The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Unemployment

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Tokyo – 20 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made in Tokyo to the Nikkeiren Economic Organisation on Monday 20th September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a very honour to speak today to this distinguished audience and a very great pleasure to be back in Tokyo. I was last here only ten weeks ago for the Group of Seven Summit and I am delighted to have the opportunity of returning so soon.

    A western traveller many years ago in 1876 arriving in Japan was impressed. It was, he said: “Like mental oxygen to look upon and breathe in a unique civilisation like that of Japan.”

    “Mental oxygen” is a good phrase; it suggests a new way of seeing things, a new way of doing things. What was true at the start of the Meiji era is true at the start of the Heisei era. Every European who visits Japan sees the world and his place in it in a different light.

    We approach challenges in a different way. British mountaineers were the first to conquer the Eiger in Switzerland navigating a complex ascent along ridges and up gulleys. Japanese mountaineers were the first to climb the Eiger vertically; it took years of preparation; the ascent took exceptional teamwork and exceptional patience; nobody had ever thought of that approach before.

    Similarly daunting challenges are facing Japan and Britain today. We will go about tackling them in different ways but we will both be determined to tackle them head on.

    Perhaps the foremost challenge in Japan today is political. I have the greatest respect for Prime Minister Hosokawa and what he and his government have set out to achieve. Like any elected politician, he believes fervently in parliamentary democracy. I welcome any effort to keep politics in direct touch with the wishes of the electorate; it is an aspect in government which some in Europe in the last few years have sometimes underestimated.

    But today I want to talk about the purpose of my visit to Japan. I want to seize the opportunity to inject new energy into Britain and Japan’s partnership; I want to extend it into new areas and I want it to become a true strategic partnership.

    Already we are in close in touch about the great international issues. We are both strong supporters of the Middle East peace process; Britain and Japan are both ready to help follow-up in the historic accord between the PLO and Israel; we have worked together as part of the successful United Nations operation in Cambodia and tackled together the threats to our, planet’s environment.

    I warmly welcome Japan’s growing involvement in the maintenance of international peace and security. The world needs not only your financial contributions but also your peacekeepers and a confident political voice. I know there is keen interest in Japan in the United Nations Security Council. The effectiveness of the Council must be paramount but if there were to be consensus on enlargement I have no doubt that Japan, by virtue of its global interests, its contribution to international security and its contribution to United Nations peacekeeping, could undertake the full range of responsibilities of a permanent member and should certainly benefit.

    One of your great reformers last century wrote:

    “When I was twenty I knew that men were linked together in one province. When I was thirty I knew that men were linked together in one nation. When I was forty I knew that men were linked together in one world of five continents.”

    That encapsulates well, I believe, the spirit that we need today.

    We need the closest possible contact between our two peoples. Two great cultural festivals – UK90 in Japan and the remarkably successful Japan Festival 1991 in Britain – have brought our two peoples together. Sumo and karaoke are now as well known in London as Gary Lineker is in Tokyo but I want to do a good deal more.

    I am therefore delighted to announce that a new scholarship programme called “The UK-Japan New Century Scholarship” is being set up for your best students at Oxford, our great university. Mr. Hosokawa and I will announce a high-level conference in London in January on Japan-British relations. Tomorrow, I will meet some of the British and Japanese scientists who are already working together and next week the British Minister for Science will visit Japan to look at the scope for deepening that important scientific cooperation.

    On this visit to Japan I have brought with me twelve of our most senior businessmen whose companies without exception are all taking a strategic approach to this market. We now sell more here than to any country outside Europe and North America. British direct investment in Japan now approaches 3 billion dollars, half of it made in the last two years. That is good but we aim to do much better. Japanese companies – your companies – have invested heavily in Britain. In doing so, you have changed the way we work. The Nissan plant in Sunderland is now their most efficient in the world. Our car components industry has performed so well Toyota has brought forward its target date to achieve 80 per cent local content by six months.

    We work hard in the market and we welcome you into ours. That is not always a popular policy. We need your cooperation if we are to show critics that this positive, open policy is, as I profoundly believe it to be, the right policy.

    I am therefore delighted by the emphasis which Mr. Hosokawa is putting on deregulation and on structural reform. I hope that his government will also move decisively to stimulate domestic demand; that would help trade and help living standards and I think it would bring benefits to the peoples of both countries.

    I hope you will also be able to take other measures to open your markets. You surely have no need now for tax discrimination against imported spirits; it cannot be in your best interests to maintain lingering barriers in other sectors, including financial services. British companies should have every opportunity to compete on equal terms for large contracts in sectors like aerospace. The Keidenren has issued some very welcome guidelines on open purchasing and I am sure more Japanese companies will apply them internationally and I welcome that unreservedly.

    For over a decade, the British Government has pioneered deregulation and open economic policies. My predecessor, Margaret Thatcher, began to reshape the British economy by revitalising old and sleepy public monopolies and opening them up to competition. Sixty per cent of what were in 1979 public corporations are now privately owned; they employ almost one million people. During the Eighties, we were the world’s second-largest overseas investor; many of those investments come from those giant British companies freed from the shackles of nationalisation.

    European economies like your own have been going through turbulent times; currency crisis and recession have hit us all. But Britain is among the first to find its way out of the gloom, Inflation is staying low, well below the European average and we intend to keep it that way. Our economy is growing again and GDP is forecast to continue on an upward path. Industrial production is up. GDP and retail sales are up, productivity is up, very sharply up indeed. Unemployment is still too high but has come down this year. The tough decisions that we took are now paying off and recovery is proceeding across a broad front.

    Other European economies will follow; there is light ahead at the end of this recessionary tunnel but this must not, I believe, be the blinding light of excess ambition. The countries of the European Community must learn from their mistakes and not forget their mistakes. The fault lines in the Exchange Rate Mechanism produced a salutary shock. Of course we should seek ways of promoting economic convergence and greater currency stability in Europe and beyond but we should not believe that the creation of institutions or the declaration of grand intentions will produce miracles. The Community must proceed at a pace which carries the support of Europe’s 370 million people. We must welcome new members to the Community when they are ready to join it. We must take account of the national identity, old cultures and proudly-held traditions of all of Europe’s members. We must build on our strengths trade, the rule of law, democracy – recognising that the Community is the best instrument we have for securing the peace and the prosperity of Europe.

    The European Community should do well what it can do. We strongly supported the creation of the Single Market. We insisted that it be an outward-looking creation. We must make sure it works from Sicily to Scotland. We insisted that cars produced in Japanese-owned factories in Britain enjoy the same access to the market as any other European cars.

    Mr. Chairman, the European Community must also help negotiate a global agreement on trade – the Uruguay Round of GATT, European Ministers meet later today in Brussels to coordinate their position but it is the Commission of the EC – in the person of Sir Leon Brittan – which negotiates on our behalf. We have full confidence in the Commission in this important task and we believe they should be left free to get on and negotiate a settlement.

    An agreement would inject a powerful stimulus into the world economy as markets enlarge and opportunities to trade at lower prices open up. That means growth in our economies, it means growth in jobs. It is hard to make precise calculations of the effects but respectable estimates put the extra income generated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. That growth will happen without the inflationary pressures which come with just about any other form of stimulus; there will be millions of new jobs.

    There are of course still seductive voices urging us in the wrong direction, preaching trade regional blocs. The GATT deal is too difficult, they suggest; it runs against the interests of our citizens, they suggest; our citizens need increased protection, not increased exposure, they say; our cultures, our social traditions are at stake, they say.

    I must say to this luncheon today that those voices are wrong and those voices are dangerous. Protectionism provokes retaliation and escalation; it leads to trade disputes and politicises economic relations; it acts as a hidden tax, raising prices and with them wage pressures; it handicaps efficient producers by raising their costs.

    Peter Sutherland, the GATT Director-General, wants a deal in December. So does Britain. So, I hope and believe, does every one in this room today and I hope that feeling is extended right across the five continents.

    Britain’s partnership with Japan is a key relationship; it works well and it will continue to do so. Japan also lies at the heart of our strategy towards the most dynamic region in the world. Japan has shown the way, through its enterprise and the industry of its people, to a new regional prosperity. Asia as a whole is enjoying spectacular economic growth, old controls are being abandoned, market based freedoms introduced.

    This growth is being translated into new and burgeoning markets, into flourishing two-way trade and investment, into a new weight for Asia in world markets for capital and equity. Economic and social development are leading in turn to greater diversity in people’s lives, to increased choice, to more open and more democratic societies.

    Political voice comes from economic choice. From South Korea to Thailand, people are gaining more say in their own government. The trend is unstoppable, as it has been elsewhere in the world; it is natural, it is right and it will underpin stability; stability founded on the rule of law – civil law as much as criminal law. In a democratic society, no-one can be above the law.

    All this adds up to a substantial shift in the balance of global forces. Asia is acquiring a greater capacity, a greater will to shape the issues on the world political and economic agenda. Asian countries are increasingly involved in United Nations peacekeeping not only in Cambodia but also further afield. Asian governments increasingly discuss among themselves and with their partners the sources of potential instability in the region as well as its potential for nuclear and conventional proliferation. New regional frameworks for economic and security dialogue have been born.

    We in Britain acknowledge the importance of these perspectives and developments. Britain has long been present and active in Asia. The first Englishman arrived in Japan nearly 400 years ago, took a Japanese wife and was in part responsible for the creation of the Japanese navy; other British citizens were already trading and exporting nearly everywhere else in Asia.

    Today, we have a wealth of traditional connections with Asian countries, ties of sentiment, language, cultures and blood. History has, for example, given Britain a special responsibility for Hong Kong. Our aim is to ensure that Hong Kong’s success will continue into the new century founded on the concept of “one country, two systems” and underpinned by representative government and the rule of law. I know it is well understood here in Japan how important a role Hong Kong has to play in the region’s future prosperity.

    History is therefore what you make of it. I am proud of all we have built on our forefathers’ fascination with Asia; the legacy goes well beyond commercial success. There is the excellence of Asian students at British universities; the curiosity of our young people – nearly 700 are here for example on the Japan English Teachers Scheme; the impact which the BBC World Service Television has made in Asia and I am pleased that it is coming to Japan next April.

    We are today determined to give Asia a new place in our national priorities; we plan to deepen our involvement and our presence in Asia.

    First, we seek a closer political dialogue with Asian governments. I have spoken of the breadth and excellence of our exchanges with Japan. We also welcome moves to establish new regional frameworks for economic and security dialogue; we are ready to contribute to that dialogue in any way which would be helpful.

