The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Denmark

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Copenhagen – 22 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Copenhagen, given on Tuesday 22nd June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In some ways this was a refreshingly different sort of summit. I say that because it did face up, in a way previous summits I do not believe have done, to the problem of 18 million people in Europe without jobs and the negative growth that confronts 4 or 5 of our partners this year. And I think that the discussion we had on economic matters was the most thorough and the most frank that I can remember in the period I have been coming to these summits.

    We reached broad agreement on competitiveness and the importance of that for the future. We did not waste a great deal of time on Euro-theology, that was despatched to the sidelines where personally I believe it belongs. It was a time in this discussion to get down to some brass tacks, for us to consider what might actually be done to help get Europe back to work.

    At the end of our discussions the Council has come out with a clear message, and I think the clear message is this – tackling unemployment and restoring competitiveness will be the top priority.

    In his presentation to the European Council, the President of the Commission elaborated two facts known to many of us but brought out in discussion in this summit in a very stark way. The first of those was that Community unemployment has been on a steadily rising trend throughout the last 20 years. It has risen and dipped with growth and lack of growth but the underlying trend has been a rising trend of unemployment since the early 1970s. The second stark fact is another unpalatable fact for those of us in Western Europe and that is the reality that the Community’s share of the world market has been falling throughout the last 10 years.

    I agree with the diagnosis that the President of the Commission set out, even though I do not agree with all the remedies that he proposed in his paper. But I do think he was absolutely right to put the Community’s need to compete at centre stage of our consideration. The simple reality is that if we do not compete and compete successfully, we will contract, and that means less jobs and it is as simple as that.

    We agreed in the summit on a number of measures designed to improve Europe’s economic prospects. First, we agreed it was vital to keep inflation low for sustainable growth and cost competitiveness. Second, as we agreed at Edinburgh last December, we agreed again to give priority to growth and investment in our public expenditure programmes. Third, we agreed to expand the European Investment Bank infrastructure lending facility from 5 billion ECU to 8 billion, I personally would have been prepared to go a little higher than that, but 8 billion was the figure that we settled upon. And fourthly, it was agreed that we had to get fiscal deficits down right the way round the Community, without which much of Europe will be in no position to get its interest rates down and of course for many European colleagues that is still an acutely important matter.

    We touched on some other sensitive issues in our discussion. We are all facing the problem of the rising cost of social provisions. All of us, without exception, want to protect the elderly and the vulnerable and the cost therefore of overall provision has to be kept under control so we can pick the right priorities and deal satisfactorily and comprehensively with those priorities.

    I have argued strenuously, and I have to say with a great deal of support, that the Community has to keep down the cost of jobs so as to help those people without jobs, those people who need new jobs. And it was for that reason that I have argued against what I think is quite muddle-headed meddling which has led to directives like the working time directive. I would like nothing better, across the whole Community, to have the Community as a whole described as a paradise for foreign investment. Alas that is not yet the position across the whole Community.

    But getting Europe to take competitiveness seriously, I think we have done that at this summit and I think that is a start. And there are two very important elements to follow. Over the next 6 months we are going to work on structural reforms to combat unemployment, to scrutinise non-wage costs, to boost flexibility in labour markets, to improve training and education. Those are aims for all of us and I hope that will lead to a genuinely radical report from the Commission at the December Council. All of us will examine the proposals put forward by the President of the Commission, we will comment on them, agree with them, disagree with them and add other things to them. And I hope the sum total of that will be a radical report in December.

    We also, both in the conclusions and in the Council itself, spent some time on subsidiarity on its various aspects. And we have here another very welcome dose of realism. We are pushing ahead, with very strong support from France, from Germany and from a number of other member states. This morning the Commission produced a list of areas where, as a result of subsidiarity considerations arising from previous agreements at summits, they have decided not to legislate, legislation that would have happened, that now will not happen because of the new atmosphere created by subsidiarity.

    We are still examining existing legislation that should either be removed entirely, axed, or perhaps in some cases amended, and I expect we will have a significant list of specific measures in December. There are differing traditions in each country, especially on labour market measures, and they must be restricted. I do not think we should seek uniformity for its own sake.

    On the external side of our discussions we discussed GATT. If we want growth then we need an agreement to the Uruguay Round, we have waited too long for it. Year after year we have expected an agreement by the end of the year and year after year the deadline has been extended yet again. We need to go a long way in what is now a relatively short time if we are to get a comprehensive Uruguay agreement this year. I remain convinced that we all stand to benefit from a successful end to the Uruguay Round.

    Let me highlight three other external points before turning to Bosnia, each of them takes a big step forward towards a long held goal that Britain has been concerned with. The first is very clear cut. We have now set a very clear target for the enlargement negotiations and I hope we will see Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden in the Community by 1 January 1995, earlier than many people expected, and the Community in my view will be stronger for their membership. Secondly, we have agreed in our discussions in the last two days that the 6 countries of central and Eastern Europe will join the Community. To help them down the road to membership we will develop closer political links and open our markets more rapidly to their goods, and that I believe is desperately needed from their point of view. Thirdly, a word about Russia. Russia’s weight and its international standing is important for all of us and that is reflected in the new proposal, a British proposal that I made during our discussions, for six-monthly summits with the President of Russia between the President of Russia and the Community.

    Let me now turn to our discussions on Bosnia. I think many of you heard last night, from sources that I cannot possibly guess at, that we had a lively debate on Bosnia last evening. That is certainly true and all of us of course are deeply anxious about the situation there, it has noticeably deteriorated on the ground in recent weeks, the vulnerability of the Muslims and the risks to those who are helping them worry all of us, but especially those of us with first-hand experience and the commitment of large numbers of troops on the ground providing humanitarian relief.

    I expressed the view last night, and reiterate it today, that I firmly believe that now is not: the time to abandon negotiations and to adopt the council of despair which lifting the arms embargo would represent. Lifting the embargo would lead, I believe, to an even bloodier war but without at the end of that producing the prospect of a better settlement that can only be obtained by negotiation.

    The European Council has not made that fundamental change to our policy. The declaration on Bosnia-Herzegovina rightly does not call for the embargo to be lifted, indeed it reaffirms our confidence in Lord Owen and Mr Stoltenberg whose determination in the cause of peace is remarkable and rightly is widely acknowledged. So we have encouraged them to pursue further a fair and a viable settlement.

    I would underline the vital point, and it is a vital point for all of us, that that settlement must be acceptable to all three constituent peoples of Bosnia Herzegovina. We shall not accept a territorial solution dictated by Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Bosnian Muslim if a settlement can be found which meets these criteria, which is based on the principles of the London Conference and the Vance/Owen plan, and which is accepted by the Muslims as offering fair and viable conditions and the prospect of an early end to this terrible war, that must be the best outcome. I for one believe we should continue to pursue that outcome, not move precipitately to lifting an arms embargo which amongst other matters would pour more arms into an area torn by warfare, would increase the bloodshed, would increase the risk of the war spilling out of its present boundaries, would open wider the risk of a third Balkan war, and perhaps very speedily indeed, if not immediately, would also lead to the total end of humanitarian relief in Bosnia. The time for that is not yet. I expressed that view last night, I reiterated that view this morning and I am happy to confirm to you in public that that remains the position we have taken.

    Let me just sum up this summit. Rows of course, and there has been the occasional exchange over the last couple of days, rows make catchy headlines, they are quite good fun for those who participate in them and for those no doubt who report them, but shared realism and determination are to me the story of what this Council has really been about. The best Community debates are not about institutions, they are about practicalities, and the debate that we have had in the last day and a half has been a very practical debate, a debate about developing a new economic approach, an approach designed to cut red tape and regulation and help create new jobs, a debate about: significant progress with enlargement, enlargement to the north and enlargement also to Austria, and the prospect also of subsequent later enlargement further east. The debate has also been about a new relationship with Russia and one that I personally believe is merited and welcome.

    These are big changes, especially big changes if you compare this Council with those of just a few years ago. What it seems to me has happened is this, under the pressure of serious economic problems across Europe the Community is taking an increasingly pragmatic approach, it is addressing today’s needs and not tomorrow’s dreams. I believe that is the right way to go.

    It may be a little late but it is very welcome that the Community are now doing that. And I think to that extent we may look back on this summit in the last couple of days and regard it as a watershed in the way the Community addressed its business and its future.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph):

    You haven’t mentioned this request in the final communique for member states to comply with the UN Secretary-General’s request for more troops, which rather surprises me. Does Britain intend to send more troops to Bosnia? If not, where will those troops come from? Do we expect Germany to pay for the dispatch of more troops, for instance? And do you agree with President Mitterrand that if troops are not sent, then the embargo should be dropped?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Those questions, I think Boris, are really for Germany and for others, not for me. We have our troops there, we have made our contribution and I don’t envisage that changing. Others felt across the Community that perhaps they could make a greater contribution but it is not for me to say what they would have to do.

    We have made our contribution, it is a very substantial contribution, it is there, it has been there for months, it has been doing an excellent job. If others believe they may be able to make a further contribution, I welcome that if they can. Certainly, we would all like to see the extra troops there that are needed for the safe areas plan; perhaps some of those can come from Community countries, some perhaps from countries beyond the Community but Britain, I think, has made its contribution.

