The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1992

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 December 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Cold Weather Credits

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister when he will be replying to the letter of 21 October from the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits.
    The Prime Minister : A reply was sent on my behalf by the Department of Social Security on 2 December 1992.

     

    World Summit for Children

    Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the progress made towards the goals established at the World summit for children in 1990.
    The Prime Minister : The Government published a “Report on United Kingdom Implementation of the Goals agreed by the World Summit for Children” as a Command Paper on 24 June 1992.

  • PMQT – 8 December 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms. Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

    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.

    Ms. Hoey : Does the Prime Minister agree that the present 999 emergency service is highly efficient, flexible and adaptable? Will he assure the House and the thousands of people lobbying Parliament today that he will put his foot down and stop the Oftel report which will–if its proposals are implemented–destroy the system and endanger the lives of millions of citizens?

    The Prime Minister : I agree that, generally, over the years, the present system has been efficient, although, as the hon. Lady will know, there have been drawbacks, which have been brought to people’s attention from time to time. The consultants’ report will be carefully considered by all the interested parties. I give great consideration to ensuring that the new arrangements will at least maintain, and preferably improve, the current high standard of response to calls. If the hon. Lady has specific propositions to put, I know that the director general of Oftel will be happy to receive them.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Lait : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

    Mrs. Lait : While recognising that my right hon. Friend will be under enormous pressure at Edinburgh from our European Community partners to give ground on the rebate, may I tell him that he will have the total support of Conservative Members in resisting any such pressure?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her mention of the Edinburgh summit. There is no doubt that a large number of complex things are to be decided at Edinburgh–the enlargement negotiations are difficult, the future finance negotiations will undoubtedly need a good deal more work and we are committed to finding, if we can, a satisfactory conclusion to the Danish problems. What is quite clear, as I told the House last week, is that there can be no change in the British abatement to the budget.

    Mr. John Smith : On the issue of the Edinburgh summit, at a time when unemployment is rising faster in Britain than in any other country in the Community, should not a programme of jobs and recovery be at the top of the agenda for the Edinburgh summit? Why did the Prime Minister not even mention that in his reply?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to know that there will be a discussion among the Heads of Government on the European economic situation, and Britain, as President, specifically invited the Finance Ministers to Edinburgh. The economy has been a main topic of discussion at all the meetings that we have had in Europe in recent months, and a team of Treasury officials has been travelling throughout Europe to co-ordinate positions. I very much hope that co-ordinated measures will emerge from those discussions, but we shall have to wait to see what our partners feel at Edinburgh this weekend.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that the obligations of being President of the Community entail more than chairing interesting discussions ; that it is action that is required? Why have all the suggestions–increased support for research and development, more investment facilities for the European investment bank, infrastructure projects in transport and other areas, and emergency action on unemployment –come from others and nothing from the President of the Community?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is characteristically mistaken, as he will find from the presidency paper that has been placed for discussion this weekend. On the subject of action during the presidency, he has clearly overlooked the agreement sought for a long time between the United States and the Community on agriculture, the fact that agreement has now been reached on more than 50 single market measures, which means that we will be able to declare the single market open as at the end of this year, the resolution on making the single market work, the London conference on Yugoslavia, and the preparations for enlargement ; and he has overlooked, or chosen to overlook, a great deal more as well.

    Mr. John Smith : Why, in that litany, did not the Prime Minister mention unemployment? Why has no action been taken before now? Why was unemployment not on the agenda for the Birmingham summit? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that when 750 manufacturing jobs are being lost each working day in this country it is high time action was taken? His presidency will be condemned for gross inaction.

    The Prime Minister : I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is desperately trying to recover his European gloss after the shameful way in which he and his colleagues have been behaving over the Maastricht Bill. As for providing opportunities for growth and jobs, he might bear in mind that we have the lowest corporation tax in the Community or the G7, the lowest interest rates in the Community, inflation down well below 4 per cent., low direct taxation, exports at record levels, car production growing, and retail sales growing–the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not like any of this because it shows what we have done and how things are going to change.

     

    Q3. Mr. Clifton-Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown : My right hon. Friend will be aware that since the autumn statement and the abolition of car tax, car sales since last October have increased by 22 per cent that Honda has created another 1,100 jobs at Swindon, Nissan has created another 1,800 jobs at Sunderland and that Toyota is about to create a great many more jobs in Derby. Is not that excellent news for the car industry in particular and the economy in general? [Interruption.] Does it not demonstrate that low taxation boosts consumer demand, whereas the high-taxation policies of the Opposition destroy jobs?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is learning that Opposition Members are not too keen on hearing good news–no doubt we shall hear a good deal more of that in the months to come.

    People sometimes forget how far the motor car industry has come since the early 1970s. It was then a national disgrace; the trade unions wrecked it day in, day out. The fact that it has come so far is a great tribute to the work force, to the management and to the legislation passed by successive Conservative Governments.

     

    Q4. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Given that the Prime Minister was elected, in his own words, to create a nation more at ease with itself, how does he reconcile that objective with the fact that between 3 million and 4 million people are unemployed in this country, with the number still rising, and that more than 17 million people are unemployed in the European Community? At the end of two years of his premiership and six months as President of the European Community, does he believe that he has succeeded in achieving the target that he set himself so few months ago? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : When the hon. Gentleman has ceased being heckled by Opposition Members on the Front Bench below the Gangway, I will try to answer him. As he knows, I set out a programme for a full Parliament. He will be able to criticise if we do not realise our objectives by the end of this Parliament, by when he will see that we will have achieved them.

    Mr. Harris : My right hon. Friend made some welcome remarks about doing away with excessive and bureaucratic regulations in this country. Will he perhaps start by looking at the regulations on meat hygiene and inspection which pose a real threat to small and medium-sized slaughterhouses in this country and, although a welcome start has been made, will he carry that even further?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, I have asked my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade to co-ordinate a considered examination right across the Government, local government and the European Community on the extent of regulations. I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the specific examples which my hon. Friend mentions.

     

    Q5. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Has the Prime Minister been briefed on the murder of the British journalist Jonathan Moyle in Santiago and, if so, what is his response to the Chilean judge charged with the investigation of the murder, that his investigation was obstructed by the unwillingness of British officials to co-operate? How does the Prime Minister explain British officials briefing the press that Mr. Moyle died while masturbating when he was murdered by a lethal injection in the heel? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is any link with the fact that Jonathan Moyle was investigating the arms trade of Carlos Cardoen, the main arms procurer for Iraq, who was responsible for the transmission of Matrix Churchill equipment and was also the associate of Mark Thatcher?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman makes a series of unsubstantiated comments to which he knows I have no intention whatever of replying. If the hon. Member has detailed evidence that he believes should be examined he should take it to the proper authorities.

