Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 October 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th October 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Pitchford Hall

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what representations he has had on Her Majesty’s Government’s response to requests to take into public ownership Pitchford Hall and its contents in Shropshire;

    (2) what discussions Her Majesty’s Government have had with (a) Lord Rothschild of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, (b) Hugh Stirling of the National Trust and (c) Jocelyn Stevens of English Heritage on the future of the contents of Pitchford Hall in Shropshire.

    The Prime Minister : I have written to the hon. Member and have placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

     

    Racial Harmony

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will use the United Kingdom presidency to promote a European Community directive on racial harmony;

    (2) what steps he has taken under his presidency of the European Community to promote racial harmony in the Community.

    The Prime Minister : The Government are opposed absolutely to discrimination on grounds of race. This position is reflected in all our discussions with our European partners on these matters. The detailed legislative arrangements in other member states are, however, a matter for them, taking account of their particular circumstances.

    During the United Kingdom presidency the Government will be taking any appropriate opportunity to encourage our European Community colleagues to consider best practice in combating racial discrimination. One such opportunity will be the equal opportunities conference to be hosted by the Department of Employment in Birmingham from 7 to 8 December.

     

    Classless Society

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has brought forward in his presidency of the EC to realise a classless society.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s policies are aimed, and will continue to be aimed, at widening opportunities for all members of society. The education, health and other public service reforms, including the citizens charter, will take this process forward during our presidency of the EC and beyond. A European conference on public services and the citizen will be held in London in December as part of the United Kingdom presidency.

     

    Olympic Games

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement detailing the Government’s financial commitment to Manchester’s Olympic 2000 bid and the timing of its implementation.

    The Prime Minister : On 26 February I announced a £55 million support package for Manchester’s Olympic 2000 bid. Of this, £53 million is towards the provision of facilities in advance of the nomination and £2 million is to support the bid itself. The International Olympic Committee will decide the host city in September 1993. If Manchester’s bid is successful, the Government will contribute to the provision of necessary facilities for the games.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 19 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview at Downing Street, London, before a Cabinet meeting on Monday 19th October 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I called a meeting last night of senior colleagues and interested ministers. We discussed the question of the coal problems for two to two and a half hours. The purpose of this morning’s Cabinet meeting is to consider the conclusions we reached on that occasion and after the Cabinet meeting Mr Heseltine will announce the outcome of that in the House this afternoon.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Jacques Delors – 16 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Jacques Delors, held in Birmingham on Friday 16th October 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I, before I turn to the substance of today’s European Council, express my thanks to the City of Birmingham for their hospitality and for the use of these splendid facilities here today. It has been the first time that the government have had a conference of this sort in Birmingham and I would like to express my thanks to everyone concerned for the splendid way in which the organisation has worked.

    May I now turn to the substance of the European Council and the reason it was called. Let me begin by painting the picture behind it. Last year nearly 60 percent of Britain’s visible trade was with our European Community partners. Half of the external investment in the United Kingdom comes from within the European Community. Eight of our top ten world trading partners are members of the European Community. And I mention those figures to illustrate how vital the Community is for our prosperity, for our economy and for our jobs. And I think you will find the same picture in each and every one of the European Community nations.

    In the last few weeks the very difficult situation of recession has been compounded by massive turbulence on the Foreign Exchange Markets. Those two things combined dealt a body blow to confidence, not just in the United Kingdom, but in many areas right throughout the European Community. It was above all confidence that we needed to restore. That was why there was a request from a number of European partners for the European Council we have had today and that was why I called the meeting.

    Every single issue that we have discussed today has an important bearing on the successful development of the Community. And that is especially vital just three months before the single market comes into force; a market which could, when it is in force, bring around 5 percent extra growth in European Community GDP. And so the outcome of the meeting in the Birmingham Declaration and in our conclusions is of importance to our future and to our prosperity.

    Let me start with economic and monetary cooperation. Firstly, we have reaffirmed our determination to reduce inflation, to control budget deficits and pursue open market policies, not I emphasise just for their own sake but because each of us in the Community believe that that is the basis for recovery, the basis for social and economic cohesion and the basis for the creation of new and lasting jobs.

    Secondly, we have all put our authority behind the work set in hand by Finance Ministers following the recent turbulence in the currency markets. We believe that is important and we believe Finance Ministers and Bank Governors are the right people to carry it out.

    Thirdly, we have endorsed the progress made by the Commission in negotiating a settlement of the Uruguay Round and we have given them authority to work for a conclusion to that round by the end of this year. And I cannot stress how important such a settlement would be for recovery – an extra 200 billion dollars in wealth created every 10 years – that is the scale of the prize that hangs there if we can get a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round.

    Fourthly, we have in the Birmingham Declaration taken important steps towards giving the Community back to the people to whom it is answerable. That I think when people study the declaration will meet many of the concerns that have been expressed not just in the United Kingdom but in France, in Denmark and in countries right across the Community.

    And fifthly, we have taken a significant initiative to set up our humanitarian aid to Yugoslavia.

    In our discussions today right the way round the table there was a real sense that the success of the Community depends upon decisions being taken as close as possible to the individual Community citizens. President Delors in a presentation today highlighted a number of new commitments by the European Commission:

    – firstly, Community legislation should be more limited, should be clearer and should be better explained;

    – secondly, there should be more consultation by the Commission, we have in mind by White Papers and by Green Papers, a system of consultation very familiar to us in the United Kingdom and very welcome;

    – and thirdly, a Commission work programme each year which national parliaments would each and all be able to discuss. And Commissioners also should be designated to liaise with each national parliament.

    A common theme in the interventions by the European Community Heads of Government was that we should move together as a Community of Twelve, I emphasise that, a Community of Twelve, no inner core, no fast track, no slow track, no-one left behind, no inner groups, that was a constant theme of our discussions this morning.

    In our discussions a number of practical suggestions were made as well. I illustrate perhaps just two. President Mitterrand suggested we should hive off some decisions which had gone too far and should look between now and Edinburgh for specific examples of issues which need not be dealt with at the Community level. Chancellor Kohl, if I may give another example, urged the need for decisions to be taken at the level appropriate to that decision. And everyone had in their mind in those remarks the sort of unnecessary interference which all of us – the Commission, the Council, all of us – must now do our best to stop.

    All of that is set out in the declaration in what I hope will be seen by people not as legal language but as a simple straightforward easy to read guide to the sort of objectives we are going to seek. We are looking for a more open Community, a Community that respects national traditions, a Community which only acts where member states have given it the power to do so and then only when it is necessary to do so, a Community which has the lightest possible form of legislation with maximum freedom for member states.

    Those are some of the principles we have agreed today and those principles that we have agreed today will be translated into concrete action by Edinburgh. Some of the work is in hand, more of it will be put in hand so we can reach firm decisions, not pious hopes, firm decisions by the time we get to Edinburgh.

