The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Social Chapter

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Turin – 29 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference, held in Turin on Friday 29th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I should first apologise for the absence of the Foreign Secretary, but he has gone to the start proper of the intergovernmental conference.

    The discussions that we have had today have really been the tale of two topics: firstly, the intergovernmental conference, the agenda and the way in which it will develop; and secondly the current problems that exist as far as beef is concerned. Let me take those two issues separately and tell you what has been happening and the view that the United Kingdom government has taken.

    I will start, if I may, with the intergovernmental conference. I am very pleased at the outcome of the discussions that we have had today, and in particular the fact that we have agreed a non-prejudicial agenda that gives Britain a free hand to pursue her objectives of developing Europe as a partnership of nations.

    I think it is clear that the mandate that has been set is one that is satisfactory to all nations and will enable us to pursue the objectives set out in the white paper that we published just a few days ago.

    If I can pick out some of the elements from the agenda. Quite a lot of support, notably from Germany, on the subject of subsidiarity. We need also to look at the role of national parliaments, the working of the European Court of Justice and the re-weighting of qualified majority voting. I made it clear again this morning that Britain sees no case whatsoever for any extension of qualified majority voting. I very much welcome an agenda that sets these discussions in the IGC in the context of the challenges the European Union faces.

    I also made it clear this morning that as we look at the future development of Europe, we are going to have to tackle the situation that has arisen under which social measures are effectively brought in by the back door using the health and safety article of the Treaty, Article 118A. If Europe is to develop in a spirit of trust and cooperation, I think we have to act in good faith and it has long been our position that we believe that particular treaty head has not been used in the way it was originally intended. We agreed that health and safety provision in 1985 on the understanding that it would deal with matters of genuine health and safety affecting workers. What we have seen, most recently of course in the opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court on the interpretation of the working directive, we don’t agree with the remarks of the Advocate General, we don’t think that article should be a basis for action on working conditions that go beyond health and safety. That was not our understanding when we signed the article, it wasn’t our understanding when I reached the agreement on the Social Protocol at the Maastricht Treaty.

    So I made it clear this morning that this is a matter that we will have to turn to afresh in the intergovernmental conference. I reached agreements at Maastricht, and we reached agreements on the health and safety article before, that must not be undermined and must be kept in good faith. And I think it will be extremely difficult if we are unable to reach agreement on that in the intergovernmental conference. I indicated this morning that I would be looking in the IGC for changes to Article 118A so that it reflects our earlier understanding of its limited scope. And the reality is that if old agreements are to be re-interpreted, it is difficult to see how we can reach new agreements in good faith. But I think it was overall a very constructive exchange of views this morning.

    Both this morning and over luncheon we spent some time discussing the current problems in the beef industry. I set out this morning, and again over lunch, why some of the actions over the last week perhaps have made the problem worse. But we spent most of the time looking at the problem as it is today and how we actually deal with the problem for the future. We have already taken a number of steps to protect consumers and support the market.

    I should emphasise at the outset that the scientific advice that we have is that beef is safe, safe for us, safe for other people, safe to eat. That is the view of the scientists. But the collective hysteria that we have seen over the last few days has raised a great question-mark in the minds of consumers of beef. And the principal issue that we now have to address is how to restore confidence in the mind of consumers rather than the specific action on health, for I repeat we believe that British beef is safe.

    I think, and said to colleagues, that we need now to do three things. Firstly bring about the conditions in which the ban on British beef exports can be lifted, and lifted speedily. The United Kingdom has been meeting today, the Agriculture Minister has been meeting in Brussels today to try and identify with the Commission a package of measures that would enable the Commission to recommend lifting the ban.

    I would hope, if agreement is to be reached, and some progress has been made today, talks will continue and I anticipate an agriculture meeting on Monday. Providing agreement can be reached I would hope partners would feel able to accept the Commission’s recommendations. And if that is the case, I hope colleagues will give appropriate guidance to their Agriculture Ministers when they meet on Monday. But I emphasise, the talks are proceeding, they are not yet concluded, they are likely to continue over the weekend, it is likely to move into an Agriculture meeting on Monday.

    The second question we must address is the specific problem of the beef market, the beef market across Europe and the beef market in the United Kingdom. There was a universal recognition amongst our European partners today that this is not just a United Kingdom problem. This is a problem for the beef market across Europe. Consumption of beef has dropped in the United Kingdom, it has dropped here in Italy, it has dropped in France, it has dropped in countries right across the European Union. So we all have a collective communal interest in restoring confidence to the beef market, and also restoring the confidence of third markets to European beef as well as British beef. And that was the universal view of the colleagues that I have had discussions with today.

    We have agreed that we need to look at the language of reassurance. I think everyone recognised that panic measures merely breed more panic. The scientific facts speak for themselves. British beef is safe, European beef is safe, and safe for the consumer on any normal definition of that term. And might say, for those people concerned about British beef, the Meat Hygiene Organisation that has responsibility for monitoring that have their own officers, in some cases more than one officer, in each and every slaughterhouse across the United Kingdom. And every slaughtered carcass is examined by someone from the Meat Hygiene Office, and I made that point very clearly to my colleagues this morning.

    The last few days have left quite deep scars of course in the beef industry, quite deep scars in the United Kingdom and problems in other countries as well. Healing them is going to take some time, but I think we have made a good start today and I anticipate that my colleagues will have had something to say about that at their own press conferences.

    In the discussion we had after luncheon, I was extremely reassured by the attitude taken by our European partners. There was support, without any qualification, from across the board amongst our European colleagues, support not just in a general sense but an indication that there would be support where necessary in a financial sense as well for the costs that will be incurred in dealing with this problem.

    There was a recognition that communal action is necessary to restore confidence and I think all colleagues took on board the fact that as soon as we have agreed a package it will be crucial to restore confidence, not just in the United Kingdom, but across Europe, that that confidence is sufficient to lift the ban that was placed on British beef earlier this week.

    So I think we have had some very constructive and worthwhile discussions today. I am grateful to my colleagues for the way in which they entered into those discussions, and I think we have set a good basis for carrying those talks forward over the weekend and into Monday.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister, we understood that Mr. Santer was suggesting that as soon as the Veterinary Committee has looked at and approved your measures then they would be prepared to lift the ban. Is that your understanding, that all they will really need to lift the ban is to be certain that you are taking the sort of measures which are acceptable to the rest of the Community?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is what the President of the Commission would like to see, I think you have interpreted his views correctly but of course, the Scientific Committee is composed of vets from the national countries and they will presumably have to make a recommendation to the Commission for the Commission to lift their ban so I very much hope that can happen speedily but I think we must wait and see what the attitude of the Veterinary Committee is. I believe there would be no justification for keeping the ban once we have reached agreement on a package that is acceptable to our European partners; I very much hope that will prove to be the case.

    QUESTION (John Kampfner, Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, you have criticised the speed with which the ban was imposed and you have spoken of collective hysteria. Do you believe there was any broader political motive in the minds of certain people, certain countries, certain institutions in the speed with which they imposed the ban?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t make that criticism. The reality is that the ban has an impact across Europe as well as here. One of our European partners made the point over lunch that his country had beef in a ship waiting off-shore that they wouldn’t take on-shore – not British beef but beef from another European country – so the reality is that the ban has impacted upon the confidence in beef not just from the United Kingdom but right the way across Europe and I think that point is recognised as a European problem and that is why everyone has a direct interest in dealing with it speedily and comprehensively and showing that Europe has confidence in Europe’s beef so that the rest of the world can have confidence in Europe’s beef as well.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, The Guardian):

    Prime Minister, I wonder whether you were in a position to indicate, in however general terms, to your colleagues the scale of the costs which could be involved in these measures that have been prepared over a number of years and whether in your opinion, roughly speaking, a 50-50 distribution of those costs is the ball park of the discussions that are taking place and whether the whole affair hasn’t led you to think again about the merits of the Common Agricultural Policy bearing in mind only a few weeks ago the Government was saying that the Committee didn’t need so much money for the beef intervention fund.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I don’t think it has changed our general view on other matters and neither is it going to change the negotiating position of the United Kingdom or other countries in the inter-governmental conference. There are quite separate matters: there are questions of policy which are matters of principle between the member states and they will continue as they were before and here we have an emergency that has existed across Europe in other guises in the past; a number of countries – Belgium, Germany – mentioned the earlier problems there had been with swine fever and the extent to which the European Union accepted a communal responsibility and that is what our partners have indicated they will do on this occasion.

    As to the scale of the problem, I don’t propose to put figures to it at this particular meeting. I do have a broad indication of figures, the President of the Commission indicated he did too and chose not to give them at the moment. I think we need to do a little more work upon that so I don’t propose to give you any particular figures.

    As to the division of costs, of course the costs arise in different ways. Some things arise under European Union programmes and in that case part of the cost will be met by the European Union, part of it by the United Kingdom, part of it gets docked out of the United Kingdom rebate, there is a clear-cut and well-established mechanism and there are other areas that are for national cost and some where the European will share the cost. It is not possible at this stage to put a proportion to it.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Prime Minister, do you still believe some of the costs could have been avoided if they hadn’t tried to put the ban on so rapidly and do you think there have been any lessons learned by your European partners about how this was handled?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think our European partners were responding to a collective hysteria that broke out across Europe; they will express their own views. They will have seen the general views expressed for their public in their own countries and they have expressed some views about that; no doubt they will do that in their own particular press conferences and I will leave it for them to make their own points.

    The fundamental point that is clear and is immensely distressing for the beef industry right the way across Europe – never mind just the UK – is that the view of the scientists was, is and remains that beef is safe, by any normal recognition of the expression beef is safe and yet because of the alarmism that spread across Europe, the people who are the consumers of beef lost confidence in the fact that beef is safe. The fact that that happened we can all look back to last week and attribute the blame in different directions but at this moment perhaps it is not particularly productive to do so. We could all look back and do that, so can you; you all know where to place your own version of the blame but the fact that this got out of control has now created a crisis that need not have been anywhere as large as it has become. There was a problem, it was a problem that I think could have been overcome with rational and sound judgement and appropriate measures – it spiralled out of control. I think all of us have lessons to learn about that when look at beef or health scares of any sort in the future whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

    One of the points made by more than one of my colleagues in discussion was that this particular health scare arose over British beef. Tomorrow’s health scare or next year’s health scare might arise in another European country and I hope all of us will learn lessons over how to try and damp down unnecessary hysteria.

    The first point always must be a secure position on public health. Nobody can deny making public matters that relate to public health, that is proper and we did that but I think we must try and see how we can avoid this collective hysteria in future.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, is the slaughter of the elderly animals which you have now decided will not be allowed to go into the food chain under active consideration and be part of the package which is considered by the Agricultural Ministers on Monday?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are looking at a range of issues at the moment in Brussels. Those talks are going on, George, as we speak so I don’t want to give out more information on them but there is a range of issues under discussion including that.

    QUESTION (Sarah Holmes, The Independent):

    Prime Minister, do you hold out any hope that the ban might be lifted as early as Monday or at least early next week?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t tell you the answer to that, I don’t know the answer to that. That will be a matter that will be decided after the agricultural meeting no doubt by the Standing Veterinary Committee who will make their own recommendations; it would certainly be my hope that it would be lifted speedily.

    At this stage, we have several ingredients to deal with before we get there: firstly, we need to reach an agreement with the Commission; secondly, that needs to be acceptable to the member states; thirdly, we need the Agriculture Committee meeting and then we need to see what the Standing Veterinary Committee have to say but I do think it is in the interests of everyone to make sure that we reach a circumstance in which this ban can be lifted speedily because nobody should be under the misapprehension that this ban just ring-fences a problem in British beef – that is not the case. Whilst this ban remains, it is going to be seen by the whole of the world outside Europe as a problem for European beef and I think to that extent everyone has an interest in this problem being solved speedily so whether Monday or not I can’t tell you, as soon as possible I certainly hope so.

  • PMQT – 7 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Stephen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a person who has committed a serious violent or sexual crime on two or more occasions must never be allowed to do it again? Does he accept that that is the overwhelming view of all our constituents, who are sick and tired of dangerous criminals being let out, to offend again and again, by out-of-touch judges, some of whom sit in the Court of Appeal?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point forcefully. Our aim is to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals. We are concerned to ensure that, for example, repeat rapists are not released from prison if they remain a danger. At present, that can happen, and it is a matter of concern to the public. On those grounds, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is right to proceed with his proposals.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity categorically to deny the lunchtime news reports that the Government are considering taking away all employment rights from millions of people who are employed by small businesses?

    The Prime Minister: We shall have some things to say on Monday about small businesses, but they will certainly not include what was the reported on the news at lunchtime.

    Mr. Blair: Can we–[Interruption] The proposal, as people will know, was made by the Deputy Prime Minister. Can we take it from the Prime Minister’s answer, which I thought was clear, that that proposal is gone, and dead and buried?

    The Prime Minister: I thought that I made the point clear to the right hon. Gentleman a moment or so ago. We shall be announcing a number of very attractive policies on Monday, but I have to tell him that that is not one of them.

    Mr. Blair: I congratulate the Prime Minister. The proposal was made two days ago, and now it has been dropped. We welcome that. Since we already have the President of the Board of Trade’s letter referring to the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter, can the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter be published so that we can see what other proposals have been made and whether they, too, are to be denied?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will see the proposals clearly because we shall announce them on Monday. They will be very attractive. I think that small businesses will welcome them. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that small firms create the vast majority of new jobs. They have done so for years past and they will do so in future. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am glad to hear that I carry Opposition Members with me.

    There can be no employment rights if there is no employment. We are seeking to maintain a fair balance between the rights of employees and the burdens on employers. We are therefore proposing to reduce or remove unnecessary burdens. [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] I am interested that Opposition Members would like to keep unnecessary burdens. No wonder that in every socialist Government throughout Europe, unemployment increases.

    Opposition Members would like to retain unnecessary burdens. I would like to get rid of unnecessary burdens, and I would welcome some support for that from the Labour party. Clearly, there is no support for that from the Labour party; burdens it likes and burdens it would wish to have.

    Sir Marcus Fox: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the opting out of a single currency is of supreme importance to the country? Would it not be damaging–

    Hon. Members: Reading.

    Madam Speaker: Order. Sir Marcus.

    Sir Marcus Fox: Would it not be damaging if other countries ignored this criterion? May I suggest with hope to my right hon. Friend that the issue of a single currency, if introduced, would be one on which we should hold a referendum?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear to the House on previous occasions that I believe that a referendum on joining a single currency could be a necessary step. My position has not changed. I still believe that it might be the right course. At present, the Government are considering the circumstances in which a referendum might or might not be appropriate. We shall tell the House of our conclusions as soon as we have reached them.

    Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister’s rather different answer to the last question of the Leader of the Opposition, does he agree that we shall never build or strengthen the small business sector by encouraging employers to adopt a hire-and-fire mentality and treating employees as scrapheap labour?

    The Prime Minister: No one is seeking to do that. The right hon. Gentleman should know better than that. We are encouraging a hire mentality. That is why unemployment has fallen while it is rising in other countries. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order.

