The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1991

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We stand – as we have always done –

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

    – For a society of opportunity.

    – For the freedom and dignity of personal ownership.

    – For free enterprise and sound money.

    – For quality and choice in public services.

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

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

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

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

    In peace.

    In prosperity.

    In personal and financial security.

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

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

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

    It is why we reformed the taxation of married women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    For Conservatism is not cobbled together from sociological jargon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Safe havens for the Kurds.

    Debt forgiveness for the poorest countries.

    New approaches to arms control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Such tolerance does not help children. It fails them.

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

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

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

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

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

    To have a home of your own.

    Savings of your own.

    A pension of your own.

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

    That is something Labour still finds desperately hard to understand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What a contest!

    Big Brother versus Big Ears!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    How inflation destroys profits – and jobs.

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

    How it destroys confidence – and peace of mind.

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

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

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

    You’ve seen it – I’ll say it.

    Labour’s going for broken again.

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

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

    We all want good public services.

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

    No one should defend waste and incompetence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Tell that to the grandmother queuing for her pension.

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

    What these people ask for is simple.

    A service that puts them first.

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

    They ask for phones that are answered.

    Individuals they can identify to deal with their case.

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

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

    So our Charter will do several simple but necessary things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We will take action in other fields as well.

    To take forward our successful industrial relations reforms.

    To strengthen the position of charities.

    To improve the training of nurses.

    And to act on safety following the Piper Alpha disaster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 June 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Cabinet Advisers

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

    The Prime Minister : Seventeen.

     

    Medicinal Products

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

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

     

    Farmed Salmon

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

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

     

    Strategic Arms Reduction

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

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

     

    Indonesian Research Minister

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

    The Prime Minister : I met Dr. Habibie, the Indonesian Minister for Research and Technology, on 19 June. We discussed a number of issues including commercial co-operation, particularly in the aerospace sector, and the arrangements for Indonesians to study in Britain.

     

    European Council

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

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

     

    President Mitterrand

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 June 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

     

    East Timor

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

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

     

    Injured Grenadiers

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

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

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

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

     

    Oil Seed Rape

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

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

     

    Co-operatives

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

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

     

    Council of Europe

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

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

  • PMQT – 25 June 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Davies : Now that it is clear that the privatisation of the gas, electricity and water industries has led to bigger salaries for the bosses and bigger bills for the consumers, with no improvement in the level of service, how can the Prime Minister continue to argue that the privatisation of those industries has been in the public interest?

    The Prime Minister : I am afraid that much of what the hon. Gentleman says is incorrect. It is precisely because Whitehall has stopped interfering in the privatised companies that electricity prices have fallen in recent years, that gas prices have fallen and that British Telecom’s prices have fallen.

    Mr. Onslow : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that British troops will not leave Iraq until suitable assurances have been given to the Kurdish population?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. We have now met most of the humanitarian needs of the Kurds in Iraq. The United Nations has taken responsibility for the humanitarian relief operation in northern Iraq. It was never our intention to keep a permanent troop presence on the ground there, but before we or the other allies withdraw, we will need to have several things in place : first, an effective United Nations force on the ground ; secondly, clear warnings to Iraq that any renewed repression will meet the severest response ; thirdly, a continuing deterrent military presence in the region to back up those warnings and fourthly, the maintenance of sanctions against Iraq. Without that, we will not leave.

    Mr. Hattersley : In the light of the Government’s constant call for restraint, will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the salary increase of 58 per cent. that has been awarded to the chief executive of National Power?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Hattersley : I am delighted by that not unexpected news– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is taking up a lot of time.

    Mr. Hattersley : As the Prime Minister is against the increase, is not he now required to explain why the Government did not use their 40 per cent. shareholding to prevent it, and what action he will take before the annual general meeting?

    The Prime Minister : Certainly. I am happy to remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was made clear in the prospectus that the Government had no intention of using their shareholding to intervene in financial decisions. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we did that for good reasons.

    Mr. Hattersley : In this as in so many other matters, the Prime Minister says one thing but is not prepared to act to back up his platitudes. If he had given me an honest answer to my original question, he would be prepared to take some action now. If he is not prepared to take the action which is within his power, no one will believe that his condemnation was anything other than feeble public relations.

    The Prime Minister : If people want to hear something that is feeble, they should listen to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I made it perfectly clear when I was Chief Secretary some years ago that I do not believe that excessive salary increases are right. That still remains my view. We explained perfectly clearly when we privatised those companies that it was in the interests of the users of them. It is for that reason that electricity prices have fallen over the past seven years in real terms, that privatised gas prices have fallen by 11 per cent., that British Telecom’s prices have fallen by 20 per cent. and that 95 per cent. of British Telecom’s call boxes now work. None of that happened when it was in public ownership.

    Sir William Shelton : Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he thinks would happen to the British economy if the basic rate of income tax were increased to 40p in the pound?

    The Prime Minister : It would undoubtedly do very great damage to the economy. It would cut incentives, it would recreate the brain drain and recreate all the economic difficulties that we had during the 1970s when the Labour party pursued policies of precisely that kind.

    Mr. Ashdown : As the Prime Minister seems prepared to isolate Britain in Europe over the word federalism, perhaps he will tell us what he thinks federalism means.

