carrying firearms.

    There is too much drug dealing – that’s why we’ve taken powers to confiscate the assets of those who sell drugs and wreck the lives of young people. There have been too many lenient sentences – that’s why we’ve given the Attorney General power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal. And one final example – it is intolerable that some offenders charged with a crime go out and commit another while they’re on bail. I want to see those further offences reflected in the sentences they receive.

    Mr Chairman, there can be no doubt about where this Party stands in the fight against crime. And no doubt about the support we have given to those who fight it. We have given our police forces better pay and more resources than any Government in history. Now we must help them get even better results in everything they do. That is why we are now reviewing the effectiveness and the organisation of British police. I want our police to the most modern and the most efficient crime-fighting force in the world.

    Mr Chairman, the issue of crime runs deep. To catch and to punish is to deter. But we want to prevent crime too. So we must go to the roots of why some young people do what they do. Too many children have been denied the proper guidance they need in their own homes and schools. Of course, the authority of the family comes in here.

    And, yes, the churches – they may have a legitimate role to criticise, but they certainly have a role to play. And there’s another factor that goes right home in every sense. And that’s too much violence in videos and on television. What we watch is the single biggest influence on many people’s thinking.

    We’re an open society. We can’t censor television. But we can say to parents – control what your children watch. And we can say to those who make and distribute films and videos – think whether a relentless diet of violence won’t have a serious effect on the young. And we can say to television programmers – don’t just be careful when you show it, be careful what you show.

    Mr Chairman, Government alone cannot change behaviour. Concepts of right and wrong are something for all of us. But there are some things Government can do – and we will.

    First, truancy. It is stark staring obvious to me that if children are staying out of school, they are not learning what they should be and they are probably learning what they shouldn’t. For too long the facts on truancy have been hidden by a conspiracy of silence. So from this autumn in our new league tables we will make all schools publish openly their levels of attendance.

    We will find out where the problem is worst. We’ll target it and tackle it. I want our children in class. Not in trouble. And, Mr Chairman, we are taking another step. This morning Ken Clarke told you about his new proposals to set up secure centres for that hard core of youngsters who go on offending and reoffending, devoid, it seems, of any sense of fear or guilt about what they do.

    Some say we shouldn’t respond. They say it’s a relatively minor concern. I don’t agree. I say that not to respond would be a double dereliction of duty. A dereliction of duty to the public at large. And, worse, a dereliction to those children. Because we let children down if we don’t set boundaries and enforce them. For their own good and for the good of their communities we must take those persistent young offenders off the streets.

    It is a clear-cut idea, carefully worked up over these last few months, targeted directly at an obvious gap in the law. How strange – but how very revealing – that in a matter of minutes it was condemned out of hand by the new model Labour Party. When I heard that, it sounded just like the old unreconstructed Labour Party to me.

    When the test came they failed it – so let’s give them another chance. We’ll set them another test. Eleven times in all Labour have voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I find that unbelievable.

    And so, I suspect, do the people in the battle against terrorism who are putting their lives on the line to protect the lives of others. Terrorism is the biggest crime of all. So for Labour let it be the biggest test of all. So no hedging, no weaving, no messing about. Let them vote with us next week – or pipe down about crime.

    Mr Chairman, I’ve reminded you of some of the things we have done in these last few months – and set out some of our plans for the future. As always this Party is a reforming Party. And as a nation we need to reform. Because we live in a rapidly changing world. Change can be frightening. We must manage it carefully. Nurture it to our national advantage. Our watchword is – to hold on to the best of the past and to create the best for the future.

    Mr Chairman, last March it was at this Central Council that we launched the General Election campaign – the election that no-one thought we could win. We took our message to every part of our country. It was the roughest, toughest campaign for years. But we won it.

    And how did we win? By sticking to our principles. By keeping our nerve. By standing together. And, above all, by staying together. United. That’s how we won – and that’s a lesson we must never forget.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd February 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    India

    Ms. Walley : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had during his visit to India concerning human rights abuses in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I raised British concerns about human rights in Kashmir with the Indian Prime Minister. He assured me of his Government’s commitment to respect human rights and determination to take firm action against wrongdoers.

     

    Democracy

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward proposals for an elected second chamber.

    The Prime Minister : No.

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s progress towards improving democracy in the United Kingdom since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : We have implemented policies approved by the electorate in four general elections.

     

    Lord Chancellor’s Powers

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward a transfer of functions statutory instrument under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 to transfer the legal powers of the Lord Chancellor to a Secretary of State for Justice in a Department of Justice; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Transfer of Functions Orders

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1975 Her Majesty’s Government have used transfer of functions orders to abolish, create or amalgamate Government Departments.

    The Prime Minister : Twelve. They are :

    1976/1775 Established the Department of Transport

    1979/907 Created the Office of Arts and Libraries

    1979/1451 Dissolved the Ministry of Overseas Development

    1981/207 Office of Arts and Libraries merged with Department of Education and Science

    1981/1670 Civil Service Department changed into Management and Personnel Office

    1983/879 Office of Arts and Libraries became a separate Office

    1983/1127 Departments of Trade and Industry amalgamated into Department of Trade and Industry

    1987/2039 Management and Personnel Office changed into Office of the Minister for the Civil Service

    1988/1843 Department of Health and Social Security split into Department of Health and Department of Social Security

    1992/1311 Department of National Heritage established

    1992/1314 Department of Energy dissolved

     

    Family Policy

    Ms. Walley : To ask the Prime Minister what action he proposes to co-ordinate family policy across those Government Departments actively concerned with family policy.

