The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Bill Clinton

  • PMQT – 16 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Worthington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

    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. Worthington : In 1979, just over 1 million people were unemployed. At the same time, just over 7 million people were employed in manufacturing industry–seven people in manufacturing jobs for every single person unemployed. Now, measuring unemployment in the same way, there are 4.25 million unemployed. On Thursday this week– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for some time. He knows that he must put a direct question.

    Mr. Worthington : In the past 14 years, 3 million manufacturing jobs have been destroyed. Did the Prime Minister intend to do that, or was it someone else’s fault?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that “the threat of recession and the reality of rising unemployment is spreading throughout the European continent” –not my words but those of the Leader of the Opposition. I would find the hon. Gentleman’s concern more convincing if he had one decent economic policy to tackle unemployment, but he has not.

    Mr. Wells : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Nissan factory in Sunderland has been declared by its Japanese owners to be the most efficient factory in the world? Is he further aware that should this House be foolish enough to include the socialist charter in the Maastricht treaty, Japanese inward investment would be seriously discouraged?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of the specific point made by my hon. Friend, but I was aware that Nissan is exporting cars from Sunderland back to Japan. I offer my congratulations to the management and work force on that achievement. There is no doubt that the social chapter and similar policies would damage the prospect of such success stories in future. That is why we opposed it at Maastricht and why we oppose it now.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister accept that the House should be able to decide whether Britain should accept or reject the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : It is for this House to decide by its vote on Third Reading whether to approve the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and enable the Government to ratify the treaty. There is no question of our ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures. Individual amendments to the Bill will be debated in Committee in the usual way as for others.

    Mr. John Smith : Bearing in mind that the Government announced their latest interpretation of the law only yesterday, and as other amendments apart from amendment No. 27 have been ruled out of order, is not it a curious coincidence that the prospect of political defeat causes a revision of the legal opinion? Why are the Government so anxious to prevent the House from deciding this issue?

    The Prime Minister : There are two sorts of amendments that we have to deal with in the Bill. There are those that would render our law incompatible with the treaty and which must be defeated, and others that are undesirable but which would not prevent us from ratifying the treaty. The Committee will come to those, issue by issue.

    Mr. John Smith : Has the Prime Minister no sense of shame? Today, he was described in The Times as being like a

    “spiv business man employing a sharp lawyer”.

    — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Smith : Why is the Prime Minister so determined to use every slippery manoeuvre to avoid Parliament deciding this issue? Is he not engaged in an outright abuse of our unwritten constitution?

    Mr. Skinner : Vote against Third Reading and we’ll show them. [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : Occasionally, it might be a novelty to see the hon. Gentleman in the same Lobby as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Sharp lawyers in glass houses should not throw stones in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has. The Government are explaining to the House what the true effect of an incompetent Opposition amendment would be.

    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East claims repeatedly to support the Maastricht treaty, but he and his hon. Friends tabled an amendment which was intended to lead to amendments to the treaty, a new intergovernmental conference and new ratification procedures in the member states. Opposition Members were prepared to put at risk the future not just of the Bill but of the entire treaty. That is the right hon. and learned Gentleman who accuses us of sharp practice when he claims to support the Bill.

    Mr. Booth : Would the Prime Minister express the feelings of the whole House by praising the fine British achievement in the Antarctic by Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Dr. Stroud? Does he consider that that is an example of volunteering for a good cause which he was advocating earlier this year?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to offer my congratulations and those of the House to Sir Ranulph. It shows that if one keeps going one will get to one’s objective.

     

    Q2. Rev. Martin Smyth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Smyth : Could the Prime Minister, in his meeting with President Clinton, assure him of our good wishes but at the same time urge him to resist moves to appoint a peace envoy for Northern Ireland since those who advocate it are partisan in their opinion?

    Does the Prime Minister accept that the best way to promote peace in Northern Ireland is the continued curtailment of funds and support for terrorism with an intensive education course for United States citizens, especially those of Irish republican sympathies, to enable them to understand that Northern Ireland is not a colony but part of the United Kingdom by choice of its citizens?

    The Prime Minister : There has been a considerable effort by the United States Government and a number of leading American politicians to curb the flow of funds from the United States and to co-operate with us in bringing terrorist criminals to justice. I welcome that very much.

