The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1992

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with M Jacques Delors – 12 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with M Jacques Delors held in Edinburgh on Saturday 12th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    May I begin by expressing my thanks to the people of Edinburgh for the very warm welcome we have had and the excellent way in which we have been cared for throughout the last two days.

    Let me say as President of the European Council I am very pleased to announce this evening a real breakthrough on a number of fronts at the Edinburgh meeting. The decisions that we have taken collectively today will enable the Community to go forward as Twelve, they open the way for new states to join, the Community has made important progress on subsidiarity and it has agreed a growth initiative that gives new confidence for investment and for jobs in every country throughout the European Community.

    I believe we faced at this summit more difficult interlocking problems than at any recent European Council but I believe we can claim that today we have solved the Rubik’s Cube that was laid before us.

    Let me turn firstly to Denmark. We have reached a legally binding decision which will enable Paul Schluter to go back to the Danish people and recommend a ‘Yes’ vote in a second referendum in the spring. Our decisions today deal with the genuine concerns expressed in Denmark but it does not require a change in the treaty and it does not require a fresh round of ratification in member states.

    Second, the economy. The growth initiative we have agreed today will boost confidence and promote economic recovery right the way across the Community, it includes a new European investment fund and a special loan facility to be provided by the European Investment Bank. In total these will be able to support new investment of up to 24 billion pounds.

    We are completing the single market on time, a magnificent achievement which provides Europe’s businessmen with new opportunities and Europe’s consumers with a new freedom of choice and we will continue to work for a GATT settlement which could add around 200 billion pounds to world income.

    Third, I want to say something about the budget. We have agreed on the financing of the Community to the end of this century. At a time of high budget deficits throughout Europe, we will keep the present limit on Community spending for a further two years, for two years there will be no increase, thereafter there will be a gradual and a limited increase, this will cover the Community’s own necessary expenditure, for example on research and development, and also support development and meet real needs in countries as different as Russia and Somalia, we have provided of course substantial help to those countries. It will also help the least developed regions of the Community, especially in building up their infrastructure.

    I have to say to you this was a very hard fought negotiation, while some pressed for much bigger increases others wanted less and there was a strong feeling that this was as much as the Community’s taxpayers could afford at a time when all member governments are having to restrain their spending at home.

    The UK abatement has been the subject of discussion over recent weeks, it did come under some attack during that period. I made it clear that the rebate was not a favour to Britain but a recognition that we would otherwise pay an unfairly large amount to the Community. Our Community partners have accepted this, the rebate is now renewed unchanged until the turn of the century and cannot of course be changed without Britain’s agreement.

    Fourthly, I would like to turn to enlargement. Here we have made a very substantial step forward. Up until now the formal position has been that enlargement negotiations could not begin until the Maastricht Treaty had been ratified, but all of us have agreed today that it is in the Community’s interests to get on with formal negotiation as soon as possible. There could l believe be no better sign of an outward looking Community and I believe this will be very welcome news indeed to Sweden, to Austria, to Finland and of course to Norway.

    The Commission have also put forward an important paper on the relationship between the Community and the countries of Eastern Europe. This paper, which is formally welcomed in the conclusions, calls for early trade liberalisation and full membership of the Community for the countries concerned as soon as they are ready for it.

    Fifthly, subsidiarity. Under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty we introduced a new and legally binding principle of subsidiarity. At Birmingham we agreed that the Council must come up with a clear implementation package at Edinburgh and we asked the Commission to produce examples of existing legislation which might be changed or withdrawn or propose legislation which should be scrapped. At Edinburgh we have met all these targets and I would particularly like to offer my congratulations to the President of the Commission for the work that he has done to ensure that those targets have been met.

    [Interruption from audience, Prime Minister responds]

    I would just say before we continue that as far as I recall it was the United Kingdom that were the first country anywhere in the world to introduce a full scale environment department over 20 years ago and we still I believe lead the way in many of our environmental practices.

    Let me return back to subsidiarity. We have agreed today guidelines based on the principle that the Community can only act where given the power to do so, national powers are the rule and the Community is the exception and we have also agreed new procedures for the Commission and the Council. And we now have a list of examples to show that this principle is having real effect.

    Each country produces its own examples of excessive interference. In Britain today’s subsidiarity agreement is good news for example for groups threatened by draft directives, groups as diverse as the Royal National Lifeboat Institute and the St John’s Ambulance Brigade. And again I express my thanks to President Delors on this matter.

    Sixthly, openness. In just 7 weeks since the Birmingham summit we have put together and agreed a package of measures to open up the Community to scrutiny by the people of Europe, we will open up debates on issues of general Community interest, we will ensure Community legislation is simpler and clearer and we will publish voting records whenever formal votes are taken in the Council.

    We have also agreed two important issues that have been outstanding for a number of Presidencies. On sites of institutions we have signed a decision this evening confirming the sites and working arrangements for all the main Community institutions – the Parliament, the Council, the Commission and some others – that is the heart of the problem that has blocked decisions on sites of institutions for years. We have agreed that decisions on new institutions, the European Central Bank and others will be pursued by the next Presidency.

    On Members of the European Parliament, we have agreed to increase the number of German Members of the European Parliament to reflect unification and at the same time to change the numbers for other countries, particularly bearing enlargement in mind, this will result in a European Parliament of manageable size after enlargement. Britain received six more Members of the European Parliament, as did France and Italy.

