Tag: European Union

  • Mr Major’s speech to 1992 Conservative Party Conference – 9 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the 1992 Conservative Party Conference on 9th October 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it hasn’t exactly been a dull week has it? What we have seen has been democracy in action. And this Party is stronger and healthier for it.

    Mr President, someone – I forget who it was – said that nothing that’s good is ever easy. I’m beginning to know what they meant. Politics is a rough, tough, unpredictable business – and troubles come in bunches. But you have to keep your nerve. And remember that when you come out of the teeth of the gale you’re tougher, more battle hardened and the weather is better.

    Mr President, in this stormy period, some people seem to have forgotten something rather important. Just six months ago this very day this Conservative Party won the General Election. We did so against all the odds. Everyone said we didn’t have a chance. The opinion polls – and in those days people actually believed them! – they were against us. The pundits were against us. They said history was against us. They all got even more egg on their faces than I did. Because they left something out of their calculations. 14 and a half million British people were with us. We got more votes than ever before in any election in the whole of British history.

    So why was it that those television exit polls were so wrong? Why didn’t the commentators see? Why didn’t the experts see? For that matter, why didn’t the BBC?

    There were two reasons why we won that record level of support. First, it was the principles we all stood for – the principles we stand for still. And second, it was the people who worked for that victory. You. And thousands like you. Who did so much, gave so much, campaigned so hard together. Mr President, there is one lesson we should never forget. When the Conservative Party is united, it is an irresistible political force.

    We Conservatives have great hopes and dreams for our country. But to make them reality we must win the battles we care about. Lift our country back into growth. And, in all we do, create the society we want for our children and the future.

    But before I turn directly to the great decisions that face us, I’d like to say something about someone not with us today – Chris Patten. We planned the Election in the early days of January. We knew we would go into it behind in the polls – and we were confident we’d come out of it ahead. But we knew, too, that for Chris to run the Election and hold Bath would be desperately difficult.

    So it proved. He’s a huge loss, not just to us, but to British politics. It was typical of him to decline a by-election, turn down a peerage, and take one of the toughest jobs in the world – as Governor of Hong Kong.

    Chris, win for Hong Kong, just as you won for us. And when you come back, come and join us. In Government. Because you’ll still be welcome and we’ll still be there.

    Someone else was a tower of strength through that Election. Norman Fowler. He was always at my side. Always there – with everything from beef burgers to wise advice.

    But every time I went out with Norman, something very curious happened. People threw eggs at him. But they kept missing him and hitting me.

    There are moments when great truths become evident. And this was one. A man who could duck so fast so often was clearly the right man for Central Office. Norman – it’s good to have you back.

    But, above all, I must thank someone who is not a politician. Someone to whom my debt is too personal to express fully. She is here today – just as she was on every day of the Election Campaign. I mean of course, Norma.

    Her role was even bigger than you may think. If I hadn’t met her on April 9th 1970, I might never have picked April 9th 1992. All those oceans of ink guessing the election date! Wasted! If only they’d asked Norma!

    Mr President, in all our Conferences there is theatre. You expect to hear us expose our opponent’s policies. Expect none of that today. For Labour and the Liberal Democrats are utterly irrelevant. let us leave them on the sidelines – where they are and where they deserve to be. I intend to address myself to the country, the Conference and the Conservative Party.

    Mr President, debates over our place in Europe have always touched raw nerves – in our Party and in our country. I don’t find that surprising. There are gut issues at stake. Opinions are passionately held. It is right to speak plainly and directly, even if for some it is uncomfortable. People must know exactly what’s at stake. The great dangers for our country and – as Douglas Hurd pointed out so graphically on Tuesday – for our Party if we make the wrong choices. And the right choices can only be based on facts. They can never be built on fears.

    Of course, emotions run high. We saw that from both sides in the great Conference debate earlier this week.

    For many of you, I know, the heart pulls in one direction and the head in another. There is nothing that can stir the heart like the history of this country. It is part of us. Nothing can change that. But it’s a different world now.

    Our families are growing up in a different age. They know we can’t pull up the drawbridge and live in our own private yesterday. They know we live in a world of competition – and we can’t just wish it away. Change isn’t just coming, it’s here. I want Britain to mould that change, to lead that change in our own national interest.

    That’s what I mean by being at the heart of Europe. Not turning a deaf ear to the heartbeat of Britain. But having the courage to stand up and do what we believe to be right.

    Right for British industry, right for British jobs, right for British prosperity.

    During the summer, when I was in Cornwall, a lady came up to speak to me. “Mr Major” she said, “please, please don’t let Britain’s identity be lost in Europe”. She didn’t tell me her name. But she spoke for the anxieties of millions. She spoke for this country. She spoke for me.

    So let me tell this Conference what I told that lady in Cornwall. I will never – come hell or high water – let our distinctive British identity be lost in a federal Europe.

    Let no-one in this Conference be in any doubt, this Government will not accept a centralised Europe.

    And if there are those who have in mind to haul down the Union Jack and fly high the star-spangled banner of a United States of Europe, I say to them; you misjudge the temper of the British people. And you do not begin to understand the determination of this Prime Minister to put the interests of this country first, now and always.

    Mr President, it’s true, the European Community has centralised too much. It has talked too much about European directives, and thought too little about Europe’s direction.

    But at Maastricht we began to reverse that trend. And at Birmingham and Edinburgh we will carry that further.

    So let me say to the European politicians; if you don’t heed that, you will never build the European Community you want. You will break up the European Community you have.

    You cannot go forward by browbeating Denmark.

    And to those who offer us gratuitous advice, I remind them of what a thousand years of history should tell them, you cannot bully Britain.

    Mr President, I speak as one who believes Britain’s future lies with Europe. But, when I hear assertions from others in Europe, that we or the Danes should sign up on their terms. I’ll tell you what I think. I think they should keep their advice to themselves. Sign up on their terms? Before I was born, if this country hadn’t fought on our terms there’d be no free Europe to sign up to.

    All these are frustrations. They cause great anger. But emotion must not govern policy. At the heart of our policy lies one objective and one only – a cold, clear-eyed calculation of the British national interest. What is right for Britain. What is right for our future. And from that calculation I will not be budged.

    Let me come directly to the issue that has caused such controversy. The Treaty of Maastricht seems to have become enshrouded in myth and legend. Certainly, the Treaty I hear about is not the one I negotiated.

    What are the fears people have about Maastricht? We heard many of them in our debate this week.

    A Single Currency! Under the Maastricht Treaty, Britain is not committed to a single currency.

    Immigration? Immigration policy is specifically excluded under the Maastricht Treaty.

    Jobs and working conditions? I refused to sign up for the Social Chapter.

    Education? The Treaty explicitly rules out any Community interference in what is taught in schools or the way education is run.

    Defence? Defence is kept out of the control of the Community.

    Citizenship? We are British citizens and we will always remain British citizens.

    Conference, if I believed what some people said about the Treaty, I would vote against it. But I don’t. So I’m going to put the real Treaty, the one I negotiated, back to the House of Commons.

    There is one great prize in the Treaty. For the first time we have reached agreement on developing the community in voluntary cooperation between independent nation states. That means outside the Treaty of Rome, outside the jurisdiction of the European Court, outside the competence of the European Commission. We have wanted this principle established for years. And we now have it in the Treaty I signed.

    It is time the distortions were put to one side. It is time to return the debate to reality and away from myth.

    In the Treaty, there was give and take – there has to be in any partnership. But in the end we got what we wanted. Not the agreement our partners signed up to: a better agreement. We obtained for Britain the flexibility and freedom which others signed away.

    When I hear some of the criticisms of the Treaty I think of Don Quixote – you may remember him. He read too many old books and got carried away, fighting imaginary battles. He tilted at windmills in the belief they were giants. He saw things that weren’t there. There has been a lot of that in the current debate on Maastricht.

    Yes, we made concession. But so did our partners. What would they now think of a British Prime Minister who fights a tough negotiation, gives firm undertakings, and then comes back and breaks his word? What would we think of someone who did that to us?

    Who would ever trust Britain again? We would have broken faith. A demeaning position in which no British Government should ever be placed.

    But, far more than that, what is at stake is something practical and hard-headed.

    We wouldn’t just be breaking our word. We would be breaking Britain’s future influence in Europe. We would be ending our hopes of ever building the kind of Europe that we want.

    And we would be doing that, just when across Europe the argument is coming our way. We would be leaving European policy to the French and the Germans. That is not a policy for Great Britain. It would be an historic mistake. And not one your Government will make.

    Let us not forget why we joined the Community. It has given us jobs. New markets. New horizons. Nearly 60% of our trade is now with our partners. It is the single most important factor in attracting a tide of Japanese and American investment to our shores. It is absolutely vital for businesses, big and small – and for our prospects of economic growth.

    There isn’t a single business leader who believes Britain’s interests lie outside. And I hope they will make their views clear – and public.

    But the most far-reaching, the most profound reason for working together in Europe I leave till last. It is peace. The peace and stability of a continent, ravaged by total war twice in this century. Today images of violence and exile are being acted out on the shores of the Adriatic. Where only two years ago the children of a million tourists laughed and played, young men of Europe are locked in a bloody civil war.

    That’s why I want Britain to work in the ’90s for a wider and wiser Community, embracing the new democracies of the East. That is the vision we have for the next generation. And it’s vital for our own security. But it is a vision we will only make real if we’re in there arguing for it, not scowling in the wings.

    Mr President, I’m not starry-eyed about Europe. If I’m starry-eyed, it’s about this country. Britain has always grown and prospered when it has looked outwards – from the time of the First Elizabeth, right through to the Second. Let us then not turn away and put up the shutters – but do what we believe – with faith, and courage and conviction. In the name of the present, and in the name of the future, we cannot sit this one out.

    Some take the view that we must choose between Europe and our friendship with the United States. What total nonsense. Britain is the indissoluble link between the United States and the continent of Europe. We have growing ties of commerce and trade with Europe, but we have blood ties over many generations with our friends in America.

    We in this party will preserve and strengthen our special relationship with America. It is longstanding. Tested in many battles. Reinforced by ties of kinship, language and shared values. Britain and America have stood side by side many times in many theatres of war against tyranny and oppression. On that line we must always take our stand and will, together.

    Eight weeks ago, we decided to send some 2,000 troops to Yugoslavia under the flag of the United Nations. They will bring aid to the victims of that terrible civil war. Without this common effect, we would be seeing in a few months time hundreds of thousands of people – men, women and children in Bosnia – in Europe – dying of starvation, of cold and lack of medicine.

    Britain is already the largest supplier of medicines. And, amidst all the dangers, our RAF Hercules have played a leading part in the airlift into Sarajevo. Those young men know the risks; but they have met them, just as the young men who will keep open the land corridors know the risks and will meet them. We can be proud of them – and we are.

    The safety of these troops will always be first in our minds. They are there for humanitarian reasons. They are not there to hold the combatants apart – and they will not be asked to do so. They are there to fight only in self-defence and then they have authority to use all the force they need.

    We are asking a lot of them. But they know what we know – and what our soldiers in Northern Ireland who stand in the front-line against terrorism also know. There is a duty to be done. I believe it is a duty that this Conference, gathered here in Brighton, would not want Britain, of all nations, to shirk. In these difficult and dangerous tasks they deserve, and will get, this Party’s full support.

    Mr President, I have spoken of our plans for Europe, and our beliefs about Britain’s place in the world. We now have to lead Britain through difficult times at home, as we have done so often in our history.

    You know the things I care about – we all care about – the things I dreamt about as a boy. The chance to get on in life. To acquire knowledge, security, the prospect of a better future – and a life fulfilled. A corner of life that you can call your own. That’s what people struggle for and sacrifice for when they watch their children grow.

    If we’re going to meet those hopes, fulfil those dreams – then we must build a strong economy.

    And looking around the world, we can see even more clearly what makes an economy strong. A Government that secures two things; low inflation and the right climate for business to succeed.

    It is people who create wealth.

    People, not Government. Business, not bureaucracy. Enterprise, not interference.

    But business can’t succeed if Government doesn’t play its part.

    Low taxes – low inflation. Leaving people more of their own money to spend and save. Protecting them from those robber barons of the twentieth century. Inflation and the state.

    I believe – I know – that it was for those tasks that the British people elected us to govern again.

    They didn’t trust anyone else to control inflation. They didn’t trust anyone else with their taxes. They didn’t trust anyone else to keep the state of industry’s back.

    Mr President, we must – and we will – deliver upon that trust.

    But today even the world’s most successful economies face difficulties. In the United States. In Japan. Throughout Europe – yes, and in Germany, too.

    And here in Britain I know how great is the personal hardship that many people are facing. Some have lost their jobs; some their businesses; some their homes. We must pursue policies that will bring hope back into their lives.

    I know how hard people are hit by the misfortune that befalls home after home, family after family, in a recession. Unemployment is a bitter experience. I don’t want a temporary cure. I want a lasting recovery. To come out of this recession safe from the threat of its repetition. If there is one thought that goes through my mind wherever I see this recession Mr President, never again! That’s why we’re looking for long-term solutions. That’s why we’ll take no risks with inflation. And that’s why we will continue to do everything possible to create the prosperity that is the hallmark of a Conservative Government.

    But we must not forget what has been achieved and is essential for lasting recovery.

    Inflation – down from nearly 11% to just over 3.5% in the past two years. And today I can tell you that even the underlying rate – that hard core we have found so difficult to reduce – has come down to 4%.

    Interest rates – down from 15% to 9%. The starting rate of income tax – down from 25% to 20%. Mortgage payments down, on average, 80 pounds a month. All putting more of people’s own money back in their own pockets.

    And, yet, despite that progress, it’s been taking such a long time for things to get going. I know hos frustrating that is. Here as abroad, debt has made people cautious. Slow to spend. That’s made things tough for small businesses. Tough for industry, too.

    That’s what makes British industry’s successes all the more remarkable. Exports – close to record levels. Manufacturing output rising – and productivity at record levels. Investment began to rise in the spring. And even in the High Street, sales have been picking up again.

    It is not enough. It is only a beginning. But now, I believe, we can aim for more.

    With a low inflation rate, we can compete with the best in Europe.

    Let’s not forget how we managed to bring inflation down and the man who did it – Norman Lamont. As he reminded us yesterday, for nearly two years it was the discipline of the ERM that helped us do so. But last month, we faced turmoil in the markets and rising interest rates across Europe. Germany’s troubles had driven European interest rates so high that the mechanism was no longer the servant of Europe’s prosperity.

    But let us not waste time looking back. We have to deal with the world as it is. Let’s take advantage of our circumstances to win new success for Britain.

    With a lower exchange rate, we have a new competitive edge in Europe. And provided we don’t blunt it with inflation, it gives us a real opportunity, in a single European market of 330 million people.

    A market for British computers. British cars. British televisions. British textiles. British services. British skills. The biggest free trade area in the world.

    That’s the market in which British enterprise must succeed. And the Government will back British business all the way.

    Let us return to that old and vivid slogan: British means business. And let me say a little more about what I believe Government can do to make it true.

    First, low inflation. Down to the point where it no longer interferes with the decisions people and businesses have to make in their daily lives.

    Second, we must create an economic environment in which more people are willing to invest their effort, their savings, their skills in new businesses because of the rewards that exist.

    Those who risk their savings should know that if they build up wealth by their efforts, they will be able to keep more of it. What families have worked a lifetime to create, the taxman should never be allowed to destroy.

    Those who build up new businesses must be confident they won’t be stifled by taxation. And we know what that means for Government – it means standing firm against all those pleas for extra public spending. All so attractive to someone – so disastrous in combination.

    Where more is really needed we will spend more. Our plans allow for that. But more for some programmes may have to mean less – for others. Because we have set our limits – and we will stick to them.

    Mr. President, it’s going to be a tough spending round. All my colleagues know it. But they also know they’ve got to do what business does. Protect the quality – cut the cost. We can keep improving our public services – if the public sector doesn’t pay itself what the taxpayer can’t afford.

    It’s too easy – when spending is under pressure – to forget the long term. To let the burden fall on private industry alone.

    We must work with industry, to see whether the public and private sectors working together can do more to invest in our future. More to improve the infrastructure of this country. I know the problems. But it is time to look afresh at whether we can find new solutions.

    But that’s not enough. We must also see what more we can do to help our exporters win for Britain. In the single market – and in the world trading system.

    We are battling for free trade – and to make sure we take the best advantage of it. I want to see British enterprise succeeding across the globe. Winning contracts. Creating British jobs. Generating our future prosperity.

    And as part of this we must do more to lighten the burden of government regulation. Government should stand behind business – not in its way.

    Mr President, this is a battle we’ve been fighting since 1979. But it’s a battle that is never won. And now is the time to mount a new offensive.

    We’re already on the march against the Eurocrat and his sheaf of directives. But you know, it isn’t just Brussels that rolls out the red tape.

    It’s Whitehall. And town hall. Everyone likes to tie another knot. Admirable intentions – disastrous combinations. Piling costs on industry. Mr President, that must stop.

