Tag: Maastricht Treaty

  • Mr Major’s Article on Industry and Manufacturing – 12 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s article on industry and manufacturing, published on Friday 12th March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    British manufacturing is vital for our economic future. And British industry is performing far better than most people realise. Time after time, businessmen tell me of international successes that somehow don’t make the headlines. Who is providing the steel to build the new rail terminal at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris? A British company in Bolton. Which country is exporting Nissan cars to Japan? Britain is. The statistics tell the same story. Manufacturing productivity is up in Britain; so is manufacturing investment; so are manufactured exports – up 6 per cent, in the last quarter of 1992, compared with a year ago.

    Of course, we have a long way to go. There will be setbacks along the way; and – sadly – the last element to turn up in any recovery tends to be employment. But the Institute of Directors’ survey for February showed that business leaders are becoming much more optimistic about their companies’ prospects. This message is reinforced by the latest CBI survey, reporting the biggest rise in car sales for nearly five years, more confidence among retailers and a willingness to increase investment. More houses are being built; and the House Builders’ Federation has just reported a 20 per cent rise in sales. All these figures were released in recent days, but you could be forgiven for missing them in the prevailing gloom.

    I want to see every sector of the economy enjoy recovery. We have a strong service sector. The City of London in particular is a huge generator of export earnings for Britain. Before the 1980s, there was a tendency to undervalue such contributions. Even the name we gave to them – “invisible earnings” – suggested there was somehow something unreal about them.

    In the 1980s, we came to realise services were a big plus to the British economy. But making things matters, too. To earn Britain’s way in the world, we also need a strong, competitive and productive manufacturing base.

    Private enterprise – not government – will create that. Unlike our political opponents, I do not want to go back to a failed past of subsidies and state control. They want to rob successful companies through extra taxes to prop up the weak. I want to get government off business’s back; to set business free to succeed. So let me explain what I believe Government can do to help British industry.

    Its first responsibility is to make sure the fundamentals are right. By that I mean – above all else – low inflation. Our inflation rate has been below the average for the European Community for 18 months now. At 1.7 per cent in January, the headline figure is the lowest for a generation. Low inflation helps industry control its costs and compete abroad. We have the lowest interest rates in the European Community. We have a highly competitive exchange rate. And in our factories costs are rising more slowly in Britain than in Japan or Germany – a sure recipe for export success, and for securing a bigger share of our home market, too.

    With the labour market reforms set under way by Margaret Thatcher, and pursued again in this Parliament, we won our way to industrial peace just in time to take advantage of the huge opportunity presented by the European Single Market. Manufacturing investment has flooded into Britain. Companies like Nissan, Toyota and Sony have brought new jobs and confidence to British manufacturing.

    With the unique version of the Treaty we secured at Maastricht, we have achieved the best of both worlds for inward investors: a Britain inside Europe and outside the Social Chapter. If others want to add costs that make their industry uncompetitive, that’s their business – but perhaps not for long. Once the Maastricht Treaty is ratified, Britain will be the best launch pad for manufacturing success in Europe.

    Our European policy is the second element in our strategy to create the right conditions for British business. It leads to the third, which we are pursuing in Brussels, Whitehall – yes, and town hall too: too roll back regulation.

    We have made a start, at Maastricht, in putting the brakes on Brussels intervention. But too much regulation is home-grown: dreamt up with too little thought, enforced with too much zeal. We have to look again at factory regulations that define mild washing up liquids as hazardous substances. And we have to look more closely at the way European directives grow another layer of regulation when they pass through the hands of our own bureaucracy. The rule too often seems to be: two bits of red tape are better than one. Let me offer you a better rule: red tape costs jobs. That is why, as part of his Deregulation Initiative, I have asked Michael Heseltine to take an especially close look at the way we implement European rules.

    Deregulation doesn’t just help our big, established companies. It clears the obstacles in the way of the new ones that will create the jobs of the future – the jobs that will replace those lost as older firms become more efficient. That means encouraging entrepreneurs, and nurturing innovative ideas.

    The fourth strand in our strategy is to build new bridges between British research and its industrial application. That is why I have appointed William Waldegrave to take responsibility for science, research and development at Cabinet level; and he will be publishing a White Paper shortly on the links between research and wealth creation.

    The fifth – and perhaps most important – strand lies in our policies for education, maths, science and technology are now locked into the curriculum for every child. We are expanding the numbers going on to further education, by nearly a quarter of a million young people over the next three years.

    But we cannot rest content with raw numbers. I have spoken before of the need to create, through vocational qualifications, another ladder of opportunity for young people. John Patten and Gillian Shephard are looking across the board at education and training for 16-19 year olds: to ensure that in quality and relevance we equip young people with the skills for success in the twenty-first century.

    This will help to break down some of the ingrained, senseless prejudices that have directed too many able young people away from industry, commerce and manufacturing. We need to build up craft skills and practical training, as well as enterprise and business initiative.

    Harold Macmillan once said: “Exporting is fun”. Maybe; but in the competitive world of the 1990s, it is also very hard work. Government can’t export for business; but it can help to open doors. And that is the sixth strand in my strategy to help build up our manufacturing base.

    In Europe, we have created a Single market of 340 million people – the biggest in the world. But that is not enough. The world is our market; and we will continue to work hard for the successful completion of the world trade talks, because this will bring down tariffs on British goods, protect British inventions and open new markets for British services too.

    In the Autumn Statement, Norman Lamont helped by providing extra export credits. And when I went to India recently, I took a group of top British businessmen with me – a practice I hope to repeat on other visits. Together, on the same trip, we secured some key orders in the Middle East: Challenger Tanks in the afternoon in Oman; and Tornados in the evening in Riyadh.

    The Government will do all it can to help industry fight its battles for Britain. But I know where the real credit lies behind every success: with the businessmen, the engineers, workers at every level in the companies concerned. Together, Government and industry can make a reality of my ambition – to see more of what matters made in Britain.

  • PMQT – 9 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Roger Moate : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Sir Roger Moate : Does my right hon. Friend agree that to sign up to the social chapter would inflict incalculable damage on British business and hold back economic recovery? Will he confirm that he will continue to resist the social chapter and can I tell him that in doing so he certainly has my support and should have the support of everyone on this side of the House?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The social chapter would be bad for Britain. It would damage British industry, choke off foreign investment and destroy jobs. I have to say to the House that delay in ratifying the Maastricht treaty would do exactly the same thing. The treaty is in the national interest and we shall pursue it. We want to be inside Europe and outside the social charter.

    Mr. John Smith : Bearing in mind the widespread support for the Committee of the Regions to be composed of elected representatives, including support for that proposition from the Tory-controlled local authority associations, what on earth did the Prime Minister think he was doing in opposing an amendment that any real democrat should have supported?

    The Prime Minister : It was a very bad amendment and it was a very bad amendment for this reason : we made it perfectly clear in the debate that we are not against the inclusion of elected local government representatives, but there are others, including business men, who could add value to its work. That would add an element of flexibility and other partners in Europe have come to similar conclusions. Only Holland and Greece have so far made their nominations to the committee and neither of those countries has confined its membership to elected representatives.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that it was his own foolishness and obstinacy which led him to oppose an amendment which, if he had an ounce of judgment, he could have accepted months ago?