    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what would create a fire mentality among small and large employers–the sort of burdens that would accumulate under the social chapter, which the right hon. Gentleman would like. Included would be the burdens that would be accumulated under a minimum wage policy, which, again, the right hon. Gentleman would like. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he has a policy change to make, we shall be pleased to hear it. Labour’s plans for a minimum wage could destroy thousands upon thousands of jobs, as would the social chapter, and both policies are supported by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government are creating jobs, and the Opposition parties’ policies would destroy them.

    Mr. Barry Porter: In view of the depressing statement by the Provisional IRA yesterday, where do we go from here?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the proposals that I set out the other day were perfectly clear. Sinn Fein has the opportunity, provided that there is a ceasefire and that it meets the other criteria, of joining in the democratic debate. If it fails to take that option, the debate will not stop. The debate will continue with the constitutional parties. I believe that that is the right way in which to proceed. Were we not to proceed with just the constitutional parties, we would have permitted the IRA to stop the constitutional process. I am not prepared to do that and neither, in my judgement, is any of the constitutional parties.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mrs. Campbell: Is it fair that Camelot is now able to pay out less than £10 to a player with three correct numbers? Bookmakers have to meet their obligations, so why should not the lottery operators do the same out of their obscene profits?

    The Prime Minister: The operators have to meet their obligations. The chances of someone winning the jackpot are much greater than the chances of not being paid £10 for three numbers, as Oflot itself set out this morning. The hon. Lady should know that it was Parliament that decided that the lottery should be administered by an independent regulator. The hon. Lady’s party was very keen that that should be the case. The hon. Lady shakes her head. I think that I recall that the Opposition voted that it should be dealt with by an independent regulator. It is for the director general of Oflot to consider how to protect players’ interests. That is what he has done. She should direct her question to him.

    Mr. Lamont: In the run-up to the intergovernmental conference, would the Prime Minister like to congratulate the European Commission on the success of its “Interfere in Britain” week? Should the first prize go to the European Court of Justice for its ruling on fishing or to the attack on the brand of Cheddar cheese, or should the golden fleece go to the European Commission’s astonishing dawn raid on the Football Association’s headquarters? Does the Prime Minister agree that there was never a truer word spoken by the European spokesman yesterday than when he said:

    “We are talking millions of footballs”?

    The Prime Minister: I must say to my right hon. Friend that I did not see that remark. I am rather sorry that I did not. I shall have the opportunity of discussing those matters with the President of the Commission later on this afternoon.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Gunnell: Has the Prime Minister seen the published explanation of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for his reluctant vote with the Government on the Scott report, in which he says that he voted because the Prime Minister personally told him that the Ulster Unionists had held a gun to his head and that losing the vote would damage the peace process? Is that true, and, if so, does it square with the Prime Minister’s pledge to keep the peace process in Northern Ireland completely separate from intensely controversial issues here at Westminster?

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear from the outset that I shall deal with the peace process on its merits. I believe that that is the way that it should be dealt with–on its merits. That is the way it has been dealt with so far; that is way it will be dealt with in the future. I certainly have not seen any such newspaper reports.

    Mr. Renton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm, with regard to the important speech that he made in Hong Kong on Monday, which has given new confidence there in these last 500 days of colonial rule, that Britain has no current immigration problems with Hong Kong and that the 3 million people who already have visa-free access to this country abide by the rules? They come here as students, tourists or business men and they do not wish to settle here.

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that to my right hon. Friend. In fact, in total, 1.2 billion people already have visa-free access to Britain. We have had no problems whatsoever with visa-free access from Hong Kong and I do not believe that there will be any in future. One of the principal reasons for taking this decision was to provide more assurance to people in Hong Kong, because I believe that such assurance will make it even more likely that they will remain there and continue to ensure that Hong Kong is a success in the future.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Hall: Is the Prime Minister aware that he spoke for the whole nation when he endorsed Chris Patten as the next leader of the Tory party in opposition, because he acknowledged that there was nobody in his Cabinet with leadership potential?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had read what I actually said, he would know that that was not it. In fact I said:

    “There are a number of colleagues with outstanding ability”,

    and I am delighted that that is so. What upsets the hon. Gentleman is the fact that there is nobody with outstanding ability on the Opposition Benches.

     

    Q6. Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Sir John Hannam: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of his far east tour. Does he accept that it is far better for this country to secure future jobs for British workers than to keep up the continuous carping criticism expressed by the Opposition parties?

    The Prime Minister: What was most striking about the conference in Bangkok was the extent to which growth in the far eastern economies provides business and trading opportunities for this country. I think that many people throughout Europe have utterly failed to realise the sheer size and scale of the change that has taken place across Asia, and the opportunities that are provided as a result. During my visit, a number of business deals were struck between companies here and companies in the far east, and I very much hope that there will be more. Such deals provide jobs, security and prosperity for people in this country.

  • PMQT – 13 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 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. Turner: Will the Prime Minister accept from me that the national health service is holding together at this moment only because of the dedication and good will of its professional staff? In Wolverhampton, beds and wards have been closed, staff have been made redundant, and accident and emergency services have been closed dozens and dozens of times in recent months. May I assure the Prime Minister that the good people of Wolverhampton do not regard the health service as safe in his hands?

    The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman chooses this day of all days to make that old charge. As was announced yesterday, the number of patients facing waiting times in excess of one year has fallen yet again. There are now only 20,000 people waiting more than 12 months. Five years ago, the figure was 187,000. People are getting treated quicker, better and more comprehensively at all levels in the health service than ever before. It is about time that Opposition Members–I do not mean only the hon. Gentleman–realised the tremendous advances made in the health service by doctors, nurses and administrators in the treatment of people from one end of this country to the other.

    Sir Giles Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware, from The Mail on Sunday, that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) was persuaded to vote against the new clause IV relationship on the ground that it was only a change of words?

    Hon. Members: Oh.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask the Prime Minister a question on a matter for which he has responsibility.

    Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the change in words with which the hon. Member for Dundee, East disagreed was typical–[Hon. Members: “Order.”] Does my right hon. Friend agree that a change in words often disguises a change in meaning?

    The Prime Minister: I do not regard the hon. Member for Dundee, East as the only voice of the Labour party, but I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct: we are increasingly learning that we get a different Labour policy depending on which Labour Member writes it.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister agree to the request that has been made by Members of Parliament on both sides of the House–and now, very strongly, by Sir Richard Scott–that the Scott report be published at 2.30pm rather than 3.30pm on Thursday? Members of Parliament will then have an opportunity to study the report before commenting on it.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the way in which the Government, or our predecessors, have conducted business in the House. The proposed arrangements are in line with the usual practice of publishing a report and making it available to hon. Members at the same time. The Government have arranged for there to be a debate, in Government time, 10 days after the publication of the report. Hon. Members will therefore have time to absorb and to understand the report and will be able to speak to it with knowledge rather than with ignorance–which is what Labour Members have done for the past three years. There will be a full and open debate on the report.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has relied on precedent. I suggest that a report containing 1,800 pages and of this complexity is almost without precedent. Ministers having a report for eight days before anyone else is also without precedent. The campaign to discredit the judge who conducted the inquiry–before the report has been published–is also without precedent. Will the Prime Minister reconsider the request? The refusal to allow Members of Parliament this facility, on the day that the report is published, effectively disables them and prevents them from holding the Executive to account and discharging their duty both to Parliament and to the country.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken, and he knows that. The Government will answer questions about the Scott report on the day that it is published, and we will debate it when all hon. Members have had time to study it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a campaign to discredit the report before it is published. That campaign has come from the the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party. Without a single scruple, time and time again, the Labour party has made it clear what it believes will be the outcome of a report that has only just been concluded. If anyone has prejudged the report, it is not the Government but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues–and the right hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case.

    Mr. Blair: Does not what the Prime Minister has just said–in a ridiculous attempt to blame Opposition Members–underline why we should have the Scott report early, so that people can comment on it? In the interests of proper parliamentary democracy, will not the Prime Minister reconsider hon. Members’ request, especially as it is backed by the inquiry judge?

    The Prime Minister: As for the Government having had the report, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the House will expect my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to be at the Dispatch Box to answer questions, quite properly, put by the House when the report is published. That is why the Government have the report in advance. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that has been the position under both Conservative and Labour Governments for as far back as he may care to remember. He is trying to twist public opinion before the report is published, just as his hon. Friends have done for the past three years. The report will soon be published, and Labour Members will have to consider the issue on the basis of fact.

    Dr. Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the privatised utilities are such a good investment that, while slagging off British Gas and Yorkshire Water, a group of Labour councils in West Yorkshire–notably Leeds, led by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett)–were investing £170 million of their pensioners’ money in those companies? Is that not a classic case of saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the unions on making a successful investment. I live in hope that the day will yet come when the Opposition recognise that, if they talk about the virtues of the market, they ought to support private ownership, not attack it on every conceivable occasion as they have been doing.

    Mr. Ashdown: Leaving aside for a moment the interests of the House, will the Prime Minister at least consider the interests of his civil servants? How can it be right that Ministers, who can defend themselves in public, have eight days in which to read this 1,800-page report and prepare their defences, while civil servants who are criticised may not get even six hours?

    The Prime Minister: Let me explain what has been agreed, so that I can remove the misunderstanding from the right hon. Gentleman’s mind. At present, the report has been made available only to Ministers or civil servants who need to see it in order to help to prepare the Government’s response to questions in the House–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and listen to the answers.

    The Prime Minister: That is the fact of the matter. Other Ministers and former Ministers and civil servants have not had access to the report. That is how the matter has been dealt with; it is an entirely proper way to deal with the report–we have dealt with it entirely properly.

    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no plans to introduce a parliament in Edinburgh? It would leave Westminster Scottish Members with very little to do, because most of their business would be devolved; so they would become part-time, and should probably be paid part-time. They would also avoid paying the tartan tax, because they would be based in London.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. The advocates of a Scottish Parliament among the Labour party who live in London would not themselves have to pay the extra tax that would be levied on everyone else living in Scotland. I can certainly confirm that we have no plans for such an assembly, or for such a tartan tax, or to allow Scottish Members to vote on matters in Scotland on which English Members cannot vote, and then to permit Scottish Members to come to the House and vote on similar matters for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that, were anyone to introduce such plans, that would be the most blatant gerrymandering of the constitution that we have ever seen.

     

    Royal Docks

    Q2. Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit the royal docks.

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

    Mr. Spearing: When the Prime Minister does visit the royal docks, will he also visit the adjacent Silvertown fire station, whose crews joined their colleagues in Millwall on the Isle of Dogs at the tragic incident on Friday? Does he know that crews at both stations, not to mention the inhabitants of Docklands, face the prospect of having the two appliances at each station reduced to one? Does he recall that his name appeared at the top of a successful motion at 10 o’clock last night, calling on local authorities to exercise their freedoms responsibly? If he were charged with denying them those freedoms, because of the policies of the Government towards the public services, what would he say?

    The Prime Minister: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we require councils to exercise their freedoms and opportunities responsibly, but there must also be fallback powers for when that does not happen:

    “we believe there must be fall-back powers to enable central government, in extreme circumstances, to protect council tax and business rate payers”.

    Mr. Spearing indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: I was quoting a Labour policy document, so I am sorry to see that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with it.

    When looking at the royal docks area, the hon. Gentleman might also like to look at the dramatic improvements there: the 5,000 new homes and the 2 million sq ft of commercial property. The whole area has been revolutionised by policies that we have followed but many of his colleagues have opposed.

     

    Economic Indicators (Lichfield)

    Q3. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister what recent analysis he has made of economic indicators and their effect on Lichfield; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Lichfield has benefited fully from the Government’s policies, which have given this country the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years and the longest period of low inflation for 50 years. Unemployment in my hon. Friend’s constituency has now fallen by some 40 per cent. from its peak.

    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lichfield is not only a beautiful cathedral town but a centre for light industry? Is he further aware that people in Lichfield will be heartened by the report in The Times today which showed that the average net take-home pay of production workers in France, Italy and Germany is now less than that in the United Kingdom? Is that not because we have consistently refused to enter into an agreement on the social chapter? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under a Labour Government, workers would suffer, because the Labour party’s idea of negotiating in Europe is rather like the Trustee Savings bank–it is the party that likes to say yes?

    The Prime Minister: They certainly were very startling figures to set out what net take-home pay will purchase, which was the basis on which they were done. That stands in stark contrast to the claims of a sweatshop economy about which we so often hear from the Labour party. It is no coincidence that those figures were achieved. Business is attracted by flexible working practice and low cost–precisely the benefits that would be wrecked by the social chapter as it is and by the social chapter as it would be if any Government were to sign up to it in this country. This Government will not.

  • PMQT – 7 November 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th November 1995. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Unemployment (European Union)

    Q1. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the implications of the level of unemployment in the EU.

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    I can confirm that employment and unemployment in the European Union will be on the agenda for the next European Council in Madrid in December.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend insist that the Council gives urgent attention to the forgotten army of 18.5 million unemployed in the European Union, a total which has soared by 5 million in the past three years? In particular, could he tell our friends in France, who are at present creating extra unemployment on top of a 12 per cent. total by setting artificial exchange rates, that they could learn a great deal from Britain, which escaped from the exchange rate mechanism and the social chapter and has found that unemployment has been falling ever since?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a most valuable contribution, particularly when he points out that this Government will not accept the social chapter, and neither will we impose the overheads of a minimum wage on the competitive manufacturing base that we have here today. The whole House can welcome the fact that unemployment in this country is down by 713,400 since December 1992.

    Mr. Hutton: On the subject of unemployment within the European Union, does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise it as a fact that, since 1979, the United Kingdom has had the third highest unemployment rate within the European Union? When will he drop the damaging dogma of his party and start to work with our European partners to tackle the scandal and the waste of almost 20 million people unemployed in Europe?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is very convenient for the hon. Gentleman to choose 1979, when we had to start the process of undoing the stranglehold that the trade unions had on the British economy, of privatising the industries that are now leading the British recovery across the world and of creating in this country the enterprise centre of Europe, all in the teeth of Labour party opposition.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is travelling to New Zealand to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most significant vote last night was that passed by 587 votes to two, which bans paid advocacy, which was the recommendation of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life and went further than the Nolan committee, and contrasts sharply with the sheer stench of trade union-sponsored humbug on the Opposition Benches?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in pointing out the justification for the determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to set up the Nolan committee so that the House would have an opportunity to deal with the matter of restoring public confidence in the House. It was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who ensured that such matters were thoroughly and comprehensively considered. The work was carried out by an independent committee. As a result, the House was able to pass by an overwhelming majority the far-reaching change to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and the Prime Minister were completely out of step with public opinion in wanting to keep the outside earnings of Members of Parliament secret? Does he share my sense of outrage that some Conservative Members are already making it clear that they will not observe the decision of the House? Will he make it clear that that would be totally unacceptable to him and the Prime Minister?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman raises a most important question for the House. I can say unreservedly on behalf of the Prime Minister and myself, since he asked me specifically, that both of us believe that it is right for all right hon. and hon. Members to enter into the spirit of the letter of the decisions taken yesterday evening. That was the will of the House. As to what the House should determine to do in the event of any right hon. and hon. Member not making such a decision, that is properly a matter for the House of Commons.