    It’s not just big business that suffers. Far too often, it is the small firms who really suffer. Small firms – fed up with filling in the forms – who feel that it is just not worth being in business at all.

    Of course, we want to have confidence in the safety of the food we eat, the homes we buy, the place we work in, the people who take charge of our children. But when this reaches the point where you may need 28 separate licences, certificates and registrations just to start a business, then I say again, this sort of thing must stop.

    I have asked Michael Heseltine to take responsibility for cutting through this burgeoning maze of regulations. Who better for hacking back the jungle? Come on, Michael. Out with your club. On with your loin cloth. Swing into them!

    You know, deregulation isn’t just about making life better for business. It’s about making life easier for everybody. Take the bureaucratic controls which mean Whitehall decides whether you have the chance to stop off the motorway. Every parent knows what I mean. Next services, 54 miles – when your children can’t make 10!

    They’ve got to go. And so those rules have got to go!

    Or take the system that keeps air fares far too high. It’s absurd that international air travel is regulated under rules set out before the jet airliner was even invented.

    And why should so many people, from all over Britain, have to come to London when they want to fly abroad? I want to see more flights directly out of Glasgow, Manchester and Birmingham and all our regional airports. That’s better for the people who live there – and better for London too.

    Mr President, it is vital that we get the economy back into strong – and sustainable – growth. We can do it. We must do it. But that is only the first of our ambitions for the course of this Parliament. The manifesto that won the Election set out a full programme for five years. Now we’re going to put it into action.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the year 2000 is less than a hundred months away. That, at any rate, is the latest Treasury forecast. I want Britain’s example, its ingenuity, its decency and principle to be in the forefront as we cross that threshold.

    In all we do we must speak to the instincts of the British people. For 300 years, the Conservative Party has reflected those instincts in a way that no other political party has ever been able to match.

    So let’s go out and tell the people about the things we’ll be working for, and fighting for, in the next four years of Conservative Government.

    We’ll be fighting for better public service.

    For services that put the parents, the patients, and the passengers first. Fighting bloody-minded and petty bureaucracy wherever we find it. That’s what the Citizen’s Charter is about.

    We’ll be fighting for good local Government, closer to local people. That’s why in Wales it’s set to be goodbye to the likes of Clwyd and Gwent and back to Pembrokeshire and Anglesey. In Scotland, the Scottish Secretary will be consulting the public on change – but I rather suspect it could be an Ian Lang farewell to monstrosities like Strathclyde.

    In England we will give everyone the chance to put their views on the future of councils like Cleveland or Avon. I can’t predict the outcome. But can you imagine Len Hutton walking out to bat for Humberside?

    We’ll be fighting for better health and social services.

    For a Health Service run by local people in patients’ interests. For more GP fundholders and more of our successful hospital trusts. We want better care for the elderly and vulnerable in the home and the community – wherever they choose to be. And we must make sure local councils respect the wishes of those who do go into homes. People in their last years are entitled to as much choice and dignity as anyone else. Not less choice and no dignity.

    And Mr President, we have all been deeply shocked at the reports of scandals in some social security departments. It’s terrible when children are involved. That’s why we are going to set up regular independent inspection of social work in every council. We will not let vulnerable people and children be put at risk.

    We’ll be fighting to strengthen the rights of ordinary trade union members.

    They must have freedom to join the union of their choice – and fairness in union ballots and finances.

    And, under the Citizen’s Charter, we’re going to give you – all of you – a new right. To take direct action in the courts against those who disrupt public services through unlawful strikes, and hold the country to ransom.

    And we’ve already blown the whistle on one of the last bastions of the closed shop – student unions. The days in which they march and demonstrate at the taxpayer’s expense are numbered.

    When it comes to education, my critics say I’m old-fashioned. Old-fashioned? Reading and writing? Spelling and sums? Great literature – and standard English grammar? Old fashioned?

    Well, if I’m old-fashioned, well, so be it. So are the vast majority of Britain’s parents. And I have this message for the progressives who are trying to change the exams. English exams should be about literature, not soap opera. And I promise you this. There’ll be no GCSEs in Eldorado – even assuming anyone is still watching it!

    I also want reform of teacher training. Let us return to basic subject teaching, not courses in the theory of education. Primary teachers should learn how to teach children to read, not waste their time on the politics of gender, race and class,

    I don’t know if you feel as I do, but I think it is intolerable that children should spend years in school and then leave them unable to read or add up. It’s a terrible waste of young lives.

    We want high standards, sound learning, diversity and choice in all our schools. But, in some – particularly in those inner cities – Isaac Newton would not have learned to count and Anthony Trollope would never have learned to write.

    We cannot abandon the children in schools like these. And we will not. So if local authorities cannot do the job, then we will give the job to others.

    In the place of the local authority which has failed, new Education Associations will be set up to run and revive these schools. Governments have always shied away from it. But I am not prepared to any longer.

    Yes, it will mean another colossal row with the educational establishment. I look forward to that. It’s a row worth having. A row where we will have the vast majority of parents – and the vast majority of good, committed teachers – squarely on our side. They believe what we believe – that children must come first.

    Mr President, there was a time when Britain was a watchword for good behaviour across the world. I want to restore that good name. People are horrified when they see mindless vandalism; old people attacked by young thugs; drunken louts on the rampage, blackening Britain’s reputation abroad. Not only horrified, they’re ashamed.

    Mr President, to excuse crime may seem understanding. But it’s wrong. Sympathy doesn’t curb crime. If society wants to protect itself it must condemn crime, not condone it. We must create a climate in which people know the difference between right and wrong and yours and mine. We must spell out the truth. Crime wrecks lives, spreads fear, corrupts society. It is the fault of the individual, and no one else.

    We are cracking down hard on crime – particularly violence. And that includes – as I promised last year – tough sentences for those who cause death by dangerous driving or drunken driving. Nothing can excuse those who kill in this way. We are taking action. And I hope the courts will respond.

    There’s another problem we are dealing with – the illegal occupation of land by so called “new-age travellers”.

    You will have seen the pictures on television or in the newspapers; if you live in the West Country and Wales you may have seen it on your doorstep. Farmers powerless. Crops ruined and livestock killed by people who say they commune with nature, but have no respect for it when it belongs to others.

    New age travellers? Not in this age. Not in any age.

    They say that we don’t understand them. Well, I’m sorry – but if rejecting materialism means destroying the property of others; then I don’t understand. If doing your own things means exploiting the social security system and sponging off others, then I don’t want to understand. If alternative values mean a selfish and lawless disregard for others, then I won’t understand. Let others speak for these new age travellers. We will speak for their victims.

    Mr President, the things I care most about are the long term things – stability and security at home and in Europe; rebuilding standards in education; the long-term strength – economic and moral – of our nation. Preserving Britain’s pride and purpose and belief in itself. That’s what I care about. That’s what I stand for.

    Isn’t that what we’re all about together in this Party? That’s what our forebears worked for when they built it, when they sent its roots down deep – right into the very heart and marrow of Britain. That’s why we are all in this Party together – you and I.

    That’s why I fought so hard in the Election to keep our country one. For me that is the highest and greatest of our causes – to defend the unity of the United Kingdom, and all that binds our nation together. For unless we stay united, unless we stand together, as a Party and as a nation, this country will never prevail. There is not a man or a woman in this hall, or listening outside, who doesn’t know in their heart that is true.

    So let’s be confident at home and in Europe. Let’s not turn away and say “It’s all too difficult”. Let’s not hang back because we don’t believe our voice will be heard. Right across Europe, now, in this critical hour, people are looking and listening to us and to what we have to say.

    It won’t always be easy. It won’t always be comfortable. But in all we do, there is one thing I will never forget. This is our country.

    What we do, we do for Britain. What we do, we do for the future of our children and for generation yet unborn. For their prosperity and their security, and never for short term political advantage.

    Let us have faith, and courage, and pride. Britain’s interests will come first – for me, and this Party. First. Last. Always.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement Following Ejection from the ERM – 24 September 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on 24th September 1992 following ejection from the ERM.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I beg to move,

    That this House expresses its support for the economic policy of Her Majesty’s Government.

    Following the developments in the foreign exchange markets over the past weeks, I thought it right to recall Parliament to debate the present position. The essential conditions for Britain’s economic success are low inflation, low taxes, free trade and freedom from excessive state interference. I am happy to reaffirm those principles today. The Government stand for a low-inflation, low-tax economy–and so, I believe, do the British people. That is why, five months ago, they made their choice and we sit here and the Labour party sits on the Opposition Benches.

    We joined the exchange rate mechanism in 1990 to help to bring down the rate of inflation in this country. British industry supported us in that decision; indeed, it urged us to join believing that, on balance, it would help to stabilise exchange rates, bring down inflation and bring down interest rates from the high British level, which then applied, to the much lower European levels. Of course, during the period of our membership, interest rates fell from 15 to 10 per cent.

    I congratulate industry on its magnificent response in the battle against inflation. I know that it has not been easy, but, against a difficult background, exports have risen to record levels, costs have been controlled and productivity has soared. It was not just industry which supported entry into the ERM–so did commerce, the City, most trade unions, the TUC and the Opposition parties in this House. The Leader of the Opposition, whom I warmly welcome to his new responsibilities, was consistent in his support of the exchange rate mechanism. When we joined it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman supported us, and agreed. When I announced the exchange rate central figure the right hon. and learned Gentleman was generous enough to agree. When, last week, I said that we needed reforms because of the fault lines that had become apparent, the right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed that reform was needed. I congratulate him on his consistency, even though on this issue the House has been not just a debating Chamber but an echo chamber.

    Now, of course, we hear most loudly from those people who were critics of the exchange rate mechanism. They come from all sides and every party. My right hon. Friend Lord Tebbit, I understand, says that the Government were, I think the expression is, “dragged in” by the then Chancellor. Now we all know my right hon. Friend Lord Tebbit. He is an old friend to us all. I admire him as a man of great courage, a fighter, a bruiser. He likes to bite your ankles, even if you are not walking up his pathway. Yet even my right hon. Friend Lord Tebbit lost many battles with my formidable predecessor. Despite this, according to Lord Tebbit, even my formidable predecessor, whose convictions and firmness of purpose are everywhere admired, was somehow dragged into the exchange rate mechanism by her new Chancellor. Ah, yes, I remember it well.

    Since we joined the exchange rate mechanism we have brought inflation, which was rising to 11 per cent., down to nearly 3.5 per cent., and falling. That is an achievement for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserves to be warmly congratulated, so let me do so and let me say this : I take full responsibility for the actions and policies of my Chancellor. In the exceptional circumstances of last week, we were obliged to suspend our membership of the exchange rate mechanism. In the circumstances, there was no choice. No mechanism could have survived the market’s attack on the scale that occurred last Wednesday. One after another–not just sterling–the currencies of Europe came under fire. We need to see that against the background of events world wide : a referendum in France, whose outcome was in doubt, and great economic difficulties in Germany where interest rate levels were at their highest level for a decade. Those strains were increased by a slowdown across Europe and the falling exchange rate of the dollar. That speculative attack turned first to the lira, which was forced to devalue and subsequently to step outside the exchange rate mechanism.

    It created havoc beyond the exchange rate mechanism–in the Scandinavian countries, where overnight interest rates in Sweden touched 500 per cent. The market, encouraged by injudicious comments about realignment which should never have been made, then turned on sterling. In such circumstances, there could be only one response : to defend the pound with foreign exchange reserves and then to raise interest rates. That is what we did, but the severity of the attack compelled us to leave the mechanism. Other currencies, too, have come under attack and suffered varying degrees of damage. I do not wish to understate the consequences of this event.

    Let me turn first to the exchange rate mechanism itself. I do not see that we could readily return to the mechanism without dealing with the problems that have been thrown up in the past fortnight. These need careful examination and consideration before we can decide whether such a mechanism can be made to work to the benefit of all its members. Some fundamentalists say that it cannot. Other fundamentalists say we should pop straight back in.

    Let me say bluntly to the House that I have no intention of being bound to either course without a proper examination of where future British interests lie. My expectation is that co-operation is a better way, if it can be seen to be adequate, and no one should doubt that we will examine carefully whether a reformed mechanism can be made to work. But I do not believe that we shall be able to go back into the mechanism soon, or into the same mechanism that we left last week. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made our criticisms very clear to other European Finance Ministers, and I will be doing so at the European summit next month. But inside or outside the exchange rate mechanism, the Government’s economic policy must retain the same objectives. Our ambitions to bring inflation down steadily but surely during the lifetime of this Parliament were spelled out in the last Budget, and that remains our strategy. Thus far, our anti-inflation strategy has succeeded more spectacularly than anyone in the Opposition ever believed possible. Outside the exchange rate mechanism, the conduct of monetary policy cannot, indeed should not, be exactly the same. We must have regard to a range of indicators of monetary conditions to make sure that our objectives on inflation in particular are not at risk. These will include our existing narrow money target, the behaviour of broad money and asset prices and, of course, the exchange rate. Nobody should believe that a floating exchange rate is a free meal, always allowing interest rates to fall to a very low level.

    Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : The Prime Minister spoke about fault lines in the exchange rate mechanism. When did he first discover them? Did his Chancellor, who we now understand is a long-term sceptic of the ERM, ever inform the Prime Minister of his doubts, and if so, when?

    The Prime Minister : The speculative attack on sterling was of a size and scale that we have not seen for beyond a quarter of a century. I do not believe that any mechanism would have been able to withstand the size and scale of that. But I believe that there are other areas within the exchange rate mechanism where reform could have made it a more credible instrument for use last week. We shall discuss that with our European partners and others.

    Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) rose —

    The Prime Minister : I shall give way later.

    Interest rates elsewhere in Europe have been driven up this summer, particularly by the strains in Germany.

    Indeed, in the last 10 days of turbulence in the mechanism, interest rates have risen in Greece, Italy, Sweden and France. In Spain they have not only devalued but have effectively reintroduced exchange controls. Ireland, too, this morning reintroduced exchange controls. Since we stood aside from that turbulence, it has been possible to reduce base rates by a full percentage point this week, and the benefit to business and to home owners will help strengthen economic recovery.

    But interest rates alone will not achieve the non-inflationary growth that we need in this country, and that point needs to be understood. That depends even more crucially on keeping firm control of public expenditure. The Government’s new system of control will allow money to be directed towards priorities, while we keep strictly within the overall limits laid down for the growth of public expenditure as a whole.

    In essence, the Government have set an upper limit to expenditure and will divide resources between priorities in the public expenditure round. That contrasts with the previous system of individual bids that were added up at the end of individual negotiations. It is a fundamentally different system of controlling public expenditure. It is tough and will be tough, but it is necessary and is an important component part of overall economic strategy.

    Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : Will the Prime Minister give the House some idea of the likely time scale for reforming the exchange rate mechanism? Will it be Christmas or in three of four years’ time?

    The Prime Minister : Reform self-evidently depends on negotiation with all the other members of the mechanism. At this stage, nobody can say how long that will take. As I said a few moments ago, given the turbulence that has existed–not least the money supply figures announced in Germany yesterday–I would not expect our return to any mechanism, and certainly not the same mechanism, to be in the near future. I do not believe that that will be practicable, and I must make that clear.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : The Prime Minister is speaking as President of the European Council, not just as Prime Minister of Great Britain. He has repeatedly told us that his object is that we should be at the heart of Europe. Will he please explain how allowing speculators to determine our currency, German banks to determine our interest rates and French voters to determine the future of the Maastricht treaty puts this country at the heart of Europe? Is it not clear that the British, like the Danish, Irish and French, are entitled to determine what is essentially a political matter, although in a debate dressed up as an economic debate?

    The Prime Minister : I will turn directly to the question of Britain’s place in Europe in detail in a few moments. On the question of speculation, it is certainly within the memory of the right hon. Gentleman that, whether inside the mechanism or outside, inside the European Community or outside, sterling has been subjected to speculative attacks on many occasions in the past. The exchange rate mechanism offered an extra line of defence, although not a complete defence; as we have seen, and as we have always known, there could be no total and complete defence.

    Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : To avoid any possible misunderstanding, will the Prime Minister say whether it is the Government’s intention to seek to rejoin a fixed exchange rate system?

    The Prime Minister : I have explained to the House twice that we shall examine whether a system can be made credible. When we have finished that examination, we shall make our decision.

    Mr. Bell : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I shall make some progress.

    Mr. Bell : The Prime Minister is announcing what appears to be a very important and significant change of policy : we are moving away from the external discipline of the exchange rate mechanism and the deutschmark as an anchor to our policy of getting inflation down to an internal discipline. Are we still shadowing the deutschmark, and will there be a wages control policy for public sector employees?

    The Prime Minister : I announced to the House–for I think it has a right to know–how we shall conduct economic policy while we are not in the exchange rate mechanism. It is essential that the House is aware of how we shall conduct policy. I have said that we shall examine the practicality of returning to a reformed exchange rate mechanism and make a judgment on whether that is a workable system and then whether to join. We shall certainly undertake those negotiations.