    Let me now turn to foreign policy issues. We have reached agreement on international aid for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The issue of recognition remains highly sensitive, but today we have agreed that we will not let it stand in the way of meeting the pressing need for large scale international assistance, that in itself we believe will help provide stability. We have also unreservedly backed the United Nations plan to put a battalion of soldiers to monitor the peace there, we would like to do the same in Kosovo. In Bosnia we have called, among other things, for the Security Council to examine systematically the operation of the No Fly Zone.

    Let me try and sum up. It has been hard pounding during this European Council but as we come to the end of this Council and near to the end of our Presidency I believe that both for Britain and for the Community much has been achieved. The single market, the largest free market in the world, is opening for business. There has been a long awaited breakthrough in the GATT talks whose completion could give a 200 billion dollar boost to world income. We have today agreed a growth initiative which could raise investment by up to 24 billion pounds, creating jobs and boosting confidence throughout the European Community. We have provided the way forward for Denmark to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. The Community’s finances have been put on a sound, a fair and an affordable basis for the rest of this century and the Community has today opened the door to a wider Europe in the future.

    I believe that as a result of these decisions the Edinburgh European Council will be remembered as the summit that put the Community back together and put us all back on the track for recovery.

    1. DELORS:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I would just like to add that contrary to the general atmosphere that has prevailed over the last few weeks, and contrary to what a lot of detractors have been saying, for these two days we have seen that the Community is in fine fettle, the Community has demonstrated that it is able to react in very difficult circumstances and the British Presidency has been able to untie the knot.

    The Prime Minister, the President of the Council, has gone through the main points, I shall just add three comments myself. First of all when it comes to the common policies and the financial resources the European Council agreed on 85 percent of the proposals made by the Commission so this means, as the President of the Council has said, that we can look ahead with optimism to the further development of the Community over the years to come.

    Secondly, on the question of the sites, that has been settled for the main sites, for the main institutions. It was not at all easy and it shows that there is still a family spirit in the Community which enabled us to clarify a situation which was very obscure and had been very contentious over the last few years.

    Thirdly, I would like to pay tribute to the European Parliament because for the first time in the history of the Community the European Council took up a proposal from the Parliament, that is the Degucht [phon] proposal, on the composition of the European Parliament, and took that as the basis for the proposal that was fully accepted. That shows the sound health of the third institution – the European Parliament.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC TV):

    Prime Minister, following the agreement with Denmark, could you confirm that the Third Reading debate in the Commons on the Bill to ratify the Maastricht Treaty will now be held after the second Danish referendum and is there a chance that Britain could ratify by July 1st, which is the date suggested by the European Parliament?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Danish referendum is now likely to be at the end of April or beginning of May. We can’t be precisely sure when it is and we will not be ready for Third Reading in the Commons until after that date so it will follow very hard on its heels. We will then ratify as speedily as possible but it needs to go through, of course, both the Commons and the Lords so I can’t be precise as to timing.

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph):

    On the Danish decision, can you explain in exactly what way these opt-outs for Denmark change that country’s legal obligations under the Treaty of Maastricht and if they don’t change Denmark’s legal obligations, how can Denmark go ahead and have a second referendum on an unchanged treaty?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it clarifies and interprets a great deal that was of concern to Denmark and I think you will need to look very carefully at what we have done. It is a mixture of a unilateral Declaration by Denmark, a Declaration by the Community as a whole, Conclusions by the Community as a whole and a Decision that has been reached on several key issues of importance to Denmark.

    The key points are these: it is a legally binding Decision covering Danish concerns. The Danes won’t have to join the single currency or the Western European Union, the defence grouping, and that deals with their defence point. It will enable the Danish Prime Minister to go for a second referendum and I strongly suspect as a result of that it will enable the Community to move forward as a Community of twelve.

    QUESTION (Greek TV):

    On the question of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the Conclusions there is a reference to the Lisbon Declaration.

    My first question is do you read this reference as a reaffirmation of the Lisbon Declaration. My second question is that if and when the question of recognition comes to the United Nations, will Britain support the Greek position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As the Foreign Ministers spent many hours discussing that, I think I will let the Foreign Secretary deal with it.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    There was no effort at the European Council at any level to change the Lisbon Conclusions. As regards the second question, it is not actual and no decisions so far as I know have been taken by any of the member states of the Community belonging to the Security Council, certainly not by Britain, as to what her attitude would be in the Security Council if we encountered such a proposition. It certainly was not discussed in any way today, the handling of the matter at the Security Council.

    QUESTION (Keith Rockwell):

    My question is for M. Delors. Excuse me for asking it in English, Sir. Given the wide gap between what you originally proposed in your Delors II package and what was finally agreed, are you not disappointed by the numbers that have been agreed on this budget proposal?

    1. DELORS:

    No. I have made a very rigorous calculation. I confirm that we have obtained 85% of the means we claimed for in the initial proposal.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    I wonder if in crude terms you could just tell us in pounds, shillings and pence as it were how much more this agreement is costing than what Britain was going for, the 1.25%, and who are the main beneficiaries and by how much?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Community are the main beneficiaries and I do not think I am going to break that down for you this evening, Adam. Without going into too many technicalities, the Presidency proposal was for an own-resources ceiling – I apologise for using the jargon – of 1.25% of GNP. The final outcome is 1.27% of GNP and we have been able to reallocate resources to many of the most important areas but the details of this will be made clear quite soon.