    QUESTION (Steve Doughty, Daily Mail):

    Prime Minister, should negotiations towards a fair settlement in Bosnia fail, are you prepared ultimately to consider the lifting of the arms embargo?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is a rapidly-moving scene. I don’t like the counsel of despair that it would fail. If, at the end of the day, it fails we will have to look afresh at what the situation is. At the moment it hasn’t failed, there are negotiations that can still continue. I think that is the right way to go ahead. To judge what might happen beyond that would be to play a part in helping the negotiations fail and I for one would not wish to do that.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, The Guardian):

    Prime Minister, half an hour or so ago, the Danish Presidency and the President of the Commission made it clear that as a result of the discussion at this summit there would be no question of any rolling back of the Community’s social dimension let alone any existing social legislation. The Presidency said that would send a very negative signal to wage-earners in Europe. Are you reconciled now with having lost the argument for the roll-back on the Community’s social aspirations in view of your arguments on competitivity?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we have not the lost the argument about the roll-back; that is a curious interpretation of the discussion over the last couple of days. You have been attending these summits for a long time, John, you have been attending these press conferences for a long time; when before in all the long years in which you have endured these great occasions have you seen the European Council actually address the difficulties across Europe of rising social costs leading to lack of competitiveness? The answer is you may have heard it from the British, you may occasionally have heard it from one or two other nations but that is about all. On this occasion, it went right the way round the table and the fact of the matter is if you look around the Community, Italy, France, Holland, a whole range of other countries are actually taking action on social costs for precisely the reasons we have set out and that everybody acknowledged in the debate.

    Nobody is suggesting that there is no social dimension to the Community. Nobody is suggesting, except those at the extremes of argument who wish to squash sensible debate, that we would wish to end the social provision that exists in the Community. I am not saying that and nobody else is saying that. I wish people would address the matter sensibly.

    What we are saying is that if we go on piling cost upon cost upon cost in the European Community, there can only be one effect and that effect is that we will become less competitive in Europe and what we will export most will not be our goods but our jobs and one of the striking aspects of the Delors presentation was firstly that rising line of unemployment over the last twenty years in the Community, secondly the declining line of competitiveness and thirdly, the fact that across the Community there is a strikingly high number of people with modest skills who are unemployed for very long periods indeed.

    The point that I am making is this so that it is not misunderstood by anyone: we have to look at the social requirements of people who are not in work. Our first priority must be to get as many as we can of the 17 million European citizens without work back into jobs. That should be our first priority – I don’t want that rising to 20 million or beyond as people have forecast and if we simply look at ever-increasing social provision for those in work, we will do so at the expense of being able to help those people out of work. I don’t want to be misrepresented or misunderstood by anybody. That is the British position and I hope it is entirely clear.

    QUESTION (Raymond Lloyd, The New Internationalist):

    The British Government has justified its low acceptance rate of Bosnian refugees in part on the grounds that it was desirable that they stay as close as possible to their homeland. Now that these homelands are disappearing by the day, will Britain now accept as many Bosnian refugees as, say, the 10,000 Hungarian refugees given asylum in 1956 and 1957?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think, if you take the British record over a lot of years, not only in Bosnia but in other areas, that anybody can legitimately criticise Britain for not taking its share of people who found themselves in difficulty around the world or playing its part in helping them on the ground so I have no further change of policy to announce today.

    QUESTION (Graham Leach, BBC):

    Chancellor Kohl a short time ago was referring to the great moral issue at the centre of this Bosnian crisis, the fact that the Bosnian Muslims are in the weakest position of the various parties there to defend themselves and he is clearly hosting the view of deep unhappiness about, this new proposed settlement which he believes is being dictated largely by the Serbs and the Croats.

    How much moral disquiet do you have that the focus of the negotiations now is merely or appears merely to be salvaging what you can for the Muslim population?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My moral disquiet was actually evidenced last August when we were the first to put troops in to deal with the humanitarian effort. My moral disquiet has been there throughout the whole of this episode.

    One has to understand the reality of what has happened and what the options are. With the collapse of the old Yugoslavia and indeed the collapse of the discipline exerted by the old Soviet Union, the genie of old hatreds came out of the bottle in Bosnia-Herzegovina. There was brutally a choice. We – by “We” mean not just the European Community but the rest of the world – perhaps through the United Nations could have decided to put in several hundred thousand troops – for that is what it would have meant – to hold the combatants apart, Heaven knows for how long, six months, a year, five years, ten years. We have been in Cyprus for 28 years. Nobody was prepared to do that; it would not have been a practicable military proposition without huge loss of life and there was no enthusiasm for doing it. Many great states still don’t have any troops on the ground there.

    Once that was pushed to one side, there was only one effective route to take; that was to seek humanitarian aid to minimise the suffering and minimise the loss of life and I would argue that that humanitarian assistance led by the British and the French – the French have been remarkable and the Spanish have done very good work there as well – has saved an unknown number but a huge number of lives over the winter. Allied with that, we needed to seek a political settlement. It is very easy to stand back and say: “Why not do something else?” but there was no other way to deal with it other than to seek a political settlement and that is what repeatedly we have been doing.

    I set out my reasons a few moments ago why I am reluctant to see the arms embargo lifted and I think they are compelling reasons – I won’ t reiterate them again today. I still believe the first prize both for Bosnia as a whole and for the rest of the world is to maintain the humanitarian aid, not destroy it with a single gesture, and to see even now whether we can achieve a satisfactory political settlement that will bring the fighting to an end.

    There is a moral issue. The first moral issue is to stop the killing. We must all make our own judgement about how that is best done and I have set out my judgement quite clearly.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    There has been a danger from the very beginning of this of exaggerated expectations of what people outside the former Yugoslavia could do and therefore exaggerated criticism when they don’t do it and the British Government, whether in the Security Council, in NATO or here in the Community, consistently said from the very beginning that it is not possible for outsiders to impose a just and durable peace. It has to be negotiated. The only possible way of imposing a peace would be, as the Prime Minister said, in effect to declare Bosnia and perhaps indeed Croatia as some kind of UN protectorate or colony and keep troops there for year after year. No-one is proposing that.

    There have always been limitations on what we can do from outside and much of the criticism and disappointment has been from people who did not at the beginning understand those limitations. What we have done is, as the Prime Minister said, provided a political framework, provided pressures, sanctions, to encourage those concerned – and particularly the Serbs with their special responsibility – to negotiate, provide humanitarian help and keep people alive. Those are the things we have been doing and within their limits we have been doing them successfully.

    Now it has moved on a stage in the sense that Lord Owen reported two nights ago to the foreign ministers that it looked as if the Serbs and Croats were considering a plan, beginning to put forward a plan. It is not for us in this Community to endorse that plan; we have not done so, it is not our plan. It is not for us to tell the Muslims that they should accept that plan; we have not done so; we made that clear to President Izetbegovic yesterday. But it is for them to consider – this is what I asked him – whether they should in fact find out, discuss and explore the possibilities. Whether they will do that or not I don’t know but it is reasonable that they should.

    One could imagine a situation, as the Prime Minister said, where it all collapsed, it was too dangerous to keep British troops there, the UN effort could not continue, negotiations collapsed. That is a different situation which is why in the Washington statement we did not exclude harsher measures but to end the arms embargo now, to involve the withdrawal of the UN effort, stop the effective effort of keeping people alive, in fact arm Croats as well as Muslims and Serbs, those are the consequences of the lifting of the arms embargo now and because those consequences are fairly clear a very substantial view here was that we should not change our policy.

    QUESTION (Japanese Newspaper):

    What sort of message or guidelines is the European Council to take to Japan for the economic summit and G7 in a few weeks time although Japanese politics are in turmoil?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a difficult thing! The European Council did not discuss a collective view for the G7 summit though a number of European members, France, Germany, Britain and the Commission itself of course will be there but we didn’t over the last couple of days agree a concerted line for what we might discuss in Japan.

    There is a good deal of preparatory work still going on as I am sure you will know and I think it will be a few days yet before positions are taken. It was not discussed in the last day and a half.

    QUESTION (Peter Snow, BBC TV):

    Are you going to fully participate in the creation of the European Monetary Institute with a view perhaps to participating in the ECB at the end of it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is agreed in the Maastricht Treaty that everyone, whether they are operating within the Exchange Rate Mechanism or not, remains within the European Monetary System so of course we contribute to the decision-making.

    As to when we will return to the Exchange Rate Mechanism, we have made it clear that it isn’t imminent; it will probably be some years before we are able to do that. I have made that clear, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that clear and that hasn’t changed at all as a result of our discussions in the last day and a half.

    QUESTION (Peter Snow, BBC TV):

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Oh yes. If by “in that” you mean will we have a say in where it goes, what it does and in the governing of it, the answer is Yes.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    Prime Minister, I was wondering if you are now in a position to deny categorically the allegation made in the “Guardian” that the Tory Party received £7 million from the Saudi royal family before the last election. I was also wondering if Mr. Mates is still a member of your Government and is going to stay there.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to the first point is that the story is total fantasy from beginning to end. The Conservative Party doesn’t accept money from foreign governments or from royal families and it hasn’t done so. I don’t know what the sources of those stories were. If there is any firm evidence, I hope someone will bring it to me to see. I don’t myself deal with these matters but I am assured that the story is utterly and completely unfounded.