    The Prime Minister : It would be interesting if the Europeans would tell us what they mean by federalism. In a treaty text we need to have language the meaning of which is clear. Federalism in the European Community means different things to different people. If it implies a central Government for the federation, that is not what people in this country want. If it means decentralisation, it sounds like subsidiarity, which many people in this country would find more acceptable. But in no way could we permit that word to appear in the treaty until or unless it is clear what it means and that it does not mean the centralisation of power.

    Sir Charles Morrison : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have no intention of introducing a statutory minimum wage? Will he also say what effect a statutory minimum wage would have?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is no doubt that as many trade union leaders have testified, a statutory minimum wage would dramatically increase unemployment in this country, as it has done in some other European countries.

     

    Q2. Sir Patrick Duffy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

    Sir P. Duffy : Does the Prime Minister accept that if the hope, now I am happy to say, widely entertained, of a new way forward between Ireland and England is to be realised– [Interruption.] –from the present talks over Northern Ireland, the best qualities that can be brought to those talks are first, the resolve that the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Haughey expressed following their meeting last Friday night and secondly, the staying power displayed throughout by the Prime Minister’s right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I entirely agree with his analysis. I should like to pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whose patience and skill ensured that the talks could begin. We all hope that they will be successful and that they will reach a conclusion that will enable a substantial transfer of power and responsibility to locally elected representatives. It would be a remarkable move forward for Northern Ireland if that were achievable. I hope and believe that it may be done.

    Dr. Blackburn : Can my right hon. Friend confirm to the nation today the philosophy that this Government will offer to the people only that which they can afford and will not indulge in wild, exaggerated, uncosted promises?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I can also give him the assurance that if anyone else offers an uncosted agenda we shall cost it for them.

    Mr. Rooker : When the Prime Minister goes for his audience later today will he take the opportunity to have a word with the colonel of the Grenadier Guards who also lives at the same address? In a letter to my constituent, Mr. Fred Crowton, he expressed his support for Sean Povey and his two colleagues getting fair and decent compensation from the Ministry of Defence. Given that the Palace now supports that justified case, why are we waiting for a decision?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say about that last Thursday and I have nothing to add.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Maureen Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

    Mrs. Hicks : Can my right hon. Friend give a guarantee to the House today that his Government will continue to support and fund the Black Country urban development corporation, which has transformed areas of derelict land, created thousands of jobs and already attracted £195 million in private investment? Does he agree that, given the success of the 10 urban development corporations, it would be sheer folly to hand over their powers, as Labour suggests, to local councils? The Labour party suggests that they should be handed over to councils such as Birmingham and Liverpool which have a dreadful reputation and have done so much in the past to damage and hamper economic generation.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes her point with great force and vigour. I agree with what she said about the possible transfer of the powers of the UDCs to local Labour authorities. The Black Country urban development corporation has had a remarkable record in recent years and I hope and believe that it will continue to do so.

     

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

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

    Mr. Janner : For hundreds of thousands of British businesses the word recession has already acquired only one meaning –disaster. What does that word mean to the Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of what the Confederation of British Industry, the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development–the OECD–and the Government’s own forecasts have had to say about the future. All of us expect the economy to turn up in the second half of this year.

    Mr. Conway : Does my right hon. Friend accept from one who was loath to support the Single European Act that his conduct during the European negotiations has been superb? As First Lord of the Treasury will he ensure that those who talk to the British people about the dream of a European super-state also understand fully the economic and taxation costs of that dream should it ever become a reality?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks about an economic super-state in Europe. That is not what the majority of members in the Community wish to see and it is not what we wish to see. It will not be the outcome of the negotiations.

     

    Q5. Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Nellist : Is the Prime Minister aware that 55-year-old Ernest Saunders, the former Guinness chairman, becomes eligible for parole this Friday, having served 10 months of a 30-month sentence in an open prison for the conviction of theft of more than £8 million? However, 71-year- old asthmatic Norman Laws is halfway through a 60-day sentence in the maximum security Durham gaol for non-payment of less than £300 poll tax. Does the Prime Minister think that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor?

    The Prime Minister : I do know that the position of many people over the community charge may have been made far worse by the leadership that the hon. Gentleman gave in not paying the community charge. I know also that no one who sits in this House pretending to make the law has any right to break the law.

    Mrs. Peacock : Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the great support of many people in this country in his discussions in Europe? Is he also aware that people are confident that in his future discussions he will not sell them or future generations down the river?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she said and I assure her that that will be the case.

     

    Q6. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Bennett : I am sure that the Prime Minister will be trying hard not to think about retirement, but is he aware that this country’s laws on retirement are in a complete mess, and that we are in danger of losing cases before the European Court on the ground that we discriminate against both men and women through our different retirement ages? There are many men who would like to be able to retire at 60 and many women who would like to go on working after the age of 60. When will we sort out the problem and have a flexible retirement age–one that suits people?

    The Prime Minister : That is a problem of some importance, as the hon. Gentleman says. He will know that for some years we have considered the principle of flexible retirement for both men and women. As he rightly added, I have no intention whatever of retiring for many years.

    Mr. Gale : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the positive attitude taken by the Minister for Corporate Affairs towards the establishment of a digital European television standard? Will he contrast that attitude with the efforts of the European Commission to throw European taxpayers’ money down the drain chasing antiquated technology? Is not the latter activity typical of much antiquated European thinking and is it not right that this country should once again be taking a lead, as in so many other European matters?