    I turn now–

    Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

    Hon. Members : Give way!

    Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants to make a little progress.

    The Prime Minister : I give way to my hon. Friend.

    Mr. Budgen : I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that we have been discussing the details and fundamentals of the exchange rate mechanism for very many years in this House. Will he please explain to the House what are the new details that have caught him out so unexpectedly that he requires guidance on them before he can tell the House whether he intends to go back into the mechanism?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has a long-held view that the right thing to do is to let sterling float. I understand that view, but I must remind him that sterling was floating when, in 1981, interest rates rose by 4 per cent. in less than a month, and that it was under a system of floating exchange rates that interest rates rose to 15 per cent. before we were able to bring them down to 10 per cent. within a co-operative mechanism such as the ERM.

    The Government’s general policy towards Europe must be founded on a concern for our long-term national interests, and I believe that it is time that we turned afresh to face directly the whole question of Europe and our place in the European Community.

    There are broadly three schools of thought about our membership of the Community. The first–it is spread thinly across each political party–is that we should leave the Community; that we should never have joined. It is a minority view, often disguised by rhetoric affirming support for the principles of membership while actions speak the opposite. There are people who, in their hearts, would prefer it if we were not in the Community, who trade under false colours and who do not address their arguments to the implications of non-membership for jobs, prosperity and the future.

    The second school of thought is that European development is inevitable and goes inexorably in one direction : that sooner or later a centralised Europe is inevitable. Those who take that view are often the direct descendants of those who, 20 years ago, thought that socialism was inevitable, before it became completely discredited around the world.

    I do not share the belief in the desirability or inevitability of a centralised Europe. Each country in the Community at times of crisis will inevitably look first to its own national interest; each will pool some of it in the common interest, but none will sacrifice it. Just as the interests of France and Germany will always come first for them, so the interests of Britain must always come first for us. I understand the fears about a centralised Europe, but I think that they are fanciful, for we will not have one.

    The third school of thought, the one for which I stand, is quite different. It is that it is in the interests of Britain–our interests, our objectives and our prosperity–for us to be part of the development of our continent. By part, I do not mean a walk-on part; I do not mean simply being a member. I mean playing a leading role in the European Community. I mean helping to determine the direction of policy, building the policies that we want and fighting those that we do not want. We will need to compromise on some matters, but so will every national state in Europe unless we return to tribalism right across the European Community.

    This co-operation in Europe demands a wider Europe. It demands the entry of the Scandinavians and the Austrians and, over time, of the east Europeans– those newly democratic states which have every right to look to the Community and the west for a more secure future. This co-operation also requires us to deal with the concerns about the internal development of the European Community. Those concerns exist not only in this country but in every country of the Community. There are fears throughout Europe that the Community is too centralised, that it is too undemocratic and that the leaders of the Community are seeking to develop it too fast for their national Parliaments and people. The events of recent months have shown that, if Europe is to be built on a sound foundation, we cannot ignore those feelings or brush them aside as a matter of no concern. The good European does not ignore those fears. He seeks to put them right–and that is the policy we pursued up to Maastricht, during Maastricht and after Maastricht.

    The Maastricht treaty has become a totem around which those in favour of Europe and those opposed to Europe are now dancing. In truth, it is less important than the pro-Europeans claim and in no way as far-reaching as the sceptics tell us. Many of the things for which the Maastricht treaty has been criticised spring inexorably from the treaty of Rome or the Single European Act.

    One of the main criticisms of the Maastricht treaty is the move towards a single currency. The House will recall that I declined to accept that move in the negotiations because I did not believe that Europe would reach the right economic conditions to support a single currency. I have never believed–I have stated it frequently–that Europe would reach the right convergence by the mid-1990s. That is why I refused to commit Britain to a single currency.

    In the light of the continuing economic problems throughout Europe and of the currency turmoil of the past week, I must say that I was right and– [Interruption.]

    Mr. William Cash (Stafford) rose–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. A great many of our fellow citizens were keen that the House should be recalled, and they want to hear what the House has to say–as, I believe, do people thousands of miles away. Let us give each and every one of us a proper hearing. The Prime Minister knows exactly who is standing behind him. If he wants to give way, he will do so.

    The Prime Minister : I must tell those who have exaggerated ambitions for a single currency that it must now be an ambition postponed. In the Maastricht treaty, we safeguarded our national interest on the single currency. Elsewhere in the treaty, we secured other very important gains for Britain. I remind the House that, early in their presidency, the Dutch presented proposals on foreign policy, defence policy, immigration and justice–all of which would have been undertaken under the treaty of Rome. We rejected that. At Maastricht, we secured provision for co-operation between nation states outside the treaty of Rome, outside the power of initiative of the Commission and outside the jurisdiction of the European Court. Those who claim that Maastricht was a treaty too far should ask themselves, “What was the situation before the Maastricht treaty?” Another important achievement was the provision restricting the scope for Community action. That provision was put in at our insistence. It reflected our long-standing argument that the Community should take action only where it could do so more effectively than a nation state or more than one member state co-operating voluntarily. We had to fight hard for that provision with the support of some other countries–notably Germany–but it was a break point and we won it. It has since found an echo in public opinion in Denmark, France and right across the Community. Although the Danish people narrowly voted against the Maastricht treaty, the Danish Government have made it clear that that is not necessarily the last word. The Danish Government plan a further referendum.

    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : I will make some more progress.

    If, however, the Danes were unable to go back to the people, or were to lose again in that further referendum, the Maastricht treaty could not proceed. It would not be acceptable for the 11 to go ahead without Denmark, and against the will of the Danish Government and people. That cannot happen, and it will not happen.

    The Danish Government will publish a White Paper next month, at the start of a process of consultation. It would not make sense to bring the Maastricht Bill back to the House of Commons before we know clearly what Danish intentions are, and when and how the Danes propose to consult their people again. When those things are known, however, we must examine the Bill further.

    Those who assume that the Bill is dead have overlooked two things. First, there is much in it that we want; secondly, with the consent of this House of Commons, I agreed that Bill. I do not believe that it would be proper for a British Prime Minister to agree a treaty, and then come back to the House of Commons and disown it. In this country, people know that it is in our interests to be in Europe, but they fear that the Community seeks to intervene too intrusively in our national life. They fear that things that have always been dealt with by individual nation states–and should be dealt with by individual nation states–are instead gradually being drawn within the control of the Community. So we need a definition–a settled order–of what is for national action and what is for Community action. We need clear criteria by which Community proposals will be judged. When we are satisfied that such a system has been put in place, and when we are clear that the Danes have a basis on which they can put the treaty back to their electorate, we shall bring the Maastricht Bill back to the House of Commons.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : If the French, the Germans and the Benelux countries decide to forge ahead with a Community based on greater monetary and political co-operation, will the Prime Minister be prepared in any conditions to leave Britain outside that in the Community?

    The Prime Minister : There might well be circumstances in which others would make decisions that they believed to be in their national interests; but I have said repeatedly, and agreed under the Maastricht treaty, that any question of a single currency must be determined by the House of Commons at the time when others go ahead, and I stick to that view.

    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : Is my right hon. Friend really telling the House that–notwithstanding the fact that two thirds of the French people did not vote in favour of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty; notwithstanding the fact that, when the question was first put to them, the Danes voted against it; and notwithstanding the fact that my right hon. Friend will not grant the British people a referendum–the House is somehow to proceed with this extraordinary process?

    The Prime Minister : We are a parliamentary democracy, and the House is the place in which to consider the Bill–line by line and clause by clause. Other nations may have a tradition of referendums : they may call a referendum, followed by a debate on the whole Bill lasting one or two days, and approve every part of the Bill immediately. That is not our parliamentary tradition, and I do not believe that it would be acceptable to the House of Commons. As for the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, I have made it clear–and I repeat again–that, when the conditions that I have set out are fulfilled–when we have moved forward on subsidiarity, and when the Danes have decided how they will proceed–I will bring back to the House the treaty that I negotiated with the approval of the House : the treaty that was approved at the general election, and on Second Reading some time ago.

    Let me repeat that, when we are satisfied that a settled order has been put in place, we will bring the Bill back to the House. That is one of the matters that are to be put in hand at the special meeting of the European Council on Friday 16 October.

    Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South) : I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He has expressed the view that the House should take the final decision on the Maastricht Bill. Therefore, will he give consideration to allowing a free vote in the House?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend stood at the general election supporting the Conservative manifesto, which indicated that we would bring the Bill before the House. I still support the commitment that I had in that regard in the manifesto. I said that that was one of the matters to be put in hand at the special meeting of the European Council on Friday 16 October. That special meeting will take place at the international conference centre in Birmingham.

    That European Council needs to respond to the concerns that people right across Europe have shown about the direction of Community policy, to review what is wrong with the exchange rate mechanism and how the system can be made to work better in future, to consider preparatory work to meet Denmark’s concerns and, of course, to give a further impetus to the general agreement on tariffs and trade round. During recent months, our concerns about the Community have been mirrored across Europe. The British agenda is now on the table in every country of the Community.

    It is worth reminding ourselves why the Community was built and why we joined it. Its founders wanted lasting peace in western Europe, and they achieved it. But they wanted something more [Interruption.] Yes, what about the economy? The founders wanted to build up economic prospects across Europe on a scale that no previous generation had seen, and they achieved that. They wanted the prosperity of each generation to exceed that of its parents, so that the chances for each generation would be greater and the opportunities more fulfilling. Collectively in Europe, that is what we have achieved, despite the difficulties that presently exist.

    Mr. Jimmy Boyce (Rotherham) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that the debate’s title is the United Kingdom’s economic policy, could you tell us when the Prime Minister is going to get round to discussing that policy?

    Madam Speaker : As I have not seen the Prime Minister’s speech, I can only say that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce) must give the Prime Minister the opportunity to reach that point.

    The Prime Minister : Clearly, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce) does not realise the extent to which our economic well-being depends on our relationship and trade with Europe.

    I have never seen our future as being a sour, isolated country off the mainland of continental Europe. That surely cannot be a way for us. Even though some will swallow hard at compromises that may need to be made, they should remember that others in Europe will need to compromise as well. The voice that is raised to say that we should look after only our own interests is the voice of narrow self-interest. Such a voice always has resonance in politics and is almost always wrong. It is a policy more certain to begin with cheers and end in tears than any other policy that has been devised.

    I have never understood why some are so fearful of our prospects in Europe–neither do I understand why those who are often most fearful are those who would claim to be most proud to be British. Why, then, with that pride do they assume that we will always lose the arguments in Europe when that has not been the Community’s history and will not be the Community’s future?

    We have the chance to build in our time, in our generation, the sort of Europe for which we have always longed; the sort of Europe that I believe its citizens want; a secure Europe of nation states co-operating freely for the common good; a prosperous Europe, generating new wealth within the biggest free trade area in the world; a free trade Europe in which Brussels is kept off industry’s back. Only one Government–this Government- -offer industry freedom from state control. Only our policies of low taxation and low inflation will allow the genius of British enterprise to flourish, and only this Government’s policies will secure for the British people the prosperity that they deserve in the ’90s and which this Government will deliver. I commend the motion to the House.

  • Mr Major’s Statement Following French Referendum – 20 September 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement following the French referendum result, made in London on Sunday 20th September 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good evening. I want, first, to congratulate President Mitterrand on the outcome of the French referendum today. We now need to consider the way forward and there are a number of important matters in that consideration. We firstly await Denmark’s conclusions on how she will deal with the particular problems of ratification that she faces. Secondly, I believe we need to deal with the very particular problems in the foreign exchange markets in recent days that have revealed short-comings in the Exchange Rate Mechanism System. And thirdly, I think we do have to take account in public debate of many of the concerns that have been raised throughout the Community over recent weeks.

    In the light of all that I propose to call a Special European Council of Heads of Government in early October to consider those issues. In the light of the outcome of that Council the Community can decide how to proceed in a way that carries the support of member states right the way across the Community.

    As far as Britain is concerned, let me say that progress with the Maastricht Bill in the House of Commons must await firstly the clarification of Danish intentions and secondly, the outcome of the Special European Council that I have just announced.

    There is of course a vast weight of other Community work that will need to continue, we will need to continue with the completion of the Single Market, the enlargement of the Community, there is an urgent need for a GATT settlement, we need to look at future financing of the Community and there are a range of other issues that need urgent attention during the British Presidency. We will continue with those matters quite apart from the earlier problems I raised.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Is Maastricht no longer good for Britain, Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, the situation is as it was before, we must wait and see what the outcome is of the special Council and then we will have to decide how to go forward.

    QUESTION (Mike Brunson, ITN):

    Given the narrowness of the votes both in France and in Denmark, can you really press ahead with enthusiasm the ratification of the Bill in this country ever?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have to take account of the concerns that have been expressed right the way across Europe and that of course is one of the reasons for calling the special European Council, clearly that is important.

    QUESTION:

    Are you personally still behind the Maastricht Treaty?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I am.

    QUESTION:

    Will not the monetary elements of the Maastricht Treaty now have to be re-written in view of the course of the ERM mechanism?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I do not think that is the case, we are examining that but it seems at first glimpse that that is not so.

    QUESTION:

    Do you still think that this is a good treaty for Europe and a good treaty for Britain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I do. There is much in the Maastricht Treaty, the areas of development which enable us to develop outside the Treaty of Rome that we have sought as British policy for a long time and that will enhance cooperation right the way across Europe. That cooperation is valuable for Europe and it has been an object of British policy for the last quarter of a century. So I think there is much in the Maastricht Treaty of value and I very much hope that those elements will go forward.

  • Mr Major’s “Europe and the World Speech” – 7 September 1992

    Below are extracts from Mr Major’s opening speech to the UK Presidency Conference on “Europe and the World After 1992” held at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre on Monday 7th September 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Two weeks from now we will know the result of the French referendum on Maastricht. It is a pivotal event and it is in the forefront of our minds today.

    The Danish referendum has already narrowly said “no” to the Treaty. The combination of that and of a French ‘non’ would be decisive. Without the consent of all twelve Member States the Maastricht Treaty cannot proceed. It would be dead. That is a statement of fact not conjecture. Even if, as I hope, the French vote “yes” the Danish difficulties must still be overcome. And then, across Europe, national Parliaments must approve the Treaty. In the United Kingdom it may have a bruising passage since – uniquely in the Community – we in Britain will scrutinise the Bill line by line, clause by clause and vote on it in the same way. I believe myself that this is a more effective scrutiny than referenda where many votes may be cast on matters wholly unrelated to the Treaty. In Britain we do not face a referendum and, given our Parliamentary procedure, I have no hesitation in rejecting the concept.

    The Maastricht Treaty is a product of compromises by 12 nations. A hard-fought outcome. No one member state regarded it as ideal. But we all regarded it as the right outcome for the development of Europe.

    Overall the Treaty is good for Britain and good for Europe. However, important as Maastricht is, we should not let this particular strand of European development blind us to the other issues before us. Maastricht deserves approval but it is by no means the whole agenda. It is but part of a bigger agenda.

    Now, as all the certainties of a year ago are in question, there is a temptation for onlookers to think that the train could be derailed. I do not believe that is likely or desirable. It can be stalled. It can be sent off in a different direction. But it cannot be halted. The Community cannot fossilise. Europe cannot stand still as the world changes.

    The founders of the Community rightly recognised the destructive force of nationalism. But, in their reactions to that, I believe they did under-estimate the durability of national self interest, national identity and national pride. And they failed to recognise that this is wrapped up in political and economic structures as well as in culture and language.

    This is what has often brought such criticism to the Community despite its achievements. And these are many. The European concept has delivered peace, security and growth over nearly three decades. European citizens know that and few in any country will admit to wanting to dismantle the Community. Even its fiercest critics fight shy of that. But there are concerns about how it develops that European governments must address. Many European citizens fear for national self-identity. Will it be lost? Will their domestic interests be subordinated? Will they forever face frustrating restrictions?

    You could sense that debate in Denmark. It is alive in France. It is an every day currency in the German Laender. It flourishes in the UK: there are instincts rooted here deep in the blood: they are not to be swept away by rhetoric about growth or slogans about unity.

    The Community must show that these fears are phantoms. To do so it must recognise and build on national identity and national pride, not appear to ride roughshod over them. For the reality is that no nation’s identity will ever be lost. Whatever happens in the Community the French will be no less French, the Germans no less German, the Danes no less Danish and the British no less British. No legislation by politicians can wipe away the instincts of nations forged in a thousand years of history even if, as in the case of Britain, that thousand years began with English and Celtic blood freely mixed with Roman, Viking, Saxon and Norman.

    The problem is a political one. The politicians must carry their nations with them. The ten years to 1990 were years of growth, prosperity and confidence and of a favourable climate for developing Europe. In some Community countries the political parties vie one with another to be the most pro-European and they do so because for them the Community has been an undiluted good.