    Second, we are seeking a still stronger commercial presence. Already in the Asia Pacific region Britain is the largest European investor, the largest European exporter of invisibles, the second-largest European exporter of goods. We shall do even better in future.

    Finally, we are seeking, Mr. Chairman, fuller cooperation with Asian countries as they join us in tackling regional and global problems. We believe that our membership of the key international organisations, our military expertise and our experience of conflict resolution well qualify us to help. Your Ambassador in London was kind enough to publish an article praising our diplomatic skills – perhaps partly as evidence of his own diplomatic skill in observing that in his host country! But we do believe that we can help Asia as Asia helps the rest of the world.

    But there is no doubt that the problems of this small world increasingly affect us all in Asia and in Europe. Who, I wonder, one hundred years ago here in Tokyo would have thought how important peace in the Middle East would be to Japanese business? Common problems demand common responses: British people and Japanese people together in the United operation in Cambodia, together in car factories in Britain, together in finance houses in the City of London and together in aid projects in Africa.

    Not unnaturally, we can come at the same problem from different angles. Europeans and Asians have always done that but I think as we do so, we produce better solutions for it. If you look at an object with one eye, you can see it clearly but with no sense of perspective; only with two eyes can the real shape of things be understood. I believe that together we can combine the best of two worlds and start the twenty-first century in good shape and in increasing friendship and it is therefore, Mr. Chairman, with that in mind that I would also, if I may, invite this distinguished audience to join me in a toast; it is a simple toast but a heartfelt toast and I hope you will feel able to join it. The toast, Mr. Chairman, is simply this:

    Good relations between the United Kingdom and Japan; may they remain good and improve! Relations between the United Kingdom and Japan [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Article on State of the Country – 9 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s article on the state of the country, issued on 9th September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t pretend the past year has been easy. But the difficult decisions we took were necessary. Our difficulties have been well chronicled. But our steady progress in so many policies – less dramatic perhaps but vital – has often been overlooked.

    So it is worth setting out what has also been happening away from all the fuss and palaver of Westminster.

    Who would have predicted that we’d be able to bring down inflation to below 1 1/2 per cent for the first time in over 30 years?

    Who would have predicted we could bring interest rates down to 6 per cent?

    Who expected that exports would rise to record levels and that unemployment would have fallen in the first five months of this year?

    Who forecast that it would be Britain – not Germany or France which would lead the way out of recession in Europe?

    Who imagined that growth this year and next year in Britain is likely to be higher than anywhere else in Europe?

    No one did. Yet these are the facts.

    And that is not all. Away from economic matters much else has been happening. Quietly but surely we have carried forward reforms in our major public services -shifting their focus to the consumer – to you, the public – not the vested interests which deliver them.

    A few examples will suffice: more patients treated in NHS hospitals last year compared with the year before – itself a record year. New guarantees for patients on waiting times and fixed appointment times.

    In education we’ve seen a steady increase in parent power. Nearly a thousand more schools voting to run their own affairs. All schools now having their own budgets. And parents getting annual reports on their childrens’ progress and more information on schools GCSE and A levels results. And judging by this year’s results there are already signs of some improvement in standards.

    Under the Citizen’s Charter we are seeking – and are beginning to get – improved standards across a whole range of public services. The Council Tax has been introduced successfully, despite all the dire predictions; trades union reform taken a step further with new rights for workers to ballot before strike action and join the union for their choice.

    The sort of country I want to see

    Yet people say “okay, these are details, but where are we going? What are you trying to achieve?”

    My hopes for our future are built around the four simple principles we set out at the election: choice, opportunity, responsibility, and ownership.

    People want more control over their lives. That means they want more choice, more opportunities, more people owning their own homes and shares and building up wealth. It also means taking more responsibility for the consequences of their choices. And more responsibility for their own actions and those of their children. In other words, not forever looking first to the State or the social worker to solve their problems.

    I want to develop these policies because I believe they reflect people’s aspirations.

    Everywhere people want jobs for themselves and for their children. They want to be independent. They want to choose schools, holidays, where they live, how they live. They don’t want others telling them what to do. They want better prospects for their children: good schools, good hospitals. They want security in their old age, and they want a more courteous and a safer society; one in which the law is respected and crime is punished.

    People have always had ambitions like these. But, too often, I have seen people whose ambitions were frustrated, not through any fault of their own, but because they were denied opportunities. They were denied opportunities by a new form of snobbery, all the worse because it cloaked itself in the language of “progressive” social conscience: “We know best, so you’ll do as we say, not as you choose”.

    I want to change that attitude. I want opportunity for all based on a free market. And I want a country which feels a sense of continuity with its past and a sense of responsibility for its future. Without that we will never have a country at ease with itself. And I intend to fight for it whatever the difficulties and whatever the opposition.

    Sustaining the recovery

    These are “social” goals. But all social policy begins with economic policy. We can’t spend what we haven’t earned. There are three touchstones: low inflation; sound public finances and sustained recovery based on competitiveness at home and abroad.

    First inflation. We have brought it down and we intend to keep it down. It does immense damage: to businesses, to jobs, to people on fixed incomes and people with savings. Pensioners especially. It is public enemy number one. So don’t expect me to listen to those who say a little bit of inflation can do you good. It can’t.

    Second public finances: the fact is we are living beyond our means and consuming at the expense of our children. We will stick to our manifesto pledges on pensions and other benefits.

    But we need to look at the long term difficulties in funding social expenditure – now outstripping inflation by some 3 per cent per year. That can’t go on. We need to decide now how to create the resources to care for the vulnerable, the sick and the elderly in the future. We need to reduce Government borrowing and control government spending across the board.

    We are not alone in facing this challenge. Countries like Germany, France, Holland, Belgium and Italy have similar problems. Difficult decisions are being made everywhere. Britain cannot be the exception. For the sake of jobs and prosperity in the future, we must make the right choices now.

    The need for competitiveness

    That is vital if we are to achieve the third goal: sustained recovery based on competitiveness.

    There are no easy markets any more. We have no Empire that will automatically buy British. We have to compete fair and square, not just with Europe and America, but with the emerging economies of the Far East and the Pacific Rim – Eastern Europe too. We can’t shut them out.

    That means we have got to be competitive in manufacturing. Two-thirds of all we earn abroad comes from things we make and sell.

    The 1980s saw a turn around in British manufacturing. No one talks of “the British disease” any more. Manufacturing output is growing faster than for 5 years. Productivity is growing faster than for 7 years. Unit wage costs are falling faster than at any time since records began. Yet even so we still lag behind some of our main competitors.

    The vital need to improve education and training

    Above all it is vital that we produce enough people with the necessary education and skills. Too many managers tell me that far too many young people come out of British schools unable to read or write properly, lacking self discipline and commitment.

    The cost to British industry of poor basic skills is estimated to be £5 billion a year.

    For far too long a small minority of so-called progressive educationalists have made the running in education. They mock the importance of getting children to learn the basics: spelling, grammar, tables, self-discipline. This attitude is damaging to our children and to our country.

    So while we are working to simplify the curriculum and cut out unnecessary paperwork for teachers, we are not going back on the basic principles of our education reforms. Attention to basics in the curriculum. More emphasis on vocational training and experience as well as academic training. Regular testing and information for parents. And improvement in teacher training.

    Helping industry win new markets

    But that is not all we are doing to make Britain more competitive.

    We are giving more help to our exporters. They now have better terms of credit so that they can sell more easily abroad. We’ve stepped up our export promotion efforts both at home, on trade missions, and in our embassies abroad.

    We are giving greater emphasis to innovation. As early as the last century people were complaining that we did not use British scientific expertise to good effect in British industry. Our new science policy aims to ensure we exploit the practical application of British science in Britain.

    We are providing more opportunities for private industry to work with the public sector. Who built the roads and railways hospitals and schools in the first place? Answer: the private sector with private finance. What they did once, they can do again in partnership with Government.

    And in the coming year we will be cutting through the red tape jungle to help businesses concentrate on the job they are there to do. Regulation is sometimes a necessary evil. It’s those unnecessary twiddles, petty rules, forms and fussy details we need to cut out.

    Tackling crime

    Right at the top of our agenda for the coming year is the need to tackle the growing problem of crime.

    I start with three propositions. First there should be no excuses for crime. Crime is the responsibility of the individual who commits it.

    Second, crime needs to be punished. It is criminals who should be afraid, not the public.

    Third, all of us need to be involved in the war against crime. We need to be involved as parents, teachers and ordinary citizens; teaching our children the difference between right and wrong. Helping to prevent crime in the area in which we live. Helping the police and courts to catch and punish the guilty. They cannot do their job without the help of the public.

    This year we have introduced tougher sentences for drunk driving, joy riders and for people who offend while on bail. The courts can now take previous convictions into account. And we have reformed unit fines.

    Next year we will be taking action to deal with squatters and new age travellers – two new scourges of the modern age. And we’ll be giving the courts new powers to place persistent young offenders in secure accommodation.

    And we will be examining further ways of making our police and courts more effective as we review two of the most fundamental reports into our police and criminal justice system for years: the Sheehy report into the police and the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

    Priorities for the ’90s

    Basic to our approach in the 1990s will be the need to shift priorities away from short term consumption to long term wealth creation. Ours is a proud country. The oldest democracy. The most stable and still one of the most peaceful societies in the world.

    But we cannot rest on our laurels. If we want to preserve all those things we cherish, we have got to put the need for enterprise and the prime importance of manufacturing success right at the centre of our thinking. Industry should be the first choice not the last choice of our best people. We need to encourage and reward success and talent, not hold it back. We need to take responsibilities ourselves, not wait for others to come to the rescue.

    If we can do all these things, then we will enter the 21st century an increasingly confident and prosperous nation, keeping our place as an influential voice in world affairs.

    If we do not make these changes then the fault is our own. It is our choice. Our future in our hands.

  • Mr Major’s Best of British Speech – 30 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Best of British or Britain Means Best speech, given on 30th July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In the last few months we British have broken a number of records. Exports are at an all time high. We now export more per person than Japan. Retail sales are at a record level. Our competitiveness is improving at a record rate. Strikes are at the lowest level since records began over 100 years ago. And the number of people who own their own homes is the highest ever.

    That is all excellent news. But we cannot afford to be complacent.

    That’s why I have spent the last year putting in place policies to get British industry moving again.

    British business has now got the framework it wanted: low inflation, low interest rates, competitive prices and a single market in Europe.

    And they’re making the most of it. We are conquering new markets, investing more and as a result unemployment has been falling for five months in a row.