    The Prime Minister : The reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon takes that view is quite clear. He is embarrassed that he has neglected his principles yet again on this Bill. I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what this country cannot afford : the lost jobs, the lost investment and the lost influence that would be put at risk if we were seen to turn our backs on this treaty and our place in Europe, as he and his vote last night indicate that he would do.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the right hon. Gentleman a fine one to talk about delay, when he promised the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that Third Reading would be delayed until the Danish referendum? Is not the painful truth for the Prime Minister that far from being stabbed in the back, as he complains he has been, he has shot himself in the foot?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said one thing and done another on Europe time after time and in this country and, in Europe, no one will ever trust him again on this issue.

    Mr. Quentin Davies : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the police on their superb achievement in finding a major hoard of Semtex and in making a number of connected arrests? Does he agree that the defence of society against murder by terrorists is a responsibility of every man and woman and every citizen–including Labour party Members, who until now have continually refused to support the prevention of terrorism Act?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, the Labour party will soon have the opportunity to improve on that record. The Opposition have now voted against the prevention of terrorism Act on 11 occasions. Unless they vote with us tomorrow on that Act they should pipe down on crime for good.

     

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

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

    Mr. Welsh : Is the Prime Minister aware of the devastation caused by water cut-offs to tens of thousands of individuals and families in England and Wales? Will he guarantee that there will be no change in Scots law to allow any such domestic cut-offs in Scotland, particularly as part of any Tory plans to steal, privatise or franchise Scottish water? [Interruption.] It is obvious that this lot do not care, judging by the noise that they make, but we do.

    The Prime Minister : I can give the hon. Gentleman no comfort on that point. Privatisation means a better, more efficient service for the consumer and no more subsidies from the taxpayer. I have no reason to doubt that water privatisation in Scotland will be effective and efficient, as elsewhere.

    Mrs. Peacock : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1992 the United Kingdom clothing industry exported goods worth £2.25 billion, an increase of 8.5 per cent? Is not that a fine example of our first quality manufacturing industry?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. There is no doubt that the clothing industry and many other manufacturing industries have dramatically increased their exports, not least as a result of the changed economic climate and the changed management structures in so many companies.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Does the Prime Minister consider that there is any connection between the prevailing values of the nation and the prevailing values of the Government? Is not there a clear connection between record levels of crime and social breakdown and this Government, who have consistently, in every policy since 1979, appealed to personal selfishness, personal greed and looking after number one?

    The Home Secretary talks about dealing with nasty pieces of work. Is not it true that this country has been run by some nasty pieces of work for the past 14 years and that we are now having to deal with the social consequences?

    The Prime Minister : In the 1980s the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends blamed affluence for crime. These days they tend to blame unemployment for crime. When, if ever, will they blame the criminal, who is truly responsible?

    Sir George Gardiner : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from Maastricht, he enjoys the united support of this party for the Asylum Bill ; the Education Bill ; the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill ; the National Lottery etc. Bill ; with one exception, the Railways Bill ; the Chancellor’s autumn statement ; and his leadership?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right to point to huge areas of agreement and to the enormous extent to which this year’s parliamentary programme has already passed through this House and is in another place. I look forward to completing the rest of our programme, including the European [small section missing].

     

    Communities (Amendment) Bill.

    Q4. Mr. Chisholm : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Chisholm : Will the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance that, whatever else he may try to impose on the Scottish people, he will never seek to change the law which makes the obscenity of water privatisation illegal in Scotland? Will he also give an assurance that he will do not deals on that or any other issue with the Scottish National party? If he does, may we have a copy of the letter, as happened last night?

    The Prime Minister : I must say that when a really substantial deal was done between the Labour party and minority parties, it was in 1970 and it was done by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition.

    As far as water privatisation is concerned, I made my view clear a few moments ago and it will remain as I stated it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Faber : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Faber : Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest Institute of Directors survey, which shows that optimism among business directors about the future of their companies is now at an all-time high since August 1988? Does he agree that that is encouraging news for economic recovery and shows that confidence is returning to businesses, despite the best efforts of Opposition Members to talk Britain down?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right and the number of Opposition Members who were scoffing at the good news he just set out illustrates his point more clearly than anything else. The Institute of Directors survey comes on top of an optimistic survey by the CBI– [Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like that, but it is true. They do not want to know that retail sales rose 1.4 per cent. in January, that car registrations were up 16 per cent. in February and that housing starts and completions are up. They know that good news for the country is bad news for them.

    Mr. Garrett : Is not it the hallmark of a discredited Prime Minister always to say that anybody who criticises him or his policies is unpatriotic?

    The Prime Minister : Only when it is untrue.

     

    Q6. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Is not the decision of the Home Secretary to publish league tables of the relative performances of our police forces welcome, not least at a time when the Government are spending more than ever on the police and when there are more policemen on the streets? Surely the ordinary citizen is entitled to know the relative performance of his local police force.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that he is so entitled and we intend to ensure that he can. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support that and I hope that Opposition Members will not fight the right to give more information to the public in the way they have fought every other right to give more information to the public. They are in favour of freedom of information only in the abstract, not in the reality.

     

    Q7. Mr. Rooney : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Rooney : Is the Prime Minister aware that tomorrow it will be 22 weeks since the President of the Board of Trade promised to intervene before breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner? In view of his absolute lack of intervention in those 22 weeks, are we to assume that he has been on hunger strike, or has there been a military coup?

    The Prime Minister : I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been asleep for 22 weeks. Let me remind him of some of the things that have happened. There has been the autumn statement, increased capital allowances, the abolition of car tax, maintained capital expenditure, a low inflation rate, low interest rates, competitive exchange rates, pushing towards an agreement on GATT and a large number of tours abroad to sell British business. Where has the hon. Gentleman been that he has missed every one of those things?

     

    Q8. Mr. Duncan-Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Duncan-Smith : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the reports that the Holland Park school, one-time flagship of trendy 1960s educational teaching, has now started to change tack? Will he contrast that with the support it is now giving to the excellent educational reforms which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is pushing through against the rubbishy education policies coming from the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen that report, but I certainly very much welcome it. There is growing recognition that the damaging and discreditable theories of the 1960s so admired by the Opposition belong in the history books, but certainly no longer belong in the classrooms. Even the pioneers of those theories recognise that and I hope that soon everyone will acknowledge it.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1993 Conservative Central Council – 6 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1993 Conservative Central Council meeting, held in Harrogate on 6th March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yesterday this Conference paid its tribute to Nick Ridley.

    He was an original. A one-off. And whatever he did he faced the world square on and never once flinched.

    The Commons was the poorer when he left it. And the Party is the poorer for his loss.

    Mr Chairman, in the last two years events have thrown at this country everything they could.

    Abroad – we’ve had the Gulf War, the Yugoslav war, a world recession that gets worse abroad as it gets better here. There have been plans from Europe that we’ve had to water down or reject. At home we have had our share of world recession, a difficult general election, and conflicts on Europe that strike deep at the instincts of many in our Party.

    Mr Chairman, on these issues it’s right that we should have vigorous debate. When people feel strongly they should express their views. Argue their case. Fight their corner.

    But once we have taken our decisions on how to proceed, then I believe we should all support those decisions. The British people put us back in power to carry on with the full range of our policies. They gave us five years to beat inflation, create growth and jobs, improve choice, fight crime and maintain the unity of the United Kingdom.

    Mr Chairman, that is what I want to see this Party and this Government do. And I want to see us do it now – and I want to see us do it together. It is in difficult times like these that the Conservative Party most needs to be united – and to stay united.