    Mr. Prescott: In view of his reply, will the right hon. Gentleman now ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his rejection of Labour’s proposal to refer the funding of political parties to the Nolan committee? Is it not time that the Prime Minister came clean on where his party gets his money, or has the Tory party got something else to hide?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Of course, we all know that the Opposition want to pass the cost of party politics on to the taxpayer. They want one-track Members of Parliament with no outside interests and who are totally beholden to the party Whips, with all the draconian centralisation of power that that would represent. That would be a wholly alien development in the constitutional history of this country.

    Mr. Prescott: Why cannot the public know where the Tory party gets its money? Who has paid for a knighthood? Who has bought a peerage? And which foreign business men have bankrolled the party, fleeing the country? I ask him again, what has his party got to hide?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is up to the sort of sleazy politics characteristic of the Labour party. The fact of the matter is that his party has sold out hook, line and sinker to the trade unions–it always has. He is the first person to complain that he has to ring up trade union leaders to ask their permission before he takes a simple decision on behalf of the Labour party.

    Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however hon. Members may have voted in the Divisions last night, those who seek to gain party advantage from the issue simply demean the institution that they claim to honour?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, but he characterises the Labour party in too generous terms. It is undermining the credibility of this House by constantly criticising the performance of a tiny number of right hon. and hon. Members. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who come into this House are motivated by the highest standards of public service.

    Mr. Beith: Now that the House has made an important decision, with the votes of hon. Members in all parties, on the conduct of Members of Parliament, would the Deputy Prime Minister move the agenda on to the other things that would make Parliament more relevant to the lives of people, such as electoral reform–because that would make far more difference to the lives of people than even the decisions we made last night–or will he do as the Prime Minister did last night and attach his cause to the side which in the end will lose?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Member may see that as moving the agenda on; I would regard it as moving it back into a wholly unacceptable dark age.

     

    Social Chapter

    Q3. Sir Ralph Howell: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to rewrite the social chapter of the EU.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rejected a new social chapter at Maastricht because it would have reduced competitiveness and destroyed jobs. The Government will not accept it, or anything like it, at next year’s intergovernmental conference.

    Sir Ralph Howell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the fact that the social chapter has few friends in the House except on the Labour Front Bench, would it not be constructive for the Government to produce a more acceptable alternative social chapter? Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister urge the Government to make the Right to Work Bill the cornerstone of that new social chapter to eliminate involuntary unemployment and save £5 billion per annum in this country alone?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend brings a particular expertise to this subject and there is a great deal to which we should listen in what he has to say. I know that he will welcome the introduction of the earnings top-up scheme, which is designed to help people move into and stay in work without the burden of a minimum wage, and he also will look forward to the introduction next year of the jobseeker’s allowance.

    Mr. Keith Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the absence of the social chapter, Britain has the longest working hours, the fewest holidays, the poorest pensions, the lowest wages and the highest levels of job insecurity of all the leading nations of Europe? Which of those facts does the right hon. Gentleman deny, and do they not explain why the British people are longing for a Labour Government with our promise to bring in the social chapter?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman does not recognise is that Britain has one of the fastest falling levels of unemployment and one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. What he threatens by his proposals is that the flood of inward investment coming here, not only from north America and Asia but from Europe itself, would come to a halt if Labour threw away the competitive advantages that our economy possesses.

     

    Engagements

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

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Alexander: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that tomorrow the new Gas Act is likely to receive Royal Assent? I remind him that, by opening the market to competition, new entrants are likely to come in and that standing charges in that industry are likely to be a thing of the past in a couple of year’s time. As standing charges are widely resented by the elderly and those on fixed incomes, will he urge British Gas and the other utilities to start abolishing those charges now, before competition and a change in the law oblige them to do so?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the privatisation programme, and that includes British Gas, has, of course, been a triumph for British consumers. The fact is that competition has cut prices for gas consumers; standing charges are down by 29 per cent. since privatisation; gas prices are down by over 20 per cent. since privatisation; and the legislation to which my hon. Friend referred has already led to the possibility of experiments in the south-west. I read in this week’s newspapers that perhaps another 10 to 15 per cent. will come off the prices to the domestic consumer as a result of that enhanced competition. What that all stands for is that the Conservative Government, by privatising these industries, have not only created world-class companies but served the consumer in a way that nationalisation could never have begun to do.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Roche: Given that, in the United States of America, it is illegal for foreign nationals to make donations to political parties, why do the Government not introduce the same legislation here? Are the Deputy Prime Minister and the whole of the Conservative Government frightened to let the British people see how the modern Conservative party is funded?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I know of no restriction in this country that says that foreign nationals who are members of trade unions cannot give money to trade unions, which is then directed to the Labour party.

    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if investment is to thrive, costs must be kept down and business taxes kept low? Does he therefore agree that it would be a disaster for investment, and therefore for our prospects for growth and employment in the future, if the Labour party were able to implement its plans to allow local authorities to fix their own business rates?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Labour party in power has always put up costs, prices and taxes. Whether it is a national Labour Government or local Labour government, the same process is at work. In either case, it would be a disaster for Britain’s investment potential.

     

    Q6. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jones: Will the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister when he returns what is the precise role of the Deputy Prime Minister? It seems to be costing £40,000 a month for the Deputy Prime Minister to answer even fewer questions than his right hon. Friend.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Just the other day, people were complaining because I had brought £1 billion of Siemens investment to the north-east. I think that I am cheap at the price.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the 1995 Welsh Conservative Party Conference – 9 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Welsh Conservative Party Conference, held in Llangollen on Friday 9th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Bosnia

    Mr Chairman, I’d like to turn first to the remaining Royal Welch Fusiliers – and the Royal Air Force military observer – still being held hostage in Bosnia.

    That is where the thoughts of many people in Wales will be until they are safely home.

    Of course, we’re all relieved that so many of their colleagues have now been released unharmed.

    But let us be clear. These are impartial peacekeepers who should never have been seized in the first place.

    To hold just one hostage, just one peacekeeper – let alone dozens – is despicable.

    No reputable army would have contemplated doing it.

    The leaders of the Bosnian Serbs know that they will be held personally responsible if they let any harm befall our men.

    They should release them unharmed.

    Release them unconditionally.

    And release them immediately.

    Mr Chairman, I spoke this morning to the Commander of the First Royal Welch Fusiliers in Gorazde, Colonel Jonathan Riley.

    Let me tell you about the vital work the Fusiliers are doing.

    One company of the Fusiliers is at Bugojno – a base in Central Bosnia I visited last year.

    There British soldiers helped to establish a ceasefire between the Muslims and the Croats 15 months ago.

    The Fusiliers are making that ceasefire work.

    They and their colleagues are patrolling 140 miles of the old battle lines.

    They are helping former enemies to live together, work together, and rebuild their lives – in peace.

    Just a few months ago people there were killing each other in their thousands.

    Today, thanks to British and other United Nations soldiers, across a large area fields are being planted and children are playing safely and happily.

    In Gorazde, where three companies of the Fusiliers are stationed, there are about 45 thousand people.

    United Nations agencies have been supplying them with food and medicine.

    But Gorazde is now under heavy bombardment. Serb artillery is ranged against a large force of Bosnian government infantry.

    But the Welch Fusiliers are facing these difficulties with great determination and are in good spirits, as Colonel Riley told me.

    Let me give you just one example of the work the Fusiliers have done.

    On 23rd May, a little over a fortnight ago, two of the Fusiliers’ armoured cars were escorting an aid convoy.

    They came under heavy fire from the Bosnian Serb army. They fired back in self defence – as is their right.

    Their vehicles were hit, but they came away without casualties.

    On its way back, the patrol stopped to help a heavily pregnant Bosnian woman – and the Royal Welch Fusiliers delivered her baby and took mother and child to safety.

    Mr Chairman, life in Gorazde for the Royal Welch Fusiliers is arduous, uncomfortable and at times dangerous.

    But they have done a superb job.

    And I believe we should be very proud of them.

    I want the UN forces in Bosnia to be able to go on doing their job, so long as they are not facing unacceptable risks.

    We have a clear duty to save lives and prevent mass slaughter in our own continent.

    Yet there is an even stronger reason for us to have our troops there.

    There are war memorials across Wales and throughout the United Kingdom bearing the names of the millions who died in World Wars which began in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.

    In the years before 1914, and again in the 1930s, Britain paid a heavy price for the mistaken view that events hundreds of miles away had no importance to us.

    By the time we learned that we could not turn our back on the fate of fellow Europeans, it was too late.

    So the British troops who are in Bosnia today are upholding a vital national interest – the preservation of stability in Europe.

    But while they are there they must have all the protection we can give them in discharging their duties.

    That is why the Government has decided to send reinforcements to Bosnia.

    It was a hard decision.

    But I am sure that it was also the right decision.

    One thousand men – an armoured engineer squadron and two artillery batteries – are already on their way.

    And I can confirm today that, as soon as details are finalised with the United Nations, over 5,000 men of the 24th Air Mobile Brigade will be deployed to Bosnia.

    They will form half of a new UN Rapid Reaction Force at the disposal of General Rupert Smith and his fellow commanders.

    They will provide additional protection for UN forces – and our British troops – so that they can defend themselves. And so that they can respond more robustly if they are attacked.

    But I must make this clear: British troops are not there to fight a war.

    It is possible the warring parties might make their job impossible.

    And, if they do, we might be forced to withdraw those troops. I don’t want that to happen, but it could.

    That would have dire consequences for everyone in Bosnia and grave risks for the whole region.

    Mr Chairman, that is why we should give our total backing to our forces.

    We ask much of our young soldiers.

    They are performing magnificently.

    And they should know that this Government will do whatever is necessary to provide them with the protection they need and the security they deserve.

    The Nation

    Mr Chairman, the Conservative Party has always had a strong vision of the right future for our country.

    Throughout the last twenty years we have set the agenda for Britain.

    The Right to Buy.

    Trade union reform,

    The free market.

    Strong defences.

    Membership of Europe.

    Tests in schools.

    Punishing not rewarding crime.

    Time and time again it has been policies which have been vindicated by events.

    And yet, all the time, our opponents have fought our ideas ferociously, and then been forced belatedly – and half-heartedly – to accept them.

    We have been successful in determining the terms of debate in this country because:-

    – our fundamental convictions haven’t changed;

    – our instincts and values have always been close to those of the British people;

    – and we have always put the national interest first.

    Many of the details of our agenda over the last 15 years are nearing completion.

    Now we are ready once again to move the terms of the political debate forward.

    While our opponents modernise themselves – up to a point – by catching up with our agenda of the 1980s, we will be moving ahead to shape the agenda of the 21st century.

    Let me remind you of the five key themes which we will pursue in building a stronger nation.

    They can be summarised by saying that we will work for:

    – A Nation of Enterprise and Prosperity;

    – A Nation of Opportunity and Ownership;

    – A Nation of Law and Order;

    – A Nation of First Class Public Services;

    – A Sovereign Nation.

    It is on the fifth of those themes – a sovereign nation – that I wish to concentrate today.

    Wales – the economy transformed

    A strong nation needs first and foremost to have a strong economy.

    Here in Wales the economy has been transformed by Conservative reforms.

    Wales is now more competitive.

    – There are 16 per cent more businesses in Wales today than in 1980. Self-employment is up by 40 per cent.

    – Wales has secured nearly £7 billion of inward investment in the last decade – creating or securing over 120,000 jobs.

    – With only 5 per cent of the UK’s population, Wales consistently attracts between 10 and 20 per cent of the UK’s investment from overseas.

    The fruits of this new prosperity may not be obvious to opposition politicians with their gift for competitive whingeing.

    But they’re clear for people with eyes to see – and clear right around Wales.

    – Home ownership has soared from 59 per cent in 1979 to 72 per cent – higher than anywhere else in the UK.

    – For the first time in decades unemployment in Wales is down to the UK average – and it’s falling steadily.

    – Ownership of consumer durables has soared. Half of households in Wales now own a microwave. 69 per cent – more than two thirds – have a video. And 72 per cent – nearly three quarters – have a car.

    Mr Chairman, what created this unparalleled prosperity?

    It wasn’t socialism.

    It wasn’t Liberalism or nationalism.

    It was Conservatism.

    And it is only Conservatism that will preserve that prosperity – and expand it.

    Wales has changed. It’s no longer famous as the home of dying trades, outdated technologies and clapped-out union attitudes.

    Today it has tomorrow’s industries, not yesterday’s problems.

    Now Wales exports televisions, computers, and compact disc players.

    It is a major tourist destination. And a growing financial centre.

    That is the strong and secure future for Wales under the Conservatives.

    Europe and the Social Chapter

    But our opponents have a very different approach.

    Even though Labour copy our rhetoric daily, there remain many differences between their policies and ours.

    But one difference is fundamental.

    At heart Labour believes that Britain should steadily progress down the road which leads to a federal European superstate.

    The piecemeal erosion of our sovereignty.

    The step by step construction of a United States of Europe.

    Mr Chairman, that is not the right way for a successful Europe.

    It’s not what I believe the people of Europe want. Or the people of the UK. Or the Party.

    And it is not what this Government will ever accept.

    We believe in an effective Single Market with rules fairly applied to all.

    A Europe which strengthens its competitiveness instead of undermining it.

    A Europe built around the free co-operation of sovereign nation-states.

    A Europe which, as it enlarges, recognises that it must be more flexible and cannot become too rigid.

    We will not ride on an escalator that takes us where we do not want to go.

    We will battle for the right sort of Europe – and Britain’s interest in it – in all circumstances and at all times.

    That is why, so long as I am Prime Minister, our opt-outs and our right to say no will not be negotiable.

    Labour’s misguided approach to Europe is summed up by their devotion to the Social Chapter.

    Of course, these days they are happy to use the language of markets, competitiveness, and of success.

    They don’t understand it, but they use it.

    But they talk more loudly and enthusiastically about their commitments to the Social Chapter and the minimum wage.

    Those policies are the ball and chain which Labour would put round the ankle of British business – and thereby cripple our chances of winning in the world’s markets.

    Mr Chairman, I fought to keep Britain out of the Social Chapter.

    I did so at Maastricht even though I was outnumbered on this issue by eleven to one.

    Monsieur Delors lamented that by doing so I had made Britain a “paradise” for foreign investment.

    What has happened since has justified his judgement – and mine.

    For the Social Chapter is not a fixed menu of measures.

    It’s a mechanism which would allow Brussels to foist an endless stream of directives on British business. And just look at some of what we have avoided in the last two years alone, thanks to our opt-out.

    The Works Council Directive.

    The Parental Leave Directive.

    The Part Time Work Directive.

    They might sound harmless.

    But they’re not. Together they would blunt the competitive edge of British businesses.

    Just those three directives alone would cost our companies almost £2 billion a year.

    But don’t just look at the statistics.

    Listen to what foreign companies say. And do.

    Companies like Black and Decker. They’ve switched their factories from Germany to Britain.

    Companies like Daimler Benz. Their Chairman has warned that his company may do the same unless the German government sorts out the problem of rising social costs.

    Companies like Nikko, a large Japanese bank. Their Deputy Chairman has said that firms invest in Britain because of our lower employment costs.

    Companies like Sabena, the national airline of Belgium. They say that they cannot compete with British airlines because

    Belgian social costs are almost three times higher than in Britain.

    So, Mr Chairman, when some suggest that we should surrender the huge competitive advantage which we have gained by staying outside the Social Chapter, my answer is simple.

    That opt-out was hard-won.

    And it is not negotiable.