    The Prime Minister : We already have proper and adequate co-ordination of family policy across Government Departments. There is frequent consultation between Departments about a range of issues which touch upon the family. In addition an interdepartmental working party–the family law and administration working party–oversees a rolling programme of work directed at improving family law and business.

     

    Moscow (Communications)

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the discussions between his security officials and Russian officials over the installation of a secure communications line to Moscow during his recent visit to India.

    The Prime Minister : Given the close proximity of the two visits and the fact that we were both staying in the President’s residence, it was necessary to discuss Mr. Yeltsin’s communications requirements with both the Indians and the Russians. Arrangements acceptable to all concerned were agreed.

     

    Intergovernmental Conference

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for submission to the 1996 intergovernmental conference.

    The Prime Minister : It is too early to say. The first priority is to ratify the Maastricht treaty and put it into practice. Then we will be able to build on the gains won at Maastricht–subsidiarity, inter-governmental co-operation, codification of competences–in the years between now and the next treaty revision.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

    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.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 November 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd November 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    South Africa (Plutonium)

    Mr. Dafis : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Government of the Republic of South Africa concerning the transport of plutonium by sea from the proposed thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Subsidiarity

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) of 22 October, Official Report, column 358, if he will take steps to distribute widely throughout the United Kingdom the paper on subsidiarity prepared by the European Commission once it has been submitted to the Council of Ministers.

    The Prime Minister : The Commission’s paper on subsidiarity will be deposited today in accordance with the usual procedures. There are no current plans for wider distribution.

     

    Political Advisers

    Mr. Hutton : To ask the Prime Minister how many political advisers are in post in Her Majesty’s Government; in what department they are in post; and what is the total salary bill of such posts.

    The Prime Minister : There are currently 30 special–political–advisers to Ministers employed in the civil service. The number in each Department is as follows :

    |Number

    ———————————————————-

    Cabinet Office (including No. 10) |8

    Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food |1

    Ministry of Defence |1

    Department of Education |1

    Department of Employment |1

    Department of the Environment |2

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office |2

    Department of Health |1

    Home Office |2

    House of Lords |1

    Northern Ireland Office |1

    Privy Council Office |1

    Scottish Office |2

    Department of Social Security |1

    Department of Trade and Industry |1

    Department of Transport |1

    Her Majesty’s Treasury |2

    Welsh Office |1

    The approximate current total salary bill is £1,188,742.

     

    Departmental Staff

    Mr. Hutton : To ask the Prime Minister how many staff are employed in his Office; and what was the cost of running his Office, broken down into salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs and the cost of office services in the current year.

    The Prime Minister : There is the equivalent of 85.5 staff employed in my office. The cost of running my office in the last financial year was £8,816,949.

    The costs break down as follows :

    Salaries and wages–£2,236,699.

    Notional pension liability–£259,967.

    Administration costs–£5,670,868.

    Office services–£649,415.

    Grant in aid to the Chequers trust is included in the figures. My salary is excluded.

     

    Putting Britain First

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the practical consequences for Government policies of his commitment to put Britain first.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 29 October 1992] : The Government have always put Britain first in their policies and will continue to do so.

     

    Industrial Diseases

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister when the report from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council into bronchitis and emphysema in metal workers and coal miners will be published; if he will set out the responsibilities of each Government Department in respect of consideration of the issues and recommendations involved; and if he will make a statement on the proposals in relation to the report.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 29 October 1992] : The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council’s report will be published in the usual way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is giving the report the most careful consideration and will make an announcement in due course.

     

    European Union

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister how many authentic copies of the treaty of European union were made available to the media and to members of the public before 9 April.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 29 October 1992] : Copies of the treaty on European union were made available to members of the public and media on demand from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office between signature on 7 February and the Treaty’s publication as a Command Paper, Cm. 1934, on 7 May. About 100 copies were distributed.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister how many authentic copies of the treaty of European union were made available to hon. Members.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 29 October 1992] : A stock of the text of the treaty of European union printed as Cm. 1934 is kept by the Vote Office and is available on demand by right hon. and hon. Members.

  • PMQT – 27 October 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th October 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Watson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

    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. Watson : As the Prime Minister bobbles about helplessly in a sea of chaos, has he noticed the latest damning evidence of economic decline in today’s Confederation of British Industry review, yet one of last week’s U- turns–just one of them–promised economic growth? Before he finally slips beneath the surface, will the Prime Minister tell us what, if anything, he will do to prevent recession from turning into slump?

    The Prime Minister : In the time that he spent preparing that question, the hon. Gentleman clearly did not read all of the CBI quarterly survey. If he had done, he would have seen output expectations up on September, export optimism up on July, the domestic prices balance at an all-time low and, for the first time ever, the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually being reduced. As to improving economic circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should note what has been done. Interest rates have been cut 11 times in two years. They are the lowest interest rates in Europe, and British firms also face the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe.