    In coming to Birmingham today the European Council has brought Europe right to the heart of Britain, I thoroughly welcome that. It is through Europe that the economic lifeblood of our country increasingly flows these days. We shall soon have a single market of over 350 million people in the European Community. Outside the Community other countries – Austria, the EFTANS, in due course some of the East Europeans – all wish to join the European Community. The market over time will get progressively bigger, progressively more valuable and progressively more vital to our national interest and the national interest of every European nation.

    After the squalls of the last few weeks it was necessary for us to meet and re-set our course, re-emphasise what it was we were about. There are difficult times now in each country in the European Community. And so today’s meeting was not just about the Maastricht Treaty, it was not just about subsidiarity, bringing things nearer to people, it was about reaffirming and re-ensuring an open Community that is open and viable politically and viable economically. That was what was in the minds of the Heads of Government, the Commission and everyone else present today and it was on that basis that we reached the decisions set out in our Council conclusions and in the three declarations – the Birmingham declaration and the declarations on Yugoslavia and on Somalia – which no doubt you have seen by now.

    1. DELORS:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, now the Prime Minister has two press conferences, one after the other, so I do not want to hold you up. May I just say that this exceptional meeting of the European Council was indispensable as the President of the Council has just stressed. It enabled us to raise the level of trust and confidence among the Twelve and to have a joint assertion to press ahead with the building of Europe on a basis which is understandable to the citizens of Europe and with a confirmed and resolute determination. I think that was necessary.

    I myself expressed fears that given the events of the last few weeks a lack of trust could have emerged between member states and now I am reassured and today’s discussion, particularly this morning, was extremely rich and politically useful. and I think it augers well for the future of the Community.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (James Blaze, Radio VIP International, Mexico):

    Prime Minister, you talk about looking forward to a single European market in the future, Mexico has just signed the North American Free Trade Agreement which is involving Mexico, Canada and the United States, what is your reaction to the signing of the NAFTA and do you think that a single European market would mirror many aspects of that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly welcome the North American Free Trade Agreement, I think it is a great step forward, it will be immensely helpful for Mexico. It is an important part of the Americas initiatives that President Bush has followed with I think some success over the last couple of years or so.

    In the single market in Europe, the single market has been something we have sought for some time. We are over 90 percent there. Of the measures that are necessary to complete the single market, 90 percent are concluded, a number are in the course of conclusion and we aim to complete the single market by Edinburgh at the end of this year. And the importance of it is it will remove barriers and it will open up a great deal of opportunity in terms of the United Kingdom, particularly for the City and elsewhere, but extra opportunities for each Community nation.

    When I say we will complete the single market by Edinburgh, I do not necessarily mean that each and every one of the single market ambitions will be concluded, but we will be sufficiently close to each and every one being concluded for us to be able to declare the single market properly open for business, and I illustrated to you earlier how valuable that would be for growth of Community GDP.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC Radio):

    How confident can you be that you are going to conduct your affairs with greater openness in view of the fact that you refused to let TV cameras in for any stage of your proceedings today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think openness comes in many forms, it certainly comes in forms of greater openness in consultation and greater openness in explaining what decisions are, greater openness in contacts with national parliaments. Thus far we have not opened Cabinet discussions to television and lots of other things either. But I do not exclude the possibility of television being there for part of discussions in future, that is one of the matters we are examining, but we have to examine that and reach agreement with all our Community partners about it. My personal view is that I think there is a case for it and I think it would be very wise, for example, to have a general discussion, perhaps in the Foreign Affairs Council once a year where it was entirely open to the public, televised perhaps if televisers wish to televise it, in which we can discuss the principles of the Community, where we are going and matters of that sort. That is certainly something we will wish to continue to discuss with our European partners and I hope we will reach an open conclusion.

    QUESTION (Vincent Hanna, A Week in Politics):

    I was interested in your statement about the idea of a Commissioner being accountable in some way to each national parliament, does that mean that you envisage at some point a Commissioner appearing before Westminster or a Select Committee at Westminster and answering questions and taking part in a debate, that would be unprecedented in our Parliament?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not in the Chamber itself, no Vincent. Firstly I should make clear we are not talking about extra Commissioners, we are talking about a Commissioner being allocated who would have a particular responsibility for liaison with one national parliament. I would not envisage that that Commissioner would appear in the Chamber of the House of Commons or Lords, indeed in terms of our constitution they could not, but certainly that they would answer appeals perhaps to appear before Select Committees or Backbench committees of any of the parties at Westminster so there is a different and better relationship. One of the things that strikes me quite starkly about the relationship between national parliaments and the European Community as a whole is the lack of understanding between the two, the lack of coordination between the two, and I think this is one way in which we can improve it. Having said that, I think it would be appropriate to ask M. Delors to comment, for it was his initiative that we should actually look at this particular proposition, and I warmly welcome it.

    1. DELORS:

    It seemed to me that in order to involve national parliaments more in terms of getting them to express their opinions about the Community and get information about the Community, a lot would depend on national practices, relations between national governments and national parliaments and also there was the idea of convening a conference of the European Parliament and national parliaments now and again. But that is not enough. Whether you are talking about Select Committees in the House of Commons or parliamentary committees in other countries, I think it would be useful and that was the proposal I made for these Parliamentary committees to know that among the members of the Commission there is one person who is particularly responsible for liaising with that national parliament who could appear before a Select Committee in order to provide information they need when they need it. Now of course I would make it clear straight away that for example the correspondent from the Bundesbank would not be German and the correspondent for the House of Commons would not be British, it would be better that way because that way they would get to know each other better. After twinning cities we would have twinning personalities.

    QUESTION (Mike White, Guardian):

    British authorities lowered interest rates today, I wondered if that was discussed at all at the Council and whether President Delors thought it was likely to increase the probability that Britain will re-enter the Exchange Rate Mechanism quickly or delay that? Secondly, we had expected to hear a little more about the economic recovery plan and the ideas associated with M. Delors, what has the summit done for Europe’s rising numbers of unemployed, including the British miners?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The question of British interest rate levels was not discussed and neither in the form you put it was the second matter you raised. As to the rest of your question, I will be holding a domestic press conference immediately after this and I think that is more relevant to that press conference.

    QUESTION (BBC Newsnight):

    Did you identify any concrete areas of common ground where all countries agree that Brussels currently exerts too much power? And secondly, is there anything that you said about subsidiarity that takes the information in the Maastricht Treaty any further?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have sought in the Birmingham Declaration to give more flesh to what subsidiarity means. But if I may borrow a very old English saying, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and we will actually see that when we come to Edinburgh and when we will be able to answer the first part of your question and we will have a specific list of illustrations of the way in which subsidiarity will work. And also we will be able to respond to the point that the Commission are also examining and that is those areas of legislation that previously the Community has been involved in where perhaps in future it need not be involved in. We have to seek the agreement of all twelve nations, work has been going on for this for some time, it is intended that we can reach conclusions at Edinburgh and I hope then that we will be able to put a good deal more detail behind the question you ask. It is the right question to ask, we will be able to answer it at Edinburgh.