    And while the opt-out stays in the UK, foreign investment will stay in Wales.

    That’s a Conservative promise that no other party can match.

    But what is Labour’s reaction to this enormous competitive advantage which Britain has gained from sixteen years of Conservative government?

    Do they queue up to praise it?

    Do they promise to build on it?

    Do they even to undertake to protect it?

    No, of course not.

    Labour’s pledge is to do everything they can to eliminate that competitive advantage as fast as possible.

    The Labour leader has said that one of the first acts of a Labour Government would be to sign up to the Social Chapter. That would be a huge and wholly unnecessary blow to British business and British jobs.

    And Mr Chairman, when it really matters, I don’t believe that the British public will vote for a party which is offering them the fastest sell-out since the Christmas sales.

    The Minimum Wage

    Then there is Labour’s commitment to a minimum wage.

    Of course the idea sounds attractive. Who would not want to help people on low incomes.

    But it is a delusion.

    The only way to make people better off is to strengthen the economy, raise skill levels and cut costs.

    That is what we have been doing.

    It is the reason why Britain has seen unemployment fall further and faster in the last two years than anywhere else in Europe.

    It is down by 650,000 since 1992.

    And it is still falling by around 600 a day.

    Falling unemployment is the most effective anti-poverty measure of all.

    And taking measures that destroy jobs is the fastest route to impoverishing a nation.

    Yet that is precisely what a minimum wage does.

    And it would be the low income jobs which the low-skilled, the part-time and the young depend on – either as the first rung on the ladder or as a useful supplement to the family income which would be lost.

    Mr Chairman, we must continue to tell people the truth about the Minimum Wage.

    We must not let them by seduced by its friendly sounding name.

    Under its sugar coating lies the bitter reality that it will cost people their jobs.

    Labour and Devolution

    But, Mr Chairman, of all Labour’s ideas the one which would cause most damage to Wales – and to the United Kingdom – is their plan to tamper with our nation’s constitution.

    Those who want to rip it up should realise that it is not some patchwork quilt that can be stitched together in a different way.

    It’s not a mix’n’match assembly kit.

    It is the product of generations.

    A union that has weathered trial and tribulations because we realise that, united, we are stronger, divided we are weaker.

    No wonder then that we have learned today that a clear majority of the British people – and even most Labour supporters – believe that Labour’s devolution plans would weaken the United Kingdom.

    They are right to think that.

    For Labour’s plans would potentially set each part of the United Kingdom against the others.

    That is why the last time this poison pill was offered, the Welsh people rejected devolution overwhelmingly.

    And that is why they would be wise to do so again.

    Frankly, Labour’s plans for a Welsh assembly are an insult to Wales.

    They carry no conviction.

    They are the left-overs of their plans for Scotland.

    There would be a Parliament at Westminster, a Parliament in Edinburgh, but only an assembly in Wales.

    Now, I think a Parliament in Edinburgh is a mistake.

    But Labour don’t.

    So, if it is right for Scotland, why isn’t it right for Wales?

    Why are Labour taking Wales for granted when it has so often been loyal to them? Let me tell you.

    Labour want a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh for their own party political reasons.

    They are afraid of the Scottish Nationalists.

    But a Scottish Parliament, with wide powers including the power to raise more taxes, ought to mean fewer Scottish MPs at Westminster.

    That would mean fewer Labour MPs.

    So to justify keeping Labour’s over-representation at Westminster they have cooked up the idea of a Welsh Assembly and Regional Assemblies around England.

    It’s a blatantly self-interested partisan policy to benefit the Labour Party.

    So the people of Wales would have foisted upon them a whole new layer of bureaucracy, and a whole new class of politicians, just so that Labour can protect their narrow party political interest in Scotland.

    It is a shameful spectacle – and Labour deserve to be punished for it by the electorate.

    In England, Labour’s desperate attempt to find a rational policy has produced a lurch from one policy to another. One day they support regional assemblies everywhere.

    Another day they want regional assemblies to be phased in, in some places.

    Because on yet another day they say regional assemblies would never appear in regions where they were not wanted.

    In Scotland, there is no answer to the big questions.

    Why should Scottish MPs be allowed to vote at Westminster on matters affecting England and Wales, when English and Welsh MPs would not be allowed to vote the same matters affecting Scotland?

    How can that be defended? No answer.

    What is the justification for the Tartan tax – forcing Scottish people to pay more tax than the English and Welsh just because they live North of the border?

    No answer.

    And what happens when a Scottish Prime Minister answerable to a Scottish Parliament finds himself in conflict with a United Kingdom Prime Minister answerable to a United Kingdom Parliament?

    You’ve guessed it – no answer.

    In Wales, as Neil Kinnock said, “Rightly or wrongly, the people will see the Assembly as a body which, in order to justify its forlorn existence, will have to take power from whatever tier of government it can get it’

    So the assembly would try to grab the powers of Welsh councils.

    That’s Labour’s new meaning of devolution.

    Not devolution down to the people, but p to the bureaucrats.

    Labour say their Welsh assembly wouldn’t be allowed to raise taxes.

    But have any of us ever met a socialist elected at any level who doesn’t want to spend more of the public’s money?

    So how long would it be before this Assembly started to demand the power to do so?

    These ideas would produce a decade of constitutional upheaval and muddle.

    But the damage would not stop there.

    The Assembly would become the focus of resentment against Westminster and a recipe for conflict with the rest of the United Kingdom.

    The Nationalists at least have logic on their side.

    They are profoundly wrong, but at least their arguments are logical.

    As for Labour, they have abandoned even the pretence of rationality in their schemes.

    The Mad Hatter could have dreamed them up.

    In their eagerness to tamper with the historical constitution of our Houses of Parliament, to divide up the United Kingdom internally, and to cast aside many of the veto powers protecting our sovereignty in Europe, Labour would inflict great damage on this nation.

    Mr Chairman, we must fight with all our strengths to stop the nation sleepwalking to such a disaster.

    That is our historic task.

    And you have my pledge to put the maintenance of our United Kingdom – and of the place of Wales within it – at the very centre of our campaign for the next Election.

    The Liberals

    Mr Chairman, a few days ago Mr Paddy Ashdown announced that the Liberals were dropping the pretence of being neutral between the Conservative and Labour parties.

    He said that the Liberals would never do a deal with us. Mr Chairman, I have news for Mr Ashdown.

    We’ve always known that he would be happy to prop up a Labour government.

    That’s no surprise at all.

    Mr Ashdown would no doubt be happy to be Minister for Morris Dancing in a Blair Cabinet.

    In fact, I’m sure he’d do that very well.

    But the Leader of the Liberal Democrats announcing the death of Liberalism as an independent political force is of some significance.

    Liberalism has in the past been a powerful force in the history of Wales.

    Whatever our quarrels with the Liberals, we should acknowledge that in parts of Wales they have fought socialism as vigorously as us.

    So I suspect that there will be some Liberals who cannot stomach being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Labour Party.

    They now know from the lips of their own Leader that there is now only one political party in this country which is committed to fighting the divisive, illiberal force of socialism and state control.

    Us.

    So those Liberals who still support the ancient Liberal virtues of individual liberty, of limiting the state, and of ever wider opportunity are welcome to join us.

    For only the Conservative Party now stands for those values.

    And we are open to anyone who shares them.

    Peroration

    Mr Chairman, I’ve no time for fainthearts in this Party.

    At the next election we will defeat Labour and their fellow travellers just as decisively as we have at the last four.

    We will be able to point to clear evidence of rising prosperity, as our decisions bear fruit.

    We will have a detailed agenda of policies to shape a stronger Britain in the new millennium.

    And we will have the knowledge that we and we alone will defend our nation’s interests abroad and our national unity at home.

    That is a strong platform.

    It is the right platform.

    And it is a winning platform.

  • Mr Major’s Lincoln Breakfast Speech on the Economy – 1 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to business people in Lincoln before breakfast on Thursday 1st June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [parts of original recording were of poor quality]

    What I would like to do over the next hour and a half or so is just talk a little about where we are in terms of economic recovery, what is happening in terms of industrial, commercial and economic policy and the prospects that lie immediately ahead of us in the next two or three years and perhaps a bit longer.

    Let me firstly just trace back over some of the difficulties that we have had and try and explain to you where we are and why we are precisely where we are at the moment.

    I don’t think that anyone would dispute the fact that the recession lasted longer across the whole of western Europe than we thought it would and was sharper and harsher than we thought it would be and it was a different sort of recession than many people had seen before. We have long been accustomed in western Europe to recessions extending particularly to the manufacturing industry. This recession was a “white collar recession” in a way we had not seen before and it was for that reason in many ways more difficult to understand and more difficult to deal with.

    Essentially, the problem arose on the back of so many people investing so much in the housing market. I recall the rather crazy situation that existed in the housing market towards the end of the 1980s [indistinct] house prices went spiralling upwards and it was always likely that that was going to stop at some stage [indistinct] by the time it stopped an awful lot of people had committed themselves [indistinct] with mortgages that were a good deal bigger than ideally they would have had but inflation began to take hold, interest rates began to rise, mortgage costs began to rise, house prices stopped rising and fell and the negative equity trap which has done so much to damage confidence [indistinct] began to hit them. Because of our very high levels of owner-occupation and our particular affinity for home ownership in the United Kingdom, it hit many people rather hard at first.

    What about the economy generally? We came out of recession technically and the economy began growing again almost three years ago. As we have seen in recessions in the past, when you come out of recession it isn’t immediately apparent and people will say two or three years after the recession, technical as it is, that they don’t think it is finished and it is still going on. But yet for three successive years we have had growth. We had growth of over 4% last year, we will have growth probably of over 3% this year and if the forecasts are correct, growth of over 3% next year so for three successive years we will have had growth well above the trend average in the United Kingdom, well above that of any of our European partners probably and for the first time probably in the lifetime of most of the people sitting round the table we will have had a three-year period in which the growth of the economy has exceeded inflation. That isn’t typical if one looks at the performance of the British economy since the Second World War.

    So we have certain factors which for our economy are unusual at the moment. We have growth significantly above trend, we have inflation well below the European average, we have unemployment well below the European average, indeed, only one western European country has unemployment below us, only one country of any significant size and all the others have unemployment higher than ours. No other country in western Europe is seeing unemployment falling as regularly as we have and no other country in western Europe has also seen such a growth in exports or such an increase in investment.

    If you put those things together, it does begin to produce an economic scenario, provided we can build on it, that we haven’t seen for a very long time. I will tick the points off:

    Inflation: very low, below the average.

    Unemployment: falling.

    Investment: still continuing steadily

    Exports: growing at record levels; nine times in the last fourteen months we have hit new export levels.

    Competitiveness: growing.

    Those are a combination of circumstances we haven’t seen for a very long time. We are still attracting in the United Kingdom around 14% of all the external investment that comes into the whole of western Europe and we are doing so for the sort of reasons that were evident in the OECD report just the other day that our supply side and economic measures are more effective and more efficient than elsewhere in Europe, that we have fewer employment on-costs than most of our European partners and that don’t find ourselves tied to many of the social and other employment costs that so many of our European partners do.

    Those are great advantages. It is for those reasons that Jacques Delors I recall said something of great wisdom on this particular occasion when he said that without the Social Chapter we would become a paradise for investors and he was speaking relatively on western Europe and on this occasion I think he was correct and I think increasingly that [indistinct].

    Those are the economic circumstances that we have. They are as clement as we have had for a very long time. We look as though we are heading for a classic economic recovery. When we came out of recession in the early 1980s, we immediately had a great boom in wages, indeed right the way through the 1980/82 recession wage increases never fell below 7.5% even in the depths of the recession when unemployment was rising, the pound was at extraordinary levels and all sorts of other major [indistinct] happened and that has always led to an uncompetitive [indistinct].

    Three years after this recession technically ended, we have wage rises running at about 3.5%. That may not mean a great deal of what people these days loosely call the “feel good factor” – and indeed it means [indistinct] — than they otherwise would have been – but it does mean that our industry and commerce are infinitely more efficient, effective and competitive than otherwise they would have been.

    When people say to me: “Where is the feel good factor?”, I think I would see it this way: The feel good factor in the last two years has been wrapped up in increased competitiveness and increased jobs and the people who are benefiting from it are 600,000 people who were on the unemployment register two years ago and who are now in work. It hasn’t been dissipated across the country at large with great increases to everybody; it has wrapped up in fresh interests, fresh jobs and 600,000 have benefited from that and are back in work whereas elsewhere in Europe they are either increasingly becoming unemployed or staying unemployed.

    So that is the background about which I thought we might talk over breakfast. I thought we might talk about future policy, particularly for small and medium-sized firms and what the prospects might be for us in the years ahead.

    In simple summary: unless we throw away the gains that have been so far made, the prospects for continued growth with low inflation and the sort of stable environment that you need as businessmen and employers are extremely good unless we are silly and throw it away and I have no intention of doing that.

  • PMQT – 22 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 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.

    Mr. Connarty : Has anyone brought to the attention of the Prime Minister the 71.5 per cent. return in the Electoral Reform Society ballot on water services carried out for Strathclyde? Does he agree with the 1,194,667 people who voted against the Government’s proposals for quangoing the water services in Scotland? Does he agree that this is a crushing humiliation, or could it be possible that the Prime Minister will see it as an opportunity to show that we have a listening Government and do the democratic thing and abandon his proposal immediately?

    The Prime Minister : Since Strathclyde wilfully misrepresented the Government’s proposals, I see nothing surprising in the result. The Opposition have continued to link the proposals with privatisation, even though it is perfectly clear that we are setting up public water authorities. They persist in scaremongering about disconnections, although we have no proposals to legalise disconnecting domestic water supplies for non-payment of bills.

    The question that the hon. Gentleman should have asked is how Strathclyde will explain to its council taxpayers the waste of £750,000.

    Mr. Brandreth : Will my right hon. Friend consider adding to his list of engagements [Interruption.]

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

    Mr. Brandreth : Will my right hon. Friend consider adding to his list of engagements a visit to the uniquely beautiful city of Chester, where he will find inward investment at record levels, and unemployment 6 per cent. lower than a year ago and 26 per cent. lower than six years ago? Does he agree that, in terms of inward investment to the European Community, the United Kingdom in general, and the city of Chester in particular, are now leading the way?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly pleased to hear of the particular inward investment to Chester. There has been a dramatic amount of inward investment into every part of the United Kingdom over the last few years–Wales and Scotland have certainly received a great degree of inward investment. That is very largely connected with the fact that we have a very flexible economy and a very effective business tax system, we do not have too many social on-costs, and investment here is welcome.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister think it right that those who can afford to pay fuel bills in advance can avoid paying the new VAT charges on gas and electricity ?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it has long been the case that customers for a wide range of services can pay for them in advance. [Interruption.] There is nothing unusual about that. It has happened before every Budget that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can remember since he entered the House.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister does not even begin to understand the problem here. Does he not understand that it is deeply unfair that those who are better off can avoid a tax obligation which millions of others have to shoulder because they do not have the money to exploit the loophole that the Government have permitted?

    The Prime Minister : It is not a loophole, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says ; it is a position that has applied for very many years. As far as people who are less well off are concerned, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have provided help for them worth £2.5 billion over three years–more to pensioners, more to disabled people and more to single parents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention that all those people will get the money before the bills arrive. That is a prepayment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgot to mention.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that in those replies he has revealed the Tory attitude to tax in a nutshell– loopholes for the better off, and everyone else has to pay in full?