    I am not prepared immediately to put a pounds, shillings and pence price on it. It goes up to 1.27% in 1999. The increases are phased. There is no increase in 1993 or 1994. There is an increase of .01% of GNP in 1995 and the other increases are phased in steps until 1999 and it is in 1999 that it reaches 1.27% of GNP. That is the way in which it is phased.

    I should say that a great deal of those extra resources was generally agreed and I strongly support this. It was on projects that will actually be devoted to infra-structural development of one sort or another in the cohesion countries and of course in the structural funds beyond the cohesion countries.

    QUESTION (Robin Chrystal):

    Thousands of Scots marched today in Edinburgh for a Scottish Parliament. The majority of Scots voted for parties other than the Conservative Party at the election. What is in the document that you have agreed tonight for them? Why does subsidiarity have to stop at London?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Subsidiarity does not stop at London. I think you are confusing subsidiarity with devolution. If you consider the proposals that are actually coming out of the Westminster Parliament, far from subsidiarity, which means moving something from an international level to a national level, we have actually been moving decisions from a national level in the United Kingdom firstly to the Secretary of State for Scotland but more importantly than that, right down to individual schools, individual hospitals, individual people and that is the best sort of devolution, subsidiarity, call it what you will.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, The Guardian):

    You spoke earlier on about the hope now that the final British stages of ratification would follow close on the heels of the Danish referendum in April or May. Do I take it that you are more hopeful that can be completed before the end of June and can you tell us whether the Danish agreement is judiciable in the European Court?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No deadline was set on ratification by the British Parliament. That is a matter for the British Parliament and Members of Parliament. They are an independent breed, as you know, and we will take the Bill through the House as speedily as we can consistent with good examination. Unlike many countries throughout the Community, the British Parliament will wish to examine the Bill line-by-line and clause-by-clause; they will have the opportunity to do so. It is a constitutional Bill; they may take their time over it. That is understood in the Westminster Parliament and it is understood by our colleagues across the Community. We have said for many months that we will complete ratification during this session of Parliament but I have neither been asked nor have I given a specific timetable for the ratification. We will ratify as speedily as possible.

    It is not judiciable in the Court. It is a legally binding agreement amongst the governments concerning the Danes. It is not judiciable in the European Court.

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, could you give us your view on what the message of this summit is for the Euro-sceptics at Westminster?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think everyone will draw their own message. I have spoken of the message that I believe comes out of this summit. I think it is a message of hope and growth for economies across Europe. I think it is a message of openness for people who wish to join the Community. I think it is a message that shows very clearly that despite differing national interests, the Community is able to come together on important matters and give a clear-cut lead and I think there is a further message as well: the message is that dispute the internal matters that have concerned the Community, we have also been able to look outward to new entrants, outward to Somalia, outward to Eastern Europe and outward to other problems around the world in which the Community is now a major force.

    QUESTION (French Reporters):

    Prime Minister, President Francois Mitterrand said just a few minutes ago that on Thursday night Britain’s position regarding the Danish referendum was basically that if there was to be a “No” you could not go along with Europe. Is that still the British position now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are working for the Danish referendum to produce a “Yes” but the principle of the Community has always been that the Community marches along as twelve; that is what all of us wish to see. That is why we have gone to so much trouble over the last few weeks and the last few days to agree a framework across the Community that we believe will enable the Danes to meet their domestic concerns and successfully put a second referendum before the Danish people but it is the joint ambition across the Community for the Danes to win their referendum and for the Community to advance as twelve initially and after enlargement as thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, whatever it may be.

    QUESTION (George Brock, The Times):

    Prime Minister, if the decision on Denmark is not justiciable in the European Court, can you tell me if there are any other courts it is justiciable in and if there are not any that it is justiciable in, in what sense is it legally binding?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Legally it is binding between governments; it is a legally binding commitment entered into between one government and another.

    QUESTION (David Langston, Bureau of National Affairs in Washington):

    On the growth initiative, the figure of £24 billion that you mentioned does not equate with the 26, 18 plus 5 billion Ecu mentioned by Henning Christophersen here today. Could you spell out precisely the terms of difference between the Presidency counsel and Henning Christophersen’s meeting with the EC Finance Ministers.

    Secondly, a matter after your own heart, what can you tell us about the environment, which was a matter raised by some of the earlier interjectors?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the environment, I responded at the time to the environmental points that the objectors made.

    On the growth initiative, since I have one of the architects of the growth initiative here, I will invite him to do it. Chancellor!

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: [Norman Lamont]

    In the two Community policies that were particularly put forward, that is first of all the infrastructure facility within the European Investment Bank that is designed to finance infrastructure projects throughout the Community trans-European networks, it will be able to lend up to 75% of the value of projects instead of the normal 50% and that could involve extra investment of about £7 billion.