    The Prime Minister : I fear that my hon. Friend is right about the attitude taken in the Community, but he is also right to praise the activities of my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Baltic Republics

    Dr. Thomas : To ask the Prime Minister when representatives of the Government of the United Kingdom will next meet representatives of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and what plans they have to discuss improved trade relations with the Baltic republics.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will meet the Lithuanian Foreign Minister, Mr. Saudargas on 25 June. My hon. and learned Friend expects to discuss a wide range of topics of mutual interest with Mr. Saudargas. We have regular contacts with Baltic representatives in London and Moscow, and in the Baltic republics. These contacts cover a wide range of bilateral political and economic issues.

     

    Solvent Abuse

    Mr. Trotter : To ask the Prime Minister which Department is responsible for the co-ordination of Government policies on solvent abuse; and what policies there are to reduce solvent abuse.

    The Prime Minister : The Department of Health takes the lead on Government policies against solvent misuse. These policies are directed primarily towards education and prevention and, where practicable, the restriction of sales of products containing volatile substances to young people. We have supported a number of initiatives to educate young people at risk and to inform adults, including parents, professional workers and retailers who may become involved.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Mitterrand – 24 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Mitterrand, held in Dunkirk on Monday 24th June 1991.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Ladies and Gentlemen. We are very happy to welcome Mr Major and several of his Ministers today here in Dunkirk, it is in the framework of the regular talks that we have between our two countries. Mr Major and myself have had a conversation and then Edith Cresson, the French Prime Minister, joined us and at the same time the Ministers had started meeting in the middle of the morning in order to work out the conclusions which they then put to us later.

    The talks revolved around Europe of course, the preparation for the Luxembourg European Summit which as you know will be beginning next Friday. There were a certain number of agreements, we are understood for example on the need to terminate the intergovernmental conference by the end of 1991 at Maastricht in the Netherlands, but considering that the Luxembourg text on political union I should say as the basis of our work. We also talked about defence and the structure of the future treaty on economic and monetary union with the transition from one stage to another.

    There were other questions which we also talked about, in particular the WEU, GATT and the Schengen agreements. And then moving further away from Europe we discussed several international matters, still in connection with WEU, the preparation of the forthcoming meeting of Foreign and Defence Ministers on 27 June and then for Iraq we noted considerable convergence of views on the vigilance that had to be deployed in northern Iraq, in Kurdistan, so as not to have the past beginning again, guarantees have to be given to the Kurdish populations. On the one hand the [indistinct] if necessary the means for such vigilance to be set up. There are certain questions which have been put to the Iraqi government and replies to those questions will to a large extent determine the steps that have to be taken. We also talked about the Atlantic Alliance and the preparation of the forthcoming Summit on 15 July and bilateral cooperation in defence matters.

    But I will leave it to Mr Major to pursue this presentation and I would like to say to him once again that for we the French it is always fairly pleasant and certainly extremely useful to be able to take into greater depth our conversations because our two countries to such an enormous degree are associates in the broader areas of political affairs for Europe and for international affairs generally. So I wish to thank you, Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, thank you very much indeed and thank you for those opening remarks.

    President Mitterrand has set out in the last few moments the breadth of our discussions this morning and I have very little really to add to that. It has been a very useful and I think a very timely meeting with the European Council immediately ahead of us, the World Economic Summit in July and with our joint intention to reach agreement on the two inter-governmental conferences by Maastricht at the end of this year.

    So I am most grateful today both to President Mitterrand and to the Mayor of Dunkirk, Minister of State Delobar [phon] for their hospitality and for the warmth of their welcome here today. This is of course a town with very historic connections for both of us. It was also a very pleasant opportunity this morning to meet for the first time Madame Cresson. the new French Prime Minister, I very much enjoyed that and I know my colleagues have had very useful discussions with their opposite numbers over the last few hours.

    The relationship that the United Kingdom has with France is very important to us, it is one of constant meetings, constant exchanges, it is a fluid, long-standing and vitally important relationship both within the European Community, within NATO and bilaterally, it is one we treasure very much indeed. And although this is the first formal Summit for a year, the President and I have met on a number of occasions over the last 6 months and there is frequent contact and frequent meetings between Number 10 and the Elysee, I know that will continue and I welcome that very much indeed.

    It is vital I believe to both our countries to reach agreement on European defence. We need to reconcile the desire to spell out long term concepts and concerns with the need to be certain what they mean in practice in the near term and we have instructed our officials to work on this problem with the intention of taking an agreed position at the Council at Maastricht.

    On Friday and Saturday of this week we should in Luxembourg take stock and give guidance for the future work of the two vitally important inter-governmental conferences. Very considerable progress has been made under the Luxembourg Presidency and I am very happy to congratulate them on the work that they have done. The President and I have agreed this morning that we can build on that progress to reach decisions at the European Council at Maastricht in December. What we cannot do at Luxembourg this week is to take partial decisions half-way through a negotiation on subjects which can only be judged as a whole at the end of the negotiating process.

    We touched on a wide range of matters in our discussions. On economic and monetary union, for example, it was agreed that strengthening the Ecu was a very important part of Stage 2 and that monetary policy should remain in national hands during that period. There are many matters still to be discussed both at the European Council and in ECOFIN before we are able to finalise decisions on economic and monetary union towards the end of this year.

    We discussed also a number of the important matters that are dealt with in the political union treaty and found there were areas of clear agreement and other areas where there was still more work to be done. But I hope and believe again that it will be possible [indistinct].

    We touched very briefly on the prospect of welcoming President Gorbachev to London next month at the end of the Economic Summit, I think that will be a useful meeting, I believe it will be an opportunity to hear from President Gorbachev of his commitment to democratic institutions in the Soviet Union and for the development of a genuine market economy. Those are discussions both the President and I look forward to.