    The Prime Minister : What has been revealed is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is up to his old tricks yet again, telling other people how to spend their own money. It boils down to the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a meddler in everything–in private sector pay, in company decisions and in how people pay their own bills. What he does not mention is the fact that electricity companies, for example, have announced next year’s prices and all of them have frozen the price or cut it. When did that ever happen under Labour Administrations?

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday the Department of the Environment issued a section 13 notice, under the Local Government Act 1988, against the Lancashire county council for utterly failing efficiently to run its ground maintenance services under direct labour? Is that not one more reason why the citizens of Lancashire wish the Lancashire county council to be abolished?

    The Prime Minister : It is certainly a deeply inefficient council, but that is something it shares with Sheffield and many other Labour-run authorities.

    Mr. Ashdown : Are not the policies of the Government and of the Labour party towards the provision of nursery education for all now revealed to be exactly the same–that it will not happen until resources allow? Bearing in mind that it was the Prime Minister’s predecessor, when she was Education Secretary nearly a quarter of a century ago, who first formulated that policy, will the Prime Minister tell us when he thinks that that promise might be delivered–this year, next year, sometime or never?

    The Prime Minister : That was extremely well rehearsed, but, as the hon. Lady mentioned a second ago, if the right hon. Gentleman went to the Isle of Wight he would find no nursery education there, whereas if he went to Tory Westminster he would find universal nursery education.

    Mr. Bill Walker : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under every Labour Government since the war, before every Budget there was massive spending in the shops to avoid the tax increases that always followed Labour Chancellors’ statements, especially during the period of purchase tax when that tax went up to 33 per cent?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. There has always been prepurchase of goods before Budgets, especially Labour Budgets, for precisely that reason, but the Opposition have been out of government so long that they have lost touch not only with government but with reality.

     

    Q2. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

    Mr. Winnick : Is the Prime Minister at all surprised at the way in which the President of the Board of Trade is now constantly being talked up as his successor as leader? Should not the Prime Minister watch his back very carefully when the President of the Board of Trade says that he has no leadership ambition left? If the Prime Minister believes that, he will believe anything.

    The Prime Minister : What the hon. Gentleman points out is the enormous wealth of talent behind me supporting me.

    Mr.Wilkinson : In view of the latest terrorist outrages at Heathrow airport and, more recently, the shooting down of an Army Lynx helicopter at Crossmaglen, is not my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) right to say that the Downing street declaration has run its course? Is it not time to give primacy to the defeat of IRA terrorism, because political progress depends on progress on the security front?

    The Prime Minister : Two things run in parallel : first, the Downing street declaration; and, secondly, the continuing efforts to defeat terrorism and engage in the talks process. Security co-operation has improved and continues to improve. The welcome recent successes on both sides of the border are evidence of the intensive efforts by the security forces in both jurisdictions to combat terrorism. Both Governments are committed to close co-operation, which is currently at an all-time high. I assure my hon. Friend that we propose to build on that security co-operation in both the short and the long term. There should be room nowhere in the United Kingdom for terrorism, and we are determined to maintain our battle against it.

     

    Q3. Mr. Eric Clarke : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

    Mr. Clarke : Is the Prime Minister aware that the Easter egg that he is giving to the British people is a tax rise equivalent to two weeks’ wages for every wage earner in the country?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have conceded before, it has been necessary to increase taxes. I invite him also to condemn the large and unjustifiable council tax increases imposed by Labour councils.

     

    Q4. Mr. Thurnham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

    Mr. Thurnham : Does my hon. Friend agree that many people with disabilities make excellent employees? Will he ensure that the public sector plays its full part in employing the disabled and thus leads all other employers by example?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The civil service is steadily increasing the number of registered disabled people whom it employs. I am delighted that, as a proportion of its work force, it now employs slightly more than the percentage of registered disabled people in the work force as a whole. A number of Departments and agencies do significantly better than that. I share my hon. Friend’s desire to see progress made, but it is encouraging that the public sector is now doing better than the private sector.

    Mr. Radice : Which is more important to the Prime Minister–a blocking minority of 23 on qualified majority votes to the Council of Ministers, or an enlargement of the European Union?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman states a choice which, had he ever negotiated in Europe, he would not have stated in that fashion. He is blind to both the short and long-term consequences of change to the qualified majority vote system. We are determined to negotiate in Brussels, and to fight Britain’s corner just as hard as every other nation would fight for itself. We will not be moved by phoney threats to delay enlargement. There is ample time to complete the enlargement process; if there is delay, it will be because certain other member states–two in particular–have taken an inflexible and doctrinaire line. We shall not do what the Labour party do, which is to say yes to everything that comes out of Europe, with no critical examination whatever. The Opposition would sign away our votes, our competitiveness and our money. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is the man who likes to say yes in Europe–Monsieur Oui, the poodle of Brussels.

     

    Inward Investment (Northern Region)

    Q5. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of the social chapter on inward investment in the northern region ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The northern region has an excellent record for attracting inward investment and creating jobs. Since 1985 the Northern Development Corporation has secured 36,000 jobs for the region. By piling on costs to business, the social chapter would destroy jobs in the northern region, as it would across the country.

    Mr. Bates : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the decision by Black and Decker to close its production plant in Limburg in Germany and move to Spennymoor in county Durham because of the excessive level of non-wage labour costs in Germany? Does that not clearly demonstrate that the best way to keep manufacturing jobs in the north-east is to keep Britain out of the social chapter?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree. What is clear when one looks across Europe is that the social on-costs of every country other than the United Kingdom are rendering those countries progressively uncompetitive with Japan, the United States and the Pacific basin. What the social chapter would mean is the loss of jobs in the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the news for the people of Spennymoor. The Durham plant has a very high and very well-deserved reputation for quality. Black and Decker knows that high costs destroy jobs and that, for that reason, Britain is the best place in the European Community in which to do business and in which to invest.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Home Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

    Mr. Home Robertson : As the Prime Minister once dismissed Strathclyde as a monstrosity, I welcome his conversion and the fact that the Government have now decided to keep the Strathclyde passenger transport authority so as to safeguard comprehensive concessionary travel for pensioners in Strathclyde. Why are not pensioners in other parts of Scotland being allowed the same safeguards? I appeal to the Prime Minister to consider that point and to ensure that pensioners in all parts of Scotland, including the east, are given equal rights.

    The Prime Minister : It is extremely unlikely that the hon. Gentleman would appeal to me in any circumstances. The view of Strathclyde that I hold is unaltered, as I indicated earlier with regard to the referendum, which was an expensive stunt. As to the second point, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with the Swedish Prime Minister – 13 August 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Swedish Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, held in Harpsund on Friday 13th August 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER CARL BILDT:

    Could I start by saying “Welcome!”. I have rarely seen such a distinguished and numerous collection of Swedish journalists this early in the morning so far away from Stockholm! Let me also say thanks to John and Norma Major for coming here and for making it possible to have such a nice and such a fruitful visit as I think we have had.

    We have now concluded a couple of days of formal as well as informal discussions covering a rather wide range of topics. We have discussed quite extensively of course the situation in former Yugoslavia and the joint initiative that we took the day before yesterday is now from our side well under way. We are ready to go into Sarajevo at more or less a moment’s notice and we are now awaiting clearance from the UNHCR. I think the Swedish Air Force aircraft is ready at Ancona and I believe the same to be the case on the British side. It has been working can I say on the Swedish side very smoothly. I am impressed by what has been done by all of the relevant Swedish authorities at such short notice.

    We also discussed developments in the process of European integration including the enlargement negotiations. We are united I think or share the same views on the need for a larger, more open, less intrusive Community in the future.

    We also discussed the situation in the Baltic countries where we have issued this morning a joint statement which I guess you have seen and the highlight of that is of course that we are concerned by recent strains that we have seen in Baltic-Russian relations and we call upon all sides to deepen the political dialogue and work towards a settlement of the outstanding disputes; in particular, we ask Russia to fulfil without further delay its commitment under the CSE Helsinki Final Act to withdraw the remaining troops from the Baltic States – this must be done without linkage to other issues. We also urge Estonia and Latvia to continue to build upon the recommendations by the CSE and by the Council of Europe when it comes to developing good Community relations with the non-Estonians in Estonia and with the non-Latvians in Latvia. We also express our joint will and eagerness indeed to continue to help them in the building of true independence and in the development of good relations with the Russians. I would guess that this is also going to be a topic for the discussion that. I am going to have here tomorrow with the Foreign Minister of Russia, Mr. Kosyrev.

    Let me just say it has been a very useful visit. We have, think, an outstanding bilateral relationship. If there has been one difficulty during this visit it has been how hard it is to improve upon a relationship that is already so good but we have tried and I think we have achieved some amount of success and I think that is symbolised both by the joint initiative we took on Sarajevo at the beginning of the visit and on the joint statement on the Baltics that we have done now as the visit comes to its end.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Let me first thank Carl and Mia for their hospitality in Sweden; it has been not only a very worthwhile but a very enjoyable couple of days as well. Some time ago, Carl accepted an invitation to attend the Conservative Party Conference in October and I will look forward to welcoming him there in due course.

    I won’t reiterate all the points that have been made thus far except simply to say that I endorse them. If I could say just a word firstly about the joint initiative on Sarajevo, we were both responding to the High Commissioner for Refugees’ plea for help for 41 seriously injured patients. That operation, both on the Swedish side and on the United Kingdom side, is now well under way, The British medical teams have now been assembled and I expect they will be flying out from Stansted to Ancona at around 4 o’clock this afternoon; they will then he in a position to transport the patients to Britain just as soon as they are ready to travel and that, of course, is a matter that is under way locally in Sarajevo. At the moment, the High Commissioner for Refugees is still assembling details both of the adult and of the child patients that they wish us to receive. I should say that the Overseas Development Association plane will also be taking out a substantial stock of antibiotics, anaesthetics and other urgently-needed drugs for the hospitals in Sarajevo.

    Let me make a further point about this as well. This is by no means the end of the operation. If needed, there will be a second plane standing by to bring out more patients when the United Nations staff have fully identified those and their relatives; this may take a little longer than originally envisaged and if that is the case there will be a second plane standing by to help.

    I should also make clear that the Overseas Development Association Senior Medical Assessor is currently in Zagreb but he will be in Sarajevo on Monday and will provide advice to us on what further supplies and arrangements are needed and if further medical supplies are needed, we will examine what we can do immediately to help in arranging for them to be provided.

    The Prime Minister spoke of the other discussions we have had during the last couple of days; just a brief word on those, if I may.

    Firstly, on European matters, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, we share the same vision of a larger, more open and less intrusive Community. We want that larger Community because it extends the area where trade will bind nations more closely together. We want that more open Community because that will mean more jobs and more prosperity for all the people within the Community. One-quarter of Britain’s and Sweden’s income comes from exports. Both Swedish entry and that of all the EFTAn countries will in my judgement help bias the Community in the future towards more openness and more free trade and I think that bias would be very welcome.

    I had the opportunity yesterday morning over breakfast of meeting a very impressive group of Swedish businessmen; it was a private meeting but a very worthwhile one. There were a number of messages I took from that meeting but I think the most important one was their complete conviction about the vital importance of concluding the Uruguay Round, the trade negotiations, by the end of this year. That, as you know, is a view that I very strongly share and it is my view and I think the Prime Minister’s view as well that that should be one of the Community’s highest priorities in the next few months.

    We have both spoken of a less intrusive Community. I think when the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty are in place we will be able to put more flesh on the bones of that dreadful word “subsidiarity”. That I think will be extremely helpful for everyone.

    We have discussed a range of other matters, the Baltic States, the position in Russia, a number of bilateral matters as well. I won’t reiterate all the points that have already been made but would conclude on this point about Sweden’s negotiations to enter the European Community: I believe it is in Sweden’s interest to enter but I also believe it is in the Community’s interest that Sweden should enter and I very much hope those negotiations will he satisfactorily completed and everything else satisfactorily concluded for Sweden to join the Community on 1 January 1995.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, which stumbling blocks can you see ahead in these negotiations for Sweden in Brussels?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I think that is a matter for the negotiators rather than me. There are always, in negotiations like this, a large number of difficult matters that need to be determined. You have of course twelve nations already members anxious to protect their national interests and Sweden quite properly will wish to protect their own vital interests when they join the Community so some of those negotiations will be quite tough, budgetary contribution clearly is one but there are a series of matters I think that are very familiar to people in Sweden. I believe all of them are capable of a solution. Negotiations will be hard but then they always are hard on occasions like this but I see no reason to suppose they can’t be satisfactorily concluded.

    QUESTION:

    What are the delays in putting the aircraft into Sarajevo to collect the injured people? Is it UN red tape?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    No. The delay is assembling the patients in Sarajevo and making sure they are medically ready to travel and in the case of some of them where they need relatives to travel with them, that the arrangements can be made for the relatives to travel as well. It is a logistic difficulty. There are a great many logistics to overcome in Sarajevo to get the patients together. That is the only cause of delay.

    In terms of the availability of the aircraft and medical equipment, as both the Prime Minister and I have said, both on the Swedish side and on the British side that will be ready very speedily.

    QUESTION:

    When do you expect the injured people to arrive in Sweden and arrive in London?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I can’t be absolutely certain about that. I hope over the weekend but I will know more about that later today I hope.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, this statement on the Baltic States, does that reflect a fear that if the different Baltic States don’t handle relations with their Russian minorities in a sensible and democratic way you could end up with another Bosnia just over the water from Sweden?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    No, I don’t think that we believe that that is likely. What does concern us is the desirability of the Russians meeting their commitment to remove their troops out of the Baltic States as speedily and as comprehensively as possible and secondly, of course, of ensuring that the Russian citizens who will continue to live in the Baltic States are treated fairly. We know there are tensions, we know there are difficulties; what we are saying is that those need to be seriously addressed and overcome very speedily.

    QUESTION:

    You don’t see it as a tinder-box?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    No, I don’t see it as that sort of tinder-box, no.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it is realistic for Sweden’s negotiations to be concluded by 1 January 1995?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I do indeed. I don’t see that a longer timetable would be likely to lead to a more satisfactory conclusion. My experience of the Community over the last few years is that the best way to get an outcome is to set a deadline and I think that probably applies to other organisations as well as the Community. I am quite certain it is a realistic proposition to negotiate within that time frame and that is the view of the Community as a whole and I believe it is the view of the Swedish negotiators and the Swedish government as well.

    QUESTION:

    You both said you shared the vision of a more open Europe, a more open Community. I would like to ask Prime Minister Major when will Britain abolish border controls or will you ever?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    We are talking about trade when we are talking about an open Community. We have special arrangements on border controls; an island is different and I think that is generally recognised. We are talking about the desirability of open trade and I think in terms of the prosperity and growth of Europe that is very important; it is one of the reasons of course that the conclusion of the world trade talks is so very important for Europe. Europe tends to concentrate a great deal on the agricultural aspect of those trade talks but of course what is often overlooked as people do that is the very great importance to Europe of the industrial and commercial agreements that have already been reached in the Uruguay Round; they are vitally important to the future prosperity of Europe.