    The Treaty under which we are operating explicitly says that the institutions of the community cannot ride roughshod over Member governments: the governments must all agree before they propose important changes. And then the individual nations, through their democratic procedures, must have the final say. And that is why if Denmark and France, or any other Member States, says “No”, then all must think again. There can be no question of leaving one member behind. Britain would not be party to such an agreement.

    At Maastricht there were other significant developments. The Maastricht Treaty enshrines two very important ideas. The first is that the Community should only do those things which cannot be better done at the level of Member States. That implies scrapping some existing, overbearing legislation, as well as avoiding new, unnecessary regulation. This process, which makes subsidiarity a living concept is vitally important to Member States throughout the Community. The second is that we can act together in unison without necessarily acting within the framework of Community law. This is a revolutionary change. In foreign policy and in matters of interior affairs and justice we shall work together as Twelve within a Treaty framework, but that framework will be distinct from the Treaty of Rome, outside Community law, outside the sole initiative of the European Commission, outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

    The fear had always been that if we could not do things as a Community we would revert to doing them on our own, each of us going our separate ways. Now the Maastricht Treaty sets out a new way of cooperation that should reassure the sceptics and build a new cohesion. It is the key to progress. So what would be the position if the Maastricht Treaty was not ratified by all the Member States and could not be implemented? Would all those gains be lost?

    The fact is that you could not set aside the results of a hard fought negotiation and expect to keep all the gains. I believe that what we won at Maastricht is worth preserving. The easiest way to preserve it is through ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. If the Maastricht Treaty is not ratified, the arguments within the Community will not go away. They will have to be gone through again.

    So, over the next ten years, what happens outside the present borders of the European Community will be as important to our development as what happens inside the existing Community. The Community will be joined by countries who have rediscovered their nationhood. It is the nation states of the Community that remain the fundamental political units in Europe. People feel loyalty first to their country. European democracy begins with the traditional institutions that people understand and feel close to; those are the Parliaments, Assemblies, Folketings, Bundestags of each of their own countries. The Community and the countries that make it up are two inseparable sides of the same coin.

    In ten years time, I want to see a series of solid democracies to our east, on the road to prosperity and with the real prospect of EC membership. I want a Europe freer and safer. More open and more competitive, if we can do that, it will perhaps be our most important achievement.

    Maastricht reflects that view of the Community. The achievements won at Maastricht will need to be saved if the Community is to develop as we wish: liberal, open to the outside world, responding to the wishes of its citizens.

    As I intimated earlier, no Treaty is ever perfect: they are all the outcome of a hard negotiation and therefore a compromise. That is true of Maastricht. But if Maastricht did not enter into force the alternative would not be the status quo ante. The real issues which affect the Community: our economic development, enlargement, our response to international events and crisis, all require a response. To be effective that needs to be a response agreed among all of the Member States. Maastricht gives us the means of doing just that.

  • PMQT – 7 July 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th July 1992. Tony Newton deputised for John Major.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

    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 attending the economic summit in Munich.

    Mr. McMaster : Will the Leader of the House guarantee not to guillotine the Maastricht Bill when it returns to the House for debate ?

    Mr. Newton : The Leader of the House will guarantee that the Government will consider all matters carefully before deciding how to proceed.

    Mr. James Hill : Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should pass as quickly as possible legislation dealing with imitation firearms ? Is he aware that they are becoming a serious problem for the public, because one can suffer as much trauma and be robbed just as effectively with an imitation firearm as with a real one ?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend’s concern is shared in many quarters. The Home Secretary is on the Bench beside me and will have heard what has been said.

    Dr. John Cunningham : Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Government’s moratorium on stamp duty for house purchase has been a success?

    Mr. Newton : I believe that the arrangements brought forward by my right hon. Friend and other colleagues at the turn of the year have materially assisted in reducing the number of repossessions and in bringing about an improvement in the housing market compared with what the position would have been. Frankly, I would find the hon. Gentleman’s answer more credible but for the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I understand speaking for the Opposition, described the suspension of stamp duty at the time as a racket and a gimmick.

    Dr. Cunningham : If it has been of material benefit to the housing industry, is it not a fact that when we are in the depths of the worst recession for 60 years, with confidence at an all-time low and the building and construction industry in disarray, this is the last moment to remove any incentive from the desperately needful building sector? As the Government have still not used up all the money that they allocated for the scheme, why will they not concentrate the relief on transactions up to £100,000, thus helping the lower end of the market and first-time buyers? That would be a sensible step to take in the depths of the present awful recession.

    Mr. Newton : The aim of the scheme was to bring forward transactions that might otherwise have been delayed. I believe that it has made an important contribution in doing just that.

     

    Hastings and Rye

    Q2. Mrs. Lait : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Hastings and Rye.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hopes to include the south-east among them.

    Mrs. Lait : I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the opportunity of my right hon. Friend visiting Hastings and Rye and hope that he will leave plenty of time to come down the road affectionately known as the snail trail. Will he also visit the Conquest hospital, which is operated by the Hastings and Rother trust, which took its first out- patients yesterday and will take its first in-patients on 20 July? Does he agree that this is another indication that only Conservative health policies deliver health care to the nation?

    Mr. Newton : I am sure that, if he is able to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will wish to join her in welcoming the opening of the new hospital–and, indeed, in looking forward to phase 2, which is currently under consideration by the regional health authority.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Denham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Denham : Does the Leader of the House agree that high-rise tower blocks are entirely unsuitable as homes for young children? Does he, like me, regret that, over the past few years, the number of young children trapped in Southampton tower blocks has risen two and a half times, and that hundreds of children will never have a decent home? Does he accept that Southampton council has a lower-than-average number of vacancies and that the number of children who are trapped in a high-rise hell is a direct result of Government policies? Can he offer those children any hope and what action will he take to ensure that they have a chance to live in a house with a garden?

    Mr. Newton : The Government have a range of policies designed to improve the supply of rented accommodation. They are channelling £6 billion into housing associations over the next two years to provide more than 150,000 new homes for rent and low-cost purchase by 1995-96. I very much hope that that will help to solve Southampton’s problems, given that the local authority wishes to participate.

    Dr. Hampson : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing feeling on both sides of the House that the county hall site would be ideal for the London school of economics? Would it not be poignantly symbolic if the Prime Minister, while he is President of the European Council, assisted in the development on the Thames of a great European university on a scale to rival anything on offer in Paris, rather than allowing a fine building to become a second-rate hotel for Japanese package tours?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will know that the disposal of county hall is a matter for the London residuary body. It is now up to the LSE to put firm proposals to that body.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Cohen : The Lord President will know that I shall be presenting my Homicide (Defence of Provocation) Bill today. Does he agree that a woman who acts in desperation after suffering sustained domestic violence ought to have recourse to a mitigating plea of provocation? Is not the present law–which has gaoled women such as Sara Thornton and Kiranjit Ahluwalia– unjust, and should it not be changed?

    Mr. Newton : I understand the concern that is felt about the matter, not least because of my past social services responsibilities. I am not sure that the solution is as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I certainly undertake to bear his points in mind, along with my right hon. Friends.

    Mr. Ward : Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of fishermen are demonstrating outside the House today, largely because they fear that the conservation measures required by the EC–which are being dealt with in the House–will not be observed by their counterparts on the other side of the Channel? That has happened many times in the past. Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food look again at ways of preserving our fishing industry?

    Mr. Newton : I assure my hon. Friend that it is no part of the British Government’s purpose to introduce what I take to be sensible measures to promote the conservation of fish stocks and the long-term future of the industry, only to see those measures destroyed by the actions of others. My right hon. Friend the Minister will take every possible step to ensure that that does not happen.

     

    European Community

    Q5. Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister what approaches have been received by Her Majesty’s Government concerning reallocation of powers currently the responsibility of the Council of Ministers of the European Community.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The treaty on European union enshrines in Community law the principle of subsidiarity, but the Community should act only when objectives cannot be achieved at the level of individual member states acting alone. The principle should be applied strictly to existing as well as to future legislation. It calls for urgent work on the procedural and practical steps to implement the principle and invites the Commission and the Council to report to the next European Council in Edinburgh. The treaty contains a presumption of action at the national level.

    Mr. Spearing : Yes, but that is answering a question that was not asked. So what is new? Is this not about the possible repatriation of powers? Is it not a fact that President Major as well as President Delors have been in favour of that, or have mooted the possibility? In respect of the President of the Commission, why is it that the Commission must always call the shots? Would it not be an advantage if it reacted only to requests from the Council of Ministers or the Heads of Government and therefore made the whole outfit more intergovernmental than it is already?

    Mr. Newton : With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that my answer did address the question that he asked. The plenary session between the United Kingdom presidency and the Commission last week, which I attended, very much addressed precisely that question. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that plans are in hand to undertake a review of existing legislation before the Edinburgh summit at the end of the year.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Did my right hon. Friend see certain scholarly articles that were published over the weekend drawing attention to the fact that the word “subsidiarity” is derived from the Latin word “subsidium” which, apparently, is a term of Roman Catholic dogma and that the Roman interpretation of that word is quite different from the Anglican?

    Mr. Newton : Coming from a somewhat mixed religious background, I do not intend to allow myself to be caught up in ecclesiastical controversy.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Eastham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Eastham : Two weeks ago one of my hon. Friends with a London constituency raised with the Prime Minister the question of the housing crisis. The Prime Minister proceeded to attack local authorities, including Manchester–

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Question !

    Mr. Eastham : Why don’t you shut up? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. It may be very amusing, but it is a great waste of time when we are nearly at 3.30. Can we hear the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) in silence now?

    Mr. Eastham : In responding, the Prime Minister proceeded to attack local authorities, including Manchester, and said that we had empty properties. May I point out to the Leader of the House that we have hundreds of empty properties in Manchester that are dangerous and unlettable but that central Government are not allowing Manchester to borrow money to make those properties habitable? Is it not time that the Government got their spending priorities right and accepted their responsibilities, which clearly they are failing to do now?

    Mr. Newton : The Government have clearly accepted their responsibilities, with the arrangements that they have made concerning approvals for capital expenditure. I hope that Manchester will look carefully at the policy that leads to so many houses being empty.

    Dame Jill Knight : Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister the level of public concern over the fact that a professional drug courier should have been protected from police action by hospital staff? Does he agree that drugs constitute an appalling danger, particularly to young people, and that the police ought to be helped, not hindered, in their fight against drugs?

    Mr. Newton : Again, I think that my hon. Friend raises a point which will be of concern to other hon. Members. I have seen reports of the case. Clearly, as I think all hon. Members will agree, it is important to balance a patient’s right to medical confidentiality against the safety of the community at large, but this is a very complex area. I understand that the chief executive of the North Staffordshire health authority is seeking an urgent meeting with the chief constable to discuss the confidentiality issue and agree clearer lines of communication.

     

    Q7. Mr. Garrett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Garrett : Last year 69,000 families had their homes repossessed. At the moment, 290,000 borrowers are more than six months in arrears with their mortgage repayments. The Government’s mortgage rescue scheme has so far managed to rescue 12 home buyers. When will the Government make a serious attempt to help home buyers and borrowers who are in difficulties?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Council of Mortgage Lenders has estimated that as a result of the action taken at the turn of the year some 55,000 repossessions will be prevented this year, and that the Halifax building society reckons that its repossessions are down by about 40 per cent. over the latest six months compared with the last six months of last year. That is substantial progress which has helped many tens of thousands of families.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Jacques Delors – 1 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Jacques Delors, held in London on Wednesday 1st July 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to add my welcome to the President of the Commission and the other Commissioners to London this morning and to say we [indistinct] looking forward for the last year or more to the Presidency of the Community at what, it seems, will be a crucial period for its future.

    We have had the opportunity today of discussing the very heavy agenda that lies ahead in the period between now and the Edinburgh summit. We have had some very worthwhile discussions this morning, it was very useful to have the views of the Commission on the workload that lies immediately ahead and I have no doubt that will help us in the efficient conduct of Community business as the individual councils begin to meet.

    We paid tribute at the outset of our meeting this morning to the work accomplished by the Portuguese Presidency that was brought to fruition at Lisbon over the weekend. The predominant part of our discussions this morning was a forward look at the agenda facing the United Kingdom Presidency. There are a particularly large number of matters that lie on the table requiring action and determination.

    Amongst the major themes clearly are the completion of the single market, we have a deadline for completing that at the end of this year; the future financing negotiations that we have touched upon but no detailed discussions have yet begun; the preparations for enlargement negotiations with the EFTAN countries; the development of relations with other applicants to the Community, and also with the countries of central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; the consistent search for a conclusion to the GATT Round; we had discussions also this morning on proceeding with Maastricht ratification and on the way ahead to entrench subsidiarity as a way of life within the Community; we also spent some time discussing Yugoslavia and the need for humanitarian aid, and proposals are at present being put together for extra aid that I hope will reach a conclusion fairly speedily.

    Let me say also that the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out our Presidency priorities in the House of Commons in a debate tomorrow and the Foreign Secretary of course will make the traditional Presidency programme speech in the European Parliament on 8 July.

    We look forward very much to working with the Commission, with the European Parliament and with our Community partners in all the member states over the forthcoming six months. I think at the outset that is all I wish to say, but I will invite the President of the Commission to add any points that he may think are relevant and then we will seek to take your questions.

    DELORS:

    The Commission and I take this opportunity to fulfil the preparation of the British Presidency and to concentrate our minds on the priorities designed by the British Presidency. And you must understand that in the spirit of the Community, during those following months, the Presidency and the Commission are on the same side, with the same purpose to make progress and to succeed.

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman):

    Delors said that the Presidency and the Commission would be on the same side, do you see any areas where there is a tension between the British position and the position of the Presidency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are the Presidency so there is no distinction between the Presidency and the British position. But we will be discussing the areas that are difficult throughout the Community, both with the Commission of course and bilaterally with our Community partners. We have a dual responsibility during the Presidency, the first, of course, is to maintain the British interest and that we will do. But the second responsibility we have in the Presidency of the Community is to bring together the disparate views and seek a conclusion that is the right way ahead for the Community at large and in that we will work very closely indeed with the Commission and I have every reason to believe we will reach successful conclusions on many of the outstanding matters.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    How important is it for the success of the British Presidency for the House of Commons to ratify the Maastricht treaty before the Presidency ends and before the Edinburgh summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will bring the Bill back to the House of Commons at some stage, I cannot be quite clear yet when it will come back, we will need to see precisely what is going to happen with the difficulties that at present exist in Denmark, we need to give the Danish government some time to determine how they propose to deal with that difficulty, I think that is perfectly reasonable. So we will take stock again when the House of Commons resumes in the autumn and decide what the right procedure is for bringing the Bill forward. It would be desirable to finish it by the end of the year but it is not essential.

    QUESTION:

    Your predecessor, Mrs Thatcher, called the Community ‘socialism by the back Delors”, do you agree with that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been in the Community now for 20-odd years, during that period we have helped frame the policies of the Community. The single market is a particularly strong British initiative in the Community, that has been the driving motor of the Community over the last two or three years, that embraces open competition, that certainly is a British concept, I do not know what others may call it, but I would say it is a concept of open liberal markets, that is what the single market is about.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Delors, how significantly do you think the British government’s position has changed with the advent of Mr Major as Prime Minister; and do you think that Lady Thatcher’s current comments are consistent with her Presidency of the Community and the attitude she took as Prime Minister?

    DELORS:

    I have not the intention to enter into the internal debate of Great Britain. I say that it would be possible to work frankly and friendly with the Prime Minister and the duty of the Commission is to help the Community to make progress, no more. And if we must have discussion, we have discussion on technical matters between the Minister in charge and the Commissioner in charge, no more.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how does your Presidency intend to interpret the principle of subsidiarity, it is at the heart of the Maastricht treaty and how do you hope to have a good relationship with M. Delors who represents the federalist intention of the Community?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first thing I think I should say about subsidiarity is that whilst we feel very strongly that it is something that ought to be entrenched in the Community principles and practices, so does the President of the Commission who has made that position entirely clear on a number of occasions both publicly and privately. We are both committed to looking at ways in which the principle of subsidiarity can be enshrined as a natural part of the Community’s instincts rather than something that is just wheeled out from time to time when it is convenient. And the President is examining ways, the Commission will be examining ways, with our guidance and assistance, over the next few months to determine precisely how we carry that principle into practice. We have a number of ideas we are looking at, many of those are not yet right for public discussion, but I assure you progress is being made on that, we are determined to make progress on that as the British Presidency and the President of the Commission and the Commission are equally determined to make progress on it. We will report to the Edinburgh summit.

    QUESTION (John Cole – BBC):

    A question to M. Delors, please. How do you think a country which has opted out of the Social Chapter and reserved its own position on the single currency can give the kind of lead to Europe that you think it ought to have in the next six months?

    DELORS:

    The twelve member states accepted the two opting out in the Maastricht summit. This is not the first time there was an opting-out and it is frankly possible to manage the Community and to make progress in those conditions and the Maastricht Agreement obliged all member states and the Commission on all aspects of the treaty draft.

