Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Group of Seven – 19 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement in the House of Commons on the Group of Seven meeting, given on 19th July 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the economic summit held in London from 15 to 17 July, and the subsequent meeting with President Gorbachev. I was accompanied at the summit by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The economic declaration and the separate political declarations issued at the summit have been placed in the Library of the House.

    The themes of this summit were “Building World Partnership” and “Strengthening the International Order”. Our common aim was to build on the movement towards freedom, democracy and the open economy which was the theme at last year’s Houston summit. I believe that we achieved valuable and productive results. In the political discussion, there was full support for our proposal for a United Nations register of arms sales. We agreed to consult on the guidelines that apply to conventional arms sales, and we agreed on restraint in the transfer of advanced technology weapons. We agreed also that donor countries should take account of military expenditure when deciding on aid programmes. We also agreed a number of steps in preventing the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. We agreed that we should make preventive diplomacy a top priority in the United Nations. We proposed the establishment of a United Nations disaster relief co-ordinator so that the United Nations can in future take the early action that has sometimes been missing in the past.

    We agreed also on the need for confidence-building measures by both sides in the Arab-Israel dispute, including the suspension of the Arab boycott and of the Israeli policy of settlement in the occupied territories. We encouraged South Africa to pursue policies that will permit normal access to all sources of foreign borrowing. That is vital to enable the economic growth that will be necessary for a successful conclusion to the political negotiations.

    In our debate on the world economy, we recognised increasing signs of economic recovery. These are welcome, but require us to maintain policies aimed at sustained recovery and price stability. This means prudent and vigilant fiscal and monetary policies, to bear down on inflation.

    All the summit leaders recognised that the world cannot afford a failure in the Uruguay round of trade negotiations. We committed ourselves to completing the round by the end of this year. Crucially, we committed ourselves to remain personally involved to ensure that that happens to resolve any disputes. Action will be needed on services, intellectual property, trade access and agriculture. We reaffirmed our commitment to support reform in the countries of central and eastern Europe. For them, trade access is vital. We cannot encourage them to build market economies and then deny them a marketplace in which to sell their goods. The European Community has led the way in offering access through the association agreements which are now being negotiated.

    We devoted a lot of time to the problems of developing countries and secured agreement on the need for additional debt relief measures for the poorest, most indebted countries, going well beyond the Toronto terms agreed in 1988. I have been pressing for this since I launched the Trinidad initiative as Chancellor.

    At the summit, we committed ourselves to work for a successful United Nations conference on environment and development in June next year. By the time of the conference, we aim to have achieved, in particular, a framework convention on climate change and agreement on principles for forest conservation. We also hope to negotiate by the end of next year a framework convention on bio-diversity. We agreed also to support financially the implementation of the preliminary steps of a pilot programme for the conservation of the Brazilian rain forests.
    Earlier summits have stimulated effective action in tackling the trade in illicit drugs. This year, we asked the Customs Co-operation Council–on the basis of an initiative by the United Kingdom–to intensify its work and liaise with international traders and carriers to curb the spread of drugs.

    These global issues require the involvement of all. Developing countries and east European nations are playing an increasingly active part. But one great country has been until now largely detached from the international economic system. That is the Soviet Union. We had a productive, substantial session with President Gorbachev. It was an historic occasion. The emphasis was on informal, frank and direct discussions.

    We reached agreement on six specific points. The first was special association with the International Monetary Fund and the World bank. Both the fund and the bank have a wealth of experience in helping Governments to work out their own economic reform programmes, especially in the crucial areas of fiscal, monetary and structural policies.

    Secondly, the international institutions–the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development–as well as the IMF and the World bank–are to be asked to work closely together in their support of the Soviet Union. They can provide the Soviet Union with practical advice, know-how and expertise to help create a market economy.

    The third point was intensified technical assistance. We believe that there should be greater co-operation in the following sectors in particular: energy, defence conversion, food distribution, nuclear safety and transport. Yesterday, I announced an increase in Britain’s know-how fund assistance from £20 million to £50 million.

    The fourth point was improved trade access to markets for Soviet goods and services. This would also help to attract more inward private investment.

    Fifthly, it was agreed that, as chairman of the summit, I should, on behalf of summit colleagues, follow up our meeting and visit Moscow before the end of the year to review progress. I look forward to doing so.

    Sixthly, we agreed, in response to President Gorbachev’s invitation, that Ministers of Finance and of Small Business should go to Moscow for discussions with their Soviet counterparts. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor hopes to do so soon.

    This was a landmark meeting with President Gorbachev. It will, I believe, be seen as a first step towards helping the Soviet Union to become a full member of the world economic community. I believe that it was a successful summit, and I commend the outcome to the House.

  • Mr Major’s Statement in Downing Street – 18 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement given in London on Thursday 18th July 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Mrs Gorbachev, colleagues and friends from the Soviet Union, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen. Welcome to luncheon today at Downing Street.

    We have a long tradition in London of welcoming the leaders of revolutions. Today I believe we have the enormous privilege of welcoming a man who has led one of the most remarkable revolutions of our century, and you are, Sir, immensely welcome.

    We take a great deal for granted. We have now come to take for granted freedom in Eastern Europe: we have come to take for granted German reunification: we have taken in our stride the demilitarisation of the Warsaw Pact; we have got used to talking of the Soviet Union as a friend and not as an opponent. And if may say so, since I see him here today, in Ambassador Zamyatin we have come to know a very true friend during his period in the United Kingdom.

    The events of the last few years have shown triumphs of the human spirit, they owed much to the pressure for change from within the Soviet Union and from outside the Soviet Union. But I believe that there was more to it than that. There are occasionally in our history, in our world, not just our domestic history, individuals who shaped the course of that history and you, Mr President, are one of them. You have had in recent years the wisdom and the vision to see the trend of events, you have had the enormous courage to defy the traditions and dogma of half a century and you have had the political skill, the political determination and the courage to carry that vision into reality.

    May I say, Mr President, also because I am delighted to see her here as a guest this afternoon, that my predecessor, Margaret Thatcher, has many of those same characteristics and I believe that the joint relationship that you and she struck up in the early 1980s played an immensely important part in the rapprochement between East and West over recent years and I believe history will record that fact very clearly indeed.

    I believe it is very hard to over-estimate the transformation that this change in relationships has brought about to world affairs. Just about a decade ago every international issue was a battleground of ideology. The watchword those days seemed to be problem making and not necessarily problem solving. And yet as a result of these changes we have seen in the last few years, the position is dramatically transformed. In the Middle East, in Southern Africa, elsewhere we are enjoying a whole new experience of cooperation between East and West at solving problems and not creating them.

    Perhaps in recent years the classic illustration of this was Iraq, an illustration of cooperation in the interests of safeguarding the communal peace. The Permanent Five members of the Security Council now work together as partners, it is I believe a most effective partnership and we hope it will be the driving force behind the regeneration of the United Nations in the years before us.

    That transformation, Mr President, was reflected clearly and unmistakably in the meeting which you had yesterday with leaders of the Group of Seven, a meeting foreshadowed by my predecessor in her remarkable speech at Aspen last year. And last night we here in the very next room around the table here in Downing Street to talk about world issues.

    People perhaps expect that. What, had they been present, they would not have expected quite so much was the immense extent to which the leaders there knew one another and enjoyed themselves as they discussed matters that were of both national and international importance. And I believe that closeness of personal relationship is a matter that can make more people sleep comfortably in their beds than would have been the case many years ago.

    We recognise. Mr President, we present who are the well-wishers of the Soviet Union, we recognise that your country faces formidable challenges. formidable political challenges and equally formidable economic challenges and the vastness of the task before you makes it difficult for us to know precisely where best we can give our help. But I believe there is a common determination to help, not just in this country where I can promise you that determination is very real, but amongst all of us in the G7. And to do so not just in terms of words but in practical ways, through technical assistance, through links between the Soviet Union, the IMF, the OECD, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Sank itself,

    We recognise there is no magic prescription either within the Soviet Union or beyond the Soviet Union. But there is I think a world of difference in attitude, a world of difference between polite, dispassionate applause and the aggressive engagement of countries throughout the world who see themselves as we do, as friends of the Soviet Union committed to the success of the reforms in the Soviet Union.

    And that partnership, that new and growing partnership characterises our bilateral relationships as well. Many of my guests here today, Mr President, are very closely involved in British cooperation with the Soviet Union, cooperation which can only grow as we wish to see it grow as a result of the processes of reform. Given the right environment, British companies will be keen to increase their investment, keen to help mobilise your country’s great reservoir of human skills and natural resources and you and many others in authority throughout the Soviet Union are I know striving even now to create precisely that environment.

