The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT – 7 July 1992

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the economic summit in Munich.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Hastings and Rye

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

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

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

     

    European Community

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Question !

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Joint Statement with the Irish Taoiseach – 6 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint statement with the Irish Taoiseach, issued on 6th July 1992.

    JOINT STATEMENT:

    The Talks process in which the two Governments and the four Northern Ireland parties are now engaged offers an historic opportunity to make lasting political progress. We have together set out to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands.

    As Heads of the Irish and British Governments, we have consistently made clear the great importance which we attach to these Talks and our wholehearted support for them. We reaffirm this support, and send our warmest wishes to all the participants, on the occasion of the opening of Strand Two of the Talks.

    We owe a particular debt of gratitude to the Independent Chairman of Strand Two, Sir Ninian Stephen. He was appointed to this role by the two Governments a year ago, following consultation with the four parties and with the approval of the Australian Government. We are deeply appreciative of his willingness to assume this responsibility and expect that we will have further cause to be grateful to him for the way in which he will discharge it.

    Everyone who is involved in the Talks process understands the complexity of the issues which are being addressed and the sincerity with which conflicting views are held by different participants. An opportunity now exists for open, constructive and far-reaching dialogue both on the issues which divide the two main traditions in Ireland and on those which unite them. All of us share a common commitment to the values of constitutional politics and a total rejection of violence as a means of achieving political progress.

    We reaffirm the readiness of the two Governments, as the signatories of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to consider a new and more broadly based agreement or structure if this can be arrived at through direct discussion and negotiation between the parties concerned.

    We do not underestimate the difficulty of the task which lies ahead. But we know that all concerned will participate in good faith and make every effort to achieve progress. We wish the participants in Strand Two every success in this historic endeavour.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Munich – 5 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Munich, held on Sunday 5th July 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what do you hope to get out of this summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have a number of things to discuss in the summit over the next day or so. Clearly we will want to look at the generally rather sluggish state of the world economy, I think there are some other matters beyond that, clearly there will be discussions about the Uruguay Round in private, I think undoubtedly we will need to look at a follow-up to the Rio summit on the environment, and I think too a number of matters related to the former Soviet Union, firstly the question of assistance with their economic problems, but also I think the question of nuclear safety across Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union. All those matters I think will come up.

    QUESTION:

    What sort of message do you think the summit needs to send out on the world economy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I would prefer to have the discussions first and make the comments about it afterwards, but clearly we will need to look at it.

    QUESTION:

    Are you disappointed that after the personal commitment you asked for on GATT last year that we are in exactly the same place one year on?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have just made that point a moment ago that that is one of the matters we will have to discuss and I have no doubt that we will be discussing it.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Jacques Delors and Kiichi Miyazawa – 4 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Jacques Delors and Kiichi Miyazawa (Japanese Prime Minister), held in London on Saturday 4th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just say at the outset, we have had some very worthwhile discussions this morning and we will continue with those over luncheon, there are a number of matters we wish to talk about that we have not yet reached on our agenda.

    I think it is fitting that the summit meeting with Japan this morning is one of the first events of the UK Presidency of the Community, it does underline very starkly, I think, the commitment to an open outward looking Community that all our European partners wish to build.

    Japan, of course, is a very welcome guest here this morning, a major global power not just in economic and trade terms but also a major power in political terms as well. And Japan and the Community have in common a number of interests in close contact at the very highest level.

    Our talks this morning have covered many of the global challenges that face both Japan and each and every nation in the Community: the need for early and successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round; the matters we need to discuss on economic assistance to central and Eastern Europe and the very welcome Japanese contribution there has been to the efforts of the Group of 24; the future of the countries in the former Soviet Union, it was very useful to get a Japanese perspective on those difficulties this morning; we had the opportunity of a brief discussion on global environmental problems and the scene as we perceive it after Rio.

    We propose to continue our talks later and we have a number of key international issues still to discuss – Yugoslavia, China, Cambodia, the Middle East peace process and also, I think, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We very much welcome the active Japanese role in that and as you will know, Japan and the Community jointly tabled UN resolutions on the register of arms transfers.