    The other main initiative that was put forward was a new European Investment Fund which will involve the private sector being involved as well. That will guarantee loans for investment, particularly loans to small and medium-sized business. There, the guarantees could be around £5 billion supporting additional projects of up to £17 billion or so.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Edinburgh – 12 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Edinburgh, held on 12th December 1992.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Good morning, Prime Minister. We understand you have got some revised proposals overnight. Will that be enough to clinch it today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are still in the middle of a negotiation. I have got some proposals that I think meet many of the concerns that people had. I have a series of meetings early this morning with colleagues. We will recommence at 10 o’clock and see. I am making no predictions yet.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    How much pressure do you feel under this deadline threat, the July 1st deadline threat from the other delegations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t really understand that there is any such threat. The timing of the Maastricht Treaty is a matter for the British Parliament, is now and will remain a matter for the British Parliament and for no-one else.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    But they are putting some pressure on you, aren’t they?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a matter for the British Parliament and it is a side issue.

    QUESTION (Graham Leach, BBC TV):

    Are the issues here still interlocked, Prime Minister, as you go into your second day?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, they are interlocked. We have made some progress on a whole series of fronts but I think all of them will either come together or not later on today. There is still a great deal of work to be done.

    QUESTION (Graham Leach, BBC TV):

    So in your view it really is all or nothing today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    “All or nothing” puts it in very extreme terms but I think if we are able to reach agreement on the really big issues then other things will fall into place. Some progress has been made but I still must emphasise that there is a long way to go; there are some very difficult hurdles to overcome. Over Becher’s Brook once – we have got to go round again!

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    You talked about political will yesterday as being the key. Do you detect that political will?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Everyone would like to reach an agreement, yes, but of course every single Head of Government here has to go back and sell to his own parliament the agreement he reaches so there are very difficult decisions that will have to be made by everyone sitting round that table but I think there are some areas where we are making progress. There is a general will to have a growth initiative. I think everyone is concerned to re-stimulate confidence in the European economy – that is making progress. We have made substantial progress on matters like subsidiarity, as you will see when the outcome of the summit is revealed, but there are many other issues still to be determined.

    QUESTION:

    Are you making any progress on the budget rebate for Britain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no progress to be made on that because there is no question but that the budget rebate will remain in its present form.

    QUESTION:

    It does seem that many of the other member nations are putting pressure on Britain especially on that issue, doesn’t it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Everyone puts pressure on Britain on many issues and we put pressure on other people – that is the nature of negotiations – but the fact of the matter is the British rebate is there, the British rebate is going to stay, there is no room for negotiation and no doubt about the outcome.

    QUESTION:

    The Danish Prime Minister says he is almost sure he has got a deal. Are you almost sure?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am glad he is so confident. I think we still have some way to go but I am seeing colleagues this morning and we will see what the outcome is. It is not just a question of getting a deal here, that is but half of the equation. We need a deal here that is going to run in Denmark and be satisfactory for the Danish people when they have a referendum. That is the matter that is foremost in my mind, not just a deal around the table amongst Heads of Government. A deal around the table amongst Heads of Government that will enable the Danes to win the referendum, that is what we really want.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Did the Rubik’s cube come into play?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is twisting around!

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 December 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Agencies

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all Next Steps agencies currently operating and all new agencies expected to be introduced before the end of 1993.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply. Full information on all existing agencies and currently announced candidates was included in the NextSteps Annual Review 1992, published on 2 December (Cm. 2111), a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

     

    EC Council Agendas

    Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that the agenda for each meeting of the EC Council is published in detail at least seven days in advance, and that this information is made available to hon. Members.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply. The monthly business statement printed in the Official Report gives details of all forthcoming Council meetings that month and the items likely to be on the agenda of each.

    This generally provides a reliable guide, particularly on the main issues to be discussed, although the final agenda may be subject to change up to the day of the meeting itself.

     

    Council of Europe and WEU

    Sir John Hunt : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply. I have done so today.

     

    EC Regional Funds

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has held with his counterparts in the European Council on the possible ways of disbursement of funds under the proposed committee on the regions to be established under the treaty of European Union.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply. Article 198(a) of the Maastricht treaty makes it clear that the Committee of the Regions is an advisory body. It will therefore have no responsibility for disbursing funds.

     

    Disclosure of Information

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made of the treaty on European Union in regard to its proposals to increase provisions for prohibition on the disclosure of information from the institutions of the European Community.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply. The Maastricht treaty says nothing on the question of disclosure of information. A declaration adopted at Maastricht calls on the Commission to report to the Council of Ministers on measures designed to improve public access to information held by Community institutions.

    In February 1992 the Commission proposed a Council regulation on the security of classified information. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the hon. Member on 7 July, the Government consider the draft regulation in its present form to be unworkable.

     

    Somalia

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister what offer of help in Somalia his Government have made in the light of President Bush’s offer of military intervention on the subsequent decision of the UN Security Council.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply. We are providing two RAF C130 transport aircraft, accompanied by supporting personnel, to the unified military task force in Somalia. On 4 December, my noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, the Minister for Overseas Development, announced a further £4.5 million of bilateral humanitarian aid to Somalia for immediate disbursement once conditions permit. This brings United Kingdom aid to Somalia this year to nearly £31.5 million, including our share of EC aid.

     

    Ministers (Legal Costs)

    Mr. Morley : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment is made of value for money provided by the level of legal charges to Ministers in connection with personal matters where part of the costs are met from public funds; and if he will make it his policy to limit reimbursement of expenses in such cases to the limits applied by taxing authorities in legal aid cases.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply. The Government are always concerned to ensure value for money in all their activities.