    The people in this room and millions I believe beyond it, Mr President, want to take part in your transformation to a market economy. I believe a lot of our own experience will be relevant to you as well, so we are helping in that transformation, in projects like food distribution, energy, financial services and the creation of small businesses. And British companies, I am delighted to say, are directly involved and the presence here of many of our leaders of commerce and industry illustrates that point very clearly. For this is a partnership in perestroika, a partnership from which both of us and both our countries have a great deal to gain.

    No-one here has any illusions, a hard road lies ahead for the Soviet Union. Democracy, as Winston Churchill once memorably said, is the worst form of government except For all the forms we have tried in our history. You, Mr President, know that the Soviet Union has tried other forms and has found them wanting. And you, Mr President, had the courage to recognise that and to recognise the hardship and injustice which other nations had incurred as a result of that.

    In today’s world the fates of East and West, of North and South cannot be divorced, they are bound together inextricably in the decisions that are made by the great nations. Yesterday in London we showed that that was understood fully in the West as well, in the meeting that you had with the leaders of the Group of Seven. It is my belief that that meeting marks a new chapter in Soviet relations with the industrialised Western world.

    Today in London we are forging a further link in that relationship , a further link in the chain of Anglo-Soviet friendship and cooperation in the future. I believe it is a link that will be immensely warmly welcomed in this country and I have no doubt from what you have had to say to me this morning, immensely warmly welcomed throughout the Soviet Union as well.

    My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have some very welcome guests here today, may I ask you to rise and drink to President Gorbachev and to Mrs Gorbachev, to the people of the Soviet Union and to friendship and partnership between our two great countries. The President and Mrs Gorbachev.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Statements with President Gorbachev – 18 July 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s statement made on Thursday 18th July 1991 with the Russian President, President Gorbachev.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good afternoon! We have had a series of discussions today. The President and I had the opportunity of around two hours discussion before luncheon, further discussion through luncheon and with a large number of people from business, commerce and industry attending luncheon as well and after luncheon, we have had the opportunity of a Plenary Session with our Finance and Economic Ministers, our Employment Ministers and our Foreign Ministers as well, so it has been a very productive and worthwhile series of exchanges.

    In our discussions today, apart from a range of bilateral matters, we have also discussed how we carry forward the Group of 7 remit and discussed some of the ground rules for my forthcoming visit to Moscow some time this side of Christmas. We have also agreed, in order to carry this debate forward, that Norman Lamont, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will visit Moscow very speedily indeed. Dates are not yet finalised but I hope that the Chancellor will be able to go before the end of July to spend some time in the Soviet Union and to carry these discussions forward.

    I should add also that a very senior mission from the Department of Employment will in fact be leaving for the Soviet Union this Sunday in order to examine small business and other business opportunities that exist between the two countries.

    I also took the opportunity this morning in my discussions with President Gorbachev of announcing that we will be extending and increasing the Know-How Fund that exists to encourage small and growing enterprises in the Soviet Union. We will be increasing the time-scale of the Fund initially from two years to three years and doubling the size of the Fund to make a further small contribution towards assisting the establishment of a private sector and a liberal market economy in the Soviet Union.

    Both the President and I saw these discussions as but the beginning of a continuing dialogue. We examined some very practical and very pragmatic ways forward and if I may speak for myself, I found them extremely useful discussions and I look forward to resuming them in Moscow later this year.

    I will now invite the President to say whatever he would wish!

    PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

    My task has been made easier by the fact that the Prime Minister covered the most important things.

    I wish to add that we lost no time and at the beginning of our morning session we gave some thought to what we should do next so that there is practical continuation of the agreement that was reached yesterday at the G7 meeting.

    The British-Soviet dialogue has a merit on its own and we are fully aware of the contribution that the British-Soviet dialogue that has been intensifying over the past few years made to the creation of the atmosphere that we witnessed these past few days and now I see that this dialogue will receive another no less important dimension given the fact that Mr. Major was instructed by the G7 to act in another capacity – not in another paid position but in another capacity. This is a new capacity which requires a lot of imagination and a lot of innovative approach to problems because what we are doing now is laying down bricks in the foundation of future cooperation.

    We sensibly discussed all these matters with the Prime Minister and when we had the Plenary Session attended by our Ministers we were very pleased to note that our Ministers covered the same subjects so we have received a signal from the Seven and we started moving along and this is something that I welcome very much.

    These past few days in the framework of the G7 meeting and also in the framework of the bilateral meeting we have seen a great desire on the part of the British side to provide a propitious atmosphere for our contacts and also to provide appropriate ground for our future joint work. I wish to thank the Prime Minister and his colleagues for a very active involvement in all that effort.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr. President, thank you very much. I am afraid the President and I are due in the House of Commons in just four minutes so I will take just two questions if I may.

    QUESTION:

    [In Russian, not interpreted]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to that question is that Soviet-British relations are very good and they are getting better.

    PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

    I may add that the business communities of our two countries have many projects lined up and the scope of our cooperation is likely to grow and intensify very fast. What we need is removal of the remaining impediments in the way of that cooperation. Any restrictions of the COCEM (phon) type restrictions does not allow us to use new technology projects that are being offered and of course no-one would be content with some outdated old-type projects.

    QUESTION:

    Why do you think Fidel Castro can continue to survive without implementing democratic reforms such as perestroika and glasnost and why does the USSR continue to aid Castro when he has openly criticised you and the countries from Eastern Europe for deviating from Communist teachings?

    PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

    You know, I would do a lot of stupid things really if I were to sever relations with countries whose leaders criticised me and those stupid things that I would do would apply not only to international affairs but also to the domestic situation in my country so I would rather not do it.

    My second point is that you must show respect for the Cuban people. I think the Cuban people deserve that and it is for the Cuban people to choose freely and to decide whatever questions they may face.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th July 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is conducting bilateral discussions with President Gorbachev.

     

    Tesco, Sheffield

    Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Meadowhead, Sheffield to discuss with local residents and the developers of the proposed Tesco’s superstore the implications of his newly announced environmental initiatives for such developments.

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

     

    United Nations Environment Conference

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals will be put forward by Her Majesty’s Government to the United Nations conference on environment and development in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.

    The Prime Minister : We are consulting widely in order to prepare our position towards the United Nations conference on environment and development, in particular the proposed action plan, agenda 21, which will be discussed at the preparatory committee next month.

     

    Manchester Olympic Bid

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on further help for Manchester’s bid to host the Olympic games ; and if he will make a statement on both the help so far given and that which might be considered.

    The Prime Minister : The Government welcome Manchester’s bid to host the Olympic games. The Minister for Sport has already met the chairman of the bid committee and representatives of the British Olympic Association and has assured them that the Government stand ready to discuss ways in which it might help promote the bid. I plan to meet representatives of the bid committee in September and will consider any suggestions they may have.

     

    Youth Training

    Mr. McLeish : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list (a) the number of youth training places in the Cabinet Office and (b) the number of places occupied in May for each of the years 1989, 1990 and the current year.

    The Prime Minister : There have been no youth training places in the Cabinet Office. However, an active work experience programme for 15 and 16- year-olds has been in operation for several years.

    Mr. McLeish : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list (a) the number of youth training places in his office and (b) the number of places occupied in May for each of the years 1989, 1990 and the current year.

    The Prime Minister : There have been no youth training places in my office.

  • PMQT – 18 July 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th July 1991. John MacGregor responded on behalf of John Major.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I have been asked to reply My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is conducting bilateral discussions with President Gorbachev.

    Mr. Hinchliffe : In view of the embarrassing revelations that the Secretary of State for Employment knew in June 1990 of possible embezzlement and fraud at BCCI and that the Department of Trade and Industry stated that it has not received the letters which the right hon. and learned Gentleman says he sent to it on the matter, will the Leader of the House, as a matter of urgency, set up a full and independent inquiry into the whole sorry affair?

    Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment received a letter from the BCCI staff which primarily expressed concern about redundancy arrangements at the bank. He received also a copy of a covering letter which the association sent to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield on these matters and, as far as I know, the right hon. Gentleman did not come back to him on them.

    As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s supplementary question, I understand that the matter is being looked into at this very moment.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Sir Fergus Mongomery : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a member of the Cabinet was accused publicly by his colleagues of being unwise, unprincipled and responsible for confusion, he should do the decent thing and resign? If he agrees with that principle, and if he has noticed an item on the front page of The Guardian, should not the shadow Foreign Secretary resign?

    Mr. MacGregor : I say to my hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that the supplementary question was in order.

    Mr. MacGregor : I cannot imagine any of my colleagues saying such a thing about any member of the Cabinet. If my hon. Friend is referring to the comments in the press this morning of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), I was interested that he said,

    “Everybody knows”–

    this is the statement on defence–

    “it’s a policy change, but no one is admitting it.”