    QUESTION:

    On the question of the GATT your declaration seems to be positive and urges a GATT agreement by the end of the year. However, the American administration wish to achieve a breakthrough on the GATT by 3 November and this looks like it will not meet that request. Also the French President told us a few minutes ago that he had insisted that the term under the present mandate be maintained in the statement and that seems to limit the Commission’s freedom. Can you give any reason why Americans should not think this is a backward step on the GATT rather than the forward step it looks like?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No it is not a backward step, most certainly it is not a backward step, and there was complete unanimity in the European Council about the economic advantages of reaching a conclusion to the Uruguay Round, not only the advantages of reaching it but the very severe disadvantages that could follow if we did not reach it.

    As to the timing, let me firstly say something about progress. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that in the meetings last week between the Community negotiators and Mrs Hills and Mr Madigan very substantial progress was made, not just in agriculture but in services, market access, financial services, a whole range of issues, far more progress than we have made in meetings for a very long time indeed. The negotiators believe more progress can be made. The end of the year is the target that has been set but it may be well in advance of that. The negotiators will be meeting again next weekend but of course that is the bilateral negotiation between the Community and the United States. They would then need to go to Geneva in order to sort out the details of their agreement with the other participants to the GATT agreement, of which there are a large number. But I think there is more optimism about the prospects of making progress today than there has been for some time and certainly a good deal more optimism than there was before the meetings over last weekend.

    QUESTION (Dutch TV):

    The Dutch Prime Minister has just said that the Danes are very close to a conclusion about Maastricht, in fact that they will come with concrete proposals within two weeks, can you now tell us when Maastricht will return to the House of Commons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I have indicated some time ago that the preparatory debate that we have to have in the House of Commons before the committee stage can come back will be held shortly after the House of Commons returns. Once we have had that debate we can make a firm decision about the return of the bill to the House of Commons. But the bill will return and will go through the House of Commons in the present session of parliament.

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph):

    On the GATT, this is surely a French political problem more than anything else, you rightly allude to the progress made on Monday night and I wonder whether it was ever part of your strategy, given that both you and the Foreign Secretary have been at summits when the British Government has been quite ruthlessly isolated and voted down over an issue in the name of European Union, and that given under Article 113 of the Treaty of Rome it is possible to decide agricultural issues by qualified majority vote, did it ever occur to you that it might be advantageous at this stage to simply proceed to a vote on the question of agricultural subsidies with the French and vote them down at this summit or did you think that was not the way we did things?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have not got an outcome of the negotiations to determine yet. The negotiations on the agriculture element still continue, there are still some differences about import substitution and cereal production levels and export subsidies, there are still some differences in those areas to be resolved so it is not possible for us to determine how to reach an agreement until we have actually got an agreement that the Community collectively can decide upon. But it is the Commission that has the negotiating rights for the Community.

    What was vital today was to ensure that the Commission were given a continued mandate, to continue their negotiations firstly with the Americans bilaterally and ultimately thereafter to go straight off to Geneva and see if they could conclude a GATT agreement. That is the mandate that the Commission has and it means that the negotiations for a GATT agreement remain on track and proceed. Once the Commission are in a position to recommend a conclusion to us then we have to decide how it is determined, how it is agreed by the Community and as you rightly say that can be by qualified majority vote.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Coal Mine Closures – 16 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on coal mine closures, made in an interview on Friday 16th October 1992.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would scrap the coal mine closure because of opposition].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No-one likes to see closures of this sort and we would not have done it unless we felt it was absolutely unavoidable. There are something like 40 million tons of coal lying at the top of the pit head that nobody wants, there is an extra million tons being added to that each month, the total production of coal is twice as high as we are remotely likely to be able to sell. That is the reality. What we need to do is firstly deal with that problem, painful though it is, and I understand that very well, and then start to put in place measures that will provide permanent jobs and regenerate those areas that at present face difficulties. It is not a decision that could have been delayed forever, it seemed to us to be cleaner, more clear cut and more honest to say frankly what the difficulty was and to seek to deal with it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he knew the dismay about the closures and if he would resign if defeated in the Commons on this].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Who would not be dismayed? Who would actually have wanted to implement closures like this? I certainly would not. Michael Heseltine said earlier this week it was one of the most painful decisions he had ever been connected with, I would echo that. If we could have avoided it we would have avoided it. Right at the very last moment, before the decision was taken, I called the appropriate Ministers together and we had a complete representation of the entire case, whether there was a strategic demand for that coal or likely to be in the future, whether there were marginal pits that could have been saved. We looked again, and again, and again to see if we could change the decision.

  • Presidency Conclusions on the Birmingham European Council – 16 October 1992

    Below is the text of the conclusions of the Presidency on the Birmingham European Council, concluded on 16th October 1992.


    The European Council heard a statement by Mr Klepsch, President of the European Parliament, on the main questions under discussion by the European Council.

    The Maastricht Treaty

    The European Council reviewed progress on ratification of the Treaty on European Union signed on 7 February and reaffirmed the importance of concluding the process as soon as possible, without reopening the present text, on the timing foreseen in Article R of the Treaty. It agreed that the Community must develop together as Twelve, on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty, while respecting, as the Treaty does, the identity and diversity of Member States.

    After a full discussion on bringing the Community closer to its citizens, the European Council agreed the attached Declaration (Annex I). It noted the Danish White Paper and welcomed the Danish Government’s intention to present within the next few weeks ideas on the way forward. It asked Foreign Ministers to examine these ideas and to report on them to the Edinburgh European Council, with a view to agreement there on the framework for a solution. The European Council heard a presentation from the President of the Commission and asked him to elaborate the proposals he had made, and to present a report thereon to the Edinburgh European Council.

    Economic and Monetary Cooperation

    Heads of State or Government agreed that Member States face common economic challenges, and were concerned at lower growth and increasing unemployment. Strong coordination at the Community level will help to ensure that the economy of each Member State is strengthened by the success of other Member States. It is important for Member States to continue policies to reduce inflation; to carry through programmes for controlling budget deficits; and to improve the efficiency of their economies through open market policies. Firm and sustained implementation of these policies establishes the basis for recovery, for social and economic cohesion, and for the creation of the new and lasting jobs that are needed.

    The European Council underlined the importance in this context of reinforcing the convergence process among the Member States’ economies, which is crucial for maintaining monetary stability and for creating the framework for sustainable growth and rising employment. Strict adherence to the principles of sound economic management, as set out in convergence programmes, formulated by Member States so as to fulfil the criteria set out in the Maastricht Treaty in order to realize the movement towards economic and monetary union, would enable the Community to meet its objective of proceeding together in its development. The European Council reiterated too its commitment to the European Monetary System as a key factor of economic stability and prosperity in Europe.