    Mr. William Powell : My right hon. Friend will be aware of how welcome the declaration of the London summit on the conference on Yugoslavia was in relation to the war crimes that are taking place in Yugoslavia and also the subsequent action taking place at the United Nations. Unfortunately, of course, there is no permanent machinery for trying war crimes, although the General Assembly of the United Nations has been discussing such permanent machinery. Will my right hon. Friend encourage his colleagues in the Government to take a more constructive approach towards establishing such permanent machinery?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly content to give my hon. Friend that assurance. This was a matter that was raised at the London summit on Yugoslavia some time ago, and as a result of that, the whole matter is being examined in the United Nations.

    Mr. John Smith : Could the Prime Minister explain how he takes comfort from a CBI survey which predicts that jobs will be down, output will be down, orders will be down, investment will be down and confidence will be down? Will he answer the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson)? What action will he take to stop a slump?

    The Prime Minister : For the second successive Question Time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to listen to an answer already given. If he had listened more carefully he would have heard what I said about output expectations, export optimism, the domestic prices balance and the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually falling. He would also know that manufacturing output has risen in each of the first two quarters, that car production was up sharply in September, and that retail sales have been up in both the second and third quarters.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that the complacency of that answer will shock the public? Does he not realise that the British public are now sick and tired of failed economic policies as well as bogus economic promises of recovery which are never ever fulfilled?

    The Prime Minister : Throughout the last three years the economic policy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been the same as ours, but 1 per cent. less off interest rates. Exactly the same. His commitment to the central part of our economic policy was total and frequently stated. He always wanted lower interest rates. Will he now bear it in mind that we have the lowest interest rates in the European Economic Community–lower than we have had for a long time–and that there is no economic policy whatever from the Opposition?

    Sir James Kilfedder : May I, as one who voted against the Government in the crucial Division last week on the pit closures and was opposed by a Tory candidate in the general election, from my critical position of independence congratulate the Prime Minister on the brave determination that he has shown–history will commend him for it–to put the United Kingdom at the heart of Europe? Will he take the opportunity as often as possible to spell out in simple terms to the people of this country the consequences, particularly for jobs, if Britain is left on the sidelines of Europe?

    The Prime Minister : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has had to say. Let me say this on the European Community and the Government’s policy. I believe that we have had three historic mistakes over the last 30 years in European policy. [Interruption.] The first was when we failed to join the Community at the outset. The second was when twice other countries refused to accept Britain into the European Community. They were mistakes of great damage, to not just this country but the whole of the European Community. Today, with the possibility of enlargement through the changing policies in Europe, we have more of a chance than ever we have had before of building a European Community in the image that we in this country wish to see. It would be folly at this stage to throw that away by isolating ourselves in the Community and by ending our influence. That is the way that the sort of Community we do not wish to see–not the sort of Community that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been fighting for for some years–comes about.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister not realise that the terrible damage done to his credibility and that of his Government by his foolish manoeuvrings over the last week have undermined the case for Europe, for which there is a majority in the House, as well as delaying the chance of recovery, for which there is such desperate need in the nation?

    The Prime Minister : What undermines the case for Europe is the manoeuvrings of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) as well as the manoeuvrings of the right hon. Gentleman himself.

    Mr. Roger Evans : Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that legislation will be introduced at an early date to strengthen the law against the curse of new-age travellers?

    The Prime Minister : There seems to be some competition for legislation to be introduced in the House. We are examining the particular difficulties created by new-age travellers, and I hope that at the end of that examination we will be able to produce legislation to protect those who suffer from their activities.

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mr. Illsley : The Prime Minister will recall that last Wednesday members of his Government said that there would be a meaningful, genuine, statutory 90-day review of the 10 collieries earmarked for closure. Bearing in mind the fact that there is no such thing as a statutory 90-day review, and that most of those collieries are now closed, does the Prime Minister accept that the House was apparently misled?

    The Prime Minister : I shall reiterate to the hon. Gentleman what I said myself on the subject of the 10 pits. I made it perfectly clear then that the 10 pits that have no economic future will go through the full statutory review procedure. I made it equally clear that the Government would co-operate with the inquiry by the Trade and Industry Select Committee and that the President of the Board of Trade will give evidence if that is required.

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will never allow the EC to impose on us by the back door the social chapter that the Labour party would impose on us by the front door? Will he also confirm that he will fight for British interests and jobs in Euope, as he has always done?

    The Prime Minister : I can most certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Before I went to the negotiations on the Maastricht treaty I indicated to the House that I would not come back having accepted a single currency being imposed on this House, and equally, that I would not accept the social chapter. I honoured both of those commitments and I propose to keep to them.

     

    Q3. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mr. Barnes : A sales manager of British Coal, Alan Aitken, has told customers that supplies will be supplemented by imports during the period of the pit closures. This is a disgrace. How much will be added to these imports by the agreement that the Prime Minister made with the Colombian authorities about the importation from that country of coal that is produced with the help of child labour?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is clearly reading the wrong articles, for what he has had to say is rubbish. I made no offer to stop British Coal’s anti-dumping complaint. Nor did I in any way reach the sort of agreement that the hon. Gentleman suggests with the Colombian authorities–not at any stage. Since I spend a lot of my time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, seeking an agreement on GATT, it is hardly likely that I would support dumping.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Angela Knight : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mrs. Knight : Does my right hon. Friend agree that not even the French farmers would benefit from a world trade war? Will he confirm that he will continue to pursue an early conclusion of the GATT round, which will be good for developing countries, good for Britain–including companies in my constituency of Erewash–and even good for France?