    QUESTION:

    A general and a specific question on the British presidency’s hopes to improve environmental concerns in Europe throughout your time. What will you do to, in a general sense, enforce improvement in environmental legislation in the EC and specifically on the question of Norway’s and Iceland’s attitude to whaling? Given Britain’s anti-whaling position, will the British presidency be able to lead the EC to perhaps take action against those two countries perhaps through trade sanctions to prevent them whaling?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They are both important matters. We weren’t able to discuss them this morning, not least because as of this moment the Community does not have an Environment Commissioner. Ripo di Meana, who was the Environment Commissioner is now a member of the new Italian government and a new Environment Commissioner has not yet been appointed so we have not had the opportunity of discussing those matters this morning. I have no doubt, when we have a commissioner, that we will wish to discuss with him how to make progress on environmental matters – that we will do.

    On the subject of whaling, I think the British position is very clear both on whaling and on the smaller animals, the dolphins and others. Our position has been spelt out by John Gummer on a number of occasions. We will try and persuade other people in the Community and beyond it that that is the right way to deal with the present problems of whaling.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley):

    A question for M. Delors, if I may. It was agreed at Lisbon that there could be no official enlargement negotiations for the Community until both the ratification of the treaty by all twelve member states and the settling of the budget but the British presidency has talked of unofficial negotiations starting on enlargement. How much do you, M. Delors, believe can be achieved by unofficial negotiations? How far can they go and are they a meaningful concept?

    DELORS:

    Practically, there is no difference between my colleague, the Vice-President Andriessen. We are in discussion not only with Sweden, for which we prepare an opinion but also with Austria, with Finland and so on and the objective of the British presidency is to be ready as soon as possible to start with official negotiations and during the following months the Community will do its best to accelerate the preparation of the opinion for Sweden and after for Finland and Switzerland and also to take in place the things which allow official negotiations starting as I hope since the beginning of 1993.

    QUESTION:

    I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. In view of improving the relationship of the European Community with Turkey, will that include the adoption of the 4th Financial Protocol? My second question in about Yugoslavia. What are the next steps that the British presidency is planning to take with the government of Giro Gregorov [phon] in Skopje?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    As regards the first question, I hope that the Foreign Affairs Council will discuss later this month the whole question of the Community’s relationship with Turkey on the basis of a working paper which the British Government was asked to prepare some weeks ago and which is now ready but certainly one element of that in our view should be the fulfilment of what the Community has already undertaken in the financial protocol.

    I have nothing at the moment to add to the Conclusions of the Lisbon Council on the question of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia.

    QUESTION (David Buchan – Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, where you have a conflict between subsidiarity and the single market as you well might have – decentralisation might cause unevenness in the single market – which would your highest priority be?

    Could I ask President Delors about the environment? When do you plan to nominate an Environment Commissioner? Do you intend to give that dossier to one of your colleagues and will the Commission in general terms pursue your court case against the UK Government on the issue of bathing water?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Shall I deal with the first part of the question?

    I actually made clear in the House of Commons the other day that there is sometimes a conflict between subsidiarity and achieving a level playing field across the Community – that is undoubtedly the case. The single market requires a level playing field and often that does require action at the Community level. We would have to look at the conflict between those two principles in terms of each individual matter that may arise but we are committed under the Single European Act to reach a single market and we do make sure there is a level playing field on the major matters of competition throughout the European Community so that clearly has a very high priority but we would have to look at each individual item to see whether the balance of advantage lay wholly with an unreconstructed level playing field or whether on occasions subsidiarity would have to take precedence but generally I think we would want the level playing field.

    DELORS:

    As you know, the Commission is a college and I intend to propose tomorrow to the college that a commissioner take by interim the portfolio on environment until the Italian Government appoint a new commissioner and with the interim commissioner in service, we intend to discuss the problem you raise concerning bathing water.

    QUESTION (Jon Snow – ITN):

    Delors, do you accept that it is the ambition of the British presidency to ensure that your last two years as President are less powerful than your first?

    DELORS:

    The most important for me is not to appear as powerful. The most important is to be useful, useful for the Community, that is all and evidently I do not please articles in the British press but this is not my problem. My problem is that the twelve member countries consider that the Commission will be useful to make progress in the Community – no more – and the problem of power, the problem of nomination of the President of the Commission is not of interest to me; even for French politics it is not interesting. [Laughter].

    QUESTION:

    Regarding M. Delors’ comment on the issue of subsidiarity, what he, thinks about what kind of work should be done. Does it infer that in some way there could be some danger for the Commission itself.

    DELORS:

    I put my ideas over a dinner with the Chiefs of State and Government and those ideas I think are welcomed by the twelve Chiefs of State and Government and those ideas are put in the communique of Lisbon. Evidently, it is very difficult to draw the line between what is best done at Community level and what is best done at national level but we make an effort to conciliate for example as one of your colleagues raised the problem, the necessity to have an efficient single market and also the political necessity to bring closer the decision from citizens. It is not always easy but the Commission has has two debates on this question and is fully prepared to apply the principle of subsidiarity even before the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in the line of the [indistinct] given by the European Council in Lisbon.

    QUESTION (George Jones – Daily Telegraph]:

    A question for both Mr. Major and M. Delors. Earlier this week, British Employment Minister, Mrs. Gillian Shepherd, cast some doubt over whether Denmark would be the next presidency of the Community and there were some suggestions at the Lisbon summit that because of the referendum Denmark should not take it because its commitment to the European Community was now in doubt. Are there going to be sanctions against Denmark?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me answer that first. Denmark have confirmed to us this morning, I think, that they are going to be part of the Troika, that is to say the immediate past presidency, the current presidency and the future presidency and the implication for that is that Denmark proposes to take the presidency of the Community at the beginning of next year and it is our view that that is the right way for them to proceed.

    The wish across the Community is to give the Danes some time to sort out the difficulties that they have so that they may then decide how to proceed but that is a decision that Denmark must take. They are in the Community and they take over the presidency on 1 January next year.

    DELORS:

    I share the same point of view and the Commission is ready to prepare tomorrow the next Danish presidency.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the 1992 European Council in Lisbon – 29 June 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on 29th June 1992 on the European Council in Lisbon.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about last week’s European Council which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The conclusions of the European Council have been placed in the Library. The meeting took place on the eve of our presidency of the Community and dealt with a range of issues which the United Kingdom will now carry forward. These include preparations for enlargement, the future financing of the Community, the issue of subsidiarity and the Uruguay round. We also discussed the deteriorating situation in Yugoslavia. We agreed to reappoint the President of the Commission for two years. Thereafter, a new five-year appointment will be made of the whole Commission.

    On enlargement, we secured agreement that work should start immediately on the negotiating mandates for the EFTA countries which have applied to join the Community–Austria, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland in the first instance. Much of the ground work has already been done. I hope that we can agree negotiating mandates by the end of our presidency, so that formal negotiations can start at the beginning of next year. The Community has also agreed to step up its dialogue with the countries of central and eastern Europe in preparation for their membership. We plan to hold a meeting with the Visegrad three at Head of Government level during the presidency. The Council also discussed the future financing of the Community. There was widespread recognition that the existing ceiling for the Community’s budget will be adequate for at least the next two years. The agreed language in the communique on help for the poorer countries of the Community reinforces that view. It makes no commitment to the doubling of resources that the Commission had proposed.

    All Heads of Government reaffirmed their commitment to the Maastricht treaty. At Maastricht we won agreement to the principle of subsidiarity and its inclusion in the treaty. At this meeting, we have taken that a stage further. Under our presidency work will go ahead on how to turn that general principle into reality in the working practices of the Community. The steps immediately envisaged include : rigorous scrutiny within the Commission on whether new proposals are necessary–any such proposals must be justified–and examination of existing legislation to see whether it could be modified or even scrapped. The Commission and the Council will report to our European Council in Edinburgh on progress made.

    The European Council reaffirmed its commitment to negotiating a successful conclusion of the Uruguay round. The remaining gap between the European Community and the United States on agriculture issues is narrow. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has calculated that a GATT settlement would give a boost to world growth worth $195 billion annually in extra world income. Over $90 billion of that would go to developing countries and former communist countries. I hope that those of our partners who are still hesitating about an agreement will reflect on the enormous advantages of success and the price of failure.

    We also discussed the deteriorating situation in Yugoslavia. I proposed that all member states should make an immediate pledge of aircraft and transport personnel for the Sarajevo humanitarian airlift; that, with the help of the Commission, we should start to assemble humanitarian material at a suitable base now; and that we should demonstrate our condemnation of Serbian actions by not allowing Serbia to have part in any international organisations, including the CSCE.

    With the Security Council about to meet, we agreed not to rule out the use of military means by the United Nations to achieve our humanitarian objectives. However, the United Nations has rightly been cautious about organising humanitarian operations in the absence of an effective ceasefire, and about trying to interpose itself in a civil war.

    During the course of the weekend we have had discussions with the United States, the United Nations secretariat and others. The prospects for a ceasefire and for a humanitarian mission look slightly better than they did 48 hours ago, but the Serbian militia and others are numerous and well- armed. It would take only one ground-launched missile to cause serious loss of life. We stand ready to take part in a humanitarian airlift but will want to be sure that it can happen with the minimum risk to British and other lives. We adopted conclusions on a number of other foreign policy issues. These are attached to the conclusions which are in the Library of the House. I draw the House’s attention in particular to the statement on nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Community has committed itself to increase its help for improving the safety of nuclear power plants. Britain has taken a lead on this issue and will be seeking a co-ordinated initiative at the economic summit next week.

    I also draw the House’s attention to the statement on Southern Africa, which calls on all the parties to resume negotiations in CODESA. We continue to be in close touch with the South African Government and the ANC on this.

    Many of the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council constitute the agenda for the British Presidency, which starts on Wednesday. They are a huge challenge for the Community and a great responsibility for the United Kingdom.

    All the issues on which I have reported to the House–subsidiarity, enlargement, future financing, the GATT round–will fall to us to manage and, we hope, to bring to a successful conclusion. Yugoslavia too will be very high on our agenda. Many difficult matters must be resolved in the months ahead.

    The plain fact is that the future of Europe is at stake and it needs to be addressed with coolness, commitment, and with careful calculation.

    Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn): I begin by commending President Mitterrand’s initiative in going to Sarajevo. I hope that the action taken by the French President and the statement made by the Lisbon Council will have the effect, at the very least, of enabling humanitarian aid to be delivered, and maintained when it is delivered, to the wretched people of the area around Sarajevo.

    We support the emphasis placed by the Lisbon summit on ensuring that any action taken in relation to the former Yugoslavia must be on the basis of agreed United Nations Security Council resolutions. Will the Prime Minister ensure that our country plays a full part both in providing humanitarian aid and in efforts to ensure the strongest possible United Nations stance against the continuing bloodshed and misery in what was formerly Yugoslavia?

    The Lisbon summit made the beginning of formal negotiations about the enlargement of the European Community conditional upon achievement of agreement on the Delors 2 package. Given that precondition, how does the Prime Minister intend to pursue what he described as his highest priority of enlargement when he is opposed to Delors 2 or anything close to it? Remembering that it is not enough now to satisfy the condition of ratification of Maastricht but that he has also to gain agreement on Delors 2, how does the Prime Minister believe that he can go ahead with promotion of enlargement without the satisfaction of both of those preconditions?

    We note with satisfaction that the Heads of Government at Lisbon urged member countries, in the words of the communique, to “pursue efforts in the social field as the necessary complement to the realisation of the Internal Market.”

    The Prime Minister agreed to that section of the communique, but does it faithfully reflect his Government’s attitude to the social dimension when they refuse to adopt the social chapter and resist application of the social charter? Is there not an inconsistency between the Prime Minister’s words in the communique from Lisbon and his actions in opposing the social dimension?

    In view of the decision, made at Lisbon, to increase substantially the resources devoted to actions in the context of common external policy, can the Prime Minister tell us what the substantial increase will be and what will be the basis for its calculation and the mechanism for its use?

    On the question of subsidiarity, is the Prime Minister aware that no one can sensibly argue against the democratic principle that relevant and accountable powers should be exercised at national, regional and local levels of government? So, as he takes up the presidency of the European Council this week, can the Prime Minister tell us the main components of his concept of subsidiarity and how he would expect it to work in practice? Can he, for instance, tell us what emphasis he would put on achieving safeguards against some member countries’ lowering environmental standards, or following unfair industrial or economic policies, or reducing social and employment conditions and encouraging social dumping? I have no particular country in mind at this juncture, but we should be interested to hear the Prime Minister on the subject.

    May I express surprise and disappointment that no time appears to have been given at the Lisbon summit to discussion of rising unemployment in the Community? Since Britain, under the present Government, has by far the fastest rising rate of unemployment in the Community, does not the Prime Minister think that he should have taken the lead in promoting such a discussion and in advancing proposals for co-ordinated action to combat the rise in joblessness? Will he give us now an undertaking that he will not allow any future summit to go by without ensuring that unemployment and the means of combating it are included on the agenda?

    Finally, since the Lisbon summit has not really provided any further clarification of the political and legal status of the Maastricht treaty, following the Danish referendum result, is the Secretary of State yet in a position to say what form of report he will put to the House before there is any proposal to return to consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for some of his earlier comments, and I agree with his remarks about the courage and vision of President Mitterrand’s visit to Sarajevo. It was an excellent initiative, and I thoroughly commend it. On that subject, I should say that General MacKenzie, the chief officer of UN forces in Sarajevo, has recommended within the last couple of hours that the United Nations should take control of Sarajevo airport on the basis of assurances he has received from the Serbs. We shall need to see if those assurances are matched by others–notably the Muslims, who were shelling Sarajevo over the weekend while President Mitterrand was there. But the development clearly improves the prospects of the United Nations humanitarian mission, and I thoroughly welcome it.

    On the question of enlargement, the condition to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is one that was set at Maastricht some time earlier. We propose to proceed by preparing the Community mandates, which must be prepared prior to the opening of formal negotiations between now and the Edinburgh summit. The target and the expectation are that we shall be able at that summit to reach agreement on future financing. The way would then be open for us to continue negotiations with the EFTA countries on a more formal basis.

    With regard to some of the areas of substantially increased expenditure, one of which relates to the increased expenditure that will undoubtedly be necessary in the Community and beyond to assist countries in eastern Europe to deal with the very difficult problem of their nuclear establishments, the Community has committed a substantial sum–from memory, I think, 150 million ecu thus far. Clearly, there will need to be further commitments, and it is impossible at this stage to know precisely how far we shall need to go. This is largely because we do not yet know what contributions might come from the United States, from Japan, from Canada, and perhaps from other sources. I anticipate that that will be discussed further at the Munich summit in a few days’ time.

    As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we agree with the social dimension, but we do not agree with the social charter itself. [Hon. Members :– “What is the difference ?”] If hon. Members understood the difference, they would understand the point of that. The present treaty allows adequate progress on social issues. Twenty-five of the 38 measures tabled under the social action programme have been agreed–including measures on health and safety, the free movement of labour, training practice, equal opportunities and employee rights. The United Kingdom has not blocked a single proposal under the social action programme.

    On the point about subsidiarity, we agreed at the summit to examine in detail how we turn the principle into a working, living practice within the Community, with examples during the period of the British presidency. There are areas in the Community where subsidiarity is not appropriate, and we should recognise that.

    If we wish to have a single market with a level playing field, as we have frequently said in the House in recent years, there is a need for some action at a Community level. What we are saying about subsidiarity is that, where there is unnecessary intrusion, it must cease. We were no longer alone in our pleas for that at the European Council; we were joined by a number of other member states.

    On the question of employment, and as a straight matter of fact, the unemployment rate is rising faster in Spain than it is in Britain. Nevertheless, it is rising faster here than we would wish. The point about GATT, is that the growth in trade would especially help with the problem of unemployment, not just in this country but in a number of other countries. Unemployment was mentioned in that context at the summit, but not as a specific subject.

    The right hon. Gentleman’s final question related to the political and legal status of Maastricht. It is too soon to decide in what form we will report to the House. We will be having the routine six-monthly debate on Europe later this week. That is separate from the debate promised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, which will be held at a later stage when we have a clearer indication, most notably from the Danes, of how Denmark proposes to deal with its problem.

    Several Hon. Members rose–

    Madam Speaker: Order. Now that we have had the opening statement and questions, may I seek the co-operation of hon. Members’ Many hon. Members wish to put questions to the Prime Minister, but that can be achieved only if each Member puts just one question, and does so briskly– and, please, if the Prime Minister gives a brisk reply.

    Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing): Is my right hon. Friend aware that no renegotiation of the Maastricht treaty is likely to produce more favourable terms for the United Kingdom than those that he has already achieved? However, if we are to protect the principle of subsidiarity, some renegotiation of the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome is needed.