     

    Ministerial Dress

    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : To ask the Prime Minister what advice is given to ministers concerning appropriate standards of dress for Ministers representing Her Majesty’s Government in acts of remembrance for service men and women killed on active service.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply. There is no general guidance. The normal practice is for Ministers to follow whatever indication is given by the organisation responsible in each case.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Edinburgh – 11 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Edinburgh, held on 11th December 1992. The first section is missing.

    [first section of doorstep interview is missing]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We must wait and see, we tabled a compromise last night, we must wait and see how that runs with colleagues, we must wait and see what other colleagues say, we need an overall compromise if it is available.

    QUESTION:

    Will you have a new package on growth that will give new hope to the unemployed in Europe at the end of these proceedings?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Finance Ministers will be discussing that this morning, the Heads of Government will discuss it over lunch, the Finance Ministers in the light of what the Heads say over lunch will continue their discussions, I very much hope we can reach an agreement.

    QUESTION:
    Presumably the more for countries like Spain the less for supposedly developed regions like Scotland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We always have to reach a balance of that sort, that is most certainly true. From within the cohesion funds and the structural funds there is a balance to be drawn. But of course the cohesion fund does not apply to any parts of the United Kingdom, the cohesion fund just applies to Greece, to Portugal, to Spain and to Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    Presumably you are anxious not to give too much to the southern countries like Spain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would not quite see it in terms of giving money away, what we are trying to do is help the development of the whole of the European Community and these resources are for infrastructure products which are helpful to industry right the way across the Community, both in the recipient countries and beyond it, so I do not quite see it as giving money away in that fashion. What we are seeking to do is to help the construction of the whole of Europe, that is important both in the short term, the medium term, but of course most important in the long term development of the Community as it develops and eventually as it grows and becomes larger.

    QUESTION:

    But you are anxious presumably to maintain money for regions like Scotland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well of course and of course the structural fund, which has brought a considerable amount of money to the United Kingdom, will be enhanced as well in the package that we are proposing.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see the financial issue as potentially the biggest stumbling block to an overall deal here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I think people are assuming too readily that there will be agreement on the difficulties faced by Denmark. There has been a tendency in the last couple of days to assume that that matter is becoming easier. I just have to say to you there are still very real difficulties in reaching an agreement on Denmark, we have produced proposals, we have discussed them with all our colleagues, there are still matters to be overcome. That will be the first matter on our agenda this morning.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the European Union – 10 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Union, made in an interview in Edinburgh on Thursday 10th December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Denmark’s no vote on the Maastricht referendum].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are certain things that are necessary in the agreement that we must reach. We cannot change what is actually in the Maastricht Treaty – that is agreed. We must ensure there is no re-ratification – that also is necessary, but I think there are ways of meeting the particular difficulties the Danes have. We have put forward some proposals; they are a long way towards agreement. There are still some difficulties to be handled. I hope we will be able to reach agreement over the next two days. I can’t promise it, but we will certainly try.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if national self-interest was now more dominant than ever].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The European Community is made up of a number of nation states; they all have their national interests; there is nothing new about that; that has always been the case. At the end of the day, they tend to reach agreement. There are some particularly intractable problems that we have to face at the moment. Some of them are intractable but they are also vitally important. The need for enlargement of the Community I think is self-evident. You cannot call it a European Community; it is a part of European Community at the moment. We need the EFTAns to come in and in a longer time-scale we want to see many of the Eastern Europeans join as well so that is a vital issue. But that is just one of a number of important issues to be determined in the next few days.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Spain’s demands for more money].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have to wait and see what happens at the end of the negotiations. Lots of people have set out their position; there is nothing unusual about that. There are often sharply differing positions before the Community enters into summits, nothing new. On this occasion, I do accept the fact that it will be particularly difficult to reach agreement on some issues but we will have to see how far we can get.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 December 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Energy Policies

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the development of (a) coal policy, (b) renewable energy policy, (c) nuclear research and development policy and (d) energy conservation policy in the European Community during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council.

    The Prime Minister : The Energy Council discussed European coal issues on 30 November, during which the Commission presented its new proposals on subsidies for coal mines. The Council agreed on the text of a decision intended to foster the development of new and renewable energy sources. The Council noted the progress officials had made in discussing a proposed directive designed to increase energy efficiency in buildings, industry and road vehicles. The Council had earlier adopted a directive on energy labelling of appliances. Progress on nuclear R and D was satisfactory.

     

    Exchange Rate Mechanism

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in consolidation of the exchange rate mechanism during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council.

    The Prime Minister : Following the severe financial turbulence which affected a number of ERM currencies in the autumn, I called the European Council in Birmingham on 16 October. This decided that the mechanism should be analysed in the light of developments in capital markets and in the European and world monetary systems. The work was remitted to ECOFIN. Further strains have recently confirmed the need for this work.

     

    Sees and Titles

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister;

    (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham of 18 May, Official Report, column 5, whether the consultation of Church authorities includes the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales;

    (2) what changes he proposes to official recognition of territorial sees of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland or, in so far as restrictions apply, in Northern Ireland;

    (3) when he expects to propose changes to official recognition of territorial sees and titles of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.