    As far as Mr. Mates is concerned, I made the position clear this morning. Nothing has changed since then.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC TV):

    Do you accept, Prime Minister, that it is part of your responsibility as Conservative party leader to make sure that the party is funded from proper sources and wouldn’t that task be made much easier if it was made a condition of giving large donations to a political party that the donor’s name should be made public by the party?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Conservative Party is funded by individuals, by companies and by its own party activists. Overwhelmingly most of it comes from its own party activists. There are people who donate money to the party who require anonymity. That is the position, has always been the position and I don’t see any logical reason for changing that position.

    What we have seen in the last couple of days goes back really to the last question. It is very easy for the most extraordinary stories to run around rather like the one that appeared this morning which I am assured, though I don’t have a direct responsibility for these matters, is totally untrue. I appreciate that it is always possible for quite absurd stories to be put up, run around and given a good deal of publicity but the fundamental choice is this; political parties could of course be funded by the state. That is really what the Labour Party would like because their only funding at the moment comes from trade unions many of whose members are not supporters of the Labour Party though nonetheless their money no doubt goes to the Labour Party; they have no organisation in the constituencies to speak of, they have no means of raising money in the constituencies and businesses are so hostile to their policies no-one would give them twopence halfpenny so clearly they are very much in the business of making sure there is state funding. They are very keen on state funding; they have always liked more. I don’t like the principle of having our political parties principally funded by the taxpayer compulsorily – I don’t like it – and I have to tell you that I don’t think the taxpayer would like it either.

    That being so, I think a free and open democratic party should be funded in the way we have traditionally been funded. We have made it clear we don’t accept money from foreign governments, we don’t accept money from foreign royal families. In the event that any money handed to us turns out to be tainted, we will return that money but people who contribute to political parties do have a right to anonymity just as they have a right to anonymity if they contribute to charities or other things. That has been the position and I see no logical reason for changing it.

    QUESTION (BBC Hungarian Service):

    Could I just go back to one aspect of Stage 1 which hasn’t been touched yet, that of enlargement? As the UK is one of the supporters of enlargement, can I ask you Prime Minister whether you envisage that some of the six former socialist countries or indeed some of the Visegrad Four can be granted full membership earlier than others and if so, have you got a preferable candidate?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think any of them are remotely ready to come into the Community now. I wish they were because Britain is a foremost supporter of having them join the Community but the fact of the matter is they aren’t economically ready to join and it will be some time before they are. It was for that reason that we wanted to ensure that they had Association Agreements, it was for that reason that we wanted to open some of the trade barriers so they can export more easily to us and help make themselves ready to join the Community.

    As to whether they could join individually or whether they have to join collectively, I think it is inevitable that they will join individually. Whatever the past thought may have been that they will all come in at the same date, the fact of the matter is that one or two of them will be ready for membership of the Community in advance of the others and I for one would not then wish to close the Community door on them. If one is ready and the others are not, I think we should let that one in and then the others as and when they are ready to join the Community but I have to say to you I think it is some years ahead.

    QUESTION (Michael White, The Guardian):

    I know approximately where the allegations are sourced in this morning’s “Guardian” report, Prime Minister and accept that they should be taken seriously. Therefore can I, in the light of your remarks this morning, press you a little further?

    You said that yours was a democratically-funded, largely domestically-funded party but the difficulty with your position is that so much of your funding admitted and reported in the annual accounts isn’t readily accountable for so therefore can I press you a little further?

    You said this morning no donations from the Saudi Government, you said this afternoon no donations from the Saudi royal family. I wonder if your knowledge of the situation goes far enough to enable you to say no donations came from either private individuals or corporations in Saudi Arabia which though it is an ally of ours is scarcely a democratic ally of ours, and if you consider that to be fanciful, I wonder if I could extend the question a moment and say what is in the public domain is that your colleague, Mr. Heseltine, was taken ill in Venice at the weekend. The DTI thought he was going to be in Germany and he was meeting with Lord McAlpine whom I think we all know is not a kissing cousin politically speaking of Mr. Heseltine. Do we know what he was doing with Lord McAlpine?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have absolutely no idea. I don’t know what sort of “Guardian” you now represent but the concept that Michael Heseltine shouldn’t spend a weekend in Venice with his wife and meet someone he has known for twenty years seems to me rather an extraordinary proposition.

    If you have evidence of the sort that you printed this morning in the “Guardian” bring it to me and show it to me. I am assured that your story this morning was total and utter fantasy. If you think it wasn’t, until you are sure bring the evidence to me and see. I make that offer to you. You bring the evidence to me, I will examine it. Just let us have a little less innuendo and a little more fact. Bring the evidence to me, Michael, or don’t print it!

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Maastricht Treaty (III) – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Maastricht Treaty, made during an interview held on 19th May 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Maastricht Treaty would progress quickly following the Danish referendum result].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am certainly pleased the Danes have cleared that uncertainty up, it has been a very debilitating, very difficult period both in Denmark, right across the Community, and certainly in the United Kingdom as well. We have the third reading of the bill in the Commons on Thursday, I hope and expect it will be passed then. The bill will then move to the House of Lords and thereafter we will be able to have Royal Assent and ratify the bill.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he could get the bill through Parliament given the divisions in the Conservative Party and whether he would agree to the social chapter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a very decisive issue, Europe, it has been a very divisive issue in this country ever since we first joined it, and that remains the case. To take the particular points you raised, the social chapter firstly. I was speaking last night to a large number of employers at the CBI, they are absolutely clear that without the social chapter we are in a much better position. People think the social chapter offers all sorts of social benefits. I think it really more aptly ought to be called an employment destructive chapter, and that is emphatically not what we want in the United Kingdom, I want to put people back to work, not raise impediments to them getting work, and I believe that is what the social chapter would do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Edward Heath supporting the social chapter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ted is a very enthusiastic supporter of European development, I do not believe the social chapter is in our interests, I do believe it is very much in the British interest, in the British national interest, our own cold, hard self-interest to be right at the centre of the European Community. And I do not just say that for idealistic reasons. The European Community is where our exports go to, it is where most of our jobs over the last 10 years effectively were created from, because of our growth in trade where was a huge growth of small businesses and firms. We need that growth in trade, we need those jobs. I know of no-one, no-one, who has a practical alternative to Britain being at the centre of Europe using her influence. There are only three alternatives really: leave the European Community, hardly anyone is proposing that; stay in it without influence and be dragged along by the French and Germans, that is not attractive; or get in the middle of the Community, form alliances with our partners, different alliances on different issues, and try and wield real British influence in the European Community, and that is where I stand.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be increasing pressure on Britain to rejoin the ERM and join the social chapter and whether he would fight or give in].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think it is quite as straightforward as that either way. For every member of the Community, throughout the lifetime of the Community, there have been pressures. When you have 12 nations, soon to be 16, working together always there are going to be pressures and difficulties. In order to win your way in the Community you need alliances, you need to be taken seriously, you certainly do not want to be sidelined with the rest of the Community ganging up on you, as has happened so often to this country in the past.

    What we are seeing at the moment is a fairly dramatic move towards the sort of European Community that we in Britain have always wanted and feel comfortable with, a wider Community, because of the agreements at Edinburgh the EFTAN nations will soon be joining. They will firstly be net contributors to the budget, which will save us money, and secondly they will be free traders. We have different governments across Europe, more inclined to the British point of view. We are at the moment in a better position than we have been, I believe, at any stage in our membership to start influencing the Community to go in the direction that we the British would like to see it moving.

  • PMQT – 4 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

    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. Smith : Will the Prime Minister comment on the views of the European Commission’s chief legal adviser that the so-called Danish opt- outs from the Maastricht treaty were worthless? Does not that coincide with the views of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who said that

    “it does not alter, either the text on European union, or the obligations taken on by those who ratify the treaty.”–[ Official Report, 30 March 1993 ; Vol. 222, c. 126.]

    Does not the constitutional question now being put to the Danish people remain unchanged?

    The Prime Minister : All that was set out carefully at the time, but I shall reiterate it for the hon. Gentleman. It was made perfectly clear from the start that what was agreed was an interpretation of the treaty, an intergovernmental agreement binding in international law. That was the case, is the case, and has never been in doubt.

     

    Q2. Mr. Booth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Booth : Does my right hon. Friend share the feeling of many Conservative Members that unit fines are not working well? Does he also share the feeling of many of us that the fact that previous convictions cannot adequately be taken into account by the courts is a great shame and will he therefore change the rules so that persistent offenders can be identified by the courts and punished severely?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he shares the concern expressed about some, although not all, aspects of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. He has made it clear that he wants to see amendments and to introduce them as soon as is appropriate. As my hon. Friend may know, my right hon. and learned Friend met the Magistrates Association this morning to decide how best to proceed.

    Mr. John Smith : As there is now overwhelming opposition from parents, teachers, governors and experts to the Government’s insistence on imposing tests on schools this year, why does not the Prime Minister for once admit that he is wrong, do the sensible thing and withdraw the tests for this year?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have exchanged views on that subject before. We believe that it is important to proceed with the tests, not least so that Sir Ron Dearing can draw on that experience, as he has said that he wishes to do, in order to improve the tests. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall frequently calling for this country’s work force to be better trained. Why does he consistently oppose measures designed to bring that about?

    Mr. John Smith : If the tests are so important that the Government are prepared to go well beyond the limits of reason and common sense to impose them, why are private schools, to which many Conservative Members send their children, exempt completely from them?