    At the last election we had one of the biggest leads in votes ever recorded. But only a 21 seat majority – now, sadly, for the moment only 20. So these are difficult days. We no longer have a cushion of 100 seats, and those who want us to be successful know what that means. Let me say it bluntly – disunity is a luxury we cannot afford.

    Mr Chairman, none of us should forget the scale of the responsibility placed upon us. On April 9th last year, 14 1/4 million people turned to us – people of all ages, all walks of life, from all corners of Britain. Every one different. Each with their own personal hopes and fears. They all trusted us with the hard job that lay ahead.

    We must live up to that trust. That does not mean responding to every short-term whim. It does not mean avoiding difficult decisions. It does mean holding fast to the long-term course that will bring us prosperity, growth, and jobs, even in the teeth of short-term difficulties.

    Those short-term problems have often caught the headlines. But they have not prevented progress towards our long-term objectives. So let me put it all in perspective. Let me remind you of what we have done in the last eleven months – smack in the middle of a world recession.

    I’ll start with the Health Service. Remember what Labour said about health. They said if we won it would be the end of the Health Service. One year on, we have more National Health Service Trust hospitals and more GP fundholders providing better care to more patients than ever before.

    The end of the Health Service? One year on, it’s not the NHS that’s falling apart; it is Labour’s scares that have fallen apart. Remember that truly disgraceful election broadcast? That was the one in which Robin Cook predicted the end of the NHS. Well today the Health Service is moving on – and Robin Cook has been moved on. Out on his Jennifer’s ear – and deservedly so.

    As hospitals have become self-governing – running their own affairs – so have schools. Over 500 have chosen the new freedom to become Grant Maintained. They have moved out of the hands of local authorities and into the care of governors and parents.

    And we’re promoting subject teaching in primary schools – so much more important than vague topic work and generalised themes. So it’s maths, geography, science and history lessons. And putting emphasis right from the start on standard English and on the 3Rs.

    That, Mr Chairman, is the right Tory agenda – and we have put it in place in the first year. We’re supporting good teachers and putting the spotlight on the bad. Publishing the exam results of every school.

    Mr Chairman, those results should never have been hidden in the first place. Now we’ve brought them into the open. And they will never be hidden again.

    And, one more thing, Mr Chairman. When we talk of publishing the facts, I must say this to those teacher unions that are threatening to boycott tests – you are wrong. Life is a test. You do pupils no good by hiding them from reality.

    To teach children what they need to know, we must find out what they don’t know. Tests are an essential part of good schooling. Tests are here to stay. And I hope the teacher union leaders get that message loud and clear from this Conference. And, before I leave education, here’s something for the history books.

    By 1996 nearly a quarter of a million extra students will be in college – the biggest expansion ever. And when they are there they won’t have to join the activities of the National Union of Students – because we are ending the NUS closed shop.

    That’s the right Tory agenda – and all in the first year. And it is not only the NUS monopoly that is going – remember Neddy, that hangover from the 1960s, that corporatist relic?

    Well, that’s gone, too. Unlamented. We have scrapped it. And not before time. We are giving new freedoms to members of Trades Unions. And new powers for every individual to act in court to stop wildcat strikes. All part of the right Tory agenda – and in hand in the first year.

    And the Tory programme to promote ownership is rolling forward, too. We have introduced a new incentive for personal pensions. One that will help millions enjoy their retirement in comfort and security.

    In housing, we are back on course for the home-owning democracy. We have a new scheme to help tenants become homeowners by treating rents as mortgage payments. We’re giving leaseholders the right to buy their freeholds. And later this spring Michael Howard and his team will launch a new campaign to spread the Right to Buy.

    That’s the right Tory agenda – this Government’s agenda. Never mind the news – that’s the reality.

    All that sounds like a full menu for a full Parliament. Yet all I have done is to give you a selection of starters. Your starters for 5, 10, 20 years, years in which we will indeed – build a stronger and better Britain.

    Fine words, you say. But fine words butter no parsnips. What about jobs? I know that the main thing so many people seek above all is a worthwhile job. That is why, from April, we will have in place the most comprehensive package to help people back to work that we have ever seen in Britain: youth training, Training for Work, Restart, Job interview guarantees, business start up schemes. Schemes that will help up to 1 1/2 million of our fellow citizens keep in touch with the world of work.

    And those schemes all have one thing in common. Every one was opposed by the Labour Party. How can they defend that? They call for help for unemployed people and then vote against it.

    We want our training schemes to lead to full-time jobs. It’s permanent jobs that people want. The only way to get people permanently back to work is to help the economy grow. To improve our skills. To promote our exports. To widen our manufacturing base. And to make it worthwhile to start new companies.

    That’s the road back to jobs. Permanent jobs. Jobs with prospects. And that’s the road we are travelling. The outlook for our economy is good. Interest rates down. Inflation down. Strikes down. Manufacturing productivity up. Retail sales up. Exports up. That’s what’s happening. And that’s the way back to work for Britain. The only way.

    The prospects for the Nineties are good. It’s been slow, frustratingly slow. But we are on our way. And don’t just take it from me. Over the next two years Britain is forecast to have the highest rate of growth in Western Europe.

    If we have confidence in ourselves others will have confidence in us. And when confidence grows jobs must follow. Some people still haven’t quite grasped the progress we’ve made.

    So let me put this way. 1954 – that’s 39 years ago, the year Roger Bannister ran the 4 minute mile – that was the last time the January inflation rate fell to 1.7%.

    And 1956 – 37 years ago, the year Jim Laker took 10 Australian wickets for 88 at the Oval and, no, drat it, I wasn’t there! – that was the last time mortgage rates for first time buyers were as low as they are, now.

    So, for goodness sake, let’s not belittle what we’ve done. Let’s not run our prospects down. Let’s leave that to the Labour Party. Day after day they attack us for ‘talking the economy up’. What a crime. What a dreadful thing to do. Trying to instill confidence.

    Well, it’s about time we got after them for talking the economy down. When did you last hear John Smith say a good word about Britain?

    And another thing, is there anyone here who’s ever seen Gordon Brown smile? No one. I thought not. Is there anyone anywhere who’s ever seen Gordon Brown smile? Is there anyone who wants to see Gordon Brown smile? And by the way, has anyone yet seen Gerald?

    Mr Chairman, there’s something else that is absolutely crucial to business confidence – the certainty that Britain will help determine policy in Europe, and not be dragged along behind a policy made by others. We should remember what we have achieved for Britain in Europe this year. We have every right to be proud of it.

    We have completed the biggest free trade area the world has ever seen. We have reformed the Common Agricultural Policy after years of squabbling. We have put a ceiling on EC spending right until the end of the century. We have opened up the Community to new members. And we are changing the course of Europe – away from centralism and returning powers to member states.

    That is the classic British agenda for Europe. It is not the federalist agenda. On crucial issues we are making sure the final say sits where it should be – right here in Britain. So let’s not fear the future in Europe. Let’s go out and shape the future of Europe. Shape a market of 340 million, where businesses can compete, export and invest wherever they like – where future generations will have opportunities we never dreamed of to work and to travel.

    And we must shape a wider Europe. That’s what we decided at Edinburgh – to bring in new member nations, first from Scandinavia and later from central Europe. And we won agreement – against all expectations – that our old friends, the Poles, the Hungarians, and the Czechs would eventually join us.