    And finally on bilateral issues we are intensifying our discussions on possible areas of cooperation in the defence field. Britain and France played a very notable part in the liberation of Kuwait and in the establishment of safe havens in Iraq. We believe that there is room to enhance that cooperation as we develop a stronger European defence identity.

    So in summary we have had some very worthwhile and very wide ranging discussions over the last few hours, I have found them most useful and I look forward to continuing those contacts in the future.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. I could add to what you have said, the intensity of our relationship will be given additional confirmation fairly soon because we will be meeting on 29 July in Calais to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the treaty signed at the time on the Channel Tunnel.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    [NB: Microphone difficulties made audibility difficult]

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, would we be talking more about a common currency or a single currency?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    [Indistinct] that is of course the whole question of substance, as you know, single currency/common currency. What was said among ourselves is that the process that has started, and we agreed on the timetable for the three stages, the point is that this programme should make it possible for us to go towards a single currency with it being understood that for France this is a [indistinct] and to negotiate with our partners for the setting up of a single currency; whereas for the UK it could be a consequence if everything that will happen before that time, before the date chosen by the Community has in fact developed to lead harmoniously to the possibility of having a single currency. In other words, the theoretical and a priori view points are different, the method that would make it possible for a rapprochement to take place and really Mr Major quite recently has taken certain initiatives on the hard-Ecu which after all had made it possible for the situation to get unblocked. But I think it would probably be better for the Prime Minister to say himself what his position is on this.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much. You do touch on the very heart of the problems that remain to be decided and there is a great deal to be concluded before we can reach proper decisions about this. One of the matters of course that is of most importance is a proper assessment of what the economic results of proceeding either via a common currency or via a prescriptive approach to a single currency might be. Such a detailed economic analysis has not yet been concluded and one does not quite know what the outcome of that would be. But I have expressed my concern in the past about a prescriptive move forward suddenly to a single currency without the right degree of preparation and the right degree of economic convergence. And the United Kingdom would find it very difficult to agree to the objective until it actually knew what the effect of the objective would be and we cannot of course know what the effect of the objective will be until we see to what extent and in what fashion and at what pace the economies do converge. And that is one of the matters that must remain under discussion between now and the remainder of the year.

    The proposal that the United Kingdom put forward when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer was a proposal to create a parallel or common currency in the term that you used but would enable countries to utilise that common currency whilst withdrawing their own domestic currency at the same time to ensure there was no growth in money supply and hence increased inflationary prospects in Europe. That is a matter we shall still want to discuss with our colleagues. If the hard-Ecu proposal were successful, if countries wanted it, if companies wanted it, if individuals wanted it, then it is self-evident that that would develop into a single currency and it was with that proposition and with that understanding that we actually launched this proposal in the summer of last year. So these are .matters under discussion and the prospect is that we will discuss these and the economic effect of those routes in the period between now and December.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    The question, which you may or may not have heard, was should the word “federal” go, be removed from the Treaty, but that problem has not really been settled. Some people would like to move towards a federal structure, others no and the discussion is an open one so one cannot prejudge that particular question.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but question repeated by interpreter]

    The question is whether the French would be prepared to support the British in Luxembourg and try to defer or evacuate that problem of a federal goal.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    The French are in favour of an orientation of that kind if you like but we had not planned to spend the little time at our disposal to try and persuade our British friends to share our views on that. We may perhaps try in Luxembourg or during the course of the year – that will be for later.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Our views on the word “federal” have been clear for some time. There are some differing views within the European Community as to what the word “federal” actually means. It certainly means different things to different nations in the European Community and that does give rise to a considerable amount of confusion but as expressed and understood in the United Kingdom of “federal” being a centralisation, it is not an attractive proposition to the United Kingdom and the formulation we prefer is the formulation of course that appeared in the original Treaty of Rome of ever closer union of the peoples of Europe. That is a prospect that operates bilaterally and operates also through the Community that is a more acceptable premise but the idea of federal union is not an attractive concept for the United Kingdom and we have made that clear repeatedly.

    QUESTION:

    While accepting that the word “federal” can mean different things in different countries, why has it become such a sticking point for the United Kingdom?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There must, at the conclusion of these Inter-Governmental Conferences, in the Treaty be no doubt about the destinations to which we are heading in that regard so if there is doubt about what “federal union” may mean and it may be interpreted as leading to a great level of centralisation beyond that that we would find tolerable in the United Kingdom or that I believe many of our partners would find tolerable in the Community, then we ought not to leave such a phrase so capable of misinterpretation in the Treaties.

    At this stage, we have a draft Treaty in front of us, the details of that have not yet been discussed. There will be many changes, I have no doubt, of all sorts in the Treaty texts that are before us in Luxembourg and some of those changes may be flagged up in discussions at Luxembourg this week-end, others will not, but I think the time to be concerned about the detail of what is in the Treaty is as we come close to Maastricht and of course, at Maastricht and at the conclusion of it.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    The discussion has only just started; one cannot consider it is closed. The two IGCs have fixed the end of 1991 in order to conclude and we have not got there yet so we cannot prejudge the decision that will be taken.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think, Mr. President, that the discussion of the long-term goals of Europe is a purely British discussion? Do you think that on the French side the French have really accepted the idea of a European federation and that, in a way, we should talk about this?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    No, I confirm what has already been said: the debate has not yet taken place; it just has not started yet so we cannot say what the outcome will be.