    The Prime Minister : It is reason and common sense to test pupils. It is reason and common sense to know how well they are doing. It is reason and common sense to have that information so that we can put right the matters that are not being dealt with adequately in those schools at the moment. That is our responsibility in the state sector and that is what my right hon. Friend is seeking to do.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister now answer the question that I put to him? What reason and common sense is there to impose them on the public sector, but to leave the private sector untouched?

    The Prime Minister : We have a direct responsibility for making sure in the public sector that pupils are taught adequately and well. In the private sector the results of the schools have been very good– [Interruption.] –and many of them have their own tests. We have a direct responsibility in the public sector and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the tests, for example, of seven-year-olds, have been successful. They have been good for pupils, good for teachers and good for schools. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would join forces with those who want industrial militancy to end the tests, irrespective of what he has said in the past about having a well-trained work force. Words only from the right hon. and learned Gentleman which he will not back up with action when necessary.

    Sir James Kilfedder : Will the Prime Minister, on behalf of this country, express our deepest sympathy to the people of Sri Lanka following the horrific and callous murder of President Premadasa and many others? Will he express the hope that that and other atrocities will not undermine the stability of that beautiful country, which is an essential member of the Commonwealth?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend sets out views that will be shared widely across the House and the country. It was a particularly brutal and pointless assassination which will have done immense damage to Sri Lanka around the world. I wish the very best of good fortune to the new president in due course and to the Government in restoring stability after that dreadful event.

    Mr. Ashdown : If the House votes to end the opt-out of the social chapter, will the Prime Minister refuse to ratify the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to respond to a hypothetical question– [Interruption.] –to which I have responded on previous occasions. I refer him to my previous answers.

    Mr. Spring : Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that housing repossessions are down 24 per cent. on last year? Does he agree that that is excellent news which bodes well not only for the housing sector but for consumer confidence and for continuing revival in the economy?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, it is excellent news. It is also excellent news that, in the view of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the action by the Government and lenders last year prevented over 50,000 repossessions that would otherwise have taken place. There are now clear signs of recovery in the housing market. That can only be helped by interest rates of 6 per cent. and mortgage rates at their lowest for over 30 years. I believe that that, together with other economic indicators in the last few weeks, point firmly to real recovery.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mike O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. O’Brien : Will the Prime Minister accept the congratulations of many on these Benches that his Government are now in full retreat on his citizens charter for criminals, the Criminal Justice Act 1991? Does he now admit that he got it wrong to pass that law, which restricts the ability of the courts to send to prison people who have committed serious offences– that at a time when crime has doubled and when he has been imposing a freeze on future spending on the police? Will he now accept that his credibility as the leader of the party of law and order is in tatters?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully a few moments ago he would know that I said that I shared the concern about some, but not all, of the aspects of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and we have made it clear that we are prepared to change those. The hon. Gentleman may recall that a great deal of cross-party advice on the 1991 Act was given, not least by many Opposition Members.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly recognised the importance of our manufacturing and construction industries in this country’s economic recovery. Competition is essential, but does my right hon. Friend accept that a level playing field is equally important? Will he state what further steps he and his Government will take to improve the ability of manufacturing and construction to contribute to the recovery of our economy?

    The Prime Minister : I share the view, which has for a long time been expressed by my hon. Friend, about the importance of manufacturing industry. He will know of the remarkable improvement in manufacturing exports over recent months and the remarkable improvement in productivity of manufacturing industry. They are now biting deep with exports into the European market and beyond. My hon. Friend is right about the need to have a level playing field in Europe and beyond. As my hon. Friend will know, that will be improved by the Maastricht treaty.

     

    Q4. Mr. Roy Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the report issued over the weekend that the much-trumpeted decrease in the unemployment figures is little more than a piece of spring cleaning of the figures by officials at the semi-privatised employment and benefit offices? It has been said that falsehood has a perennial spring –would not it be wiser to recognise that Britain’s true unemployment rate is now in the region of 4 million? Is not that a national disgrace? When will the Government take some effective action to put people back to work?

    The Prime Minister : The requirement to put people back to work is felt at least as keenly by Conservative Members as in any other part of the House, which is precisely why we have taken the difficult measures to make it possible to get people back to work in secure jobs. That is why we fail to understand why Opposition Members consistently support matters like the social charter, which would keep people unemployed for a long time.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that this weekend the citizens of Gloucestershire were again subjected to an invasion of new age travellers? Is he further aware that the Gloucestershire police have done a first-class job in breaking up the convoys and keeping them on the move? Is there any chance of introducing any legislation or further measures to restrain those unwelcome visitors between now and the summer? They call themselves new age travellers, but in Gloucestershire they are known as new age vermin.

    The Prime Minister : I sympathise strongly with the citizens of Gloucestershire over the trouble that they have faced with new age travellers. I warmly congratulate the police on the action that they have taken. We are examining what further legislative measures can be taken to give the police more powers, but I cannot promise that they will necessarily be introduced before the summer.

     

    Q5. Mr. McWilliam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. McWilliam : Is the Prime Minister aware of any group of teachers who have said that they will not either teach or assess their pupils?

    The Prime Minister : That is a question better directed to my right hon. Friend, but I am aware of teachers’ leaders who seem to be encouraging their members to take industrial action against the interests of the pupils of those schools, which I regret.

     

    Aberdeen

    Q6. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Aberdeen in the near future.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Scotland among them.

    Mr. Robertson : If my right hon. Friend is able to visit Aberdeen at the end of the year, will he consider allowing his visit to coincide with the first wave of civil service relocations from the Department of Trade and Industry’s London-based oil and gas division to Aberdeen? Will he consider opening the DTI’s new Aberdeen office, which so vividly demonstrates the Government’s commitment to Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland and the North sea oil and gas industry?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly consider that invitation if it comes to me through the appropriate sources and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for anticipating it. The fact that we are opening that office shows that we are committed to expand as and when companies move key functions to Aberdeen. It certainly shows our faith in the future of the North sea industry and the north-east of Scotland. The division will begin moving there in the autumn. I know how welcome that news is to my hon. Friend and how hard he worked to bring it about.

    Mr. Robert Hughes : If the Prime Minister visits Aberdeen, will he recall that the petroleum revenue tax changes he proposes will give large windfall profits to very large companies, but will savagely attack small companies, especially those in the drilling and exploration sector? If he wishes to express his confidence in the North sea, would not it be better to change that to allow people to develop fields and exploration as and when they come?

    The Prime Minister : As it happens, the reform improves the incentives for further development of existing fields and new development of important fields that would have paid tax at 83 per cent. That is good for investment, jobs, Aberdeen, the north-east, Scotland and the United Kingdom.

    Madam Speaker : Order. Time is up. Ten-minute rule Bill, Mr. Anthony Steen. It would be helpful if hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quietly so that we may get on with our business here. I am sure that Mr. Steen is in good voice this afternoon.

  • PMQT – 27th April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    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. Gunnell : Now that there is optimism that the bulk of the Maxwell pension funding will be recovered over the next four years, is it not time to end once and for all the uncertainties felt by many of those lobbying us today? Will the Prime Minister authorise the availability of capital now, knowing full well that as funds are recovered most of that money will come back? Eighteen months is too long, for elderly people in particular, to suffer such anxiety. Will the Prime Minister end it now?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that over many months we have made a positive response to the Maxwell reservations. I believe that it was the right thing to do, not least setting up the Maxwell pensioners’ trust, which has raised more than £6 million, and providing £2.5 million to ensure that pensions are paid. We continue to look sympathetically at the problem, but I have no fresh announcements to make today.

    Sir John Wheeler : In the wake of the bomb in the City of London on Saturday, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will bring forward the reinsurance scheme? Will he urge the Leader of the House to make time for legislation for that scheme as soon as possible?

    The Prime Minister : The Government scheme for insurance against terrorist attacks has been providing cover since 1 January this year and the Government will fully honour their commitment under the scheme. It is, of course, a matter for individual businesses whether or not they choose to take out such cover, but everyone who has done so, or has alternative policies, will have been covered against damage caused by the Bishopsgate bomb. The Government scheme is one of reinsurance for the industry, so those who have suffered damage will need to make claims to their insurers in the usual way. On my right hon. Friend’s last point, legislation to provide for payments to be made to the insurance companies under the scheme will be brought before the House as soon as possible. I hope that it will be possible to attract support from all parts of the House for that measure.

    Mr. John Smith : Now that all six teacher and head teacher organisations have appealed to the Secretary of State for Education to suspend this year’s testing and assessment arrangements under the national curriculum, will the Government for once listen to the considered professional judgment of the whole teaching profession and suspend this year’s tests?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the importance that we put behind the principle of testing. He also knows–he will have heard the remarks of Sir Ron Dearing–that we need the experience of this year’s tests to ensure that we are able to remove the unnecessary bureaucracy and make sure that the tests are right for the future. The implication of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question is that he now accepts the principle of testing. I hope that is now so.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that this increasingly bitter dispute is not about the principle of sensible testing but about the dogmatic insistence of an arrogant Secretary of State that his view must prevail against those of governors, teachers and parents? Why does not the Secretary of State recognise that which is recognised by everyone else–that he has lost the argument and that it is an insult to use £700,000 of taxpayers’ money on futile propaganda?