    Has my right hon. Friend noted the appalling inconsistency of those who are now advocating a referendum? They did not do so when we joined the Community, they voted against one subsequently, and they certainly did not suggest one when they were forcing the Single European Act through the House.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I agree with what he has said. It has traditionally been the position of the Conservative party that we do not accept referendums. That was our position when my right hon. and noble Friend led the Conservatives into the Lobby in 1975. I recall that she quoted Lord Attlee’s view of referendums as a device of demagogues and dictators.

    On the question of subsidiarity and the Single European Act, I cannot do better than echo what my right hon. Friend has said.

    Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): Does the Prime Minister agree with the definition of subsidiarity given by the Danish Foreign Minister–that member Governments should decide what goes up to European Community level, not that the European Commission should decide what comes down to Governments?

    In view of the near-hysterical remarks of the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor on television yesterday, will he make it clear that his definition of subsidiarity includes institutional reforms, more openness, more accountability and more decentralisation–and where better to begin than in Edinburgh?

    The Prime Minister: I am intrigued to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, and I substantially agree with him. I am not entirely sure that the leader of his party agrees with him, but I put that to one side. We must examine all the opportunities for subsidiarity. There is no doubt that there will be different views on that matter within the Community. There is equally no doubt that we shall need to define subsidiarity very carefully because there are areas that would ensure that the Community did not function in any way unless they were dealt with at the European level. The whole House has seen illustrations of that.

    Mr. John Biffen (Shropshire, North): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Court of Auditors described the recent MacSharry proposals accepted by the Agriculture Ministers as “a recipe for fraud”? In those circumstances, is it not clear that the mechanics of administering the common agricultural policy are wholly in disarray? Do they not need the application of subsidiarity to bring about better control? Will every effort be made during my right hon. Friend’s presidency of the European Community to establish ways in which the CAP can be recast consistent with his ambitions concerning subsidiarity?

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, at Maastricht the Court of Auditors was made a Community institution, so it is now under better control than it was previously. The common agricultural policy has been substantially reformed–a remarkable achievement on the part of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. We will continue to study whether further improvements can be made. No aspect of Community activities will be ruled out of discussion by us while we review subsidiarity.

    Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): Having returned yesterday from Copenhagen, in that democratic country of Denmark, I assure the Prime Minister that there is not the slightest prospect of the Danish people changing their minds about Maastricht before the end of this year. That being so, what is the point of writing into the opening paragraphs of the communique the importance of ratifying the treaty so that it can come into force on 1 January 1993? Is that just hot air, or is it something more sinister–an attempt to override article 236 of the Rome treaty?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not see plots where none exists. He makes his own judgment of what may happen in Denmark. We must wait to see what events actually occur there, and what action the Danish Government take–either saying in concrete terms to the Community, “We cannot and we will not ratify the treaty”, in which case the treaty cannot proceed ; or explaining to us how they intend to proceed with the ratification of the treaty. Once the Danish Government do that, we will be in a position to proceed with the ratification here.

    Mr. Michael Alison (Selby): As my right hon. Friend charts the course ahead for Maastricht, will he recall that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members–certainly on this side of the House–endorse his vision of Britain at the heart of Europe? With my right hon. Friend at the heart of Europe, we shall have not a weak heart, a hard heart, or a bleeding heart, but a stout heart–which won my right hon. Friend the last election, and which he shares with his predecessor as Prime Minister. Like him, she won many important improvements to the basis of our membership of the Community.

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend that, while we remain a member of the European Community, there is no alternative to our being at its centre and exercising influence. It may be the ambition of some to leave the Community, in which case they should say so and make their position entirely clear. If that is their position, they should also explain what would happen, if we left the Community, to inward investment, jobs, prosperity, and much else. If we are to remain in the Community, it is the overwhelming view of the House–and I believe of the country–that we need to be at its centre, exercising our influence and determining by our own efforts the direction in which the Community goes. I for one am not prepared to see this country sit on the sidelines of the European Community while other countries take decisions that determine its direction and the livelihood of every person in this country.

    Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North): The declaration on South Africa rightly drew attention to the dreadful massacre in Boipatong. Does the Prime Minister accept, however, that simply asking the people to back the Conference for a Democratic South Africa is a weak response? Is it not time for a fundamental reappraisal of policy on South Africa, to compel President de Klerk to negotiate in a genuine fashion?

    The Prime Minister: My understanding is that President de Klerk is prepared to negotiate, and we want negotiations to start again. In the context of what is now happening in South Africa, it is not helpful for all kinds of miscellaneous advice to appear suddenly and gratuitously, spreading the blame on one side or the other. What we need is a resumption of the talks as soon as possible.

    It is all right for some to hawk their consciences around, but the impact of what happens in South Africa affects the people who are poorest. South Africa has 40 per cent. unemployment, 2 per cent. population growth and 0 per cent. growth in gross domestic product. That will not be corrected until the talks are successful, and those who sit here thinking otherwise had better examine the situation with greater care.

    Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills): How does my right hon. Friend reconcile what I think the country wants–a return of powers from Brussels to Britain–with his insistence that we go ahead and legislate for the dead treaty of union? Why does he not suggest that we withdraw the treaty now, and build on his proposals for the return of powers to Britain?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, much in the Maastricht treaty moves in the direction in which he would have the country go. It is perfectly true that both the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act involved institutional changes; but at Maastricht, for the first time, we also secured language establishing the value of intergovernmental co-operation outside the treaty of Rome and outside the concept of the European Court of Justice. That was not in the Single European Act, but it is in the Maastricht treaty.

    We also secured the formalisation of subsidiarity, on which we are still seeking to put flesh–a test to be applied to all Community competence issues. Let me repeat that : the test will be applied to all Community competence issues. That, too, was not in the Single European Act. The Act does, however, contain many of the things about which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and some of my other hon. Friends, now complain.

    Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North): What progress did the Government make at Lisbon in ensuring that the Eurofed would be situated in the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister: There was a discussion about sites over dinner, but the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that no agreement was reached.

    Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham): One of the good things to come out of the meeting was the failure to accept the European budget proposed by Mr. Delors. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European Commission will have plenty to do in cleaning up its own house and keeping an eye on the amount of fraud that is now taking place in the Community? Will not the proposals for a new parliamentary commission of the European Parliament, under the provisions of Maastricht, help in that process, and do not those proposals–and the proposal for subsidiarity–make a very good case for the House to ratify the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with him. There was strong opposition, not just from the United Kingdom but from a number of European states, to the Commission’s over-ambitious proposals to increase own resources to 1.37 per cent. of gross national product by 1997. I am certain that those proposals will be rejected, and equally certain that there will be no increase in the 1.2 per cent. ceiling, at least until 1995. Other options were discussed, including a longer period for the future own-resources perspective–perhaps seven years instead of five. A range of views was expressed in a lengthy discussion at Lisbon. The matter will need to be determined over the next six month, but we are clear about the fact that there is now plenty of room within the existing ceiling without an increase in own resources.

    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): If the Prime Minister lost Maastricht in the House, would he consider resigning?

    The Prime Minister: We shall not be losing it in the House.

    Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be more than a little perverse for anyone concerned with national sovereignty to promote in one Parliament the Single European Act that made no provision for subsidiarity and in the next Parliament to attack the Maastricht treaty, which does include subsidiarity, as “a treaty too far”?

    The Prime Minister: I think I am able to agree with my hon. Friend.

    Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth): In the context of subsidiarity, did the Prime Minister discuss how to counteract the centralised and bumbling bureaucracy that is the British Board of Trade, which has delayed RECHAR for far too long already? Did the Prime Minister go on to say that he would put that down to local government to implement?

    The Prime Minister: Stressing more control over British institutions is hardly subsidiarity.

    Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside): With regard to the level playing field that my right hon. Friend mentioned, does he acknowledge that, both at Maastricht and at Lisbon, he managed to move the goal posts in favour of Britain without upsetting our European partners, to the extent that they now believe that it was they who invented subsidiarity? Must that not bode well for Britain’s presidency, when we shall be able to set the agenda for future meetings?

    The Prime Minister: It is perfectly clear that the principle of devolving–“subsidiarity” is, we can all agree, an ugly word–means ensuring that we have a less intrusive Community and making sure that as much as is appropriate is done at the national rather than the European level. That means that the test should be that, if it cannot be done at the national level, perhaps it should be done at the European level. If it can be done best at the national level, it should be done at the national level.

    Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli): Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the concept of subsidiarity that he is particularly fond of will be applied to the heart of the Maastricht treaty–that is, to economic and monetary union?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a decision for this House, and it will be placed before this House. Whether we go into economic and monetary union, a concept well understood in this House, will be determined by this House at an appropriate time.

    Mr. George Walden (Buckingham): Is my right hon. Friend aware that, every time the word “subsidiarity” is used in this House, we lose 99 per cent. of the audience outside, who are confused and apprehensive about its meaning? As someone who is confused and apprehensive about its meaning, I would encourage my right hon. Friend to fight for a legally binding clarification of the Maastricht treaty so that we can understand what it means.

    In order to dispel the confusion and apprehension about the treaty itself, I would also suggest that my right hon. Friend should keep an open mind to a referendum on any entry into a single currency which may come about, as that is a very clear, specific and momentous issue–by far the most important part of the Maastricht treaty. Whereas I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no case for–

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Walden: I am just finishing, Madam Speaker. Whereas I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no case for a referendum on the present treaty, should there ever be any question of entry into economic and monetary union, the people must have a say on that very specific and very momentous issue.

    The Prime Minister: Subsidiarity is already a legally binding issue under article 3b of the treaty. What we are seeking to do is to set out how in practice that will work, rather than simply waiting for cases to go to the European Court of Justice and for rulings at that stage. The concept of making it legally binding is already there in the Maastricht treaty. I repeat what I said a moment ago about economic and monetary union : I believe that that is a matter for Parliament and for a future Parliament.

    Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West): In view of the need for a more considered response to the baronial intervention by his predecessor, who called for a referendum on the treaty of Maastricht, does the Prime Minister not realise that he could probably keep most people happy by agreeing to hold a referendum in return for agreeing to implement the suggestion by the Tory chairman of the European Movement : that he should appoint Baroness Thatcher as Governor of the Falkland islands and dispatch her there forthwith?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that we already have a governor.

    Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster): Does my right hon. Friend further accept that now is the time to build on and to consolidate the achievements of Maastricht rather than constantly to carp and criticise, which some people are all too inclined to do? On the question of subsidiarity, may I impress on my right hon. Friend the urgent need to get a position out of the Commission and a decision out of the Council as soon as possible–preferably under his leadership during the British presidency?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the latter point. That is precisely the remit that we have obtained. Equally, he is correct on his former point.

    Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): On an issue that is so vital to the sovereignty of our country, why is the Prime Minister so reluctant to allow a free vote on this side of the House? Is the reason because he is fearful of– [Laughter].

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants a free vote on that side of the House, he had better discuss that matter with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster).

    Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West): On the question of a referendum, does my right hon. Friend recall that his predecessor, in opposing a referendum in 1975, not only prayed in aid the dictum of Lord Attlee but argued strongly that a referendum was contrary to parliamentary sovereignty?

    The Prime Minister: I did not have the privilege of being here on that occasion, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): In considering the potential for the enlargement of the Community–a goal that many of us believe is not only desirable but achievable–will the Prime Minister advise us whether the Council considered that additional protocols pertaining to accession to the European Community will be written into the Maastricht accord, and, if so, will they be based solely on economic criteria or will other factors come into play?

    The Prime Minister: No, that point was not discussed in the enlargement discussions. What was discussed was the method of preparing the mandates immediately for the Eftans and the position to be taken in respect of other countries–most notably the Visegrad countries–such as Turkey, Malta and Cyprus that have expressed interest in joining the Community. We are proposing to take all those matters forward in different ways. We must wait and see how that turns out for Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, or perhaps the Czech Lands and Slovakia. I hope that we will have a meeting between the presidency and those countries later in the year. It will clearly be many years before they are ready to become full members.

    Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey): Did my right hon. Friend remind his fellow Heads of Government in Lisbon of the historic fact that, during the 1939-45 war, the Germans had to keep nine divisions in Yugoslavia, six of which were in Serbia alone, and yet still were able to maintain control of only the main roads? Comforting talk about humanitarian aid, attractive as it seems when one sees the appalling scenes in Sarajevo, should not blind any of us to the grim reality that we can hope to restore order in that part of the world only with a massive military intervention, which would inevitably lead to large-scale casualties.

    The Prime Minister: I think that that point was very much in the minds of a number of us in the discussions that we had on Yugoslavia. Although concern predominantly is centreing on getting humanitarian aid into Sarajevo airport, unless there is a ceasefire that is likely to be an extremely hazardous and difficult operation. But even if the humanitarian aid arrives in the airport, that is not the end of the matter ; it will then have to be taken, presumably by the Red Cross, to areas where it is needed, and military escorts may be needed to safeguard the position of the Red Cross. This is an extremely difficult and hazardous undertaking and it is being discussed by the United Nations–I believe, even as we speak.

    Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill): Notwithstanding the difficulty of putting large numbers of troops on the ground, does the Prime Minister agree that the establishment of a sky shield–an area free from bombardment for civilians–would be one way of trying to save lives? Would not he like to see an extension of his idea of safe havens for the Kurds? Will he discuss that with his European colleagues? Did President Mitterrand discuss his visit to Sarajevo with the Prime Minister before he left?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that he discussed it with none of the other Heads of Government, as far as I am aware, before he left. I am certainly not aware that he did so.

    The idea of air cover is certainly one that has been considered. It is, of course, extremely hazardous. The bombing and mortaring of people in and around Sarajevo is being done from the land, not from the air, so air cover would not necessarily prevent it. However, air cover would be a juicy target for missiles from the ground if anyone were tempted to aim at them. It is an extremely difficult proposition. Of course, we also considered the prospect of an air drop of supplies, but that also has great logistical difficulties, and we were not advised to proceed with that course.

    Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West): Will the Prime Minister confirm that the agreement on European money was a mere holding operation? Will he also confirm that, if there has to be a continuance of a fixed exchange rate moving towards a single currency, it demands convergence, and that convergence in its turn demands the free movement of people–namely, the abolition of all immigration controls within the European Community and a massive increase in regional and social funds?

    The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend believes all that, I can understand why he is so opposed to it. I do not believe all that. As for it being a mere holding operation, it was an agreement that there was no agreement to be had. We and others could not agree the proposals put forward at the weekend, and we must now discuss them to see whether agreement can be reached by the time of Edinburgh. That is the way one normally reaches an agreement–through negotiation over time.

    Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East): Since the Prime Minister now claims to champion the principle of subsidiarity, will he explain to the House why he does so so enthusiastically for the United Kingdom within the European union while ignoring it completely for Scotland within the British Union?

    The Prime Minister: We are a single united kingdom.

    Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South): Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that it has taken this country about 50 years to be accepted as a leading player in the European Community? Is it not sad that, on the very eve of our taking the presidency, in our best position for years, with the twin themes of subsidiarity and enlargement on our lips as we do so, there are still those among us who wish to hark back to the glorious days of Britain’s history which are no longer relevant in the late 1990s?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that there are very few Conservative Members and, I suspect, very few–if any– hon. Members who want to see a centralised European Community and the nightmare prospect proposed by some of a central European state. We do not want it, it will not happen and it is an unreal prospect–the stuff of nightmares for a few people–but if we wish to build the sort of Europe that this House wants, we can do so only if we play a full part in the decision-making process and do not, by our own actions, marginalise ourselves on areas of discussion where decisions need to be taken now.

    Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Will the Prime Minister explain, if he believes in honest negotiation, on what basis he will negotiate with the four applicants, Switzerland, Finland and so on–on the basis of Maastricht being agreed or on the basis of Maastricht not being agreed? If it is the former, why does he not have the courage to put the Bill before the House now, or is he merely playing for time?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening earlier. The preparation of the mandates is on the basis of Maastricht being agreed. That is the working assumption under which all the negotiations will take place. In due course, when Maastricht is agreed, the official negotiations can start. It is quite possible that not only the mandates but unofficial discussions towards accession to the Community can take place before ratification of the treaty, but the formal accession of any new state could not take place until after the Maastricht treaty is ratified.

    Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West): Does my right hon. Friend accept that the whole House would wish to thank him and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary–[Hon. Members– : “No.”]–the whole House–for pointing out the dangers of the situation in Yugoslavia? He has made it clear that command and control in Yugoslavia is vested in the United Nations. During the months of the presidency, will my right hon. Friend ensure that that is made clear to every member of the Community? We are all working in the same army for the same aim, but under one single command and control.

    The Prime Minister: I will seek to make that clear. As my hon. Friend said, we may not carry the whole House with us, but perhaps we carry the whole of the thinking part of the House with us.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): While, Muggins-like, Britain goes along with sanctions against Libya, the Italians cheerfully turn a blind eye to their relations with Libya and to any obligations they have given. What consideration is the Prime Minister giving to the letter from Mr. John Lace, the managing director of Babcock and Wilcox, who argues that thousands of jobs may be involved in various propositions from the British engineering industry in Libya? Why should we lose out on them when our partners are not keeping to any agreements that may have been made?