    I hope and expect the new American Administration to continue to support the political dialogue established over the past two years. I believe that it offers the best hope of reconciliation and is fully consistent with Northern Ireland’s position, as the hon. Member said, as a part of the United Kingdom.

     

    Q3. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Paice : My right hon. Friend will recall that the last time that inflation was 1.7 per cent. he was just 25 years old and I was even younger. He will also recall that the then Labour Chancellor stated that inflation was the mother and father of unemployment. Is it not the case that with low inflation, low interest rates, low taxation and high productivity, Britain is best placed to recover from the recession ahead of all the other countries in Europe?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend except in one respect ; I believe that I was 24 at the time and not 25. But the fall in inflation in January was excellent news in terms of both the retail prices index and the underlying rate of inflation. It provides the best possible basis for recovery in output and employment. We now have the lowest inflation rate for a quarter of a century and a rate below that of our colleagues in the Community and below the G7 averages. We have the lowest interest rates in the Community. We have mortgage rates at their lowest since 1956 and external surveys show that the United Kingdom will be among the fastest growing economies in Europe both this year and next year.

     

    United Nations

    Q4. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to visit the United Nations headquarters in New York in the near future.

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government’s support of the United Nations is highly selective and that there is absolutely no case for the Government continuing to breach the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty by the manufacture and deployment of Trident nuclear weapons of mass destruction?

    Mr. Gallie : What about Rosyth?

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister endorse and support–

    Mr. Gallie : What about Rosyth?

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman had better contain himself.

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister endorse and support the 150 members of the United Nations who have by treaty and declaration refused to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons? If he supports those 150 nations and their moral superiority, why does he not follow them? Does he support them, yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) drew attention to some of the inconsistencies in the hon. Gentleman’s question. The replacement of Polaris in the mid-1990s is essential for Britain to maintain an effective and credible deterrent into the next century. There is nothing in the non-proliferation treaty to prevent a nuclear weapons state from maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of a minimum deterrent in this way. That is the position in law and it is our position in policy.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of that unsatisfactory and misleading answer, I reserve the right to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman may raise the matter again, but he had better withdraw the word “misleading”.

    Mr. Cryer rose–

    Madam Speaker : Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I heard the word. I am sure that he will rephrase it for me.

    Mr. Cryer : I will withdraw the word “misleading” and say that he was economical with the truth.

    Madam Speaker : Mr. Patrick Thompson.

    Mr. Thompson : Is my right hon. Friend aware of representations from the police and local crime prevention panels, including the panel in Norwich, about the increased number of serious crimes committed by young people, some out on bail? Some individuals commit literally hundreds of offences. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government are determined to tackle that horrendous problem?

    The Prime Minister : I will offer that assurance to my hon. Friend. There is a small hard core of persistent young offenders who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime, most notably property crime, especially car theft. In the past society has sometimes perhaps been too quick to understand and too slow to condemn. I doubt whether that helps the young people concerned. It is time to crack down on those young offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will shortly make proposals to do just that.

     

    Q6. Dr. Reid : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

    Dr. Reid : With reference to the Prime Minister’s earlier answer on the question of Maastricht, may I inform him that this morning I had the pleasure of showing round the House of Commons a group of pupils from Brannock high school in my constituency? Having spoken of 1,000 years of Parliament and several hundred years of parliamentary sovereignty, I was asked a simple question by one of the pupils : “But what good is Parliament if the Prime Minister can ignore it when he chooses?” How would the Prime Minister have responded to that question?

    The Prime Minister : He would have said, “I can’t, and I don’t.”

    Mr. Hawkins : Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of literally thousands of my constituents who work at British Aerospace on the Tornado line for the work that he did in personally securing the contract? Will he further accept that my constituents know that they have him and the Conservative party to thank for securing their future in the defence industry and the future of their families? Unlike the Labour party, which whinges and whines, my right hon. Friend goes out and gets jobs for Britain.