    If the right hon. Gentleman says, “We will not get rid of nuclear weapons under any circumstances”, that really is a change. This demonstrates that the Labour party– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The Lord President should relate his reply to Government policy.

    Mr. MacGregor : Government policy is very clear on the nuclear question, but the Opposition cannot, even now, give a simple answer to a simple question about their defence policy.

    Mr. Hattersley : I look forward to receiving a simple answer to a simple question. Does the Leader of the House share the view expressed by the director general of the Confederation of British Industry on the “Today” programme this morning that Britain is no longer suffering from a depression but from a slump?

    Mr. MacGregor : I share the view– [Laughter.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This takes up a lot of time.

    Mr. MacGregor : I will give the right hon. Gentleman a simple answer to his question. The CBI’s director general said on the “Today” programme this morning :

    “The manufacturing side of our economy is in much better international shape than it’s been for many years.”

    That is a much simpler answer than the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members have given on the nuclear issue for many months.

    Mr. Hattersley : It may have been a simple answer to someone’s question, but not mine. Can the Leader of the House attempt to justify his evasive answer having seen, as I suspect he has, the European Community’s judgment on the British economy? It is that British investment will fall next year, while German investment will increase by 6 per cent. ; and that unemployment in Great Britain will rise to more than 3 million next year, accounting for more than half the total increase throughout the whole Community. If that is not a slump, how would the right hon. Gentleman define one?

    Mr. MacGregor : We made it clear in the Budget forecast that recovery would begin in the second half and that view is shared by the CBI and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. As to the European Commission’s predictions on unemployment, I point out that it does not have a good record of making accurate forecasts. It indicated that unemployment in Germany would rise and it has not; and that employment in France would grow and it did not ; and it asserted that training skill levels for school leavers were lower in West Germany than in Greece–and I do not think that anyone else believes that. I suspect that the Commission’s unemployment forecast will turn out to be as accurate as that of the right hon. Gentleman in the 1983 general election, when he forecast that unemployment in this country would rise to 4 million–and it never did.

    Mr. Hattersley : The Leader of the House does not seem to have a good record when it comes to remembering the Prime Minister’s forecasts. In the House last week, the Prime Minister revised his forecast for recovery from the second half of this year to round about Christmas. Is not the truth that now that the glitz and glamour of the G7 summit is over, we are back in the real world of Britain’s economic situation–and that real world is a catastrophe, caused by the Conservatives’ policy of the past 10 years?

    Mr. MacGregor : The most important things for long-term prosperity and for jobs are to get inflation down, as we are doing and which Labour singularly failed to do, and to keep public expenditure under control and at reasonable levels, which Labour also singularly failed to do. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that at the last general election, he committed Labour to increasing public expenditure by some £34 billion. Labour is at it again and that would be a real recipe for disaster for growth in the early part of the 1990s.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bevan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Bevan : While we welcome the impending nuclear disarmament that will emanate from the G7 summit, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent would be put at risk, and could lose all credibility, if we cancelled the fourth Trident submarine–as Labour proposes to do?

    Mr. MacGregor : I share my hon. Friend’s strong welcome for the agreement on the START negotiations that was reached yesterday and I am sure that the House shares that welcome. However, my hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the sham of Labour’s defence policy. Not only is it totally confusing, but although they will keep nuclear weapons for negotiations, on the other hand they totally undermine the credibility of our deterrent. Four Trident submarines are essential to ensure that one is on station all the time.

    Mr. Madden : Why are the Government trying to gloss over the background to the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Why are they refusing to hold an inquiry into the Bank of England’s role? What advice did the Treasury give to local authorities around the country? Most of all, what did the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) do with the correspondence alleging corruption and negligence inside the bank which he apparently received from the present Secretary of State for Employment?

    Mr. MacGregor : There is absolutely no glossing over. Obviously, we are all concerned about what has happened to a number of small depositors and borrowers at BCCI. The important thing now is for the Bank and the liquidator to get on with the practical arrangements and to move as fast as possible. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said that he will be reviewing what happened and will see what lessons can be learnt from it. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will be aware that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is meeting next week and that the Governor of the Bank of England will give evidence to it. Obviously many questions can be asked about what has happened over that period. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of trying to cover up and no question of a sham.

     

    Q4. Mr. David Nicholson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 18 July 1991.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Nicholson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the European regional funds, from which businesses in my constituency are unlikely to benefit significantly, were massively increased, the result would be a heavy cost to the British taxpayer? Does he also agree that it would be the height of irresponsibility to recommend such a policy without working out or stating honestly its cost? Is not that what we have come to expect from the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Labour party?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is referring to some of the practical issues that arise out of moving very quickly to convergence and why it is right to take the view that the Government take in relation to economic and monetary union and moving to a single currency. If one moved to convergence very quickly and that required a very big increase in regional funds very early, it would mean taking more money from taxpayers in Scotland to give to Sicily.

     

    Q5. Mr. Salmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 18 July 1991.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Salmond : What information, if any, was supplied by the Bank of England to Treasury Ministers, including the present Prime Minister, on the contents of the October 1990 Price Waterhouse report indicating serious fraud in BCCI? Does the Leader of the House accept that if it can be established that Ministers or the regulatory authorities had knowledge well before June this year of serious fraud in that bank, the Government cannot continue to wash their hands of the financial disaster facing depositors and local authorities?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman is probably referring to the Price Waterhouse report of March 1990. He said October, but I understand that it was in March. We are probably talking about the same report. The Bank had given the Treasury explicit assurances that although previous audit reports showed evidence of poor banking standards and losses–this applies to all these reports–they provided no evidence on which it could act in respect of the widespread fraud that was subsequently uncovered in the section 41 report. The evidence of bad banking standards and losses was being tackled by injections of capital from shareholders and by substantial management changes. It was the change in management that ultimately led to the discovery of extensive fraud, which led to the section 41 investigation. That was the first time that the Bank had evidence of serious and widespread fraud on which to take action.

    Mr. Knapman : Does my right hon. Friend recall the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on Tuesday and the slur and slander by the general secretary of the Labour party on the President of the United States and particularly on the President’s manner of election? Has my right hon. Friend received any indication from the Leader of the Opposition that he wishes to dissociate himself– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This matter is not the Government’s responsibility. [Interruption.] This is taking time. Let us move on.

     

    Q6. Mr. Douglas : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Douglas : While not being too thirled to statistics, although they are important, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom and Scotland is dramatically high and is producing great suffering? Will the Government and the right hon. Gentleman in particular stop behaving like a cross between a pit bull terrier and a Scot–a Scots terrier– [Interruption.] –the type of dog which would ravage us first and then scurry away to get the ambulance. When the ambulance man comes along, he pours on the iodine and says, “If it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working.” It is hurting, but it ain’t working because it is producing great suffering on the part of the people of Scotland and many unfulfilled opportunities.

    Mr. MacGregor : Obviously we regret any increase in unemployment, because it affects families very substantially, but it is important to keep the matter in context. If one looks at the other side of the coin, one will see that there are 1 million more jobs than there were in 1979. We have more jobs in this country than most other countries as a proportion of the working population.

    We are taking extensive measures to deal with unemployment, particularly the longer-term unemployed. It is significant that about half of all the unemployed find jobs within three months. It is also quite reasonable to point out that a wide variety of the measures that the main Opposition party is putting forward would increase unemployment, destroy part-time jobs, impose extra burdens on industry and therefore make the position much worse.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th July 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Energy-efficient Lighting

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to encourage all Government Departments to introduce energy-efficient lighting to cut costs and save energy; and whether he will assist them with such schemes.

    The Prime Minister : As part of the Government’s drive to improve energy efficiency on their estate the ministerial group on energy efficiency chaired by the Secretary of State for Energy encourages Departments to take all cost-effective energy efficiency measures available. Since the start of the present campaign many Departments have introduced energy-efficient lighting schemes.

     

    Bank of Credit and Commerce International

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Minister when he was first informed of the doubts of the Bank of England concerning BCCI.

    The Prime Minister : I was informed of the fraud as soon as the Bank was satisfied that it had evidence on which it could act.

     

    Sheikh of Abu Dhabi

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi.

    The Prime Minister : I paid a courtesy call on Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan in my capacity as Foreign Secretary on 21 July 1989.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on the Economic Declaration – 17 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on the Economic Declaration, made on 17th July 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is customary at the conclusion of the Summit for the Chairman to draw out the main themes of the Declaration. Happy to confirm this tradition.

    When we met in Houston a year ago, we welcomed the democratic revolutions around the world and committed ourselves to strengthening and securing democracy.

    In the year since Houston, the world order has been challenged, and has risen to the challenge.

    Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait brought home to all of us the threat that one lawless country can pose to the law-abiding world. We are still living with the political and economic consequences and this Summit has been a productive opportunity to draw some lessons and to deal with some of the wider political and economic issues where our countries, the wealthiest in the world, must give a lead.

    Political

    A number of these challenges were addressed in the Political Declarations we issued yesterday.

    We are determined to strengthen the United Nations system, politically and economically. With the Security Council now working as it should, the UN should be able to prevent fires as well as put them out. It needs the means at its disposal to tackle humanitarian emergencies. The UN must also be one of the means through which we curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction and through which we register and control conventional arms transfers.

    The theme of the Summit has been building world partnership and strengthening the international order. We were very conscious of the global nature of many of the problems we were discussing and of our responsibility to agree policies that did not just suit us but show our commitment to other countries as well.

    Our first responsibility, reflected in the Economic Declaration which will be issued very shortly, has been to underpin democracy, human rights, the rule of law and Sound economic management. I shall summarise the main themes.

    Our shared economic objectives are sustained recovery and price stability. We are determined to maintain the medium term strategy endorsed by earlier Summits. We welcome the fact that there are now increasing signs of economic recovery.

    We have committed ourselves to continue the strategy which has contained inflationary expectations and created the conditions for sustainable growth and new jobs.

    Crucial to the future prospects of the world economy is the success of the Uruguay Round. However technical the individual issues, the underlying reality is that failure in the GATT Round would lead to protectionism, a decline in trade and a reduction in job opportunities. The political ramifications would be equally devastating.

    We discussed this in some depth yesterday and have today committed ourselves to progress in the key remaining areas (market access, agriculture, services and intellectual property).

    Each of us has made a personal commitment to work for the success of the negotiations before the end of this year. We will be ready to intervene if differences can only be resolved at the highest level.

    Without success in the Uruguay Round, much of our help to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe would be undermined.

    We have offered strong support for political and economic reform in those countries. In different ways all the Group of Seven members are contributing know-how to enable the countries of central and Eastern Europe to move to market economies. There is no point in having a market economy without a market and that must include access to the markets of the developed countries. We have committed ourselves to that and welcome the progress which has been made.

    In the context of Eastern Europe – and more widely – we have discussed environmental challenges and energy. We will all take a full part in the establishment of a European Energy Charter.

    We have agreed to work to secure stable energy supplies worldwide, to remove barriers to trade and investment in energy, to encourage high environmental and safety standards and to cooperate on research and development.

    Concern for the environment touches on almost every aspect of policy. This was a good moment to take stock, a year before the UN Conference on Environment and Development. We commit ourselves to giving the Conference the necessary political impetus. By the time it opens we aim to achieve:

    (i) an effective framework convention on climate change committing all participants to concrete strategies to limit net emissions of greenhouse gases;

    (ii) agreement on principles for the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forest leading to a framework convention.

    We support the negotiation of a framework convention on biological diversity, including the protection of ecosystems, if possible to be concluded next year.

    We welcome the progress made in the development of a pilot programme for the conservation of the Brazilian tropical forest since the Houston Summit, and will financially support the implementation of the preliminary stage of the programme.

    Strengthening the international order implies support for the policies of good government. All the evidence suggests that bad government is a significant factor in the poverty of developing countries.

    In the Declaration on arms transfers we noted the recent decisions by several countries to take account of disproportionate expenditure when setting aid programmes. In the Economic Declaration we have commended those countries who have adopted the principles of respect for human rights and for the law; democracy, pluralism and accountability and sound market-based economic policies.

    We have agreed on the need for additional debt relief measures for the poorest, most indebted countries which go well beyond those already granted under Toronto terms. If I may say so, that will build on the initiative I took at the Trinidad meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers.

    We have, of course, given an undertaking to go on providing humanitarian assistance to parts of Africa facing severe famine. That too links in with our wish to strengthen the ability of the UN to respond swiftly and effectively to natural disasters.

    The problems of drug abuse affect all countries, both rich and poor. Action was set in train by previous Summits. This time we have focused on stepping up the fight against money laundering and against the supply of chemicals which can be used to make illicit drugs. We want to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement agencies to target the illicit drug movements. We have asked the Customs Cooperation Council to report on this.

    You will find in the Declaration support for the moves being made towards the political and economic transformation of the Soviet Union. That will be the story of this afternoon and I shall not say more now.

    Finally, we were all delighted to accept a generous invitation from Chancellor Kohl to go to Munich in a year’s time for our next Summit. We look forward to that.

    Thank you very much.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Gorbachev – 17 July 1991

    Below is the text of the joint press conference with Mr Major and the Soviet President, President Gorbachev, in London on 17th July 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Firstly, my apologies for arriving a little later than you had expected, our discussions went on a little longer than scheduled and I apologise for that short delay.

    Let me say at the outset, as many of you will know, that this morning President Bush and President Gorbachev solved the remaining impediment to a START agreement, I think that is a very remarkable achievement, it was very well received by all the G7 Heads of Government and commenced our meeting this afternoon in an extremely admirable way.

    Our summit theme over the last few days has been building world partnership and to follow up those words with deeds we have today I believe established our partnership with the Soviet Union on a new and better footing. It is an historic occasion, it demonstrated the importance the summit participants attach to cooperation with the Soviet Union and to helping integrate it into the world economy.

    And I think it reflects something else as well, it reflects the recognition of new attitudes and new thinking in the Soviet Union. In keeping with the summit style the emphasis has been on informal, frank and very direct discussions. Our exchanges have been workmanlike and practical, they have been across the table with questions put and answers given and not simply formal exchanges around the table, it has been a very positive meeting indeed. It has not been the occasion for specific negotiations or empty rhetoric, there has been an absolutely excellent climate and atmosphere throughout the whole meeting this afternoon.

    Our discussions focused primarily on economic reform, but we all recognise behind that the importance of the political dimension, both national and international. President Gorbachev explained to us all the important changes under way in the Soviet Union, including the proposed new division of powers and responsibilities under the draft union treaty. Everyone agreed that these political and constitutional reforms would help to provide the necessary basis for a successful and irreversible economic reform.

    President Gorbachev also set out the plans of the Soviet and Republican authorities for reform of the Soviet economy, he did so fully and frankly. All summit participants had been following the evolution of economic reform plans with a particularly close interest, we were all especially interested to hear how they would be implemented in practice, about their sequence and the comprehensive nature of their coverage.

    We very strongly welcomed President Gorbachev’s commitment to practical measures of both political and economic reform and pledged both our support and our encouragement for that process. We discussed in particular crucial areas for reform: property rights; market prices; control of government finances and money supply; the breaking up of monopolies and privatisation; and the establishment of a legal infrastructure.

    Everyone around the table recognised that these moves are all in the best interests of the Soviet people themselves and that only the Soviet people themselves can achieve those changes. As I put it during the discussion, the challenges the Soviet leadership faces are formidable but the opportunities, if they are successful, are limitless.

    We therefore all agreed to work together to promote the integration of the Soviet Union into the world economy. But we also agreed that our help would not have a lasting effect unless there was a clear political will in the Soviet Union to create the right environment for change. Our objective must be to help the Soviet Union mobilise its substantial resources, outside assistance can make a contribution, it can help catalyse the process, but it is the Soviet Union itself that must mobilise its resources. The primary contribution should come from inward private investment, the key is to create an environment, legal, political, economic, social, in which investment would be attracted and could flourish. Against that background, we reached agreement on six specific points.

    The first relates to a special association with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The Summit participants very much welcome a special association for the Soviet Union with the IMF and with the World Bank, We believe that will be an enormous step towards helping the Soviet Union become more closely integrated into the world economy. It will bring many benefits to the Soviet Union, it will enable the Fund and the Bank to offer expert help and advice in all the difficult areas of economic policy where President Gorbachev is working for reform. Both the Fund and the Bank have a wealth of experience in helping governments to work out their own economic reform programmes and especially have a wealth of experience in the crucial areas of fiscal, monetary and structural policies.

    Secondly, we reached agreement on the need for continuing cooperation. The summit participants are therefore asking all the international institutions – the OECD, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as well as the IMF and the World Bank – to work closely together and intensify their efforts in their support of the Soviet Union. They can provide the Soviet Union with practical advice, with know-how, with expertise to help create a market economy. There are all sorts of areas to which this will apply, for example price decontrol, creating the conditions for much greater private sector investment including investment from outside the Soviet Union into the Soviet Union, and all the difficult processes involved in privatisation.