    That’s good, but it’s not good enough. Unemployment is still far too high. We are going to have to fight harder to sell our goods in Continental Europe. But we are on the right track. And Britain is expected to grow faster than almost any other country in Europe this year and next.

    Last year we succeeded in getting inflation down, my number one priority. We mustn’t lose that. My priority now is to make sure that ‘British means Best’ in every market. That means buying the best machines and creating the best designs. That means a well educated workforce, that is prepared to train and retrain. That means governments have to get rid of fussy, nit-picking regulations. Some rules are a necessary evil. But let’s not have unnecessary evils as well.

    The other necessity is to reduce the budget deficit.

    Every family knows you can’t go on spending more than you earn. The same is true for governments. Our spending on social security is rising too fast. More and more people are claiming benefits. We must ensure the really needy get all the help they deserve. But we also need to make sure we aren’t giving taxpayers’ money – your money – to people who don’t need it. This will involve some tough decisions. But governments are there to do just that – take the responsible long term view.

    Of course, irresponsible opposition parties will always offer you the best of all worlds – more spending, no tax increases. But the British people aren’t mugs. You know there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

    All of us need to think and plan long term. There isn’t going to be a repeat of the boom days of the late 1980s. No more stories of Champagne shortages. Those times were very good for some people. But they couldn’t last. And they aren’t what we want. We need a recovery that raises everyone’s living standards. That may mean it is more gradual, but it will mean that it lasts.

    In Government it is the long term that matters. That was why it was necessary to get inflation down. That is why we need an influential position in Europe. That is why we must plan now for the social security system we can afford in the future. None of these policies may make us popular in the short term. But they are right for the country in the long term. And we are going to stick to them.

  • 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.

  • PMQT – 22 July 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

    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. Hinchliffe : Is it not a fact that the Government’s position on the social chapter is totally at odds with the views and real interests of the British people? If the Prime Minister loses the vote tonight, will he do the honourable thing : resign, go to the country and let the people decide?

    The Prime Minister : That was a brave stab in the dark at the beginning of Question Time. I think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong about the social chapter. Perhaps I may quote to him what the president of the Council of British Chambers of Commerce in Europe has said of the social chapter that, if it were enacted, it “would result in the closure of many small and medium-sized businesses, creating even higher unemployment”.

    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to see that in his constituency or any other.

     

    Q2. Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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

    Mr. Atkinson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures released yesterday, which show that retail sales are now at a record high level, are good news for British high streets and further evidence that our economy is recovering and that prosperity and confidence are being restored?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it is good news for everyone, not just retailers. Retail sales were up 1 per cent. in June, up yet again to another record level, and have been on an upward trend for more than a year. They follow a run of good economic figures and are further compelling evidence of the fact that we are coming out of recession into recovery, with sharply brighter prospects than many imagined some weeks ago.

    Mr. John Smith : Following the collapse of Astra Training Services less than three years after the privatisation of the skill centre network, what do the Government intend to do to clear up the shambles that privatisation has caused to skill training?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wholly wrong about the position of skill training in this country and about privatisation. One of the matters that the President of the French Republic will wish to discuss with me next Monday is the success of our privatisation programme, as there are plans to introduce a similar programme in France.

    Mr. Smith : Bearing in mind that Group 4 recently delivered a prisoner to a museum instead of a court, does the Prime Minister think that it might be time to review the mania for privatisation?

    The Prime Minister : I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like the Government to own everything, control everything and determine everything, but we believe in private enterprise, private ownership and privatisation, which has served this country well. Although the British Labour party does not like it, countries all around the world are following the privatisation trail blazed by the Conservative party in the 1980s.

    Mr. John Townend : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government today face two problems–first, the budget deficit and, secondly, over-regulation, much of which comes from Europe and which is destroying many of our small businesses? Will he make an announcement that will help both those problems and announce a reduction of 10 per cent. in the number of inspectors, which would not only save money, but would show that the Government are serious in reducing the burden of regulation on business?

    The Prime Minister : I do not have an announcement to make of precisely the sort urged on me by my hon. Friend, but we are looking at regulation–domestic regulation, European regulation and the enforcement of regulation in this country–in order to reduce the burdens on businesses, both large and small. Regulation has got out of any reasonable context, there is a need for action, and we propose to take it.

    Mr. Ashdown : Are Her Majesty’s Government prepared to allow the city of Sarajevo to fall to the Serbs?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of what I have said to the House on a number of occasions. He may be an enthusiast for putting British troops in the middle of Bosnia ; I am not.

    Mr. Devlin : Has my right hon. Friend seen today’s survey by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Lloyd’s bank commercial service review, which show that in 180,000 firms throughout the country confidence and orders are improving, output is up and investment is being generated? Is that not a massive vote of confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’s economic policies?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I have seen that survey and I agree that its message is very encouraging. I am delighted that the good news seems to be shared by both service and manufacturing industries. They have gone to great efforts to shake off the problems of recession. It is now clear that economic recovery is under way–there has been no help from the Labour party, but recovery is nevertheless under way.

     

    Q3. Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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

    Mr. Byers : Can the Prime Minister tell the House of any occasion on which a Government have ratified an international treaty against the wishes of the House of Commons? Does he agree that a Government adopting such a course of action would deservedly lose the confidence not just of the House but of the whole country, and would not such a Government rightly stand condemned for acting as an elected dictatorship?

    The Prime Minister : On the understanding that the hon. Gentleman is talking about a contemporary treaty, may I say that the Act carrying that treaty into law has been passed with massive majorities on Second and Third Readings, both here and in the House of Lords.

    Mr. Spring : When my right hon. Friend meets the French Prime Minister on Monday, will he congratulate him on the launch of the French privatisation programme? Will he assure him that privatised companies are better companies once the dead hand of state control has been removed?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely share my hon. Friend’s view, which is increasingly shared by companies, countries and Governments in every part of the world.

     

    Q4. Ms Short : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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

    Ms Short : Is the Prime Minister aware that an all-party group of which I was a member went to visit the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation headquarters recently and were told that preparations are being made for the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolution on safe areas, which only requires 8,000 troops and changes in the rules of engagement? That has not been done and Sarajevo will fall. Has not the Prime Minister allowed that to happen?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady knows, we have had a substantial troop presence in Bosnia for some time. A large number of other countries said in the past that they may be prepared also to put troops into Bosnia. We have made our contribution. A large number of other countries were signatories to that particular Security Council resolution. I think that it is right for them also to make their contribution to the collective carrying out of that resolution.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the social chapter issue is a red herring and that if we sign up to Maastricht the European Court will have the power to impose the conditions on us, whether we vote in this House for them or not, and that therefore those people who do not want the social chapter conditions should vote tonight to try to defeat the ratification of the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : This is one of those rare occasions when I am unable to share a view with my hon. Friend. I believe that she is entirely wrong and I hope that she will reconsider her position before 10 o’clock. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Save that for later.

    Mr. Patchett : Given that the Prime Minister has informed us of his official engagements for today, can he inform the House of his plans for tomorrow?

    The Prime Minister : I am looking forward to tomorrow immensely.

     

    Q7. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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

    Mr. Coombs : My right hon. Friend will have seen yesterday’s trade figures, which show that our exports to non EC countries have improved once again and are hitting record levels, and that our trade gap has narrowed for the fourth consecutive month. Are not those figures the clearest possible evidence of the underlying strength of British industry and of the rapidly improving strength of the British economy?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend is right, both on the specifics of exports and on the general point. [Interruption.] Exports to non-Community countries were up 15 per cent. last year. [Interruption.] That is a real credit to British industry. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down now.

    The Prime Minister : That is a real credit to British industry. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House is using up valuable time. Members are waiting to put important questions to the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to see the support for British exporters. British industry is becoming more competitive and I think that British industry can take great credit for it.

    Mr. Barron : Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he believes what he says about the social chapter? What do he and his Government believe will happen to this country if we endorse the social chapter? Does he believe that the Governments of the 11 other member states are mad?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that I would put it in precisely that way myself. What I can do is to repeat what the Council of British Chambers of Commerce in Europe has said about the impact of the social chapter. In case the hon. Gentleman did not hear, it said that it would

    “result in the closure of many small and medium-sized businesses, creating even higher unemployment.”

    That is the view of every CBI employer group across Europe.

     

    Q8. Dame Jill Knight : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

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

    Dame Jill Knight : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the largest chamber of commerce and industry in the country is in my constituency, which is the centre of a vital industrial area, and that the opinion of the entire west midlands industrial community is that we must stick to the principles that he negotiated at Maastricht and assure the industrial sector that we will not have the social chapter?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the business men in my hon. Friend’s constituency share the views of business men right across the country about the social chapter. They know that it would be a serious mistake, that it would add to costs, that it would cost jobs and wreck our competitiveness. It is not a chapter that is of any use to the British at present or in the future and it should not be part of British law.

  • PMQT – 20 July 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 July.

    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. Coombs : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that today’s report from the Confederation of British Industry, showing the fastest increase in retail sales for three years, is clear evidence of the recovery that is taking place in our economy? Are not those figures the results of an economic policy that is based on low inflation, low interest rates and falling unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : It is a very encouraging report, and the sixth successive increase that retailers have reported. In the past week, we have seen inflation down, unemployment down, manufacturing up and now retail sales up. We have an excellent opportunity to build the lasting recovery that we all wish to see. I do not propose to put that at risk by burdening business with the extra costs that we have spent the past 14 years getting rid of.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister accept the opinion expressed by the great constitutional expert, Professor Dicey– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. These interruptions use very valuable time.

    Mr. Smith : I had thought that at least some of the hon. Gentleman and hon. Ladies on the Conservative Benches might have heard of him. Does the Prime Minister accept his opinion that

    “the one essential principle of the constitution is obedience by all persons to the deliberately expressed will of House of Commons”?

    The Prime Minister : By some time this evening, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will have passed the Lords and Commons and will have Royal Assent. That is clearly the will of the House. Why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeking to obstruct it? Mr. Smith rose– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House will come to order. There is a great deal of nonsense going on. [Interruption.] I shall remove some hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Smith : The right hon. Gentleman has answered a question that was not asked. It is a simple principle : does the Prime Minister accept the will of the House of Commons on whatever subject it is expressed? Can he say yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : I might equally ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman–as I just did–exactly the same question, because the clearest possible way to express the will of the House is to pass an Act of Parliament, which will have been done with the Queen’s Assent ratified by the close of business today. I repeat to the right hon. and learned Gentleman : after that Act has received Royal Assent, why is he seeking to obstruct it?