     

    Q6. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.

    Sir John Hannam : My right hon. Friend will recall the meeting he had recently with hon. Members from the south-west when he was made aware of the particular problems of differential electricity and water charges. Has he seen the latest survey by Exeter chamber of commerce which shows that 60 per cent. of businesses there have increased their sales in the past three months, that 25 per cent. are expecting to increase their labour force and that only 4 per cent. to reduce their labour force? Will he continue his efforts to reduce the regulatory burdens which bear down on business expansion?

    The Prime Minister : The figures that my hon. Friend mentions are encouraging and I am grateful to him and my other hon. Friends for the comments they made to me recently. I fully accept how important all those factors are to the prosperity of the west country, but they have similar importance for the economy of other parts of the country as well. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be doing all that we can to lift the burden from all companies–large, medium and small.

     

    Q7. Mr. Raynsford : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Raynsford : What has the Prime Minister to say to the thousands of parents of children in Greenwich who are deeply concerned at the adverse effect of Government-imposed cuts on the standards of education for their children in schools in Greenwich? Why have this Government failed entirely to respond to the concerns expressed in the signatures of thousands in the petition that I presented a few weeks ago? Why have they not bothered to make any observations on that petition or to those concerned?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind which Government published information about what is happening in schools and how children are being taught and what their results are. When he and his right hon. and hon. Friends are prepared to release that sort of information he might be in a position to issue such pious lectures.

     

    Single Currency

    Q8. Mr. Sweeney : To ask the Prime Minister whether the establishment of a single currency within the union remains the policy of Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister : The Government believe that it is too soon to consider whether or not the United Kingdom should move to a single currency. The United Kingdom is not obliged or committed to such a move and no decision to move to a single currency will be made without the specific approval of Parliament.

    Mr. Sweeney : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that under article 109J of the treaty we shall be driven inexorably towards a single currency whether we want it or not?

    The Prime Minister : No, I do not accept that. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a specific provision that will enable us at an appropriate time to decide whether or not we take part in a single currency. That provision does not prevent us from preparing with our Community partners for their move into a single currency, but we remain uncommitted until and unless the House decides that we should move into one.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose–

    Madam Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Lady that this is a closed question.

     

    Engagements

    Q9. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.

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

    Mr. Michie : In view of the Prime Minister’s stated commitment to defend this nation’s heritage, will he and his colleagues call for a moratorium on all supermarket developments in green-field sites and launch an investigation into their value, compared with the amount of heritage that is lost under the concrete and car parks of supermarket development? The right hon. Gentleman can start the survey with Meadowhead in Sheffield.

    The Prime Minister : Such matters must be dealt with on a case-by- case basis, as they have been in the past, are now, and should continue to be in future.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7th December 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Radiation

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the division of responsibilities between each Government Department in investigating the risks posed by exposure to radiation.

    The Prime Minister : The Department of Health is responsible in general terms for the protection of public health against radiological hazards. The Department’s specific responsibilities relate to obtaining expert advice; initiating relevant research; and ensuring an effective health response in the event of a radiological emergency.

    The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food’s responsibilities are to protect the population from exposure to unacceptable levels of radioactivity through food chain pathways; and to minimise the impact of radioactive waste on the food, farming and fishing industries and the marine environment.

    The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for civil nuclear safety in relation to the generation of electricity. The Department of Employment is responsible for the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985, which concern the protection of workers and the public from radiation doses received as a result of any work involving ionising radiations. On this the Department is advised by the Health and Safety Commission and the regulations are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.

    The Department of the Environment is responsible for establishing a radioactive waste management policy and for monitoring the environment for radioactivity. Within the Department, the regulators–Her Majesty’s inspectorate of pollution–have the statutory responsibility in England and Wales for authorising uses and disposals of radioactive substances.

    The Ministry of Defence is responsible for defence nuclear and radiological safety.

    The Department of Transport is responsible for the safety aspects of the transportation of radioactive material.

    The Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office are responsible for all civil aspects of radiological safety in relation to their respective parts of the United Kingdom. The National Radiological Protection Board is responsible under the Radiological Protection Act 1970 for advancing knowledge of radiological protection and for informing and advising Government Departments and others on protection from radiation hazards.

     

    Animal Welfare

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Government Departments concerned with the main areas of animal welfare, indicating their respective responsibilities.

    The Prime Minister : A number of Government Departments have responsibility for the welfare and conservation of animals and related matters.

    The Department of the Environment is responsible for policy on stray dogs; the protection of birds; wildlife and endangered species.

    The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for the welfare of livestock kept on agricultural land; the welfare of livestock at market and the welfare of horses, cattle, sheep, swine, goats and poultry in slaughterhouses and knackers yards. The Ministry is also involved in the campaign against illegal poisoning of wildlife and in the International Whaling Commission, and has responsibility for the impact of fishing practices on cetaceans. The Home Office is responsible for ensuring the adequacy of the law on cruelty to animals in general and in some specific areas, and for the law on the use of living animals in scientific procedures. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office works to raise the profile of animal welfare issues abroad, both bilaterally and with international organisations concerned.

     

    Maastricht Treaty

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister how many representations his office has received on the Maastricht treaty from 1 January to 1 December giving a disaggregated breakdown between those originating in the United Kingdom and those from abroad.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a substantial number of representations on the Maastricht treaty covering a wide range of issues.

     

    Legal Expenses Insurance Policies

    Mr. Alex Carlile : To ask the Prime Minister if he will require Ministers to take out legal expenses insurance policies.

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

     

    Freight Traffic

    Mr. Adley : To ask the Prime Minister if it remains his Government’s policy to seek the transfer of freight traffic from road to rail; and if he will report on the extent to which freight has been transferred to rail since April 1992.

    The Prime Minister : The Government believe that freight should be transported by rail whenever that makes commercial sense to customers and rail operators alike. The best way to facilitate this is to end British Rail’s monopoly of rail services, as proposed in the White Paper “New Opportunities for the Railways”, Cm 2012. Detailed information about rail freight carryings since April 1992 is a matter for British Rail.

    Mr. Adley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will order an immediate inquiry into the reasons for and effect of the fall in the volume of rail freight traffic.

    The Prime Minister : Rail freight has been in decline for many years. The Government’s proposals for the privatisation of British Rail’s freight operations, and the opening up of the rail network to new entrants, are aimed at improving rail’s prospects for the future.