    Do you remember how as the Iron Curtain fell we welcomed them to our Party Conference two years ago? Well, we are still working on their side. And now – in time – we look forward to them joining the European Community, too – as a result of our influence.

    The present Community is but a fragment of Europe. Our long- term vision is a Europe without trade barriers, a vast continent of free democracies, from the Urals to the Atlantic and from the Baltic to the Mediterranean.

    A Europe full of trade and free of war. We won’t achieve that speedily – but isn’t that what we should work for for future generations? So let me tell you what’s at stake. I know the concerns and passions aroused by arguments over our future in Europe. I see them in the House of Commons whenever we debate the Treaty of Maastricht.

    I understand the instincts and the patriotic feelings that motivate many in our Party who have doubts about the Treaty. I understand, and share, their pride in Britain’s great past. But we have to build a great future. So let me tell you, clearly and frankly, that I believe the fears of those who resist our European policy are mistaken.

    Mistaken because they underestimate what we have achieved in our negotiations in Europe.

    Mistaken because they have failed to focus on our wider vision of Europe.

    Mistaken because if we step aside from what we have agreed there would be an enormous economic price to pay.

    There would be an immediate blow to economic recovery. International investors, who have poured money into Britain, £100,000 million in the last five years, would turn their backs on us.

    Those investors want access to the European market. And if we sidelined ourselves they would no longer be certain that that would be the case. That is why the price of standing aside from the agreement we freely made would be heavy. As Douglas Hurd told you yesterday, it would be £50 billion off our national production over the next five years. I wonder how many jobs that would cost?

    And then there is that Social Chapter – another threat to jobs. Surely no-one in this Party – for any reason – would give houseroom to that. Where we want to be is on the inside track to prosperity, and outside the grasp of bureaucracy and socialism. Inside Europe and outside the Social Chapter.

    I know our Party. I cannot believe that anyone, when they have considered all the facts, could want to let slip those opportunities before us.

    Let me tell you what I believe. To do so would be to take a conscious decision to become irrelevant in Europe. That would be a decision not only for our time, but for our children’s also. It would be the surest possible way to impoverish our country and damage our standing in the world – almost beyond repair.

    So let us put aside the fears and hesitations that hold our Party back. We may have our differences. But they are as nothing to the things that unite us.

    So let us take the chance we have today – to mould Europe in our own image. Don’t let us shirk that challenge. In a thousand years of history we never have. And we must not now.

    Mr Chairman, I want British industry to win not just in Europe, but around the world. I want a different attitude to industry at every level in this country. I want people to see that making things matters. I want more that matters to be made in Britain.

    Our exporters need to know that the Government supports them. And where we can help to open doors and free up markets we will always do so. That’s why in the Autumn Statement we committed £700 million extra to help British companies win new orders. And when our businessmen travel abroad I expect all our embassies to work with them. Cultural exchanges are fine – but I want export deals as well.

    Mr Chairman, exports are booming. Leaving the factories faster than journalists leaving the Daily Mirror. Mirror, mirror, on the wall – are there any journalists left there at all? In the battle for exports I want Government out there in the field foursquare behind our businesses.

    A few weeks ago, I spent the morning in India, lunched in the desert in Oman, and had dinner in a palace in Saudi Arabia. And that day, as a result of months of effort by business and Government working together, we won orders for British goods worth billions and safeguarded thousands of jobs. These days there are no easy exports. The world is too competitive for that. More competitive than ever before.

    Those countries that once were captive markets are now manufacturing themselves or challenging us as rivals. The countries on the Pacific Rim have developed massive industries of their own. China is set to become a huge manufacturing power in the century to come. Against that background, we need to help British companies carve out a bigger place for Britain. But before we export, we have to manufacture. And we have to manufacture quality.

    That’s why we need to build up craft skills and practical training in every part of Britain. End once and for all that senseless prejudice against the best of our brains going into commerce and industry. That prejudice is damaging – and we can no longer accept it.

    Mr Chairman, by helping business I don’t mean artificial subsidies to industries. I mean setting the right economic structure for business. I mean pursuing the right policies for business. I mean having the right curriculum in our schools. I mean reforming vocational training. I mean lifting burdens from the back of businesses.

    Of course, we need some regulations. But there are people in Brussels, in local councils and, yes, in Whitehall who seem to have a mania to hold back the future in a mesh of pettifogging detail.

    So I have told every Department of State: scrap unnecessary regulation. It’s a simple message. Red tape means lost jobs. And that doesn’t only apply to large companies like ICI. It applies to the smallest businesses and local services too.

    You know what I mean. Health and safety enthusiasts bent on eliminating every conceivable – and inconceivable – risk. Local councils badgering good nursery schools when they’d be better employed helping them.

    The food safety people who tell us that what we’ve been eating for generations will certainly kill us if we don’t stop instantly. Well we’ll certainly die a good deal sooner if we do stop eating instantly. Mr Chairman, it’s all gone way over the top. Well, I’d rather it went in the bin.

    Isn’t it barmy? Would Drake have been in time to meet the Armada, and would Nelson have made Trafalgar, if an inspector had been on hand to say ‘Hold everything – we haven’t checked the ship’s biscuits!”

    Mr Chairman, I said earlier that one of the reasons we were elected was to keep up the fight against crime. Vandalism; burglary; car theft. Crimes against property; crimes of violence; crimes involving drugs.

    The fear of crime lies deep in the instincts of law-abiding people. They find it hard to understand how others move outside the law, careless of the interests of their neighbours, preying on the property of others, even threatening their lives. I said last week that we need to understand less and to condemn a little more. That was not a simple cry for retribution.

    My point was this. Unless society sets rules and standards and enforces them, we cannot be surprised if others flout them. It’s true we mustn’t exaggerate the problem. Compared to many others in the world, Britain is still a safe country.

    But those who point to that and say ‘do nothing’ are wrong. I say to those people: even if the problem here is smaller, it’s still far too big. And every single victim of crime in this country will agree with that.

    That’s why this Government has done so much to step up crime prevention and crack down on crime. There are too many violent offences – that’s why we have increased penalties against them, especially for those thugs who go out carrying firearms.

    There is too much drug dealing – that’s why we’ve taken powers to confiscate the assets of those who sell drugs and wreck the lives of young people. There have been too many lenient sentences – that’s why we’ve given the Attorney General power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal. And one final example – it is intolerable that some offenders charged with a crime go out and commit another while they’re on bail. I want to see those further offences reflected in the sentences they receive.

    Mr Chairman, there can be no doubt about where this Party stands in the fight against crime. And no doubt about the support we have given to those who fight it. We have given our police forces better pay and more resources than any Government in history. Now we must help them get even better results in everything they do. That is why we are now reviewing the effectiveness and the organisation of British police. I want our police to the most modern and the most efficient crime-fighting force in the world.

    Mr Chairman, the issue of crime runs deep. To catch and to punish is to deter. But we want to prevent crime too. So we must go to the roots of why some young people do what they do. Too many children have been denied the proper guidance they need in their own homes and schools. Of course, the authority of the family comes in here.

    And, yes, the churches – they may have a legitimate role to criticise, but they certainly have a role to play. And there’s another factor that goes right home in every sense. And that’s too much violence in videos and on television. What we watch is the single biggest influence on many people’s thinking.

    We’re an open society. We can’t censor television. But we can say to parents – control what your children watch. And we can say to those who make and distribute films and videos – think whether a relentless diet of violence won’t have a serious effect on the young. And we can say to television programmers – don’t just be careful when you show it, be careful what you show.