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that the question before the House on Thursday night is required by the very Bill to which he has referred? Will he tell us whether the Government will accept the decision of the House whatever it is?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the House does not support the social chapter. The House genuinely wants the treaty that I signed, and I expect the House to reflect its genuine will in Thursday’s debate.

    Mr. John Marshall : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hendon school in my constituency was one of the first schools to become grant maintained? Is he further aware that it is now heavily oversubscribed, and does he agree that what is good for Hendon is good for the country?

    The Prime Minister : I think that up and down the country people have indicated that they are in favour of the principle of grant-maintained schools, which have shown that they are very successful. We believe that that choice should be available.

    Mr. Ashdown : I understand why the Prime Minister will want time to study in full the Sheehy report on the police, but will he at least dispose of one of its recommendations now? Does he really believe that the battle against crime will be assisted by cutting our already undermanned police force by a further 3,000 as Sheehy recommends?

    The Prime Minister : With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he has misread the report. Sheehy does not recommend that. The Sheehy report is independent. We are examining it, and when we have examined it and consulted on it, we will reach conclusions.

    Mr. Burns : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Ministry of Defence on placing more than 90 per cent. of its defence procurement requirements with British companies to protect British jobs and British expertise? Will he please use his considerable negotiating skills to impress on the American Department of Defence that it is unacceptable that British companies are stopped by Acts of Congress from competing in the American market for the supply of items such as image intensifiers which are produced in Chelmsford, thus causing unemployment in a company whose product is the best in the country?

    The Prime Minister : We believe in free trade and an open market in this as in other things.

     

    Q2. Mr. Roy Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 July.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Does the Prime Minister recall his aim of a nation at ease with itself? His Government are imposing 17.5 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel and attacking those who are on invalidity benefit, and now there is a cloud over state pensions. How does he reconcile that contradiction, as a nation can never be at ease with itself when there are such attacks on the underprivileged in society? I suggest that it might have something to do with his family’s circus background– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is Prime Minister’s Question Time.

    Mr. Hughes : I suggest that at an early age the Prime Minister was taught to stand on his head– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. As I have said, this is Prime Minister’s Question Time ; it is not an Adjournment debate.

    The Prime Minister : I am afraid that I did not hear the concluding words of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I heard the early part of it. He clearly neglected to mention that last week it was perfectly clear that VAT on fuel was also the policy of the official Opposition and the Liberal party. The official Opposition are still canvassing that. He also neglected in his catalogue many measures that have been taken to help people who are disadvantaged and to reduce tax levels for people on low incomes. Perhaps he should take a more rounded view.

     

    Q3. Sir Roger Moate : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 July.

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

    Sir Roger Moate : Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are very much opposed to the Maastricht treaty, but still believe that he scored a great personal and national triumph when he secured the opt-outs from the single currency and from the social chapter so beloved of the Labour party? Quite apart from the costs to industry and the loss of jobs, does he agree that the social chapter would reintroduce the corporatism that did such damage to Britain in the 1970s and before? Will he confirm that he has no intention of ratifying a treaty which contains the social chapter?

    The Prime Minister : I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s long- standing views on the European Community and his disapproval of much of the Maastricht treaty. While I do not share his views, I respect the strength and consistency of his feelings. I entirely agree with him about the damage done by the social chapter. It is an unemployment charter which will destroy our future prosperity. It will prevent the creation of jobs. It is a socialist charter and we want nothing of it.

    Mr. Hume : In the light of the clear evidence that Lord Tebbit publicly encourages terrorism, which emerged yesterday when he spoke on television advising loyalist paramilitaries in Belfast that if they wanted to achieve their objectives they should bomb Dublin, and when last evening those same paramilitaries bombed the homes of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and two leading members of our party, will the Prime Minister now ask the Home Secretary to implement Government policy, issue an exclusion order against Lord Tebbit and send him to Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the whole House knows my right hon. and noble Friend very well. He has suffered violently at the hands of terrorists. All his political life he has been a vigorous opponent of terrorism. I may not share his every view, but I believe passionately that he is one of the strongest opponents of terrorism this House has seen now or at any stage in the past.

    Mr. Wells : Will my right hon. Friend take some time to read the leader in the Evening Standard last week which ascribed to his leadership the low inflation, low interest rates and low unit wage costs which are leading Britain out of unemployment and into prosperity?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, I believe that our prosperity must be based on a low-inflation economy. It has not been easy to achieve ; there have been many sacrifices made by many people and I repeatedly acknowledge that, but we have the lowest inflation rate for 29 years. We need to sustain it and build growth on that low inflation.

     

    Q4. Mr. Jon Owen Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 July.

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

    Mr. Jones : Did the Prime Minister find time to see last night’s “Panorama” programme? If he did, he will have seen disturbing evidence suggesting that dental equipment can transmit the AIDS virus and that in America strong evidence suggests that it has already done so in some cases, and perhaps in many. As The Lancet states that more than 75 per cent. of all dentists in Britain do not routinely autoclave their equipment between patients, is it not time that we regulated and inspected our dentists in order to protect our dental reputation and our citizens when they go to the dentist?

    The Prime Minister : The straightforward answer is no, I did not see the “Panorama” programme last night ; nor has the hon. Gentleman’s point been put to me previously. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard about the programme and will be examining its findings.

     

    Common Agricultural Policy

    Q5. Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the impact of the 1993 reforms of the common agricultural policy.

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

    Sir Teddy Taylor : As Sir Simon Gourlay, the former head of the National Farmers Union, has condemned the common agricultural policy reforms as

    “terminal insanity with staggering costs and red tape”, as common agricultural policy spending next year will be £29 billion instead of the £23 billion last year, as the mountain of cereals has broken all previous records, and as the average family is now spending an extra £20 a week on their food, might it be a possible compromise in a difficult week if the Government were to decide to postpone further transfers of sovereignty to Brussels until the common agricultural policy was scrapped or until individual member states could be excluded from it?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend is a great expert on the European Community, he will know that breaking up the common agricultural policy would be incompatible with the treaty of Rome and with the completion of the single market. But the Government do believe that the common agricultural policy should reflect to a greater extent than at present the needs of the market, the interests of the taxpayer and the dual role of farmers as food producers and custodians of the countryside. In pursuing those objectives, of course we will listen to what Sir Simon Gourlay and many others have to say.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Lewis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 July.

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

    Mr. Lewis : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reinforce statements that he has made in the past that he will not introduce VAT on children’s shoes and clothing and other zero-rated essentials?

    The Prime Minister : When the Leader of the Opposition was asked about his tax proposals some time ago, he said very clearly : “Most Chancellors won’t tell you that. If you ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the range and bands … in his tax Budget he will say, Wait until the Budget’.”

    That was the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s advice–the only wise advice that he has ever given the House.

  • PMQT – 15 July 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Waterson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

    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. Waterson : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming not only the lowest inflation rate for 30 years, but the fifth successive monthly fall in unemployment? Does he agree that the House deserves an apology from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) for predicting a steady rise in unemployment over the spring and summer?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is unkind to remind the House of the predictions by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. There have been a great deal of them–all wrong. If it would be for the convenience of the House, I will place a copy of them in the Library. The further fall in unemployment and inflation is very good news indeed. Unemployment has fallen by over 80,000 since the beginning of the year, and, taken with the remarkable figures on Tuesday for manufacturing output, we can now say with some certainty that there is clear evidence of recovery gathering pace.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister accept that it should be for the House to decide whether the social chapter is included in the British version of the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : The House has examined the whole of the treaty. I expect to ratify the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. The House has shown its support for the treaty ; I expect that it will do so again.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister has carefully not answered the question. Let me put it to him plainly and clearly. Whichever way the House votes on the social chapter, will the Government accept the decision?

    The Prime Minister : I have said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman before, and I repeat, that I expect the Government’s motion to be carried, and I expect to ratify the treaty that I signed.

    Mr. John Smith : The House and the country will have noticed another failure to answer the question directly. Does the Prime Minister understand that, were he to defy the will of the House of Commons, it would be a monstrous violation of the rights of the House, and would at one fell swoop undermine our parliamentary democracy?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps does not understand the answers. I will make them more clear for him, so that he is in no doubt. We expect to ratify the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. The House has shown its support for the treaty ; I expect it to do so again.

    Mr. Lamont : This month, like last, has seen a remarkable catalogue of good economic indicators. Is it not the case that, in addition to the fifth fall in monthly unemployment, we have seen the largest increase in industrial production for four years and the lowest inflation record for nearly 30 years? When one puts that into a European context and sees that Britain has a lower than average rate of inflation in the European Community, is the only country in the European Community in which unemployment is falling, and is the only country in the European Community in which industrial production is rising, I congratulate the new Chancellor on the rapid success of his policies.

    The Prime Minister : I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be most grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support for his policies. It is entirely clear that we are coming out of recession and into recovery. It is equally clear that we are leading Europe into recovery.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that the Government have said to their rebels that nothing will stop them from ratifying the Maastricht treaty, but they have said to the House that adopting the social chapter would jeopardise the treaty? Both statements cannot be true ; which is?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten what he said about the social chapter. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not forgotten, but perhaps I can remind the House what he said :

    “I believe what is now being put forward in the social chapter may well lead to a form of Euro-sclerosis.”

    He continued :

    “The social chapter in the Maastricht agreement, it seems to me, is a really worrying attempt by Europe to try and rebuild in Britain the things that we have dismantled over the last 12 or 15 years.” If that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman and his party, and he is true to his view, I shall expect to see him in our Lobby next Thursday.

     

    Portsmouth

    Q2. Mr. David Martin : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has plans to pay an official visit to Portsmouth.

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

    Mr. Martin : Does my right hon. Friend recall that he has not visited Portsmouth since the general election, at a time when the so-called poll experts were predicting not only a Government defeat in general but, even more shamefully, the loss of my seat in particular? Will my right hon. Friend visit us again soon, preferably in the 50th anniversary year of D- day? Such a visit would not only mark the premier naval port of Portsmouth’s vital contribution to our defence needs in the past, but mark its present contribution and the efforts it will make for many years in the future.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is an extremely forceful advocate for Portsmouth, and I am grateful for his invitation. I understand how important the defence industry is to his constituents, and I hope that he will take every opportunity to remind them of two facts : that the Labour party would cut defence spending by a quarter, and that the Liberal Democrats would cut it by half. We hear a lot from the leader of the Liberal Democrats about taking military action in Bosnia ; we hear rather less from him about how we would be able to take that action after his policy had dismantled the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. McAllion : Is the Prime Minister aware that, because of the legal shackles on British trades unions, this week sacked Timex workers were banned from taking part in the national launch of the Timex boycott campaign, and banned from calling on the support of other British trade unionists?