    So we have also had a good discussion this morning on the trade relationship, I think that is a central part of our relationship and it was worthwhile to spend some time on that this morning. I would like to stress a number of points about that, I would like to stress particularly the Community’s welcome for the inward investment there has been from Japan, we have a particular experience of that in the United Kingdom, 40 percent of Japanese direct manufacturing investment in the Community actually comes to the United Kingdom. We would welcome further Japanese investment and I know that is the view of our Community partners as well.

    Japan is also the Community’s second biggest trading partner and we are often in competition in the trade sphere and I think between manufacturing nations that is as it should be. But we certainly support the Commission’s efforts to reduce the trade imbalance in Japan and to remove the remaining barriers to trade. And we were able this morning to welcome the steps taken by the Japanese government to improve access to certain sectoral markets.

    These are matters that we will continue to discuss both today and in subsequent meetings both at political and at official level. Trade does remain the very core of the European/Japanese relationship but we do believe those economic questions should be discussed in the context of a wider dialogue involving political issues as well. Our aim for the community/Japanese relationship is quite clear cut and quite unambiguous, we want the relationship to be a long-term partnership based on shared value and objectives and to that end I think we had a useful series of discussions this morning.

    QUESTION (Finnish Broadcasting Company):

    Did you speak about the northern territories and did Japan get any sympathy for its idea that it should be a precondition for help for the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did touch upon the northern territories dispute, as we have in the past. It is essentially a bilateral dispute and can only be solved bilaterally between Japan and the Soviet Union and I think for the rest of us to take public positions would not assist in that bilateral settlement. The most important thing is that there is an agreement and there are very important discussions that lie not very far ahead, in September I think Prime Minister, between Prime Minister Miyazawa and President Yeltsin.

    QUESTION (Peter Bale, Reuters):

    Could you give the British attitude to Japanese wishes to take a seat on the United Nations Security Council and also elaborate on your views about GATT at this point having spoken to Mr Miyazawa?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first point was not discussed at all this morning but it may be that it will come up in our bilateral discussions with Mr Miyazawa this afternoon. On the subject of GATT, we did touch on GATT, we spent some time on that. There is clearly an imperative to reach a conclusion to the GATT round as speedily as we possibly can, there are still some difficulties to be overcome, but I think we are sufficiently close to an agreement to make a real effort to get one and to get one without delay. There are a variety of reasons for that, not just the intrinsic desirability of an agreement on a Uruguay Round simply for the sake of having an agreement, but I doubt that there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that a GATT agreement would be a significant stimulus to world trade and as such particularly valuable at the moment when world trade is flagging, in many countries unemployment is rising and growth is falling. So I think there is the wider economic perspective for getting an agreement as well. It is also I think a particularly important matter from the United Kingdom point of view that that growth in world trade will not just be of benefit to the developing manufacturing nations of the world, but a very substantial part of that growth would go to the developing and third world.

    So I think for political, economic and humanitarian reasons, there is every imperative to seek a conclusion to the GATT Round as speedily as possible. I believe it is possible, nobody should under-estimate the difficulties and the national interests that remain, but there was an eclectic agreement this morning that we should try and pursue as speedily as possible a satisfactory outcome.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Miyazawa, according to a report yesterday President Yeltsin of Russia was critical of the Japanese attitude that Japan was not investing a single penny in Russia, what is your response? And my second question to Mr Major, in this joint press statement there is no mention about the northern territory problem, does this mean that the EC is reluctant to support the Japanese position in the Munich conference?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can answer the second point very quickly. We will discuss the matters in the Munich conference at the Munich conference and not in advance of it.

    MR MIYAZAWA:

    With regard to your first question, Japan has already provided assistance amounting to as much as 2.65 billion and others and if President Yeltsin does not know of this then there must be something very strange.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC):

    Mr Major, would the failure to build a European Fighter Aircraft weaken European industry and if such an aircraft is not built would you seek Community funds for retraining the workers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We do not yet have a decision on the European Fighter Aircraft, I read a great deal about what is going to happen to the European Fighter Aircraft. I have to say to you that we have had no formal communication yet from the German government about their position on the European fighter at all, I did see some reports that seemed to me to be a bit misconceived. We are talking to the Germans about the position on the European fighter and their Defence Secretary, Volker Ruhe, will be here in London at the beginning of next week and will be meeting Malcolm Rifkind. We are also talking to our partners from Spain and from Italy about the project. We made the decision some time ago that we needed an aircraft of EFA’s capability for military reasons, that was a decision the British government made some time ago. We believe it is certainly possible to reduce the costs of the European Fighter and we equally take the view that the alternatives to the European Fighter are likely to be more expensive, not less expensive, and will take longer to produce and cannot be produced in swifter time.