    The Prime Minister : I notice again that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not indicate that he does not accept the principle. I assume that he does accept the principle of testing. In view of his question, he may care to comment on the remark by the National Union of Teachers president, who said :

    “We should annihilate tests in the national curriculum.” I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now condemn that particular comment. On his further point, I must tell him that I do not think it appropriate for teachers to take industrial action at the expense of those tests.

    Mr. John Smith : If the Prime Minister is so confident of parents’ support, why does he not use that £700,000 to hold a ballot, to find out what parents really think? If the Government are sincere about parental choice, why not let the parents choose?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as every other right hon. and hon. Member that two agendas are in play –that of the ordinary teacher who wants less bureaucracy, which we are considering and to which we shall respond, and that of the militants’ opposition to any sort of testing or appraisal and to all our reforms. I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies that he is favour of tests, but he does not have the courage to denounce the NUT and its comments about industrial action.

    Mr. Cash : Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm the assurance that he gave the House unambiguously on 24 September last year, that if the Danes vote no in the second referendum it would be unacceptable for us and the rest of the Community to go ahead without Denmark, and that the Maastricht treaty could not go ahead?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps my hon. Friend has been misled by some of the reports that he may have seen this morning. The leader of the Progress party in Denmark, which my hon. Friend will know is the only Danish party opposed to the Maastricht treaty, said :

    “There was nothing new in the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, and they were manipulated by the press.”

    That was her comment, not mine. As to my hon. Friend’s specific question, if he will study the transcript of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, a copy of which will be placed in the Library, he will find that my right hon. Friend made four straightforward points. First, we do not expect the Danes to vote no. Secondly, were they to do so the Maastricht treaty could not enter into force because it requires ratification by 12 member states. Thirdly, United Kingdom legislation to ratify the treaty could therefore not proceed. Finally, all 12 members of the European Community would need to hold urgent consultations about what to do next. Each of those points is self-evident. That was said by my right hon. Friend yesterday.

     

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

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

    Mr. McFall : In the right hon. Gentleman’s first speech as Prime Minister, he spoke of a commonsense view of life from a tolerant perspective. Now that the Scottish Conservative party has joined the massive opposition to water privatisation in Scotland, will the Prime Minister display that tolerance by recognising the genuine and universal concern felt in Scotland, where water is regarded as being for the benefit of all–not for the profit of a few? At next month’s Tory conference, will the Prime Minister state that the public interest will best be served by increased investment in the present water and sewerage system? Regardless of whatever the Tories have brought to Scotland in the last 14 years, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall not witness the return of the Victorian cry of “Gardyloos!” to the streets of Edinburgh and Glasgow?

    The Prime Minister : The future structure of water and sewerage services in Scotland is still under consideration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to go further while that matter remains under consideration.

     

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

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

    Mr. Rathbone : Now that Britain is exporting television to Germany, lace to Brussels, cosmetics to the French and pizzas to Italy, as my right hon. Friend pointed out in Manchester last week, does he not think that all British companies now have the competitive edge to develop export markets everywhere?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right to praise our exporters and to point to the opportunities for further exports. We also export more per head than Japan and now have an excellent opportunity to break into new markets and win back old ones. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor increased the amount of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover both last autumn and in the recent Budget. Manufacturing matters ; exporting matters. We seek to support them both.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gerrard : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Mr. Gerrard : Is the Prime Minister aware that very many people in London are extremely worried about the survival of the travelcard and concessionary fares after bus deregulation and rail franchising and that their fears are echoed today in the report by the Select Committee on Transport? Will the Prime Minister tell us what he intends to do to guarantee the future of the travelcard and concessionary fares schemes?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to study the report of the Select Committee and then respond to it. That is what we will do.

    Mr. Whittingdale : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating President Yeltsin on his outstanding personal victory at the weekend? Does he agree that, in supporting President Yeltsin, the Russian people have voted in favour of democracy built on market economics? Does this not represent by far the best chance for the future of Russia?

    The Prime Minister : I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right about the last point. I have sent my warm congratulations to President Yeltsin on the outcome of the referendum. The results are remarkable. They show that the Russian people maintain their personal trust in the President and, most important, that they wish him to carry his democratic reforms further. It is a remarkable result on the back of the sacrifices that have been made towards economic transformation. I believe that the Russian people are beginning to see the benefits of individual enterprise. Success for Russia is essential for its people and equally vital for the rest of the world.

     

    Q5. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Ms Eagle : Does the Prime Minister not find ironic that, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, we are losing the battle for our shipyards without even a fight? Given his Government’s refusal to create a strategy for defence diversification, what action does the Prime Minister intend to take in response to the petition handed to him today by the save Cammel Laird community group, asking him to save the yard from closure in July?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady knows, there is a problem for shipbuilding round the world as a result of the level of capacity and the level of demand. I understand the hon. Lady’s concern about Cammel Laird and I know that it is shared by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). The yard’s future is primarily a commercial decision for Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. which is having to respond to that worldwide decline, which is not just a problem for the United Kingdom but one for the rest of Europe and for countries in other parts of the world. None the less, I will study with great care the letter from the Cammel Laird support group and reply in due course.

    Mr. Batiste : Will my right hon. Friend reassess the case for identity cards to see whether they can give significant support to the police in their fight against crime and terrorism?

    The Prime Minister : That is a matter which from time to time we will need to review. It is one which has many difficulties. We have looked at it in the past and not found it a terribly attractive proposition. I know that a constituency is demanding it. It is not something which I would wish to rule out, but it is not on our immediate agenda.

     

    Shetland

    Q6. Mr. Wallace : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to pay an official visit to Shetland.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so at present, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Earl of Caithness visited Shetland on 29 and 30 March.

    Mr. Wallace : I know that that reply will dismay my constituents. They will be dismayed to learn that, some 16 weeks after the Braer went aground, the Prime Minister has neither visited the area nor indicated any intention of doing so. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Wallace : I shall resist the temptation to ask what would have happened if a ship had gone aground on the white cliffs of Dover. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear the hon. Gentleman out.

    Mr. Wallace : If the Prime Minister came to see at first hand a community’s remarkable, practical and vigorous response to the adversities that affected it on 5 January, he would be very impressed indeed. If, in the attempt to restore the economic fortunes of that community, it is necessary to embark on a marketing exercise to restore Shetland’s good name for good-quality produce, will the Prime Minister repeat that the polluter should pay? If so, will he give the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund a nudge in the right direction?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly say to the hon. Gentleman that the response of the people in the area was indeed remarkable. That was noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and by a number of my other right hon. Friends, all of whom visited the area in the period immediately following the tragedy. What the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention was that an economic impact study is being mounted under the direction of Shetland Islands council, and with the participation of Shetland Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. That will help to target resources where they are most needed, and I think that it is the right way in which to proceed for the present.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 January 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Calcutt Inquiry

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister when he was first advised of the contents of the letter from Lord McGregor to Sir David Calcutt.

    The Prime Minister : The first I knew of Lord McGregor’s letter was when it appeared in the national press.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister when he responded to a letter dated 9 December 1992 from President Dobrica Cosic of Yugoslavia concerning the conflict in the former Yugoslavia; if he will indicate what his response has been; and if he will seek agreement to the publication of the correspondence.

    The Prime Minister : I replied to President Cosic ‘s letter on 11 January. I believe it important to maintain the confidentiality of such correspondence.

     

    Denmark

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 December, Official Report, column 37, what is the basis for clear distinction between the intergovernmental binding decision in respect of Denmark taken in Edinburgh, and a treaty judiciable at the International Court at The Hague.

    The Prime Minister : In the EC context treaty’ is normally used for an instrument amending the Community treaties and thus requiring ratification. The decision in respect of Denmark does not amend either the Maastricht treaty or the earlier Community treaties and does not require ratification. It is, like a treaty, binding in international law.

     

    Jamaica

    Mr. Kaufman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to withdraw all British economic aid to Jamaica if hangings are recommenced there in February.

    The Prime Minister : No. But in line with normal practice, our bilateral aid policy for Jamaica will continue to take full account of all human rights considerations.

     

    Seals (Russia)

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what written evidence or information Her Majesty’s Government have received from the Russian authorities concerning the seal cull in Russia; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Russian authorities informed us of the 1992 culling quotas of 7,300 and 2,300 for adult hooded and harp seals respectively. We have not received any figures for 1993. The Russian authorities are well aware of public concern in the United Kingdom about seal culling.

     

    Human Rights

    Mr. Soley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to incorporate article 10 of the European convention on human rights into British law.

    The Prime Minister : No. Our policy remains not to incorporate the European convention on human rights into domestic law, since we believe that it is for Parliament, rather than the judiciary, to determine how the principles of human rights in the convention are best secured.

     

    Honours (Withdrawal)

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister under what circumstances he would recommend to the Queen that awards be withdrawn posthumously; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 14 January 1993] : None that I can foresee, but the forfeiture of awards is considered on a case-by-case basis.

     

    Prince and Princess of Wales

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he held with (a) the Prince and (b) the Princess of Wales prior to his statement of 9 December 1992.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on Tuesday 12 January at column 697.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Ruud Lubbers – 7 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr Ruud Lubbers, held in Edinburgh on Monday 7th December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    I think you talked about the Danish position, can you say something about that issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We talked about the whole range of issues at Edinburgh and beyond Edinburgh. We ran through the agenda. We looked at the question of Denmark and future financing, enlargement, all the issues we expect to face at Edinburgh. I think we are both committed to making sure that Edinburgh is a success and the Community can show it’s on a forward path. I hope very much we will be able to reach an agreement over the weekend that will enable the Danes to put the whole question back to a new referendum.