    Mr Chairman, Government alone cannot change behaviour. Concepts of right and wrong are something for all of us. But there are some things Government can do – and we will.

    First, truancy. It is stark staring obvious to me that if children are staying out of school, they are not learning what they should be and they are probably learning what they shouldn’t. For too long the facts on truancy have been hidden by a conspiracy of silence. So from this autumn in our new league tables we will make all schools publish openly their levels of attendance.

    We will find out where the problem is worst. We’ll target it and tackle it. I want our children in class. Not in trouble. And, Mr Chairman, we are taking another step. This morning Ken Clarke told you about his new proposals to set up secure centres for that hard core of youngsters who go on offending and reoffending, devoid, it seems, of any sense of fear or guilt about what they do.

    Some say we shouldn’t respond. They say it’s a relatively minor concern. I don’t agree. I say that not to respond would be a double dereliction of duty. A dereliction of duty to the public at large. And, worse, a dereliction to those children. Because we let children down if we don’t set boundaries and enforce them. For their own good and for the good of their communities we must take those persistent young offenders off the streets.

    It is a clear-cut idea, carefully worked up over these last few months, targeted directly at an obvious gap in the law. How strange – but how very revealing – that in a matter of minutes it was condemned out of hand by the new model Labour Party. When I heard that, it sounded just like the old unreconstructed Labour Party to me.

    When the test came they failed it – so let’s give them another chance. We’ll set them another test. Eleven times in all Labour have voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I find that unbelievable.

    And so, I suspect, do the people in the battle against terrorism who are putting their lives on the line to protect the lives of others. Terrorism is the biggest crime of all. So for Labour let it be the biggest test of all. So no hedging, no weaving, no messing about. Let them vote with us next week – or pipe down about crime.

    Mr Chairman, I’ve reminded you of some of the things we have done in these last few months – and set out some of our plans for the future. As always this Party is a reforming Party. And as a nation we need to reform. Because we live in a rapidly changing world. Change can be frightening. We must manage it carefully. Nurture it to our national advantage. Our watchword is – to hold on to the best of the past and to create the best for the future.

    Mr Chairman, last March it was at this Central Council that we launched the General Election campaign – the election that no-one thought we could win. We took our message to every part of our country. It was the roughest, toughest campaign for years. But we won it.

    And how did we win? By sticking to our principles. By keeping our nerve. By standing together. And, above all, by staying together. United. That’s how we won – and that’s a lesson we must never forget.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Polish Prime Minister – 3 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Polish Prime Minister, Mrs Hanna Suchocka, held in London on Wednesday 3rd March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good afternoon! I have been delighted today to welcome the Prime Minister to Downing Street. It was not the first time we have met but we were able to carry our discussions a good deal further both bilaterally and in terms of Poland’s relationship with the European Community.
    We had the opportunity this morning to look at a whole range of issues. I was delighted at the outcome of the Edinburgh Summit which agreed for the first time that in due course Poland will become a full member of the European Community. We discussed this morning some of the ways towards achieving that. The Prime Minister briefed me on the economic programme and I was able to congratulate her on her success in getting an extremely difficult budget through Parliament. I was also able to confirm this morning that we will be happy to continue our assistance to Poland through the Know-How Fund and through other areas of bilateral assistance. I was also able to confirm that we were content to transfer the money that was available to the Polish Stabilisation Fund to go directly to help the Polish banking system become established and that was an agreement we made this morning. I am happy to confirm it and I hope it will be satisfactory and assist the Polish banks firstly to establish themselves securely and secondly to prepare for private ownership in the future. This was a continuing illustration of an ever-growing and closer relationship with Poland. I look forward to our trade relationship continuing to grow. It has grown quite substantially. The Prime Minister will be addressing the CBI tomorrow and I have no doubt she will have investment and the growth of trade very high on her agenda for that occasion. She is a very welcome guest and I am delighted to invite her to say a few words to you.

    MRS. SUCHOCKA:

    Thank you, ladies and gentlemen! I would like to confirm the words that have been spoken by Prime Minister Major. The most important topic that we have discussed during the meeting this morning is the change to eventually Poland’s full membership of the EC as well as bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and the Polish Republic. We have also spoken about the utilisation of the Stabilisation Fund for the restructuring of the Polish banking system. In this regard, we have received the confirmation of Prime Minister Major’s Government that these funds can be used for the purpose.

    Another topic that has been raised pertained to the access of Polish products to western markets. One of the conditions for that was the passing of the Polish budget. The budget has now been passed and we would very much count on the United Kingdom in moving Poland from a high-risk group in terms of credits for exports to a risk group that is more favourable. This would definitely be very conducive to the development of foreign investment in Poland. These talks pertaining to trade relations are very important for my country. I would also like to recall, using this opportunity, that Poland is the UK’s largest trade partner in central and eastern Europe.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, was there talk about the calendar and specific conditions that Poland should meet on its way to becoming an EC member and will you be still promoting Poland during the Copenhagen meeting in June?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to the second question is undoubtedly yes. We have made no secret for some time that we look forward to the day when Poland can become a full member of the European Community. That is why we promoted that particular course at Edinburgh, that is why we are keen to enhance the existing relationship between Poland and the Community, why we believe that there need to be a number of steps between now and full membership.

    Full membership is a few years away because there is a great deal of development necessary for the Polish economy in the interests of Poland because Poland will be subjected to the full rigour and force of competition in the Community once she becomes a member.

    The answer is clear: Yes, we want Poland to become a member; yes, we wish to assist Poland to become a member; and we hope we can take progressive steps towards that during the rest of this decade.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter that really needs to be discussed with the whole of the European Community and I think that is being discussed in the Community. It is not a matter that is settled yet. The problem does not especially lie in the United Kingdom, as you know.

    QUESTION:

    [In Polish, but regarding credit guarantees].

    MRS. SUCHOCKA:

    Yes, we have discussed that. A final answer can come after completion of negotiations with the London Club and only upon the conclusion of those negotiations can we have a full response to the question of medium- and long-term credits.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Major, you assert that Poland is not really ready to be exposed to the rigours of the free market. On the other hand, I understand Polish diplomacy complains about not being given free access of their own goods to western markets. Isn’t this a bit contradictory?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it really is contradictory when you look across the whole of the economic sector but I have some sympathy with the demand that the whole of Europe should open its markets more and the Prime Minister knows that is my view.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, could you expand on your view that pessimists are running down Britain, say who they are and respond to the Opposition who say it is about time you got in touch with what was going on in the real world where unemployment is [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set all this out this morning in a speech. There is nothing to add to that. It is perfectly clear in the speech.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Maastricht – 19 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Maastricht, made in London on 19th February 1993.


    [The Prime Minister was asked about Maastricht and the Conservative MPs who weren’t backing the Government’s policy]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t know what is in other people’s minds as to motives. I do know that if we are to be genuinely concerned about our future prospects, about the growth of the British economy, about jobs in the British economy and about everything that goes with that, we need to have an influential position in Europe. If we were to become isolated outside the European Community or isolated inside the European Community but without influence, it would do immense damage to our business, our commerce, our prospects for growth and our prospects for jobs.
    Maastricht to some may seem an obtuse treaty but what marches alongside that particular Bill is our influence in the European Community, our position to help determine the regulations of the European Community that affect our industry and our commerce and our prospects and we simply cannot turn our back on that if we are genuinely concerned about having the right economic structure for growth in this country. It isn’t just a question of one Bill; it is a much bigger question than that.