    So it remains the fact that we still see the European Fighter an an important project, we must wait and discuss the matter further with our partners but I hope it will be possible to continue with it.

    QUESTION (TASS):

    I have a question for you both, what is the government’s stance on the latest suggestion of President Bush to enlarge the G7 into G8 by including Russia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am aware of no formal proposal to do that. What happened last year was that President Yeltsin was invited to join the G7 so that the G7 could have discussions with another great world power after the conclusion of the G7 conference. That is what is happening again this year.

    MR MIYAZAWA:

    Two or three days ago I had a meeting with President Bush and that subject was not brought up in our discussion.

    QUESTION (Peter Norman, FT):

    Prime Minister, you said a few minutes ago that you want to see a GATT agreement as quickly as possible, does that mean that we can expect some sort of parallel negotiations at the Munich summit because after all there are going to be major players there, Secretary Baker, Mr Andriessen, that sort of thing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not quite know what may be implied by parallel negotiations. I think it would be very surprising indeed if people did not discuss the present difficulties there are in the Uruguay Round whilst the major players, as you say, are there, but I do not know what the outcome of those will be but it would certainly be a matter I think that will be discussed, not necessarily in the main forum, that is a separate matter, but it will certainly be discussed I am sure in the bilateral meetings that will take place there.

    QUESTION:

    I refer to paragraph 8 of the press release and see that there is support for the Middle East peace process launched at Madrid in October 1991. What projects do you have at the European level and with the Japanese to support the economy in the Occupied Territories of Palestine?

    1. DELORS:

    The Commission has produced a document to the Council of Ministers of the Community in the case of peace in the Middle East to offer technical assistance, a common programme, economic concertation to the countries of the region and the Council of Ministers waits for the issue of the peace negotiation process to decide on the proposal of the Commission.

    QUESTION (Jackie Ashley, ITN):

    1. Delors, could you confirm a story in today’s “Telegraph” here that the European Commission is going to repeal some of its laws, particularly on the environment and on animal welfare protection?
    2. DELORS:

    No, not yet. we had only a meeting of the Commission. During this meeting, I repeat my proposals I made to the Heads of of Government over the dinner of the Council of Lisbon and also I explained to my colleagues what means in the communique of the Europeans Council of Lisbon and the Commission is prepared to follow and to apply the reorientation first for the new proposal of the Commission and also in parallel to study the content of the present legislation and possibly to revise this legislation but we must make a report to the European Council at the end of next year. Be sure that the Commission is very focused on this subject.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Prime Minister Miyozawa and Prime Minister Major, did you discuss Japan’s efforts to stimulate the economy and if you did, how do you assess Japan’s efforts? Prime Minister Miyozawa, how did you explain your plan to prepare a supplementary budget this autumn?

    MR MIYAZAWA:

    The Japanese economy is slowing down rather substantially and therefore even in the current budget we have significant front-loading of public works expenditure and about 70% of the entire public works expenditure for example will be spent in the first half of the year. If that is not sufficient as a stimulus, then we shall also introduce further resources for the purpose of public works investment, smaller businesses and so on as additional fiscal measures and, of course, the timing of such supplementary measures will depend on the timing of the effects of the permeation of the existing measures but I believe that it might be some time around the coming autumn.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I can add to that on the part of the question directed to me, I think the Prime Minister set out some of the parameters of our discussion. In addition to that on economic stimulation, we did note that the domestic stimulation in Japan between 1985 and 1990 had played a material role in reducing the trade imbalances at present between the West European nations generally and Japan.

    The point I was particularly keen to discuss with the Prime Minister was the 5-year growth target averaging at 3 1/2% a year and whether that was a practical growth target that Japan would be likely to hit and the implications that would have on the growth of world trade. The Prime Minister felt that that was a target that Japan could meet. He drew attention to the growth record in recent years and was confident that that average of 3 1/2% over the next 5 years would be met and that is of course extremely good news.