    In France, I myself mentioned that as a hypothesis, a possibility, but it is only one hypothesis.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you now have French and German support at the Summit for a Monetary Union Treaty which, if necessary, allows Britain to opt-in at a time of its choosing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    These are discussions that we are going to have in ECOFIN and at the European Council over the months ahead. We have discussed many of the details, many of the practical aspects of what needs to be discussed but until we have reached the conclusion of those discussions, we cannot determine what the outcome will be so it is not a question of making agreements and deals way in advance.

    We have set out the reservations which we have; we have discussed the details and the way ahead with our partners in France and in Germany and indeed in a number of the other European countries and we will advance those discussions over the months ahead.

    I think we have made the position as clear as we possibly can about the reservations that we have. I have, for example, made it clear on a number of occasions that progress towards economic and monetary union, which was mentioned originally in the Treaty of Rome and also in the Single European Act, is not just a question of dates though I understand the desire to set dates as a time-table but it is also utterly dependent upon the key questions of economic convergence which in the view of the British are more important than simply the dates; that one needs to see whether the economic situation makes it a justifiable proposition to contemplate moving from a dozen currencies in Europe to one.

    Those are all details and technical matters many of which are only in their infancy in terms of discussion, so it is impossible yet to reach final conclusions as to what the outcome will be.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    We have come back several times to this kind of discussion and after all, it is very pleasant for me to see several members of the press who seem to be in a great hurry for the whole thing to be done with and in a way they sort of share my own feelings on this but certain deadlines have been fixed, certain times, a time-table has been fixed, a time-table which takes us in fact several years ahead. These are things that are very important, serious matters and difficult matters to be given time since they in fact will affect the future of the twelve countries of the Community and perhaps others too so it is something that has to be carefully thought out.

    Our positions on the French side are well known. We tend to want more, if you like, than the common structure that is under discussion and the discussion should be over its first period before the end of 1991. We ourselves have our preferences obviously and our preferences would be for a stronger structure of the federal type for example but it would be very premature to put that point of the problem to partners who have not even finished talking about Political Union and Economic Monetary Union, so I think there is a time for all things.

    QUESTION:

    My question is nothing to do with the Franco-British discussion. A Moroccan Member of the Opposition has just been expelled from France. Is that a question of “reasons of state” so to speak or are there genuine reasons which explain and justify the fact that Mr. Duni [phon] has been expelled from France? Why was this done?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Mr. Duri for many years enjoyed the status from 1974 of a political refugee and this was under my predecessor – seven years under my predecessor, more than 10 years under me – but as long as he was content with respecting the obligations of a political refugee because there are certain obligations on both sides – it is a contract, if you like, a contract between the country of asylum and the refugee – and the political refugee has to show certain constraints and that is what happens.

    In France, there are political refugees of all nationalities. My definition of a political refugee is someone who is rejected by the government of his country and who rejects such government and so obviously is a spokesman of a certain vigorous form of action against the political system of his own country.

    But France, acting as host as it were, cannot accept to move into serious difficulties with each of the countries from which we have political refugees so there are certain duties concerning constraint shown by a political refugee and this is a legal obligation; this is mandatory for any political refugee asking for right of asylum in France.

    This kind of problem arises very often and I repeat that it is rather understandable surely. A political refugee is usually someone who wishes to pursue in a different form the [indistinct] that he is engaged in but France also has her own obligations.

    So for 17 years there was no real problem except that for several months now – and also this is nothing to do incidentally with the hypothesis that some people have thought up about the recent incidents – but for several months Mr. Duni had been warned that on several occasions and in several areas he was in fact violating the rules and his obligations. This does happen periodically but not very often in France because one is fairly indulgent but the time did come where he had gone beyond the limits and there were too many violations of all kinds and therefore it was decided to expel him.

    What do you want me to add to that? For the rest, under our French law, freedoms etc. are fully respected. One can express oneself in France, any French citizen who says something in writing or in speech and is subjected to no censorship as you know well, particularly with regard to Morocco because that is the country we are talking about. A foreigner can publish what he wants to publish but one cannot accept the repeated violations – I would almost say continuous violations – of the rules governing political refugees because after all, diplomatic relations between France and the countries concerned depend on all this.

    From time to time I have problems of this kind with a certain number of countries with whom we have diplomatic relations, very often good relations or perhaps not all that good, but the law is the same in all cases and one has to abide by the law.

    QUESTION:

    Can we take it, then, from what the President and the Prime Minister are saying, that the conference in Luxembourg will merely be a stocktaking exercise; that Britain need not expect to be bounced or ambushed in any way on major decisions at that conference?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Great Britain never allows herself to be bounced as you indicate and certainly no other country of the Community would try to do that. No! One tries to convince Great Britain of the validity of certain options but that is quite different and there have been in the past particularly fairly lively discussions but we have always managed to move forward; Europe has always moved forward so I am very confident in the outcome following discussions that it will be perfectly well understood that the Inter-Governmental Conferences are to be terminated in 1991 and therefore this will take place at Maastricht in the Netherlands.