    The Prime Minister : I can most certainly confirm that. The reality is that everybody would lose out from a trade war, including France and everybody who lives in France. In the last few days I have been in touch with the Americans and with leaders throughout the European Community to urge an early resumption of talks between the Community and the United States, both on a GATT agreement and on ending the dispute about oil seeds. I am glad to say that the two sides are in touch again and the United States is holding off from taking trade retaliation. We must seek an agreement both to end the dispute over oil seeds and a comprehensive agreement on the Uruguay round as speedily as possible. On the substantive point of my hon. Friend’s question about benefits, it would produce £120 billion worth of extra world output were we to have a successful GATT outcome.

    Mr. Cunliffe : Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he may be out next week on 90 days’ notice, without statutory review? Will he bear with me while I relate to him the humiliating experience, which is causing great distress, that miners at Parkside colliery suffered on Friday? They were told to report to the pit every day for 90 days but that they were forbidden to go down the mine. Will the Prime Minister condemn this unspeakable behaviour and have words about it with the chairman of British Coal?

    The Prime Minister : I shall examine the case that the hon. Gentleman sets out and I shall see for myself what the facts are.

     

    Q5. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) should not behave in that way.

    Mr. Amess : Is my right hon. Friend aware that mortgage interest rates for first-time buyers are now at their lowest level for 25 years? Does he agree that that will have the effect of putting more money in people’s pockets so that they can spend it on goods in the high street and thereby help our economic recovery? Does he further agree that that is very good news for home buyers throughout the country and particularly for my constituents in Basildon?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has the most famous constituents in the western world and I can confirm that the very substantial reductions in mortgage rates will help them a great deal. It will also make a significant difference to the amount of money available for high street purchases, though of course the central point is that each 1 per cent. off interest rates is worth £1 billion a year to industry, and that is vital for investment, for future prosperity and for jobs.

    Dr. Kim Howells : Can the Prime Minister confirm that doubts about the future of the hugely important Al Yamamah defence deal, which the British Government have signed with the Saudis, increase day by day and parallel the decline in the influence of his predecessor, Baroness Thatcher? Will he confirm that interest in that deal increases as it looks as though his predecessor may be making a comeback, along with that grease-palming son of hers [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. [Interruption.] We want a question from the hon. Member.

    Dr. Howells : That was my question, Madam Speaker.

    The Prime Minister : I refute the hon. Gentleman’s distasteful remarks about my noble Friend. As for the Al Yamamah contract, there is no doubt that the Saudi commitment to Al Yamamah remains as strong as it has been for many years. That has been stressed to the Secretary of State for Defence and directly to me by the king.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with UN Secretary General – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the United Nations Secretary General, Mr Boutros Ghali, in New York on Friday 31st January 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I proposed this meeting because it seemed to me that the time was right, with a new Secretary General, with Russia taking her seat in the Security Council, it seemed to me that the time was right for the Council to meet at the highest level to reaffirm its commitment to peace-keeping and to peace-making.

    There is of course a symbolic significance in the meeting, to have round the same table the Heads of State or Government of China, Russia, the United States, France and Britain for the first time in the history of the United Nations symbolises the transformation from confrontation to cooperation in the work of the organisation.

    Over the last few years that transformation has enabled us to unite to free Kuwait; to bring independence to Namibia after decades of frustrated negotiations; to start the peace process in Cambodia; and to tackle other international disputes.

    So to an extent this meeting was a celebration of the fact that the Charter of the United Nations has once again become the handbook, the handbook, of those whose job it is to make the peace and keep the peace, and that is the handbook that can do it.

    Gone are the days, I hope forever, when the United Nations was the last body that you turned to for effective action. Now it is the first body, as we have seen only this month over Lockerbie and as we see day to day as the screw of economic sanctions is turned on Saddam Hussein and as the international commission slowly but certainly uncovers evidence of his weapons of mass destruction and then destroys them.

    In a world which is more hopeful than for many years, but still unstable, we need an organisation that can settle disputes, contain conflicts and keep the peace. The United Nations is that organisation. And the reason for coming here at Head of Government level was to demonstrate our commitment to that organisation.

    You will have heard the statement which I read out on behalf of members of the Council. In it we pledge ourselves to collective security, international law and our commitments under the United Nations Charter to resolve disputes peacefully, to fight against terrorism, to pursue arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and to conclude a chemical weapons convention in 1992.

    That statement, as ever, is written in the polite language of diplomacy. But it contains a hard cutting edge that can be used against those who breach their obligations. The document states that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction constitutes a threat to international peace and security. That places the issue firmly within the confines of the Security Council with scope for action to that end. Member States are committed to take action to prevent the spread of technology related to weapons of mass destruction. The statement reinforces the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Authority and it commits the Council to take action in cases of violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty notified to them by the International Atomic Energy Authority.

    The statement also asks the Secretary General to recommend how we can strengthen the United Nations’ action in preventative diplomacy, peace-making and peace-keeping. And this includes the use of the good offices of the Secretary General.

    Under Article 99 of the treaty he is authorised to bring to the attention of the Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. That article has been little used, partly because in the days of the Cold War the Secretary General’s role was heavily constrained by the former Soviet Union. Those old constraints no longer apply.