    QUESTION (David Langton – Bureau of National Affairs):

    I would like Prime Minister Major to elaborate if he could on the discussions on global environmental issues and perhaps M. Delors to clarify the EC’s position on EFTA countries that might want to join the EC particularly in regard to those that are just about to leave the International Whaling Commission because they are upset with joint decision-making at that body and whether they would fit into the EC comfortably with their whaling policies and perhaps you could clarify the EC whaling policy.

    The second question is on EC-Japanese trade. Could you elaborate on whether you foresee that growing or declining in the coming years and whether that might be at the expense of the United States or either group?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the environment collaboration, we were really reviewing the collective follow-up to Rio rather than necessarily examining new areas of collaboration though we did reach an agreement in principle that environmental control was a matter that involved us. It was clearly a global matter. There would need to be further collaboration in terms of research and more relevantly in terms of action and we were able to discuss that and some of the actions that were necessary. I put one or two propositions forward that will be considered and taken forward privately.

    1. DELORS:

    On Norway, the first target for the government is to obtain the ratification of the new agreement on economic common space. For the application, we follow with great interest the discussion inside Norway. As you know, the Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland has opened a campaign of explanation in her party but also for public opinion and from the last news the Norwegian government intend to take a final position next November.

    QUESTION:

    A simple question for Mr. Major. As you know, international public opinion thinks that the collapse of the former Soviet Union requires a stronger major role in a special way in international and political relationships and the same public opinion wants to know if Mr. Major, politically speaking, will be so brave and sensible to achieve this major political role through the European Community that is from the federalist point of view institutional and decentralise from the political point of view according to the principle of subsidiarity. What is the position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I like your definition of a simple question!

    I think there is no doubt that there has to be collective support in order to deal with the problems of the former Soviet Union. They are not problems that can be dealt with within the Soviet Union without external help; they are not problems that can just be helped bilaterally by the United States or by Europe. There is a collective need for help and it is for that reason that we have all collaborated in different ways, particularly through the Group of 24, to provide many billion dollars worth of assistance and why there are also the current discussions that are taking place between the IMF and the Russian Republic to determine the right sort of conditionality upon which Western aid will be made available.

    The point of conditionality is perfectly clear: we need to ensure that the large resources that will be made available rightly in my view to assist the Soviet Union are properly used to accelerate the reform process. There is no point in those resources being made available unless the reform process itself accelerates. The difficult balance that has to be struck is to make sure that the conditionality we ask of the Russians is conditionality that they can meet and that the terms set are not so severe that they are politically undeliverable in Russia.

    That is a matter that will have to be decided collectively; it is certainly a matter that will come up in discussion when Mr. Yeltsin is in Munich and it is a matter that has been discussed at official level between the IMF and representatives of the Russian Government.

    QUESTION:

    [Not translated].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is going to be a difficulty about that. In terms of foreign policy matters, the position is quite clear. Where we can collectively agree foreign policy developments, whether in relation to the Soviet Union or elsewhere, the collective authority of the European Community is that much stronger than the individual position of any one, two or perhaps three or more member states so collectively, where there is a communal interest we will agree collectively but there will be areas where there are necessarily going to be bilateral matters between individual nation states within the Community that are not Community matters. The United Kingdom’s relationship with Hong Kong would be an example. You could find a similar example for a whole series of other countries within the Community. So there is no conflict of the sort you suggest there might be. There are areas of communal interest and there we will combine where it is appropriate to do so; where it is not appropriate to do so, we will conduct our foreign policy entirely bilaterally.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Miyazawa, in your meeting today I understand you explained Japan’s position on the Northern Territories. Were you able to gain the understanding of your interlocutors?

    MR MIYAZAWA:

    I called on Mr. Major to comment on this and I explained the background to this issue and the Japanese Government’s current position on this matter. This is not a matter which directly bears on our relations with the European Community and of course we have been discussing this matter in our bilateral relations with the member countries. We had a meeting with M. Delors as well this morning and therefore I took the opportunity to explain to him Japan’s views on this matter.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, will you be discussing world interest rates with the Japanese Prime Minister in your bilateral talks and will Britain be among those countries who are going to put pressure on Germany to bring down interest rates next week in Munich?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The discount rate in Japan I think is around 3 3/4%, something of that sort. We will discuss world trading matters and I think trading matters embrace a whole series of issues. Whether that particular matter will be substantive to the discussion, I am not sure.