     

    Tropical Timber

    Mr. Meacher : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom Government’s position in respect of the preparatory committee for renegotiation of the international tropical timber agreement to be convened in Quito, Ecuador, in January 1993.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom had hoped that a second preparatory committee in Quito, Ecuador would be unnecessary; however, the tropical timber-producing countries require more time to develop their positions before discussing them with the consuming countries. The Quito meeting will provide a valuable opportunity for the producing and consuming countries to identify the issues they wish to renegotiate. The United Kingdom intends to participate in the second preparatory meeting and will work with its European neighbours for a speedy renegotiation of the 1983 agreement.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty’s Government took during 1990 and prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, to halt the export to Iraq of furnaces constructed by Consarc Engineering of Bellshill, near Glasgow.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 December 1992] : It is not normal practice to discuss the affairs of individual companies.

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what requests Her Majesty’s Government received from the United States Administration to stop the export to Iraq of two furnaces constructed by Consarc Engineering at Bellshill, near Glasgow, during 1990;

    (2) what communications Her Majesty’s Government received from the United States Administration during 1990 and prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, concerning involvement by British companies in equipping a missile factory called Badr General Establishment.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 December 1992] : Communications between Governments are confidential.

     

    Civil List

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister what items or headings of expenditure have been transferred from the royal family’s expenditure funded from the civil list to the Government since 1972; on what dates; what is the current cost to the Exchequer of each such item or heading; and what was their cost at the time of their transfer.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 December 1992] : So far as I am aware, no items or headings of direct expenditure have been transferred from the civil list to the Government since 1972. However, following advice taken in 1987, consistent with government fees and charges policy, the royal household took on board the feasibility of charging full costs for certain administrative services. These included, for example, charging for the accommodation and support services provided to staff based in the royal household but who are employed by Government Departments. Similar charges are made on behalf of the civil list to the household’s royal collection department and to the Prince of Wales’s office. The cost to Government Departments in the years 1987-90, which should be seen in the context of the “1990 Royal Trustees Report”–HC 629–are as follows :

    |£

    ————————

    1987 |83,372

    1988 |138,310

    1989 |132,809

    1990 |162,810

    The separate identification of full costs for administrative services is in line with the Government’s policy of identifying costs across the public sector.

     

    Furniture and Furnishings (Regulations)

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department is responsible for drafting the Furniture and Furnishings Fire Safety Regulations; and what consultations are being undertaken on the terms of the regulations.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 3 December 1992] : The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations were made by the Department of Trade and Industry in July 1988. The DTI has recently consulted public on draft amendment regulations proposing to postpone, from 1 March 1993 to 1 March 1994, the date by which furniture included in the letting of accommodation must meet the fire resistance requirements of the 1988 regulations. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow businesses providing furnished accommodation more time to prepare for the fire resistance requirements and to complete the upgrading or replacement of their existing stock of furniture. It will remain a requirement that any additional replacement or additional furniture which they supply from 1 March 1993 must meet the fire resistance requirements.

  • PMQT – 3 December 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Congdon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Congdon : Is my right hon. Friend aware that many businesses are finding it difficult enough without the added burden of bureaucratic interference and excessive regulation? Can he assure businesses in my constituency that he will do everything he can to reduce the number of petty rules and regulations emanating both from Whitehall and from Brussels?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think that it is time that we stood back again and looked at the whole burden of regulation–that imposed by the House, that imposed by the Community and that imposed by local authorities. That is precisely what I have asked my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to do. I shall be calling in all Cabinet Ministers in the new year to discuss how we can cut that red tape still further. Today I have announced a new scrutiny involving the private sector, which will look at the way in which EC regulations impact upon business. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will announce details of this shortly.

    Mr. John Smith : On the day when the Post Office has made a staggering announcement of 15,000 job losses, will the Prime Minister tell the House what action he proposes to take to stem the rising tide of unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : Everyone, of course, regrets job losses wherever they occur. In the case of the Post Office, I am glad that these are both to be spread and to be sought voluntarily. The only way to create long-term sustainable jobs is to create the right policies that produce long-term sustainable growth. That is precisely what we are putting in place.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not realise that we have heard both these regrets and these excuses in every month of the two years in which he has been Prime Minister? Does he not accept the reality of modern Britain, that there are 52 unemployed people seeking every job vacant in the west midlands and 72 seeking every job vacant in London? What does he propose to do about it?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have been listening a moment or so ago. If he is really concerned about jobs, why does he not drop his commitment to a payroll tax, the social chapter and the minimum wage? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should remember what happened last time a Labour Government–of which he was a member–tried to buy its way out of recession : 27 per cent. inflation and no growth.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it not pathetic that, after 15 years of Conservative Government and after the Prime Minister has been in office for two years, he is still seeking to blame others for unemployment? Does he not realise that redundancy does not just affect the Post Office ; in this week alone, we have the Post Office, Ford and Cammell Laird? Does he not understand that unemployment is now a cancer eating up the fabric of British society? When, at long last, will he take some action against unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman expresses concern about Cammell Laird. The defence policies that his party espouses would put hundreds of thousands of people out of work. He conveniently forgets that labour spent the first half of this year calling for swingeing tax increases that would have put many other people out of work. Our priority has been to create the right conditions for growth. We have cut inflation to under 4 per cent., we have cut tax rates for businesses and earners and we have reduced interest rates to 7 per cent., the lowest in the Community and half the level of two years ago.

    Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman missed the latest Community survey in the Financial Times–[Interruption.] I gather that he did. If he had not, perhaps he would be better informed. That showed that British business men are now displaying much more confidence in British prospects than their continental counterparts are showing in their prospects. When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman start talking this country up and stop talking it down?

    Mr. King : Against the background of the further attempts by the IRA to mount a bombing campaign in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, did my right hon. Friend note in the recent elections in the Republic of Ireland that Sinn Fein massed the massive total of 1.6 per cent. of support and that of the 42 candidates who stood, 40 lost their deposits? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates that any attempt to pretend that there is popular democratic support for the campaign of violence is totally fraudulent?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly noted the statistics to which my right hon. Friend refers. They reflect the disgust that is felt not only in this country but in the Republic of Ireland about the way in which the IRA seeks to bomb, kill and damage people’s lives indiscriminately.

     

    Q2. Mr. Mullin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Mullin : Does the Prime Minister recall that in September 1986 he filled in a questionnaire sent to him by the author Mr. Martin Short agreeing that police officers, magistrates, Members of Parliament, councillors and other public officials who were Freemasons should disclose that fact? If he has forgotten, I have with me a copy of the questionnaire with his signature at the bottom of it. Is that still his position and, if so, may I expect his support for my Secret Societies (Declaration) Bill which comes up for Second Reading on 29 January?

    The Prime Minister : I commend the hon. Gentleman for his ingenuity and research. It remains my personal view, as set out at that time. I shall examine his Bill and my timetable and see what answer I come up with.