    The Prime Minister : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that endorsement. The Tornado is undoubtedly a fine aircraft and I hope that we shall be able to export many more.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 20 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in London, held on Wednesday 20th January 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what is your message to President Clinton as he takes office today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I send him my very best wishes on his inauguration today and for his term of office. His success as President of the United States is important not just for the United States but for everyone in Europe and beyond. I think there is absolutely no doubt about that. So I wish him the warmest best wishes, he is taking on a remarkable task, I am sure he is well equipped to do it and I look forward to working with him.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to be able to establish a close working relationship?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I see no reason why not, we have had a number of telephone conversations so far, we have touched on a wide range of issues, some of them detailed, some of them generalist. We expect to have a meeting pretty soon and I have no doubt we will be able to work together very satisfactorily.

    QUESTION:

    You discussed Iraq with President Clinton on the phone last night, are you and he prepared to step up the level of hostilities against Saddam Hussein if he fails to live up to his new promises?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It has always been the position of the United States and the United Kingdom that the Iraqis must keep to the Security Council resolutions. President-elect Clinton has made it clear that will be his position in future too.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think you might be tempted to take up on Mr Clinton’s domestic policies to get the economy going here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have set out our domestic policies for getting the economy going and the Chancellor no doubt will address all these matters in his budget in due course, beyond that I am not being drawn.

    QUESTION:

    Will you be taking seriously Saddam Hussein’s offer of a ceasefire?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will have to wait and see what actually he means by it, we have seen offers from him before, we have also seen the outcome of it before, let us see whether there is any practical action, in particular let us see whether he is going to obey the Security Council resolutions with let, without hindrance and without frustrations, that would be a great move forward if he would do that.

    QUESTION:

    The French government has criticised the bombing raid on the Baghdad nuclear plant as a step too far, do you share that concern?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not share that concern at all, this was a raid made by the United States rather than the allies because they had the equipment in site to do it, but there was discussion between the allies, including the French, the legal position is quite clear, this was within international law and I think the United States were wholly justified. I have no reservations about it.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Washington – 18 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Washington, held on Friday 18th December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what did you manage to achieve in the talks with President Bush this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think they were extremely productive talks, I think the most immediate outcome of them is I believe we have put the GATT talks in Geneva back on track, there was an agreement between President Bush, President Delors and myself that we should instruct the negotiators to go back to the talks, beginning again in early January, and seek to reach a substantive conclusion by mid-January, if that can be achieved it is very good news.

    QUESTION:

    President Delors was leaving no doubt that he thinks it is the Americans who should make concessions now in services in the non-agricultural area, is that your view too?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When you are in negotiations everyone makes concessions, that is the way one reaches agreement, I do not think one can be certain that it is the Europeans, the Cairns Group, the Americans, we are now into multilateral negotiations, not bilateral, and I think there may need to be movement on many sides. But the important thing is the sheer political will to make sure we reach a settlement, very important for the world economy, that political will has been put there today.

    QUESTION:

    How do you feel about the state of the special relationship after your telephone call with President-elect Clinton?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The special relationship, as you call it, is a very close relationship built on shared interests and it has been there for very many years, I do not have a shred of doubt that it will continue, not a shred of doubt.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that things will change in American foreign policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think one must let President-elect Clinton get his feet under the table but I think the preliminary judgment that one makes is that foreign policy will be remarkably similar in the future, there may be changes in domestic policy, I cannot speak for that, but as far as foreign policy objectives are concerned I think they will be strikingly similar.

    QUESTION:

    What about the UN Assembly decision today to step up the pressure on Yugoslavia, does that suggest that we are moving now towards tougher action?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope to have the opportunity of discussing that further over the weekend. I think many people will regard as unspeakable many of the things that have happened in Yugoslavia but what we must do is temper that instinctive reaction with practical measures that will assist and not damage the development of policy in Yugoslavia. I shall be discussing that over the weekend.

  • Mr Major’s Arrival Doorstep Interview in Montreal – 17 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s arrival doorstep interview in Montreal on Thursday 17th December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can you confirm that Britain would not use a veto in the Security Council against any No Fly Zone enforcement moves that were taken up?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have the opportunity of discussing this over the next two days but I certainly do not expect that there would be a resolution that we would need to veto, I think that that is most unlikely.

    QUESTION:

    What form would the resolution take, do you think?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is still to be discussed and I hope to have the opportunity of discussing that over the weekend with President Bush.