    Thirdly, we talked of technical assistance, we agreed on the importance of intensifying our technical assistance for the Soviet Union. We believe there should be greater cooperation and in particular greater cooperation in the following sectors; energy; defence conversion; food distribution; nuclear safety; and transport. Other areas suggest themselves as well but those were the key areas that we were able to discuss today. And we believe this technical assistance will be given both by governments directly, bilaterally and also through the international institutions.

    Fourthly, we discussed trade. As President Gorbachev said during his remarks this afternoon, he was very conscious that trade had collapsed between the Soviet Union and its immediate neighbours and it would be desirable to re-establish it. We also wish to see improved trade access to markets for Soviet goods and services and we believe that would help to attract more inward private investment and that will govern our policies.

    Fifthly, and vitally I think, we discussed the follow-up to the meeting we had this afternoon. This afternoon is not a one-off occasion, it is not an occasion in which we come together just to examine the problem, consider it, go away and then let things go on as they were before. So we discussed how we would follow the matter up to ensure there was a continuing over-view and follow-up to the matters that concern us both. And we agreed after discussion that the Chairman of the G7 summit, on behalf of all summit colleagues, should keep in close touch with developments on behalf of the whole of the G7, There was a general wish following that, that as the current chairman I should visit Moscow before the end of the year to meet President Gorbachev, discuss with him the matters of mutual concern to us all and to review progress. I am happy to do so and I look forward to that visit. Next year my successor as Chairman of the G7, Chancellor Kohl, will liaise and will undertake similar visits. Both of us will report back to the G7 as part of a continuing over-view.

    Sixthly, we decided to take this contact a little further. We will encourage our Finance Ministers and Ministers for Small Businesses to accept invitations to go to the Soviet Union and to discuss a range of matters with their counterparts in the Soviet government. We see this as a part of widening and deepening the continuing dialogue between the Soviet Union and the G7 governments.

    As I said a few moments ago, this has been a day, I believe, that history may well see as a landmark. It will, I believe, be seen as a first step towards helping the Soviet Union become a full member of the world economic community. It was clear from this afternoon’s conversation that that is what President Gorbachev wants, that is what we want, it is what we will all work for and it is what we have put in train today. It was, I have no doubt, a very successful and historic meeting. I will now invite President Gorbachev to make a few observations to you and then we will be happy to take your questions.

     

    PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

    Thank you, Mr Prime Minister. My task I think is very simple after your comprehensive statement.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, today has meant a lot. We began at 8.00 this morning with talks with President Mitterrand which were very important and then we had a very intensive and productive dialogue with Prime Minister Kaifu, the Prime Minister of Japan.

    And then there took place one of the most important meetings of our time, we completed a very complicated job which has taken ten years, the Agreement on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Weapons – the START Agreement. The last issues were solved on the basis of constructive cooperation and you will understand what we have been doing all these years and how difficult it was to proceed to such a positive result. But now I can say, once again, as we have already said it, that everything that has been done and will enable us to submit this treaty for signature and to put it before the Supreme Soviet. At the same time we have agreed with President Bush to have a meeting in Moscow at the end of July, I have invited him to come to Moscow.

    I think this is good news, not only for today, and it is evidence of the fact that in the world, despite all the difficulties and dangers and troubles there is taking place important changes which bring such results which a few years ago we could not even have been thought possible.

    And in the same spirit, I would like to say that the present meetings of the Seven, and we have already reached agreement on the machinery for follow-up, are also unique events and in this sense I share the views of Mr Major, the chairman of this meeting, he has done a lot to ensure that it was well prepared and proceeded in a good and constructive spirit and I would like to thank him for that and at the same time to thank the government of Great Britain for their welcome and hospitality and everything that they have done that has enabled us all to work well and to produce good results.

    And like many of you, I have said this already in Moscow and I would like to confirm today, what has been happening in recent years has enabled us to achieve much and these achievements are unprecedented political dialogue and a successful outcome on disarmament negotiations which have produced these major documents; the development of the Helsinki Process, and I am referring in this case to the Paris Charter and this the resolution of many ancient acute conflicts; and what we have really succeeded in taking the road to perestroika, we have rejected the methods of the Cold War and we have realised that we are living in one civilisation and we have moved from confrontation and opposition to a search for this kind of achievement.

    This is the basis on which it will be possible to build so that we can extend this process and extend these positive trends, so that on the basis of this we can have new processes and we can build on these big changes and get rid of everything that causes concern and alarm. And it is very important that no-one should be tempted to try to use this for not in the interests of the process itself, that we expect the process that will lead to new international relations.

    So the discussions about this have begun today and taking into account the declaration that we have, I read it and I think in the coming days these topics, the global topics and regional arrangements and everything that is happening in the real world, everything will be the focus of attention at this kind of meeting.

    This really has been a unique meeting. We are ready to cooperate and to bear our responsibility together with all peoples in this case with the peoples who were represented here in the Group of Seven, in order to ensure that this positive process continues and that despite all the difficulties we can move further towards agreement and the development of international relations and their improvement.

    But thinking about this at home, about everything that is happening now, we reached the conclusion that this process will be more stable and reliable and predictable if both the spheres of economic cooperation are taken into account, they must be carefully thought out and restructured and much that we have been talking about has been taken into account.

    These are matters that we have to take account of all the time and think about them and what comes up inbetween countries in bilateral relations and in regions, everything that develops in the Third World, I know that this is an old-fashioned term now but will still use it, we must find a way of systematising these procedures and among these problems that we include and which must be solved if we are to restructure international relations, we think one of the key problems is the organic integration of the Soviet Union in world relations. We do have relations with the world economy, we trade with the whole world, and we enjoy the fruits of the labour of our peoples. This is trade, this is good.

    This is the implementation of various projects, it is also good, but we are working in various approaches, we do not consider ourselves an organic part of the world economy, it would be better to talk about economic relations. Of course we are part of the economy and to a considerable extent we are on the margin of this, we are an autarky if you like.

    This is our approach in a few words and we have put forward a concept for the way in which the Soviet Union might move towards and be integrated’ in the world economy, This means far reaching reforms, not just economic but also political reforms which is what we are now engaged in, so that we may be capable of adopting rules of the game, let us say, that are practised and preached in all countries of the world.

    This organic integration of the Soviet Union into the world economy will not work if we continue to be seen from the standpoint, from the point of view that grew up during the years of confrontation, and there was a great deal that was piled up over those years of confrontation so there is a need to remove the road blocks, there is need for a movement from the other side.

    There are very many of those roadblocks, I could read out to you, I shall not do that now, but I could read out a list of dozens of projects which have been elaborated by business people in our country, from other countries, that have been brought to the stage of general understanding but which were not able to be implemented because they came up against barriers of various sorts, obstacles, impediments. There are customs barriers, there are requirements of the International Monetary Fund, there are GATT requirements, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and on and on.

    I have summarised this but there are whole tons of this material. So there is need for movement from the other side, these are the two essential points which we put to our colleagues. We have put our plan of action to our colleagues as to how we intend to proceed in terms of political reforms and how we intend to act now at this stage within the framework of our economic reforms of the federation and on that basis the hope has been expressed for understanding.

    I put the emphasis on that word – understanding – that is how I started my book on the new thinking, we want to be properly understood. I have been cooperating with my colleagues for many years and I think that without any exaggeration I could look in their eyes today and say to them: inasmuch as we have now been understood this has opened up the possibility of joint action and as a result of the new political thinking we have now come to that level of cooperation, to a degree of trust, and the possibility of the sort of discussions that we have been having lately and that we had this afternoon.

    I have also said it should be understood that it is our choice that is to be made, we shall proceed along the path that we have chosen because we wish through the reform of the economic system, through the union, through reforming our property relations, to provide a powerful impetus for the action of political, democratic, economic, social forces of our people. We wish to move away from the predominance of the command administrative system and away from the system where we are state-ownership predominant, we wish to provide vital oxygen for society, that is as necessary for society as it is for individuals and when we propose new thinking in external and foreign policy, just as we today offer cooperation on the basis of movement from the other side of accommodation, that is something that we all need and this will constitute a major contribution to stabilisation and further encouragement to all the Positive processes that are now going forward in the world. That is what we hope for, that is what we look forward to.