    QUESTION:

    Why do you think Edinburgh will be a success, because the EC is in a rather desperate position right now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The European Community is a fairly remarkable organisation. Over the years it has had many occasions where it faced difficulties. It has hurdled those difficulties. It has faced them and overcome them. I think that when we get to Edinburgh the many difficulties to be overcome, there’s a general will to overcome them.

    QUESTION:

    There’s a general will to overcome them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There’s a general will.

    QUESTION:

    And you saw that general will as well from Mr Lubbers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ask the Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    Of course we discussed the very useful proposal of the British presidency about the Danish problem and as was said in other capitals, we think it can be improved. Certain elements of it, as I explained to the press in the Netherlands already on Friday. But I see good possibilities. You never know of course. It will be difficult and the same is for the other topics we have to discuss. It won’t be easy. Europe is often at its best when it is difficult.

    QUESTION:

    The Christian Democratic leaders have said last week that they won’t accept the British solution on the Danish issue.

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    Oh, that’s the way we prepare meetings. Always it is the same.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Would you go into a meeting saying I agree with everything if you are just about to go into negotiations? That is the standard way the Community prepares.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what kind of improvements could you bring to this proposal to solve [inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we brought forward for the meeting over the weekend is a compromise between the necessary changes that are there to ensure that Denmark can successfully put the Referendum back and the changes that the rest of the Community are prepared to accept. There are some things that the Community can’t accept. We can’t accept changes to the Maastricht Treaty itself. We can’t accept things that require re-ratification. And there has to be flexibility both on behalf of Denmark and on behalf of the rest of the Community. Now we have put forward a proposal in some small areas where I think there will be further discussion at Edinburgh. I hope it will be possible to reach a conclusion. No-one can be absolutely certain about that. We will have to wait till Edinburgh. But what is perfectly clear, talking to every head of Government across the Community, is that there is a general will to see whether we can reach an agreement. Everybody will be going there trying to reach an agreement and I think that is a very satisfactory way to begin the meeting at Edinburgh.

    QUESTION:

    Will there be a motion to stimulate the European economy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will be discussing the European economy of course.

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    Of course we will do that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that it is still possible that Denmark will take over the European Presidency in January?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, its not only possible, it is certain they will.

    QUESTION:

    Still?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes.

    QUESTION:

    Could we have your comments about the rejection by Switzerland of the EEA? Both of you please.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not a wholly unexpected rejection, given the nature of the Swiss constitution. They needed to win in each and every Canton, so I don’t think it is a great surprise they have said no. I think it is a disappointment for Switzerland and for others. What will now happen, of course, is that the Swiss will have excluded themselves from the largest free trading market in the world, and the free trading market that is getting larger. The other EFTA states will no doubt now hold a conference and decide how to proceed. What I think is absolutely clear is that in no way will this diminish the wish of the other EFTA states to join the Community proper.

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    It is a pity of course, but as the Dutch Prime Minister, I want to pinpoint, make clear that we have a separate agreement with Austria and Switzerland about a very important transit problem, and that was made separately and was accepted by the Swiss population a few months earlier. Frankly speaking, that was the most important part for us and that is not endangered by this Referendum.

    QUESTION:

    But the Edinburgh summit can’t be a failure? You agree with that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Everyone will be working to make sure the Edinburgh summit is a success.

    [Remaining section was in Dutch, and translated to the below]

    QUESTION:

    Have you been given British support for the siting of one the European Institutions in the Netherlands?

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    The British hold the Presidency. They are only looking for consensus and agreement and I do not have the feeling that it has become easier now than it was in Maastricht or in Lisbon. I am talking about the whole question of the siting of institutions.

    QUESTION:

    Your colleague Mr Major has been criticised for being too British in his Presidency. Do you share that criticism?

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    We are now busy preparing for Edinburgh and making the best of it, and in the week to come there should be no criticism – only cooperation.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Lubbers, last Friday you said that you and Mr Major would come with a few suggestions for the Danish problem.

    PRIME MINISTER LUBBERS:

    That is what we have done. That is why he was looking so cheerful.

  • 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.

  • PMQT – 29 October 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. William O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

    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 later today.

    Mr. O’Brien : Can the Prime Minister confirm that the chairman of British Coal told the Select Committee on Trade and Industry yesterday that the 31 pits due to close are only the beginning, and that seven more are due to close in due course, making a total of 38 pits, which will be devastating to the mining industry and to mining communities ? What is the Prime Minister going to do? Is he going to come clean on that issue?

    The Prime Minister : What I believe the chairman of the coal industry actually said, although I have not yet read his evidence in detail and I must make that clear to the hon. Gentleman, was that British Coal could close more than 31 pits and have a viable industry. That is a quite separate proposition from saying that that is likely to happen, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made it perfectly clear that he is reviewing the situation.

    Mr. Waterson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the London business school survey, which showed that there would be greater reductions in air fares in Europe if there were more liberalisation, would equally apply to air fares between here and the United States of America, where there is a greater need for liberalisation?

    The Prime Minister : Yes I do agree with my hon. Friend about that. We have sought greater liberalisation in air fares for some time. We are confident that they would produce both a better service and cheaper air fares. We think that that is a prize well worth seeking.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the publication of the Foreign Office’s assessment of the Danish proposals confirm that the Prime Minister cannot possibly discharge the undertaking that he gave to the House on 24 September before the Edinburgh summit at the earliest?

    The Prime Minister : No, I must say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not believe that that is the case. The British presidency has the responsibility of seeking to negotiate Denmark into a position where it can ratify the treaty. We hope to be able to reach a framework upon that by December. What is clear is that the Danes have now set out how they propose to proceed, and it is also clear from the Birmingham declaration that we shall have positive decisions on subsidiarity at Edinburgh.

    Mr. John Smith : But does the Prime Minister not recollect saying in precise and specific terms in the House on 24 September that there would have to be a basis for the Danes to have a second referendum and that subsidiarity would have to be set in place? How can it be set in place before the Edinburgh summit?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wriggling because he knows that he is trying to move away from the European policy that he has always had. I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he cannot keep his principles in opposition, he will stay in opposition.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that it is a bit rich to be accused of a U-turn by a Prime Minister who has done a U- turn on devaluation and the exchange rate mechanism, a U-turn on pit closures, a U-turn on economic policy and a U-turn on his undertakings to the House?

    The Prime Minister : I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been touched upon a sore spot. He knows that his party has had seven changes of policy on Europe already. Even Salome ran out of veils at seven. He has shed seven veils and what is revealed is less attractive than Salome.

    Mr. John Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that nothing would help more to restore economic recovery all round the world than a settlement in the GATT round? Will he continue to do everything that he can to bring about such a settlement?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance and I and a number of my right hon. Friends have been in touch with the key negotiators again over the last 24 hours. I hope very much that there will be yet more negotiations over this weekend and that there will be an early settlement. It is a very great prize and I hope and believe that it will be there for the taking.

     

    Official Visit, Newham

    Q2. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to pay an official visit to the London borough of Newham.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country. Newham is not yet included, but I am happy to consider it.

    Mr. Banks : That is very good news. I will organise a riotous welcome for the Prime Minister when he comes, but I must tell him with great respect that he is about as popular in the east end as anthrax. If he were to come to my advice surgery on Friday, he would find that 60 per cent. of my cases are housing problems and that is true of all inner city hon. Members. In 1979 my borough was spending £50,000 a year on bed- and-breakfast accommodation and this year we are spending £7 million on it. We have only 1.4 per cent. of our properties vacant.

    If the Prime Minister wants to do something about homelessness and to boost the economy, will he allow local authorities to spend the £5.1 billion of accumulated capital receipts? That would do something about homelessness and jobs, or is he only interested in his own job and his own homes?

    The Prime Minister : I must say that that is a bit rich from the hon. Gentleman. Newham borough council’s rent arrears now amount to 21 per cent. of its rent roll and it has 1,000 empty properties. Newham has the lowest collection of community charge almost anywhere in the country and as far as its collection record is concerned, perhaps some explanation of that is that seven of the Labour councillors refuse to pay their community charge.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

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

    Mr. Atkinson : If Parliament does not ratify the Maastricht treaty, can my right hon. Friend point out precisely what the alternatives would be for Britain and the consequences which would undoubtedly be encouraged if the Labour party were to abandon all principle by failing to support the Prime Minister on Wednesday night?

    The Prime Minister : On that last point, I believe that they have already announced that they have no principles, so everybody is aware of that. I believe that it would be damaging for Britain if we were unable to ratify the Maastricht treaty. We would lose influence in Europe, we would lose the opportunity to lead it in the direction that we want away from centralism into a free market towards an enlarged community and towards a decentralised community. But more than that, I think we would be sending a signal to investors in America, Japan and elsewhere that they could not rely on our commitment to Europe and I dare say that people who work in Sony factories in Wales, Nissan factories in the north and many other investments throughout the United Kingdom would not regard that as a sensible policy.

     

    Q4. Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

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

    Mr. Alton : As the Prime Minister has rightly just reminded the House whether the Maastricht treaty is ratified next week is a matter of great principle, and given the confusion that there has been during the past week or so, can the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether he will personally regard next Wednesday’s vote as a matter of confidence in himself and his Government?