    QUESTION:

    Are you certain yet how far you are prepared to go in committing any more military effort from Britain, whether it was to enforce the No Fly Zone or anything else?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Those are matters that we will discuss over the weekend, there are a number of complex matters that need to be brought together, I will discuss them over the weekend, I may have more to say by the end of the weekend.

    QUESTION:

    Do you accept what Mrs Thatcher is saying today that the West should accept some blame for what has happened in Yugoslavia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen what Lady Thatcher has said about that and I have no comment to make about it until I have seen the text.

    QUESTION:

    Do you regard the Bosnian question as top of the agenda with President Bush?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it must be top of many people’s agenda, there are other matters to discuss with President Bush, of course, the GATT Round is still very important and we have other matters to discuss as well. But I do not think anyone can have any doubt about the importance of what has been happening in Bosnia, many of the actions there are appalling, there is no doubt about that, but we need to look and see what can be done to bring a settlement but we need to do that in the context of maintaining the humanitarian relief that is now going through, were that to be broken there would be very serious consequences this winter.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think some of the voices on the American side are too gung-ho and do you think the British and American positions can be reconciled?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I would not describe them in that fashion and I have no doubt that we will reach an accommodation before the Security Council resolution comes round, I have no doubt at all about that, I think there is a common acknowledgement of the problem and a common will to deal with it.

    QUESTION:

    To those who say something must be done, what do you say at this stage?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We all want to do something and we are doing something and the question is what we can do that is most effective. We have to bear in mind that there are many people in very great difficulty in central Bosnia who actually need those humanitarian lines to be kept open, we have to bear in mind what nature of conflict this is and consider what actions we can most take that are most successful. I am not interested in gestures, I am interested in actions that will be successful, those are the matters we have to discuss.

    QUESTION:

    Could action be taken before Mr Clinton takes over in the White House?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I cannot speculate upon that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think you can make significant progress on GATT both in Ottawa later tonight and in Washington in unblocking the problems that are still facing the GATT negotiators?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are still some problems in Geneva and I think it is very important that we make progress, we will certainly discuss with the United States but of course we are now into multilateral negotiations in Geneva, it is not just a question of the Community and the United States, there are much wider interests as well.

  • PMQT – 5 November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Colvin : Will my right hon. Friend find time during his busy day to decide how to use the diplomatic and negotiating skills which he deployed so effectively at Maastricht to prevent a trade war between the United States and the European Community? Will he pull out all the stops to achieve an agreement on the general agreement on tariffs and trade before President Bush leaves the White House, in the knowledge that agreement on GATT will do more than anything else to pull the world out of recession?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend on his last point– it is a very serious matter. It is for the European Commission, which has the responsibility to negotiate on behalf of member states, to make a deal, and we shall seek to reach a concerted position so that such a deal can be achieved. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement about that a little later.

    Mr. John Smith : Why is it that, in the midst of all our present miseries– [Interruption.] Why is it that, in the midst of this situation, the Government think that it is a priority to abolish wages councils which offer a safety net for 2.5 million people, two thirds of whom are women?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes a very narrow view. When he studies the whole of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, he may have a more enlightened view. As he may know, we have decided that wages councils will be abolished because they distort the operation of the labour market. Abolishing them will lead to more jobs rather than fewer. These days, wages councils are an anachronism. They no longer have a useful role. They were set up in 1909 and they are not relevant to 1992.

    Mr. Smith : Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand the truth that was expressed by Sir Winston Churchill when wages councils were set up, which was that, if there is no wage protection, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad is undercut by the worst? Does he not understand that people in this country are sick and tired of his professing concern about unemployment when 1 million people have lost their jobs since he became Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : It is precisely because of the concern to sustain and maintain jobs that we propose to get rid of the councils that destroy jobs. The fact of the matter is that they create unnecessary bureaucracy and add to the burdens on business. If that is the Opposition’s industrial strategy–more burdens, less business and fewer jobs–the right hon. and learned Gentleman had better make it clear.

     

    Q2. Mr. John Townend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Townsend : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members are in favour of a very tough public spending round this year, especially on the revenue account, even if that means a public sector pay freeze to protect capital projects? Is he aware also that, when we are having to take painful decisions, it is not acceptable for Mr. Delors to ask for an increase in own resources? Will my right hon. Friend tell Mr. Delors that if he wants more cash, he should look to the waste, fraud and corruption revealed by a recent report of the Court of Auditors?