    The statement also includes a number of welcome references to human rights, to progress in democracy and responsive forms of government, to election monitoring, to human rights verification, and in the very last words of the declaration, to the promotion of a better life for all in larger freedom.

    Those are substantial achievements. The most substantive achievement of all is that Heads of Government of countries whose arsenals could between them destroy the world have met as colleagues and partners in a common enterprise to make the world a safer place. And they did so here today under the auspices of the United Nations.

    MR GHALI:

    I have just a few words. I have spent only four weeks as Secretary General in this institution and I am still a beginner. But those four weeks I have spent in this organisation show: (1) that there is a political will to play a role in international affairs; (2) that the Security Council will not act unless there is a consensus and that all the decisions which have been adopted during this month have been taken by consensus, after deliberation, and this deliberation proved that we have reached a degree of democratic [Indistinct] in the Security Council.

    And I just want again to thank the Prime Minister of Great Britain for this summit meeting because the summit meeting will help me in my new role, will assist me in the new function and as he mentioned Article 99, I hope not to use very often this article, but in case I will see that there is a necessity to use Article 99 I assure you that I will not hesitate to use this prerogative.

    Once more I want to thank the Prime Minister of Great Britain for this summit meeting here in New York.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION (Mr Osborne):

    On behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association I would like to welcome you as our guest at this press conference. In terms of a consistent worldwide peace-keeping effort, President Mitterrand suggested in his speech that a more effective role be given to the UN military staff committee and even volunteering to contribute some 1,000 peace-keeping troops to such an effort. Would the United Kingdom also support such an effort and would you also contribute troops to a peace-keeping effort. I would also like to ask the Secretary General if he would respond, does he see this as a proposal which should be encouraged in the agenda of his reforms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think this is a proposal that should be examined, but I would prefer not to commit myself to any proposal until we have seen the Secretary General’s report, we have invited him today to report, he has a very wide remit to report, to come back on what he believes is the right way for us to proceed. We know what the objectives are: better peace-keeping, better peace-making. I would prefer to see the Secretary General’s report before we can make up our mind as to what particular actions, either singly or perhaps a whole cluster of actions, are necessary in order to meet that objective. This is certainly one that should be considered.

    MR GHALI:

    I will give my response on 1 July because according to the decisions which have been taken, I have to present my report before 1 July.

    QUESTION:

    Are there any significant changes in the final statement from the first draft or the second draft prepared by you. And if so, would you like to mention one or two by way of illustration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is one of the more optimistic questions I have ever had I think. The answer is that there are not really significant changes between the drafts, there are minor changes when you have 15 draftsmen sitting round the table in order to agree a document that affects national sensitivities as well as an international commitment, there are always going to be drafting changes. And of course that was the case, some of them were additions, some of them were minor drafting changes. But there were no changes of a real and substantive nature between the earlier drafts and the later one, except that the later one is in many ways a good deal sharper and tougher in its commitments than the earlier drafts were. This is altogether a stronger, more forceful, document than we anticipated it would be possible to agree a few weeks ago, or even perhaps a few days ago.

    QUESTION:

    Do you not find it is a little bit strange that the Secretary General of the UN was not invited to the Moscow conference while you are inviting all the Heads of States to meet in the Security Council and to give a push to the role of the Security Council and the United Nations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I happen to believe that the role of the United Nations is very important, it has changed and is changing. There was a time when the role of the United Nations was effectively stuck in the mud by the differences that often appeared between some of the larger and more powerful states in the world, it rendered agreements in the Security Council in particular, amongst the Permanent Five in particular, very difficult to achieve.

    That is no longer the case and the effect of those changes is that we are now in the position to put the United Nations closer towards the objectives and goals of its original founders when the charter was devised than we have ever been at any stage before. That opportunity was clear to the United Kingdom and we wish to take the chance afforded by our Presidency of the Security Council to bring together Heads of Government in order to give a particular push to that objective. I think today we have actually been successful in that.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, The Times):

    [Inaudible] the Security Council of the need for further economic support for Russia, how soon do you think you will be able to persuade the United States in particular and other G7 members to back a stabilisation fund for the rouble?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first objective before anyone can produce a stabilisation fund, or indeed any other form of support, there is no reason to suppose that will be the only nature of support required, but the first and necessary preliminary is for Russia to become members of the International Monetary Fund.

    At a meeting a week or so ago the United Kingdom pushed for that to be concluded as soon as possible and not later than April. That is also the position of the United States. But as to what help follows after membership of Russia in the International Monetary Fund, that is a matter that will be determined then.

    And I believe that two things will happen when they become members of the IMF: firstly they will have access to the advice and assistance that the IMF are uniquely well placed to provide; but secondly as members they will also be enabled to receive the significant financial assistance that I believe they are likely to need in the months ahead. So the first thing is to get them in the IMF and then to agree precisely the scale and nature of the assistance they require. If it can be done earlier than April I would like it done earlier than April and it is my impression that that is also the view of the United States government.

    QUESTION:

    You have been given extensive new tasks to perform on the world scene in peace-making, but nothing has been mentioned about the funds that will be necessary to support this operation and it is obvious that there is plenty of money due to the UN because of delinquency. Have you given any thought as to how the bill is to be filled and footed according to your outline?