    The European Council endorsed the view of the Economic and Finance Ministers that the recent financial turbulence calls for reflection and analysis in the light of developments in capital markets and in the European and world monetary systems. It invited the Economic and Finance Ministers, assisted by the Monetary Committee and with the involvement of the Commission, to carry this work forward with the Central Bank Governors. It should cover recent economic and financial developments within Europe and in the major industrialized countries as well as the implications of changes in the general economic and financial environment in recent years, notably the impact of the increasing size and sophistication of financial markets and greater capital liberalization.

    GATT-Uruguay Round (GATT)

    The European Council reaffirms the importance of a fair and successful GATT agreement for strengthening the multilateral trading systems and increasing trade flows. This would give a non-inflationary boost to the world economy and would benefit industrialized and developing countries.

    The European Council heard a report by Vice-President Andriessen on current EC/US talks, indicating that, while gaps remained, real progress had been made. It invited the Commission to work within its existing mandate for an early, comprehensive and balanced GATT agreement by the end of the year, in the interests of the Community and of .the world economy, as well as for an early settlement on oilseeds.

    Yugoslavia and Somalia

    The European Council adopted the declarations in Annexes II and III of this document.

     

    Annex I – Birmingham Declaration – A Community close to its citizens

    1. We reaffirm our commitment to the Maastricht Treaty: we need to ratify it to make progress towards European Union if the Community is to remain an anchor of stability and prosperity in a rapidly changing continent, building on its success over the last quarter of a century.
    2. As a community of democracies, we can only move forward with the support of our citizens. We are determined to respond to the concerns raised in the recent public debate. We must:

    – demonstrate to our citizens the benefits of the Community and the Maastricht Treaty;

    – make the Community more open, to ensure a better informed public debate on its activities;

    – respect the history, culture and traditions of individual nations, with a clearer understanding of what Member States should do and what needs to be done by the Community;

    – make clear that citizenship of the Union brings our citizens additional rights and protection without in any way taking the place of their national citizenship.

    1. Foreign Ministers will suggest ways, before the Edinburgh European Council, of opening up the work of the Community’s institutions, including the possibility of some open Council discussion – for example on future work programmes. We welcome the Commission’s offer to consult more widely before proposing legislation, which could include consultation with all the Member States and a more systematic use of consultation documents (Green Papers). We ask the Commission to complete by early next year its work on improving public access to the information available to it and to other Community institutions. We want Community legislation to become simpler and clearer.
    2. We stress, the European Parliament’s important role in the democratic life of the Community and we welcome the growing contacts between national parliaments and the European Parliament. We reaffirm that national parliaments should be more closely involved in the Community’s activities. We shall discuss this with our parliaments. We welcome the Commission’s readiness to respond positively to requests from national parliaments for explanations of its proposals. We underline the importance we attach to the Conference of Parliaments and to the Committee of the Regions.
    3. We reaffirm that decisions must be taken as closely as possible to the citizen. Greater unity can be achieved without excessive centralization. It is for each Member State to decide how its powers should be exercised domestically. The Community can only act where Member States have given it the power to do so in the treaties. Action at the Community level should happen only when proper and necessary: the Maastricht Treaty provides the right framework and objectives for this. Bringing to life this principle – “subsidiarity”, or “nearness” – is essential if the Community is to develop with the support of its citizens. We look forward to decisions at Edinburgh on the basis of reports on:

    – adapting the Council’s procedures and practices – as the Commission for its part has already done – so that the principle becomes an integral part of the Community’s decision-making, as the Maastricht Treaty requires;

    – guidelines for applying the principle in practice, for instance by using the lightest possible form of legislation, with maximum freedom for Member States on how best to achieve the objective in question. Community legislation must be implemented and enforced effectively, and without interfering unnecessarily in the daily life of our citizens;

    We shall also have a look at the first fruits of the Commission’s review of past Community legislation with examples.

    1. Making the principle of subsidiarity work should be a priority for all the Community institutions, without affecting the balance between them. We will seek an agreement about this with the European Parliament.
    2. The Maastricht Treaty will bring direct benefits to individual citizens. All of us – Council, Commission and Parliament – must do more to make this clear.
    3. The European Council, in conformity with the responsibilities given to it by the Treaty, will ensure that the fundamental principles of the European Union will be fully observed.

    Annex II – Declaration on former Yugoslavia

    The European Council agreed that immediate and decisive action was needed in the face of the impending major human tragedy in former Yugoslavia as winter approached. It underlined the importance of providing winter shelter and zones of safety for refugees, and of ensuring the delivery of relief supplies, as highlighted in the Commission’s action plan. It decided that:

    – the Community will speed up EC assistance, for which ECU 213 million is ready for immediate disbursement, including on 120 000 tons of foodstuffs, and on medicines, shelter and 40 trucks;

    – Member States will immediately provide further staff and resources, practical and financial, to strengthen UNHCR’s capacity;

    – the Community and its Member States will immediately establish a task force to support the efforts of the UNHCR to deliver humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslav republics;

    – in order to increase the effectiveness of such humanitarian assistance, the European Council called on the UNHCR to set up:

    – next week, a meeting of technical experts on emergency aid to ensure the practical provision of immediate assistance;

    – next month, a stocktaking conference, to assess the effectiveness of the operation, and recommend further measures.

    Each member of the European Council will appoint a personal representative to supervise this work.

    The European Council called on other international donors to make a commensurate effort to support the UNHCR appeal and to speed up the delivery of assistance under existing pledges.

    The European Council condemned the continuing widespread violence and cruelty and the savage breaches of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia which have caused this human suffering and are now the main constraint on the delivery of essential aid. It noted the unacceptable fact that commitments made at the London Conference had not been put into effect. The European Council expressed its full support for the unremitting efforts of Lord Owen and Mr Vance to bring about an end to hostilities and a peaceful settlement and to secure the implementation of the agreements already reached.

    The European Council strongly endorsed the recent UN Security Council resolutions on the Prevlaka Peninsula, war crimes and a no-fly zone. It underlined the importance of the rapid deployment of forces now under way under Unprofor II, to which a number of Member States were contributing, for humanitarian convoy protection and the escort of detainees from camps. It reaffirmed that sanctions measures and the arms embargo should be maintained.

    The European Council discussed the dangerous situation in Kosovo and urged all parties concerned to exercise restraint and negotiate constructively in the current discussions. It endorsed the work of the International Conference and the long-term CSCE mission of Ambassador Boegh.

    In the light of the deteriorating economic situation in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, the European Council stressed the need for appropriate measures to prevent this republic from bearing the unintended consequences of UN sanctions.

    The European Council noted the recent undertaking by the Bosnian Serbs to remove their military aircraft into Serbia and agreed that in case of violations of UN Security Council Resolution 781 the Security Council should be asked to consider urgently the further measures necessary to enforce the ban on military flights.