    What is banned here is legal elsewhere in Europe. Sacked Timex workers have been in France this week, exercising the democratic rights denied to them in their own country. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of the Government’s record on labour law, which has isolated Britain in Europe and left British workers on their own, with no social chapter, no wages councils and no effective right to strike? The Government have turned Britain, once one of the workshops of the world, into one of the world’s sweatshop economies.

    The Prime Minister : The sort of behaviour that we saw from trade unionists at Timex is nothing for the hon. Gentleman to be proud of. I dare say that the jobs lost at Timex as a result will stand as the clearest evidence that the hon. Gentleman’s policy is utterly the wrong way to look at labour and trade union relationships.

     

    Q4. Mr. Kynoch : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. Kynoch : Will my right hon. Friend thank and congratulate the anti-terrorist branch and MI5 for its continuing efforts to protect the public from terrorist crimes, and especially their efforts yesterday? Does he agree that had we failed to pass the prevention of terrorism Act and gone down the path of giving away Northern Ireland–the policy of the Opposition–the anti-terrorist branch and MI5 might as well have been told by us to pack up their things and go back to traffic duty?

    The Prime Minister : The police and the Security Service deserve our congratulations on their professionalism and vigilance. They have demonstrated that in fighting terrorism over many years. It is clear, and it has been endorsed repeatedly by the House, that we need the prevention of terrorism Act to defeat the terrorists. With the greatest goodwill in the world, I cannot understand why, year after year, Opposition Members have voted it down.

    Mr. Boyce : In view of the Prime Minister’s utterances in recent days about nuclear weapons being defensive measures, may I ask him to take this opportunity to assure the House, the country and the world that Britain will never use them first?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should know better than to ask such a daft question.

     

    Q5. Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. Winterton : My right hon. Friend has announced this afternoon dramatic improvements in a number of economic indicators which are of immense interest to the House and the country. Will he continue to encourage manufacturing industry as a way of improving our economy, and will he ensure that in the Budget to be announced in December, the fragile recovery of our manufacturing base, which is vital to our future, will continue to be encouraged and that measures will be introduced to ensure that recovery and continued economic growth?

    The Prime Minister : The whole House knows and respects my hon. Friend’s advocacy of manufacturing, so he will be as pleased as I am about the growing success of British manufacturers. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) introduced measures in the Budget and autumn statement to help manufacturing industry. I say also to my hon. Friend that the one thing that would do great damage to manufacturing industry would be the provisions of the social chapter.

    Mrs. Mahon : Does the Prime Minister realise that 500,000 of the present unemployed are aged between 18 and 24 and that, because of the cuts that he helped to introduce, they are having to manage on £4.97 a day? Does he think that that is enough to keep them in food and on which they can live? Will he take action now to end the discrimination against that age group, instead of making cheap political points at the expense of the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that the hon. Lady has grasped the training opportunities that exist for young people. I want youngsters to take up those training opportunities. That is what they are there for and it is in their interest to take them up.

     

    Q6. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. Amess : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s trade union reforms have made a significant contribution to Britain’s increased industrial competitiveness over the past 10 years, while the trade unions have made a significant contribution to the Labour party’s electoral uncompetitiveness over the same period?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend, and I came across an interesting quote last week from a delegate at a Transport and General Workers Union conference, who said :

    “We are not the tail wagging the dog. We are the dog.”

    That is the true relationship between Labour and the unions. The unions are the dog and Labour is the lamp post.

     

    Q7. Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. Hain : What is the Prime Minister going to do about corruption in his flagship council in Westminster? When will he stop crooks financing the Conservative party? Why did he allow 44 of his own Members to vote themselves tax privileges in the Lloyd’s amendments on Tuesday? Is that why he is the most unpopular Prime Minister on record?

    The Prime Minister : The best that can be said about that compendium question is that it is worthy of the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Fry : In welcoming the unemployment figure, will my right hon. Friend also take time to express vividly to all those in employment the cost of the social security budget, currently running at more than £60 a week for every worker? Does not that large sum justify the Government’s intention to re-examine that budget?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right about that for the reasons that I have set out on a number of occasions in recent weeks. That problem is faced not only in Britain, but right across the European Community, in Japan, the United States and other industrial countries.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Association of American Correspondents – 30 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Association of American Correspondents, held at Brown’s Hotel on Wednesday 30th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What I want to know is, when they shoot the wounded, why do they miss so often. I was just leaving Downing Street forty five minutes or so ago and a parcel arrived. I opened it and inside was a watch and it had an inscription on the back but discretion has taught me that you don’t read out inscriptions in future.

    We’ve been talking casually over lunch and as part of the conversation, one of my visits to Kennebunkport came up. I remember going there. They were marvellous hosts, George and Barbara Bush. Extremely good company, you never knew quite what was going to happen. But they were extremely good company in every respect.

    One evening at the end of a long day, we went in a lounge there, a huge lounge and the whole of one wall converted to a large screen, a large cinema screen. And they showed a very remarkable film. Some of you may have seen it, called Patriot Games. It was a great piece of diplomacy. It’s the story of a plot to kill a British minister and I was sitting there watching it with my Private Secretary and Press Secretary. And of course the villain, the murderer, turns out to be the Private Secretary and the terrorist was a man named O’Donnell. So I said to the President that I think he scored double top on that particular occasion.

    Let me just take you back a while, just test your memory as we slip away from some of the extraneous matters that have intruded into politics over the past few months. There has been something of a frenzied atmosphere in Capitals all round the world, not just in the United Kingdom. I think, dare I say it, from time to time there has been a slightly frenzied attitude in Washington, Tokyo, in Bonn, in Paris, in Rome and perhaps in any number of other countries I might mention. But in the midst of that in the United Kingdom, some fairly important things have happened.

    If I had come here just fifteen months ago and said to you on that occasion, let me make a few predictions: I will come back and see you at the end of June in 1993. And when I come back and see you at that time, interest rates will be down at 6 per cent. Inflation will be down at 1.3 per cent and our exports will be growing faster than we’ve ever seen before and faster than anywhere else in the European Community. We’ll have the most competitive exchange rate we’ve had for a very long time. We’ll have potentially the greatest growth rate in the European Community this year. The greatest growth rate forecast for next year. Unemployment will not reach three million. And by the time I come and see you in June 1993 it will be falling for four successive months when right the way across the rest of Europe, in our principal markets, unemployment is rising, growth is falling and so many of them are heading into recession.

    Now if I had said that to you, you might perhaps have called for the men in white coats to have me carted off to the funny farm. If I’d added to that, and said in the Parliamentary Session drawing to a close in June 1993, we would have carried all our legislations, often against little local difficulties. Hugely important and reforming Bills on housing, on education, on lotteries, on asylum, on the de-nationalisation, forget that ugly word privatisation, it’s de-nationalisation of British Rail. And also, despite the occasional tiny split in my own Party, the Maastricht Bill would have gone right the way through the House of Commons and would be receiving average majorities of over 150 on the votes it faces in the House of Lords. If I’d added that, you would undoubtedly have said, this guy has taken leave of his senses.

    Yet that is the reality when you strip away the nonsense that has be-devilled so much of our national interest over recent months.

    That is the reality of what is happening.

    And then, there’s another fundamental change that has taken place.

    Out there, all the way around the United Kingdom, if you tap people on the shoulder they’ll say of me. Why does he spend so much time on foreign affairs? Why is he bothering about Europe? What about our problems here at home? But the reality for our country now, as it has been for some years, and will be in the future, is that the European market is our own home backyard in terms of exports, in terms of investment and in terms of prosperity.

    And what has happened in the last two years in Europe has been very profound, very striking.

    I believe the whole nature and tilt of European policy has begun to move. And it has begun to move in a direction that we British have been pushing for, for some time.

    Try and put it in context for a moment. For so much of the 1980’s, the European Community was bouncing along, 3 per cent plus growth a year. It’s not all that long ago in two of the European countries, Portugal and Spain, that the countries were actually led by men in dark glasses and epaulettes. And one was worrying as to whether they would actually be safe for democracy when they headed the community in the early 1980’s. And yet they are.

    Spain, despite its present difficulties, has immeasurably improved its position over the last decade and so has Portugal.

    We have now seen in the last couple of years some changes in European policy profoundly important for Europe and profoundly important for this country.

    The first of them is the enlargement of the community. The Community has now agreed, the British have pushed it and pushed and pushed it and the Community has accepted, that the four EFTAN countries can enter the community, subject to negotiations being satisfactory, by 1 January 1995. A good deal earlier than many people anticipated. Many would have pushed it aside for their own domestic reasons. We have won that argument, they are coming in, subject to their own domestic approvals, they’ll be in the community by 1 January 1995.

    Four extra countries enlarging the community from twelve to sixteen and all of them net contributors to the community budget.

    For the first time ever in the European Communities history, about one half of all the member states will be net contributors to the budget, not net beneficiaries from the large contributions of the Germans, the British and the French.

    And that begins to change the tilt and balance of interests in the community in a more sensible and pragmatic way in terms of looking at its own financial future.

    And then of course there is the remarkable change. The new realism that I think was very evident in the debates we had in Copenhagen. Alas, in this country rather overshadowed by domestic matters. The debates there were at Copenhagen were about the future direction of European economic policy.

    I make no secret of the fact, that I believe we have to look ahead for a decade or more and address a problem that has been getting steadily worse right the way across Europe.

    Unemployment is a huge problem. We all know it. There’s been a huge hump in unemployment right the way across the community in the last two or three years. Seventeen million Europeans unemployed. In two years time it is likely to be twenty million Europeans unemployed.

    But that isn’t just a function of this current recession. Unemployment in Europe has been rising steadily, growth or not, for over twenty years. And it has been rising steadily for twenty years because Europe has become relatively less competitive over twenty years to the United States, Japan and of course to the Pacific Basin. Though I think separate criteria apply there.

    I won’t weary you with lots of statistics. Just let me give you one that is a start. Over twenty years the growth in Europe and the growth in the United States is pretty much the same. It should have produced the same number of jobs. But in fact for every single job created in Europe over twenty years, the United States have created four. I think the underlying reason they have done that is the flexibility of the United States’ economy and a lack of additional on-costs that has be-devilled the cost structure of so much of employment in Europe.