    The Prime Minister: Without necessarily accepting the premise on which the hon. Gentleman launched his question, I have seen the letter from Babcock and Wilcox to which he refers. I will take the opportunity to discuss that with the new Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Amato, when I meet him at Munich in a few days’ time.

    Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): Given that the people of this country have no faith or confidence whatever in the pocket Napoleon who has been running the Commission for the past eight years, is it not insensitive, to say the least, for our European colleagues to force him on us for the next two years? Or is Machiavelli at work–are they trying to ensure that the British people throw out the wretched treaty with the referendum which is becoming increasingly desirable, necessary and relevant?

    The Prime Minister: There was only one candidate for the presidency of the Commission. There was no other candidate around who was credible and who would have been likely to have the support of any other nation state at the summit. It would have been perfectly possible, if we had thought it desirable, for us to put forward a different candidate. He–[Hon. Members :– “Or she.”]–or she would have had no prospect of success, and he or she would have needed to be an existing member of the Commission. There is no point is getting out of the frying pan and stepping straight into the fire.

    Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough): The House will have noticed the Prime Minister’s reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in relation to unemployment. Will he not accept that it is hardly any solace for those losing their jobs to learn that the rate of unemployment is rising faster in Spain than it is here, or that the only Government proposal to bring down unemployment is the successful conclusion to the GATT round? As the presidency begins on 1 July, will the Prime Minister give the House a categorical assurance that he will make the fall of unemployment a high priority within the exchange rate mechanism?

    The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure what that last point means. I simply corrected the point of fact made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I also made the point, if I remember accurately, that I did not necessarily suggest that we had unemployment rising at the rate we would like. Clearly we would like to see it fall ; I do not deny that for a moment. I was correcting the simple factual point about unemployment. Although it is an important matter, it falls within a wide parameter of policies. It is not necessarily a matter that can be determined by Europe-wide policies at a European Council meeting.

    Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe): Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his exchanges with his colleagues at Lisbon further demonstrated that there is growing support throughout Europe for the concept of a Community which is effective and united, but which is not unnecessarily centralist?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has defined precisely the sense of the meeting at Lisbon on Friday and Saturday. There is a strong feeling, not just among politicians, people in this country and people in Denmark, but in a number of other countries, against excessive centralisation. That was reflected in our debates in Lisbon.

    Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): The Prime Minister has told us that he is seeking a definition of subsidiarity. Does he agree that such a definition should be inserted in article 3b? Contrary to popular belief, it is not yet there. Does he agree that, to make it a practical reality and to make it justiciable, as it must be in the end, there must be some suggestion of a separation of powers? However, is not the separation of powers the hallmark of a federal constitution, which the Prime Minister says he wishes to avoid?

    The Prime Minister: The definition is there in article 3b, as I said earlier. It is therefore justiciable, and I am happy to confirm that again to the hon. Gentleman. We have the definition. We are seeking to put flesh, in practical working terms, on the definition that already exists and is already justiciable.

    Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the one thing that my constituents are very clear about is that they do not want to see the surrender of any more important powers by the Westminster Parliament to the European Community? If that is what we mean by subsidiarity, is it not time that it was better and more clearly defined, so that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take the British people with him at the end of his successful presidency?

    The Prime Minister: As I said a little earlier, I share my hon. and learned Friend’s implicit view that “subsidiarity” is not a very attractive term. We need to find a way of expressing it that will make it readily understood by people up and down the country so that they are aware of what it means and how it will operate. I am open to any helpful proposals on that point, but we shall be considering it further.

    Mr. Peter Hain (Neath): When the Prime Minister bullied the Baroness Thatcher into signing the exchange rate mechanism or the European monetary system, did she insist to him then, as she did yesterday, that the pound was set at far too high a level?

    The Prime Minister: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman has not met my noble Friend.

    Mr. William Powell (Corby): The emphasis that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister laid upon the successful conclusion of the GATT round is most welcome. Does he agree that nothing would give the world economy a greater boost or boost confidence as well as economic activity than the successful conclusion of the GATT round? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend urge the French President to show the same generosity in solving the GATT problems as he is showing in trying to solve the difficulties in Sarajevo, by reaching a satisfactory compromise over 300,000 tonnes of grain?

    The Prime Minister: That is an extremely fair point, which has not been lost upon the European leaders. The point has been made to those holding up the agreement at present. Quite apart from the growth of world trade that would follow and apart from the helpful effect that that would also have on unemployment, it would be an immense help to the developing countries and the less-developed countries to have a GATT agreement that opens the richer markets of the west to those countries. There is no point in us handing out sums of aid with one hand and effectively taking them away with closed markets with the other.

    Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): With regard to Yugoslavia, is the European Community sure that, although the sanctions against Milosevic are justified and may bring about a change in Serbia, they will lead to peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Do not Presidents Izetbegovic and Tudjman have some responsibility for what is happening in that part of the world? What pressure is the Community placing on them–or is the even-handed approach by the British Government before 19 January being thrown away in order to achieve concessions on Maastricht?

    The Prime Minister: There are two points in relation to the important points raised by the hon. Gentleman. First, we are putting pressure on President Tudjman as well. Secondly, we are seeking to persuade the Serbs to assert control over the Serbs in Bosnia. That is the substantive point.

    Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch): Does my right hon. Friend accept that his comments in his opening statement about coolness and commitment are widely shared by a high proportion of his colleagues alongside and behind him? Does he agree that the cacophony of inconsistency from down the Corridor is a sign that very rarely are the best wines made with sour grapes?

    The Prime Minister: We need to look very carefully at precisely how we carry the debate forward. It is critical that we get the right conclusions from the debate and that we ratify a treaty which for the first time begins to turn back a centralising trend which was evident in the treaty of Rome and in the Single European Act, and which became more evident as time passed. We are now in a position to begin to turn that tide back. It would be folly if we were to sideline ourselves when we have an opportunity to achieve that.

    Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin): Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Prime Minister must have seen weekend reports that, if Maastricht were not ratified by the House, he would resign. I am sure that he agrees that it would be quite wrong to raise the hopes of the British people on the basis of a false premise, but, in view of the right hon. Gentleman’s determination to sweep away the cobwebs of government, will he come clean on this matter and tell us whether, if Maastricht is not ratified, he will resign?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises his question on a false premise, which is exactly what he said he would not wish to do–it is going to be ratified. As one of my hon. Friends indicated a moment ago, the hon. Gentleman may have overlooked it, but we had the largest single popular vote in the previous election that any Government have ever received.

    Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): While the Prime Minister and our new friend Mr. Jacques Delors may be entirely confident that this matter is going to go through without difficulty and with the free will of members, does he accept that there is an important democratic issue when a Bill is put through without a free vote, without a referendum, and without the people of the country being told what is involved when there is a major surrender or a major passing over of freedom and liberty? If he doubts that, should we not take a message from the sad countries of eastern Europe about the tragedy of forcing people to go into a single centralised state with common citizenship and without frontiers, without being consulted at all? Surely there is a case for at least looking at telling the people and asking their views.

    The Prime Minister: No one fights more fiercely for parliamentary control in this country than my hon. Friend. With my great respect for him, I find it inconsistent that such a firm advocate of the parliamentary system should also be an advocate of referendums. I believe that the parliamentary system is right. It is the way in which we took through legislation in the past on constitutional matters. It is the way in which we took through the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. This Bill has already been debated, before I went to Maastricht and after I came back, for a longer period than that spent discussing the Single European Act, and that is before we enter the Committee stage.

    Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend): In the context of subsidiarity, will the Prime Minister confirm that there is no truth in the rumours that environmental policy is to be repatriated to the nation state and that, instead, in his presidency he will give priority to the creation of a European environmental agency to make sure that important, cross-boundary environmental matters are properly tackled?

    The Prime Minister: It is agreed that there should be a European environmental agency, and it has been for some time. What has not been agreed is where the European environmental agency should be sited. That, too, failed to find itself a matter of agreement over the weekend.

    Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East): May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s dedication to the concept of enlargement of the Community, so that, one day, we will get to the stage at which Europe really means Europe? Is it not clear that a Community of 15 or 20 more states can exist only on the basis of individual agreements and pillars– precisely the sort of Europe envisaged at Maastricht?

    The Prime Minister: Yes. They have agreed to apply on the basis of the Maastricht treaty being agreed. That opens, of course, the option of intergovernmental agreement, as I said earlier, rather than simply agreement under the treaty of Rome. No doubt, over time as the Community enlarges, there will be further agreements and, no doubt, further institutional change. We must make sure that we are sufficiently influential in the Community to ensure that the institutional change that takes place and the future agreements that may be necessary are agreements and changes of which we approve.

    Mr. Jimmy Boyce (Rotherham): Would the Prime Minister be kind enough to tell us whether, when he refers to workers’ rights, he means an end to the practice of employers unilaterally de-recognising trade unions, reneging on properly negotiated rates of pay and pay rises, and coercing workers into signing new contracts of employment that mean that they have to work longer hours for basic rates of pay?

    The Prime Minister: None of those matters was discussed over the weekend.

    Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel): Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the discussions that have taken place about the parliamentary assize, the group of the 12 Parliaments plus the European Parliament, is a process that will be pursued during our presidency? Does my right hon. Friend accept that that should be an added safeguard in the matter of subsidiarity?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, we shall certainly process the prospect of a further meeting of that sort. Agreements between Parliaments, rather than just between members of the European Parliament and individual Governments, is an attractive way to proceed. I do not anticipate a meeting of the assize during the next six months, but we shall do the ground work and preparation for one to take place thereafter.

    Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East): The Prime Minister will be aware that his predecessor has called subsidiarity “gobbledegook”. Early-day motion 240 gives a more sophisticated analysis of what is wrong with subsidiarity. If subsidiarity is to begin to have a constitutional meaning and legal definition, and is not simply to be determined by the courts in a broad sweep, its definition comes close to the concept of federalism.

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have spent some time in the past hour discussing precisely that point and the necessity of ensuring that a proper definition of subsidiarity is more clear-cut to everyone, including the man and woman in the street, than the definition found in article 3b of the treaty.

    Several Hon. Members rose–

    Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.

  • PMQT – 25 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th June 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Betts : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

    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. Betts : Is the Prime Minister aware of reports that dentists in Huntingdon are to refuse to treat any new patients, including children, under the national health service because of Government cuts in funding? How will the Prime Minister explain to his constituents that, despite repeated excuses, the Government are failing to give the NHS the level of resources necessary to enable it to provide a first-class level of treatment for all?

    The Prime Minister : There is no question of anyone needing to go without a national health service dentist in Huntingdon. Dentists in Cambridgeshire have more patients than the national average because of population growth. A recruitment campaign for dentists has been planned for some time and will go ahead in September. If necessary, the local family health services authority will seek agreement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to employ salaried dentists. Four dentists are already interested in such appointments. If people have any trouble finding dentists, they should go to their family health services authority, which should be able to help.

    Mr. Dykes : May I wish my right hon. Friend well in the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community? Will he ensure that Ministers work hard in the coming months to explain the immense benefits of the Maastricht treaty to the interests of this country– [Interruption.] which will become clearer over time? If that work is successful, it will help to diminish some of the grotesque xenophobia and hysteria of recent weeks.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, the Maastricht agreement was made within the negotiating terms agree by the House, was subsequently endorsed by the House and was agreed at a general election. The Second Reading of the Bill has been approved, it remains Government policy and in due course we shall carry it through.

    Mr. Hattersley : Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government now support the extension of Mr. Delors’ term of office as president of the European Commission ?

    The Prime Minister : It is a matter that will be discussed at the weekend. There is, as I understand it, likely to be only one candidate. If that is Mr. Delors, we shall support him.

    Mr. Hattersley : Since I take it that that answer is as far as the Prime Minister’s reserves of courage are liable to go towards the answer yes, will he give Mr. Delors the Opposition’s congratulations– [Interruption] and tell Mr. Delors that we confidently expect him to continue to implement policies which are necessary for this country, are supported by the Labour party and are anathema to Tory Back Benchers?

    The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure that the right hon. Gentleman carried all his Friend’s with him.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery : Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent survey that showed that 91 per cent. of British exporters reported either good or very good orders for the first three months of this year ? Does he agree that the efforts made by British exporters will lead the way to recovery?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. Last month’s export figures were extremely good. They were up 6 per cent. by value and 4 per cent. by volume. I think that that shows the extent to which our competitiveness has increasingly enabled us to penetrate export markets which were previously not open to us.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Michie : When will the Prime Minister stop going on about his wonderful citizen’s charter which, so far as I can see, has had only one effect until now, which is that British Rail passengers can keep their tickets ? At a much more serious level, pregnant women cannot keep their jobs. What good is a charter which does not allow women to be pregnant without being punished for it ?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman cared to read the whole range of citizen’s charters that we have produced, he would realise that it is a far wider-ranging initiative than he has begun to understand. It puts the consumer and not the producer first, and it will remain right at the heart of Government policy throughout the rest of this decade.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the remarks that he made on Tuesday, when he said that there would be another debate in the House on the Maastricht Bill before Third Reading? May I recommend the attitude of one of his predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who allowed a free vote of the House in similar circumstances when he was piloting the European Communities legislation through the House? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that that would be an excellent way to test the water before we come to voting on the Maastricht Bill?

    The Prime Minister : I was not a Member of the House at that moment, and I am not entirely sure that I recall that free vote. The House has now debated and voted on the Maastricht agreement on three occasions. As I indicated a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), we contested the general election on that proposition–a general election at which all my hon. Friends were returned on a manifesto to which they all subscribed. The Maastricht treaty was negotiated in good faith by all member states. I have no intention of breaking the word of the British Government that was given on that occasion ; nor do I have any intention of compromising what we agreed on that occasion and wrecking this country’s reputation for plain and honest dealing and good faith. In due course, therefore, I shall be inviting my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government and the Bill.

    Dr. Wright : The Government have devoted many millions of pounds and many millions of copies to telling people about the glories of the parent’s charter and the patient’s charter. Will the Prime Minister tell the House how many millions of pounds and how many millions of copies have been devoted to telling the British people about the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : From memory, I think that the House spent 30 hours debating it before we even went to Maastricht. I do not think that there is any doubt about the realities of what the treaty stands for in the minds of the British people. They knew that at the election, and they supported it at the election.

     

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

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

    Mr. Milligan : Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Secretary of State for Employment on her triumph in Luxembourg yesterday? It is good news for pay packets, good news for jobs and good news for investment. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that it shows that the best way to fight for British interests is to negotiate strongly, but with a reputation as a country which keeps the agreements that we make and ratifies the treaties that we sign?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I wholeheartedly agree with him. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment achieved an outcome at yesterday’s Economic and Social Council which meets every one of the United Kingdom’s most crucial objectives. She has preserved the flexibility which employers and employees in the United Kingdom enjoy and which is one of our greatest assets. I must tell the House, however, that the directive is still not–and may not be– agreed in the European Community. In any event, it is still our case, irrespective of the negotiating triumph by my right hon. Friend yesterday, that the treaty base under which it has been brought forward is wrong and that if it is passed we may still challenge it in the European Court.

     

    Homelessness

    Q5. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet representatives of London’s homeless.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so at present, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment regularly meets representatives of the voluntary organisations in London who work with homeless people.

    Mr. Corbyn : Does the Prime Minister realise that the 25 million sq ft of empty offices in London and still more under construction are an insult to the 2,000 people who sleep on the streets of the capital city every night and to the 18,000 people living in hostels? When will the Government direct the construction industry to build houses for rent for those who need them, rather than speculative office blocks to lie idle for the benefit of property speculators? This is a crucial matter and the right hon. Gentleman stands condemned by those who are forced to sleep on the streets at night.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman, standing in a glass house, should be careful where he throws his bricks. Of the top 10 authorities with empty properties, six are Labour controlled and none is Conservative controlled. If the hon. Gentleman were really concerned, he would be putting pressure on Manchester, Salford, Birmingham, Hackney, Knowsley and Newcastle upon Tyne. He might then get homeless people back into accommodation.

    Several Hon. Members rose —

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

    Mr. John Marshall : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that homelessness in London is the result of decades of rent control, which Conservative rule got rid of, and of incompetence by high-spending Labour councils?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. There is scope for the private rented sector to grow and to provide low-cost flexible accommodation. The hostility of the Labour party over the years has cramped that growth and prevented that property becoming available for people who needed it. We have consistently sought to expand the privately rented sector, most recently with our proposed tax exemptions to help people who want to rent a room to do so. I hope that Opposition Members will support that policy.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Beggs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Beggs : May I invite the Prime Minister to make time in his busy schedule to visit my constituency to see for himself why Larne is the second busiest ferry port in the United Kingdom and to hear from the people there why he should use his influence to persuade the European Commission that Larne, Belfast, Stranraer and Dumfries be recognised as Euro-routes to and from Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I should be happy to take up that invitation from the hon. Gentleman. Northern Ireland is well served by its ports and I am confident that they will continue to provide the routes for most of the Province’s business and tourist traffic to Great Britain and onwards to Europe. They have performed magnificently in the past and I believe that they will continue to do so, and to grow, in the future.