    The Prime Minister : We will put down our motion before the end of this week. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that it will be a substantive motion and we shall invite support for it on its merits.

    Mr. Richards : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent raid on an IRA bomb factory was the product of painstaking and diligent work by the Metropolitan police and others, and will he congratulate all of them on that success?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to do that. As my hon. Friend will know, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific police operations, but they have undoubtedly been very successful in their work against terrorism and have faced particular difficulties with the large number of bombs that have been placed, particularly in the city of London, in recent weeks. I know that they will continue that work.

     

    Q5 Mr. Battle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

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

    Mr. Battle : As the Department of Social Security has confirmed that the Prime Minister intends to tax invalidity benefit, I challenge the Prime Minister to tell us exactly where that plan to tax the sick is to be found in his election manifesto. Tell us. Which page is it on?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should stop scrabbling among newspapers and wait for the details of the autumn statement in due course. When it comes, he might also comment on the substantial real-terms reductions in many social benefits under the last Labour Government.

    Mr. Thurnham : Does my right hon. Friend agree that his success in beating inflation, now down to 2 per cent. annualised over the last six months, provides the firmest foundation for low interest rates, and that it is his policies, rather than the muddled policies of the Opposition, which will ensure that this country, as a great trading nation, gains the greatest success from the GATT talks?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, my hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of low inflation. It is noticeable that even today the official Opposition are apt to disregard inflation as the important ingredient in economic well being. It is the fact that we now have low inflation, together with the increased competitiveness that increasingly is there, which will provide the basis for recovery.

     

    Q6. Mr. Dafis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

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

    Mr. Dafis : Notwithstanding the rhetoric of the Welsh Office, as economic conditions in Wales certainly justify granting to Wales objective 1 status under the EC structural fund, will the Prime Minister support the granting of that status to Wales?

    The Prime Minister : I think that that is a matter upon which my right hon. Friend will wish to comment.

     

    Q7. Lady Olga Maitland : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

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

    Lady Olga Maitland : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming a reduction in the number of house repossession actions? Is that not a demonstration of our policies to facilitate house owners so that they do not have to leave their homes at a time of financial crisis? Finally, I extend to my right hon. Friend a warm welcome to my constituency of Sutton and, in particular, to his birthplace, St. Helier’s, which is a NHS trust.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that invitation. I am pleased that the number of repossession actions in the last quarter were a third down and that is welcome. That is in part due to two particular factors–the package of measures on repossessions announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last December and the significant fall in interest rates over the past two years.

     

    Q8. Mr. Hanson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

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

    Mr. Hanson : Yesterday afternoon I spent two hours with miners from the Point of Ayr colliery in my constituency, one of the 21 on the moratorium list– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is Question Time. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would now come in right away with his question.

    Mr. Hanson : They told me of run down investment in pits, job losses and everything else. Will the Prime Minister give me and my hon. Friends an assurance that there will be no run down in investment in pits on the list during the term of that moratorium?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made all those matters clear. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of what is happening during the moratorium period.

     

    Q9. Mr. Ward : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

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

    Mr. Ward : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the foundations of recovery is to maintain capital expenditure, particularly where it affects the construction industry.

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that matter, as I set out in my remarks in some interviews a few days ago. As I said to the House at Question Time last week, economic circumstances outside the United Kingdom have materially changed, but in many ways that gives us new opportunities to develop our strategy for recovery. I cannot anticipate today the outcome of the public expenditure round but it is right to recognise the importance of capital projects and I know that that is very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

  • PMQT – 11 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th June 1992. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Darling : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) rose.

    Mr. Skinner : Remember to give short answers.

    Mr. Newton : I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is in his usual friendly form.

    I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Rio de Janeiro to attend the Earth summit and will have bilateral meetings later today with various Heads of Government.

    Mr. Darling : Why did the Secretary of State for Social Security need to issue a statement yesterday expressing his confidence in and support for the Prime Minister’s policies?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security clearly thought–in my view, rightly–that his position had been misconstrued and that it was sensible to make that clear. I am glad to note that in some quarters journalists have begun to question the interpretation that had been placed on a meeting which had been interpreted as a conspiracy, but which appeared to have Government Whips present. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House should come to order and let us get on with our business properly.

    Mr. Biffen : During my right hon. Friend’s hitherto busy day, has he borne constantly in mind the speech made just under four years ago in which Mr. Jacques Delors said that 80 per cent. of economic decisions and perhaps even 80 per cent. of fiscal and social decisions should be subject to initiation at Community level? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the unacceptable ambition of political centralism? Does he further agree that, in those circumstances, the reappointment of Mr. Delors would be provocative and counter-productive? May I say that my question was formulated without the assistance of the Whips?

    Mr. Newton : I think that I could have guessed that.

    The British Government’s position on subsidiarity is that we are concerned to enhance and underpin the concept. The Maastricht agreement did precisely that, and the British Government will continue to pursue that objective.

    Mr. Hattersley : Why did the Government promise that after 1 April no patient would have to wait more than two years for hospital admission?

    Mr. Newton : The Government made commitments in the patients charter and in relation to the development of health service policies that the aim was to ensure that no one should have to wait more than two years for treatment. Huge progress has been made in that, with a drop of nearly 50,000 in the numbers awaiting treatment in the year running up to April. It is obviously a disappointment that there was a small increase in April. That is now being addressed.

    Mr. Hattersley : I will give the Leader of the House credit for getting the statement wrong by mistake rather than by intention. The document that went through every door in the land guaranteed–the Government’s word–that after 1 April–the Government’s date–no one would wait longer than two years. Did the Government ever really mean that, or was it just pre-election propaganda?

    Mr. Newton : Not merely did the Government mean it, but a huge improvement, to which I referred, has been delivered. That progress will be reinforced by the action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has taken.

    Mr. Hattersley : Whether or not the Government meant it, they clearly failed in that ambition. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to those citizens who believed that the Government were honest in the guarantee that after 1 April they would not have to wait for more than two years but who now find that they are having to wait for more than two years because the Government failed to keep a promise which was made purely for electoral purposes?

    Mr. Newton : A reduction in the number of patients waiting over two years from more than 50,000 to fewer than 2,000 in a year is hardly a failure of ambition.

     

    Q2. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Evennett : Does my right hon. Friend agree that fighting the international drugs trade is vitally important? Will he join me in congratulating the Prime Minister on his announcement yesterday in Colombia?

    Mr. Newton : Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The illicit drugs trade is an international problem which demands an international response. What the Prime Minister has agreed with the Colombian Government in the last few days represents a significant and valuable advance.

    Rev. Martin Smyth : Will the right hon. Gentleman try to explain to the people of Northern Ireland why, despite the Government’s promise that hospital waiting lists would be reduced, they have been going up rather than going down and today we have had the announcement of further hospital beds being closed although people are waiting for treatment.

    Mr. Newton : I have made the Government’s position absolutely clear on that matter. Whether in Northern Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom, the Government are determined to deliver the improvement in service set out in the citizen’s charter and the patient’s charter. Further progress has still to be made, but the progress already made is striking.

     

    Q3. Mr. Richard Alexander : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Alexander : Is my right hon. Friend aware that some local education authorities are discriminating against pupils who attend grant- maintained schools? Does he agree that any authority that treats children in that way is not fit to be called an education authority?

    Mr. Newton : I agree with my hon. Friend and join him in deploring what has been reported in relation to some local authorities’ attitudes towards children at grant-maintained schools or, for that matter, at city technology colleges. For once, I wish to pay a compliment to the Opposition Front Bench. I was pleased to read the remarks of the Labour education spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) yesterday, which suggested a responsible shift, for once, in the Opposition’s position.

    Mr. O’Brien : How do the Government intend to reduce the waiting time for operations in hospital, as people are now having to wait over two years?

    Mr. Newton : I do not know how many times I have to say this to get it understood– [Interruption.] For those waiting over two years, there has been a movement of 400, in relation to a total number of operations running into many hundreds of thousands, and against the background of a reduction from more than 50,000 to fewer than 2,000 over the year before. We intend to maintain that improvement.

     

    Q4. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Robertson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision by NatWest to return £33 million to Maxwell pensioners is good news for those concerned, and also an example to others who hold Maxwell pension fund money?

    Mr. Newton : I agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. What has happened is a substantial vindication of the approach and effective package announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security earlier this week. I hope that that will be of especial comfort to my hon. Friend, as I know how much effort he has put in on behalf of Maxwell pensioners in his constituency.

     

    Q5. Dr. Reid : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Dr. Reid : Will the Leader of the House describe to my constituents in the Bellshill area some of the supposed advantages of the specialisation that would accompany the opting out of the local hospital? In particular, will he identify the services that could be regarded as non-essential or peripheral and may be curtailed or closed down according to the law of supply and demand? I should tell him that the local hospital is the Bellshill maternity hospital.

    Mr. Newton : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will have noted the reference to a particular hospital. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is that if they are in any doubt they should come and visit the growing number of trust hospitals and talk to the staff and patients, who are experiencing the benefits.

    Mr. Gorst : As the British Government are a signatory to article 8 of the European convention on human rights, will my right hon. Friend tell us what the Government feel that they should do to protect the family life and privacy of the royal family who, after all, are entitled to the same consideration as other members of the community?

    Mr. Newton : I made some observations on that subject on Tuesday. I am sure that people both outside and inside the House will take note of my hon. Friend’s concern, which has been added to that expressed in other quarters earlier this week.