    MR GHALI:

    Yes, I had the occasion to discuss this with the different leaders this morning and they promised to help us to solve the financial problem of the United Nations. As you know, there is a new special fund which has been created and a new coordinator for humanitarian assistance will be appointed in the next few weeks and we hope to receive already 50 million dollars, Great Britain has pledged 5 million dollars, different other members of the United Nations will contribute to this fund and there are many other funds which will be created and I believe, I am sure that we will be able to overcome the financial difficulty of this house in the next few weeks.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say firstly in response to that that my country is not behind in its commitments to the United Nations and I do not anticipate it will become so in the future.

    I hope that one of the effects of today’s meeting and the Secretary General’s forthcoming report will encourage members of the United Nations and their respective legislative assemblies to meet the commitments that they have and pay the money that is due to the United Nations.

    QUESTION:

    How far does this apply to the Middle East problem and the solution of Jerusalem, as the King of Morocco wisely stated today? And if I may ask the Secretary General what he meant by the small states can play a large constructive role?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can answer my part of the question I think very speedily. It is of course United Nations resolutions that are the basis of the peace process, so the role of the United Nations is I think both central and critical.

    MR GHALI:

    Concerning my question, I believe and I have said this morning that a small state with political will and political imagination can contribute a lot to play a role in international affairs and that what is important is the political will. And without naming states, you have small states during the last 50 years which have played very important roles in international affairs and you may have a powerful state who, for reasons connected to their own policy, are not interested to play a role in international affairs. So the political will, I will say, and the political imagination within the United Nations is as important as the economic and military power of the states.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] we believe that he has declared war on the people of Cuba, is there any consideration being given to the crisis in Cuba by the Security Council?

    MR GHALI:

    No we have not discussed this and nobody asked to discuss this problem at the Security level.

    QUESTION (Independent):

    The Prime Minister this morning said that he wanted to see a resolution before the UN about Lockerbie, could he say something about the nature of the resolution he would like to see brought to the UN on the Lockerbie affair, and could he say something about President Yeltsin’s views that in fact human rights should have been given more prominence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first point, we are of course still waiting a response to the first resolution and it is not until we have received that response, which I hope will not be long delayed, that we can determine what other action and whether another United Nations resolution is required.

    If the response is negative, as conceivably it will be, then I think it will be desirable to seek a further resolution from the United Nations and I would hope that would not be too long delayed. But at the moment that is speculation, we have not yet received a response.

    MR GHALI:

    I may just add that I was requested by the Security Council to get in contact with the Libyan government, we sent an Under Secretary of the United Nations with a personal message to the Libyan leader and we received an oral answer saying that they are ready to cooperate with the United Nations. In fact the message was to implement the resolution which had been decided by the United Nations and not a cooperation with the United Nations, thus I asked the Libyan representative to return back to Tripoli and he returned and he is now in Tripoli to give further information concerning what the Libyan authority means by cooperation with the United Nations because I was request the implementation of the resolution which had been adopted by the Security Council. I hope to receive an answer in the next few days from the Special Representative of the Libyan government.

    QUESTION:

    What is the status of the declaration at this time, is it a consensus document? The Indian Prime Minister openly disagreed with the nuclear non-proliferation part of it, whereas he disagreed about whether it should be taken on a global level or on a regional level?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, he agreed the document. What Prime Minister Rao said was that there were some other things he would have liked to have been in there as well but that he agreed with the document as it is produced. So he is as committed to what is in the document as I am and as is every other member of the Security Council who was here today. And the Prime Minister made that very clear in his contribution this afternoon.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible.]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, he wished to add other things, he did not disassociate himself from what was in the agreement, he wished to add other things that were not part of the consensus and are not in the agreement.

    QUESTION:

    What would be the impact of this meeting in the future and are you going to institutionalise it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This was quite literally an extraordinary meeting of the Security Council, there is no intention of institutionalising a meeting at Heads of State and government, though I would hope now we have found that it is a useful instrument, that if it is necessary to reconvene at that level I would hope people would feel free to do so. But I do not immediately think that it is going to be necessary regularly, nor do I think it would necessarily be desirable to do it regularly. The fact that it is such an unusual occurrence has added weight to the decisions that have been made today.

    QUESTION:

    The Secretary General proposed that the Council should meet at summit level periodically, did you discuss this issue during lunch and what issues were dealt with during lunch?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No we did not discuss that during luncheon, the Secretary General and I were seated too far apart from one another over luncheon to discuss that, we would have needed a megaphone. It was a totally social luncheon and we did not discuss it on that occasion. But there will be many opportunities for the Secretary General and I, and indeed other members of the Security Council, to discuss that and a range of other matters, but not today.

    QUESTION (Aviation Week Magazine):

    Mr Yeltsin’s spokesman earlier today indicated that Mr Yeltsin solicited your cooperation in programmes to prevent the brain drain of nuclear programme specialists from the Soviet Union and to convert nuclear warhead material to nuclear fuel. Can you share what was discussed and what your views are on those programmes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Up to a point yes. We did discuss that in the four hours of discussion we had in London yesterday and we have agreed to send a team to Russia to examine what we might do to assist, and in particular what we might do to assist nuclear fuel used in weaponry to be used more satisfactorily for peaceful and for civilian methods. We are going to send a team to talk to the Russians to see how we can help.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible.]

    MR GHALI:

    I received last night a long report of Under Secretary Goulding who went to Yugoslavia, went to Zagreb and to Belgrade. I hope to have a meeting in the next few days with the Special Representative, Mr Cyrus Vance, and with what will be the result of those meetings I will submit a report to the Security Council, but it is too early to say what will be the next step.