    The first European Council in each year – and of course there is a change as you know every six months – makes it possible to take stock of the situation and see where we are, sort out the problems of the day and that is what will take place in Luxembourg, especially as the Luxembourg Government has prepared a document which is a very well-drafted document and which will contribute to shedding light on the whole range of our discussions.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sure there are going to be issues of substance discussed at Luxembourg – I don’t have any doubt about that. There are a great many things that will need to be discussed on the basis of the Luxembourg draft and then we will have to determine where there are broad areas of agreement and where there are not and I think it will highlight the direction in which the discussions must go for the remaining six months of the year. But we are only half-way into these discussions; there is a long way to go yet and a long way before we can reach final conclusions.

    One of the points of general agreement amongst, I think, all the Community nations is that there is a great deal of inter-relationship between the conclusions both of the Economic and Monetary Union Conference and the Political Union Conference and of the subjects that need to be decided within both of those treaties, so although some areas will throw up points of agreement and points of disagreement, for practical reasons it will be towards the end of the year before final conclusions can be reached when the two packages are seen as a whole.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask President Mitterrand and the Prime Minister, following their discussions, how they both see the future relationship of NATO, Western European Union and the European Community developing and how soon each now expects to see a common defence policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have a great deal to discuss about the development of defence. The defence of Europe has been based on NATO for a long period of time and both France and the United Kingdom are both members of NATO and very important members of NATO.

    The development of defence policy in the future has got to examine separate premises: the development and sustenance of NATO and also the fact that within that, it is both desirable and I think inevitable that Europe itself should make a larger contribution to the communal defence of its own territories.

    Those, I think, are points of total agreement and what we have to discuss in the discussions about NATO, about Western European Union and about the Community’s aspirations towards common defence is the best mechanism for taking this debate forward but it is an important debate and one we will have to take step by step.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    The debate on common defence is not a debate between France and Great Britain but between France and those who, in the framework of the integrated NATO command, decided to take a certain number of initiatives quite recently, initiatives in which France intends to participate, so there is no specific point really between the UK and France on this; it is a more general debate within NATO at the political level and not in the military framework because France is not present in that military framework.

    But alongside this there is a debate also on the future of the WEU; in other words, we are looking for a sort of embryo for European security and the British and the French are on the same side and engaged in usually constructive discussions and it is really the link between these two manners of approaching security which is at present in question but I repeat this is not specifically a Franco-British negotiation.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Vietnam

    Dr. Thomas : To ask the Prime Minister when the Government next plan to meet representatives of the Vietnamese Government; and when he next intends to discuss with the United States Government trading policy on Vietnam.

    The Prime Minister : The Government are urgently seeking discussions with the Vietnamese Government on the problems posed by the sharply increased rate of arrivals of Vietnamese migrants in Hong Kong. We regularly discuss all aspects of United States Indo-China policy at a high level with the United States Government.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Bananas

    Mr. John P. Smith : To ask the Prime Minister;

    (1) if he has received any representations about the absence of a decision by the European Council of Ministers on trade arrangements for bananas after 1992; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) if he will seek an agreement with his European counterparts at the Luxembourg summit on trade arrangements for bananas after 1992 which guarantees the price and existing access of eastern Caribbean bananas;

    (3) what steps he intends to take to honour the commitment made in 1987 to guarantee the supply of eastern Caribbean bananas to the United Kingdom after 1992;

    (4) if he will raise the question of the European Commission’s delay in reaching decisions on the Banana protocol under the Lome convention at the forthcoming Luxembourg summit.

    The Prime Minister : The European Commission is considering arrangements to apply to bananas in the single European market post-1992. The Government will seek to ensure that new arrangements fulfil our commitments to Commonwealth Caribbean suppliers. We shall also take account of consumers interests, the need for budgetary restraint, trade policy considerations and the competition and efficiency objectives of the single market initiative. I have discussed the issue with the Prime Ministers of Dominica and Jamaica and am very alive to their economic needs.

    Officials are in touch with the Commission, who are aware of the need to make proposals as soon as possible. In the absence of these proposals it would be premature to raise the issue at the Luxembourg European Council.

     

    Council of Europe

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

    The Prime Minister : I have appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) from the Government Benches to be a representative on the delegation to the 43rd session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in succession to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). I have also appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) as a substitute delegate.

  • PMQT – 20 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    NATO

    Q1. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet the leaders of other NATO member states to discuss, inter alia, the membership, structure, functions and policy objectives of the organisation and related matters ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : NATO Heads of State and Government will meet in Rome on 7 and 8 November. Our main task will be to conclude the review of NATO’s role, strategy and force structures set in hand by the summit in London last July. Good progress has already been made. The reformed alliance will continue to provide the essential basis for our security in the 1990s.

    Dr. Godman : I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but may I point out to him that, in Scotland, there is growing concern over what appears to be a piecemeal and fragmented restructuring of the armed forces of all the NATO countries, including the United Kingdom? Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the rapid reaction force will never be deployed outwith mainland Europe unless and until it receives the specific authority of the United St United Nations. [Interruption.] I said the United Nations and not the United States as I never want to see young Scots, or young men from anywhere in the United Kingdom, being turned into cannon fodder at the behest of an American President skilfully exploiting the sycophantic support of NATO leaders.

    The Prime Minister : Let me say first how much I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom will command the future NATO rapid reaction force. That is a key role for the British Army and one which I think it will perform splendidly, both in the interests of this country and of NATO. The specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised is quite clear. The purpose of the rapid reaction corps is to defend NATO territory ; it is not a signal of a more interventionist NATO approach elsewhere.