    There are some people who wish we were not in the European Community and honestly say so – I think they are wrong. There are other people who say: “well of course, we would like to be in the European Community of a large number of nations but we would like everything to be as we would wish and not as they would wish!” they are unrealistic.

    There are other people in the debate who really do not face reality at all and it is necessary to face the reality of what is right for our economy in the medium- and the long-term. Could it possibly be right for us to lose influence and let them set regulations that would affect our country, our industry, our commerce without us having allies in Europe that would enable us to frame those regulations in a way that is relevant to us? If we isolate ourselves, we may not be able to do that so what they are saying is leave the Community. What impact do they think that would have on our living standards in this country and our political, industrial and commercial influence? In two or three years time, people would be saying, when the impact of losing that influence in Europe or leaving Europe had struck home: “what on earth were people doing that they didn’t look at the effect that all this would have on our living standards?”

  • PMQT – 16 February 1993

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “spiv business man employing a sharp lawyer”.

    — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

    United Nations

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

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

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

    Mr. Gallie : What about Rosyth?

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

    Mr. Gallie : What about Rosyth?

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Cryer rose–

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

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

    Madam Speaker : Mr. Patrick Thompson.

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd February 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    India

    Ms. Walley : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had during his visit to India concerning human rights abuses in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I raised British concerns about human rights in Kashmir with the Indian Prime Minister. He assured me of his Government’s commitment to respect human rights and determination to take firm action against wrongdoers.

     

    Democracy

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward proposals for an elected second chamber.

    The Prime Minister : No.

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s progress towards improving democracy in the United Kingdom since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : We have implemented policies approved by the electorate in four general elections.

     

    Lord Chancellor’s Powers

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward a transfer of functions statutory instrument under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 to transfer the legal powers of the Lord Chancellor to a Secretary of State for Justice in a Department of Justice; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Transfer of Functions Orders

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1975 Her Majesty’s Government have used transfer of functions orders to abolish, create or amalgamate Government Departments.

    The Prime Minister : Twelve. They are :

    1976/1775 Established the Department of Transport

    1979/907 Created the Office of Arts and Libraries

    1979/1451 Dissolved the Ministry of Overseas Development

    1981/207 Office of Arts and Libraries merged with Department of Education and Science

    1981/1670 Civil Service Department changed into Management and Personnel Office

    1983/879 Office of Arts and Libraries became a separate Office

    1983/1127 Departments of Trade and Industry amalgamated into Department of Trade and Industry

    1987/2039 Management and Personnel Office changed into Office of the Minister for the Civil Service

    1988/1843 Department of Health and Social Security split into Department of Health and Department of Social Security

    1992/1311 Department of National Heritage established

    1992/1314 Department of Energy dissolved

     

    Family Policy

    Ms. Walley : To ask the Prime Minister what action he proposes to co-ordinate family policy across those Government Departments actively concerned with family policy.

    The Prime Minister : We already have proper and adequate co-ordination of family policy across Government Departments. There is frequent consultation between Departments about a range of issues which touch upon the family. In addition an interdepartmental working party–the family law and administration working party–oversees a rolling programme of work directed at improving family law and business.

     

    Moscow (Communications)

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the discussions between his security officials and Russian officials over the installation of a secure communications line to Moscow during his recent visit to India.

    The Prime Minister : Given the close proximity of the two visits and the fact that we were both staying in the President’s residence, it was necessary to discuss Mr. Yeltsin’s communications requirements with both the Indians and the Russians. Arrangements acceptable to all concerned were agreed.

     

    Intergovernmental Conference

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for submission to the 1996 intergovernmental conference.

    The Prime Minister : It is too early to say. The first priority is to ratify the Maastricht treaty and put it into practice. Then we will be able to build on the gains won at Maastricht–subsidiarity, inter-governmental co-operation, codification of competences–in the years between now and the next treaty revision.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st February 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Maastricht (Social Chapter)

    Sir Russell Johnston : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the amendments and additions to the social chapter of the treaty of Rome proposed by the social chapter of the treaty of Maastricht to which Her Majesty’s Government do not assent.

    The Prime Minister : The social chapter of the treaty of Rome will remain entirely unchanged after ratification of the treaty on European union. At Maastricht I made it clear to our Community partners that I was not prepared to accept treaty changes to the social chapter which would have increased industry’s costs and jeopardised the jobs of British employees.

    On this basis the United Kingdom will continue to play a full part in sensible Community action on social affairs and to resist measures which would prove damaging to British industry.

     

    India

    Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister what representations were made to him during his visit to India about the proposals of his Government to remove the right of appeal from visitors refused leave to visit the United Kingdom from India.

    The Prime Minister : The Indian Prime Minister and I discussed our proposals and I was able to explain to him the reasons for our proposals.

    Mr. Galbraith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the industrialists who accompanied him on his visit to India and the companies they represent.

    The Prime Minister : The names are as follows :

    Sir Brian Shaw, ANZ Grindlays Bank plc.

    Mr. Roger Mabey, Bovis International Ltd.

    Mr. Richard Evans, British Aerospace plc.

    Mr. Norman Davis, British American Tobacco Co. Ltd.

    Mr. Robert Evans, British Gas plc.

    Mr. Norman Hawkins, Cadbury Schweppes plc.

    Mr. Patrick MacDougall, Chartered West LB Ltd.

    Mr. G. Douglas Gadd, GEC Alsthom Ltd.

    Mr. Richard Reynolds, GPT Ltd.

    Mr. Brian Baldock, Guinness plc.

    Mr. Philip Daubeny, ICI plc.

    Mr. Andrew Cummins, Inchcape plc.

    Mr. Graham Hadley, National Power plc.

    Dr. Terry Harrison, Rolls Royce plc.

    Mr. Philip Hills, Samual Montagu and Co. Ltd.

    Mr. Peter Grant, Sun Life Assurance Society plc.

    Mr. Howard Davies, Confederation of British Industry

    Mr. Rooker : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he took to raise concerns expressed by British citizens at the destruction of the Babri mosque during his recent visit to India; and what was the response.

    The Prime Minister : During my recent visit to India, I had a long discussion with the Indian Prime Minister about the situation in India following the destruction of the Babri mosque. I also restated our support for the principles of India’s secular democracy, rule of law, tolerance and protection of minorities.

     

    Terrorist Attacks

    Rev. Martin Smyth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of co-operation between the British Army and the authorities of the Republic of Ireland in dealing with terrorist attacks launched from within the Republic of Ireland.

    The Prime Minister : There is very effective co-operation between the security forces in Northern Ireland and those in the Republic of Ireland. Both Governments recognise the importance of keeping existing measures under review, and that further improvements can be made wherever practicable.

     

    European Year of Older People

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what benefits he expects to accrue to pensioners in the United Kingdom from the European Year of Older People launched on 25 January.

    The Prime Minister : The Year will bring lasting benefits for older people in the United Kingdom, and I was particularly pleased to welcome the initiative during our presidency of the European Council. In collaboration with many organisations we are managing a substantial programme of initiatives, connected with the initiative, focusing on four main themes : combating ageism, volunteering, health promotion and active leisure, and social and environmental integration. The programme is designed to secure the involvement of older people themselves, professionals who work with them, and the general public. I hope that many people will play a part. The outcome will be improved understanding between the generations and an increasing recognition of the vital part older people have to play in our society.