    We are going through a difficult time now, we shall find our way through this, we shall extricate ourselves, whether you help us or not. That is not the point, and we are not even talking about assistance, we are talking about the new quality of cooperation when colleagues, I am most grateful that what I had to say was received openly, directly, and honestly, that great interest was shown, everybody spoke up after I had my say, we had ten contributions and there was a lively conversation that then ensued. I tried to be brief, I have to say, although I did not altogether succeed, I tried to practise some self-discipline but this is an enormous subject that we had to address and I would say that we have reached the first stage of understanding which will enable us now to move to the start of a process, a new form, a new kind of cooperation, and I think that if we move along the lines indicated by Mr Major, these six conditions, then we will not say that we simply come together, we have had a talk and then we have gone our ways, but that we have come to some important political conclusions and that we have reflected on a mechanism for ensuring our cooperation, our joint action in following up on those important political conclusions.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    EDWARD STURTON (ITN):

    The Seven were apparently not satisfied with the original reform proposals that were put to them by Mr. Gorbachev. Can I ask Mr. Gorbachev whether he brought anything new in terms of reform proposals today and the Prime Minister whether he heard anything new that convinced him that reform will really happen?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me start with that, Edward. The great advantage this afternoon was that we were actually able to talk across a table; not just look at a document but actually speak face-to-face, actually ask detailed questions about a document and make an assessment of how that document was going to be carried forward. That is just not an opportunity that the G7 collectively have had before with President Gorbachev; it was a very valuable opportunity.

    Not all our problems were solved today; none of us expected that they would be. What we did expect would happen today was that we would begin the process of a dialogue and would decide a proper way in which we could carry it forward. That is in practice what we have done and I really cannot overstate the value of that. I think it is vitally important that we are now engaged on this dialogue and that it will be a continuing dialogue.

    The reforms that the Soviet Union are engaged in are enormous reforms. One only has to go back and look at the immense interest and difficulties there were just in some elements of the privatisation programme for example we had in the United Kingdom over the last ten years and then match that against the scale of the changes that the Soviet Union are seeking to put in place at the present time. So of course we did not solve all the problems today and of course there will be many matters that we will want to come back to but what we did satisfy ourselves about today was the intensity and direction of reform the Soviet Union are engaged on and the necessity of following that through with a continuing dialogue.

    PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

    (NOTE: LONG GAP BEFORE INTERPRETATION BEGAN)

    ….the need for constructive cooperation with all democratic forces between the Republican authorities and the Union with a view to successful implementation of radical reform in all areas.

    QUESTION (SOVIET TV):

    A question to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as well as to the President of the USSR: can we consider that after today’s meeting London will have represented a start on a new relationship between East and West?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe I can answer that question very briefly and very directly. Yes, I believe it has. I believe it is a new start and I believe it is a very valuable one.

    PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

    Yes, I take the same view. London has represented a start on movement towards a new quality of cooperation.

    BRIAN HANRAHAN (BBC TV):

    Mr. Gorbachev, there has been much talk from some of your envoys of the need for large-scale funds to assist the Soviet Union out of its current difficulties. Are you disappointed you have not received them? Do you think it will have an effect on the progress of the reforms, possibly causing social instability as Mr. Primakov mentioned the other day and Mr. Major, is that an argument you have taken into account?

    PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

    I already gave a reply to this question in Moscow; that it was not a meeting of Finance Ministers but rather of Heads of State that was expected in London and I think that that has taken place and as we take stock of the political results, we can see that this goes rather beyond what was being discussed in the press recently.

    What we are talking about here, as I have said before, is cooperation and cooperation presupposes re-thinking and moving on to qualitatively new forms of cooperation in all areas.

    QUESTION (NOVEVRIMIA (PHON) MOSCOW):

    A question to the Prime Minister and to the President:

    Here in London, both of you were participating for the first time for various reasons in a meeting of the G7 and again for various reasons you found yourselves the focus of attention. I would like to know what you think about the G7 process and what the future prospects are. What do you think will happen in two or three or let us say five years? How do you see the relationship between the seven most industrialised countries and the Soviet Union, looking ahead a few years?

    PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

    First of all, let me begin by saying that Mr. Major and I have already had an opportunity to meet. He has visited us and it really did not take long for us to reach an understanding on the most important matter and to initiate a very active dialogue and I welcome the fact that we did not waste any time.

    The Soviet-British dialogue has reached a very high level now and I may say that it is continuing, it is on-going; it is continuing thanks to our joint efforts. In particular this is also true of our meeting today, the Gorbachev-Major meeting today, so I think we may say that we find ourselves in a very good situation and I look forward to tomorrow’s visit and I am sure it will be even easier for us to reach understanding on our bilateral relations.

    As concerns our view of the future development of this process, the Seven-plus-One as I have called it, I think it will develop. There was Paris, there was Houston and then there was the talk about inviting Gorbachev to come and meet the Seven. Well now the English are our hosts; I am here and it has been a very important event and an important meeting. You have already heard from Mr. Major an outline of what he thinks is going to happen in the future. Once again I say that a start has been made on future developments.

    The ice has started moving, as somebody put it and the ice-breaker is on its way towards renewal.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When we invited President Gorbachev to come and join the G7, it was of course with the expectation that this would play a part in deepening the process and continuing the process in the years to come so of course we extended this invitation never with the intention that it would be a one-off occasion but that in one form or another we would continue to widen and deepen the closer relationship there has been between the Western industrial nations and the Soviet Union in recent years.

    We take a very great interest in the changes there have been in the Soviet Union in the last few years and we admire very greatly the way in which those changes have been brought about so of course we see a dialogue continuing; that was our intention; happily it has proved possible for that intention actually to be turned into a systematic form through the chairmanship of the G7. I think that is going to continue.

    ADAM BOULTON (SKY NEWS):

    Clearly, this was not the occasion but do both of you accept that to make the Soviet Union that organic part of the world economy, at some point there will have to be large fund transfers from the G7 countries to the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me answer that first, Adam. There is a great deal that needs to be done and we discussed the whole range of those things today. Today was not the occasion to address the question of large-scale nation-to-nation funding. A great deal of the help and encouragement that there will be for the Soviet economy in the years to come will, we hope, be generated quite naturally by the levels of private sector investment that the present reforms will encourage to come into the Soviet Union and I was very encouraged today by the emphasis that President Gorbachev gave that in our discussions, but we were not today in a dialogue about the transfer of large-scale funds. As the President said a moment or so ago, that was not the subject for today and it lies a little way ahead.

    PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

    Let me add to that! The USSR is an enormous market and a very promising one with an enormous potential and to a considerable extent not yet opened up, not yet developed. That is the first point.

    Secondly, if the obstacles to which I made reference are removed then it is possible that major projects can be deployed in the field of energy, transport, food, petrochemicals and many other areas and these are multi-billion projects I am talking about and that would be very mutually advantageous.

    This process will go forward even more successfully if we do not delay decisions on vital problems such as the problem of rouble convertibility. This is a problem which has been discussed today, the convertibility of the rouble, and there is a mutual understanding that this problem has got to be resolved.

    QUESTIONS (IZVESTIA)

    I would like to come back to the formula 7 plus 1. I imagine that the plus sign is very symbolic here. Could I ask Mr. Prime Minister and Comrade President what this plus is going to lead to? What is the significance of that plus for both parties?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The seven Western industrial democracies have decided that it is in our interests and the interests of the Soviet Union for us to have a continuing dialogue. What that leads to institutionally other than the nature of dialogue I have set out it is too early to say but that there will be a continuing dialogue in this forum is beyond doubt. What that dialogue may develop into, I can’t say at the moment and neither can anyone else; we must await events, I am afraid, for that.

    PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

    This dialogue is on-going. The Group of Seven has existed for seventeen years but for the last six years other fora have also come into being outside the G7 to help resolve problems but the fact that today it has been possible to move on to this “plus” Comrade Ojenko (phon), this is symbolic of great changes, I think. It is a symbol of the move from confrontation to cooperation which was a “minus” and worse than a “minus”. Now the “plus” means that we are going to unite our efforts in the quest for dialogue and that we are going to come up with a mechanism, and that “plus” means that we are going to move on to projects and results so I think it is a very very promising process.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference at the Economic Summit – 17 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference at the Economic Summit in London, on Wednesday 17th July 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you all very much for being here to attend this press conference.

    We have had a very constructive and very enjoyable London Summit in the last couple of days, I think it has many virtues. The meeting brought out particularly clearly the extent to which we all share common values and common approaches to the main global issues that are at present before us.

    As you will know, we took as our theme for this conference “Building world partnership and strengthening the international order”. I would pick out eight particular achievements from this Summit.

    Firstly, on the political side in the text we released earlier this week the Gulf war and the aftermath have shown very clearly the crucial necessity for strengthening the United Nations. The Security Council and the Permanent Five of the Council in particular now work together probably as never before in the United Nations’ history. The United Nations can therefore become an instrument of peace-making and not just peace-keeping, fire prevention and not just fire fighting. and I think that is an important development.

    We have also proposed concrete steps to enable the United Nations to carry out one of its most essential tasks dealing rapidly, speedily, effectively with emergencies. And probably only the United Nations has the prestige and the resources to mobilise the kind of international effort we need to tackle a large human or natural disaster. And we have seen a number of illustrations in recent years of the sort of disasters that require action that can best be coordinated and pushed ahead by the United Nations.