    So it isn’t a question of just being beastly and holding back on social costs, it is fundamental to the prosperity of the future of Europe, that the whole of Europe, not just the United Kingdom, grasps that nettle of competitiveness for the future. If they don’t, they will remain powerful and relatively rich. But relatively, over time, they will become less powerful, less influential and less wealthy. Unless across Europe they have the courage to actually address those problems.

    And it is for that I have been arguing in the European Community over recent years. And it is for that I will go on arguing.

    The other point, I think that has changed, very much in the direction we have wanted it to, is the size and shape of the Community, even beyond the growth of the EFTAN states.

    I see the European Community at the moment as, in truth, just a fragment of European community. It doesn’t yet take in our old friends in Central and Eastern Europe. Hungary, Czechlands, Slovak, in due course Romania, Bulgaria, Poland. In due course they must come into the community.

    In the last two years the British have managed to persuade our European partners that will happen. It won’t happen perhaps for a decade, but it is now agreed as a matter of European policy that in due course they will enter the Community. And for military, social and political reasons, I believe that is the right way ahead for the community to go.

    Let me move on to one or two other issues and skim over them just lightly so that I may leave the maximum amount of time for you to ask the questions you wish to ask rather than simply listen to what I wish to say.

    I think the United States were right to attack Baghdad. What I said publicly is what I believe privately. I have not a shred of reservation about it. The attempt to assassinate, in the way that occurred, a former President of the United States with the potential death of hundreds of other innocent people, who would just have been in that area, is an act of international terrorism. An act of international terrorism sponsored not by a group of international terrorists but by the Government of Iraq and by the dictator of Iraq.

    Faced with that I think the United States were absolutely right to retaliate and to attack in the way that they did. And they certainly have my wholehearted support. And I regret that support doesn’t spread, as it deserves to, across every strand of British politics.

    Let me just say a word about the G7 Summit that’s just coming up. There are a number of important issues that I think we have to address at the G7 Summit. Certainly I think we find it in our interests, as well as in Russia’s interests, to try and help the Russians as they go through the second Russian revolution this century. I wonder at the right way to do it.

    There is more than one way to do it and in many ways I think the most effective way is a wide-range of micro-economic assistance rather than macro-economic packages with no clear guidance as to what it will be used for or over what timescale it will be available.

    If one goes these days to Moscow and compares it to two years ago, you are beginning to see embedded in the system, the roots of private enterprise. Whereas there was once just a black market, there are now lots of little stalls selling goods that they’ve brought in from overseas. Things that simply wouldn’t have been available in Russia just two years ago are now available.

    Go into the stores where you wouldn’t have brought anything a few years ago, except perhaps as an illustration of how rotten everything they had was. You now find a wide range of, in many cases, quite high quality goods.

    There is a buzz, a feel, a moving place. Despite all the difficulties they have, it suggests that there is a realistic chance, and it will take a long time, it will take a long time, but a realistic chance that their hopes and aspirations to move to a mixed market economy may be beginning to take shallow root in Russia. And it is in our interests I think, on every count, to try and assist them.

    Then of course I think we must look at the desirability of settlement of the Uruguay Round. For some years, Heads of Government have gone to the G7. They have solemnly sat down and agreed at the end of that year they would have a GATT settlement. And the next year they have gone back and agreed that at the end of that year they would have a GATT settlement. It is beginning, frankly, to get a bit thin and I know the difficulties there will be only too well.

    Few have been in a better position to see what the difficulties are. But I do believe it is profoundly important that we begin to make progress with that agreement.

    If we find ourselves in a stand-off between any of the great trading nations to the extent that you then get protectionism and counter-protectionism and trade wars, there will be no winning for anyone. That will be a defeat for everyone and at this moment, when the thing the world economy most needs is confidence and the growth of trade, it would be folly for us not to bend every wit and will we have to try and find a settlement to the Uruguay Round.

    Maybe positions will have to be changed, people will have to take a long-term view and in many cases face difficulties in their own countries. But I think we need to address that very seriously and see what can be done.

    The other thing I just briefly want to touch on is the world economy. It is pretty sluggish. Indeed, in Europe, the United Kingdom is coming out of recession. Many of our European partners are going into recession. In some cases on a far greater scale than they could remember at any stage in the postwar period.

    If you look at Japan, the signals are conflicting. In Japan the Japanese economy is certainly not bounding along as one of the great entrants to the world economy in the way it has so often in the past.

    The United States looked as though it was coming sharply and clearly and powerfully out of recession a few months ago. It looks a good deal less like that now. And so one has, amongst three of the great engines of the world economy, the United States, Japan and Germany, none of them exactly giving that powerful pull out of sluggishness and recession that ideally we would wish to see to get trade going and see growth return to put more and more people back to work.

    So I think there are areas there. I don’t anticipate that we can sit round at the table in Tokyo and decide a new world economic order that is going to correct us. Nobody should imagine that is remotely going to happen. But I think we do have to look and see what the policies in different countries, that will lead to sustainable non-inflationary growth, that will, during the 1990’s, the most competitive decade we will ever have lived through, which ever part of the world we’re in, to see what is the best way to lift the economy up and out and back towards prosperity.

    Those are some of the things that I think we will be discussing, by no means an exclusive agenda, at the G7 in Tokyo.

    There are many other issues I could stray into. Many of them are lengthy and I think dealing with them trivially would perhaps be a mistake. What I will do, with your consent, is just leave it at that and answer any questions you may have either on the subjects I have raised or if you wish on any other subjects.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Tom Penther, CBS News):

    Prime Minister, if I could ask a broader question. As the United States withdraws from Europe and seems to be advocating its boardroom leadership, Bosnia is the obvious example. Who or what in Europe is going to build this back?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, there are two premises there. If I may examine them both.

    That the United States militarily is reducing its commitment to Europe. I think that’s probably right. Given the changed military and security structure in Europe, there isn’t the same land based threat that there once was from the Soviet Union. We haven’t got Russian troops on the very borders of West Germany anymore. They are right the other side of Russia and they’ve got an army that’s collapsing, and in the most appalling difficulties. The threat has wholly changed. But there will still be a very substantial United States presence in Europe. I would guess around 100,000 troops will remain. And I know of no suggestion that this administration or any alternative administration has any imminent likelihood of reducing below that 100,000.

    So it is a reduction in their physical presence in Europe. But I don’t believe it is an abdication of their instinctive and traditional role as part of European defence. I don’t believe that is the case, though you perhaps may feel you know your own fellow citizens better than I do but I don’t believe it is.

    As to America’s world role. The United States finds itself in a difficult position at the moment. Difficult in the sense that it is now the only superpower.

    When the United States had the old Soviet Union, there was a counter balance. People instinctively rallied to it, or they rallied against it. Now the counter balance is gone and in a curious way it leaves the United States much more exposed. It hasn’t got an enemy, I’ll put the word in inverted commas if I may, that it can push against in difficult times. It has actually got to exist in popular fact, solely upon its own policies without that limited aspect that so often helps Governments when they face difficulties.

    The present administration has got two problems on its plate. Neither of them of its own making, both of them hellishly difficult to deal with. Bosnia is quite literally a problem from hell and it is difficult to see quite what the United States could do to provide effective leadership.

    As far as the world economy is concerned, economies take a long time to respond to action. This one showed signs of being very powerful and has now fallen away. And it will take time for the administration to begin to put that right.

    I think that is an extraordinarily unfortunate conjunction of events for a new President to inherit. And I hope and believe that America will grapple with those immediate difficulties that it has. For I profoundly believe that it is very much in the interests of the free world, of the West in particular, that America, as the single great superpower, does exert a powerful leadership in the western world. I hope and expect that it will do so. I don’t believe there is any information to abdicate that role and I profoundly hope that there isn’t.

    QUESTION (Keith Brockwell, Journal of Commerce):

    Prime Minister, you mentioned the importance of getting an agreement in the Uruguay Round at the G7. When you arrive in Tokyo you will find there is no Japanese Government, the French have a pretty large chip on their shoulder and most of the other leaders that are there are looking at opinion polls that frankly they must consider to be pretty grim. How can these leaders summon the political will to make difficult choices, to change positions as you said, in very strategically, or in politically sensitive sectors that are needed to make to make a deal? And if this year after the last four years, the leaders are unable to do so, do you believe that the momentum can possibly be summoned to have another go?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the answer to the first part of the question is, look at what will happen if they don’t. I don’t expect that these matters are going to be easily solved and I’m certainly not saying they must be solved at Tokyo next week. Things rarely operate in that fashion. We must make sure the momentum goes on up to Tokyo, during Tokyo and through Tokyo. But nobody can expect that if they aren’t all solved at Tokyo, as I suspect they will not be, that is the end of the matter. We just have to continue.

    But despite the difficulties that you’ve set out more vividly than I might have done in public, the reality is that unless the leaders of those seven large industrial nations actually move towards a GATT agreement, there will not be one. And if there is not one, what lies the other side of that hill is potentially immensely damaging. And the closer one gets to those difficulties, the greater one sees the prize already there in those areas of GATT already agreed. The loss in losing that and the potential damage that could then come about if the whole Uruguay Round itself was not able to move forward.

    It was put very vividly to me the, the moral case for an agreement, by the President of one of the [inaudible] group countries, who came to see me, a relatively small country, and said: “what are you Americans and you Europeans playing at. We reached our agreements in the GATT round five years ago. The world has changed since then. We haven’t squealed and complained. We’ve stuck with it because we want a GATT agreement, we’re a relatively small nation. A few months ago the Americans and the Europeans struck a deal and now they’re both wondering whether they’re going to stick to it. Where does that put us when we have already stuck to the deal that we made four or five years ago?”

    Now I have to say to you that I have a lot of sympathy with that argument. And it isn’t just a question of the position of America and the position of Europe.

    A GATT deal is of acute importance to countries all the way round the world. There is no morality in saying to many of the small nations of the world, we Americans, we British, we French and we Germans are going to be frightfully generous with all this overseas aid. And while we’re giving you this overseas aid, a good deal of it tied to trade, we will actually close off our markets to your goods. So you can live off this overseas aid, today, tomorrow and for as far ahead as you can see.

    I believe that is a self defeating policy. At some stage we have got to liberate world trade, open markets and enable these smaller countries themselves to provide themselves by their own endeavours and not have a hand to mouth existence with aid from the rich countries in the West.

    And unless we do that, we will simply find that the rich countries of the West, over time, will not be rich enough to help these other nations.