     

    Cabinet Committees

    Mr. Trend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish an updated list of ministerial standing and ad hoc committees of the Cabinet.

    The Prime Minister : All the ministerial Cabinet Committees I listed in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 19 May 1992 at column 110 are still in existence. In addition one Standing Committee and one ad hoc group have been established, and their membership and terms of reference are given below. Copies of the revised list, which includes minor revisions to the membership of existing Committees, are available in the Library of the House.

    Ministerial Committee on Public Expenditure (EDX)– Composition

    Chancellor of the Exchequer (chairman)

    Secretary of State for the Home Department

    President of the Board of Trade

    Lord Privy Seal

    Lord President of the Council

    Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

    Chief Secretary, Treasury

    Terms of Reference

    “To consider the allocation of the public expenditure control totals and make recommendations to the Cabinet”.

    Ministerial Group on Refugees from Former Yugoslavia (GEN– 24) Composition

    Secretary of State for the Home Department (chairman)

    Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

    The Lord President of the Council

    Secretary of State for the Environment

    Secretary of State for Wales

    Secretary of State for Social Security

    Secretary of State for Scotland

    Secretary of State for Education

    Secretary of State for Health

    Secretary of State for Employment

    Chief Secretary, Treasury

    Attorney General

    Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Minister for Overseas Development)

    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office

    The Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will also receive papers and be invited to attend as necessary.

    Terms of Reference

    “To consider whether a visa regime should be instituted for citizens of former Yugoslavia in the context of the Government’s overall policy towards that region and to review the practical arrangements for the reception and subsequent support of those arriving in the United Kingdom from this area taking account of the implications for the treatment of refugees from other parts of the world, and to report to Cabinet.”

     

    Queen (Tax)

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will report on the up to date position regarding the tax arrangements for the Queen.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 29 January 1993] : Discussions are continuing between the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and the royal household. I will make a statement shortly about the arrangements for the tax year commencing 6 April 1993.

  • PMQT – 19 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th January 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Sir John Hannam : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the social chapter, which he skilfully negotiated out of the Maastricht treaty, would destroy investment, business confidence and jobs in this country? Is it not therefore the greatest hypocrisy to support such a damaging measure while at the same time claiming to care for the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. When I negotiated Britain’s exemption from the social chapter I seem to recall that I was accused of making Britain a paradise for foreign investment. I hope very much that that proves to be true. The reality is that the Opposition disagree about that. The truth is that they are hostile to industry and do not understand business. Until they drop their commitment to the social chapter they cannot also claim to be seeking lasting jobs.

    Mr. John Smith : On that very subject, is the Prime Minister aware that of all the Prime Ministers we have had since the war, he has the worst record for growth, the worst record for investment and the worst record for jobs? Is he not ashamed of such a miserable record?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a fine one to talk about records. His record as shadow Chancellor lost Labour a record fourth election precisely because he proposed record tax increases.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not note that he failed completely to deny that he had the worst growth record, the worst investment and the worst employment record? Since there is anger throughout the country [Interruption] –I hope that Conservative Members will not treat unemployment flippantly. Since there is growing anger throughout the whole country at rising unemployment why does the Prime Minister not agree to put a windfall profits tax on the excess profits of monopoly privatised companies and use the money to create jobs?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman also forgot to mention another record of mine ; the record for bringing down inflation so that we can recreate lasting jobs. The fact is that what we just heard is the old Labour party speaking ; the party of the 1960s and 1970s. They hate profits. They would rather have nationalised industries making losses than privatised industries making profits. They cannot stand firms being successful and they do not understand that firms need profits to provide investment, to provide growth, and to provide jobs. That is why their record in government has always been one of complete and record failure.

    Mr. Smith : Can the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the country why it was all right for a Conservative Government to introduce an excess profits tax on banks in the first recession but now to oppose an excess profits tax on the privatised utilities? Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that every pound of these excess profits and of managers’ fat salaries has come from the British people? Is not it time that they got some of it back to create jobs for them and their families?

    The Prime Minister : I am quite happy to educate the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that, since he clearly does not understand. In the early 1980s interest rates were raised sharply to control inflation. At that time, the banks did not pay interest on current accounts. As a result of that, they genuinely made windfall profits. That was why the Government taxed them. The utility tax that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. I cannot hear the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : Labour Members do not like understanding reality ; they do not like it at all. The fact of the matter is that the utilities are already regulated. If they make excessive profits, the regulator can change their pricing formula, and he has already changed BT’s from RPI minus three to RPI minus 6.25–real price cuts for consumers, which we never saw under a nationalised industry. That is why the appropriate policy is tough regulation, not 1960s artificial control.

    Mr. Sims : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shares the widespread concern about the collapse of criminal proceedings against a couple whose daughter died a violent death because they invoked their right to say nothing. Is he aware that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has details of 10 similar cases? Whatever the arguments may be for or against the right of silence in cases generally, is not there a strong argument in favour of reviewing its application in cases where children have been cruelly treated or even killed?

    The Prime Minister : I cannot, of course, discuss the particular case raised by my hon. Friend, but I understand the concerns that he expresses. Decisions on whether to prosecute are entirely for the Crown prosecution service. My hon. Friend may know that the right to silence is one of the matters being considered by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. I would not wish to anticipate its report.

     

    Q2. Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay : Will the Prime Minister give the reason for the rising and record levels of unemployment in Essex–a county which includes my constituency of Thurrock and, of course, the betrayed people of Basildon?

    The Prime Minister : I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that is very clear about unemployment : it will fall as a result of this Government’s policies. That is what he had better understand.

    Mr. Couchman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ironic indeed that in the very week when the Leader of the Opposition produces a phoney budget for jobs the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is seeking to destroy 140,000 Sunday jobs, which are vital to many families in this country?

    The Prime Minister : On this and other issues the reality is that Labour policy is inconsistent. It changes not only from election to election but from week to week. Not long ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) proposed the biggest tax increases in peace time. Nine months later, he said categorically that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should not increase taxes in the Budget, but 10 days later he calls for a windfall tax.

     

    Q3. Mr. Rooker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Rooker : Can I ask the Prime Minister if, until unemployment starts to fall, he will make it part of his political strategy to assist the unemployed by easing the rules on social security benefits so that those unemployed people who have household responsibilities and who are in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s can genuinely take advantage of opportunities to improve their education and training rather than, as at present, be penalised if they study too much or lose their homes if they have household responsibilities? For a very small investment in people, we could have a huge return for the country.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman makes a point which is well worth considering, and in the past we have looked at some matters related to it. This is the sort of matter which we are prepared to examine. The hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience in social security that there is significant help, for example, with mortgages, and he will also know the additional help that is being given to people towards training and studying.

     

    Q4. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning trendy, mixed ability teaching– [Interruption.] Opposition Members are products of it–which has so damaged the education of millions of children since the 1960s? [Interruption.] I hope they care. Are not moves to return the teaching of children to traditional methods just plain common sense? Is it not now also time to end trendy teacher-training methods?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is a distinguished former head teacher so I particularly welcome his remarks. I agree that the way forward is to return to the basics of education, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education said yesterday that we had plans to strengthen primary education. I am sure that we are right to look carefully also at getting the teaching methods right. Common-sense, practical teaching which puts good teachers in front of good children is undoubtedly the right way to improve our education system.

    Mr. Ray Powell : Is it not fair that when an hon. Member is named or mentioned in a Prime Minister’s question the Member involved should have the right to reply? I respect and thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Give the hon. Gentleman a chance to put his question.