    Sir Robert McCrindle : When the Prime Minister comes to consider these matters, will he also take into account the enormous advantage of the participation of the United States and Canada in NATO, mapping it out, in the opinion of many of us, as a much more effective medium of western defence than any of the alternatives recommended?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. The presence of north American forces in Europe is absolutely essential; by that I mean US conventional and nuclear contributions, both of which are irreplaceable. They are here now and I hope, trust and believe that they will be here in the future.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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

    Mr. Janner : Does the Prime Minister know precisely how much, in pounds and pence, a single old-age pensioner has on which to live for a week? Does he regard it as adequate?

    The Prime Minister : It would depend on his individual circumstances : whether he received income support, whether he had any state earnings- related pension supplement or a raft of other special payments.

     

    Q3. Mr. Roger King : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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

    Mr. King : Will my right hon. Friend give a pledge to the House that he and his Government will never increase funding for various aspects of Government by plundering the wage packet of the British working man and woman? Will he further compare his Government’s spending– [Interruption.] –spending policies with those alluded to by the Opposition, whose policies of spend, spend, spend– [Hon. Members :– “Spund, spund, spund.”]–have no regard to how they will be paid for?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that people in this country need only look at our record on cutting the direct rate of taxation to be clear about the fact that we would not be in favour of increasing it. The Labour party, by contrast, is in favour of much higher spending, which can be met only by much higher taxation, not just for the well-off, but for those on the standard rate of income tax. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has shown that vividly this morning.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recognise that in their recent comments, both of his Tory predecessors were only trying to help him? Which of them did he find most helpful?

    The Prime Minister : The greatest help that this party often receives is from the right hon. Gentleman himself.

    Mr. Kinnock : That must be why we are 10 points ahead and are winning by-elections. Why will not the Prime Minister tell us? It is a straightforward question–is he closest to the last leader of the Conservative party or to the last but one leader, or is he just piggy in the middle?

    The Prime Minister : I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I can tell him that I have no intention of being distracted from the policy on Europe which I have set out clearly and repeatedly in the House.

    I shall continue to negotiate in Europe for an outcome that I can safely recommend to the House. It will then be for the House to decide on it.

    Mr. Waller : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider what the implications for taxation and public spending would be if the privatisation programme were to come to an end? Furthermore, what would happen if British Telecom, the water industry and the electricity grid were to be renationalised?

    The Prime Minister : The privatisation receipts are about £5.5 billion a year. That is the equivalent of nearly 3p on the standard rate of income tax, so clearly to abandon those receipts would lead either to higher borrowing or to higher taxation. There can be no doubt about that.

     

    Q4 . Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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

    Mr. Bennett : I am sure that the Prime Minister would want to be fair. If he is so keen to have everything costed, has he had Majorism costed, or is he merely sending the bill for that to the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman plumbs new triviality with each question that he asks. In the past decade, conservatism has delivered a far higher standard of living for the people of this country than ever before and so it will in the next decade.

    Sir Ian Stewart : When my right hon. Friend goes to the European Council, will he accept that he carries with him the good wishes of all Conservative Members and our gratitude for the constructive and responsible way in which he has tackled serious and important constitutional issues? Will he take the opportunity to point out to his colleagues in the other European countries that any rapid move to a single currency, before the economies of the various countries in Europe are very much closer in performance, would produce disastrous consequences which would be far more likely to blow the European Community apart than to lead to greater unity?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with every word that my right hon. Friend has said. I have made the point consistently over the past 15 months that until and unless there is proper convergence of the European economies, it would be utter folly even to contemplate a single currency.

     

    Q5. Mr. Loyden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Loyden : The Prime Minister will be aware of the stand taken by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the threat to ICI. What will the Prime Minister’s stance be in the event of a hostile bid being made by Hanson to take over ICI?

    The Prime Minister : There has been no such takeover bid and it would, therefore, be entirely inappropriate for me to comment.

     

    Q6. Mr. Beaumont-Dark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at early-day motion 902, which is an all-party motion tabled by, among others, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? It concerns Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray. Through no fault of theirs–whoever’s fault it was, they were not on a holiday jaunt–they lost their legs in a tragic accident. With his well-known compassion and concern for individuals who have problems, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will look at the problem with that compassion so that we can come to the right decision, which is to care for the individual who serves this state?

    The Prime Minister : This is a very tragic accident. I am sure that the whole House feels that deeply and we offer our sympathy to the guardsmen concerned. The board of inquiry has examined the matter carefully and has reached the conclusion that it was a tragic accident and that no one was culpable for the dreadful affair. I am examining the matter, but I must do so on the basis of legal liability.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister agree with his predecessor when she said that joining the exchange rate mechanism relegated Ministers to the status of innocent bystanders at an accident? If he agrees, how would he describe himself–as the bystander or the accident?

    The Prime Minister : We entered the exchange rate mechanism last year when my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister and I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was right to enter the mechanism then ; it is right for us to be members of the mechanism now. I made it absolutely clear at the time that I felt that that was the best way in which to ensure that we not only got inflation on a downward trend, but kept it on a downward trend. We are in the exchange rate mechanism ; we are staying in it. In due course, we shall move to the narrow bands.

     

    Q.7 Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list he official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Coombs : In considering local government matters in the light of the appalling record of the past eight years of the Labour administration in Liverpool–the appalling inefficiency, massive debts and uncollected refuse there, and the impending gravediggers’ strike–does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition that the Labour council there–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is not the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

    Mr. Coombs : –with the statement made yesterday that the council there is merely trying to provide– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Coombs : When considering the reform of local government, does my right hon. Friend agree that the appalling inefficiency of Liverpool should be rate-capped and in future should be avoided by local government reform, or is the statement of the Leader of the Opposition merely pie in the sky?