    As to next week, we must wait for next week and see.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Brian Mulroney – 4 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr Brian Mulroney, held in London on Saturday 4th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Perhaps I might just say a few words, I will then invite the Prime Minister to add a few words and we will take three or four questions before going in.

    Can I say firstly what a pleasure it is to have the Prime Minister back in the United Kingdom. Canada are very close allies, very important allies, and although we frequently have the possibility of consultation by telephone, it is always a pleasure to see Brian back in the United Kingdom.

    We have taken the opportunity in the last few minutes of looking at a whole range of different issues: the preparation for the G7 summit in Munich, a large number of matters there that we wish to discuss before we arrive there in a day or so; we have looked also at the continuing preparation and desirability for the earliest possible conclusion of the Uruguay Round, we both see that as not only desirable in itself but desirable in the impact it will have upon world trade; I was able to express my admiration of the Canadian troops in their activities in UNPRIFOR at the moment; and we have also been able to look at a whole range of bilateral matters.

    We will continue our discussions over dinner later on, but I may say already it has been an extremely useful exchange of views.

    MR MULRONEY:

    Thank you John. I was grateful for the expression of support by the Prime Minister about Canadian troops in Yugoslavia under the UN auspices, they are doing a very courageous and impressive job there and we are grateful for the support that we have been getting from G7 leaders and from UN leaders elsewhere.

    The bilateral relationship between our countries is excellent, this is an opportunity to deal with some of the smaller matters that can irritate our relationship, and High Commissioner Fred Eton does an excellent job of representing our interests with Her Majesty’s Government here.

    I raised some bilateral matters. The Prime Minister was interested in constitutional development, as he always is in Canada. The Newfoundland fishery problem, about the dramatic effect that this has had, we are trying to protect the northern cod stocks within 200 mile limits and the damaging effect that it has when Europeans fish outside of the 200 mile limit and how incompatible that is with the resolution to the problem. So I spoke to the Prime Minister in his capacity as President of Europe, but indicated I will be talking to him later on tonight and in the next few days about it in more specifics. I wanted to acquaint him with the domestic impact that this has had on Canadians and Newfoundlanders so far.

    So all in all so far an excellent meeting and I thank the Prime Minister for his courtesy and I will be happy to answer a few questions.

    QUESTION:

    [In French, not translated].

    MR MULRONEY:

    I have just been asked, Prime Minister, about whether the G7 should be extended to a G8 and my answer is no, not because of any hostility but simply because Russia certainly does not meet, in our judgment anyway, the economic standards and the institutional standards required of participating nations whose GDP represents some 65% of the world output but whose characteristics are that they are the most powerful industrialised modernised economies in the entire world. That would be the view today of Canada.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, do you conclude the same about the Soviets and the G8?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I share that view entirely, yes, and for precisely the same reason. I think one could add further reasons to it but I think the G7 is working very well indeed. From time to time it may be desirable for the G7 to meet as G7 plus 1 and have discussions with the Republic of Russia, but I do not see the G7 becoming a G8, no.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Mulroney, you talked to the Prime Minister about the latest constitutional developments, could you share those thoughts with us about what the Premus [phon] talked about on Friday, what came out of that Premus meeting?

    MR MULRONEY:

    My information, Joe, is limited to what has been published and what I have told about the Premus meeting. They seem to have been in a mood to effect a compromise situation, from what I understand has evolved it seems to have a lot to commend it, but serious questions still exist, they are going to want to examine it in various quarters and they will meet again on Tuesday to see if they have satisfied their concerns. So I guess my opinion to the Prime Minister was that the Canadians want a solution to this matter and the politicians appear to be responding.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think relief aid to Sarajevo will continue to get through seeing as the fighting is carrying on?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope they will, a second British plane got through satisfactorily today and no doubt there will be more, we certainly hope there will be more. What we cannot of course control and what we cannot be certain of is what precisely will be the position in and around the airport for planes actually to get in. As you know, the airport is sunk into a bowl surrounded by hills, it is extremely difficult for the aircraft to get in safely while there is any conflict going on. I hope that we will be able to get more planes in, it is patently necessary and if we can possibly get more planes in we will, but I cannot offer you a cast iron guarantee, no-one can be certain precisely what will happen.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 July 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Subsidiarity