    It is also important I think for the general development of free trade in Europe for two reasons: firstly, the jobs and prosperity point that I made a moment ago but secondly – a quite different point and perhaps a moral point in a sense – most of the European nations are relatively generous with overseas aid to less-developed and very underdeveloped countries. I think that is right and they should be but it is an oddity that on the one hand Europe is providing aid to those countries and on the other hand Europe seems to be closing its markets to exports from those countries which would leave them for ever dependent upon overseas aid. That is a second reason why there is a great imperative to open markets and free trade.

    QUESTION (SAME LADY):

    But does that mean that the Fourth Freedom – freedom for people – doesn’t apply for Britain?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    No, it doesn’t mean that at all.

    QUESTION:

    Do you accept with regard to what you said about the Baltic States that they, the Russians, have a very practical problem in providing accommodation for the troops that you want withdrawn?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I think they have referred to that practical problem; I think there is some reason to believe there is a practical problem there. What we are saying is that it needs to be addressed and we think there can be movement on both sides, certainly assurances as to Russian minorities in the Baltic State and perhaps the Russians looking more expeditiously at removing their troops from the three states as well.

    PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

    The practical problem, if I might add, is a rather limited one. If you see that in relation to the movement that is there of different military units around in Russia and from, say, Western Europe or from Central Asia or in and out of the Caucasus, the need to provide accommodation for the remaining troops coming out of the Baltic countries is a very very small portion so all of the practical problems there tends to be a tendency in certain Russian quarters to use that as an excuse and I don’t think that is acceptable.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Major, you said you and Prime Minister Bildt share the vision of an open, larger and less intrusive Community but Britain has made exceptions from the Maastricht Treaty on the social dimension so don’t you share the vision of the inner organisation of the Community?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I think you need to understand why I refused to accept the provisions of the Social Chapter. What is the greatest problem facing the whole of Western Europe at the moment? I guess most people faced with that question would say it is the need to provide jobs through growth and to increase prosperity. What we do see over the past: twenty years – and I think this illustrates the point very clearly – is that the amount of growth in Western Europe as a whole and the United States as a whole has been broadly the same but how many jobs has that created? In the United States, the same amount of growth has created four times as many extra jobs as have been created in the European Community. Why is that? The answer predominantly is the social on-costs of one sort or another that prevail in the European Community. It is not sensible to the people who are unemployed and who want jobs to introduce new provisions that will make it more difficult for them to get employment in the future.

    That was the case, it is the case and that is why I have consistently opposed the provisions of the Social Chapter and still do.

    QUESTION:

    Have you been discussing the future of the European Monetary Union and what could be done to solve the problem?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    Well we only had two days! Others have tried for longer. We discussed present difficulties but we didn’t on this occasion advance specific solutions. It may be necessary to take some time to pause and reflect.

    QUESTION:

    As two Prime Ministers who both have floating currencies, do you conceive a situation where we might have to go back to, say, having the Gold Standard or some way of bringing order to the fold to increase the power of governments individually and collectively against the problems caused by all this huge amount of money which can be moved around by large investors and speculators and so on?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    That is not a matter we discussed over the last couple of days. Clearly we have to reflect upon what has happened to the Exchange Rate Mechanism. I said after Sterling left the Exchange Rate Mechanism last September that I thought there were fault-lines in the system. Many people at that stage said: “We don’t think there are fault lines in the system, it is a particular problem with Sterling!” Well now of course it is clear to everyone that there are fault-lines in the system and it was not simply a problem with Sterling. Now we need to examine what, if anything, may be done to deal with those fault-lines.

    What is certainly true from the point of view of business is that stability of exchange rates, whether through successful economic management in a floating situation or through some form of management of rates, is something that business cherishes and helps the movement of goods and trade so I think the politicians must examine how best to achieve that but I don’t think I have a snap judgement to offer you on that this morning.

    SAME MAN:

    What about the Gold Standard?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    No, I don’t think that is likely.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, you recently revived your proposal for a hard ECU alongside the existing currencies. Did you discuss that question and if so, what is the Swedish opinion of it?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    No, we didn’t discuss the hard Ecu and I read with some interest that I revived the suggestion. I think every country is actually looking at what series of options may exist in the future. I haven’t placed the hard Ecu back in the middle of the European debate again; it is in the European debate, it was put there some time ago but I haven’t especially floated it again; I read with some interest that I had but I haven’t.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that Great Britain is moving towards a faster economic recovery right now?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    Yes. I think we are moving towards recovery. Recoveries are always patchy. You get a series of statistics that are extremely good, then occasionally you get some that are less good and think that will be the pattern of the United Kingdom recovery as well.

    Over the past five months or so, the overwhelming volume of statistics have been pointing in the direction of recovery and growth of some significant size this year but rather larger next year. That seems to be the position. It is bound to be patchy. I think it is patchy but I think there is no doubt whatsoever that the United Kingdom economy is now back on the road to growth.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that Carl Bildt should learn anything from your way of handling the financial problems?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    You had better ask Carl that!

    PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

    You have to draw on the experience of all different countries. You can’t really compare the economy of one country with the economy of another country totally but I think it is very clear when you look at the figures coming out of. the British economy that among the European economies the British one is the one that clearly is in some sort of recovery and I think that is encouraging not only from the British perspective but also from the wider European perspective because we clearly need some countries to recover from the economic problems that they are having now.

    We are starting to see the same signs in Sweden although we are behind. We see industrial production picking up, we see orders coming into industry. When I talk to leaders of industry now after the summer, after the vacation, when they see what is happening in the markets they are fairly encouraged with the interest rate coming down so I think that we will see Sweden developing into recovery along the lines of Britain but we are somewhat behind no doubt.

    QUESTION:

    Have you been discussing any kind of European strategy when it comes to solving the unemployment situation?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    The European Community discussed that at some length at Copenhagen and we are submitting proposals towards growth and how to deal with the particular present problems of Europe for a White Paper that the Community will produce later on this year. Britain is submitting her own proposals, other countries will be doing the same and I hope we will be able to discuss that in detail at the Brussels summit in December.

    PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

    In addition to that, we are going to have a meeting of the Nordic Finance Ministers and the Nordic Prime Ministers to see what we can do from the Nordic side to join with the European initiatives that are necessary. I think it is very obvious that the economic problems that we are having throughout Europe and primarily the problems that we are having with growth and long-term employment need also European solutions. We can’t just act as nations individually; we have to pool efforts and develop joint policies and that will have to be done within the framework of the Community but not the side of the Nordic nations we are going to try to do whatever we can to join in.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, you are also a Conservative Tory Party leader. Your Parliamentary group in the European Parliament has joined the Christian Democratic parliamentary group. How do you see this merger, and do you also consider your Tory Party both as a Conservative and a Christian Democratic party?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    My party in the United Kingdom is a Conservative Party and remains a Conservative Party.

    As far as the European Community is concerned, I very much wish to see a right-of-centre European Parliament rather than a left-of-centre European Parliament and all the right-of-centre parties have joined together in a loosely-knit arrangement but it is a loosely-knit arrangement, not a marriage; it doesn’t imply complete uniformity of every aspect of policy and it doesn’t imply uniformity in any other respect as well but certainly there is a great deal of common ground between the parties and to that extent they have this loose arrangement and the Conservative members of the European Parliament have joined their other right-wing colleagues.

    PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

    But I don’t think it is proper to say that it a purely Christian Democratic political grouping because it does include parties coming from different political traditions; they are somewhat different in the Nordic countries, in Britain, in Germany, in France. Take a country like Greece, it comes from a different tradition but joins into the European Peoples Party so it is a grouping that brings together the major forces of the centre-right in Western Europe and as such is important but you can’t put a specific ideological label to it.

    QUESTION:

    Yet they call themselves Union of Christian Democratic Parties.

    PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

    No. That is another organisation. The Union of Christian Democratic Parties does exist and that only includes Christian Democratic parties. If you talk about the group in the European Parliament, the European Peoples Party group, it does include other parties as well that are not members of the Christian Democrats and I don’t think are seeking membership of that union either.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Bildt, do you share Prime Minister Major’s opinion on the social dimension of the European Community and what importance does this have for Sweden?

    PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

    I think it is important for Sweden that there is a social dimension to the Community in the sense that the Community also tries to develop policies to get growth back and employment and all of that; that is what is normally in the Swedish debate referred to a sort of social dimension. But we also think that broadly speaking welfare policies of different sorts should be national. I don’t see any reason why a lot of the social welfare policies that we have developed in Sweden – rightly or wrongly, we can have different points of view on those and there is a heated debate going on in the country – that they should be made into European policies. We should solve at the European level only the questions that can’t be solved on the national level and I think that most of the social policy issues are better dealt with at the local, regional or national level.

    QUESTION:

    What is the current state of play as you see it between the Americans and the Europeans as regards the use of military action? I think Mr. Christopher was saying the other day it is a top priority for US security to halt the advance of the Bosnian Serbs.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    We reached an agreement, as you know, at the NAC a few days ago and that agreement stands, it remains the same.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Maastricht Treaty – Social Policy Protocol – 23 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made in the House of Commons on the 23rd July 1993 on the Maastricht Treaty – Social Policy Protocol, following defeat the previous night. The motion was also a confidence motion in the Government.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): I beg to move,

    That this House has confidence in the policy of Her Majesty’s Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy. After yesterday’s motion, the Cabinet thought it right to bring this motion immediately before the House. I said yesterday to the House that European policy had created a division in British politics for 20 years. We have seen the effects of that vividly over recent months. If asked, most people in the country would say that the House has spent most of its time in the past year doing nothing but debate the European Communities treaty. It has, indeed, been fully debated, but the House has done a great deal more. In one parliamentary Session, it has passed a large number of reforming Bills–on education, asylum, housing and urban renewal, trade union reform, and personal pensions. One third of our manifesto at the last election will have been enacted by the end of this parliamentary Session, and that is much to the advantage of the British nation.

    Most of that will have been masked from public gaze by the disputes over European policy. Not only has that legislation been passed, but, over the same period, we have moved clearly from recession to growth. It is now clear that growth prospects for the year are likely to exceed earlier forecasts.

    Those are some of the realities of what has occurred over the past year. Britain is now moving back into recovery, ready for significant sustained growth with low inflation. At the general election, that was the prescription which we promised and it is now becoming clearer day by day that that is what is being delivered to the British nation.

    Against that background, it is in our national interest that we keep up the pace of reform and the pace of recovery. Parliament must put this stalemate over Europe behind it. I am not prepared to let it poison the political atmosphere any longer. The boil must be lanced, and it must be lanced today. Therefore, I shall set out in the clearest possible terms the implication for today’s debate. We have before us a motion of confidence in the Government, with all the implications that flow from that. Lest there be any doubt in the mind of any hon. Member, the issue of confidence also extends to the Opposition’s amendment. No hon. Member should be under any misapprehension about that, even though its terms are intended to entrap the unwary. It is precisely the amendment that was defeated yesterday.

    At the conclusion of this debate, either the Government will have won the vote of confidence and we can proceed with our policy, subject to one outstanding court case, or we shall have lost and I shall seek a dissolution of Parliament.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later. I want to make a little progress now.

    This debate is about the Government’s policy of rejecting the social chapter. I shall spell out the disadvantages so that no one can misunderstand me. Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) quoted from the social chapter. He made it sound innocuous, harmless and even benign. If he wants to keep his blinkers on, so be it–but let Conservative Members be in no doubt about the costs and the implications of the social chapter. Measures that the Community has already brought forward, which abuse health and safety provisions, show us the scale of the costs likely to be involved in the social chapter’s provisions.

    The working time directive originally would have cost British industry £5 billion ; by our efforts, that figure has been substantially reduced. The part-time directive originally would have cost £1 billion ; largely by our efforts, that directive has been stalled. The young workers directive would cost up to £150 million. Those are just three provisions, but they add up to more than £6 billion in potential costs. I could add to that list. If the social chapter came into being, those costs would be added to for every single business in this country, with the inevitable effect on jobs.

    Even the right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that employers would have to meet those costs, and more, under the social chapter. There would be higher prices, lost jobs and less competitiveness. That is the policy which the right hon. and learned Gentleman espouses. He may wish to indulge himself by voting for the social chapter–he has the luxury of being able to strike attitudes–but we must deal in realities. He would not have to pay the price of his attitudes. The price would be paid by millions of men and women working hard to hold down jobs, bring up families and improve their working conditions.

    At any time, the social chapter would be an unwarranted intrusion into British life; but now, just when recovery is beginning to emerge, it would put recovery at risk. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to take my word for it, perhaps he will take the word of the chairman of ICI– [Interruption.] Labour Members may choose to scoff and sneer at the chairman of ICI, but it is his company which provides jobs in their constituencies. It is the policy of Labour Members which would cost their constituents those jobs. What the chairman of ICI had to say–perhaps the Opposition would care to listen to and reflect upon it–was :

    “Continental Europe is currently in deep recession while the UK has the beginnings of an economic recovery It is … absolutely vital that business does not have imposed upon it additional costs which are unnecessary and which, in turn, could hinder the recovery.” Those are not my words, but the words of one of the most senior business men in this country.

    Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want to hinder the recovery, or does he think that he knows more about British industry than Sir Denys Henderson, who runs ICI? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really want to impose the social chapter and hazard the recovery now coming through, especially the five consecutive monthly falls in unemployment? It is self-evident that that is exactly what he wishes to do. The most fatuous comment this House has heard for months was his assertion yesterday that the social chapter would create jobs, not cost them. Only in the unemployment offices would it create jobs.

    Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): What does my right hon. Friend say in response to the argument put forward by many respectable business men that if we ratify this wretched treaty but we do not have the social chapter, things will be done through the social chapter by the other 11 countries which, through other aspects of the treaty, will then be imposed on the United Kingdom? If we are not there, we cannot control and restrain them.

    The Prime Minister: I would say what many business men would have said to my hon. Friend had he asked them–that he is talking nonsense. The business men of this country have made it absolutely clear that they support ratification of the Maastricht treaty without the social chapter. I fail to understand why my hon. Friend wishes to impose extra costs on companies in his constituency of Northampton, North and put his constituents out of work. I hope that he can justify that to them.

    I repeat that the Government cannot afford to, and will not, throw away the recovery. The social chapter is a risk which we will not take.

    Mr. Benn: In making this debate a vote of confidence, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have said that if the Government lose there will be a general election. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a straightforward question : has he asked the Queen to grant a dissolution? Has she agreed to grant a dissolution? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that–as has happened in the past–she might say, “It is only a new Parliament. There are other leaders who might take it on”? She might refuse a dissolution.

    The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear that if we lose the Division today I will seek a dissolution of Parliament. If the Government cannot carry their business, a dissolution of Parliament would undoubtedly be granted. The fact is that yesterday a disparate group of Members, voting for different interests on the same matter, chose to defeat the Government on a matter for which there is a genuine majority in the House. I repeat that the Government regard this as an issue of confidence and we will seek the dissolution of Parliament if we are defeated today.

    Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister, during proceedings in this House, to say that a dissolution would undoubtedly be granted, thereby appearing to put words in the mouth of the sovereign?

    Madam Speaker: It is for all hon. Members and Ministers to make their own comments, not for the Speaker of this House to interpret them or comment upon them.

    The Prime Minister: It is interesting to know in reality how unready the Liberal Democrats are for an election– [Interruption.]