    The Prime Minister : Consultations with Church authorities and others about the official recognition of Roman Catholic territorial designations within the United Kingdom are making good progress but have not yet been completed. We shall be seeking the views of the relevant Roman Catholic authorities as part of that consultation.

     

    President de Klerk

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the documents he received from President de Klerk during the President’s recent visit to the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : No, as the correspondence involves matters of national security.

     

    Civil List

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister what is the time-lag between the annual payments into the civil list and the reinvestment of specified annuities to the Consolidated Fund.

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Member is referring to Her Majesty’s reimbursement of the Consolidated Fund for the section 3 annuities, refunds are normally made each November, for payments made during the course of the calendar year. The timing follows that of the first voluntary reimbursement by Her Majesty in November 1975.

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if interest on the early-years surpluses on the civil list under the current 10-year agreement is retained within the civil list.

    The Prime Minister : Yes. Any surplus at the end of the 10-year period would be carried forward and taken account of in the settlement for the next period.

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister what investments the royal trustees consider appropriate for the early-year surpluses on the civil list.

    The Prime Minister : The surpluses are prudently invested in the United Kingdom from within a range approved by the royal trustees.

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy adopted by Ministers if hon. and right hon. Members request that replies to letters concerning constituents abroad come from Ministers and not from chief executives or departmental heads of agencies.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s policy on dealing with letters from hon. and right hon. Members on agency matters was most recently set out in the Government’s reply to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee’s 1990 report on the next steps initiative, Cm 1263, which said :

    “It is for Ministers responsible for particular Agencies to respond in the way they consider most helpful and appropriate to inquiries raised by Members. Ministers will normally ask the Chief Executive to reply to letters which concern day-to-day operational matters delegated to the Agency.”

    The fact that a Member’s inquiry was made on behalf of a constituent who lived abroad would not in itself provide a reason to change this approach.

     

    Alois Brunner

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with his counterparts in the European Council a joint approach to the Syrian Government in support of Germany’s request for the extradition of Alois Brunner for Nazi war crimes against humanity.

    The Prime Minister : The case of Alois Brunner is not on the agenda for the European Council. Member states are aware of the continuing strength of feeling behind calls for his extradition. Most recently, Germany has made clear to Syria its own and wider European concerns on this matter.

  • PMQT – 10 December 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th December 1992. Tony Newton deputised for John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I have been asked to reply.

    This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet before departing to Edinburgh for the European Council meeting.

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Does the Leader of the House agree that the extent of marriage breakdown in Britain, and especially its implications for the children involved, is a matter of great concern to the nation as a whole? Will he press on the Prime Minister the need properly to fund the conciliation and counselling services undertaken by organisations such as Relate and the National Children’s Home? Does he recognise the direct connection between the Government’s policies and the current incidence of marriage breakdown?

    Mr. Newton : As it happens, I know well from my own previous and, indeed, present association with Relate that a great deal is going on between the Government and that organisation and others to help in this very important matter. I shall take the hon. Gentleman’s question as an expression of his support for our encouragement of those organisations.

    Mr. Thomason : Will my right hon. Friend invite the Prime Minister to come to my constituency of Bromsgrove, where he will find a well managed and well run local authority which is Conservative-controlled? Will he also suggest to the Prime Minister that he might choose to visit Monklands, the constituency of a member of the Opposition, where he will find a local authority riddled with nepotism?

    Mr. Newton : I think perhaps the proper response to that question is that it is to be hoped that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who is also holding a meeting in Edinburgh, might pay a visit to Monklands and look into it himself.

    Mrs. Beckett : Has the Lord President seen the growing number of references to the likelihood that we shall soon see the emergence of an explicitly two-tier Europe? Which tier will Britain be in?

    Mr. Newton : I have seen the references and I know that Britain will be in the fast lane. I also know that if the Labour party had its way, we should have been forced into the slow lane.

    Mrs. Beckett : The position that the Lord President describes is certainly that which should exist, but I do not think that anyone else will think that it is the position which does exist. Does he recognise that a two-tier Europe with Britain in the second tier is just what British business has long feared, and that if that happens, it is not only likely to be extremely damaging but will be in no small part due to the incompetence of the Government’s economic policy and their chaotic mismanagement of the British presidency?

    Mr. Newton : I do not quite know on what basis the hon. Lady puts her point that nobody agrees with us. The whole of British industry knows that Labour policies in relation to the social chapter, tax policies and payroll tax would mean that Britain would be in the slow lane throughout the world.

    Mr. Gallie : Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday 9,000 Rangers fans travelled to Germany at a cost of £300 per head to witness Rangers’ magnificent win over Moscow? Does he agree that on that basis there is light at the end of the recessionary tunnel?

    Mr. Newton : I did not know about the 9,000 figure, but I am delighted at the result and my hon. Friend makes a good point.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Leader of the House respond to the question of which I gave him notice yesterday so that he might have a chance to discuss the answer with the Prime Minister? In view of the deteriorating situation in the area, will he give us a categorical assurance that the Government, working with others, are not prepared to allow the city of Sarajevo to fall to the aggression of the Bosnian Serbs?