    Annex III – Declaration on Somalia

    The European Council expressed its deep concern over the appalling situation in Somalia and the continuing deaths and starvation. It condemned the renewed fighting and called on the parties involved to observe an immediate ceasefire to allow the rapid distribution of aid to the people in desperate need.

    It expressed its full support for the efforts of Ambassador Sahnoun on behalf of the United Nations to achieve a national reconciliation as the basis for a peaceful solution, and for the Belgian contribution to the UN force. It welcomed the outcome of the UN Conference in Geneva on 12 and 13 October, and the creation of a 100-day programme to deliver aid to the worst affected areas. The European Council notes the contribution being provided by the Community and its Member States to relieve the crisis: in addition to other aid, over 100 000 tonnes of food aid has already been delivered and a similar quantity is being sent. Member States are also contributing some ECU 100 million bilaterally.

    The European Council called for the rapid deployment of UN troops to the areas where they are needed. It asked the Presidency to consult the UN Secretary-General on ways and means to expedite these deployments.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Birmingham – 16 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Birmingham, held on Friday 16th October 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let us now move to the second half of this mobile press conference.

    Let me say something about economic and domestic matters and then I will be happy to take whatever questions you have.

    Let me firstly say that I am delighted that the Chancellor has been able to announce today a further 1% reduction in interest rates. Base rates have now been cut from 15% to 8% in just over two years. The impact of those reductions, that they are worth around £9 billion a year off industry’s interest bill and about £100 off the payments of a typical mortgage, has now been a substantial but in my view justified easing of monetary conditions and as a result of that British industry can look forward with more confidence to improving domestic and overseas sales.

    As I said a week ago at the Conservative Party Conference at Brighton, we will be looking to help British exporters take advantage of the new competitive situation in Europe. The Chancellor will be consulting industry in the coming weeks about what the Government can do to help industry further and he will be doing that in the context of our continuing commitment to control public expenditure and contain inflation.

    Britain’s recovery from the recession we have suffered for so long depends crucially not just on domestic circumstances but on world recovery and particularly upon prosperity in the European Community. Over 60% of our trade is with our Community partners and that is where the new jobs and the growth that we want to see is going to come from and that is why it is so important that the Community progresses on the right lines and why today’s Council in Birmingham was so essential. It is also why the Chancellor and I have made it absolutely clear that even though we have been forced to suspend our membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism we must match the best inflation performance of our competitors in Europe and I believe we are on course to achieve that.

    Let me say something about British Coal and the announcement of large pit closures earlier this week. In answering questions earlier this week, Michael Heseltine said that the decision to agree British Coal’s plans for closure was about the most difficult decision that he had ever had to make. I can certainly endorse that. It was similarly difficult for me but the fact was that we simply could not ignore reality. The demand for coal is shrinking. The electricity generating companies want to buy only 40 million tonnes of coal next year whereas British Coal would produce 88 million tonnes of coal. Shift after shift, miners have been coming up to see piles of unwanted coal growing day by day. Stocks at the present time are increasing by more than 1 million tonnes every month and as a result of that, we have been spending £100 million a month of taxpayers’ money on keeping pits open even though the products of those pits – the coal – had no market and was not likely to have any market in the future.

    Why did we make the announcement now? We made the announcement sooner rather than later because we felt it right to remove uncertainty and because we did not believe that we would make a difficult decision easier by putting it off. There were rumours, there were leaks. Many people in the industry had been expecting difficulties in their own particular pit for a long time and it was getting to be an increasingly debilitating and difficult position to sustain.

    What we have done is to announce one of the most generous redundancy packages that we have ever seen. It is up to £1 billion plus a package of special measures to help the areas that have been affected by the closures. Those special measures include special training, help in finding new jobs, new factories, assisted-area status for some areas and fresh funds from the European Community. The talk about RECHAR this year overlooks the fact that it will be possible to apply for RECHAR next year from the European Community when the funds in that bloc are replenished.

    Michael Heseltine will be announcing more details about this special programme in his statement to the House of Commons on Monday but I can say to you now that there will be an immediate, closely-targeted programme of assistance led by the Training & Enterprise Councils – the TECS. They are employer-led and they are linked to local communities and we think they are the best mechanism and we believe they will do a fine job in helping in those areas.

    Nobody could do anything other than regret the anguish of the mining families. I understand that and I know and I regret the anguish faced by anyone who finds themselves made unemployed. Whether they were expecting it or not, it is always a shock when it happens but I do believe equally firmly that it would have been wrong to keep producing coal for which there is no market and for which, alas, there is going to be no market in the future. The important thing that we now have to do is to get on with helping the miners and their families and get on with beating the recession and that is what we are seeking to do.

    I know a number of questions arise from that and I will be happy to take as many of them as I can.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (ELEANOR GOODMAN – Channel 4 News):

    You talked about the reality in terms of the pit closures but isn’t the political reality that you have a large section of public opinion against you, you have a large section of the Tory Party against you and that you are going to have to rethink otherwise you risk being defeated in the House over it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nobody would have wished to close those mines unless it was essential. Nobody would have wished to do that. It is not a pleasant thing to do. Nobody gets any pleasure from it whether you are part of those who face the anguish of being without a job or whether you actually have to make the decision to do it. It wasn’t easy for British Coal, it wasn’t easy for the Government and none of us did it with any pleasure whatsoever.

    What we have seen in the mining industry over many years is the steady shrinkage of an industry because of the collapse of demand. If one takes, for example, the 1970s, there were around 30,000 mining jobs lost each year on average right the way through the whole of that decade simply because of shrinking demand.

    What we need to do is to deal with the problem, remove the uncertainty and seek to regenerate hope and employment in those areas and if I can give you a practical illustration of this, just a few weeks ago I visited Wales and I visited the site of the old Shotton Steelworks and many of you will remember that at the beginning of the 1980s, 10,000 jobs all on a single site were lost in a single day.

    What has happened as a result of the regenerative measures there is that there is now a modern industrial estate there providing secure, permanent employment for the people who once worked in the Shotton Steelworks, mainly medium-tech, high-tech, exporting all over the world and providing a rich diversity of employment for the people who work there. Misery and despair when it closed – a better prospect for the future as a result of what has subsequently happened. That is what we will seek to do in the areas that have been so badly affected by this closure but I repeat the point: it is not possible to continue to produce something for which there is no market and for which there will be no market and the money that would have been spent on artificially subsidising that for whatever length would not be available either for regenerating those areas or for any other public expenditure purpose.

    QUESTION (Peter Riddell – THE TIMES):

    Prime Minister, two parts: one, what has changed since earlier in the week when the Bank of England signalled that there would be no change in interest rates and the Chancellor was cautious to the Treasury Committee to justify a one-point cut in interest rates? Secondly, what form will the Chancellor’s discussions with industry take and what type of areas does that imply?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Chancellor’s discussions with industry will be with leaders of industry and they will be face-to-face discussions. The Chancellor will be inviting them to meet him and discuss a range of issues. I think I will leave the Chancellor to set out the details he will cover. The outcome of that I am not prepared to speculate about until we have had discussions.