    The Prime Minister : On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I cannot, of course, this afternoon anticipate my right hon. Friend’s autumn statement which he will make to the House next Thursday. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the Commission’s proposals for a massive increase in Community spending are excessive in the present circumstances. No more than anyone else can the Community spend more than it can afford. I believe that, when we consider the future financing, we must be guided by the same principles of budget discipline and sound public finance that we all agreed to put in the Maastricht treaty.

     

    Q3. Ms. Glenda Jackson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Ms. Jackson : Does the Prime Minister recall the pledge that he gave in his election manifesto that the value of child benefit would increase each year in line with prices? Despite the wriggling evident in his previous answer, will he repeat that pledge to the House today?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady must wait for the autumn statement next week, and I will tell her why. When asked to anticipate a financial statement in the election, the Leader of the Opposition said, “You’ll have to wait till next week when I make it.” That applies to us as well.

    Mr. Knapman : Does my right hon. Friend believe that a single currency for Europe is a desirable objective?

    The Prime Minister : I have indicated often enough in the House, not least yesterday, that I do not believe that that is a remotely likely objective to be reached in the time scale set and that one can only determine whether it is desirable in the circumstances of the day, when the decision needs to be made. That is not now.

     

    Q4. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Janner : Does the Prime Minister agree that the closure of the 31 pits would make 30,000 miners compulsorily redundant and destroy the jobs of up to 70,000 people in related industries and that very few of them would have any chance of finding other work? In those circumstances, what does the Prime Minister say in response to the extraordinary revelation made by the chairman of British Coal yesterday to the Employment Select Committee that, when he and the President of the Board of Trade decided to close the pits, he had no discussion, conversation or consultation with the Secretary of State for Employment?

    The Prime Minister : There has been a great deal of consultation in government for some time over the whole question of pit closures and there was a great deal of detailed consideration for some time. The hon. and learned Gentleman now knows precisely what the situation is from a lengthy and detailed statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    Mr. Lidington : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although this country’s links with our friends in Europe continue to strengthen, our special relationship with the United States of America remains as vital now as it ever has been?

    The Prime Minister : It has been a very close relationship. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) referred to it yesterday as an historic relationship. It has remained that for many years. I believe that that results from the shared interests that we have around the world and from a shared historical background. I have no doubt that that will continue.

    Madam Speaker : Mr. Paddy Ashdown– [Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order. Mr. Ashdown.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is it not the case that the decision taken last night by the House, by however narrow a margin, nevertheless means that Britain’s future in Europe has been saved and, with it, tens of thousands of jobs around Britain?

    The Prime Minister : May I say first to the right hon. Gentleman– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear the response from the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : May I say first to the right hon. Gentleman– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister must be heard in the House, as every other right hon. and hon. Member should. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : Thank you, Madam Speaker. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the price of principle is often abuse, but he was right last night in the vote that he cast. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Sykes : Does the Prime Minister agree with the business men of Scarborough and Whitby who say that the social chapter would devastate jobs?

    The Prime Minister : That is a view with which I entirely agree. It is a view expressed not only by the business men of Scarborough and Whitby, clearly with great clarity, but by business men across this country. The social chapter was not in the interests of this country. We were right to reject it.

     

    Q6. Dr. Berry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Dr. Berry : Is the Prime Minister able to explain why he believes that an increase in public expenditure will severely damage the economy while hoping and praying that exactly the same activity by the private sector will get Britain out of recession?

    The Prime Minister : I do not know on what basis the hon. Gentleman produces his question. The Government’s position on public expenditure has always been that it must be prudent, it must be affordable and it must be in the interests of overall management of the economy. That was, is and remains the case.

    Sir Peter Emery : Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to extend an invitation to President-elect Clinton to come to this country, immediately after 20 January, when he can?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to take the opportunity of saying that I look forward to meeting President-elect Clinton before Christmas. I have already had the opportunity of sending my congratulations to him and stating them both privately and publicly, and I look forward to meeting him before Christmas. I hope that it will be possible for him to visit this country.