    Mr. Newton : I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Yeovil for his courtesy. I can tell him that the British Government see no justification whatever for continued Serb aggression in Sarajevo or anywhere else in Bosnia. Clearly, the western powers to which he referred could give the sort of undertaking that he seeks only by introducing a massive injection of foreign military power. The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that they do not believe that such an intervention would contribute to a solution of the crisis. The right hon. Gentleman will know, however, that after the steering committee meeting of the conference on Yugoslavia here in London there will be a meeting in Geneva next week when the main item on the agenda will be the war in Bosnia.

    Miss Emma Nicholson : Will the Lord President lead the House in condemning the religious violence which has now spread worldwide? Will he also agree that the International Moslem Foundation, a moderate organisation, and the Al Khoei and Ul-Bayt based in the United Kingdom, are just as horrified as we are by the violence and are solid and sincere members of the United Kingdom?

    Mr. Newton : I very much endorse the concern and support that my hon. Friend has expressed and also the calm support by numbers of people, including the Indian Prime Minister, throughout the world.

     

    Q2. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave a moment ago.

    Mr. Banks : I say this with no disrespect to the Leader of the House, but this is like getting 24 points on the football pools and finding that the first dividend is only 50 pence. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any regrets about the fact that the Conservative party sent two experts from its dirty tricks department to help President Bush, that the Foreign Secretary sent a telegram to James Baker saying “happy shooting just before the election, and that some idiot authorised a search of Bill Clinton’s files? Is it any wonder that in Arkansas the Prime Minister is regarded not so much as an FOB as an SOB?

    Mr. Newton : If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West were to win as much as 50 pence on the pools, he would be doing better than I did in the days when I did them. On his question, he may like to know that there have been some very friendly exchanges between President-elect Clinton and the British ambassador only yesterday evening, and that President-elect Clinton has made it clear that he looks forward very much to meeting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister after the inauguration.

    Mr. Luff : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, among the many issues facing the Edinburgh summit, the Government attach the highest possible priority to the future financing of the Community, and especially to securing Britain’s abatement?

    Mr. Newton : I assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely the case. Future financing, enlargement and finding a solution to the Danish problem are important key items on that difficult agenda. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will certainly make it clear that Britain has no intention of compromising on the abatement.

     

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Kilfoyle : As we approach Christmas, may I draw the Lord President’s attention to the publication today of “Sick to Death of Homelessness” by the housing charity, Crisis, and to the “This Week” television programme this evening entitled “Dying for a Home”? One of the conclusions drawn is that of the 617 deaths of homeless people up to 31 August this year, 65 per cent. were preventable, given proper housing and good medical care. Is that not a terrible indictment of the callous disregard with which the Government treat those least able to help themselves?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman might have been more persuasive if he had mentioned that, as a result of measures introduced by the Government during the past year, the number of households accepted as homeless has fallen, the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation has fallen by nearly a quarter, and the number of people known to be sleeping rough on the streets of London has dropped by about 60 per cent. according to an assessment made by the voluntary organisations themselves.

    Mr. Hargreaves : Notwithstanding the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about our intervention in Sarajevo, will he consult the Prime Minister to ensure that an undertaking is given to come to the House and provide a debate before any British troops are used for anything other than strictly humanitarian aid purposes?

    Mr. Newton : I note my hon. Friend’s point, and I shall of course draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

     

    Q5. Ms. Glenda Jackson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

    Ms. Jackson : Is the Lord President aware that more than 7,000 homeless families will spend Christmas in bed-and-breakfast accommodation without the means or resources to prepare the simplest of meals? In the light of the growing body of evidence of the ill health and malnutrition suffered especially by the children of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it time for a boarder premium to be paid to such families so that while they wait for the right to a home at least their children have the right to a decent diet? Or is he prepared to allow the increasing poverty and homelessness on our streets to be accompanied by scurvy and rickets?

    Mr. Newton : I have already commented on the general question of homelessness. The hon. Lady will know that, in addition to what I have already said, it has recently been announced that the Government are to put a further sum of nearly £90 million over three years into the rough sleepers initiative to tackle some of the problems which worry her. She will also be aware that, as a result of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security a few weeks ago, there will be a real increase in the value of income-related social security benefits next April.

     

    Q6. Mr. Clappison : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Clappison : Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the great interest that parents have recently expressed in information about their children’s examination performance–information which they have every right to have and which the Government have allowed them to have, but which the Opposition would deny them–parents would feel huge disappointment if some teacher unions boycotted their children’s tests?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. A boycott of the tests would betray the pupils who have been working hard at the national curriculum and who deserve to have their achievements recognised. Her Majesty’s inspectors’ reports on the trial tests have said that they were a great success. It is absolutely right to say that it is time that the Opposition stopped opposing everything that helps to improve the quality of education and choice for parents.

    Mr. Boyce : Given the state of the economy, the homelessness and the poverty in this country today, does the Leader of the House agree that the worst possible scenario is that the Government know what they are doing?

    Mr. Newton : When the hon. Gentleman makes such a point, he might remember that in the past two years the rate of inflation has been more than halved and interest rates have been more than halved. We see exports at record levels and we see increases in retail sales. In the past three months, we have seen a 20 per cent. increase in car production.

     

    Q7. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Duncan : Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who try to criticise the basis on which houses have been valued for the purposes of the council tax risk severely misleading the public? Does he agree that it is relative house prices and not absolute house prices that matter? Does he agree that we have devised a fair basis for the fair implementation of a very fair tax?