    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last week alone, 17 convoys of British troops have delivered nearly 1,000 tonnes of food to the stricken citizens of Bosnia? Will he reassure the House that it is not the Government’s intention to deploy British troops in a combat role, whatever the merits of enforcing a no-fly zone, in what is essentially a civil war?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we already have 2,000 troops in Yugoslavia. They are there to deliver humanitarian aid. They are, as my hon. Friend points out, doing that with great skill, persistence and bravery. We have taken a leading role in many aspects in Yugoslavia, in sanctions monitoring in the Adriatic, and that has now been stepped up. We have, of course, supported the establishment of a no-fly zone. If further action is needed to enforce that no-fly zone, we should wish to consider that with our allies and partners in the United Nations, but we have no immediate plans to go further.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister not yet realise that, despite the best efforts of our troops on the ground, the situation in and around Bosnia is not getting better but worse? Does he not realise that time is running out for saving lives and for stopping the spread of the conflict? Does he further not realise that whether it is in London in August or in Geneva in two weeks’ time, peace efforts will continue to fail for so long as agreements on paper are not backed by the will to enforce them on the ground?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman refers to the London conference on Yugoslavia, which this country called and which set a new framework for negotiations. He is right in saying that when those negotiations are there it is necessary for those who reach agreements to keep them, and we will certainly do what we can to ensure that. The right hon. Member, like everyone else, wants to see an end to the fighting and suffering in the former Yugoslavia. I have to tell him that we are not talking about the invasion of one country by another ; we are talking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said, effectively about a civil war. It is all too easy to be heroic with the lives of other people.

    Those who talk glibly about bombing from the air should consider the risk of retaliation to our troops who are, at present, delivering humanitarian aid. Those who go further and talk about putting ground forces in should realise that, were the circumstances necessary and we and others did so, we would be committing those troops to a very long and bloody fight with the absolute certainty of serious casualties. If we have not put in troops, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly thinks we might have done, it is not out of neglect ; it is out of our judgment of what is best, what is feasible and what is responsible.

    Mr. Watts : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our European Community partners understand clearly that any attempt to interfere with the rebate of Britain’s excessive contributions to the EC budget would have a dramatic effect on his ability to secure a smooth passage for the Maastricht Bill through the House?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my hon. Friend has just made his own point in an inimitable fashion, and I note it. I am grateful for what he had to say.

    The abatement, which is worth about £12 billion to the United Kingdom so far, ensures that we pay only our fair share to the Community budget. I have to say that there is no justification whatever for reducing that rebate, and we shall not agree to reduce it at Edinburgh. On most issues at Edinburgh, there may be room for negotiation. On this issue, there is no room whatever for negotiation.

     

    Q3. Mr. Burden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Burden : Is the Prime Minister aware that this year more than 2,500 jobs have been lost in manufacturing in my city of Birmingham, and that, every working day that he has been Prime Minister, 750 manufacturing jobs have been lost? Given the virtual vote of no confidence which the Engineering Employers Federation gave to the President of the Board of Trade last week, when will he start listening to what the manufacturing industry is saying?

    The Prime Minister : I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the “Autumn Statement”. He obviously missed it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Conway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Conway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of this country never wanted to celebrate the Marxist anniversary of May day? Given the new spirit of European co-operation, will my right hon. Friend consider replacing the May day bank holiday with a bank holiday to mark the anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar, the battle of Agincourt or, better still, the battle of Waterloo?

    The Prime Minister : I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for removing the May day bank holiday in precisely the same way in which are seeing the removal of the political system that it supports. Perhaps Trafalgar day would be appropriate ; perhaps other days, but certainly not May day.

    Mr. Hattersley : Which does the Prime Minister think would most increase the choices available to a poor family–all the charters that he has announced, some of which he relaunched this morning, or £10 a week more on child benefit?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should realise that many people in this country want to ensure that they get a better quality of public service than they have had in the past. We are determined under the charter programme to ensure that they get that better quality of service. I find it astonishing that the Labour party talks about public service, but does nothing in reality to ensure that people receive it.

    Mr. Streeter : Does my right hon. Friend agree that competitive tendering has brought real improvement and value for money where it has been introduced in local authority services? Does he, like me, welcome the fact that compulsory competitive tendering is to be introduced into housing management?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree that competitive tendering has produced substantial cost savings so far, and will no doubt continue to do so in future. It has done so with the same or improved standards of performance. I welcome the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to housing management–it is a little overdue, but now it is there, I very much welcome it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Pike : Does the Prime Minister recognise that the main underlying message of the churches lobby on housing this week was that, despite the slight change of direction announced in the autumn statement, that has only touched the surface of the many housing problems created as a result of Government policies during the past 14 years? Will the Government make more resources available to tackle the problems, reduce unemployment, improve the market sector and improve the British economy?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know, the plans that the Government have announced enable them to meet the manifesto pledge of 153,000 new homes. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the housing market should benefit significantly from the extra £750 million set aside to reduce the overhang of empty properties. That should provide another 20,000 properties for the public sector. The reduction in interest rates will help both the public and private sectors.

  • Mr Major’s Service for the Citizen Conference Speech – 3 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech given to “The Service for the Citizen Conference” held on 3rd December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This Service for the Citizen Conference is being held as part of the UK Presidency of the European Community. I am particularly glad to be able to welcome here Michel Delebarre, the Minister for Public Administration in France. For the purpose of this Conference is to enable us all to learn from each other. Minister, we look forward with great interest to what you have to say today.

    Public Services – Servants not Masters of the Citizen

    I have been concerned about public services long before I arrived in Downing Street. Let me pose some questions to you.

    I wonder how many of you have stood on the wrong side of a counter trying to convince an anonymous official on the other side to deal with you promptly and courteously? I wonder how many of you have ‘phoned your local council only to be shunted around from department to department and to find that it’s always someone else’s responsibility?

    And how many of you have appealed for common sense in response to a simple request – only to be told ‘but this is the way we’ve always done it?’

    I have – and so have all too many millions of others in every country in Europe. Public services don’t have to be like that. That is why I launched the Citizen’s Charter in Britain – I was determined to get a better deal for every user from every public service. And with the help and commitment of many hundreds of thousands of people who work in public service, we are making the changes that are needed.

    I want to see public services in Britain, and in Europe, that are every bit as good as those offered by the private sector. I have always said that change couldn’t come overnight, that it was a programme for ten years. But we will see it through. The users of services expect no less. And I am struck by how many of those who fail to see the importance of the Charter are drawn from among the articulate and the powerful – people who can throw their weight around, pull strings, make life uncomfortable for the service provider.

    They are the privileged few. The Charter isn’t really for the man in the Rolls Royce. It’s for the passenger in the bus that’s stuck behind him in the bus lane. We want to give everyone the power to use the system. For most of us rely on public service. We always will. There is hardly a person in Europe who does not use public services in the course of their daily life. Indeed we not only use public services, we also pay for them, either directly or through our taxes. We are entitled to expect that these services are the best that our money can buy.