    As to the reduction in interest rates, the Chancellor set out in an addendum attached to his press statement today precisely why we thought it was appropriate to cut interest rates at the present time: M0 close to its target range; M4 at its annual rate of growth at 5 1/2% is at the lowest level it has been for 20 years; M4-lending also growing very slowly. We all know the impact of the recession on house prices also showing there is no inflationary pressure in the system. All the surveys of inflationary pressure show that it is continuing to be downward pressure. The Producer Price Index rose by only 2.6%. All of that together suggests that there is scope for an easing of monetary policy and it was when reviewing all that that it seemed appropriate to ease monetary policy now. There is always a choice about whether one does it last week, this week or next week and the reality is you have to make a judgement at the time as to when it is appropriate. Judged by the way the markets have reacted today, they too thought it was appropriate and certainly forward rates would seem to indicate that as well.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, it strikes me that you have no clothes. The Germans subsidise their coal industry, you subsidise the nuclear industry. You are throwing 30,000 miners out of work at once with immediate effect it seems to them. Why can’t you phase it out? Why can’t you act more slowly? Why so precipitate?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take those points and let me put it in a wider context than you did:

    The Germans will have to phase out their subsidies; they are no longer legal and they will have to be phased out. If one looks elsewhere, you will find in France the coal industry, once a very big coal industry, has now virtually gone. If you look at Belgium, you will find the industry has virtually closed. We will still have in the United Kingdom a significant coal industry, not only a significant coal industry but one that will be viable provided we no longer operate with pits that are not viable that have not only the effect of making losses in those pits but inhibit the profitability of other pits elsewhere.

    I know it is a painful decision. If it could have been avoided, we would have avoided it. At the very last moment before the decision to go ahead was announced by British Coal, we reviewed the whole matter entirely in two aspects: firstly, whether it was right in strategic terms, whether we were certain that we wouldn’t need that coal capacity in the future and secondly, to make absolutely sure that we were not closing marginal pits that could themselves survive and just before the announcement was made called together the Ministers affected and we had a lengthy and detailed examination of everything that underlay that decision to make sure that we could satisfy ourselves that it was a proper decision to take.

    I do believe that the sooner we take those difficult decisions, the sooner we can embark upon the lengthy but necessary task of putting back jobs that are self-sustaining and are there because there is a market for what they produce in the areas that at present are served by those mining jobs which in reality no longer are needed for their product is no longer wanted.

    QUESTION:

    Following the Rio de Janeiro World Environment and Development conference where it was agreed to return emissions to the 1990 level by the year 2000, could I ask two things: first of all is the present closures policy in the coal-mining industry a direct reflection of that commitment given at Rio and repeated in Mr Howard’s White Paper a fortnight ago; and in the reduction of emissions is there a place for the Dutch energy policy which seeks to limit the greenhouse effect by, in line with the Maastricht Treaty, having better European energy grids and for example a cable taken through the Channel Tunnel to make a wide insurance of energy sources so that we may not be dependent, as we have been hitherto, on one particular source?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the answer to your first question the answer is no, it is not directly related to any commitments made at Rio or elsewhere. I suppose you could argue in a sense it is indirectly related because one of the reasons why the demand for coal has fallen is that the consumer demand for non-fossil fuel energy has grown dramatically, both nuclear and of course non-coal fossil fuel and gas, the demand for both of those. If you look at the scale of demand by the consumer for different forms of energy you will see that both of those have grown and coal has correspondingly fallen. So I suppose there may be an environmental impact in the demand of the consumer but it was not any part of the decision that the government itself made. We reflected what the market itself was saying.

    As far as the Dutch energy policy is concerned, I am not really sure that I am in a position to answer that with any authority so if you will forgive me I will not attempt to do so.

    QUESTION (Dan Revive, CBS News):

    If I could try again with Elinor Goodman’s question which is on the pits issue, how will you cope with public opinion being against you on this issue as well as some Tory MPs and the press that normally supports you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I push aside the last part. It was hardly to have been expected that public opinion would welcome a decision like that, who would possibly welcome a decision like that or having to make a decision like that, of course people do not like it. There is a very great respect in this country for the mining industry, it is not a job which most people would wish to do themselves and if I may say so I have yet to meet a miner who would wish their son to be a miner. So there is very great respect in this country for people in the mining industry and so of course there will be great disquiet at what has actually happened.

    As far as Parliamentary opinion is concerned, of course Parliamentary opinion is concerned about what has happened. But what Parliamentary opinion of course yet does not know are the full reasons behind the closure that will be set out both in the statement next week and in the debate that we will have next week, and also of course the measures that will be taken to assist those particular areas.

    Although it is a tremendous shock when so many jobs of this sort go in a single way, it is the fact, and the miners will concede the fact, that they know that many of those pits had only a limited life and over the last few years there has been a constant closure of pits, whichever government has been in power, as it happens Conservatives have closed rather fewer pits than the Labour Party in government. And the figures I gave you a moment ago, 30,000 mining jobs every single year in the 1970s, is an indication of the economic trend. It is not suddenly something that we have woken up, rubbed our eyes and decided to do something beastly to the mining industry, if it was not economically unavoidable we would not have done it, but since it became economically unavoidable we thought it better to do it cleanly and quickly and then be in a position to put measures to alleviate the difficulty and help regenerate the areas in place. I think that is the right way to do it even though I understand it causes great disquiet and great anguish to the people concerned.

    QUESTION (Chris Moncrieff, PA):

    Is the proposal final, will there be any going back, any amendments or any changes to the timetable?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not anticipate any. I know many people are very worried, they say well why have you taken such an unpopular decision? If I may say to some of the people who say that, they cannot say to us one day that the government have to take decisions, you must show leadership and take decisions, and then the next day criticise us for doing something that everybody would have wished to avoid. We did it because it was necessary and only because it was necessary and economically unavoidable for the reasons I set out a moment ago.

    QUESTION (Alistair Campbell, Daily Mirror):

    What do you say to a miner who voted for your party because you said vote Conservative on Thursday and the economic recovery continues on Friday, and what do you say to all the others who have been betrayed and let down day after day since the election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we made it perfectly clear at the time of the election that we thought that recovery was beginning to come, and we were not alone in that. There have been two occasions when recovery has flattered to deceive, in the summer of 1991 and then in spring of 1992. But we still intend to get permanent sustainable recovery. It is very easy sometimes to buy short-term popular decisions at the cost of long-term difficulties. I have consistently made it clear that what we are seeking is long-term, permanent, sustainable growth. I do not want to see inflation take off again and I want us to make sure that we are in the best possible circumstances to weather any future international economic difficulties, quite apart from domestic difficulties.