    So although this argument is largely couched in economic terms, I have to say personally, I think there is a powerful moral case. If that is not a dangerous thing for a politician to say in public these days. There is a powerful moral case for a settlement of the GATT round in the interest of weak nations in Latin America, in Africa, in South East Asia and in many other parts of the globe and I think that is an argument that will need to surface at Tokyo and elsewhere in terms of discussion on the GATT round.

    QUESTION (Carla Rappaport, Fortune Magazine):

    I was very interested in your comments on employment. You praised America’s labour flexibility. The UK actually has one of the most flexible labour systems in Europe. Yet when I talk to economists about the recent [inaudible]. What more does Britain have to do, what is left to help the unemployment problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are a number of things that need doing. I certainly think there are some more supply side changes that we could make to free up unemployment.

    I think as a whole, the economy is too heavily over-regulated. That largely, politicians push that out and they say well that’s wicked Brussels sending lots of nasty directives over here. Up to a point that’s true. They do send lots of nasty directives over here. But on top of that we often tie a cap and bells to them when they get to Whitehall.

    We have some accident, and then there will be an inquiry, and then whoever conducts the inquiry makes 480 recommendations as to what might be done to ensure that such a thing never occurs again. They are faithfully enacted.

    If one asks a businessman, go out there and ask all the people running small and medium sized companies what inhibits them from growth, one of the things they will come back, almost invariably, and say to you is, the degree of regulation is too great.

    It is in this country less than in other European countries, but that is not the right measure. The question is, how does it compare with the United States and with Japan. That is the question. And the answer to that question is very badly. So I think there is a good deal more of supply side changes that still need to be carried through.

    I think the trade union changes have worked immensely successively and I think that is very good. But there are other changes. I think there is a good degree of deregulation. Like every other nation in Europe we have to look at our social on costs.

    We in the United Kingdom have seen a social budget that has absolutely soared and people rather say, well that’s unimportant. Up to a point, but only up to a point. If you strip all the unemployment costs out of our social budget and then look at the rest of our social security budget, I’ve put health to one side, just social security, social security rises year on year, almost inexorably by between three and three and a half per cent a year over and above the rate of inflation.

    Now that is the equivalent each year of about a penny ha’penny on income tax.

    Now that is happening, it’s happening all over Europe, in Germany, in Holland and Italy. All sorts of countries that are politically attracted to high social provision are finding it is necessary to trim back within what they can afford. And that is true here. That is why we have set in train with these fundamental expenditure reviews that we need to examine. So I think some of those are the things that we still need to do.

    There’s one other that I would touch upon. One of the other clear pieces of evidence from examining unemployment across Europe, is to look at the people who are unemployed. And predominantly the people who are unemployed for a long time are relatively unskilled males. They are the people who are unemployed for a long time. I’m not now talking just of the United Kingdom, I’m talking right the way across western Europe. And that argues to me firstly the on-cost argument. The same on-costs on someone of less economic value to a company, means they’re less likely to be employed. Straight economic facts. So one has to look at those on-costs.

    Secondly it argues that all across Europe we need to look more carefully at the nature and style of trading.

    Thirdly in terms of the United Kingdom it argues very powerfully to me that I very much want to expand both the service sector, where most of our future jobs will come, but also the manufacturing sector. Not because I think the manufacturing sector of itself will be a large net producer of additional jobs, I doubt that it will. But I think the suppliers of some of the secondary impact of the wider manufacturing sector will give us jobs. And a wider manufacturing sector of its own will be benevolent addition to the British economy. So those are some of the things I think will go to address the point you made.

    QUESTION (Rick Salinger, CNN):

    You mentioned Bosnia as a problem from hell, perhaps a case can be made for saying that Northern Ireland’s is the Prime Minister’s problem from hell. Are you discouraged by the lack of success in bringing about a political solution and an end to the terrorism there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I’d like to have had a complete solution of course. But I think it would be unwise to look at the extent to which progress has been made in the last two or three years. Let me illustrate that with some practical points rather than just the assertion.

    Who would have contemplated two or three years ago that we would have managed to get all the political parties talking in the way that they have around the table. It has never happened before. Large measures of agreement reached in strand 1 and strand 2 of the talks. Agreement, without an explosion in either side of the Ireland, that there should be regular bilateral summits between the Irish Government and the British Government. Huge improvement in cooperation on security matters between the Irish Government and the British Government. Huge increase in the relationship between the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

    And perhaps above all, if you go to Northern Ireland and go out on the streets and talk to the people of Northern Ireland, there is a huge instinctive will for the politicians to talk and to try and reach an agreement.

    They don’t say anymore this or that political slogan when you talk to them. What they do say, though they may not put it quite in these terms, is that they don’t want another twenty three years like the last twenty three years. They do want us to push ahead for some progress and the reason for that is quite clear.

    If you walk around Belfast it’s a different city from ten years ago. The difficulties are highly publicised, magnified all the way round the world. The successes aren’t. There has been a huge amount of investment in Belfast and a great change in the city. One only has to go there to see it.

    But it is just a drop in the ocean and this is what explains the public attitude. Just a drop in the ocean to what could happen if the bloodshed and the terrorism stopped.

    You could triple tourism. I was in Northern Ireland over the weekend. The first Prime Minister to spend a weekend there I think for fifty years. I opened the tourist agency in Larne, a brand new agency. They could triple tourism in Northern Ireland but for the fact that all the rest of the world knows about Northern Ireland is when you get terrorist incidents. So they don’t go. They think it is far worse than it is.

    And secondly inward investment. Northern Ireland is a hugely attractive place to invest in. I went, the previous time I was there, to a great cotton factory where they got some investment from the United States. They’d merged and they were producing Fruit of the Loom t-shirts. Everybody there was hugely successful. Much more competitive than anywhere in the Pacific Basin.

    And the amount of inward investment that would flood into Northern Ireland because of the attraction of Northern Ireland as a place to live, and also its competitiveness is huge, provided it had a better terrorist overhang.

    Now the people of Northern Ireland know that. They know that there is a prosperity deficit in Northern Ireland because of terrorism. And I think they are getting heartily sick of it.

    So I think there is quite an agenda of reasons for positive hope. I don’t think it will be easy, I don’t think it will necessarily be quick but I think inexorably we are moving in the right direction in Northern Ireland and that is something one could not have said for much of the last quarter of a century.

    QUESTION (Linda Albany, ABC News):

    Recently someone quite close to the talks on Bosnia indicated that they were quite surprised by the lack of preparation which the Americans came overseas to talk about what it was they wanted done, and said something about this administration being worse than even the Carter administration [inaudible]. What was the reaction of Europeans, would you say, behind closed doors to some extent, to what the US’s position was and how they handled it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m always rather suspicious of anonymous quotes, having spent a year living through them. So I tend not to react too well to anonymous quotes.

    I can only say on the occasions that I have spoken either to President Clinton or the Secretary of State, I found immensely well briefed about realities. Nobody is in any doubt that we have produced different prescriptions as to what is appropriate from time to time. But I think they’re very well briefed. I think they do understand the problems involved and I sometimes find it bizarre when I read afterwards what has allegedly happened at a meeting I attended. Either I wasn’t there at all or there’s been some misapprehension in the way it has subsequently been passed on for reporting. So I have no criticisms to make on that score.

    It’s a very difficult problem. The United States have to grapple with it in the same way that we do. In some areas we have reached different conclusions but I think the objectives we have in mind are the same objectives and I think that will become apparent again when we talk about it in weeks ahead.

    QUESTION (Maureen Johnson, Associated Press):

    Prime Minister, when you were saying fifteen months ago we wouldn’t have believed the achievements of your administration if you’d listed them, would you yourself have believed one of us if we had said where you’re poll ratings would be now and how candid or permanent do you think these are?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have someone whose word you trust implicitly with me. Namely Gus O’Donnell. And Gus will tell you, if I ask him to, won’t you Gus. “Yes Prime Minister” [GUS]. He used to write a very famous show as well of the same title.

    What I said to him the day after the last election. On the Friday after the election he sat upstairs in my flat. There were four of us there: Chris Patten, Gus O’Donnell, Sara Hogg and myself. And one of them said, ‘well, election’s over, we’ve won it’. And I said, and I hope Gus will recall the incident, that in a year I would be the most unpopular Prime Minister that this country had known for a very long time.

    I did not quite envisage how it would come about. I freely confess that. But I was well aware of the intrinsic difficulties that lay ahead and I had no doubt that it would lead to a considerable amount of difficulties.

    But I’m bound to say, asking me about poll ratings is not wildly productive. If I had believed poll ratings I wouldn’t have had any of these problems, because I wouldn’t have won the last election. None of them said that we would, I didn’t believe them then. I disregarded them then and I have no intention of letting them get in the way of what I’m doing now.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Exchange Rate’s only part of competitiveness. Don’t make too much just of the Exchange Rate. That’s short hand for a range of other things as well.

    If you look, for example, at the other components of competitiveness in the United Kingdom: unit costs, productivity growth. You’ll see all of them are now strikingly better than most of our European competitors and strikingly better than we’ve seen previously in this country. So I wouldn’t make too much simply of the Exchange Rate problem.

    There are a whole range of other things that are making our exports very competitive. And I am delighted about that and also delighted that we have quite a degree of spare capacity, with proved production in this country in order to continue to export.

    The problem that we will face, I think, will be a slightly different one. The problem that we are going to face over the next year is that so many of our principal markets are themselves in recession or are heading towards recession. So we are likely to get a larger share of our improved competitiveness. A larger share but perhaps of a smaller market. And if I had to worry about the trade deficit, I would worry about that aspect of the trade deficit rather than the one that you raised.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think that question is capable of more than one interpretation. I hope we will be able to reach a settlement that is satisfactory for each of the three parties.

    Even if that were true, the probability is, I state this is a probability not a certainty, but the probability is that there will need to be some international presence in the former Yugoslavia for some time to come. I don’t know what form that presence will take. I don’t know what form any guarantees that might be required would be. But I would be very surprised if there wasn’t firstly an humanitarian presence in Bosnia for some time.

    Secondly a presence aimed at the reconstruction of the former Yugoslavia, and very possibly what I might call the guardian presence, that’s small g, of troops under a UN guise to help in one form or another.

    So I think if any of the world’s big nations had ambitions that they may be able to wash their hands of the Yugoslavian/Bosnian problem in the near future, then I think that is very unlikely. I don’t myself foresee it. I hope we will get a settlement. I think that would be a great step forward.