    Dealing with public service should not be a tale of petty frustrations. People should not be on the receiving end of careless and patronising behaviour. They should not have to battle for things about which they care deeply – a future for their children – against a system that sometimes doesn’t seem to give a damn. For many, that kind of experience leads to demoralisation and despair. For me, it generates anger – and a determination to do something to change it.

    The whole purpose of the Citizen’s Charter is to change the system. To open it up, to improve the service, and to give the patient, the parent and the passenger the service they want. It’s about the nitty gritty details of life. We’re very good in the public sector at dreaming up grandiose schemes. But it’s much more difficult to ensure they are delivered in a sensitive and convenient way to the citizen.

    The Citizen’s Charter is about stopping people being pushed around. It’s about listening to what people want, and tailoring services to their needs. It’s about challenging the age old assumptions of the trade union rule-book and of patronising officialdom. It’s about exposing incompetence, outdated systems and shoddy services – and improving them. It’s about giving people information, power, choice and rights.

    You might think, now I live in No 10 Downing Street, surrounded by public servants who could not be more helpful or more courteous, you might think my anger had cooled. But I can tell you it hasn’t. Every so often – too often – old memories flood back and it gets stirred up again. Take three weeks ago, when here in England we published for the first time nationwide school exam result league tables. The response was predictable: a chorus of protest from educationalists, from teachers’ unions and from the chattering classes who are well used to getting round the system.

    ‘Parents won’t understand’.

    ‘It doesn’t take account of pupils’ social background’.

    ‘It’s added value that matters, not exam results’.

    The age old defence tactics: misrepresent your opponent’s case. Then dress up self interest as concern for others.

    Parents are not stupid. They respect and admire the work that so many teachers do in tough circumstances with classes who have come out of primary school not properly equipped with the basic tools for learning. They know there are many factors to be taken into account when they look at schools for their children. And we intend to help by publishing even more information next year.

    But parents know something else. Looking at value added is useful, but it is not value added you take out into your career in later life; it is exam results and qualifications. Results matter. Parents know it. Employers know it. And if some professors of education don’t know it, they are in the wrong profession.

    Redefining the Role of the State

    The Citizen’s Charter programme involves a fundamental reappraisal of what the State should do and how it should do it.

    That is why the first strand of our programme is privatisation – stopping the State doing what is best done by the private sector. Since 1979, we have reduced the State sector to a smaller and more sensible size. We’ve already privatised 46 State-owned businesses – two-thirds of the State owned sector.

    But our privatisation programme is by no means finished. We have further big commitments ahead, starting with the railways. The success of privatisation, now so widely copied in every part of the globe, has already been a key factor in raising quality and choice in public service in Britain.

    Competition and Choice

    The second strand of Citizen’s Charter reform is the extension of competition and choice. The English novelist Anthony Trollope described competition as a ‘beautiful science’ ‘by which every plodding cart horse is converted into a racer’.

    Choice and competition put the citizen in the driving seat. And they bring with them a revolution in attitudes across the British public sector. Health Authorities and local doctors who manage their own funds can now choose the best service and best value for money for their patients. Parents now have a right to choose a school for their children. And to help them choose they are being given far more information about schools and how their own children are doing. Information they should never have been denied.

    I want to see more choice everywhere. At local government level we are pressing through the biggest programme of competitive tendering that has so far been seen.

    And in Central Government we announced last week that are increasing substantially the amount of work which is tested against the market; this year the total value will be almost £1.5bn. If the private sector can do it more efficiently, we’ll contract the work out. The key criterion will be good service for the public.

    Deregulation in Britain and Europe

    In Britain we see public sector agencies as standard setters, as enablers and – where necessary – as regulators of private sector activity. But I believe there is a balance to be struck between regulation which protects the consumer and enhances service, and over-regulation which imposes unsustainable costs on business.

    In the UK I believe the balance has tipped too far. Some have suggested that many of the small businessmen who are so vital to our economic regeneration spend up to half their working week dealing with government requirements. This is unacceptable. Small businesses simply cannot afford large numbers of advisers to cope with bureaucratic demands or to challenge them.

    It is time we stood back and looked again at the burden of regulation. It is time we heard what the public are saying about some of the regulations that are closing village shops, and threatening local businesses and products.

    That is why I have asked Michael Heseltine to lead a new blitz on regulation. Over the next months we will be challenging every Government Department to justify the scale of regulation it imposes. I want to see a new bonfire of controls. We must protect the public interest in safety and fair trading. But businessmen must be given the freedom and opportunities to create the wealth that all our countries so greatly need.

    Too many of the regulations people have complained about are associated with Europe. Last week the Industry Council highlighted the importance of minimising the burden on business of Community legislation. We shall build on this at the Edinburgh Summit. There we must carry forward the idea of subsidiarity. Start not just to simplify rules, but to identify unnecessary Community legislation that might be repealed outright.

    The problem is partly one of our own making. National Governments do not always translate EC Directives into plain rules everyone can understand. We sometimes add extra rules simply because they seem a good idea to Departments and their advisers or pressure groups. Here in Britain we are sometimes over-punctilious in enforcing Directives when lighter controls are tolerated elsewhere. I am very pleased to be able to announce a Scrutiny, which will involve the private sector, to study these important issues. Michael Heseltine will be announcing the terms of reference shortly.

    The Public Service Demand for Change

    One of the most heartening aspects of the Charter reforms in Britain is that it is not just the public who have been calling for change. There is also pressure for reform from within the public service itself. Public servants want to improve their relations with the public. They want clear standards and objectives and reward for achievement.

    Ideas for improvement are coming from the workforce themselves. For if there is one thing worse than being on the receiving end of shoddy service, it is knowing you are not being allowed to give the best you can.

    Charter Principles

    In improving public services I suggest that there are a number of fundamental principles which would hold good for any country. First, the customer has a right to know the standards which have been set and agreed. The standards must be published openly. Those standards must be measured and the results published so that success can be rewarded and poor service improved.

    Second, the consumer needs choice wherever practicable. Where choice is limited, as in some big public services like schools, social work and the police, there needs to be independent inspection with a strong lay element to ensure the customers’ voice is heard.

    Third, there must be swift, effective remedies for failure to deliver the promised standard of service.

    And finally, we need services which provide the best value for money. The Citizen’s Charter will have succeeded when we get the public, the Press, – and the providers themselves – to understand that improvement in public service is not only achieved by extra money. It comes from new methods, greater efficiency, and an open mind. Every private business knows that. It is true for public services as well.