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to convene any meetings in Scotland to discuss the subsidiarity principle during his presidency of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Lisbon European Council invited the Commission and the Council to undertake urgent work on the procedural and practical steps to implement the principle of subsidiarity and to report to the European Council in Edinburgh on 11 and 12 December. This will be an important priority during our presidency.

     

    Disability

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to establish a ministerial committee on disability.

    The Prime Minister : I have no such plans. Officials of the interdepartmental group on disability regularly provide advice to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister when he will discuss with the Government of Spain the Lockerbie-related issues arising from legal proceedings against Monzer-el-Kassar.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 July 1992] : I refer the hon. Member to the reply the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office–my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) – gave to him on 24 June at column 211.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Manchester Olympics Bid – 3 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Manchester Olympics bid, made on 3rd July 1992, but embargoed until 18th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Manchester led the world into this century with its industrial strengths and innovation. Now it can lead the world into the next century through its commitment to the Olympic ideals. Sport enriches our lives, yours, mine, everyones. I believe that hosting the Olympic Games would not only be a magnificent honour for our country, it will also leave a precious legacy of sport for generations to come.

    That is why the government has already given 53 million pounds for the immediate construction of new sports facilities in Manchester. If Manchester is successful, I have every confidence that a combination of public and private finance will ensure that the facilities for the Games are provided.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 July 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Tibet

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will use the opportunity of the British presidency of the EC to co-ordinate a community response to the claims of Tibet to self-determination.

    The Prime Minister : No state recognises Tibet as independent. Successive British Governments have, however, consistently regarded Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of the Chinese there. We have urged the Chinese authorities to allow that autonomy. During our presidency we shall continue to take up with the Chinese authorities human rights abuses both in Tibet and in China.

     

    Earth Summit

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in establishing the United Kingdom national consultation committee on sustainable development as agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

    The Prime Minister : The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development did not agree to set up a United Kingdom national consultation committee on sustainable development. UNCED did agree to recommend that the United Nations General Assembly set up, within the UN system, a Commission for Sustainable Development. The United Kingdom welcomed this, and we have undertaken to report regularly to the commission on our own progress towards sustainable development. In preparing those reports, we shall want to consult fully with interested people and organisations.

     

    War Crimes

    Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister what current consideration Her Majesty’s Government are giving to evidence of atrocities at the Sylt camp on Alderney and elsewhere in the Channel islands during the second world war.

    The Prime Minister : The War Crimes Act 1991 gives United Kingdom courts jurisdiction over acts of murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide committed as violations of the laws and customs of war in territory which was part of Germany or under German occupation during the second world war by people who are now British citizens or resident in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel islands, but who did not have British nationality at the material time.

    There is no reason to believe that anyone responsible for atrocities/war crimes committed in the Channel islands is in the United Kingdom.

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

     

    Environment

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 18 June from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, Official Report, column 664, when he expects to receive a response from the Group of Seven colleagues to his eight-point plan relating to global forecasting; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I wrote to G7 leaders proposing that they should commit themselves to action to follow up the agreements reached at the Earth summit. One of my specific proposals was that we should each commit ourselves to preparing and publishing national plans for action on biological diversity.

    I hope we shall discuss these matters at the forthcoming summit in Munich.

  • PMQT – 2 July 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    CSCE

    Q1. Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the forthcoming Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe summit in Helsinki.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : The CSCE sets standards of democratic behaviour for the 52 countries of Europe and North America that belong to it. Britain wants it to play a more prominent role in peacekeeping, with the help of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Western European Union, in bringing pressure to bear on members who fail to meet democratic standards, in providing early warning of disputes between its members and in the conciliation and arbitration of disputes. We have put forward proposals in all these areas for decision at the summit.