    Now that is not easy and it is not quick and it is not painless, but that is what we believe we have to do and those are the policies we are seeking steadily and daily to put into place. It is not all that long ago when people were saying: interest rates are 15 percent, when will they ever get down – they are now 8 percent; it is not all that long ago when inflation was nudging 11 percent and people were afraid we were going into hyper-inflation – it is now down to 3.6 percent. Those two things are absolutely key to the recovery that we need if it is to be sustainable.

    As to the general economic circumstances, it is not just a British problem, I do not say that to push aside the British problem, but if you look at what is happening in the United States or Japan you begin to see the scale of what is happening all around the world. If you look at France, they have 3.75 million people unemployed, 13 percent interest rates, 10 percent real interest rates. If you look at Germany their economy is slowing down at an astonishing rate. Nobody here I think will need telling about the economic difficulties in Italy or the problems that exist in Spain. They are very painful, not just domestically, but abroad. And of course all our economies are interlinked, there is an impact one upon the other, and it is a combination of those factors that has made this particular recession so painful and so lengthy in this country and in others. But what we need to do is to stick to the policies that will get us out of it in a form that will ensure we do not dip straight back in it 9 months or a year later, that would be unfair and that I am not prepared to take a risk in doing.

    QUESTION (French Tribune):

    About the decision to organise a meeting between the Chancellor and leaders of industry, is it not the whole point of having a Department of Trade and Industry and a Secretary of Trade and Industry to take the pulse of industry to help them, why do you have to resort today to this somewhat unusual channel?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not that unusual, we frequently meet businessmen and we frequently discuss with them their concerns and what they think is necessary. But we are facing, as I indicated in the question I just answered, circumstances that are not wholly unprecedented but very unusual economically at any stage since the Second World War, so we are in very unusual circumstances. In those very unusual circumstances I think it is wise to step up a gear with the consultation with the people who are in the front line and that does, I think, mean an extra higher level between industry and commerce, both with the President of the Board of Trade, whose regular routine this is, and also with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that is what the Chancellor proposes to do. I think it is a worthwhile initiative and one that will be welcomed by industry.

    QUESTION (David Langstone):

    This Council was called after what has been loosely termed the turmoil in the markets. We have heard very little discussion whatsoever today about economic matters, I know that you have taken subsidiarity to your heart and shelved that over to EC ECOFIN Ministers, but could you tell us what you have discussed on financial and economic matters today, I cannot believe that you and Chancellor Kohl did not talk about the economy, can you tell us something about the reason for this meeting being called which now seems to have slipped off the agenda? And finally, did you talk about the environment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we did not talk about the environment, that was not on the agenda today. The substance of this meeting today was set out in my statement earlier, it was not just the question of the turmoil in the markets. The work that needs to be done to discuss that turmoil in the markets is not the subject of a general discussion in the course of one day between Heads of Government, there is a great deal of detailed work to be done. And as I indicated in the earlier press conference I had, we have commissioned that work to be done by the Economic Ministers, by the Finance Ministers and by the Central Bank Governors, that work will be done and then reported to the Heads of Government. It is very important that we got the authority of the Community to proceed with that work, that is what we have done. As to what private conversations I might have had with Chancellor Kohl, I am sure you will understand that I have no intention whatever of telling you about those.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] on the problems of Europe’s economy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the over-view is self-evident in many of the things we have said, many of the things that are set out in the declaration. The ingredients that are necessary in the European economy I think are fairly clear. One of the ingredients that has gone, not just in Europe but everywhere, is the confidence factor for investment. If you look, to take a British example to illustrate the point, at the savings ratio in the United Kingdom, it has dramatically improved over the last year, that suggests that the very high levels of debt that were built up at the end of the 1980s, which were the principal cause of the recession, are now being liquidated. But because of the continuing uncertainty, people are not spending the extra money that they have got saved and it is when they begin to spend that retail sales, housing and the whole of the domestic market begins to move, and you get that benevolent cycle in which confidence returns.

    You need several things for that, you need general confidence, you need general stability and sometimes there is a catalyst to start it, but that will vary as one comes out of different recessions.

  • Mr Major’s Article on Europe – 15 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s article on Europe, issued on 15th October 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The futile argument about whether Britain is part of “Europe” or not has resumed here and there both in Britain and on the European mainland. It is a debate for political theorists and people living in ivory towers. It has nothing to do with historical, political of cultural reality.

    What happened on the mainland has always had an immediate impact on Britain’s domestic politics, as well as its foreign policy. Britain too, paid the price of blood in the two wars which have torn Europe apart in this century. Britain’s contribution to European literature, philosophy, political thought and practice, is an essential part of the unique civilisation of our European continent.

    It is absurd to talk as if Britain could detach itself voluntarily from the mainstream of European affairs. It is just as absurd to talk as if Britain could in some way be expelled from the European mainstream. Talk of a “mini-Europe” without the British is disreputable. Neither the Community nor any other institution can claim the “European” title if it is incapable of accommodating one of Europe’s most important countries. Britain is central to the affairs of Europe, and so it will remain. I have found no serious statesman on the European mainland who thinks differently.

    Nevertheless Britain’s postwar relationship with the rest of Europe has not been entirely happy. After the war a group of far-sighted European statesmen set up the European Community in order to ensure that the Europeans would never again try to destroy one another and their common civilisation. This was a noble objective, and it has been achieved. The British stood aside from the process in the 1950s; a mistake for which we have been much criticised ever since.

    But we learned from our mistake very quickly, and applied to join the new Community only four years after it had been founded. The Original Six then made an even bigger mistake. The British application was twice rebuffed. Britain was eventually allowed in only after twelve whole years had passed, and under financial arrangements that were patently inequitable and had to be renegotiated. It is hardly surprising that the British felt uncomfortable in a body where they were accused of being “un-European” whenever they expressed their own views about the way the thing should be run.

    We all made mistakes. I have no intention of distributing praise or blame. But the emotions generated in those years still cast a shadow. We respect the arguments of those who want to go now for the most far reaching interpretation of the goals of political and economic union. But our centuries-old experience in building a stable and peaceful political society has led us to be suspicious of attempts to force the pace of history.

    There is a metaphor that the Community is a bicycle that will fall over if not ridden full speed ahead. But if you cycle too fast you may hit a stone and crack your head and lose direction. The British believe that durable political institutions are like coral reefs; best built slowly but surely. There is nothing “un-European” about that.

    In recent months Europe has hit just such a stone. It is quite clear ordinary people – not only in Denmark and France, in Germany or in Britain – are unhappy at the pace of events. They are dissatisfied with the explanations they have been given by their political leaders. They fear they are being asked to give up their cherished national traditions and their political institutions, their freedom to manage their own affairs as they see fit. They feel they have been taken for granted, rushed by events, and bamboozled by contorted bureaucratic formulae which bear no relation to the everyday language they use themselves.