    The Citizen’s Charter – a Continuing and Dynamic Programme

    Here in Britain, the Citizen’s Charter is a continuing and dynamic programme. Across 28 services, standards are being set. And when they are met, then they will be raised again and again. I want the standards to be demanding. On British Rail for example, some lines have performed extremely well against the targets. On other lines, targets have still not been reached. In such cases we will expect the management and workforce to redouble their efforts to deliver their commitments. I will not allow BR, or any other public services, to lower the standards that the Citizen’s Charter has set.

    Last week we published the first of what will be regular reports setting out the progress that has been achieved and the future programme. It shows how we are achieving at the one extreme dramatic improvements in performance in our major State services, such as health and education, and on the other the modest but vital small changes to services at a local level.

    Strengthening the Democratic Partnership

    This Conference offers a unique opportunity to share our different experiences of working for better public services. It is very important that we learn from each other. Because at the bottom of this worldwide concern to get a grip on standards of public service lies a deeper concern: to strengthen the sinews of a democratic society, by promoting more active partnership between Government and the citizen. As we approach the twenty-first century, there can be no greater cause than that.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 December 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the affidavit sent to him by Ms. Tess Lawrence on 30 November.

    The Prime Minister : The affidavit has been sent by Ms. Lawrence to Lord Justice Scott. It will be for him to consider the information which it contains.

     

    Legal Advice (Ministers)

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1979 the Government have funded, wholly or in part, the cost of legal advice of representations for Ministers of the Crown in respect of matters which related in part to personal and private matters; and if he will list the names of the Ministers in respect of whom such payments have been made.

    The Prime Minister : There is no central record of such cases. Such advice is normally confidential.

     

    Sprinkler Systems

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that sprinkler systems similar to those to be installed at the National Library of Scotland should be installed at the British museum in London.

    The Prime Minister : It is for the trustees and directing staff of individual museums and galleries to decide on the most appropriate fire systems for their institutions with regard to the nature of their collections.

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister on what date the Government received copies of the report prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency into the attempt by Iraq to build and develop nuclear weapons.

    The Prime Minister : So far, the International Atomic Energy Agency has carried out 15 inspections aimed at uncovering Iraqi attempts to build and develop nuclear weapons. As reports of these inspections are published as Security Council documents, they are placed in the House of Commons Library.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

    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.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 December 1992

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will agree to order that copies of all documents that are made available by Government Department’s to Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry in the export of arms, components and machine tools to Iraq shall also be made available on request to those committees of the Congress of the United States conducting comparable inquiries or investigation.

    The Prime Minister : No, but requests for information will be considered on their merits.

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister whether the briefing material relating to United Kingdom exports to Iraq, prepared for the Foreign Secretary’s meeting with Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Minister in September 1989, still exists; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Yes. The brief referred to British media interest in Iraqi procurement activities in the United Kingdom, naming Learfan and Matrix Churchill as examples. No further details were given and there was no other reference to United Kingdom defence exports to Iraq.

     

    Civil List

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the occasions since 1972 on which a reimbursement by Her Majesty the Queen of civil list annuities to the Treasury in relation to other members of the royal family has taken place and what sums were involved in each case.

    The Prime Minister : Since 1975 Her Majesty the Queen has fully reimbursed the Consolidated Fund for the annuities paid under section 3 of the Civil List Act 1972. I will arrange for the right hon. Gentleman to have the detail of each refund.

     

    Her Majesty The Queen (Taxation)

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) of 26 November, Official Report, column 982, when the discussions with Her Majesty the Queen on taxation of her income began; and what consideration was given to the timing of the announcement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 December 1992] : Her Majesty indicated to me some months ago before the summer recess that she wished consideration to be given to the basis on which she might voluntarily pay tax. Once discussion had reached a stage where it was clear that arrangements could be put in place for next year, I agreed with Her Majesty that I should notify the House as soon as possible.

     

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister how many public interest immunity certificates have been signed by Ministers in each of the last six months; and in what circumstances.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 November 1992] : Ministers signed two public interest immunity certificates in June, two in July, six in September, three in October and two in November.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Poul Schluter – 2 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Danish Prime Minister, Mr Poul Schluter, held in Copenhagen on Wednesday 2nd December 1992.

    MR SCHLUTER:

    We have today had a visit by the British Prime Minister who also is the President of the Council and we have had a two and a half hour very valuable discussion. We have of course dealt with the many important issues coming up at the Edinburgh summit in December, amongst them for instance the financial reforms which we need, but naturally we have also dealt with the Danish issue and we have had constructive discussions. We all know that we must find a solution which does not necessitate reratification processes in the other countries and so a binding solution and we have had very very good progressive discussions over these issues based on what we from the Danish side have forwarded as a so-called Danish suggestion. I do think we can find a solution, that is difficult and we still have unsolved problems at this moment. We shall have a meeting of Foreign Ministers in the so-called Conclave on 8 December and I hope that this meeting also will help to mature the issue so that we can find a solution to the Danish issue along with the meeting in Edinburgh.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, thank you very much. The Prime Minister has set out the areas we have been discussing this morning, we have had the opportunity of running through all the elements of the agenda that will be at Edinburgh, it will be a very crowded agenda, perhaps one of the most crowded that any European Council has had for many years. There are a very large number of matters to be determined and rather unusually many of them are linked together in one form or another. There are many interlinked decisions that will altogether, providing we get the key components right, it is not unlike, if I can put it this way, putting together Rubik’s cube, providing we get the central parts right many of the other things I think will then fall into place.

    We have had the opportunity of discussing every aspect of what may be on the Edinburgh agenda. But of course, as the Prime Minister said, we spent some time looking at the special difficulties faced in Denmark about the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. I think we have had some very worthwhile discussions on that, I still have other European partners to consult, I hope in due course when we have finished all the consultation we will have some proposals that we will be able to circulate, they will be proposals that will still need discussion by the Foreign Ministers and subsequently in the Edinburgh summit.

    What I am absolutely clear about in my discussions thus far is that not just in Denmark but right the way across the Community there is an evident wish to reach a satisfactory conclusion that will enable Denmark to go ahead with the second referendum and to ratify the treaty in due course.

    So those are the matters we have been discussing, I think the Prime Minister and I will take a few questions if you have any.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Schluter, if I heard you correctly, you said earlier that you needed to reach an outcome which did not require reratification but which was nevertheless a binding solution, did you omit the word legally in front of the word binding?

    MR SCHLUTER:

    There is no difference. What we are seeking is a solution acceptable to all twelve members of the EC and with clear content that it is legally binding according to international law.

    QUESTION:

    According to international law and not according to the treaty?