    Amongst the suggestions that we have made is the designation of a high level official, answerable only to the United Nations Secretary General, responsible for directing and coordinating the international response to emergencies, including the mobilisation of financial resources.

    And secondly at the summit our emphasis has been on ensuring that a country like Iraq can never again build up such a huge and a deadly arsenal. We have outlined a number of measures we intend to pursue to ensure the better regulation of conventional arms sales and we are all pressing for the early adoption of a United Nations arms register.

    Thirdly, and turning to economic policy specifically, we recognise the increasing signs of economic recovery. These are very welcome but they do require us to maintain policies aimed at sustained recovery and at price stability. This strategy has created the conditions for sustainable growth and new jobs, it was very successful throughout the 1980s, it will I believe be equally successful throughout the 1990s.

    And fourthly, and vitally in the context of this conference, we committed ourselves to an ambitious package of results from the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations. Everyone’s aim, everyone’s aim, is to complete the round before the end of 1991 and we will all remain personally involved to ensure that that happens. We simply cannot allow the Uruguay Round to fail and so we will intervene if differences can only be resolved at the highest level and we are all personally committed to that approach.

    Fifthly, we renewed our firm commitment to support the economic and political reform efforts of the central and East European countries. We gave particular attention to improving their access to our markets since this is clearly one of the keys to increased foreign private investment in these countries and they need that investment to build up their economies and permit them to improve their own living standards and join the liberal market economies of the West.

    And sixthly, we welcome the spread of the principles of good government in developing countries. But many of those countries, and especially the poorest amongst those countries, still need our financial and our technical assistance to buttress their own efforts. A particular achievement of this conference was the agreement on the need for additional debt relief measures for the poorest most indebted countries going well beyond the Toronto Terms that were agreed in 1988. I am very pleased about this, I have been pressing for improved debt relief assistance for the poorest countries since I was Chancellor in proposals I made at Trinidad some time ago.

    And seventhly, we committed ourselves to work for a successful United Nations Conference on Environment and Development at Rio in June of next year. By the time of that Rio conference we aim to have achieved in particular a framework convention on climate change, an agreement on principles for forest conservation. And we also indicated that we support the negotiation of a framework convention on biological diversity by the end of next year. We also agreed to support financially the pilot programme for the conservation of the Brazilian tropical forest set in hand last year at the Houston Summit.

    And finally, we agreed to increase our efforts to reduce the demand for drugs, to improve the capacity of law enforcement agencies, to target illicit drug movements. In order to do that we invited the Customs Cooperation Council, on the basis of a United Kingdom initiative, to strengthen its cooperation with international traders and with international carriers.

    On the Soviet Union it was clear that we all support the moves towards political and economic transformation in the Soviet Union. we look forward to our meeting with President Gorbachev this afternoon. No-one present at the summit wanted to pre-judge those discussions and we will be making a separate statement on our meeting this evening together with President Gorbachev.

    This was the first Economic Summit that I have attended as a Head of Government. I discover that you get to know one another extremely well on these occasions and I think that is very important for a variety of reasons. It is certainly very important for tackling the issues we face and for making sure that one understands the particular concerns and interests of all the people with whom you are negotiating. As you will know, these meetings do not on the whole take operational decisions but they do set the policy within which individual operational decisions are then taken, either multilaterally or bilaterally or in some cases simply domestically.

    I believe in the present summit we have set policy in a constructive and relevant way, we have set policy in a way which will be welcomed I believe by many countries, by many organisations and by many individuals whose important interests we have sought to address in our discussions this week.

    Perhaps I may just finally take this public opportunity to thank all the organisers, interpreters and the many people too numerous to mention who have played an operational role in making sure that the summit was as successful as it could be.

    And finally If I may, perhaps at the risk of suffering for this over the course of the next few minutes, perhaps I may also thank you the press for the fair, full and frank way that I believe you have thus far reported the summit.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Peter Jay, BBC):

    Prime Minister, what assurances have you received from your European colleagues, especially President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl, that they will communicate paragraph 10 of this declaration to their Farm Ministers and if none what confidence do you have that there will be a world multilateral trading system for Mr Gorbachev to join as and when the Soviet Union has undertaken the necessary economic reforms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There was, Peter, in the discussions on the GATT round, some very frank, some very forceful debate and there was a remarkable unanimity on the political and the economic importance of ensuring that there was a successful round. Heads made it perfectly clear that they were prepared to commit themselves to personal involvement where necessary in order to resolve differences. And there are differences on agriculture, I do not think we should be hooked just on agriculture. there are great differences there but there are problems elsewhere on intellectual property, on services, on market access as well as agriculture, and on each of those it is necessary to make progress and if it is necessary for the Heads of Government to become involved then on the basis of our discussions they are committed to becoming involved in order to ensure that we reach an agreement within this calendar year – that is a global agreement and satisfactory to everyone on the question of the Uruguay Round.

    There were many sub-plots to that particular text but I think there was a particular interest of course that it is very important for the developing countries as well that we actually reach a satisfactory agreement with open markets. There is very little point in us as the richest, wealthiest industrial nations in the world providing aid to the developing countries and then having a restraint in international trade that causes more damage to their economies than we can put right by the aid we give them.

    So I think those arguments were very clearly expressed, very forcefully expressed and I believe the personal commitment that the Heads have undertaken to give will give this a real political push to make sure that we reach an agreement this year. It would be serious if we failed and we all know that.

    QUESTION:

    Inaudible.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What I perhaps should have added in my opening statement is that there was very considerable interest and concern expressed about the very important conference there will be in Rio next year, I hope personally to go to Rio, I believe a number of other Heads of Government will go there, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development will be immensely important, the most important conference of this sort that we have ever seen. And there will be many issues, no doubt that is one of them, there are others, the Brazilian rain forest issue I mentioned, and literally an enormous number of other issues and the right forum to address that will be the UN conference next year and it will be addressed there.

    JUDITH DAWSON (SKY NEWS):

    Might not President Gorbachev be forgiven for thinking there is a slight contradiction between the very strong support that you are giving to the reforms on paper and what he might expect to take home materially?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let us actually consider the question of President Gorbachev when I have a later press conference today but I will make some general points now:

    I think the first general point, Judith, is this: we have invited President Gorbachev to come and join us, the G7 Heads of Government, in order that we can discuss the Soviet economy, that we can discuss what remarkable progress it has made in the political and economic reforms and what still needs to be done.

    We have invited President Gorbachev here because we share with President Gorbachev a wish to see progress towards economic reform in the Soviet Union. We have not invited him here to say we are not interested in it; we have invited him to say we are interested in it and you will see the outcome of those discussions in the later part of this afternoon, so I am not going to pre-judge what will be the outcome of them.

    I think it is a matter of courtesy to discuss and listen to what President Gorbachev has to say and then to determine the extent to which we may help. We have helped very considerably over the past few years with the Soviet Union. The greater and much improved relationship there has been politically between the Soviet Union since President Gorbachev became President and the West generally is something of immense importance to all of us. He is here because we invited him here, because we are keen to see that progress on political and economic reform continue and it is an historic occasion to have the whole of the G7 Heads of Government sitting down with the President of the Soviet Union to discuss world matters and the particular problems there and I think President Gorbachev regards this as a very important event and so do we but it is not an isolated event. Nobody suggests that suddenly, when we have finished our discussions some time this afternoon, that that is going to be the end of debate between us – of course not. This is part of a continuing debate and it is part of a debate in which for some time we have been playing our part in helping the Soviet Union change its political and economic structure and we will continue to do that in future as well.

    QUESTION (LE MONDE):

    A question for the Prime Minister: I would like to know if you are satisfied with the result of the summit on arms sales and nonproliferation and especially I would like to know if you thought that the French delegation about this particular subject of arms sales and nonproliferation has been fully cooperative with the other six members of the G7.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I do. I do think that. We have got an agreed text on nonproliferation and on arms sales generally and there is no dispute about the objectives of that text and indeed, if I recall correctly, President Mitterrand has himself put forward his own initiatives on other occasions to deal with the general problems of arms proliferation, so I am very content with the text; I think it carries the debate forward. It must now go forward to the United Nations where the European Community countries will table language to actually carry this debate forward, so I am entirely content firstly that we have advanced the debate and secondly that there is a unanimity amongst all the G7 nations – as indeed there is amongst the other European Community nations not represented at G7 – that this is a matter of vital importance that we should develop further through the United Nations.