    The other problems would be rather more agreeable to have. But even if that occurred and we did get a settlement and that settlement were satisfactory and it looked as though it was going to last, there would still be a need, I think, for a continuing involvement.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, for thirty five years I’ve been trying, to explain British cricket. Unsuccessfully of course. Now I have to explain whether there is actually a decline in British cricket in its appearance of British Cricket and County Cricket, a lot of my audiences are waiting expectantly for my answer.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have many responsibilities and I am prepared to take the blame for most of them which on balance is a jolly good thing. Let me try and respond to that question.

    As for explaining cricket it is quite simple. Two men go out to the middle of the field, they put in six pieces of wood, two men in white coats come out and it starts to rain. That is really all you need to know.

    I tried to explain to President Bush what a leg breaker was, several times, and he got it. Ah, he said, it’s a curved ball that doesn’t bounce.

    There is a serious point underlying your question. And I think it deserves a slightly more serious answer. County Cricket isn’t the force it was. School cricket, the lack of school cricket, is really I think where the roots of the difficulties cricketers have actually spring from.

    That is the negative side of the equation. The positive side of the equation is that the great County sides have recognised that and they are now organising on a scale we’ve never seen before in this country. Club Cricket and Youth Cricket actually organised by Lancashire, Surrey, Yorkshire and Middlesex. So they are seeking to get youngsters with some form of cricketing talent at a very young age and exposing them to a higher class of cricket.

    That will take some time to work its way through. But if you look at the Surrey team, which I mention only because by far the most important public appointment I hold is that of life vice-president of Surrey County Cricket. A large number of the present Surrey County side actually came through those youth arrangements.

  • PMQT – 29 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Malnutrition and Infant Mortality (Iraq)

    Q1. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what is his most recent information from UNICEF about the alleged infringements of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child involving malnutrition and infant mortality in Iraq.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : No such information has been received from the United Nations Children’s Fund, but we remain in close touch with United Nations agencies about the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

    Mr. Dalyell : Has the Prime Minister been briefed by the Foreign Secretary and by Sir Michael Burton about the visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and Tim Llewellyn to the paediatric hospital in Baghdad, where we saw lines of infants with swollen tummies and swollen private parts expiring as a result of malnutrition- related diseases such as marasmus? Does the west have any obligation to do something for injured infants who are without pharmaceuticals or medicines as a result of the missile attack on Baghdad? Would it not be wise, for reasons that I gave to Sir Michael Burton and the Foreign Secretary, at least to hear what the Iraqi people have to say?

    The Prime Minister : I am, of course, aware of the hon. Gentleman’s humanitarian concerns and of his discussions and his report to the Foreign Secretary. However, I think that he is misguided in the way in which he attributes responsibility. To be frank with the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that it is not the responsibility of external countries that the difficulties in Iraq, which led to the devastating situation, have been brought about. We very much wish that this were not the situation. However, it is, and over recent months we have done what we could to put it right. With regard to the attack, I shall not respond directly to the hon. Gentleman as the matter was widely discussed in the House yesterday.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert : Does my right hon. Friend share my sense of injustice about the fact that, on the only occasion this Session when I have the good fortune to be able to ask him a question on television, the BBC is showing Wimbledon on both channels? Would not the watching public be immensely encouraged to learn that we are today considering the Criminal Justice Bill and that the police are going to make fighting crime and protecting the public their top priority, unencumbered by unnecessary paperwork?

    The Prime Minister : With no disrespect to my hon. Friend’s question, I think that that is the best decision by the BBC that I have heard for some time–game, set and match to the BBC, I think. I agree with the substance of my hon. Friend’s question. What most people in this country wish to ensure is that our police service is doing the job we most wish to see it do, that is to say, not pushing paper but catching criminals.

    Mr. John Smith : Is the Prime Minister aware that it is three months to the day since the House debated the Government’s White Paper on the coal industry? Does he recollect that the public, the press and some of his own Back Benchers were led to believe that 12 pits would be saved by that White Paper? Why is it that, only three months later, three of the 12 pits face closure?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there have been severe geological problems at some of those pits, resulting in an excessive level of cost. British Coal has talked to the men about the problems. I understand that at Rufford the men voted to close the pit when the existing face is exhausted and at Markham they agreed to immediate closure. British Coal is still committed to the market-testing exercise.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand what is happening to the miners–that if they do not vote for closure they lose redundancy payments? Does he not understand what is happening in the market? British Coal is now offering coal at a knock-down price which would give the consumer much cheaper electricity than he or she could get from any other source. If the two privatised generators still will not buy at that price, does that not prove that the market is rigged against coal and that, if it goes on, pit after pit will close and will shall lose a vital industry?

    The Prime Minister : The reason for taking the decisions on coal some months ago was to make sure that there is a viable industry that can continue in the future. It will be a smaller industry than once it was, for it has been shrinking in size year on year over the past 30 years. That is a fact of life which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I and every hon. Member well understand. It is the market for coal which will determine the size of the industry. The Government have made it clear that they are willing to provide a subsidy to help the deep mining industry secure supplementary coal to generators at world prices. That was and is the position.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister not remember clearly that the House was led to believe that 12 pits would be saved as a result of the White Paper? Why does he not come clean and admit that the White Paper was a fraud and is now exposed as a fraud? Is it not a perfect example of the style of the Prime Minister and his Government that they produced a White Paper for 36 hours’ publicity, which has not survived for three months in the real world?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman might perhaps have observed what Mr. Scargill had to say at lunchtime when he said :

    “The Labour leadership is more interested in opinion polls and images rather than principles and real policies.”

    Miss Emma Nicholson : During his busy day, has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to read the letter from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in The London Literary Review, in which he gives inaccurate medical information on the state of child health in Iraq? Will the Prime Minister remind the hon. Gentleman that United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 of August and September 1991 authorised Iraq to export $16 billion worth of oil to buy medicines over a six-month period but that those arrangements have never been implemented?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen that particular letter, but my hon. Friend is quite right about the proposition that has been available to Iraq for well over a year whereby it could export oil and, in return, have medical and other equipment. The Government of Iraq–Saddam Hussein–chose not to take up that option. For that reason, he is primarily to blame for the present difficulties in treating people who are sick and ill in Iraq.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hanson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

    Mr. Hanson : Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House and to the many pensioners lobbying Parliament today that the Conservatives have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on tax relief to the wealthiest members of Lloyd’s, while continuing to persist with their policy of putting VAT on gas and electricity? Does he appreciate that that is typical of the present Government?

    The Prime Minister : It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent the position. The fact is that the success of Conservative policies over the years has enabled pensioners’ incomes to increase by 30 per cent.–37 per cent. net of housing costs–since 1979. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps remind himself, and tell others, which party tried to cut the Christmas bonus, cut spending on the national health service, failed to uprate pensions and let inflation get out of control and wreck the savings of millions of pensioners.

     

    Q5. Dr. Goodson-Wickes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : I share my right hon. Friend’s approval that Wimbledon is monopolising all channels, but, in the context of the necessary review of public spending, may I ask for an assurance that there will be a rigorous clamp-down on all those who are claiming benefit on fraudulent grounds at the expense of those most worthy of help in society, to whom benefits should be targeted?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend both assurances. I assure him that the Government will honour their pledges to uprate state retirement and child benefits and so protect the most vulnerable in society. I also assure him that those who try to defraud the benefits system will find it increasingly difficult to do so. They will come up against a Government anti-fraud policy which expects to net savings of nearly £1 billion this year. We want those resources so as to make sure that they are available for those who need them most. I make no apology for protecting taxpayers from those who seek to abuse the system.

     

    Q6. Dr. Lynne Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

    Dr. Jones : In view of the revelations at the trial of Christopher Clunis, who stabbed and killed Jonathan Zito, will the Prime Minister accept that although most people suffering from schizophrenia are not dangerous, the failure of the Government’s care in the community policy means that dangerous mentally ill people are walking the streets? What does he intend to do about that, and will he now order a public inquiry into the case and its implications for community care, as requested by Mr. Zito’s widow?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady may not know it, but the care in the community policy has been a cross-party policy in the House for many years. Everyone is deeply sorry to hear about that tragic case, and I have deep sympathy for Mrs. Zito and the other relatives concerned. Nevertheless, I am sure that our community care policy is right for the patients concerned. It is right to encourage them generally to lead as independent a life as possible away from large-scale institutions. To that end, we now devote spending of more than £2 billion per year, and we have increased it substantially to ensure that the resources devoted to it are able to meet the problems which exist.

    I have to say to the hon. Lady that picking out a tragic case such as that in the way that she did does no credit to her.

     

    Q7. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 June.

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

    Mr. Evennett : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom is the only leading country in Europe experiencing economic recovery? Will he further confirm that while other countries in the European Community languish in recession, our economy has low inflation, falling unemployment, low wage settlements and the highest growth rate in Europe? Does he agree that that is good news for British business men and exporters and will help the nation to get roaring forward again economically?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it is good news for everybody, with the possible exception of some Opposition Members for whom good news is extremely bad news. Britain was the first country in Europe to go into the recession ; it is now among the first to emerge. Although conditions abroad throughout the Community may be difficult for some time, the Community itself and others are now forecasting that we shall have the highest growth rate in the Community this year and the highest growth rate again next year.

    Mr. Molyneaux : Have Her Majesty’s Government given any commitment to the Labour party’s proposals for joint authority over Northern Ireland, as set out in the documents published this morning?

    The Prime Minister : The first I heard of the apparent proposals by the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland was when I read that astonishing story in The Guardian this morning. I have no means of knowing whether The Guardian story is right or wrong. I hope that it is wrong, but, as Opposition Members seem to have questions planted upon them by The Guardian, it does not seem unreasonable to me that they may plant their policies upon The Guardian themselves. I can only say that that policy, if it is the policy of the Labour party, is a recipe for disaster. If it is true, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will request the resignation of his spokesman this day. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has the obligation to tell the people of Northern Ireland whether or not that is the policy of the Labour party.

    Mr. Brandreth : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on literally flying the flag in support of Manchester’s Olympic bid? Does he agree that the bid is bringing more money, more jobs and more prestige to an area of this country which is already world class?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that hosting the Olympic games in Manchester would be good for the north-west, good for Britain and good for the Olympics. That is why the Government are determined to do all that they can to back Manchester’s bid to bring the Olympics here for the millennium. We have provided full support for that bid. I was delighted to welcome the International Olympic Committee to Downing street yesterday. I shall be meeting the president of the IOC next month, and I look forward to going to Monte Carlo to help to promote the bid in September. The Olympic games which mark the year 2000 will have a special significance and I want to see those games here in Britain–in Manchester.