    We have already, as you know, 50 observers there and are cooperating with the monitors of the European Community, we are in contact with the European Community, our approach is that we want to cooperate with the European Community in finding a solution, the role of the European Community being the political solution of the problem, the role of the United Nations being maintaining the ceasefire and peace-keeping forces. But it is too early to say what will be done as a second step, we must have a few meetings among our collaborators and then we will decide and we will present a report to the Security Council on what we have reached on this problem.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, I am sure you are committed to the new world order and under the new world order the Baltic States got their independence. How about those people who are struggling for their independence like Kashmiri people and the people of the Sikh community. And what are you doing to maintain the human rights of the minorities in different countries like India?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made my concern about human rights known both publicly and privately on a number of occasions in the past. I certainly took the opportunity of raising them, for example, when I was in Beijing both publicly and privately and I have raised them elsewhere. I do not want to comment on one of the many areas where human rights may be an issue except to say that I think it is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone that the world has a closer and more beady eye on the human rights records of nations today than it has ever done at any stage in the past. And where the United Nations these days finds itself involved in peace-making operations, the position of human rights is an important matter that the United Nations keeps under control, keeps its eye on and takes into account in the proposals that it makes. I am sure that is the right way.

    In terms of the general position on human rights, the best way to continue to ensure that human rights records of a large number of countries are improved is by peer pressure both within the United Nations and beyond the United Nations. And I think for that reason that it is quite right for political leaders and other leaders to speak out and speak out clearly and unequivocally when they see human rights abuses. I am glad to say that increasingly that is happening.

    QUESTION:

    Are you willing to support further independence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to get drawn into the Kashmiri problem, that has not been a subject for today.

  • PMQT – 10 December 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th December 1991. Mr MacGregor responded on behalf of John Major.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the European Council in Maastricht.

    Mr. Ward : I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join all his right hon. and hon. Friends in wishing the Prime Minister well in his important negotiations.

    Has my right hon. Friend seen a recent public opinion poll which says that 66 per cent. of the people asked believed that taxes under the Labour party would be increased?– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I know, but the hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the Government’s responsibilities.

    Mr. Ward : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in contrast, the Government have been responsible and does he further agree that the policies of the Opposition seem to be– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. It is not very good, you see, on Government responsibility and this takes up a lot of time. The hon. Gentleman must bring his question to a conclusion, please.

    Mr. Ward : Will my right hon. Friend further agree that the only hope of keeping low taxation is to return the Conservative party to Government?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that not only hon. Members on this side of the House but the majority of people in this country wish my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my other right hon. Friends well in their very important negotiations in Maastricht.

    As for my hon. Friend’s other question, I confirm that it is as a result of this Government’s economic policies and the growth achieved over the years that we have secured not only higher public spending but a substantial reduction in direct taxes. I saw the report to which my hon. Friend referred and I am not at all surprised that the Opposition tried to shout him down, for the simple fact is that the report revealed that the majority of people in this country recognise that the Labour party has now promised to increase spending on just about everything under the sun, which would mean higher borrowing, higher inflation and much higher taxes.

    Mr. Kinnock : The British people will also note that all that came from the spokesman for the Government who have raised the tax burden to its highest level in British history.

    The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the draft of the treaty at Maastricht today provides for the improvement of employees’ working conditions, for legal protection and for entitlement to consultation and to information. When other Community Governments are prepared– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Dickens rose–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not need any help from the hon. Member.

    Mr. Kinnock : When other Community Governments are prepared to extend those rights to their people, is not it completely wrong for the British Government to refuse to do the same for the British people?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman avoided the first point, because the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) referred produced the following answer within the Labour party :

    “Some argue it will highlight one of our weaker points”.

    It certainly does. On Maastricht, we are opposed to a number of the points in the social charter because in practice it would damage employment and prosperity. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been arguing against the social text. It will put a huge burden on industry and will cost jobs. Another point is that it offends the important principle of subsidiarity. I agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in today’s edition of The Guardian. He said :

    “It provides for an expansion of treaty-based Community competence into areas of wage bargaining and social security that should rightly remain with member states”.

    That is right and that is why we oppose so many elements in the social charter.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that other Community Governments, many with economies more successful than ours, do not care about employment, about costs and about competitiveness? Of course they do. Why is it that those countries can accept basic, decent minimum standards for their people whereas this Government will not accept them for the British people?

    Mr. MacGregor : In trade union legislation and in other ways, there are different practices in different countries. The plain fact is that some elements of the social charter would run the risk–indeed, would make it a real possibility–of this country returning to some of the trade union practices that did so much damage during the 1970s. What is more, my right hon. Friend’s position in Maastricht has the support of the Confederation of British Industry and of the majority of British industry which recognises the increasing burdens that the charter could impose on it, which would damage our competitiveness in relation to countries outside the Community which are not so burdened.

    Mr. Kinnock : When it is obvious that the other 11 Governments are prepared to accept the draft before them at Maastricht today and that this Government are not, the Government are confessing to a unique combination of political prejudice and economic weakness which marks them out from the rest of the Community and which marks Britain down in the Community.