    PETER NORMAN (FINANCIAL TIMES):

    I notice from paragraph 44 that you have agreed on the need for additional debt relief for the poorest developing nations but apparently not agreed the additional debt relief. What are the problems here and are you personally disappointed that the words “Trinidad terms” are not in this summit communique?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no! They couldn’t be because “Trinidad terms” was a Commonwealth term. The reason we have agreed on the need is that we are not the forum that negotiates it; we are an integral part of the forum that negotiates it but the actual details of the debt relief will have to be negotiated in the Paris Club. It is now clear that it will be negotiated in the Paris Club but it is not for us, the G7, to make decisions that can properly be taken and only properly be taken in the Paris Club, so this gives a big push towards much greater debt relief for the very poorest countries exactly in the direction that we set out before. The details have yet to be determined but we are the wrong forum to determine the details but we are the right forum to make it clear that we, amongst the largest creditors of these poor indebted countries, are prepared to see a very substantial improvement in the write-off of their debts and we are, I emphasise, talking of write-off and not rescheduling.

    RALPH BEGLEITER (CNN):

    You have spent a lot of time at the summit discussing the Middle East ranging from Iraq to the Middle East peace process and arms proliferation as well. You have talked about curtailing arms flows to the region and elsewhere in the world. Why was the G7 unable to decide to cut off arms sales to all of the conflicting parties in the Middle East peace process as distinct from a cutoff of weapons to countries like Kuwait which are facing the aggression from Iraq? Why not cut off the arms sales to the Middle East peace process countries in order to pursue this problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not a question in the way you put it of cutting off arms sales. All of the G7 countries believe that other sovereign nations have the right to self-defence. What we are concerned about and what other countries not represented at our Conference were concerned about as well, is where there is a growth of armaments to such an extent that it exceeds the armaments that are necessary for defence and provides an accumulation of armaments that is of a sufficient size for offensive purposes and that is why we see the advantages of transparency and a United Nations arms register and agreeing amongst ourselves criteria for the sale of conventional arms. So those were the matters that were principally in our minds; they, of course, are matters that we will have to develop in the United Nations.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (THE TIMES):

    Prime Minister, which section of this Declaration proved hardest to agree and why?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I sometimes think, Robin, you would ask me about the secrets of the confessional if you thought I would give you an answer!

    There was very strenuous discussion on a number of aspects of it. There were very forceful points to be put. There was a very strenuous discussion on various aspects of the environment and on various aspects of the GATT Round but on all issues this was although friendly a very frank summit; people did speak their minds clearly, comprehensively and on occasions in an unforgettable way [Laughter] so I think it would be indelicate of me to pick out a particular highlight.

    KEITH ROCKWELL (JOURNAL OF COMMERCE):

    Prime Minister, the language in the communique is very strong indeed on the GATT but a sceptic might ask: “Such language was also included in Houston last year; why should we get the feeling that there is going to be progress in the Round by the end of 1991 if it could not have been achieved at the end of last year?”

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is the sort of question that can only be answered in retrospect by the actions that are taken. We have set out clearly our commitment. I believe on the basis of that commitment it would be perfectly possible, if it proved necessary, to actually call together a summit of Heads if the GATT Round looked as though it was going to fail. I don’t believe that will be necessary because I believe the commitment of Heads of Government that was expressed at this indicates that they will give it their personal involvement.

    There are difficult issues on a whole range of subjects that have to be solved but I think everybody was very aware of the difficulties there would be if we did not get a satisfactory agreement to the GATT Round, not just the obvious dangers of protectionism and a trade war, not just the differences between the Community, the North American States and the Cairns Group but also the areas that are close to agreement that would increase the flow of world trade to everyone’s benefit – that would be lost if we fail to get an agreement to the GATT Round.

    I think as people get closer to the deadline – and we of course in terms of negotiating this satisfactorily between now and the end of this year are close to a deadline – we have to start making progress speedily in a matter of weeks if we are going to get this thing satisfactorily concluded and I can only say to you, on the basis of what was said around the table and the concerns that were expressed around that table in a forceful and clear-cut way, that I have no doubt about the commitment of the Heads of Government to seek if at all possible to reach an agreement and there was an acknowledgement that this may mean for many individual countries painful decisions that in isolation they would prefer to avoid – it was expressly stated and expressly agreed that that would be the case – but the bigger prize for all of us is a loosening-up of world trade, a liberalisation of world trade, and a big step forward in the Uruguay Round, so I can only hope that you will accept our bona fides and I hope by 1 January next year I will be able to say to you: “We delivered!” Certainly, I think the commitment is there to deliver.

    JAN KOVIC (TV BELGRADE):

    In a Political Declaration and up to yesterday, G7 expressed their political support for the peaceful settlement of the political crisis in Yugoslavia. What if such settlement cannot be reached? Are there any counter-measures to be taken?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure that us expressing details of that is helpful to the present situation in Yugoslavia. There have been a number of initiatives to actually ensure that the first and most important ingredient actually comes about and that is that one actually is able to stop the current bloodshed in Yugoslavia. There is a great deal thereafter to follow on that; it is clearly a difficult and a messy problem to be solved. There are particular difficulties: the Slovenes have one view, the Croatians another; there is of course the always constant concern of the position of the Serbs and perhaps the Serbian minority in Croatia but there is a very great European interest collectively in seeing that this matter is settled satisfactorily.

    I have got no glib and easy answers that I can offer you this afternoon and I don’t believe there are any glib and easy answers that anyone could offer – not even the Foreign Secretary will be able to solve this matter in the next two or three minutes! But I can say to you that the understanding of the problem that exists within Yugoslavia was discussed at great length amongst the Foreign Ministers and has been discussed bilaterally amongst many of us. We all have an interest in making sure if we can, to the limits that we can do so, that there isn’t more fighting and bloodshed in Yugoslavia but the Yugoslavs at the end of the day must work out the way in which they proceed. We can express our own views and express our own hopes and express our own solutions but I don’t think we are in a position to impose them and I think we must wait and see how the debate develops.

    QUESTION (FINNISH TV):

    Prime Minister, G7 has clearly been backing Japan’s demand to have her Islands back. How strongly will you back this afternoon the request for the independence of the Baltic States?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to go into the details of our discussions this afternoon. There are many things we want to discuss this afternoon with President Gorbachev and many of them are practical issues that arise out of the extensive Paper that he has prepared and that he has circulated to Heads of Government.

    We have a great will to help where we can but that help has to be practical. We have to make sure there is no failure of dialogue between the Soviet Union and ourselves on a whole range of issues, including the ones you mentioned, including defence generally, including what the Soviet Union mean by “privatisation”, do they mean what we mean? Including what they mean by “liberalisation” and “price reform”; do they mean what we understand by those terms?

    This afternoon is going to be an occasion where across the table – not in formal set-piece statements but across the table – in what I think will be a very constructive dialogue, we can actually examine those matters and reach conclusions about how best to go forward but this is not an occasion for backing people into a corner; it is an occasion for extending the continuing dialogue we have had with the Soviet Union and expressing our views as forcibly as I hope and believe President Gorbachev will express his own, but I don’t think the points you raised particularly will emerge as crunch-points this afternoon.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    It is worth adding that the Baltic countries are mentioned in the Political Declaration so they are not forgotten; they are mentioned in the context of negotiations between the Soviet Union and the elected governments in the hope that they will resolve their future democratically and in accordance with the aspirations of the people. That is a re-statement of a familiar position but it does show that they have not been forgotten.

    GEORGE JONES (DAILY TELEGRAPH):

    Prime Minister, the Declaration speaks about welcome signs of economic recovery but earlier on this week the Chancellor was talking about coming out of recession in the second half of this year. I can’t see actually those words mentioned in the Declaration. Are you both confident that the recession is now over and that it will happen in the second half of this year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will ask the Chancellor to speak first and then I will follow up what he has to say.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    The view of the G7 was that the global recovery, the recovery of G7 from its lower rate of growth in the first six months of this year, was now happening; that recovery was under way both in Canada and in the United States and that whereas growth had slowed down in the first half of the year in France and Italy, growth would now be higher in the second half than they had anticipated, so for the global G7 economy we did see recovery and even for those countries that had not gone into recession an upward trend in growth.

    For the UK, this very much fits in with this and the fact that the United States and Canada are coming out of recession will be enormously beneficial to us. The fact that European currencies have depreciated against the dollar will also be an added impetus to recovery, all of which I think are thoroughly consistent with what I have said about our recovery which is not yet under way, our recovery beginning in the second half of the year.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is anything to add to that. Thank you all very much indeed!

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th July 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Citizen’s Charter

    Mr. Burt : To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that the forthcoming White Paper on the citizen’s charter addresses the resource implications for advice agencies.

    The Prime Minister : The White Paper on the citizens charter will be published later this summer, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the Government already provide considerable funding for advice agencies.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is hosting the economic summit.