    Several hon. Members rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take a point of order.

    Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister’s speech, and his whole case, is based upon what he considers to be the evils that are contained in the social chapter–a document which was issued in 1989 and was referred to in the reply to yesterday’s debate.

    From the researches of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), it emerged yesterday in a written answer that he received from a Minister that the social charter has never been presented or published by Her Majesty’s Government in Britain. Is it not the case that that charter, which is at the heart of this debate, has not been published by the Government, is not on the Table of the House, and is not in the Vote Office, so how can we proceed sensibly to consider this matter? Is it not the case that this whole debate is being conducted on hearsay and prejudice without the proper documentation being before the House?

    Madam Speaker: We are proceeding today under an Act of Parliament that has already passed through this House.

    Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that I spent nearly four years in the Whips Office — [Hon. Members :– “Oh.”] During that time, I was instructed not to apply any overt duress– [Laughter.] I will rephrase that, for the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members who are unable to follow the narrative. I was advised not to apply pressure or duress overtly in order to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote one way or another. I tried to obey that advice. Is not the Prime Minister’s reference to the prospect of a general election creating improper pressure on the many Conservative Members whose seats are in jeopardy?

    Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I, too, was in the Whips Office, in support of a Government who did not have a majority–and I know all about duress.

    The Prime Minister: The House is full of former Whips. At this moment, Britain is uniquely placed in regard to the rest of Europe–a “paradise for investors”, as M. Delors so kindly put it. There is no doubt that Britain–with low inflation, low interest rates, competitive labour costs and competitive interest rates–has the leading edge in the marketplace in Europe. The Government have no intention of throwing away those hard-won advantages, as the social chapter would compel us to do.

    The obsession that some Opposition Members have with the social chapter is bizarre. They want more regulation and more social costs just as the rest of Europe is seeking to draw back from extra social costs. France is curbing spending on health and pensions. Holland is freezing social security benefits. Germany is cutting back unemployment assistance and job creation schemes. They are doing so because they realise that Europe must keep all its costs down to compete in the world.

    Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about competitiveness in Europe, but Europe must compete with the United States and Japan as well. All across Europe people know that Europe is losing competitiveness at present. Twenty years ago, the unemployment rate across Europe was 60 per cent. of that in the United States. Today, it is 60 per cent. above the United States. That is largely because of the extra costs that we have placed on our businesses, running their competitiveness and damaging their employment prospects.

    The Opposition may seek to make gestures and price people out of work, but the Government’s job is to put them back in work–and that is the policy which we shall follow.

    Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): The Prime Minister is making another knocking speech against the social chapter. The reality is that he believes that he can politically survive today only if he threatens his entire party with self-destruction in a general election campaign. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how often and how long such a tactic can be successfully employed?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, with his curious voting pattern on Europe, represents a part of the United Kingdom which has done remarkably well out of inward investment because of our membership of the European Community–a membership which he would have done well to support in the Lobbies last night with the Government. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will have noted how he voted.

    Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. History shows that down the years sordid deals on the Floor of the House have cost the lives of countless people in the north of Ireland. Does not the Prime Minister have a duty today to tell the House what deal he did with the nine Ulster Unionists to buy their votes yesterday, contrary to their manifesto? Will you, Madam Speaker, also ask the Prime Minister to rule that the definition of an honest man is one who, once he has been bought, stays bought?

    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that those matters are not for me but for debate.

    The Prime Minister: I will clear up the matter for the hon. Gentleman so that he is left in no doubt. Nothing was asked for, nothing was offered, and nothing was given. So perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to withdraw his remark. He might also bear in mind that unemployment in the part of the United Kingdom that he represents is very high, as he never ceases to remind the House. He, too, would make it higher, by the way that he cast his vote in the Divisions that we have had.

    Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way–particularly, given his latter remarks, as I am wearing the Anglo-Irish tie. Further to his comments yesterday, which he has just repeated, does he agree that so severe has the recession become in the other European countries that, although no specific proposals for the social chapter have yet been made, when they are published in due course we shall find that they are milder than the social action programme that the Government already accept under the social dimension? May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend what all the fuss is about?

    The Prime Minister: I will tell my hon. Friend what all the fuss is about. Once we adhere to the social protocol, it will be there for good– not just for the brief period in which our partners in Europe may be wary about bringing matters forward.

    Mr. William Cash (Stafford): Given that the motion deals specifically with the adoption of the protocol on social policy, will my right hon. Friend tell me how we shall be able to go ahead with it when it is expressly excluded by the Act of Parliament that was passed last week but is included in the treaty that my right hon. Friend signed?

    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend, despite his close study of the matter, has perhaps misunderstood the domestic legislation that we have been examining. If he cares to read it more carefully–perhaps he could take some time to do so before we vote this afternoon–he will understand the whole matter a little better. The Government were elected just over a year ago with the largest popular vote in British history. It was a vote for policies for economic recovery, which we are now getting, for private enterprise, which we will sustain, and for individual freedom, which we are extending.

    Mr. John Hume (Foyle) rose–

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have generously given way, and I wish to make some progress.

    The social chapter would put much of that at risk. What the electors did not vote for at the last election was the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s policies : increased inflation, corporatism and state intervention, a reverse of trade union reform, and craven compliance and abject surrender in the face of every regulation coming from Brussels. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are only too ready to advance socialism through Europe, never ready to stand up to battle for British ideas and British ideas in Europe.

    One whiff of a new regulation, a new burden or a new cost from Europe and the right hon. and learned Gentleman yelps that he wants it too. No doubt as a small boy he was avid for measles and desperate for chicken pox as well. What is more, he says, without these new burdens Britain will become a sweatshop economy. It would be a great help if, during the recess, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would go out into industry and meet some of the people who run it. What would the social chapter do to much of other parts of legislation? Gone, reluctantly and sadly in the minds of Opposition Members, are the days when the trade unions held such sway in this country. They held it to ransom month after month, year after year. Now all they hold is the right hon. and learned Gentleman to ransom, issue by issue–not the Leader of the Opposition, but the trade unions’ glove puppet when it comes to policy. The social chapter would put much of that in reverse gear. The last thing we want is a Government committed to putting union bosses back in the boardroom, and I cannot believe that the House will vote for that.

    Many countries in the European Community are now going into recession, and that is where the obsession with extra regulation would put us back as well, just as we have emerged from it. I cannot understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants us to adopt the social chapter when other countries are beginning to realise its costs and burdens. As the president–

    Mr. Hume rose–

    The Prime Minister: I have given way sufficiently.

    As the president of the CBI said in The Times yesterday– [Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not like these quotes from people who understand business but they are going to get them. He said :

    “A Commons vote tonight leading to inclusion of the social chapter in the ratified Maastricht treaty would set back the cause of common sense and competitiveness in Europe by several years.”

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman will shortly be the first Labour leader to speak to the CBI; perhaps before he goes he should start listening to the CBI, too.

    Other countries around the world are beginning to realise the effect of excessive social costs. The chairmen of our leading banks yesterday may it perfectly clear that their concern– [Interruption.] The Opposition do not care. I am talking about the people who run industry and commerce, but the Opposition do not care. They do not mind how many people are unemployed if they can salve their consciences. The chairmen made it clear that people outside, European business men, are

    “concerned about the costs and over-rigid labour and social benefit structures in their own countries, and see the social chapter as adding to this problem.”

    Only Opposition Members fail to be able to see that.

    The choice because the House today could not be clearer. The Government have opened up new opportunities for people with low inflation and for union members to have more say in their affairs, more opportunities for home owners and more opportunities for business to compete abroad. By contrast, the Opposition offer policies of opportunism, not opportunity, at every level. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said last year :

    “I do not think we should oppose the Maastricht treaty”, yet that is exactly what he did last night. He claims to be an ardent European. He said:

    “I have always believed that Britain’s future lies in Europe, and that we must take a confident and leading role in the European Community.”

    So what has the ardent European done in the last year? He voted against Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. He voted against Maastricht in the paving debate; he voted against Maastricht last night. What did he do on Second Reading of the Single European Act, this ardent European? He abstained. What did he do on Second Reading of the Maastricht Bill, this ardent European? He abstained. On Third Reading, the ardent European abstained. Mr. Valiant-for-Abstention–the ardent European. Perhaps, out of sheer habit, he will abstain when we come to the vote this afternoon. Some European, and some principles! As Dr. Johnson said of a man with allegedly good principles, “He does not wear them out in practice”; and neither does the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He wears his principles lightly so that he may discard them whenever convenient.

    This country cannot afford to let this stalemate on European policy continue. It is against the interests of government in this country to do so. This House must decide today whether it is prepared to sustain the Government in office or encourage me to seek a dissolution. We did not lightly bring this motion forward, but the matter could not have been left any longer. It has to be decided, and the only way to decide it is to reject the social chapter. If this country were to accept it, it would mean an end to recovery, a return to corporatism, and an end to competitiveness. That is not the way forward for this country, and I hope that the House will decisively reject it.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Maastricht Treaty – Social Policy Protocol – 22 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made in the House of Commons on the 22nd July 1993 on the Maastricht Treaty – Social Policy Protocol.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): I beg to move,

    That this House, in compliance with the requirements of section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, notes the policy of Her Majesty’s Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.

    The debate we have in the House this afternoon is without precedent. After months of discussion, Parliament has passed the European Communities (Amendment) Act with huge majorities. In this House, there was a majority of over 240 on Second Reading and of 180 on Third Reading. In the other place, there was a majority of well over 100 on Third Reading and of 269 in the showpiece vote over a referendum. Rarely in recent history has Parliament shown its will so effectively. Today’s debate is an attempt to frustrate that will. I believe that ratification of the Maastricht treaty is in the interests of this country. I negotiated the treaty because I believed that it was in the interests of this country, and that is why I signed it. That is why I refused to ditch it or to change it, even though there was plenty of opportunity to do so over the past year. Let me set out to the House the reasons why I regard it as vital for this country, for the reasons do not just relate to what is within the treaty itself, but go wider than the treaty and relate to the general position in the European Community.

    We took the decision to join the Community–the right decision, I believe–over 20 years ago. From the day we took the decision, across both sides of the House, it has often been a matter of controversy. Sometimes it has been bitter, sometimes it has flared up, and at other times, for a while, it has been quiescent. Always that schism between the parties has rested there, and it has damaged the influence that this country has been able to exercise within the European Community.

    Too often, as a result of those divisions within this House and sometimes beyond it, this country under successive Governments–I make no party point –has allowed itself and its interests to be sidelined. If it had not been for those disputes, and if we had been able to play the full part in the Community that I believe we should have done, it might not have developed in the way it has, and many of the concerns that some hon. Members have might well have been dealt with.

    In that period, we have had many successes in the Community. The British rebate was a great negotiating success. The single market was one of the greatest changes in the EC since its conception. The reform of the common agricultural policy, the enlargement of the EC–each and every one, in its own way, is a big issue that has affected every aspect of the EC. All of them were British successes.

    It shows that we can win the arguments at the European table. Despite that, we have still not exercised the influence that we should have, or shaped the EC in the fashion that was possible.

    Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I wish to deal with serious matters rather than frivolous interruptions at the moment.

    Too often over the years, the dominant political attitude has been to object to the ways others have wanted to develop the EC, rather than to set out our plans, our prospects and our hopes and then fight for them to deliver the type of community that is right for this country.

    Many hon. Members are right in their opposition to the way in which the EC operates. Some of the ways that it operates need to be changed–I strongly support that. I want to see the EC reformed, as do my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members, but if we are to reform the EC, Britain must have influence in the EC. We will not have influence if we do not ratify the treaty that we have agreed after consultations in the House.

    I did not initiate the negotiations. I have made it clear that I thought that they were premature, and I said so to our partners during our negotiations. I did seek to negotiate what I believed to be the best outcome for Britain. I did so within a remit I had obtained from the House, and after seeking the views of Parliament and negotiating within them.

    I believe that, as a result of that discussion and debate within the House, it was right for me to decline to accept the social chapter–and the single currency without the express will of the House.

    I believe that the events which have followed the conclusion of the negotiations have proved that judgment to be correct. As I have told the House before, in my judgment Europe is not yet remotely ready for a single currency, and the present economic circumstances across Europe mean that it cannot afford the ambitions of the social chapter.

    The House and the Government must accept the obligations we entered into and that Parliament approved in the European Communities (Amendment) Act. There is a straightforward self-interested reason for this country why we must do that. If we fail to do that, no British Government will have influence in Europe for many years. Europe is a market of vital interest to our companies, and to this country’s future prosperity and future employment. If we wilfully throw away our capacity to defend our interests and promote our policies in that market, I believe that this country will pay a dear price for that folly in the years to come. I would ask every hon. Member–including some of my hon. Friends–to reflect deeply on that point before they vote this evening.

    Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber): I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. He has forcefully and clearly made the argument for our remaining within the EC in order to argue our case and develop our position. Surely the same argument exactly applies to the development of social policy. How can this country influence the development of European social policy by opting out ?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government accept that there is a social dimension to the EC. We have the best implementation of the social dimension of any European country. Perhaps if Opposition Members were better informed, they would not talk such rubbish so much of the time.

    I know the hon. Gentleman’s affection for Europe, but I say to him that a good European does not accept every piece of nonsense from Brussels just because it has a European label. If we believe that the social chapter is bad for employment–and I do believe that–then it is right for us to argue against it, and to try to persuade our partners to argue against it also.

    I believe that that is what we are doing, and increasingly in Europe, businesses and employers are saying what we have said in this country and what I have said from the outset–the charter will destroy jobs across the EC.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister: I should like to make a little progress. I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later.

    For the first time in 20 years, we are beginning to see a material move in the European Community agenda in the direction that Britain has long sought. It would be absurd for us to throw away our influence in the Community at this moment. We are seeing enlargement. We are seeing increasing moves towards the repatriation of responsibilities in this country–I hope for concrete progress on that in December. We are seeing proper budget control both within the Commission and right the way across the Community.

    The European Community will continue to develop, whatever else may happen. But we need to influence the way of that development and to see that it moves in a way that is congenial to the British interest.

    I want a wider European Community. I regard the present Community as but a fragment of Europe. That is why I wish to see the European Free Trade Association countries join, and a little later, our old friends in central and eastern Europe. The wider that we can spread the European Community, with a free market concept not only in economic terms but in military and security terms, the more we shall be able to hand a glorious bonus to the next generation that we should not throw away.

    So I want that wider Community–a free-market Community, a Europe with the minimum necessary centralisation, a Europe that exercises more powers through the elected Governments of its member states and fewer powers through unelected commissioners, a Europe in which national Governments exercise undiluted control over genuine domestic policy matters from national elections to our education system, from health care to religion. That is the sort of Community that has been our agenda for a long time, and we are beginning to make progress in encouraging others to support the development of that sort of Community.

    We seek a Community that emphasises co-operation between Governments, not imposition from the centre. We seek a Community where member states freely decide the agenda and the outcome. We seek a Community which limits common rules and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to matters such as free trade and free competition, where they are genuinely necessary for any level playing field to be established. That is the Community that we seek to develop and shape.

    However, we can do that only from the inside. If we are inside the Community fighting for that with allies elsewhere in the Community, we can build properly in the interests of our future. It is a process that we can take much further as a fully committed member of real influence.