    Mr. Atkinson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union are in total contradiction of the Paris charter, signed at the last CSCE summit in November 1990? What new measures will he be supporting, or indeed proposing, at next week’s CSCE summit in Helsinki which will bring such wars in Europe to an end and avoid any new ones in the future?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right in his strictures about present performance. The CSCE can press the parties involved both to negotiate in good faith and to settle their differences peacefully. The proposals that we have put forward for the summit are aimed at making the conference more effective in both these areas.

    Dr. Godman : The CSCE should surely be discussing, among other things, the eventual replacement of NATO by a European defence organisation. Does the Prime Minister agree that NATO is coming to the end of its days and that what is needed is a European defence organisation that is not dominated by American political and military leaders ?

    The Prime Minister : No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. I believe that NATO’s contribution in the period since the war has helped to keep Europe safe. I believe that it will continue to be the best guarantor of our security in the future. Although we see a growing role for the Western European Union, it can have that only as the European arm of NATO, with the Europeans paying a proportionately greater share of the defence of Europe. NATO must remain. It is our security both in Europe and beyond.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Gallie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 June.

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

    Mr. Gallie : Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that show how dramatically the living standards of the British people have risen over the last 20 years–all the British people ? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that there is no coincidence other than the fact that we have had 15 years of Conservative government ?

    The Prime Minister : I have seen the headline about that particular report, though I confess that I have not yet read every detail of the report. There is no doubt that the living standards of people right across the nation have soared dramatically in recent years. Although some hon. Members below the Gangway may scoff, it is the fact that they are that out of touch which helped them lose the last election.

    Mr. Kinnock : Would the Prime Minister be satisfied if his children’s schools were to be inspected by anyone who had nothing more than a few days’ training for the task?

    The Prime Minister : There is a strong case for independent inspection of schools by lay people of experience in life. That is the right way to proceed and it is what we will do.

    Mr. Kinnock : If those lay people, who are supposed to be independent despite the fact that they are freelance contractors, were to report that a primary school was not coming up to standard because there were more than 30 children in its classes, would the Government then provide more resources to ensure that there were more teachers in order to bring those class sizes down?

    The Prime Minister : There has been a reduction in class sizes, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He also knows that independent inspectors will be registered by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools. We have made it perfectly clear in the parents charter that there will be regular reports on schools by independent inspectors. That is now a matter of law. It was put on the statute book by the Education (Schools) Act 1992.

    Mr. Kinnock : It is a pity that the Prime Minister did not respond to the question of what he will do to improve the quality of education if those inspectors report–when they report–that standards are deficient because of a shortage of teachers. More than 1 million British school children in primary schools are in classes of more than 30 and, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman says, the number is increasing. When will he start paying attention to the real problems of education and acknowledge that the privatisation of the inspectorate has nothing to do with overcoming those deep-seated problems?

    The Prime Minister : We have a wide range of education policies to improve the quality of education in schools. One part of that, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, is the independent inspection of schools. We believe that independent inspection by people not related to the education profession is a better way of ensuring that we have reports that are fully independent and which reflect more accurately those things that parents wish to learn about the schools at which their children are educated.

     

    Q3. Mr. French : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.

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

    Mr. French : Has my right hon. Friend seen the remarks by Mr. De Gruchy, the general secretary of the National Association of Headmasters–

    Hon. Members : “Schoolmasters”.

    Madam Speaker : Order. We are all allowed a slip of the tongue sometimes.

    Mr. French : It is the same Mr. De Gruchy who said recently that spelling does not matter very much. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is just another example– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is all taking up time.

    Mr. French : Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is just another example of the education establishment’s trendy attitude which bears no relationship at all to the needs of pupils and parents or to the views of those teachers who do worry about standards in schools?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend is right to say that the majority of the British people want the basics of education taught, and taught from the earliest days in school. That self-evidently means reading, writing and adding up. My hon. Friend’s comments will be echoed by parents throughout the country.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ashton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Ashton : Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the circumstances surrounding the case of Mr. Roy Cornes, a Birmingham factory worker, who knowingly infected four women with the AIDS virus, one of whom has since died? Is he aware that that is a severe criminal offence in America and France, yet the Secretary of State for Health refuses to introduce legislation, saying that the existing laws are adequate? If that is the case, why have there been no prosecution?