    MR SCHLUTER:

    It is the national law of governments [indistinct] and that is nice.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor Kohl and a wide body of opinion in Britain dreamt of an enhanced European free trade zone without sacrificing sovereignty [indistinct] is that right or is it unhelpful to you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen the details of everything Chancellor Kohl has said this morning. I know that Chancellor Kohl shares my wish that we should have a satisfactory outcome at Edinburgh, that we should be enabled to go ahead with the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and he also shares my belief that the Community must go ahead as Twelve in order to achieve that. But I have not seen all the details of the Chancellor’s speech this morning, I have been talking to the Prime Minister here.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    MR SCHLUTER:

    I assume you all know the content of the Danish suggestion, there are a number of very important questions and we are aware in Denmark that these points from the Danish side of course are met by certain scepticism amongst some of our partners, that is not unnatural. But we want to find a solution and the solution must be acceptable to all Twelve. This also is a condition if you want the Maastricht Treaty as such, plus the addendums, to come into force somewhere, not too late, in the year 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As to your second question, we are seeking to get a solution, I do not know necessarily by next Tuesday, I hope we are going to have a solution by the end of the Edinburgh summit. That is certainly what we are working towards, I think there are some points that are clear right the way across the Community. As the Prime Minister said, there is no question of reopening the basic Maastricht text, there is no question of producing anything that requires reratification across Europe. Nonetheless, we think there are some ways in which we may be able to meet the particular difficulties faced in Denmark and we are working on those at the moment and discussing them with our colleagues in Europe. When that is concluded I will circulate the paper, hopefully before too long, to Denmark and right the way across the Community and that paper will be discussed in the Foreign Ministers Conclave in a few days time.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a slightly unusual question to ask me, for this reason. If you look at the Community now there are both large nations in the Community and very small nations in the Community and I can think of no nation that has been more concerned with enlargement of the Community than my country, not just enlargement in terms of the EFTANs, the Nordic states, Austria and others, but also looking further ahead a wider Europe that moves further across Eastern Europe and in due course takes in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. So the British government’s position is quite clear. Over time we believe the European Community should expand and we see many advantages in it expanding, not just the free trade point that came up earlier but also the important political advantages of extending both the principles of free trade but also the security that comes from interlocking trade agreements and trade interests as we extend the Community both northwards and eastwards over time. So the Community we believe is open to those nations who are European and who qualify for membership, irrespective of size.

    QUESTION:

    Cammal Laird Shipyard has announced that it is to close with the loss of 900 jobs, what is your reaction to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen the detail of the announcement yet, I knew there were difficulties, but I will see the detail of the announcement before I comment if I may.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Kohl said today that some special rules for Great Britain and Denmark [inaudible].

    MR SCHLUTER:

    But Chancellor Kohl also said that he wants to cooperate in finding a solution to the Danish issue. He emphasised that in principle he did not want a Europe based on the two-speed model and I think we all agree.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And he has repeated that point time and time again and has done so again this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, did you find out yet when you might have the chance to ratify the treaty in your country?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They are going through our Parliamentary procedures this very day, so we are moving ahead.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Professor Cavaco Silva – 1 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Portuguese Prime Minister, Professor Cavaco Silva, held in Lisbon on Tuesday 1st December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a great pleasure to be back in Portugal and to have had the opportunity of talking again to the Prime Minister. We have had detailed discussions for a number of hours. We have spent not all but most of our time examining the important agenda for the Edinburgh summit in a few days’ time.

    I think it is fair to say that the Edinburgh summit has some very crucial decisions to be taken, perhaps as wide a range of decisions many of them interlinked in one way or another as we have seen at any summit for a very long time.

    The crucial decisions, of course, are the decisions to be taken to assist our friends in Denmark to be able to ratify the Maastricht Treaty and to take decisions on the crucial aspect of the future financing of the Community over the years immediately ahead but beyond that there are decisions on subsidiarity, on enlargement, on the number of members of the European Parliament and a whole range of other issues as well. The Prime Minister and I have had the opportunity of examining all these matters, looking at them in detail, picking out the points of agreement and disagreement and considering how we might approach those matters as we move towards Edinburgh.

    I think it is fair to say that there are still many difficult issues to be resolved and I still have to see a number of my European colleagues in the meetings I have before Edinburgh but slowly and gradually we are beginning to tease out the difficulties and I hope put ourselves in the position where we can reach agreements.

    I do believe it is very important to reach agreement on these matters at Edinburgh. The Community needs to show the confidence it has in its future and I think that can best be shown by a satisfactory Edinburgh summit and agreement on many of these important issues. We are not there yet, talks are still continuing, but I have no doubt in all the talks I have had with every Head of Government, including the Prime Minister today, that there is a very strong will amongst all members of the European Community to find the solution to these problems at Edinburgh.

    PRIME MINISTER CAVACO SILVA:

    [In Portuguese].

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Major, have you – following the negative reaction to your budget proposal – modified it in any way and if there are no modifications, does that mean that there will be no budget decision at Edinburgh?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are still discussing the decisions. What people have not yet seen and not yet had a chance to absorb is precisely what is meant by the budget decision, what its implications are for each individual member state.

    These are very complex matters. The broad, total figures were set out in the conclave and there were some who thought they were not generous enough, there were others who thought they were too generous and there is quite a sharp division between that as you will know but what is not yet known and what we are discussing and still have to discuss is precisely the allocation within those figures on the Cohesion Fund, on the Structural Fund, on external expenditure and those are important matters of detailed negotiation that cannot be concluded until I have the views of all member states and at the moment I am about halfway round my tour.

    I have the benefit of advice from a number of my European colleagues but I don’t yet have the benefit of everyone’s advice so it will not be until we get to Edinburgh that we can reach a final conclusion on that.

    QUESTION:

    Prof. Cavaco Silva, if there is no modification does that mean [indistinct].

    PROFESSOR CAVACO SILVA:

    [In Portuguese].

    QUESTION:

    Don’t you agree that the British proposal for the EC budget might be a way of splitting even more the difference between rich and poor countries in the European Community?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I understand why you ask that question but I think it is rather an odd way to put it. This is a compromise between those who are concerned about the levels of increased expenditure and those who would wish it to increase more and we yet have to reach a final decision upon that but if you take the Cohesion Fund, for example, the Cohesion Fund is entirely fresh and additional money – there was no Cohesion Fund before. Under the compromise proposal that the Presidency have put forward, the Cohesion Fund expenditure would rise to Ecu 12.25 billion during the period of the financial perspective and there will be increases in other areas as well.

    The point at issue is not whether there are increases; the point at issue is whether there is an agreement across the Community as a whole that the increases are at the right level and are directed to the right elements of Community expenditure.

    There are lots of very complex matters to be taken into account there and those are the detailed matters that I have been discussing with the Prime Minister and with others but the very purpose of the Cohesion Fund is precisely the reverse of that you implied in your question.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, will the Edinburgh summit be a failure or a success?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have lived through summits before and so has the Prime Minister and often one goes into the summit with many things unresolved and one comes out of the summit with those things resolved. I can’t be clear whether that will the case this time. There are lots of very complex matters that bite very clearly upon individual national interests so clearly there are many things to be reconciled at the summit that are not done yet but the summit is some days away; everyone is committed to making it a success.