    Mr. Benn: I have listened intently to the Prime Minister. Has it occurred to him that he can do the things of which he speaks only if he carries the full-hearted consent of the British people? He has the power through the House of Lords and the House of Commons, with a majority, to force the treaty through and ratify by the prerogative, but he has absolutely failed to tell the British people that they have any role in the matter, any interest in the matter or any right to determine the matter. As a result, he is carrying into the Community the establishment of Britain but not the British people. He will pay a heavy price for that, and so will the Community.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has been a passionate opponent of much of the Community for many years. He has not changed his views, and I respect him for that. He spoke in the House the other day of the rights of Parliament in this House. We are a parliamentary democracy. Decisions such as that to which the right hon. Gentleman refers should properly be taken in the House, and are taken in the House.

    I do not want to see either a centralist or a federalist Europe. I mean federalist in the sense in which we refer to it, not in the sense in which other countries refer to it. They mean something different by it. Yet when I say that to some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, they are apt to say to me, “What about this country or that? There are federalist countries in the Community.” That is true. There are. That is why we need influence and allies in Europe to build the sort of European Community we want.

    What is the alternative to that approach? To leave the Community? Very few right hon. or hon. Members would go into the Lobby for that proposition, today or any other day. What is the other alternative? To stand aside and let other people run the Community in a way of which we would not approve? That is hardly the right way to exercise influence in the Community.

    I have never understood why so many people who claim to be the most pro-British–whichever party is in government–have the least faith in our arguments and our capacity to prevail in the European argument.

    Mr. Cryer: This is not a frivolous point. One of the threads of the Prime Minister’s argument is that, unless we become enmeshed more deeply in Europe through the Maastricht treaty, we will not have any influence, and that the differences between political parties are inhibiting that influence.

    On one matter there has been consent between all the political parties–the common agricultural policy. It is wasteful, costly and out of control. That has not changed. The reforms that the Government have instituted are costing more. The food mountains are growing ; they are imposed on world food markets and are damaging developing nations. We have not done a thing to change it, and we cannot.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may say that we have not yet gone far enough, and I share that view ; I think that there are further reforms to be made to the common agricultural policy. Which way are we most likely to get them? By standing on the sidelines and throwing stones at the Community, or by being inside, seeking allies in other countries?

    There is only one way in which we could find ourselves with the centralist, federalist Europe that we do not want, and that would be to sideline ourselves, through our own efforts, and let other nations determine the future development of the Community. That would be a folly of historic proportions for the country and the House. That is why we need to seek allies in the Community, and why we need to honour our obligations and to ratify the treaty that Parliament has approved.

    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and I do not differ on the importance of the treaty, if he stands by what he said some time ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said :

    “I do not think we should oppose the Maastricht Treaty.” We have seen what the right hon. Gentleman has done over recent months, and what he will seek to do this evening. But it is a matter of huge importance to this country that we honour the obligation that we entered into after consulting the House, and then continue to build the Community that we wish to see.

    Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): The Prime Minister emphasised a moment ago that we are a parliamentary democracy. Notwithstanding his own feelings and those of his Cabinet on the social chapter, if the House decides to support the Opposition amendment in favour of the social chapter, will the Prime Minister, as a democrat, accept that resolution and implement it?

    The Prime Minister: I expect that the will of the House will be to support the Government. If by some mischance that were not to be the case, we would make our position clear at the conclusion of today’s business.

    Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central): My right hon. Friend knows that, for many years, I have opposed the social chapter because of the effect that it would have on companies such as ICI in Stowmarket, which is in my constituency. I urge the Prime Minister to continue to oppose the social chapter as strongly as he can. I will be voting against the social chapter and in support of the Government in the Lobby tonight. [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: I hope that the gesture of the hon. Member for Durham Central (Mr. Lord) referred to ICI. ICI is one of the biggest employers in the country– [Interruption.] –and provides jobs in the constituencies of many of the hon. Members who are shouting at me. Its chairman, Sir Denys Henderson, has said :

    “The Prime Minister is right to seek ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and, equally, it is vital that he continues to insist on the Social opt-out provision which he successfully negotiated last year.”

    That is the view of a business man whose company will employ many thousands of people in the constituencies of many hon. Members who are contemplating voting for the amendment.

    Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) rose–

    The Prime Minister: I should like to make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

    The Opposition amendment seeks to impose the social chapter on us. I believe that it would be profoundly damaging to jobs and growth in this country, as do business men–although, having quoted Sir Denys Henderson, I will not detain the House with a large number of other quotes that I could offer to that effect.

    There is no true majority for the social chapter in the House. It is wholly opposed by those who understand the economic damage that it would cause. There is an alliance of Members, for differing reasons, who may seek to come together and vote for the amendment, but it is not an alliance based on any conviction whatever.

    My hon. Friends are aware of the deficiencies of the social chapter, yet I know that some of them are tempted to vote for the Labour amendment or against the substantive motion. They do not believe in it, but they have convinced themselves that it will prevent ratification of the Act.

    Other hon. Members may have considered voting in a similar way. They, too, know and understand in many cases the damage of the amendment. They do not want more unemployment and they do not want a more centralist Community. I hope that those Members will reflect again on the cynicism of such a vote, and on the damage that it will do to this country.

    Parliament is no longer debating the merits of the Maastricht Bill. The Bill is now an Act and, in due course, the treaty will be ratified. What Parliament is debating is whether we should negotiate a new treaty to add Britain to the social agreement. The treaty in the Maastricht Bill–the European Communities (Amendment) Bill–is now law, as the House well understands. Royal Assent has been given to the Act, so the treaty will be ratified. Seventy-one separate votes in favour of the Bill should not be frustrated by one parliamentary motion expressing an opinion to the contrary.

    The House knows that to vote for the Labour amendment today is a cynical and unscrupulous vote which does not represent the true will of the House. It is an alliance of different parties with different interests, voting for the same amendment for different purposes. In any genuine free-standing vote in the House, the social chapter would be defeated, as any Member of the House knows. As the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal Democrat party has said : “The social chapter opens the way to European- wide collective bargaining arrangements. They are wrong for this country’s future and contrary to the Liberal party’s belief in decentralising wage bargaining. It is an approach that failed in the 1970s and one that could not work in the 1990s. It is too costly, too inflexible and too rigid”–

    Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps he would like to know the facts that made me change my mind and support the Government tonight. A manufacturing company in my constituency has interests in Europe but is now considering closing down those interests because the costs imposed by the social chapter, and will be bringing those jobs back into this country and into my constituency. On that basis, my right hon. Friend will appreciate that there was no way that I could support the treaty chapter.

    The Prime Minister rose–

    Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey): May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his latest convert?

    The Prime Minister: I am always delighted to accept a sinner returning home. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) back supporting the Government. The Opposition amendment is a stratagem by an Opposition who have lost their principled concern for the Community. They are seeking solely to embarrass the Government, and a small number of Back Benchers want to obstruct the treaty. Anyone who is concerned with the interests of this country would regard the attitude of the official Opposition as incomprehensible, and that of the Liberal party, given its previous statements, as, frankly, contemptible.

    Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil): Since the Prime Minister has for, if I recall, the third or fourth time quoted my words–incidentally, quoted words that were uttered before the treaty was signed–may I say to him that his speech so far has been a most passionate and, if I may say so, effective statement about why it is important to be inside European institutions helping to shape them, not outside suffering from them.

    I do not understand how the speech that he has given so far, which is about being included in European institutions, can be used to justify an opt-out from European institutions. It is entirely true that my party and I have reservations about the social chapter, just as the Prime Minister has reservations about the Maastricht treaty, but he has argued that it is in our country’s interests to be inside the treaty changing them, not outside complaining about them. What applies to the Maastricht treaty also applies to the social chapter. If the Prime Minister genuinely believes that Britain’s interests are served by being within Europe shaping its institutions, why is he recommending to the House that we should be outside complaining and suffering from them?

    The Prime Minister: I recall going fishing many years ago when somebody caught an eel. “My,” they said, “look how it wriggles.” Wriggle though the right hon. Gentleman may, the quotes that I have used support my case and not his–as, since the right hon. Gentleman tempts me, does this one :

    “The action Labour is taking will prolong Britain’s uncertainties about Europe, delay inward investment, delay sterling recovery and lose jobs. I am not going to vote for Labour for one night of fun at the Government’s expense and ask the British people to pay in more lost jobs.”

    Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that or not?

    Mr. Ashdown: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman, and his party, believe that. I remind the Prime Minister that, were it not for the votes of our party, there would be no Maastricht treaty before the House. I remind him that our position was then, as it is today, that, if it is a question of ratification of the treaty, there is no doubt where our votes stand, but this is a question of whether Britain shall be inside the social chapter of the treaty or outside. Our view consistently has been that we should be inside, and we shall express that view tonight.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has just made a statement of immense significance, for he and his party were asking earlier about the will of the House. If the Labour amendment is defeated and the main motion is now laid before the House, the only conclusion from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is that he will be in the Government Lobby on the main motion. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, and I invite him to intervene again if he wants to correct me.

    Mr. Ashdown: Let me make it clear to the Prime Minister that, if the circumstances he describes arrive tonight, we shall continue to vote to express our wish that the social chapter should provide benefits to Britain and to Britain’s work force, which has nothing to do with ratification of the Maastricht treaty, as the Prime Minister knows full well.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman becomes more ludicrous by the intervention. By that time, the amendment will have been lost. The party that talks about the will of the House, within seconds of having seen that amendment lost, would seek not to vote with the logic of its argument. How like a Liberal. Usually it takes a day for them to change their minds; this time it is rather quicker.

    Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. If he thinks back to the story of the young boy fishing, does he recall that not only is an eel “one that wriggles”, but that eels are excessively slippery? [Laughter.]

    The Prime Minister: This is becoming more fun than I had imagined.

    Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): Does my hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding what might happen if we were to adopt the social chapter, this country’s experience with the European Community has taught us that it has many ways of destroying jobs? That is shown by the fishing industry, which is practically on its knees, and by the meat processing industry–the latest to be decimated by European regulations.

    During all the years that I have run a small business and other firms have come to me with their problems, European regulations have consistently destroyed jobs in this country. The idea that we will be able to control the European Community’s imposition of those regulations on employers in this country is pie in the sky, and the triumph of hope over experience.

    The Prime Minister: In that case, my hon. Friend should be in the Lobby against the social chapter this evening. As a small business woman, my hon. Friend will know that 60 per cent. of our exports go to the European Community, and that a massive amount of inward investment comes to every part of this country partly because of our membership of the European Community.

    Let me turn directly to the social chapter. Through qualified majority voting–not unanimity–the Community would have the power to determine social and working conditions. The social chapter would allow the Community to restrict part-time work, whether or not we agreed in this House. It could set a rigid framework for rules and conditions of employment, which would replace the rules developed in this country, and few areas, if any, would be exempt. Trade unions across Europe could forge deals and translate them into Community law, over the heads of individual workers and without the involvement of the British Parliament.

    Mr. Ashdown rose —

    The Prime Minister: I will spare the House another quotation from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). Above all, the social chapter would mean that many who are now employed would be likely to become unemployed. Many without jobs would stay without jobs. The main right that workers would get would be the right to become unemployed.

    I strongly support our membership of the Community, but I support a Community which does not intrude into areas that are properly the domain of the member states. That, I believe, is what the social chapter does. There is already concern across the House, not just on the Conservative Benches, at the Commission’s attempts to use health and safety powers for social legislation. We will oppose any abuse of those powers. We shall, if necessary, challenge the Commission’s legal base–as we are doing over the working time directive. In the social protocol, through the opt-out that I negotiated with the consent of the House and a massive majority to do so, I have preserved the right of the House to decide. Yet, in the amendment to the Government’s motion, the Opposition seek to remove that right. They are supported by the Liberal Democrats. On the social chapter, as on defence, value added tax and much else, the Liberal Democrats say one thing and do another. They change their principles from doorstep to doorstep, week to week and issue to issue.

    This week, the hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) were both parroting the facile proposition that, without the social chapter, Britain would have a sweatshop economy. Good slogan; rotten argument. The Labour party says it. So does the Liberal party, naturally. That is nothing surprising–they are usually indistinguishable, and usually both wrong.

    The truth is that Britain has the best health and safety record in Europe, the best occupational pension scheme in Europe and the best system for caring for vulnerable people in Europe. Rather than talking such nonsense, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should talk to business and learn what he is talking about. Business knows that the Community must compete or contract. If we add to social costs, we will not compete and we shall contract. We shall lose jobs in the short term and the long term. The one certain impact of the social chapter is that jobs will be lost and unemployment will be worse. That is what is at stake.

    Is it worth it? Go and ask our industrialists. Will it help them to grow? Will it pay high wages? Will it guarantee jobs? Ask good investors whether the social chapter will attract them to Britain. Listen to the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation, the British chambers of commerce and the Institute of Directors–every single British organisation. They know that playing games on the social chapter is a dangerous game with the British economy. Everyone knows, except Opposition Members who would impose those burdens on British industry and the British work force.

    Uncertainty about Britain’s commitment to the Community is damaging to the country. It would undermine our standing, our influence and our national interests. That uncertainty undoubtedly will arise if Parliament does not now implement the Act that we have approved in Parliament. It must clear the way for the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. I believe that the treaty embodies the genuine will of a parliamentary majority, not the will of a coalition of disparate minorities simply to obstruct.

    As the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said : “we should not consort with people who are just completely, fundamentally anti the European Community.”

    I hope that he stands by that.

    During the past few years, Britain has had an increasingly strong voice in the Community. As never before, we have influenced its future direction. So long as we remain a fully committed member, we can have an even stronger voice in the future.

    That does not mean accepting everything wanted by our partners. It means being in there in the Community; arguing, debating, shaping the future of our Community and carrying alliances with us. Europe is beginning to move in our direction. In France, in Germany and in Britain, a large majority looks not to a super-state, not to a united states of Europe, but to a Europe of nation states. Those states co-operate closely and enjoy a single market embracing 340 million people, but they retain their identity and sovereignty.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): My right hon. Friend will know of my strong opposition to and reservations about the Maastricht treaty. I have been greatly encouraged by what he has said about how he envisages Europe’s future and the influence that he can bring to bear on Europe from within Europe. In his speech this afternoon, will my right hon. Friend help me by assuring the House and me that this country will not move towards a single currency and return to the exchange rate mechanism as long as he is in power? Will he assure us that we in this country, who are proud of our sovereignty, integrity and place in the world, will be able to continue to have control over our foreign and security policies?

    The Prime Minister: I have repeatedly said to the House on a number of occasions that I do not envisage that we shall be able to move towards a single currency–a matter on which the House makes the decisions–in anything remotely like the time scale previously set out. That is increasingly becoming the view of other people. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has said on several occasions, there is no prospect of our returning to the exchange rate mechanism in the near future, as the conditions are simply not right. I do not envisage that they will be right for some considerable period of time.

    Britain’s interests demand that we play a leading part in the Community. Common sense demands that we retain the freedom of action which I secured in signing the social protocol. That is why the Government are determined to ratify the treaty I signed and to oppose last-ditch efforts to delay or distort it. It is a matter of national interest that we proceed in that fashion, and it is upon that basis that I ask the House to put aside and reject the Opposition amendment, and to adopt the motion.