    Mr. Newton : I of course agree with my hon. Friend that the purpose of the valuations is a comparison between relative property values. I agree even more with him that a system that takes relative values into account– alongside other factors, including rebates–will be far fairer than the discredited rating system to which the Labour party wishes to return.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 December 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister when he first became aware of the 1988 amendments to the 1985 Howe guidelines for defence-related exports to Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : The development and application of the guidelines will be a matter for the Scott inquiry.

     

    Ministerial Travel

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total cost to the Exchequer of his travels within the European Communities to meet his counterparts since 1 July 1992.

    The Prime Minister : The total cost is not yet available.

     

    Ministerial Meetings

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by date all meetings and telephone conversations he has had with his European Community counterparts during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council.

    The Prime Minister : I have had frequent contacts with my EC colleagues, most recently during a tour of EC capitals to prepare for the Edinburgh European Council.

     

    Iraq and Iran

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to discuss arms and nuclear exports to Iraq and Iran from European Community countries during the European summit of the European Council.

    The Prime Minister : We are committed to strengthening nuclear non-proliferation regimes and to controlling arms exports. The United Kingdom presidency has taken forward work on nuclear non-proliferation and on the harmonisation of conventional arms export policies in European political co-operation. We have no plans to discuss EC arms and nuclear exports to Iraq and Iran at the Edinburgh summit.

     

    Legal Expenses

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister on what dates, in what circumstances and at what cost, contributions have been made, at public expense, towards the legal expenses of officers of Her Majesty’s Government, officers of the House of Commons who are Members of the House, persons working in the private office of Ministers and accounting officers for Departments of state since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 3 December, Official Report, column 307.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Separation of the Prince and Princess of Wales – 9 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement on the break-up of the Prince and Princess of Wales, made on 9th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that Buckingham palace is at this moment issuing the following statement. It reads as follows :

    “It is announced from Buckingham Palace that, with regret, the Prince and Princess of Wales have decided to separate. Their Royal Highnesses have no plans to divorce and their constitutional positions are unaffected. This decision has been reached amicably, and they will both continue to participate fully in the upbringing of their children.

    Their Royal Highnesses will continue to carry out full and separate programmes of public engagements, and will from time to time attend family occasions and national events together.

    The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, though saddened, understand and sympathise with the difficulties that have led to this decision. Her Majesty and His Royal Highness particularly hope that the intrusions into the privacy of the Prince and Princess may now cease. They believe that a degree of privacy and understanding is essential if Their Royal Highnesses are to provide a happy and secure upbringing for their children, while continuing to give a whole-hearted commitment to their public duties.”

    That is the text of the announcement.

    I am sure that I speak for the whole House–and millions beyond it–in offering our support to both the Prince and Princess of Wales. I am also sure that the House will sympathise with the wish that they should both be afforded a degree of privacy.

    The House will wish to know that the decision to separate has no constitutional implications. The succession to the throne is unaffected by it; the children of the Prince and Princess retain their position in the line of succession; and there is no reason why the Princess of Wales should not be crowned Queen in due course. The Prince of Wales’s succession as head of the Church of England is also unaffected. Neither the Prince nor the Princess is supported by the civil list, and this position will remain unchanged.

    I know that there will be great sadness at this news. But I know also that, as they continue with their royal duties and with bringing up their children, the Prince and Princess will have the full support, understanding and affection of the House and of the country.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the European Union – 9 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Union, made in an interview in London on Wednesday 9th December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about President Mitterrand’s comments that there might have to be a Europe of ten].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You cannot have a Europe of ten, it is not possible. Europe advances as Twelve or Europe cannot advance, that is the position taken by a number of governments, the German government made it clear on a number of occasions that Europe advances as Twelve. Chancellor Kohl has said it publicly on a number of occasions, it is the British position as well and I think it will remain the position.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked that President Mitterrand said it was legally possible to implement Maastricht without the Danes].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not believe that is true.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was no legal way of achieving this].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are a Community of Twelve and it is our intention to move ahead as a Community of Twelve and I think that is the way we must approach all negotiations and that is the way we do approach them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what would happen if the Danes did not ratify the Maastricht Treaty].

    PRIME MINISTER:
    Then we cannot ratify Maastricht, you cannot ratify Maastricht without the Danes, Maastricht is an agreement amongst twelve, not an agreement amongst eleven.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Maastricht Treaty was therefore dead if it was not ratified by the Danes].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If it cannot be ratified by all twelve it cannot proceed. We believe it can be ratified by all twelve and we want it ratified by all twelve and we are doing everything we can to make sure that an agreement is reached, but it must be an agreement by all the members of the Community.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what could be done for the Danes].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have set out a very comprehensive plan to meet the difficulties faced by the Danes, it involves a decision by the member states on certain sensitive matters, it involves European Council conclusions, a declaration by the European Council and declaration by the Danes. But the points that are relevant are these: it does not change the terms of the Maastricht Treaty, there will be no need for fresh ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and it calls for flexibility on behalf of the Danes and of the rest of the Community. I do not propose to go into details on the propositions we have put forward, but I hope we will find they are generally acceptable at Edinburgh this weekend.