    Mr. Mans : Does my right hon. Friend agree that what matters most to people is the amount that the Government take in tax from their wage packets? Bearing that in mind, may I ask him to confirm that he has no plans to follow the tax policies advocated by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) which, even in the view of many Labour Members, contributed greatly to the Opposition’s defeat?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Our policies of low taxation and low inflation were clearly what the electorate wanted at the last general election. I am aware of the dispute about why the Opposition lost the election, and I am sorry to note that for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) the honeymoon is over before the marriage has begun.

     

    Q7. Mr. Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Is the Prime Minister aware of the National Children’s Home report issued this week, which shows that each day in Scotland 41,000 families on income support cannot afford to buy food, that 500 families are now housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and that the city of Glasgow has the highest infant mortality rate in Europe? If the Prime Minister really believes in the family, does he share my disgust at that situation and my desire for urgent action?

    The Prime Minister : The definition used by the National Children’s Home for “poverty” was misleading, as the hon. Gentleman will know. He will also know that this year’s uprating of income support was substantially higher than the retail prices index. The definition used by the National Children’s Home defines someone as poor if he or she spends less than half the national average spending per head. The hon. Gentleman will realise that that measure of poverty excludes a Greek spending the average in Greece, while a richer person in the United Kingdom spending less than half the national average is classed as poor. That definition does not stand up to examination.

    Mr. Rupert Allason : Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to declassify as much material as possible dating from before the second world war before it is all released in Moscow and Washington?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friends will have heard my hon. Friend’s advice.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 June 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th June 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EC Presidency

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the cost of (i) each of the special presidency events and (ii) each of the other special events that will be incurred by the United Kingdom as set out in the booklet “The United Kingdom Presidency of the European Community”.

    The Prime Minister : Of the 79 special events listed in the United Kingdom presidency programme booklet, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is providing funding support for 11 at a total cost of £315, 426. These are :

    —————————————————————-

    Presidency Art Exhibition, Brussels |100,500

    Britain and Europe Summer School, LSE |5,000

    European Night at the Proms, Albert Hall |22,776

    UK Presidency Conference, QEII Centre |113,650

    EC R&D meeting of Chief Scientists and European Parliamentary Committee, Edinburgh |5,000

    Women of Europe Awards, FCO |2,000

    EC Organ Festival, Bolton |15,000

    Association of European Journalists Conference |7,000

    Advent for Europe Concert, Durham |5,000

    New Years Eve Festival and Concert, Barbican |35,000

    Beacon Europe, throughout Europe |5,000

    Other Government Departments and the EC Commission are helping to organise or finance a further 32 events. EC ministerial meetings in the UK, including the European Council, are being funded from the FCO presidency budget of £9.8 million.

    Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister how many events in the calendar of special events for the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community are taking place in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The presidency programme booklet includes two events in Wales, the informal meeting of EC Employment and Social Affairs Ministers in Chepstow and the presidency concert at the Llangollen international eisteddfod. Further events in Wales are planned but not yet confirmed.

    In addition, the European arts festival includes 58 events in Wales and Beacon Europe will take place throughout the United Kingdom.

     

    Death Penalty

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to abolish the death penalty for those offences for which it remains in force in England and Wales.

    The Prime Minister : The abolition of the death penalty is a matter which only Parliament can decide, each Member of Parliament voting according to his or her conscience. The Government have to abide by the decision of the House of Commons, which voted against the abolition of the death penalty during the last debate on capital punishment in December 1990.

     

    Child Health

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken, or will be taking, to promote as a priority the plan of action for survival, protection and development of children, agreed by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting in Harare in 1991, for improving child health in Commonwealth countries in the present decade; what information he has received from other Commonwealth countries in regard to implementing the plan of action; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I presume that the right hon. Member is referring to the plan of action adopted by the World Summit for Children in 1990.

    In response to the summit’s call for national plans of action, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in conjunction with other Departments, has compiled a report, which was presented to the UNICEF secretariat at the end of February, outlining our policies for children in this country and the work of the United Kingdom’s aid programme of particular relevance to women and children in the third world. The report examines problem areas which persist in developed, industrialised societies and explains what measures the Government are taking to alleviate them in this country; and it reviews those areas of the United Kingdom’s aid programme such as primary health care, water and sanitation, and education which are of greatest direct impact on women and children in the developing countries. We plan to publish the report as a Command Paper before the end of the month.

    We understand that Commonwealth states are at various stages of preparation in work on their national reports.

     

    Nuclear Testing

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the United States Administration during his recent visit to Washington about the resumption of nuclear testing by the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : I had discussions on a range of matters with President Bush and other members of the US Administration. The Government’s position on nuclear testing remains as I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 12 May at column 90.

     

    Libya

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the French Government about United Nations sanctions against Libya.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : We have co -operated closely with France on this issue. Sanctions will remain in force until Libya has complied in full with UN Security Council resoluton 731, including handing over the Lockerbie suspects for trial in Scotland or the United States and meeting French demands over the UTA bombing.

     

    Treaty of Rome

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the privileges of British troops serving in other EC countries when the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome comes into force.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The privileges enjoyed by British troops serving in other EC countries are a matter for the Government and the Government of the member state concerned. Bilateral and multilateral arrangements apply. This provision will not be affected by the entry into force of the proposed new article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the diplomatic and other privileges of the European Commission and its employees when the proposed revised article 8 of the treaty of Rome enters into force.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The privileges and immunities of members of the Commission staff are governed by the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities 1965, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. These privileges and immunities are not altered by the proposed new article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will equalise the tax treatment of United Kingdom and other EC nationals when the proposed article 8b of the treaty of Rome on the right to vote in municipal elections takes effect.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The provisions concerning the right to vote in municipal elections have no implications for the basis of tax liability in this country, which will continue to be primarily determined by the residence status and domicile of each individual.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the diplomatic and other privileges of national representatives working in other member states when the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome enters into force.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : Such privileges are a matter for agreement between the Governments of the member states concerned and relevant multilateral agreements. None of the existing arrangements will be affected by the entry into force of the proposed new article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s reasons for agreeing to dual citizenship of nationals of the United Kingdom under the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The proposed new article 8 of the treaty of Rome would confer upon EC nationals limited additional rights, as citizens of the union, defined in the articles which follows. The Government consider that all these rights would confer worthwhile benefit upon United Kingdom citizens. The addition of further rights would require unanimity and national ratification.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister how he proposes to define the purposes of the proposed articles 8a and 8b of the treaty of Rome; and what legislative or other proposals he has to enable electoral registration officers to know whether a national of another member state is a resident for the purpose of these articles.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The proposed article 8a of the treaty of Rome to be added by the treaty on European union in itself establishes no new rights. Unanimity is required in the Council for any measures to facilitate the exercise of these existing rights or to expand them. No such proposals have been suggested. Proposed article 8b of the treaty of Rome makes it clear that the rights to vote and stand in municipal elections described therein should be exercised under the same conditions as enjoyed by nationals of the member state in question. In the United Kingdom registration on the electoral roll is sufficient proof of resident status for the purpose of voting and standing in elections.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to revise the oath of allegiance to give effect to the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : None. The concept of citizenship of the union confers an additional status on British citizens, and does not replace British citizenship or affect allegiance to the Crown.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister to which Department he proposes to transfer responsibility for relationships with the European Community if the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome enters into force.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The Government have no such plans.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he gave to proposing that the new article 3b of the treaty of Rome should be given retrospective effect.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The proposed article 3b of the treaty of Rome will have effect only when the treaty on European union enters into force. All Community institutions, including the European Court of Justice, will then be under a binding obligation to respect the principle of subsidiarity which it contains. There is, however, nothing to prevent the institutions operating in this way voluntarily, in advance of article 3b coming into effect. As presidency of the Community, the United Kingdom will encourage them to do so. There is evidence that the Commission is already doing this.

     

    European Monetary System

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what is the legal basis for the European monetary system; and whether its status will be changed if the Maastricht treaty takes effect.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The European monetary system is established by a resolution of the European Council. Its legal status will not be changed if the treaty on European union agreed at Maastricht takes effect.

     

    EC Citizenship

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the level of public support for the creation of Community citizenship by the Maastricht treaty.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The Maastricht treaty as a whole is a good agreement for Britain, and has been commended by Parliament. The establishment of the concept of citizenship of the union will be helpful in ensuring that the position of individual citizens within the Community is respected and enhanced, in the areas in question–limited voting rights and consular protection.

  • PMQT – 4 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th June 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Moss : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : May I first congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on joining Her Majesty’s Privy Council this morning. As you did so, I was presiding over 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. Moss : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the smaller countries have a vital part to play in the life of the European Community? Does he further agree that Denmark should not be sidelined or pressurised, merely because its people expressed their views in a democratic way about the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : I emphatically agree with my hon. Friend about that. The work of the Community will go on, and Denmark and all the other small member states will play their full part in it. We have no wish whatsoever to slam the doors in the face of Denmark or to rule out any procedures whatsoever that will help Denmark in her present difficulties and enable her to join the Maastricht treaty. But it is unrealistic to think that everything has been changed by the Danish vote, just as it is unrealistic to think that nothing has been changed by it.

    Mr. Cryer : But does not the Prime Minister accept, in the wake of the mess that the Common Market is happily in now, as a result of the Danish referendum, that if he brings back a renegotiated treaty and some sort of deal with the Danish Government, there will be a great deal of pressure in this country to require the Government to hold a referendum here over any constitutional alterations which might be involved in that new treaty?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows that I made the Government’s position about a referendum entirely clear yesterday, and I have nothing whatsoever to add to that today. On the subject of the treaty itself, there is a great deal in it that represents concessions by our partners to what we have long sought in this country. That would also be open to renegotiation, if any renegotiations were to take place. I hope that today in Oslo, where my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is attending a meeting, they will begin to examine in detail the way to deal with the particular difficulties, following the referendum in Denmark.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Hicks : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing unease of both listeners and viewers about the coverage of live sport? Irrespective of the long-term implications of the deal over the premier league football coverage, is my right hon. Friend aware that there was genuine resentment, among my constituents at least, during the recent world cup coverage from Australia? There is uncertainty over the future of the ball-by-ball cricket commentaries. Is it not a fact that the arrangements that were designed to give greater opportunities to listen or to watch seem, in practice, to be having the reverse effect?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows–I am pleased about this, as he is–ball-by-ball cricket commentaries are now continuing, albeit on a different wavelength. I know that some people have been and are concerned whenever areas of activity are opened up by market forces–that has often been the case in the past–but in time many of those anxieties have disappeared and the beneficial effects have found their way through. The net effect of new television channels is that there is more and better coverage of sport on a wider number of channels.

    Mr. Hattersley : Does the Prime Minister recall the statement on 26 March that an asylum Bill would be the first action of a new Conservative Government? Why did he change his mind?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will see the asylum Bill before too long.

    Mr. Hattersley : The Prime Minister characteristically tried to evade the question. On 26 March the asylum Bill was to be the first priority, to be introduced before anything else. Why was that Bill needed so urgently before the election, but not afterwards?

    The Prime Minister : I am intrigued at the right hon. Gentleman’s sudden enthusiasm for the Bill. I can put his mind at rest. The Government are committed to reintroducing the asylum Bill at an early opportunity and we propose to do so.

    Mr. Hattersley : Nobody should be surprised that the Prime Minister is ashamed to give the real answer. The Asylum Bill was introduced in an attempt to legitimise many of the scare stories about immigration put about by the Tory party. It is to the Prime Minister’s shame that he is not prepared to denounce that policy and attitude now.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should know better than to make remarks such as that. As we have said in the past, it was the first Bill that we decided to reintroduce and put into the Queen’s Speech. It remains essential now, as it was then, to streamline the decision-making process. We intend to resist the misuse of asylum procedures and to ensure that genuine refugees are properly protected. That is the position of the Bill, and it will be introduced shortly.

     

    Q3. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming case for the enlargement of the European Community has been in no way diminished by the result of the Danish referendum? Can he assure my constituents in Swindon and the entire country that he will use the opportunity presented by the United Kingdom’s presidency of the Community in the next six months to press the case as vigorously as he can for the enlargement of the Community to include the countries of the European Free Trade Association and the countries of central and eastern Europe when they are ready to join?

    The Prime Minister : No one in this country or within the Community can be in any doubt about my total commitment to opening up the Community to the EFTAns and, in due course, to those from eastern Europe. Nothing that has happened in recent days changes my belief that that is necessary and urgent, and we will continue with it. I do not accept that anything has put enlargement at risk. I can assure my hon. Friend that this will have a high priority during our presidency.

    Mr. Mackinlay : Is the Prime Minister aware of the dismay felt by a number of hon. Members and many historians at the fact that the papers relating to Rudolf Hess are still not being fully disclosed? Is he aware that it is the view of many people that there is a continuing Establishment cover-up which should now be revealed and that the undisclosed papers reveal matters relating to the non -royal status of the Duchess of Windsor?

    The Prime Minister : I am afraid that I cannot share the hon. Gentleman’s conspiracy theory. If there has been a cover-up, it has been covered up from me as well.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Gill : My right hon. Friend will have noted early-day motion 174, which has been signed by a substantial number of Conservative Members. Is he aware of their deep desire that the British presidency should promote the Conservative principles of free trade and intergovernmental co- operation and not the socialist diktats of Jacques Delors?

    The Prime Minister : I assure my hon. Friend that we shall certainly use the presidency to pursue issues that are in our interests and those of the whole Community : the introduction of the single market, reform of the CAP, developing relations with the EFTA and eastern countries, future financing and deregulation–matters for which this party and this country have stood for so long. We shall pursue all of them during our presidency.

     

    Q6. Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Mitchell : Does the Prime Minister accept that, in the face of the Danish announcement today that they will not attempt to renegotiate, to reintroduce the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which we would have discussed yesterday and today, would be like reintroducing a Bill for the resurrection of Shergar?

    The Prime Minister : I do not accept that premise and the hon. Gentleman would be rather surprised if I did. The Maastricht treaty was the result of a lot of difficult negotiations that were conducted over some time. If we went back to square one, I do not think that we could assume that our partners would agree all the matters that are of interest to this country. We must wait and see how events fall out.

     

    Q7. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Amess : Following the collapse of socialism in Basildon, does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that last month’s local election results in Basildon, which ensured the success of every Conservative candidate, showed that residents were fed up with an inefficient, high- spending socialist council and believed that only Conservatives could provide good services at a low cost? Does the Prime Minister have any advice for the new council on where it might stick the nuclear-free-zone signs? That was another daft socialist idea.

    The Prime Minister : I feel sure that my hon. Friend will already have passed any advice that is necessary to the new Basildon council. I very much doubt whether I would dissent from what he said. The electors in Basildon made an extremely wise choice in the local elections and in the general election, and I am sure that it is a choice which they will repeat many times in the future.

     

    Q8. Mr. David Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Marshall : As part of his “taking stock” of the situation in Scotland, has the Prime Minister made any representations to the EC to have the European central bank set up in Scotland? If not, will he agree to do so now?

    The Prime Minister : I have made no representations, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, on this matter, but we shall certainly do what we can to ensure that, whenever possible, Community institutions, including the bank, are situated in the right place in the United Kingdom.

     

    Q9. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent launch of the campaign for physics and of a survey of sixth-formers which showed that 90 per cent. of them believe that physics is essential to solve the world’s environmental problems? Does he agree that good science is preferable to slick pressure group campaigning, to ensure that the Earth summit at Rio leads to a good future for our planet?

    The Prime Minister I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of understanding physics, although I must confess that I cannot claim to be among those who understand it very well at all. However, environmental education is an important theme of education these days and I hope that it will be a growing theme. It will certainly enable people to understand the deeply important issues to be discussed at Rio.

     

    Q10. Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Williams : When the Prime Minister took his present post, he described the notion of a society at ease with itself. Does he feel that when he goes to the Earth summit next week, against a background of a dismal record on the environment in Britain and development aid having been cut from 0.51 per cent. of gross domestic product to 0.27 per cent. during his years in the House, he will be representing a society at ease with itself?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman, perhaps uncharacteristically, runs down what this nation has done and is doing to assist with aid. He conveniently ignores the fact that we have the sixth largest aid budget in the world, that it is one of the most effective programmes that the OECD recognises– [Hon. Members :– “It has been cut in half.”] It most certainly has not been cut in half as was inaccurately stated earlier this week. He ignores the fact that there are other forms of aid that we can and do give, that the Toronto terms originated with my former right hon. Friend, Nigel Lawson, that the Trinidad terms originated under this Government and that they are two of the biggest debt write-offs that there have ever been, and that there is no other country with a comparable record and no previous Government with a comparable record to that of this Government.