     

    Q7. Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Fatchett : After the Prime Minister’s poor performance in yesterday’s debate and after his policy failure on unemployment, the mines, British industry and devaluation, does he agree that his recent 16 per cent. approval rating in an opinion poll shows the generosity of the British people?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman was looking for one person in this country who has good reason not to trust opinion polls, he has just addressed a question to him. As to yesterday–right sentiment, wrong leader.

    Mr. Ian Taylor : Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the true test of compassion in public services is not necessarily the amount of money spent but the quality and efficiency with which it is spent? Does he, therefore, share my horror at the lack of compassion of Lambeth council, which has already spent £400,000 of local charge payers’ money on phantom teachers?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I did see that particular report, which illustrated not only that Lambeth council is inefficient but that it is slightly less inefficient than Islington council, which spent rather more on the same matter.

     

    Q8. Mr. Hoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Hoyle : Will the Prime Minister repeat in the House the assurance that he gave to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that he would not introduce the Third Reading of the Maastricht Bill until after the second Danish referendum ? Does that not show that there was no limit to the wriggling of the Prime Minister in his attempt to obtain votes in the Lobby last night ?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman’s last point had been right, there would have been no debate yesterday. It was precisely because I was concerned to get the Bill through that there was a debate yesterday and we will move to Committee stage, and move forward.

    I am happy to make the point entirely clear to the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, the House reaffirmed its assent to the Bill proceeding to Committee stage. In doing so, no thanks to the official Opposition, it reaffirmed our determination to play a leading role in Europe and strengthened our negotiating hand in Edinburgh. As for progress, there will be a limited discussion before Christmas. We will return to the Bill in greater detail in the new year. I wish to have plenty of time for full and proper discussion on all the details of a constitutional Bill which is of great concern in the House. It is important to carry the assent of the House on the Bill. That will take time.

    The present intention of the Danish Government is to hold a referendum in May. Given the Committee timetable that we have in mind and the full discussion that we need, we will need to take the Third Reading after that date in May. That has been and is the position, and that is the point that was made clear yesterday.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 4 November 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in London, held on Wednesday 4th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good morning! I have the Sultan of Brunei arriving in just a few moments but I would like before he arrives to say a word or two about the presidential election.

    I have this morning sent a message of congratulations to Governor Clinton on his stunning victory in the American election yesterday. I have no doubt from what I know of the Governor’s policies that the United States and Britain will continue to work together very closely in foreign policy and that the special relationship we have had for so many years will be maintained. I hope to have the opportunity of meeting President-elect Clinton in the course of the next few weeks.

    Perhaps I might also take this opportunity to say a word or two about George Bush. He has, I believe, been an extraordinarily good friend to this country and to Europe as a whole. At the time of the invasion of Kuwait, he provided very strong, very wise, very consistent leadership for the Western World. He has managed to negotiate some of the largest arms reductions the world has ever seen between East and West and added very substantially to our security and in his relationship with the former Soviet Union he has managed, through his diplomacy and his skills, to turn old enemies into new friends, I believe they are very substantial contributions for any president to have achieved and I believe history will record those and his presidency very favourably indeed.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (John Sergeant – BBC TV):

    Prime Minister, how important to you is the vote tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we will win the vote tonight and I think that will be apparent. The substance of European policy is very clear. The most important matter of all is the consistency of British foreign policy in Europe and abroad and there is no doubt in my mind that Britain’s place is in Europe and there is no doubt that since it is in Europe, we need to play a leading part in Europe and help ourselves to shape the Europe of the future. That means we can’t hide behind other people. We have to make our own decisions, we have to stand by them, and we have to build on them and that is our policy.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton – Sky TV):

    Prime Minister, what will you do if you’re not successful this evening?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe it is going to arise. I believe we are going to win the vote this evening.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant – BBC TV):

    Would you consider, Prime Minister, resigning if you lost the vote tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe we are going to lose the vote tonight.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton – Sky TV):

    Could we then ask you about GATT?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes. I had a number of conversations in recent days both with members of the Community and the Commission and also with the United States. I spoke twice yesterday to Jim Baker during the course of discussions. Many of you may know that the Minister of Agriculture has actually been there near to the negotiations to offer what advice and assistance he can to Commissioner MacSharry. John Gummer will be reporting back to me later on today and I will have a clearer view then of precisely what the cause of the breakdown was. I would prefer to avoid substantive comment until I have that.