    The Prime Minister : I do not want to refer to the case that the hon. Gentleman cites. I do not know what will happen in that particular instance, but it would be unwise for me to interfere. The underlying problem of HIV notification is that of driving it further underground and thereby creating a further health hazard. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that genuine dilemma. However, no one will push to one side without concern the problem that he raises.

    Mrs. Browning : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the works of Shakespeare have a central place in the teaching of English in our schools? Is he not appalled at the negative view taken by the National Union of Teachers, which describes Shakespeare as boring and irrelevant? Is that not another example of how out of touch the NUT is with teachers, parents and the needs of pupils?

    The Prime Minister : Many people would agree with my hon. Friend that Shakespeare’s works should be an important part of the school curriculum. “Much Ado About Nothing” is something with which the House is often familiar– [Interruption.] In my defence, Madam Speaker, I will say only that “NUT or not NUT”, which I heard uttered by a member of the Opposition Front Bench, was even less amusing.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Ross : Given that a few months ago the Prime Minister and his party were campaigning on the strategy that, despite recent increases in unemployment, more people were in work, how does he answer the report published by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), which clearly demonstrates that the employed labour force fell by 191,000 in 1991, and that by April this year another 94,000 were added to that total? When will the Prime Minister start to deal with this country’s massive unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : No one takes the unemployment situation lightly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is the case. The advice that I received when I read an article about that report this morning was that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) had taken some liberties with the figures–including ignoring people who are at work on Government programmes.

    Mr. Pickles : Will my right hon. Friend have time today to reflect on the recent statements by Arthur Scargill, president of the National Union of Mineworkers, regarding the impending privatisation of the coal industry? Does not my right hon. Friend deprecate Mr. Scargill’s attempts to revive the damaging strike of the early 1980s? Will he give an assurance that the Government will not in any way be deflected from privatising coal, which will be in the interests of the industry and its workers?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We want a modern and efficient coal industry that offers its employees a chance to share in the future. Mr. Scargill and his friends do not realise that privatisation is in the best interests of the industry and of those who work in it. As Labour has over the years closed more coal mines than we ever have, it should realise that.

     

    Q6. Mr. Pendry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Pendry : When the Prime Minister stated recently that he wants a green theme to develop during Britain’s presidency of the EEC, was he aware that the Treasury is planning to abolish the Advisory Committee on International Green Policy and to cut by half the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s senior staff? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what he will do to those Treasury mandarins who seem hell-bent, so early in the right hon. Gentleman’s presidency, on cutting him off and making him appear to be a Johnny-come-lately?

    The Prime Minister : Environmental matters spread across all policies and do not relate just to the appointment of particular bodies. We have already made it clear that throughout our presidency of the Community and in our domestic policies we will take environmental improvement very seriously. It will be considered in all the policies that we put forward.

    Mr. Jonathan Evans : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on his achievement yesterday in terms of all-party talks on constitutional matters? Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the brutal murders in south Armagh overnight underline the need for peaceful progress and for the involvement of all lawful political parties joining together for the defeat of terrorism?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend, in his last remark, will carry the whole House with him. The discovery of the three bodies in Armagh last night, and the subsequent admission by the provisional IRA that it is responsible, demonstrates yet again the true nature of terrorism. The historic agreement of the Northern Ireland parties yesterday to start strands 2 and 3 of the talks deserves unreserved welcome, and I certainly join in the congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his colleagues. I hope that we shall see the strand 2 meetings convened under Sir Ninian Stephen, and that the first meeting will take place as soon as possible. Although it would be premature to make predictions about the eventual outcome, the way is now open for the Northern Ireland parties to explore new relationships face to face with the Irish Government, and that is a great step forward.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 July 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Freedom of Movement (Doctors)

    Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will use the British presidency of the EC Council of Ministers to press for reform of the EC directive granting freedom of movement within Europe to doctors so as to include doctors who qualified in non-EC countries.

    The Prime Minister : Before we could agree to any such proposals we should need to be satisfied with the standard of non-EC qualifications recognised in other member states.

    Our overriding aim must be to ensure that the safety and high quality of medical care provided for NHS patients is not endangered. The Commission is examining the issue and negotiations are taking place between health officials of member states.