    No-one is going to go in the summit and get everything they want and everyone no doubt will come out from the summit with something that they felt was very important to themselves. That is in the nature of the compromises that are a traditional part of the Community and there is no doubt in my mind that people want the summit to be a success not just for their own national reasons but because of the wider European reason of well, that Europe has had a difficult few months – we all know that, one has seen the repeated turmoil on the currency markets, one has seen the difficulties arising from the Danish and the French referenda – so the Community will itself be looking for a successful outcome at Edinburgh and if it is achievable, it will be achieved.

    QUESTION:

    [In Portuguese].

    PROFESSOR CAVACO SILVA:

    [In Portuguese].

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Sr Felipe Gonzalez – 1 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Spanish Prime Minister, Sr Felipe Gonzalez, held in Madrid on Tuesday 1st December 1992.

    SR GONZALEZ:

    We welcome Prime Minister, Mr John Major, as President of the European Community and as you might imagine we have spent the past couple of hours working very hard preparing for the Edinburgh summit. I am sure that you will be very interested in listening to the Prime Minister, I would like to welcome him to Spain very warmly and give him the floor.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Felipe, thank you very much indeed, it is very nice to be back in Spain again and to have had the opportunity of discussing with you this morning the agenda that we have in front of us at Edinburgh and other matters as well.

    Let me say just a brief word or two about Edinburgh. We have in front of us a very important but a very complex European summit, there are perhaps more issues of importance to be decided at Edinburgh than we have had at any summit for a very long time in the Community. They include, of course, a solution to the particular problems faced in Denmark so that the Maastricht treaty can be ratified right the way across Europe, we have the difficult problem to be solved on future financing where there are very sharp differences across the Community and where we are seeking to find a compromise that is fair and acceptable to everyone, we have problems to discuss on the questions of enlargement, subsidiarity. There will be a number of important foreign policy issues – Yugoslavia of course, the former Soviet Union very probably and other issues as well.

    I think this morning in my conversations with the Prime Minister we have managed to identify many areas of difficulty, we have managed to look at the details of many of the things that will come forward in Edinburgh and I think it has been a very useful and a very constructive meeting.

    I am just coming up to half way in my tour of European Heads of Government to discuss Edinburgh and I will have a clearer idea of where agreements can be reached and compromises arranged at the end of this tour. Thus far I can simply say that many of the areas of agreement are becoming clearer, the areas of difficulty are beginning also to become sharper and I think to that extent we have had an extremely useful discussion again this morning and am most grateful to the Prime Minister for his hospitality.

    QUESTION:

    There has been a lot of criticism of the British Presidency, most recently over your compromise on the budget, has Mr Gonzalez been able to say that it will be inevitable to increase that budget, particularly on the cohesion fund, if you are to have an agreement at Edinburgh?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The compromise we put forward, we have been criticised by some on the financial compromise for it being not generous enough and we have been criticised by others for it being too generous. What we have had to do in the proposals we have put forward is try and identify the areas of importance – the cohesion fund, the structural fund, external spending where there is a will in the Community to help in Eastern Europe and elsewhere – and identify the areas of priority and that is what we have sought to do.

    And I think when people actually examine the detailed figures they get a rather different impression from that than they may have received earlier. As for the criticism you referred to, some of that preceded the tabling of the financial compromise and in some instances apologies, very generous apologies, have subsequently been offered and accepted by us.

    QUESTION:

    Could you tell us what your response has been to the request to reduce the cohesion fund included in the Delors II package?

    SR GONZALEZ:

    There has been a proposal by the Presidency which we consider insufficient from the budgetary point of view on the whole. We consider that the proposal made by the Commission is insufficient itself from some points of view, for example the point of view of the own resources, so it is an open discussion, we will see whether we can reach a compromise which is what we want for Edinburgh, but a compromise which will solve the Community’s problems.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may add to what the Prime Minister said, there is of course no cohesion fund at the moment, we agreed in the Maastricht negotiations that there would be a cohesion fund and we have put forward proposals as to how that cohesion fund might build up in resources between now and 1999. And again there are some proposals that are more generous than the compromise, there are others from other member states of the Community that are sharply less generous than the Presidency compromise. So it is to reach agreements upon that that I am having my discussions today with the Prime Minister and with other Heads of Government.

    QUESTION:

    What can we expect from Edinburgh with regard to the stability of the European Monetary System and when will the pound return to the system?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have asked officials in the Community to prepare an examination of the European Monetary System and that work is continuing. It is very complex, it is very detailed and it will go on for some time after the Edinburgh summit so I do not expect conclusions on that matter at Edinburgh and neither do I think sterling will return to the system in the immediate future.

    QUESTION:

    Two questions, the first for Mr Major. What are the economic consequences for the economies of the Twelve and for the markets of a possible failure of the Edinburgh summit; and Mr Gonzalez, with regard to the cohesion fund and structural funds, do you think that considering the small economic growth which Europe will undergo this year, next year and possibly in 1994 you will be willing to accept a small reduction in the Delors package?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not anticipate us failing to agree at Edinburgh, I very much hope that we will agree at Edinburgh and I have found no contrary feeling amongst any of the Heads of Government I have met. All of us recognise the importance at Edinburgh of reaching agreement on a whole series of complex matters and I have not a shred of doubt in my mind that every Head of Government will go there determined, if it is at all possible, to reach an agreement. And the reason for that of course was implicit in your question, I think it would be damaging for the Community itself as a whole and for the economies of the Community if we were unable to reach agreement. For that reason I am optimistic that we will be able to do so.

    SR GONZALEZ:

    I certainly will make great efforts to reach an agreement but you have asked me about a specific matter. The Commission’s proposal from the point of view of the expenses seems to me very low and from the point of view of the resources or of the contributions to the resources I think it is clearly insufficient, that is the position after a technical analysis of what would be a fair solution for our country. On that basis we will of course make every effort so that Edinburgh will be a summit which will provide results, we obviously need good results, we need to clear certain political uncertainties in the Community because those uncertainties are affecting our economic situation and the Prime Minister was telling me that this will also be a subject of discussion at the Edinburgh summit.

    QUESTION:

    I would like you to explain the situation of the two Spanish entrepreneurs who were given a pardon yesterday in Guinea?

    SR GONZALEZ:

    All I can say is that I feel it is a reasonable response, I do not think they are legally responsible for the crimes with which they have been charged. I think we must be very careful in dealing with investment efforts in a country of this nature, I do not think they have committed any errors, let alone any crimes, and so I am satisfied that they have been pardoned.