    Mr. MacGregor : There is no question of marking Britain down. My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the dangers which lie within the social charter of making European industry uncompetitive in relation to Japanese industry and to others. It is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman wants to support elements of the social charter being imposed here. That would result in a return to the period when 29 million days were lost to strikes and when substantial burdens were imposed on British industry. That is why we oppose the proposals.

     

    Q2. Mr. Stevens : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Stevens : Will my right hon. Friend today find time to join my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in condemning Labour and Liberal Democrat councils, such as Nottingham, Derbyshire and Richmond, which have blocked the distribution of the parents charter? Does not that hostility to the charter give the lie to the Opposition parties’ request for freedom of information?

    Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend and I condemn those authorities. He is right to draw attention to the hypocrisy of those local authorities, as he has described it. They have advised schools not to make copies available to parents. It goes further than that. The Government’s education policies in schools are designed entirely to raise standards, to increase choice and to improve information to parents. The parents charter is an important part of that and I am glad that most schools have ignored the attitudes of those Labour authorities.

    Mr. Blunkett : In 1909, Winston Churchill, talking about workers’ rights, said that there were necessary laws to be passed to ensure that the bad employer was not undercut by the very worst. Is not that why other Governments and employers across Europe understand well today that the Government are reneging on that and wish this country to undercut others by treating workers in the worst way possible?

    Mr. MacGregor : This Government have implemented all 18 of the social measures that have so far been agreed under the social charter, which is more than can be said of a lot of our Community partners. We do implement such measures where we believe that it is right to do so, but we have opposed the working time directive, for example, because it could have added an extra £5 billion to British industry’s costs. We believe that that would destroy jobs and make industry uncompetitive. We have been successful in going in the opposite direction–in increasing the number of jobs and in making British industry more competitive in the past 10 years.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Gill : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of my constituents believe that what they voted for in the referendum on Europe was a single market, not a single currency? Does he further accept that the failure of the common agricultural policy, coupled with doubts about the realisation of the level playing field for goods and services by the end of next year, mean that this is a singularly inappropriate time to extend the competence of the European Community? Does– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. That is enough.

    Mr. Gill : Would my right hon. Friend–

    Hon. Members : Sit down.

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Gill : Does my right hon. Friend agree– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. In fairness to everyone else, the hon. Gentleman should sit down.

    Mr. Gill : Does my right hon. Friend agree– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is very unfair to other hon. Members.

    Mr. MacGregor : I am afraid that I could not catch the last part of my hon. Friend’s question, but I agree with him about the importance that he attaches to the single market. That, of course, is why the United Kingdom Government have been in the lead in pressing for the completion of the single market and that is why, in the current negotiations, we are arguing for steps to strengthen the observance of Community law to ensure that a level playing field is included in the single market.

    As to the steps that are now being taken at Maastricht on the development of the Community, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that if he gets an agreement that is right for Britain and for Europe, he will sign, but if he cannot, he will not.

     

    Q4. Miss Lestor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

    Miss Lestor : Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Britain was one of the countries that ruled against the inclusion of the role of overseas development and co-operation as part of the discussions at Maastricht? Was that because it could mean that Britain would have to increase the amount that we spend on overseas aid and development to match the contributions of other European countries?

    Mr. MacGregor : I cannot comment on details of the negotiations– [Hon. Members :– “Oh!”]–because I do not know the details of what is actually happening today, but it is quite clear that we have been arguing that matters affecting foreign policy should continue to be decided under the auspices of intergovernmental co-operation. On overseas aid, the hon. Lady knows that this year we have yet again increased the amount of money that is spent on that.

     

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Butterfill : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the courageous efforts of the European Community observers in Croatia? Does he share my concern that they have found almost universally that the aggression has been initiated by Serbia? Does he agree that it is desirable that today’s events in Maastricht might lead to future improved co-operation on such matters by the European Community which may, in the end, lead to a reduction in the genocide in that country?

    Mr. MacGregor : Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the efforts of Lord Carrington and others within the Community who have been endeavouring to obtain a ceasefire, and to the efforts made by Mr. Cyrus Vance. My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the benefits of Community co-operation. We have already seen much of that in the lead that has been given by the Community, which has taken special steps to limit the damage and the fighting to enable the parties to come together. Britain has played a large part in that. We have set up a peace conference, sent in monitors and have established ceasefires. I very much hope that that co-operation and the Community’s continued efforts will produce the results that my hon. Friend seeks.

     

    Q6. Mr. Nigel Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Griffiths : Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that under the Tory council tax every millionaire who lives alone will be entitled to a 25 per cent. rebate while the majority of pensioner couples with modest savings or occupational pensions will have to pay the full council tax? Is this the classless society but only open to millionaires?

    Mr. MacGregor : The council tax will produce about 40 per cent. of total local authority revenue and people on higher incomes will contribute to local authority expenditure much more through the taxes that they pay.

    Mr. Brazier : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Prime Minister on his initiative yesterday with President Mitterrand on the Soviet Union? Does he agree that it is a sign of considerable leadership that, right in the teeth of the complexity of the negotiations at Maastricht, the Prime Minister should have recognised that the awesome events on the other side of Europe may have an even larger say in the history of Europe?

    Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I pay tribute to all the work that my right hon. Friend has done throughout the year with regard to events in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Yesterday he drew attention to the three matters of concern to which I have no doubt that he will turn, in co-operation with other countries who are equally concerned, as soon as the Maastricht negotiations are complete.