    The Prime Minister : The whole country will observe what has happened in Liverpool over recent years and will be perfectly well aware where the blame for that lies. As the Labour Co-ordinating Committee has written about Labour councils :

    “They demonstrate as far as the public is concerned, what a Labour Government would be like”.

    Mr. Ashley : Is the Prime Minister aware that when considering the future of Britain the volatility of a couple of Prime Ministers is a trivial sideshow compared with the potential volatility of £84 billion sterling hot money as a result of the Government’s incompetence? How far can the Prime Minister say that he is confident that there will be no sterling crisis before the next general election?

    The Prime Minister : If there were to be a sterling crisis, it would occur only if there were no longer a Conservative Government.

     

    Q.8 Mr. Quentin Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Davies : Does my right hon. Friend agree that even marginal increases in taxation can have a serious effect on incentives and that even marginal increases in Government borrowing can have a serious effect on inflation and interest rates and that to increase borrowing and taxation by something like £35 billion would have catastrophic effects on the British economy?

    The Prime Minister : There is absolutely no doubt about that. In practice it would mean either dramatically higher borrowing with consequentially much higher interest rates and mortgages, or it would mean up to an extra 15p on the standard rate of income tax to 40p in the pound. With a policy of adding national insurance contributions throughout the income scale, that would make us one of the highest-taxed countries in the industrial world.

     

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Sign Language

    Mr. Ashley : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards the recommendation of the EEC resolution of June 1988 to give official recognition to British sign language for the deaf.

    The Prime Minister : The Government have noted the terms of the resolution on sign languages for deaf people adopted by the European Parliament in June 1988. We fully recognise the right of deaf people to use their preferred method of communication, including British sign language and have grant aided a variety of organisations concerned with the promotion and development of sign languages and other communication techniques.

     

    Cruise Missiles

    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the departure to the United States of America of the last flight of Cruise missiles and the de-activation of 501 missile wing USAF at Greenham common.

    The Prime Minister : The departure of the last cruise missiles from RAF Greenham Common on 5 March and the deactivation of the 501st Tactical Missile Wing on 4 June mark an important milestone in the implementation of the INF treaty. As well as making a vital contribution to the NATO alliance, the 501st Tactical Missile Wing has been a valuable presence in this country and welcome neighbours to the people of Newbury. The United States presence in Newbury will continue at a reduced level with the base returning to standby status.

     

    Kurdish People

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West, of 25 April, Official Report, column 520; if he will now consider establishing safe havens in southern Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : We remain very concerned by the situation of refugees in southern Iraq. We believe the best way forward is to continue our support for the work of the United Nations, including the establishment of a humanitarian centre in Basra and the expansion of relief efforts in the area. We welcome the Secretary General’s decision to send a high-level fact finding mission to the south to assess humanitarian needs.

    Mr. Harry Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister when he will answer the letters on behalf of the organisation British Aid for the Kurds of 17 April and 11 June sent to him by Mrs. Judith P. Stubbs of Culthorpe, Chesterfield.

    The Prime Minister : The letter sent in April by Mrs. Stubbs was among the 3,500 letters about Iraq and kind offers of help for the Kurds received by my office at that time. These were sent as appropriate to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration to take forward.

    The ODA has been in frequent contact with British Aid for Kurds since April to offer advice on the changing types of aid that would be most useful to the Kurds as the situation developed. The ODA chartered two Iran Air flights which carried over 90 tonnes of aid collected by British Aid for the Kurds. A reply to Mrs. Stubbs’s latest letter will be sent shortly.

     

    Energy Efficiency

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the main items of expenditure included in the £78,000 spent in 1990-91 on improving the energy efficiency of the Cabinet Office.

    The Prime Minister : The main items of expenditure in the £78,000 spent during 1990-91 on improving energy efficiency in the Cabinet Office were :

    Energy efficient lighting for the new residential block and roads and pathways in the grounds of the Civil Service College, Sunningdale – 48,766 pounds

    Energy audits of various buildings including Nos. 10-12 Downing Street – 7,245 pounds

    Energy efficient lighting scheme for 70 Whitehall – 22,000 pounds

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

    Mr. Ray Powell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 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.

     

    “Blueprint for Football”

    Mr. Pendry : To ask the Prime Minister what support Her Majesty’s Government intend to offer to the “Blueprint for Football” launched by the Professional Footballers Association on 6 June; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 June 1991] : We welcome any new initiative that will promote greater unity in the leadership of the game and help football raise the necessary funds to implement Lord Justice Taylor’s recommendations and thereby improve standards of safety and comfort for spectators. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has had discussions with the Professional Footballers Association, the Football Association, the Football League and representatives of the supporters’ associations to hear their various proposals for the future of the game. He has not indicated a view on any of them other than to welcome them as a contribution to the debate. He has made it clear that decisions are for football alone to take.

     

    Birmingham Olympiad

    Sir Neil Macfarlane : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet the president of the International Olympic Committee during the Olympiad in Birmingham ; what functions the Government intend to host during that event ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 June 1991] : I have not yet had the opportunity of meeting the president of the International Olympic Committee. However, the Minister for Sport was present at the opening of the 97th congress of the IOC in Birmingham and had discussions with the president, other senior officials and members of the IOC. The Government were not invited to host any functions.