     

    Q6. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Jones : The Lord President of the Council will no doubt recall that in a previous Parliament I introduced the Consumer Guarantees Bill, which endeavoured to give rights to people who had purchased shoddy goods. The Bill was killed by Conservative Members. It had no Government support, but offers were made for guarantees to be considered. Will the new Government and the Prime Minister consider guarantees and give people real rights instead of the confetti of charters?

    Mr. Newton : I had better acknowledge that I am not familiar with all the details of the hon. Gentleman’s proposed private Member’s Bill, but the Government already have a considerable record in protecting the rights of consumers of all kinds, and a continued determination to do so. Indeed, we have greatly improved the rights of consumers of public services.

    Mr. Cash : Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), about Mr. Delors, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in line with the EC principle that everybody seems to like to move step by step, there could at least be a review of Mr. Delors’ position, if not an announcement that he will not be reappointed?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend, who puts his question a little more gently than did my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), will be aware that those are matters for consideration at the Lisbon Council. It would not be sensible for me to go further than I already have in respect of my right hon. Friend.

     

    Q7. Mr. Watson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Watson : Following the decision of the Danish people to reject the Maastricht agreement, the Prime Minister and the Government have stressed their commitment to ratifying the treaty. Whether or not the people of the United Kingdom are also given a referendum–I, for one, am not afraid to trust them on constitutional matters–a fundamental cornerstone of the treaty remains subsidiarity, to which the Leader of the House referred in answer to a previous question. On the Prime Minister’s return from Rio, will the Leader of the House urge him to accept that the principle of subsidiarity must also be applied within the United Kingdom, starting with a referendum to allow the Scottish people to decide their constitutional future?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government have no plans for a referendum, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made perfectly clear on a number of occasions. The principle of subsidiarity already applies to the Government’s approach to the United Kingdom, where much of the power is devolved down–at national level in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and at local authority level in England.

    Mrs. Currie : Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of us voted for the Maastricht deal as we felt that it was the best deal to be had, both for the United Kingdom and for Europe, and we have in no way backed off from that view? Does he agree that when we take over the presidency of the European Community in three weeks’ time our partners will look to this country for positive leadership, backed up with the full confidence of the House, including Opposition parties and including the Whips? That is what we should be aiming to achieve.

    Mr. Newton : In my judgment there is widespread support from hon. Members of all parties for the emphasis placed by the Government, and achieved in the Maastricht agreement, on the concept of subsidiarity and the development of the Community through intergovernmental co-operation. The Government will pursue and advance those key objectives during the United Kingdom presidency.

  • PMQT – 9 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th June 1992. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting Colombia to have discussions with President Gaviria on a wide range of issues. He will carry out other official duties including an inspection of an anti-narcotics police training school.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Is the Leader of the House aware of the major argument that broke out in Rio de Janeiro last night at the Earth summit between my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), Labour’s spokeswoman for overseas development, and Baroness Chalker, the Minister, on the £10 billion decline in the Government’s aid programme over the past 13 years? Will he confirm that when the Prime Minister told the House last week that over the past 13 years since the fall of the Labour Government, there has been a real increase in overseas aid as a proportion of gross domestic product, he was wrong, he was in error, and had not done his homework?

    Mr. Newton : I cannot say that I have had a detailed blow-by-blow account of the conversation in Rio last night. What I do know is that underlying my right hon. Friend’s statement last week is the fact that we spent more than £1.8 billion in the past financial year–an increase of 4.7 per cent. in real terms over the previous year. Our aid is planned to continue to grow in real terms to almost £2 billion in 1994-95. I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will point out to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that we had cut by half our aid to third-world countries, that our aid has gone up from £727 million to more than £1.8 billion in the past financial year.

    Mrs. Lait : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new common agricultural policy agreement led by the British Government is advantageous to the British consumer, fair to the British farmer and is likely to break the deadlock at the general agreement on tariffs and trade talks?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the agreement is not only very advantageous to this country and to the sensible development of agricultural policies in Europe, since it reduces the burden of the CAP on consumers by £8 billion for the Community as a whole, but it will help to restore the credibility of the Community in the GATT negotiations and will make a settlement of those negotiations, devoutly desired by hon. Members of all parties, more likely.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hanson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hanson : Is the Leader of the House aware that since privatisation the number of water cut-offs has trebled, and that in Wales it has increased even further? Is he further aware that since privatisation the salaries and bonuses of water company chairmen have risen by 290 per cent., and that in Wales they have risen by 211 per cent? Is that not a case of Tory policy making the rich richer and the poor poorer? Will the right hon. Gentleman today take the opportunity to condemn the water companies for their actions, and will he put pressure on the authorities to take steps in this regard?

    Mr. Newton : What I am aware of is that, largely as a result of the inaction of the previous Labour Government– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is a waste of precious time.

    Mr. Newton : And– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear what the Leader of the House has to say.

    Mr. Newton : And the– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. It is now my turn. Will the House please come to order, so that at least I can hear what the Leader of the House has to say?

    Mr. Newton : What I am aware of is that, as a result of long neglect of water investment under the previous Administration, there has been a considerable need to improve investment in supply and water quality. Since privatisation, the level of water investment has doubled, and it has more than doubled since five years before privatisation.

     

    Q3. Dr. Goodson-Wickes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the first-ever visit by a serving Prime Minister of this country to any country in South America? Does not our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s choice of Colombia for his first port of call give us an opportunity to endorse our historical, if somewhat neglected, links with that country ; to thank it for its support during the Falklands war ; and to promote further co-operation in our joint efforts to fight the menace of drug trafficking?

    Mr. Newton : I agree with my hon. Friend. This first-ever visit by a serving British Prime Minister to a South American country is indeed very welcome : it reflects the factors mentioned by my hon. Friend, and provides a further opportunity to enhance the already close co-operation that exists between this country and Colombia in combating the drugs menace.

    Mr. Hattersley : Can the Leader of the House confirm that information given to newspapers yesterday by the Foreign Office that Britain is attempting to negotiate a protocol to the Maastricht treaty, to prepare the House for a resubmission of the Maastricht Bill?

    Mr. Newton : What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that the possibility to which he has referred is clearly one among a range of others that can sensibly be considered in the uncertain circumstances that have followed the Danish referendum. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Newton : I was giving the right hon. Gentleman, I hope, a straightforward and clear-cut answer– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Newton : As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement yesterday, it is obviously necessary, following the Danish referendum last week–this is acknowledged on all sides–to look at all possible ways of moving forward in the wake of the Danish decision. What I indicated in the early part of my remarks does no more than confirm that one of the possibilities which can clearly be considered, but without commitment at this stage, is that to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

    Mr. Hattersley : It is indeed a strange Government who are categorical to newspapers on one day and evasive to the House of Commons on the next. Does the Leader of the House understand that the time has gone when progress can be made on the Maastricht Bill by contrivance and manipulation? There are many of us on both sides of the House, long- standing enthusiasts for European unity– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Hattersley : There are many of us on both sides of sides of the House, long-standing enthusiasts for European unity, who will support progress only of a Bill that is clear, honest and comprehensive and which includes those parts of the treaty most of benefit to the British people, and that specifically includes the social chapter.

    Mr. Newton : There is a slight contrast, I think, between what the right hon. Gentleman is telling us this afternoon and what his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) appeared to tell us yesterday afternoon, which was that he was both for and against the treaty, depending upon what happened in other quarters. The British Government’s position is absolutely clear and entirely in line with what I said a few moments ago ; that is, that it is necessary, not simply for one country–this one–but for 12, including not least the Danes, to consider the position created by the events of last week and to look at various ways forward from there. That is a sensible policy and it is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that there is a simple, neat and immediate answer.

    Mr. Cormack : Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are few less agreeable sights than that of a pack of greedy voyeurs on the make? Will he please convey the good wishes of the House to the Prince and Princess of Wales, our thanks for their past services and hopes for their future happiness?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will understand that I would not wish to be drawn into comment on the stories that have been appearing in the press, but there will be very widespread support in all parts of the House for the comments made by the Press Complaints Commission yesterday. As my hon. Friend knows, our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will take into account the views of the Press Complaints Commission in his forthcoming review of press self-regulation, which is due to start in July. He will have the support of the whole House in doing precisely that.

     

    North Atlantic Treaty

    Q4. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to initiate discussions at the forthcoming NATO ministerial meeting in Oslo on matters relating to article 4 and article 12 of the North Atlantic treaty ; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    Articles 4 and 12 of the North Atlantic treaty were not discussed. But the North Atlantic Council communique, copies of which have been placed in the Library, made it clear that NATO was prepared to support peacekeeping activities on a case-by-case basis under the auspices of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

    Dr. Godman : With reference to article 4 of the treaty, and more specifically paragraph 17 of United Nations resolution 757, will the Leader of the House confirm that NATO forces will not be employed in a peacekeeping role in the former republic of Yugoslavia except with the unanimous agreement of the 16 nations which comprise NATO and under the specific command of the United Nations? If such a role is even to be considered, will Her Majesty’s Government press the case for the command structure to be European, rather than American-led?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that work is in progress within the alliance to establish precisely how and under what conditions NATO might undertake peacekeeping activity on behalf of or under CSCE auspices. Clearly, the expectation is that such activity would be conducted in consultation with our European partners in that organisation.