    These people are not ignorant. They are not foolish. They are not opposed to European cooperation. It is now up to their leaders to explain what they are doing, in language that the ordinary people of Europe can understand, and to carry forward the building of our common institutions at a pace and in a manner which they can accept.

    So the first lesson of the last few months is that the procedures of the European Community must be opened up and brought closer to ordinary people in all the European countries. The European Commission has an essential role in initiating proposals and ensuring fair play between the Community’s sovereign members. But it must consult those who are affected by its proposals in far greater depth before it brings its ideas to the Council of Ministers. It is the Parliaments in each member state which guarantee our national freedoms, each in their own unique way. All of us must get away from dreadful Eurojargon, the contorted language of European communiques which does little to enlighten its leaders.

    Second, we need to be much clearer about the tasks which need to be done by the European Community, and those which should be left to the legislative and executive institutions of individual countries. This is what is meant by “subsidiarity”, itself an unattractive piece of Eurojargon which nevertheless embodies an important principle.

    Above all, we need to be clear about where the European Community is going. There are those who argue that it will eventually become a Federation, a United States of Europe with a single government, a single economy, a single army. I simply do not believe it. The argument is based on a false analogy with the history of the United States of America. The USA grew out of a confederation of thirteen small colonies with a common language, common law, and a common political tradition. Even so the Americans did not establish their unity without a bloody civil war.

    The members of the Community are engaged in an enterprise unique in history; to create amongst the nation states of Europe what the authors of the Treaty of Rome wisely described in deliberately vague language as “an even closer union” of the European peoples.

    A crucial part of that enterprise is the Single Market for which businessmen throughout Europe have been pressing for many years. Our common effort to create the biggest free trade area in the world is well on its way to completion. It offers opportunities to all Europeans, to create new jobs and greater prosperity.

    The Exchange Rate Mechanism was intended as an instrument for promoting stability. But the events of the last few weeks have demonstrated beyond doubt that the ERM has been operating under excessive strains. Two of its members have had to suspend their membership. A third currency has been devalued, and exchange controls activated in three member states. Barriers to trade in Europe have gone up, not down. That is now what any of us intended. We must now take a serious look at the conditions under which the mechanism has operated. The pound will not return to it until we are convinced that the mechanism can operate in the interests of all its participants.

    Some people hope, and others fear, that the Economic and Monetary Union proposed on the Maastricht Treaty is a step towards a Federal Europe. I have already explained why I believe that the hopes and fears are unrealistic. A single central bank and a single currency – firstly under the control of all the member states – might make the conduct of monetary policy more responsive to the needs of all these states. But neither can come into being until the economies of the European countries are much more closely aligned than they are at present.

    At Maastricht I was sceptical about the timetable proposed, and determined that the final decision should be left to the British Parliament. I am not surprised that the Bundestag, too, wishes to be heard at the decisive moment. When the time comes, I would expect other Parliaments and other political leaders to say the same. That is right and healthy, the arrangements set out in the Maastricht Treaty will simply fail unless they are backed by the clearly expressed will of all the member states.

    The Maastricht Treaty is not perfect, it could not hope to be, since it seeks to reflect a consensus of twelve sovereign states. Nor does it exhaust the European agenda. There is much to do beyond our discussion of the future of Maastricht. There are tasks for the short term which will enhance our common prosperity: the completion of the single market to remove the barriers to trade with Europe; a GATT agreement to lower the barriers to international trade. But there are tasks for the long term as well. Above all, those of us who are already engaged in building a peaceful, prosperous, outward-looking and democratic Europe have a duty to our fellow Europeans who are still outside the Community.

    It is to everyone’s advantage that we should extend membership as soon as possible to the prosperous democracies of EFTA. But I go further than that. The Community has already shown what the path of cooperation meant to the new democracies of Spain, Portugal and Greece. It is our duty to bring the same benefits to the new democracies emerging from the darkness of Communism. It will be a complex and protracted task. But if we do not embark upon it, we will not be forgive by history.

    The Maastricht Treaty maps out a way forward for the Community to advance together. It sets attainable goals, and reasonable aspirations, for the years ahead. I negotiated it under the authority of the British Parliament, and it formed part of the mandate upon which I and the Conservative Party won the election last April. I shall bring it back to the British Parliament in the very near future. The debate in our Parliament will be serious, detailed, protracted, often noisy. Our Parliamentarians rightly want to know exactly what the Treaty will mean in practice for our country and out future. But I have no doubt that the Treaty will be passed.

    One thing must be clear beyond a doubt. The Treaty cannot come into force unless it is ratified by all Twelve member states of the Community. That will not happen unless all member states are convinced that the Treaty is in their interest. It is pointless to try to force any member state – however large or small – into supporting European policies in which it does not believe. To do so would be to undermine that common purpose on which the achievements of the Community depend, and without which the Community cannot stand.

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

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You cannot go forward by browbeating Denmark.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It is people who create wealth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We’ll be fighting for better public service.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the ERM – 29 September 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the ERM, made on 29th September 1992.


    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked whether Britain would rejoin the ERM].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It takes time. It is perfectly clear that we could not go back into the Exchange Rate Mechanism in the immediate future. I made that perfectly clear and those fault-lines would need to be addressed and corrected to our satisfaction before going back. I made that clear in the House of Commons the other day and I’m happy to reiterate it now.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that was the case as the other eleven member states didn’t agree].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is not the case, wait and see.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the personal attack on him by Norman Tebbit].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m going to deal with the substantive issues in front of me, that is my responsibility.

    This is a time for a clear, cool and careful calculation of what the British interest is. I’m not going to be distracted by froth and bubble, I’m going to deal with the substantive issues in front of us.

  • Mr Major’s Third Cabinet – 25 September 1992

    Below is Mr Major’s third cabinet, announced on 25th September 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER – John Major
    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER – Norman Lamont
    FOREIGN SECRETARY – Douglas Hurd
    HOME SECRETARY – Kenneth Clarke
    LORD CHANCELLOR – Lord Mackay of Clashfern
    SCOTLAND – Ian Lang
    WALES – David Hunt
    NORTHERN IRELAND – Patrick Mayhew
    LEADER OF THE COMMONS – Tony Newton
    LEADER OF THE LORDS – Lord Wakeham
    TRADE AND INDUSTRY – Michael Heseltine
    DEFENCE – Malcolm Rifkind
    HEALTH – Virginia Bottomley
    SOCIAL SECURITY – Peter Lilley
    ENVIRONMENT – Michael Howard
    TRANSPORT – John MacGregor
    EMPLOYMENT – Gillian Shephard
    EDUCATION – John Patten
    AGRICULTURE – John Gummer
    NATIONAL HERITAGE – Peter Brooke
    DUCHY OF LANCASTER – William Waldegrave
    CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY – Michael Portillo