    Mr. Powell : Obviously, the Prime Minister, as with a lot of the policies that he has presented to the House, is misguided and is misrepresenting facts. The question that he was asked regarding a Bill that I will present on Friday

    Madam Speaker : Order. I must now call the hon. Gentleman to order. I am looking for a very direct question to the Prime Minister, right away.

    Mr. Powell : The Bill is an all-party Bill supported by five of the Prime Minister’s colleagues. It is not a Labour party Bill and therefore the Prime Minister should correct the answer that he gave just now.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, be a firm advocate of his own Bill in a few days’ time. I can tell him that in due course my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will bring proposals to the House and will give it a series of alternatives upon which to make up its mind on this thorny issue.

     

    Q5. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Field : Does my right hon. Friend welcome the publication of the highway code today ? Will he ensure that copies are made available to Opposition Members, some of whom seem to be stuck on a roundabout, uncertain as to which exit to take, while others seem intent on overtaking their leaders on the inside, while we on the Government side look forward to a major road ahead?

    The Prime Minister : I should like, if I may, to try to respond to that testing question. I very much welcome the publication of the new highway code. I am bound to say that it does seem to me extremely important that the Leader of the Opposition perhaps should study it. He might learn, after his proposals this morning, that he should not signal right when he is turning left.

    Sir David Steel : Will the Prime Minister clarify the support that the Government give to enforcement action against Saddam Hussein? Is it correct that that support will be given only as long as the action is in accordance with international law in agreement with our coalition partners and involves the minimum necessary use of force?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that that has been the position thus far, and it is our position, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Defence Secretary set out the other day.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 January 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th January 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scottish Constitution

    Mr. Home Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the people whom he has consulted in connection with his stocktaking exercise about Scotland’s constitutional position.

    The Prime Minister : I have had frequent opportunities to hear views from people of all political persuasions and from many backgrounds, including the church, the law, business, academic life, the arts and the media.

     

    India

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister which cities he intends to visit on his next visit to India.

    The Prime Minister : I shall visit Delhi as a guest of the Indian Government on republic day on 26 January. I shall also visit Bombay.

     

    UN Population Conference

    Mr. Worthington : To ask the Prime Minister (1) in which country the United Nations conference on world population will be held; and on what dates;

    (2) what proposals the Government have to involve relevant non-governmental organisations in preparation for the 1994 United Nations conference on world population;

    (3) what proposals the Government have to enable (a) relevant non-governmental organisations and (b) hon. Members to attend the 1994 United Nations conference on world population;

    (4) which Government Department is to be responsible for the 1994 United Nations population conference.

    The Prime Minister : The international conference on population and development will take place in Cairo from 5 to 13 September 1994. A decision will be taken shortly on which Government Department will also take prime responsibility for United Kingdom preparations for the conference. The Government will make proposals shortly for how hon. Members and relevant non-governmental organisations might be involved in the preparations.

     

    Committee of Permanent Representatives

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to apply the decision to improve transparency in the activities of the European Council to the availability to Parliament of (a) the minutes of COREPER and (b) proposals prepared by COREPER for the Council prior to their consideration by the Council.

    The Prime Minister : There are no such plans.

     

    EC Monetary Reserve

    Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister why the European Council in Edinburgh concluded that the EC’s monetary reserve should be halved between 1994 and 1995; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The decision was taken in the light of the recent reform of the CAP, which involves a shift away from price support towards direct payments to producers. That should make CAP expenditure progressively less susceptible to the impact of fluctuations in the dollar/ecu exchange rate.

     

    EC Agriculture Spending

    Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister why the European Council concluded on 11-12 December that agriculture spending by the EC would fall between 1993 and 1994; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The figures to which my hon. Friend refers are those for the agricultural guidelines in constant 1992 prices. The guideline is calculated in real terms by up-rating the 1988 baseline figure by 74 per cent. of the estimated growth in real Community gross national product (GNP) between 1988 and the year in question. This calculation takes place when the Commission submits its preliminary draft budget. For 1993, therefore, the guideline was calculated in May 1992. Subsequently, the estimate of Community GNP was revised downwards. Although the decision was too late to affect the 1993 figure it will be reflected in the guideline for 1994 and thereafter. The estimate for the guideline for 1994 to 1999, used by the European Council in its future financing plans, takes account of this latest information.

     

    European Environmental Agency

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements were agreed at the Edinburgh summit for the siting of the European Environmental Agency.

    The Prime Minister : It was agreed at the European Council that the siting of the European Environmental Agency will be decided by common agreement between member states at a forthcoming European Council, giving appropriate priority to member states who do not at present provide the sites for Community institutions.

     

    Edinburgh Summit

    Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if section A (Citizenship) on page 5 B of part B of the “Conclusions of the Presidency” in Edinburgh was designed by the Council to apply to all member states.

    The Prime Minister : The section referred to by the hon. Member was designed to meet Danish concerns but it represents an interpretation of the provisions of the Maastricht treaty relating to citizenship of the union which was agreed by all member states and is true for all of them.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what procedures he proposes for ratification of the inter-governmental agreement reached at Edinburgh on Danish qualifications to the Maastricht treaty.

    The Prime Minister : The decision does not require ratification.

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on how Her Majesty’s Government propose to implement the decision set out at paragraph 7 of the Edinburgh declaration on the conclusions of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council to increase public investment in decision-making.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom will work closely with other members of the Council, the Commission and Parliament to ensure that the measures on transparency agreed in Edinburgh are put into practice as soon as possible.

    Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister why the European Council in Edinburgh concluded that there should be no increase in the provision of loan guarantees between 1993 and 1999; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Edinburgh European Council endorsed the conclusions of the ECOFIN Council in October that the Community’s growing international responsibilities had led to an increase in the level and scope of lending to non-member states backed by guarantees on the EC budget, and that considerations of prudent budgetary management and financial discipline called for the establishment of a new financial framework, including an appropriate form of provisioning. The European Council accordingly agreed that a guarantee fund should be established, with a target size of 10 per cent. of the Community’s outstanding liabilities arising from external loans and guarantees ; and that this should be financed by a reserve in the financial perspective not exceeding 300 million ECU in each year from 1993 to 1999 (in 1992 prices), from which payments would be made into the fund in proportion to the value of new loans agreed. This framework will be sufficient to allow continuing significant levels of new lending to non-member states guaranteed on the EC budget.

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the names of the persons signing their names as plenipotentiary of each relevant state to the inter-governmental decision relating to Denmark at the European Council meeting in Edinburgh.

    The Prime Minister : The decision relating to Denmark was not signed. This does not affect its character as an agreement binding in international law between the parties to the treaty on European union on how certain of its provisions are to be interpreted and applied.

     

    Princess of Wales

    Mr. Hoyle : To ask the Prime Minister what advice he received from sources outside the Government concerning the constitutional position of the accession to the throne of the Princess of Wales, before making his statement to the House of 9 December.

    The Prime Minister : The advice which I took on this matter is confidential.

     

    Gambling

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will describe the process by which concerned people can contribute to and respond to Government ideas on maintaining, abolishing or changing the restrictions on stimulation of gaming or gambling.

    The Prime Minister : The processes are the same as those for any other aspect of Government policy. As necessary, the Government issue consultation documents on particular aspects of the gambling controls. In addition, interested parties may at any time make their views known direct to Government or via Members of Parliament.